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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |