A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » General Photography Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rule of Thirds?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 24th 03, 09:32 AM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote

- PSPPower: 1:2.57


Time to wake up, Toke.

The ratio from PSPPower varies with the aspect of the rectangle. But this
is even more curious as neither the Rule of Thirds, nor the Golden Mean
does that!?
  #22  
Old November 24th 03, 10:46 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote:

Angela M. Cable wrote:

[Snip http://www.psppower.com/2002may/crop2.htm]

He's mixing his terminology. What he's doing is the Golden
Section. Keep in mind that the Golden Section refers to a very
specific rectangle, 1:1.618.


That is correct, but that is not what he does. If we divide a line in
two parts and compare the parts, we have that

- Mathematical center is 1:1
- The Golden Section is 1:1.618...
- The Rule of Thirds is 1:2

He doesn't give his measurements and it's been too long before I
learned about geometrics, but a quick measure gives approximately


Right. And it looks like the link to download his "template" is dead. I
know a few people at psppower I'll see if somebody there can fix it. I'd
like to know what he's using, whether it's a preset shape or something
else.


- PSPPower: 1:2.57

That is so far off that I guess I've made an error somewhere.


I don't know. I really don't understand the math behind it. I can see
though that if your initial rectangle isn't pretty close to a Golden
Ratio, there's going to be problems dividing it down. I'm more of a
right-brainer that's pretty good at explaining right-brained stuff to
left-brained people :-) My background is actually in fine art rather
than anything technical.


So unless your image is a rectangle of that proportion the Golden
Section isn't going to work out exactly in any case.


He claims that it should - the rectangle won't be golden, but the
golden areas can still be found.


Only up to a certain point. As your rectangle becomes more of a square
(a special case of a rectangle), the section becomes more skewed towards
the center until finally when the rectangle is a true square the section
is dead center. Try it yourself, it's easiest to do with vector shapes
and lines. With 35mm film or a digital camera, it's not really a
problem, but if you happen to be using, say 6x6 medium format film, the
Golden Section becomes useless and the Rule of Thirds would have to be
used instead.


As I see it, the Golden Section can still be used in a non-golden
rectangle: The Golden Mean in itself is about dividing lines. But in
order to get a "true" Golden Section, the whole crop needs to be a
Golden Rectangle.


You know, there's a piece of software that does a golden section thing,
I can't remember the name of it now to google it and find it again.


--
Angela M. Cable
PSP8 Private Beta Tester

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
  #23  
Old November 24th 03, 10:55 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

"Angela M. Cable" wrote:

You know, there's a piece of software that does a golden section thing,
I can't remember the name of it now to google it and find it again.


I found it:
http://www.atrise.com/golden-section/


--
Angela M. Cable
PSP8 Private Beta Tester

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
  #24  
Old November 24th 03, 11:27 AM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

On 23 Nov 2003 02:41:39 GMT, Toke Eskildsen wrote:

There are several rules of thumb for composition.


And there are loads of other rules - 'always have someone wearing red in
your landscapes', 'portraits of blondes should be high-key' ... and so it
goes on. When I was a teenager and a member of a local camera club, I could
already see that these rules were crutches for people with no visual
talent. They are the photographic equivalent of painting by numbers. If you
follow them, you may win club competitions and might end up with a pretty
enough picture to hang on your wall. Of course, it will look like a billion
other pictures taken by other talent-free photographers following the same
rules. The club members who followed these rules were generally the same
ones who would spend all their time talking about cameras, lenses,
developers, how they'd tested their lenses and shutter speeds, how they
were working on the zone system - but they would never talk about *why*
they took photographs, what moved them or motivated them to photograph
something.

If I recall from your earlier postings, you are trying to develop something
for non-photographers, so none of the above really matters. I'm just trying
to explain that imposing rigid rules on photographs doesn't necessarily
improve the results - it's what the pictures *shows* that matters.
Actually, most non-photographers couldn't give a rat's ass about
composition and don't even notice it. What they notice is, "look how fat
Aunti Mildred is getting" and "ah! He's got his daddy's eyes" - which is
*good*, because that's what photography is really about.

