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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:13:48 +0000 (UTC), Toke Eskildsen wrote:
---- If you adopt my point of view for a short while and accept the premise that rules of thumb has value, then you aren't right. They are rules of thumb and as such a based on what most people prefer. That means they can be judged against each other (the Rule of Thirds and the Golden Section at least, since they work on the same level). ---- Where do you disagree? If it's the part with "That means they can be judged...", then please explain why one can't weight rules based on statistics (eg. "what most people prefer") against each other. Where I disagree is that by trying to decide between the rule of thirds and the Golden Section, you are trying to introduce a level of precision where no such precision is possible. Since one rule says 33% and the other say 38% (rounded values), they are not the same. Period. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never met anyone who sensibly considered the rule of thirds to mean *exactly* 33%. It could easily mean 28% or 38% or whatever. This is why your whole premise is based on pseudo-precision. It's highly likely that the rule of thirds evolved from the Golden Section as a less-precise rule of thumb more appropriate to visual media (the Golden Section having been developed in Ancient Greece for architecture). You need to look again at the definition of a 'rule of thumb': it it not something that is supposed to be used to an accuracy of 5%. No such accuracy is possible - or even the slightest bit relevant - to taking photographs. If your point is that both rules are very approximate, then why did the Golden Section arise at all? It's quite hard to calculate, yet both architechts, photographers and painters have found it worthwhile to use in their creations instead of the much easier "roughly a third". It arose in Ancient Greece. Give me examples of photographers who have found it worthwhile instead of the rule of thirds. Please explain what you mean by pseudo precision. Insisting on a level of precision where non is ossible or relevant. If I compose a picture according to Rule #1, the same picture according to Rule #2 and I show them to 100 people, asking them to choose the one they find more pleasing, will they be split in two groups of roughly equal size? Who can tell. The answer will most likely be entirely meaningless. Now you're adding pseudo-science to pseudo-precision. You need to stop worrying about the difference, because there is no difference. I understand that is your opinion. Yep. And I've wasted enough time on this, so this is my final post on the subject. If you really want to waste your time on something as trivial and pointless as deciding between the rule of thirds and the Golden Section, then go ahead. That's your problem. My advice is - choose one and go with it. Flip a coin. If you choose the rule of thirds, I guarantee that *no-one* will ever look at your pictures and say "Hmm, it's okay, but it would have been better if you'd used the Golden Section". This whole distinction between the two rules is false. But hey, it's your life. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Steve wrote:
[...] Where I disagree is that by trying to decide between the rule of thirds and the Golden Section, you are trying to introduce a level of precision where no such precision is possible. You did not answer my question. I presented my reasoning. You seem to disagree. I ask you what is wrong with my reasoning and instead of pointing out my error, you repeat your claim. Since one rule says 33% and the other say 38% (rounded values), they are not the same. Period. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never met anyone who sensibly considered the rule of thirds to mean *exactly* 33%. Are you talking about the rule itself or applying the rule to a specific picture? My understanding is that most people regard the Rule of Thirds as "Place x aproximately a third from the edge". The "Place x aproximately" is the part about applying the rule and my oh my, it _does_ say aproximately and not "exactly". The exact part of the sentence is "a third from the edge", that's the abstract part, the ideal or goal that the rule prescribe. It could easily mean 28% or 38% or whatever. Yes, when you apply it. This is why your whole premise is based on pseudo-precision. I presented my point about statistics, but you've refused to comment directly on that. It's highly likely that the rule of thirds evolved from the Golden Section as a less-precise rule of thumb more appropriate to visual media (the Golden Section having been developed in Ancient Greece for architecture). Ah, but this is very interesting. The Rule of Thirds might indeed be more appropriate for photos. I would appreciate more pointers on this. [Snip Why the Golden Section at all] It arose in Ancient Greece. Give me examples of photographers who have found it worthwhile instead of the rule of thirds. Ask a random danish photographer. I asked in the group dk.fritid.foto and they told me Golden Section and not Rule of Thirds. If you look back in this thread, you'll see that I am curious as to why there's this difference here. I invite you to verify my claim - questions in english are quite welcome in the group. It does not mean that they whip out a ruler and measure, but instead that they roughly aim at the Golden Section instead of rougly aiming at the 33%. If they think about the rules at all. [Snip Perform statistics] Who can tell. The answer will most likely be entirely meaningless. Now you're adding pseudo-science to pseudo-precision. Using statistics to examine statistical based rules is pseudo-science? Yep. And I've wasted enough time on this, so this is my final post on the subject. You have wasted a lot of time yes. However, if you stopped repeating your point in different ways and instead focused on answering my arguments directly, a lot of energy would be saved. My advice is - choose one and go with it. I stated several posts ago that I'd do that. If you choose the rule of thirds, I guarantee that *no-one* will ever look at your pictures and say "Hmm, it's okay, but it would have been better if you'd used the Golden Section". I agree completely. You've said that before though (in a slightly different way) and I also agreed then. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Toke Eskildsen apparently said:
try and answer me so that we can move forward instead of just repeating ourselves. You are a troll. Go out and take some pictures and figure it out. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Dean Van Praotl wrote:
Toke Eskildsen apparently said: try and answer me so that we can move forward instead of just repeating ourselves. You are a troll. Actually, the sentence that you quoted is quite the negative of trolling. Trolls are not interested in getting the discussion to move onwards. The Jargon File has a definition, if anyone should be unfamiliar with the term: http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=troll Troll is also a convenient name to call someone, if one finds them annoying. As for me being interested in the subject instead of just in trolling, well... http://ekot.dk/programmer/jpegcrops/guides.html Of course one might argue that being interested in the subject doesn't leave out trolling tendencies, but maybe we should take that discussion by email or in another newsgroup? Go out and take some pictures and figure it out. That's what I do for my personal photos. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Toke Eskildsen wrote in message .. .
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Photographs CANNOT be composed according to the golden mean, which is a ratio. Only rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their sides. A great deal of the webpages I've seen on the Golden Section start by defining it on a line and the moves on to rectangles and sometimes triangles or pentagons. Examples fresh from Google a http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekSc...im/Golden.html http://www.gkmac.co.uk/golden.php http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/polyhedra/dodeca.html |------|----| - Line divided using the golden ratio. The very nature of photography is such that objects in the world are in the images. We divide the space between objects in photographs to form a pleasing composition, which approximates, in ***some*** cases, the ratios of the golden mean. That has nothing to do with the golden mean itself. If the ratio fits then I don't understand how you can claim that it's unrelated to the golden mean (which is defined by that ratio)? That sounds very illogical to me!? The golden mean is aspecific ratio of lengths. Period. The distribution of objects in the real world cannot be made that precise. The whole thing is absurd. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
The golden mean is aspecific ratio of lengths. Period. Err.. Yes? That's what I, as well as the webpages say!? No disagreement here. |------|----| - Line divided using the golden ratio. |------| - Length 1 |----| - Length 2 The distribution of objects in the real world cannot be made that precise. I also agree with that. The whole thing is absurd. Yes, if someone wants to hit the exact ratio (which is quite impossible) when performing composition. Which I don't. (maybe I should put this in my signature) Let me try another way: If we show a bunch of pictures to a great number of people and ask them to pick out the most pleasing ones, we should be able to extract certain trends. One of these trends is "don't place the interesting elements in the center". Further investigation would give us an aproximate position to place those elements. At least that's the case if we accept using rules for composition. That aproximate position could be 1/3, it could be at the Golden Mean or it could be somewhere else entirely (although I doubt it'd be far off). I find it safe to assume that there'd be a lot of people pointing at positions near the mean and fewer people pointing at positions farther off. A quick Google search gave me this page, which has a fine illustration. Don't bother about the mathematics, it's just the curve we need: http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml Going with the graph on that page, we have our aproximate position at the top of the curve. Aiming for that position is our rule of thumb. Let's assume that the Rule of Thirds points to the position at the top of the curve. When we apply that rule of thumb by the eye, we're pretty sure not to hit 1/3 exactly. But that's fine, as long as we're resonable near it: There'll still be a large number of people that think it's a good spot. Since we assume thet the Rule of Thirds is the mean, then the Golden Section is somewhat off the top of the curve. If we performed our census, the judgement would be "it's fine, but maybe a bit to the right would be better". When we try to apply the Golden Section to a picture, it'll be an approximation again. Maybe the result is a bit to the left, maybe it's a bit to the right. If it's a bit to the right, then that's fine: Then we're closer to the Rule of Thirds, which we assume is the better choise (most popular). If it's a bit to the left, then that's not so fine: We're sliding down the curve, so to speak. It's just a matter of chance. The better our ideal is, the greater our chance to hit a position close to the top of the curve. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Toke, my apology for the "troll" comment.
Back to business. Toke Eskildsen apparently said: Since one rule says 33% and the other say 38% (rounded values), they are not the same. Period. You state later that they are the same "for all practical purposes" and that is the interesting point here. This is where you haven't convinced me yet. In a very real sense, they ARE the same. In the series of fractions: 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...., 38% is obviously closer to 1/3 than 1/2. In this case it might as well be the same, since the visual effect of 33% vs 38% is generally trifling. Seriously, prior to this thread, I hadn't considered using the golden section for composition in photos, but looking through my library I find that I have at least one book that discusses it: "Portrait Photographer's Handbook" by Bill Hunter In it, he defines the "Golden Mean" for composition: "The golden mean is found by drawing a diagonal from one corner of the frame to the other. A second line is then drawn from one or both of the remaining corners so that it intersects the first line perpendicularly." This is obviously not using the same golden section that we've been beating on here, since the ratio in Hunter's definition will vary depending on the aspect ratio of the frame; in a square 6x6 frame it will be in the exact center, and as the aspect ratio changes, the point(s) will move closer and closer to the limiting case of an infinitely wide (or tall) frame in one dimension, where the points would be on the very edge. So.... here's another wrinkle to confuse the issue. If you're looking for a "rule" to apply -- and I think the biggest mistake anyone ever made was to call these ideas "rules," then go with the rule of thirds. At least it doesn't change. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Dean Van Praotl wrote:
Toke, my apology for the "troll" comment. Apology accepted. In a very real sense, they ARE the same. In the series of fractions: 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...., 38% is obviously closer to 1/3 than 1/2. In this case it might as well be the same, since the visual effect of 33% vs 38% is generally trifling. I've tried and clarify my take on that subject in my reply to Michael: However, given the development below, it might not matter at all. [Snip "Portrait Photographer's Handbook" by Bill Hunter] That's the same recipe that Vaidd pointed out: http://www.psppower.com/2002may/crop2.htm This is obviously not using the same golden section that we've been beating on here, since the ratio in Hunter's definition will vary depending on the aspect ratio of the frame; * Thinking hard * I think I understand more now. The page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/5numbers3.shtml has a fine illustration of applying the golden rule "forever" to a golden rectangle. If we use the rule from above, the crossing point is where the spiral of rectangles vanishes in the picture. So the Rule of Thirds and the Golden Section is quite different: The first uses a ratio directly (1/3), while the other uses a ratio recursively. There's some other questions though. Assuming af golden frame and assuming one wants to use the golden section and assuming a photo of a landscape, where should the horizon be? I'd suspect the second dividing line (which is the 38% from before), as that would split the image in two parts with the golden ratio. It seems that the Golden Section only works in framings that are golden themselves? That seems very limiting and it makes me a bit suspecious: When the Rule of Thirds seems to work on all aspects, I would assume that some variant of the Golden Section does the same? If you're looking for a "rule" to apply -- and I think the biggest mistake anyone ever made was to call these ideas "rules," then go with the rule of thirds. At least it doesn't change. PSPPower seems to give the same advice, but I'm getting rather curious as to when and how the Golden Section can be applied at all. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
Toke Eskildsen wrote in message .. .
Michael Scarpitti wrote: The golden mean is aspecific ratio of lengths. Period. Err.. Yes? That's what I, as well as the webpages say!? No disagreement here. |------|----| - 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 That's it, completely. The ratio is digital form is discussed he http://www.vashti.net/mceinc/golden.htm The distribution of objects in the real world cannot be made that precise. I also agree with that. The whole thing is absurd. Yes, if someone wants to hit the exact ratio (which is quite impossible) when performing composition. Which I don't. (maybe I should put this in my signature) Let me try another way: If we show a bunch of pictures to a great number of people and ask them to pick out the most pleasing ones, we should be able to extract certain trends. One of these trends is "don't place the interesting elements in the center". Further investigation would give us an aproximate position to place those elements. Usually, but not all subject matter lends itself to this distribution. At least that's the case if we accept using rules for composition. That aproximate position could be 1/3, it could be at the Golden Mean..... If you don't put it in the center, and you don't put it at the extreme edge, what else is there? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Rule of Thirds?
PSPPower seems to give the same advice, but I'm getting rather curious
as to when and how the Golden Section can be applied at all. I remember stuff I read as a kid, where the golden mean was mentioned as a ratio that made a "more pleasing" shape for a rectangle, i.e., an improved aspect ratio. I was taught the rule of thirds over thirty years ago when I first delved into serious photography, but never heard of using the golden section/mean until recently. I dunno.... there are lots of folks out there with way too much time on their hands. Maybe one of them started the whole golden section thing as a way to amuse him/herself.... As for a horizon when using the golden section, I would assume you can choose either the upper or lower point to locate your horizon, depending on whether you want to emphasize the foreground or not. BTW, I mistyped the author's name in my last post, it is Bill Hurter, not Hunter. Mea culpa... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 04:28 PM |