Why Not A Rule of Fourths?

  

Everyone who has done any studying of art and composition is well versed in the concept of the Rule of Thirds. Loyal readers of this blog should be familiar with the concept of the Rule of Fifths as well.

Essentially if you divide any artistic work into a grid 3×3 similar to a tic-tac-toe game, your subject and the most important elements should be placed at the intersection of the gridlines. Similarly, the Rule of Fifths allows you to place an image in certain circumstances on a 5×5 grid at the intersection of the 1/5 lines. Very seldom (make that almost never) has anyone asked why there is a Rule of Thirds and Fifths but no Rule of Fourths.

The picture on the left is a classic Rule of Thirds deployment of the subject (the Moon). The picture on the right is the Rule of Fifths deployment which is the general limit as to the placement of a strong subject and still hold it in-frame. There are exceptions, of course, I and I will, on rare occasion, drive the moon or sun clear to the rule of the sevenths — but only where the composition warrants.

In this image series, composition is simple and we don’t have a lot of competing elements other than the backdrop of the cloud-strewn skies.  We also have the liberty, due to the lack of intruding distractions to center the moon right on the Power Points of the rules. This allows for a rather dispassionate analysis of the composition.

We can even take it closer to the edge by invoking the Rule of Sevenths. But even though we are working on the precipice, the composition still holds.

Comparison Pairs

 
Thirds v Fourths

 
Fourths v Fifths

Taking a look at the comparison pairs: 3v4 and 4v5. Although there is no right answer, I would argue that, side-by-side, 3 looks better than 4 and 5 looks better than 4. My opinion to be certain and you may differ. History is on my side. Books and experts gravitate to this position.  Is there a reason?

One of the rules of composition is the Rule of Odds which says that human aesthetics, all things being equal, tend to prefer arrangements of objects and space in odd rather than even numbers.  One moon looks better than two. Three looks better than two.  The same holds true of space. Odd space looks better than even space in a broad sense. Other rules intrude such as grounding, or space, direction, intrusions, etc. and these force our compositional placements to alter slightly from the simplistic view of a full moon in a textured sky. 

So, ultimately, why no Rule of Fourths? Thirds and Fifths look better. Unless other compositional elements intrude, you should go with the strongest placement of your subject. When it comes to “rules” odds will be in your favor.

Rikk Flohr © 2013

Crop Shop: When Rules Breakdown

Do extreme aspect ratios diminish or even negate important compositional rules like the Rule of Thirds?

Sometimes.

I was working with 5:1 panoramic crops thinking about an upcoming article on retouching.  My goal was a banner-like crop that showed just the eyes. Without even thinking, I put the eyes on the lower rule of thirds (pictured below).

I thought, “Hmm, that looks a little odd. True I got great brow space but the eyes are cramped against the bottom of the frame. It almost looks like she is peeking over the bottom border.  It didn’t work for me.

My next step was to put the eyes on the upper rule of third.  I lost the brows completely. I also gained enough of a nose to look awkward.  Clearly, with this crop, and this subject, rule of thirds was failing me.  The crop of choice was the opening image where they eyes are dead center in the frame vertically.

For the article I ultimately tweaked the crop to satisfy a little Rule of Space for the eyebrows.  It is still a centered crop but the eyes aren’t coming over the bottom edge as badly as in the lower rule crop.

I guess the point is compositional rules are great guides until they don’t work. Then you just have to with your gut. Never leave something on a rule of anything just because it is a rule.

Let’s repeat that: Never leave something on a rule of anything just because it is a rule.

Rikk Flohr © 2011

Lens Envy: The Telephoto Crop

When it comes to wildlife photography the long glass rules – if you have it…

One of the reasons to crop we haven’t really discussed in depth is the crop to relieve a lack of focal length. Let’s face it, big or long glass is expensive. It is also cumbersome. Not everyone can afford to, or even wants to pack it, hoist it and hold it steady. 

Here  is the original capture from a Canon 40D with a Canon 300MM F4L mounted. Factoring in the ‘crop factor’ on the sensor we have an apparent focal length of 480mm.  The composition in-camera was sacrificed to ensure auto-focus lock.  A longer lens would have been nicer. Alas, I didn’t have one with me nor could I have wielded it inside the cockpit of my blind (a Toyota Prius).

Ultracropping the image to approximate 1:1 pixels, you see that maximum filling of the frame that can be accomplished.  If you are looking for a bird ID shot, this suffices nicely.  I attempted to compose this crop by grounding the fence post with a single wire strand and giving the bird space into which to look. This satisfies two rules: Grounding and Space.

If we imagine for a moment that I wasn’t carrying a 300 mm lens but rather double its focal length, this is the approximate image that results.  Yes we are closer but compositionally, we don’t have enough space around the bird’s head to crop back to get more of the lower ground.  This is a much more difficult composition to tweak.

Too much club?

Compositionally, this is the image I tend to favor.  This was a crop down from the full shot and is roughly equivalent to a 400MM lens.  The rule of grounding is satisfied satisfactorily.  We have three wire strands satisfying the rule of odds.  The image has a foreground, middle ground, background and sky.  Rule of thirds places both the fence post and the bird.

Rule of space is a little trickier as the bird is body facing to the right but glancing slightly left. If the bird takes off, I can almost guarantee you it will leap upward and rightward.  The bird’s gaze is less apparent in this view than in the ultracropped version.  I was more concerned about movement space than I was about vision space. As the artist, I decided that space was more important in those directions. You might have a different interpretation. That’s OK.

Cropping is a great antidote to lens envy.  As camera sensors become more dense and megapixels increase, the need for a ‘cannon’ of a lens becomes less important. In an era when so many images live only on the web displayed at sizes less than two megapixels, rare indeed is the image that requires a few thousand dollars more glass.  But that doesn’t mean I still don’t need one…

Rikk Flohr © 2011