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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |