The 3:2 ratio needs to go, it's a throwback and a stupid waste

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:57:40 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"darkroommike" wrote in message
...
Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1 is
3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the Greek
geometers used metal rulers not plastic ones).

Very true. The question is whether the golden ratio has any real asthetic
value, or was just a mathematical oddity intriguing to people who liked to
play with numbers.

It's actually the other way around - artists first discovered that
that particular ratio is the one that most people find most pleasing
(reason unknown), & that basing your own work on it makes it more
appealing. All the maths & math-related explanations for the
phenomenon came later.

I doubt it. According to Wikipedia, "The golden ratio has fascinated
intellectuals of diverse interests for at least 2,400 years." Examples are
given in the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Neil

PanHandler wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...

snip

Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for
practical, cost and evolutionary reasons.

Solely? Looks like three to me.

Hey, Rich- Have you kept track of your batting average on all things
photographic?

What is it?

--
john mcwilliams

Remember to pillage *before* you burn.

Indeed! How stupid could those authors have been! I mean, it's just
freaking O B V I O U S that the "golden section" applies to everything
_EXCEPT_ the edges of the art work itself.

"Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and has
been since the time of ancient Greeks. I would have to say that anyone
who purported to do any sort of scientific study by looking only at
ratios of side of rectangular paintings officially counts as "not
knowing what they are doing".

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Indeed! How stupid could those authors have been! I mean, it's just
freaking O B V I O U S that the "golden section" applies to
everything
_EXCEPT_ the edges of the art work itself.

"Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and
has been since the time of ancient Greeks.

Actually, it's not accurate say it does *not* aopply to the dimensions
of rectangular paintings at all. Just that this is far down the list in
terms of importance. Considering that the ancient Greeks weren't really
even in the business of creating rectangular paintings but nonetheless
were quite familiar with the properties of phi, this *should* actually
be fairly obvious.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

In article g5csh.31$o31.4@trndny04, Rod writes
Lionel wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:57:40 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"darkroommike" wrote in message
...
Actually 3:2 is more closely approximate to the Golden Mean 1.618:1
is 3.236:2 which we all know is more traditional (and I'm sure the
Greek geometers used metal rulers not plastic ones).
Very true. The question is whether the golden ratio has any real
asthetic value, or was just a mathematical oddity intriguing to
people who liked to play with numbers.
It's actually the other way around - artists first discovered that
that particular ratio is the one that most people find most pleasing
(reason unknown), & that basing your own work on it makes it more
appealing. All the maths & math-related explanations for the
phenomenon came later.

It is closer to 8X10 which is hard to deal with using 35mm film or
digital SLR.

12x8 is closer, viz. :-

1.25 = 10 : 8
1.5 = 12 : 8
1.618 =
12 : 7.41
12.94 : 8
10 : 6.18

But it's what you do in the photograph that is more important.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Tony Polson wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 14:28:10 -0800, "
r Tony Polson proves he is a numerological nitwit that can't deal
with the truth.



No, as we all know, that is Alan Browne.

Show us some of your photos Polson. Anything. With or without the
Golden Ratio. (except the train photos, we're done laughing at those).

Please show us the significant difference between 2/3 and GR in a photo.
That's all I stated: there is no great difference between a point at
2/3 of a photo and a point at the GR.

Here's a hint:
http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg

Your cowardly attack as above reflect your character and prove
absolutely nothing else. Again.

Cheers,
Alan

PS: Your claimed and never shown cover from Paris Match is an acceptable
alternate photo. Or any half-dozen photos from your pace of "50 rolls
per average *week*".

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

John McWilliams wrote:
PanHandler wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...

snip

Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for
practical, cost and evolutionary reasons.

Solely? Looks like three to me.

Hey, Rich- Have you kept track of your batting average on all things
photographic?

What is it?

--
john mcwilliams

Remember to pillage *before* you burn.

I believe, John, Rich A counts success in number of people who respond
to his posts. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to stir people
up--just nerve.
--
Gator Bait

Marc Sabatella wrote:

"Obvious", perhaps not. But quite well known in the art world, and has
been since the time of ancient Greeks. I would have to say that anyone
who purported to do any sort of scientific study by looking only at
ratios of side of rectangular paintings officially counts as "not
knowing what they are doing".

Google up "golden section", "golden ratio" and its various derivatives
and you'll find the art-freaks babbling about how such rectangles are
more pleasing to the eye, yadayada. Now, if this was in fact true,
then we would expect to find such rectangles being used in, at the
least, to frame "great art". Yet observation indicates this is not the
case.

Either the data is wrong or all these numerologists in disguise are
pulling a fast one on you. Note that this wouldn't be the first time
art or philosophy people have tried to prove their nonsense via
mathematical techniques.

Marc Sabatella wrote:

Actually, it's not accurate say it does *not* aopply to the dimensions
of rectangular paintings at all. Just that this is far down the list in
terms of importance. Considering that the ancient Greeks weren't really
even in the business of creating rectangular paintings but nonetheless
were quite familiar with the properties of phi, this *should* actually
be fairly obvious.

Various people 2500 years ago were familiar with the number, just like
they knew about the strange properties of the square root of 2 (not
quite rational, is it?). That's basically all they did with it,
despite the claims of people made later.

It was only with the advent of a kook in the 16th century that the
neo-mystical connections were, um, "argued", and this pernicious meme
has stuck. (Pacioli and his tome on "Divine Proportions").

Note that it is extremely easy to dredge up various constants out of
almost any image, artifact, etc. Consider the prototypical example:
the entire cottage industry on the "Great Pyramid".

Google up "golden section", "golden ratio" and its various
derivatives...
and you'll find the art-freaks babbling about how such rectangles are
more pleasing to the eye, yadayada. Now, if this was in fact true,
then we would expect to find such rectangles being used in, at the
least, to frame "great art".

I'm not sure why you'd expect that. Just because these rectangles have
some pleasing properties does not necessarily mean that they make ideal
dimensions for framed art. There could be both aesthetic reasons why
this particular is not ideal *for this particular purpose* as well as
practical reaosns relating to the subject matter why it is not commonly
chosen for common subjects. But these would in no way invalidate the
idea tht the rectangle does have pleasing properties in other contexts.

Either the data is wrong or all these numerologists in disguise are
pulling a fast one on you.

I see no reason to believe either.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/