Choosing between 33% and 38% is pseudo-precision at best.


That is true the moment you want to apply the rule of thumb to a
specific picture, but not if you're trying to establish what the rule
of thumb should be.


Wrong, because any rule of thumb is, by definition, approximate. By
deciding between 33% and 38% you are trying to introduce precision into a
subject where such precision is irrelevant. I bet I could show you a number
of images, some shot according to the thirds rule, others according to the
Golden Section and you wouldn't be able to say which is which without
taking a ruler to them. And what would be the point of that? The rule of
thirds, for instance, does NOT say "put the subject *exactly* 33.3% into
the frame". Neither system is right or wrong, and nobody will be able to
tell which one you've used. If it really bothers you, use 35.5%.
  #25  
Old November 24th 03, 05:14 PM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Angela M. Cable wrote:

I don't know. I really don't understand the math behind it. I can
see though that if your initial rectangle isn't pretty close to a
Golden Ratio, there's going to be problems dividing it down.


That depends on your way of dividing.

To switch cases, consider a very wide image. The PSPPower method
indicates that the main points of interest should be very near the
outer edges. That sounds a bit strange to me.

I'm more of a right-brainer that's pretty good at explaining
right-brained stuff to left-brained people :-) My background is
actually in fine art rather than anything technical.


It should come as no surprise that I'm more of a left-brainer.

[Snip Okay to use the Golden Section on non-golden rectangles]

As your rectangle becomes more of a square (a special case of a
rectangle), the section becomes more skewed towards the center until
finally when the rectangle is a true square the section is dead
center.


That's right for his method, but not for the Rule of Thirds or the
standard Golden Section. If {--------------} represent one side of a
square, we have

{-------|-------} Mathematical center
{-------|-------} PSPPower
{-----|---|-----} the Golden Section
{----|-----|----} the Rule of Thirds

Mathematically it makes sense, but I don't know if it works
aesthetically for a square image.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
  #26  
Old November 24th 03, 05:26 PM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Angela M. Cable wrote:

http://www.atrise.com/golden-section/


Very nice idea. I see that is is constrained to Golden Rectangles,
which makes sort of sense: Try to let both the frame and the point of
interest be golden.

Unfortunately that also means that it's hard to use the guides if one
wants to crop an image to certain proportions (6"x4" comes to mind).


I must say that I find $20 to be a rather high price for such an
utility though. But that is of course his choise.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
  #27  
Old November 24th 03, 11:52 PM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote in
:

Steve wrote:

On 21 Nov 2003 23:26:46 GMT, Toke Eskildsen wrote:

However, I'd like to know if one of the rules are better than the
other, if we disregard the extra time it takes to calculate the
Golden Section?


Oh come on, don't you think it all depends on the picture? How can
you possibly debate the difference between 33% and 38% without
regard to what's in the frame?


With that reasoning in mind, we might as well invent an arbitrary rule:
"place any object of importance aproximately 10% from the left edge of
the image", then say that that rule is just as valid as the other two,
depending on what's in the frame.

It's true, but the advice has little value as a general rule of thumb.

Frankly, if you're going to impose such an arbitrary blanket rule on
all pictures then any number will work as well (or as badly) as any
other. These rules are *approximations*, rules of thumb [...]


Now, with fear of being unthankful for your help, I'll quote from my
original posting: "I know that both the Rule of Thirds and the Golden
Section are suggestions only, but I'd like to know if I generally
should stick to the Golden Section or if the Rule of Thirds is just as
valid?"

I expect that there's a reason that these rules of thumbs are given:
Probably because a lot of people like such compositions. I expect that
they _generally_ work better than the 10% rule I just pulled out of my
hat.

There are several rules of thumb for composition. "Make room for
movement" for example. What makes the Golden Section and the Rule of
Thirds interesting in this context is that they essentially tell the
same: "let straight lines and points of interest intersect with the
guides" - they only differ somewhat in where those guides should be.

Choosing between 33% and 38% is pseudo-precision at best.


That is true the moment you want to apply the rule of thumb to a
specific picture, but not if you're trying to establish what the rule
of thumb should be.


The Golden Section (I've also heard "Golden Mean") and the Rule of
Thirds are attempts to express, mathematically, a general tendency to find
certain proportions as 'pleasing'. In other words, either one is an
approximation based on greatest percentages of opinions.

Worrying about just how close you're coming to what is practically an
abstract concept is putting more effort than is necessary into it, in my
opinion. Some people will prefer 33%, some 38, some 35.6784626549. If
you're selling your images for a million dollars apiece, it might make a
difference. But probably not otherwise...

Something to consider: Position of subject is only one small factor
in the overall affect any image has on any person. It can easily be
outweighed by dozens of other things. How are you going to be able to tell
if the person responding negatively to an image is doing so because the
subject is at 33% rather than 38%, or if the viewer simply doesn't like the
shade of red that the sky has in it?

I think you're worrying about defining something that has no firm
definition. Spend your time getting that emotive subject or compelling
scenic, rather than beating it into a mathematical matrix.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
  #28  
Old November 25th 03, 10:38 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

"Angela M. Cable" wrote:

Toke Eskildsen wrote:

Angela M. Cable wrote:

[Snip http://www.psppower.com/2002may/crop2.htm]


The download link on this page is fixed now. What it is is just a .psp
file, you'll have to have PSP7 or later installed to view it. I don't
know that having this file would really be much use, I suppose you could
paste it onto an image as a new layer and then use the Deformation tool
with right click drag on a corner to get it to be approximately the
correct size for a particular image.


--
Angela M. Cable
PSP8 Private Beta Tester

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
  #29  
Old November 25th 03, 11:06 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote:

Angela M. Cable wrote:

http://www.atrise.com/golden-section/


Very nice idea. I see that is is constrained to Golden Rectangles,
which makes sort of sense: Try to let both the frame and the point of
interest be golden.


It's also constrained to Win2K and XP, which is I why I've never tried
it out :-)


Unfortunately that also means that it's hard to use the guides if one
wants to crop an image to certain proportions (6"x4" comes to mind).


Uh, maybe my right brain is showing, but at 4x6 shouldn't one be able to
apply the section directly in the viewfinder? Assuming you can envision
it. 4x6 is the same ratio as 35mm film itself, 1:1.5 which isn't too far
off from the golden ratio at 1:1.618.


I must say that I find $20 to be a rather high price for such an
utility though. But that is of course his choise.


When I think of the cost of any piece of software I tend to think of the
cost divided up amongst how many hours of time it saves me. The more
useful a piece of software is, the less expensive the cost over time.


--
Angela M. Cable
PSP8 Private Beta Tester

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
  #30  
Old November 25th 03, 11:14 AM
Angela M. Cable
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote:

{-------|-------} Mathematical center
{-------|-------} PSPPower
{-----|---|-----} the Golden Section
{----|-----|----} the Rule of Thirds

Mathematically it makes sense, but I don't know if it works
aesthetically for a square image.


Well, I think the only way you're going to settle this for yourself is
to do it. I think what I'd do is find some subject, maybe a vase of
flowers or something on a table with a fairly uniform background. Shoot
it, download/scan it and crop the image to comply with each method. See
which one looks the best to you. Maybe show the series to some friends
and see which ones they like the best.



--
Angela M. Cable
PSP8 Private Beta Tester

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 94 June 23rd 04 05:17 AM
Does the 1/focal length rule apply for hand holding medium format? Peter Chant Medium Format Photography Equipment 14 June 22nd 04 05:13 AM
Rule of f16 Trevor Longino Medium Format Photography Equipment 78 June 2nd 04 08:13 PM
Photo slide rule! f/256 Large Format Photography Equipment 0 January 15th 04 05:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.