47

In furthering my reading on photographic composition I came across a compositional technique called the "Rule of Odds."

  1. What is the "Rule of Odds"?
  2. Why is it important?
  3. How do I apply it to my photography?
Jay Lance Photography
  • 26,740
  • 16
  • 99
  • 135

2 Answers2

51

  1. Rule of Odds states that having an odd number of objects in an image will be more interesting and therefore pleasing. In case there is an even number of objects, your brain would have an easy time "organizing" the objects into pairs and therefore bringing in symmetry and dullness.

    If you have one main object, accompany it with two supporting objects, not one. This way, one of them will be a middle one.

    We can find a parallel from the art of writing, where rule of three states remember that lists of three examples are the most efficient in carrying forward the presented idea.

  2. Human eye tends to wander to the center of a group. With even number of objects, eye will end up at the negative space in center.

    The rule becomes important when trying to achieve a visually pleasing composition of several objects. A common form of usage is having three objects in frame, they always form either a line or a triangle, both are considered pleasurable shapes.

    The rule will not matter with larger groups though, few people will feel any different if there are 36 or 37 fish in the sea. The amount translates to "plenty" in brain either way.

  3. You should strive to apply the rule when including a "group of" objects as an important element of your photo. E.g. five flowers in a vase will be more pleasing than four or six.

    Implied from the rule is that you should have an even number of objects if the paired relationship or dullness is what you want to express (for example, a shot of students sitting in pairs would carry the idea of a dull long lesson, while adding a teacher would turn it around into a photo of educational interaction).

    By the way, both the question and this answer serve as examples of using Rule of Odds.

Imre
  • 31,966
  • 11
  • 107
  • 177
  • 3
    Could you add a brief analysis as to how strong the backing in psychology and art history is for this rule? – mattdm May 01 '11 at 13:06
  • 30
    Just don't go applying this rule to couples photography! – Matt Grum May 01 '11 at 18:32
  • 2
    It is a well-known rule of thumb in bridge design: – fmark May 02 '11 at 08:44
  • 1
    @Matt Grum, would you agree that couple photography works well if the persons are intimately touching each other so they almost form a single subject (the couple), but has an awkward feel when the partners are apart? – Imre May 02 '11 at 17:01
  • Hmm, I would say that actually your last line should have been a numbered line, hence invalidating that point... :-) – Kendall Helmstetter Gelner May 03 '11 at 05:05
  • @mattdm: The 'psychology and art history' angles are kinda your special brand of tilting at windmills (said with affection, not snark)... You might have better luck getting those aspects addressed if you tackle them in an answer yourself... One which will surely gather an upvote at the very least from me as I'm sure it will be written with your usual level of competence. Just a thought... Feel free to take it or leave it without hurting my feelings... :-) – Jay Lance Photography May 03 '11 at 18:58
  • How is the rule affected by the use of DOF? E.g, if I have a set of objects of which only one is in focus, will it matter how many they are? – clabacchio Mar 25 '14 at 14:48
  • With just one element in focus, the problem of eye ending up at negative space should not occur. So the effect comes down to how easy it is to visually pair the objects. – Imre Mar 25 '14 at 19:52
  • Can you tell me how you would arrange three objects so that they do not form a line or a triangle? I am really curious... – Michael Borgwardt Sep 05 '14 at 15:17
  • I prefer the rule of Fibonacci :) – JenSCDC Sep 06 '14 at 01:16
  • @MichaelBorgwardt while my answer states 3 objects always form a line or triangle, placing objects inside each other would actually form neither of them. E.g. you could take a picture of a jar containing a drinking glass containing a shot glass - 3 similar objects, but no line or triangle. Such arrangement is exceptionally rare though. – Imre Sep 07 '14 at 07:49
  • @AndyBlankertz Rule of Fibonacci is about placement, not number of objects like Rule of Odds, so they are not mutually exclusive – Imre Sep 07 '14 at 07:54
  • I was joking :) – JenSCDC Sep 07 '14 at 07:57
-5

The rule of odds is that an odd number of subjects looks better than an even number.

I would have thought that whatever you read would have mentioned that.

foosion
  • 189
  • 5
  • 23
    Jay almost certainly knows the answer to this question, but has asked it anyway ("seeded it") for the benefit of the site. By asking the question, he made me (and certainly some others) aware of this concept. – Evan Krall May 01 '11 at 20:09
  • 4
    Made me aware of it! – fredley May 01 '11 at 20:33
  • 1
    And what in hell justifies the downvotes here (4 d.v. at this time)??? @foosion did answer the question correctly. He just wondered how come the referred text does not explain it. From his rank (113) it is evident that he is relatively new at this site, and probably not so familiar with @Jay and his method of "seeding". – ysap May 02 '11 at 20:06
  • 1
    @ysap Haven't voted myself, but I can see that only the simplest part of the question has been answered, and it shouldn't be considered odd for a person wanting to hear other perspectives about something he read from a (possibly confusing) book. – Imre May 02 '11 at 20:20
  • 3
    @ysap I downvoted because of what I see as a dig at Jay and his question, like "Why would you ask that? It's a stupid question -- you should've just read the book." I'm fine with removing the downvote and even converting to an upvote if he improves his question. – Evan Krall May 03 '11 at 02:05
  • Rather, if he improves his answer. – Evan Krall May 03 '11 at 02:20
  • 1
    @foosion: Have to agree with @Evan Krall here, your answer really comes off as a dig at @Jay. Regardless of whether he is "seeding", or asking for opinions about something he may have read, providing a full, unbiased answer without any kind of personal poke is far more acceptable than what you currently have here. – jrista May 03 '11 at 06:31
  • 2
    Also, it doesn't answer the interesting/important parts of the question. – mattdm May 11 '11 at 16:13