The Rule of Thirds, A Cheap Knockoff??!

Most people have no idea what the “Rule of Thirds” are, nor can they look at an image and tell you why the love it, or why it has striking composition if it was using the “Rule of Thirds”. I saw a post today (found here) that called the Rule of Thirds both lazy and a sham…
While I agree that all rules are made to be bent and at times even broken, you can only do so – when you fully can understand the rules that are in play!

I was first introduced to the Rules of Thirds for the first time in a Nikon Manual that my Grand Father (Popo) gave me when I inherited his Nikon FE (manual 35mm camera and lens kit – Thank God for Popo!) I later studied these rules via an Eastman Kodak VHS that we watched over and over again in High School (Thanks to my photo teacher Mr. Charles Scherbel – where ever you are.)

I’m not really sure if it’s just because the word rule is in name, which is causing the author of the post to question its validity.  I’d have to agree that the Golden Mean is mathematical at its core and therefore for the faint of heart easily avoided and I agree that the Golden Ratio while found in nearly every thing in existence (wonder who put that there -  well that might be a topic of conversation sometime other than now.) Does it negate the simplicity of breaking things up in thirds?

I have to say that this has really opened up some areas of thought and will cause me to question the composition of my shots next time I do a set up, but to say that the Rule of Thirds is a sham – come on, really? I’ll concede the point that the rule of thirds is a much more simple means of looking at it, and it’s not exact science as the Golden Ratio.

Is Not being Exact all the time – lazy?

Also super huge thank you to @TGaul – I had no idea that was in there!!!

Photos used in post:

golden spiral 2 by Shannon Henry