With this catchy title I am interested in opinions on how important is ROT in photography. While it is a convenient way of achieving a balanced image it is not the only compositional tool at our disposal. In 2 recent challenges I have deliberately chosen not to use ROT and got comments that I should have used it. What are your thoughts on importance of ROT?
If I sense symmetry in the picture, I'll go for a centered composition very quickly.
If I'm a prisoner to anything with the ROT, it's to have the negative space on the left. It's likely a product of the fact we read from left-to-right and I'd be very interested to see if photographers in other cultures have the negative space on the right if they read right-to-left.
If I sense symmetry in the picture, I'll go for a centered composition very quickly.
If I'm a prisoner to anything with the ROT, it's to have the negative space on the left. It's likely a product of the fact we read from left-to-right and I'd be very interested to see if photographers in other cultures have the negative space on the right if they read right-to-left.
Odd, I just looked at my work, and I seem to be about 50/50 split, although my top three are ROT with the negative space on the right, if it's worth anything.
Oddly enough, it's part of my visual process, and is likely in most of my images to some degree over the last two years. It may not be in your face ROT, but it's usually there.
ROT
Try ROT on a childs face, or a bird in flight.
ROT is a guide, and a tool. you use the correct tool for the job, and I agree, sometimes its those images that break the rules that jump out.
ROT
Try ROT on a childs face, or a bird in flight.
ROT is a guide, and a tool. you use the correct tool for the job, and I agree, sometimes its those images that break the rules that jump out.
Welcome to DPC! It is a fun place with many diverse characters (like a Shakespeare play ;)
ETA: If you press the O key in Lightroom while using the Crop tool, you can switch overlays. One of the overlays is the golden spiral.
Do you know what others are? I tried them on the two images in question and I had a different set of overlays for each one. Very interesting to discover this tool.
From what I've read about ROT, it seems to be an approximation of beauty in nature.
It's supposed to follow the placement behind the golden spiral, which is intricately linked to what we consider "natural beauty."
An interesting read in regards to this (it is known as phi) is this book. There are some other works and programs on the topic, most of the ones I've seen are pretty interesting.
So far as myself and ROT goes, it really depends upon the subject matter, but it isn't unusual for me to have portions that line up accordingly. I go more for feel, though, and that's largely how I shoot. A lot of times I only crop very minorly, but it certainly has an influence. I'm a member of the group that thinks that rules in photography are used as guidelines to make good images, while breaking said rules is used when one knows how and when to do so, in order to create a great photograph.
Generally speaking, the "rules" help guide us towards an aesthetically pleasing outcome, but subverting them brings additional attention to aspects of a photo. It is in knowing how to choose these aspects, and when to stress them in this fashion, that makes the greats great.
Do you know what others are? I tried them on the two images in question and I had a different set of overlays for each one. Very interesting to discover this tool.
It looks like the other one that looks like ROT is lines on the golden ratio. I didn't know that. Maybe it should be ROGR.
I smiled when I saw this post because on Tuesday I was reading "The Art of Photography, an approach to personal expression" by Bruce Barnbaum and came across a paragraph that I almost posted here on DPC straight away. But I'll post it now since it seems very relevant to this thread.
The whole chapter (about myths in photography) is interesting, but the paragraph that made me smile is:
Originally posted by The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum:
The Rule of Thirds is a cornerstone for much teaching about composition - sinking to its lowest ebb in camera club and professional photographic competitions, where it's considered the epitome of fine composition. It's an idea that belongs in the trashcan
The quote was prefaced by a lot of other text, this was merely his conclusion. He was basically saying that whilst it is a valid compositional guideline, images that do not follow the ROT are not bad. Different compositional techniques are also perfectly valid and should be explored etc. You get the gist.
I smiled when I saw this post because on Tuesday I was reading "The Art of Photography, an approach to personal expression" by Bruce Barnbaum and came across a paragraph that I almost posted here on DPC straight away. But I'll post it now since it seems very relevant to this thread.
The whole chapter (about myths in photography) is interesting, but the paragraph that made me smile is:
Originally posted by The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum:
The Rule of Thirds is a cornerstone for much teaching about composition - sinking to its lowest ebb in camera club and professional photographic competitions, where it's considered the epitome of fine composition. It's an idea that belongs in the trashcan
The quote was prefaced by a lot of other text, this was merely his conclusion. He was basically saying that whilst it is a valid compositional guideline, images that do not follow the ROT are not bad. Different compositional techniques are also perfectly valid and should be explored etc. You get the gist.
Fantastic timing for this quote!! Thanks, Sara. I was trying to say something along these lines but your post goes straight to the core of it and includes great backing from that book. I hope a few DPCers will benefit from this thread, I did :)
It's all about leading the eye through the frame and to the subject in a pleasing manner. You can get there many ways.
The ROT challenges frustrate me. I use the technique it in a subtle manner much of the time, as just part of achieving the composition, but in a ROT challenge, one has to plop the subject on a set of crosshairs to have it recognized as using it.
Well I for one, believe it is critical in a "Rule of Thirds" challenge. :P
I wasn't referring to any challenge that explicitly refers to ROT in the topic. I just think it has become a religion instead of being a helpful tool.
Margaret, meet Art. It's best to assume 95% of what he says is kidding around. :) ......
What I really want to know is, what is his agenda the other 5% of the time.... ;)
World domination. Duh. However, spewing my opinions in DPC forums doesn't seem to be gaining me any traction. I'm going back to my scorched earth strategy.
My original reply, Margaret, was somewhat of a jest in reference to your statements in the DNMC thread. ;-) Apparently the joke was a DNMC. Eh, whatcanyado.
Regarding ROT (yes, I can be on topic sometimes): Art has no rules. Neither does art, IMO. ROT is a guideline, much like focusing. As you can see by the popularity of non-ROT photos (and blurry ones as well), every style of conformity or non-conformity has a following. As a follower, I might lean in one direction, but am open to appreciating the beauty on the other side of the spectrum. ...but then some images just look like crap to me no matter how long I stare at them and try to find something redeeming.
