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
  #61  
Old December 8th 03, 07:02 PM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Toke Eskildsen wrote:
|------|----| - Line divided using the golden ratio.

|------| - Length 1
|----| - Length 2


The golden mean is as follows:

A/B is the same as A+B/A


A B
|------|----|

A = 1
B = 0.618...

A/B = 1/0.618... ~= 1.618...
(A+B)/A = (1+0.618...)/1 ~= 1.618...

Yep, that works just fine with a line. No need for rectangles here,
although that works fine too.

That's it, completely.


That's how I understand it too. But I thought that your argument was
that the golden mean only worked for rectangles?

The ratio is digital form is discussed
he

http://www.vashti.net/mceinc/golden.htm


Yes. He uses rectangles as an example.

[Snip Statistics]

If you don't put it in the center, and you don't put it at the
extreme edge, what else is there?


Is that a trick question? My answer is "An infinite number of other
places". Did I win anything?
--
Necessary signatu Yes, I understand that there are a lot of rules of
thumb and that none of the rules works every time. Yes, I understand
that using a ruler to apply the rules is not what rules of thumb are
about.
  #62  
Old December 8th 03, 11:41 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote in message .. .
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Toke Eskildsen wrote:
|------|----| - Line divided using the golden ratio.


|------| - Length 1
|----| - Length 2


The golden mean is as follows:

A/B is the same as A+B/A


A B
|------|----|

A = 1
B = 0.618...

A/B = 1/0.618... ~= 1.618...
(A+B)/A = (1+0.618...)/1 ~= 1.618...

Yep, that works just fine with a line. No need for rectangles here,
although that works fine too.

That's it, completely.


That's how I understand it too. But I thought that your argument was
that the golden mean only worked for rectangles?


The 'golden mean' is a ratio. Period. It has nothing to do with
shapes. Rectangles whose sides are in the ratio of the golden mean are
often thought to be pleasing in proportion. The Parthenon, etc.


[Snip Statistics]

If you don't put it in the center, and you don't put it at the
extreme edge, what else is there?


Is that a trick question? My answer is "An infinite number of other
places". Did I win anything?


Yes, in principle, but if you take a vertical picture and place the
head in the dead center that won't work too well, if you place the
eyes at the top of the frame that won't do either. What else is left?
Somewhere in between will result in an approximation of thirds.

|-------------|
| |
| |
| |
| x |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-------------|


|------x------|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-------------|


|-------------|
| |
| x |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-------------|
  #63  
Old December 9th 03, 08:11 AM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Toke:
That's how I understand it too. But I thought that your argument
was that the golden mean only worked for rectangles?


The 'golden mean' is a ratio. Period. It has nothing to do with
shapes.


Yes, that's why I wondered about you saying "Photographs CANNOT be
composed according to the golden mean, which is a ratio. Only
rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their sides.".

It didn't make sense, as pentagons, triangles and other shapes can
indeed have ratios of their sides, so I suppose you meant something
else. http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/polyhedra/dodeca.html

Rectangles whose sides are in the ratio of the golden mean
are often thought to be pleasing in proportion. The Parthenon,
etc.


Yes, but since a stick divided to these proportions are often thought
to have been divided the most pleasing way, my question is where these
golden proportions can be applied. "Only to rectangles" is a fair
answer, but I was hoping for a little elaboration as to why.
Mathematically there's no such restriction.


Toke:
Is that a trick question? My answer is "An infinite number of
other places". Did I win anything?


Yes, in principle, but if you take a vertical picture and place
the head in the dead center that won't work too well, if you place
the eyes at the top of the frame that won't do either. What else
is left? Somewhere in between will result in an approximation of
thirds.


Err... No, it will result in an approximation of fourths. It's even
easier to hit than thirds, as we just divide the frame two times. We're
good at dividing in twos.
  #64  
Old December 9th 03, 06:10 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Toke Eskildsen wrote in message .. .
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Toke:
That's how I understand it too. But I thought that your argument
was that the golden mean only worked for rectangles?


The 'golden mean' is a ratio. Period. It has nothing to do with
shapes.


Yes, that's why I wondered about you saying "Photographs CANNOT be
composed according to the golden mean, which is a ratio. Only
rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their sides.".

It didn't make sense, as pentagons, triangles and other shapes can
indeed have ratios of their sides, so I suppose you meant something
else. http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/polyhedra/dodeca.html

Rectangles whose sides are in the ratio of the golden mean
are often thought to be pleasing in proportion. The Parthenon,
etc.


Yes, but since a stick divided to these proportions are often thought
to have been divided the most pleasing way, my question is where these
golden proportions can be applied. "Only to rectangles" is a fair
answer, but I was hoping for a little elaboration as to why.
Mathematically there's no such restriction.


Toke:
Is that a trick question? My answer is "An infinite number of
other places". Did I win anything?


Yes, in principle, but if you take a vertical picture and place
the head in the dead center that won't work too well, if you place
the eyes at the top of the frame that won't do either. What else
is left? Somewhere in between will result in an approximation of
thirds.


Err... No, it will result in an approximation of fourths.


....which is closer to the golden mean...
  #65  
Old December 16th 03, 10:17 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

True art conforms to the artist not any ad hoc art rules, no matter how well or
long codified. Photography is an inner vision made concrete both in the
viewfinder and through the real world. There is no ruler large enough to
measure reality, nor rule good enough to be applicable to all (composition) in
photography. Photography is organic. Photography is multidimensional, not just
two dimensional. What works works, and what doesn't... doesn't - regardless of
rules. Where does your heart and your aesthetic sense tell you to put
something? Well, put it there. Rules (especially in an art medium, like
photography, but in art in general too) are crutches and prisons. Every
photograph is a unique case and a new experience that must be met fully w/ your
heart and mind and aesthetic sensibility. Conformity to formulas, to someone
elses's rules is a death sentence for your individuality. The world is full of
trite, pretty pictures. Relying too much on the rule of thirds, Golden Mean or
any other rule or guideline is a recipe for garbage. Why repeat other's garbage
and mindsets? If you are going to make beautiful stinking crap, at least let it
be your own beautiful stinking crap and not a mindless imitation of an
imitation (which all these rules foster). Clonetography, Technography,
Zoneography, its all the same - you are just imitating someone else's crap
(consciously or unconsciously). Why live someone else's life/mindset/do someone
else's photograph? There are enough clones in the world. Be yourself. The
questions you must ask yourself is not what rule(s) must I follow, but why
follow at all and where does my life and mind begin and other's end? Take
responsibility for your own work. Good or bad. Accept failures and move past
them. See what works and what doesn't work in each individual
photograph/situation. Be conscious of your choices. Choose to make your own
choices, not someone elses (ie. codified so-called "rules"). Be free. Don't be
a slave to anybody's art rules, not even your own. There are no rules in art,
only choices/decisions. Don't be scared of freedom. Embrace it. Don't be afraid
to feel and express those thoughts and feelings through your unique
composition/photo schema. Cause if it comes out crap, at least you'll be knee
deep in your own photo fecal matter instead of someone else's. If you want to
grow, you can't be afraid of the manure. Rules are for fools. Only a fool
doesn't want to be free. Rule from your head and your heart and tell anybody
who tries to "rule" you w/ their art rules to shove it where the sun don't
shine - they'll probably find a better photograph up their butts than they will
by following any formulaic rules. Formulaic rules are recipes for disaster.
Save the mind control for George Orwell. This is art. Art lives. Rules are the
death of art - they are the oppositte of fun, love and self-expression.
Allowing yourself to be ruled by "rule snobs" (whether in for the judge in your
own your head or for the judge(s) in a photo club) robs you of the joy of
discovery/insight and self-expression. And if you are not making photos for
yourself, just who are you making them for?, pleasing some fossilized photo/art
judges? They have their rewards/prizes and you know by now where they can stuff
it. A good photograph is a good photograph whether it conforms to any rule or
not. "The value of the work is the value of the work" (quote of myself ;-)). If
someone doesn't like your work because it doesn't please them or their
(art/photography/whatever) group's codified idiocy, well, let them eat
Kodachrome™. There's more to photography/art than fullfilling any rules just as
there's more to life than mere bread and water. Rules have been formed and
confirmed/fossilized my multiple people over time... which only goes to show
that there's always stupidity in numbers - even if its only "paint by
numbers"... or... photograph by the rule of thirds.

This post is...

© 2003 Lewis Lang

All Rights (and manure) Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
  #66  
Old January 11th 04, 10:12 PM
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rule of Thirds?

Lewis Lang wrote:

True art conforms to the artist not any ad hoc art rules, no
matter how well or long codified. [...]


Sounds plausible. But I'm not aiming to create true art.

Relying too much on the rule of thirds, Golden Mean or any other
rule or guideline is a recipe for garbage. [...]


You're basically saying the same as Steve does. I think Phil Stripling
indirectly puts up a good point about that. He wrote: "I majored in
drama, and several courses mentioned the Golden Section in
various ways.". What does it say? It says that some educated people
find that it is a good thing to learn about the rules. Other educated
people (or great artists or whomever we value the words of) might say
that rules are garbage.

There is, as you say, no rule that applies to all. Well, the same can
be said for using rules: For some it's a bad idea, for others they'll
help a lot.

James Gifford put it quite well: "...but I've worked with many talented
and hardworking people who simply could not make a design or a photo
"work" without following rules they had learned. The rules have a
place; that some people have the rules built right into their
perception doesn't change that.".

Be free. Don't be a slave to anybody's art rules, not even your own.
There are no rules in art, only choices/decisions. [...]


If I were trying to produce art, I would probably find your speech
fitting. But I'm not. At least not art as a truly individual expression
for its own sake. My primary purpose of researching rules are to take
pictures that pleases their viewers more than they do now. It I were to
put a label on it, I'd say that I'm aiming to be better at documenting
situations.

And if you are not making photos for yourself, just who are you
making them for?


Myself, Friends and family.
 




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 10:13 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.