(as always, click on the images for a larger view)
Up until a few years ago, Digital Photography Review honoured the glorious tradition of showing and discussing things that had been cut in half. The articles, found here were always a fun read, although you may feel the humour being something of an acquired taste.
No matter how much I'd love to see that tradition revived, this post isn't about things that have been cut in half, unfortunately. It's about one of the first rules people tend to hear when they pick up their first camera: 'don't compose your shots with the horizon in the middle of the frame' (dividing the frame ... wait for it ... in half).
This advice is given primarily because placing the horizon in the middle tends to produce two parts that, while spatially more or less equal, have an unequal 'weight' to them.
Funnily enough, the rule is often immediately followed by the something like 'unless, of course, you know what you're doing'.
While personally, I have a predilection for positioning elements according to the golden rule - something you tend to see in movies a lot too, the underlying goal I adhere to is balance within the frame.
Going for the opposite is equally valid I suppose, but may produce images that come across as rather jarring (which, if done well, supports the idea the photographer is trying to get across).
In any case, back in Iceland, I occasionally forced myself to break the 'no horizon in the middle' rule, or rather a broad interpretation of it, i.e. 'don't divide the frame in two more or less equal spatial parts'. Just to see if I could make it work.
Oh my ... some of these really do seem to have been cut in half, don't they ?