 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2007What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work?
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and accepted "rule". What makes it work? The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a "sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is blandly placed in the middle. >Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an >exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and accepted >"rule". > >What makes it work? Sometimes it makes a boring composition slightly less boring. Sometimes it doesn't work at all. Like all "Rules" of composition, its over-use tends to reduce creativity to a point where composition becomes formulaic, predictable and downright boring. The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", which has a long historic basis in composition of landscape paintings. The Golden Ratio is not as simple as dividing the picture into thirds. It is based on dividing one side of the composition so that the ratio of the smaller part to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the larger part to the whole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio http://www.noteaccess.com/RELATIONSHIPS/DivinaP.htm http://plus.maths.org/issue22/features/golden/ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Tim/Golden.html http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/ Although the math behind the Golden Ratio is fairly simple, it was probably thought easier for the poorly (or un-)educated masses if it was simplified still further. The trouble is that much or all of the beauty of the Golden Section has been lost in dumbing it down to the "Rule of Thirds". In some circumstances, the "Rule of Thirds" does give a better composition than having the subject in the centre. But don't let that make you overlook the creative potential of a centred subject - a powerful subject often looks great right in the centre of the shot, especially if closely cropped. Above all, don't overlook the Golden Ratio! If there is one "Rule" of composition that works, this could be it ... it has certainly worked well over many centuries for some of the world's finest artists. > The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate approximation of > the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", which has a long historic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the smaller part to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the > larger part to the whole. Hmm so se need a Golden Section focusing screen grid. And a button to flip, rotate & mirror it :-) >> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate approximation of >> the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", which has a long historic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Hmm so se need a Golden Section focusing screen grid. And a button to >flip, rotate & mirror it :-) I already have one. ;-) > >> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate > >> approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I already have one. ;-) We all do - it's wired into our brains... :-) Peter >> >> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate >> >> approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >We all do - it's wired into our brains... :-) That is so true! But I doubt many people here would even know what you meant. ;-) > But I doubt many people here would even know what you meant. Least of all you. But please prove me wrong and post some images that show your natural or deliberate famillarity with the golden ratio.  Signature-- 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. >>>> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate >>>> approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Peter Yeah, but you have to use it. Many don't. > >>>> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate > >>>> approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yeah, but you have to use it. Many don't. Very true. The wiring is there for people to appreciate someone else's good composition when they see it, yet so often they won't use that same wiring to make their own compositions. Maybe it is lack of confidence in their own 'vision' that makes many people rely on rules instead of just shooting what looks good (and then seeing the 'rules' as a way of understanding later why it looked good.) Peter >Very true. The wiring is there for people to appreciate someone else's good >composition when they see it, yet so often they won't use that same wiring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rely on rules instead of just shooting what looks good (and then seeing the >'rules' as a way of understanding later why it looked good.) Well said, Peter. However, I think the problem is that photographers from a technical background often tend to lack that vision, and have no option but to work to a formula. The worst thing would be for one of those people to have confidence in a vision that they simply do not have. >>>>>> The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate >>>>>> approximation of the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > rely on rules instead of just shooting what looks good (and then seeing the > 'rules' as a way of understanding later why it looked good.) To me the "rules" are guidelines to help you learn what's going to give a good composition. It's not an absolute, never break requirement, but a starting point to help you develop your own consistent style with with a steeper learning curve. Understanding the rules helps you get good faster and it will help you produce good work a higher percentage of the time. Understanding the "rule of thirds" or the "golden mean" is no different than understanding the *rules* of reciprocity and exposure. Sometimes the exposure you want isn't what the "rule" tells you, but understanding those rules will tell you how to break the rule to make the exposure you want, just as understanding the "rules" of composition will tell you how to break them to get the composition you want. > > The Golden Ratio is not as simple as dividing the picture into thirds. > > It is based on dividing one side of the composition so that the ratio [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hmm so se need a Golden Section focusing screen grid. And a button to > flip, rotate & mirror it :- That brings me back to when Artie Fellig or "Weegee" had to scratch the Golden Mean into the screen of his Crown Graphic. Course, back in the day, if you talked like "Golden Mean", you could expect to catch a beating pretty regular on that street. Anyway; "The Daily Mirror" which bought most of his junk, wanted this triangle deal put on the screen, so one night Artie got the bartender, who happened to have a ring with a stone in it, scratch a couple of lines on it. So now Artie had two lines across and two lines down and one long line diagonal and two more short ones diagonal the other way, but the bartender swore up and down, that they were all 1.67, at least. But most of the guys down at the "Mirror" figured that this was a pretty good way to make a simple thing damn near impossible. As for Artie, he was too bleary eyed to see lines anyway; but being as he only shot stiffs, he just figured make 'em crooked and that was close enough. Bob Hickey > Paul Furman wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > bleary eyed to see lines anyway; but being as he only shot stiffs, he just > figured make 'em crooked and that was close enough. Bob Hickey Ha! I've heard of him but didn't know he did crime scene work... my dad was a press photographer on the crime beat in Chicago around 1960, I'd love to see some of his work, he's been gone for more than 30 years. >>>Tony Polson wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > was a press photographer on the crime beat in Chicago around 1960, I'd > love to see some of his work, he's been gone for more than 30 years. I bet the Chicago PD has all of his stuff on file somewhere.....You might be able to get in to see it, especially if one of the big wigs there still remembers your dad. but the longer you wait, the harder it will be....... >>>>>The Golden Ratio is not as simple as dividing the picture into thirds. >>>>>It is based on dividing one side of the composition so that the ratio [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > able to get in to see it, especially if one of the big wigs there still > remembers your dad. but the longer you wait, the harder it will be....... Hmm, hadn't thought of that, I did check (UPI?) the agency he worked for without luck. >> That brings me back to when Artie Fellig or "Weegee" had to scratch the > Ha! I've heard of him but didn't know he did crime scene work... my dad > was a press photographer on the crime beat in Chicago around 1960, I'd > love to see some of his work, he's been gone for more than 30 years. There was an amusing movie with Joe Pesci as a Weegee type about 10 years ago. Lot's of fun. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105187/ Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. > >Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think > >outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > well over many centuries for some of the world's finest artists. > But, but, I only shoot square stuff. Bob Hickey >> >Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >> >outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> But, but, I only > shoot square stuff. Bob Hickey Now, there's a reason why the golden ratio might not be ideal for all compositions.....If you are accustomed to shooting 2-1/4 " square stuff, then the position of subjects in the frame would probably be different that they would be with 2 to 3 ratio stuff like 35mm is. IOW, where the subject rests depends somewhat on the frame size.....And, as I mentioned somewhere above, it also depends on the subjects motion.....I like to show space in front of a moving boat or car, rather than space behind it, where it's already been. > Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think > outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is > blandly placed in the middle. OK. How about this goofy explanation off the top of my head... If you observe your field of vision while staring stright ahead...and moving your eyes only...your 3-D vision stops at the point where your nose blocks either your left-ward field of vision from you right eye (rendering anything farther than that "depthless" due to single-eye observation of it) and vice versa. If you notice where this 2-D/3-D point starts/stops, it's roughly on the two vertical lines that would make up the lines between the right third point and the left third point. Perhaps we naturally try to keep points of interest within our 3-D vision points...which happen to correspond with the "rule of 3rds points." This would not account at all for the horizontal line points...but what the heck. <g> Next: Why is it generally preferable to place a person facing to the viewer's left on the right portion of the frame (looking toward, or facing the bulk of the frame rather than the closer edge with space behind them)?Perhaps it's because we tend to need 3-D vision available to us on the side the object is traveling toward... If they are moving, they may be a threat or target for attack/defense (think cave-man, here), so we tend to place things facing inward inward into the field of vision (or frame) as we anticipate our possible involvement with that object, and the need to see where it may go. Or... Maybe it's all the fault of the Egyptians...with some weird pyramid thing! Ya! That's it... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think > > outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This would not account at all for the horizontal line points...but what the > heck. <g> Wow, I had never thought of that but it is very intersting. Basically, 'straight ahead' is about 1/3 way across the visual field of an eye. that would be the case if the nose blocked the field halfway between the centre and the edge. That in turn would mean that the ratio of height to width of the field of view woul d be 4:3. As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios. if the nose blocked the field so that that 'ahead' was at the golden ratio of the width then it turns out that the ratio of height to width is also the golden ratio. A square picture with its cornbers placed on tghe edge of the whole visual field (both eyes) would have its 'eyes' ('rule of thirds' points) at the edge of the stereo visual region and that region would be in the Golden ratio. I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else? Robert >As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an >approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else? Unlikely, as the Golden Ratio is actually 1.618 : 1. <g> I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo. > >As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an > >approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo. > >As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an > >approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a > >matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios. ... > Unlikely, as the Golden Ratio is actually 1.618 : 1. <g> > > I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo. Sorry, yes it was carelessness. it should be 1.666 for the rule of thirds and 1.618 for the golden ratio. R >> >As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an >> >approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Sorry, yes it was carelessness. it should be 1.666 for the rule of >thirds and 1.618 for the golden ratio. Wrong again, Robert. <g> The Rule of Thirds is 2.00 (larger/smaller) and 1.50 (whole/larger). The Golden Ratio is 1.618 and 1.618 respectively. The fact that the two ratios are the same is what makes it "Golden". And the fact that the numbers for the Rule of Thirds differ show that it is a poor approximation - a waste of people's time, I would say. ;-) >>>>As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an >>>>approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The Rule of Thirds is 2.00 (larger/smaller) and 1.50 (whole/larger). Not quite. It's 3/2 (1.5) or 2/3 (0.666). Both quite close to 1.618 or 0.618. But keep playing. Signature-- 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. >>>>>As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an >>>>>approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But keep playing. There's a write up on it here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html > >>>>As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an > >>>>approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But keep playing. perhaps I'll just retire gracefully at this point :-) Robert >>>The Rule of Thirds is 2.00 (larger/smaller) and 1.50 (whole/larger). >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > perhaps I'll just retire gracefully at this point :-) Nah, keep kicking at it. Staves off Alzeimers. Mostly. Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. clock work! >>> Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >>> outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else? That's because I truly thought it up out of nowhere in the 60 seconds after reading the OP. -When I write my first book, I'll send you a copy. <g> SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >>> outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a > matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios. 1:1.618 >>>Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >>>outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an actually 3/2 or 2/3 (1.5 or 0.6666) which are resepctively close to the golden ratio and its inverse. And the difference is meaningless as Colin pointed out as subjects are not points, but elements that more than bridge the difference. > approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a > matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios. 1.618034 (inverse is 1/G ot G-1 = 0.618034... which is another property of the golden ratio). Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. > Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think > outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is > blandly placed in the middle. One internationally famous photographer, Freeman Patterson, refers to that maxim as 'a tool of thirds', planting the idea that it is a tool to be used when appropriate rather than a 'rule' to be slavishly followed. TP mentions the Golden Mean, of Greek origin, and used in such places as the Parthenon etc., which lends pleasing proportions to the buildings. Subsequently, painters used it as a guide to placing elements of their paintings in strong positions on the canvas. Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the Golden Mean/Section. A point on the thirds is 33.3% in from adjacent edges of an image, while a Golden Mean/Section is 38.2% in from adjacent edges, slightly closer to the centre of the image. Given that a picture element placed on thirds or GS is probably considerably larger than the difference between the point positions, the 4.9% difference is likely to be indiscernible. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think >> outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to be used when appropriate rather than a 'rule' to be slavishly > followed. Sure... But it's certainly a method that "works" for some reason, which is what the OP is curious about... His question is simply, "Why does it work as well as it does?" It's an interesting thought, which I took an off-the-cuff stab at (see my other odd post). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the > Golden Mean/Section. A point on the thirds is 33.3% in from adjacent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > difference between the point positions, the 4.9% difference is likely to > be indiscernible. I explained this clearly to Polson about 5 years ago. He didn't get it then and he ain't gonna get it now... for some reason he seemed to believe that the rule of thirds was 2:1 in ratio. Given his poor math, it's no surprise. I also pointed out (several times) that it was a guide, not a rule, but he obsessed in labeling me a slave to the "rule". He can sure write, but he can't read worth a damn! There is nothing wrong with the rule of thirds, but my variants are: "it's more likely to better off center" and "where there are two strong elements in the scene, a diagonal connection through the frame makes a strong statement." Paterson is correct: these are all tools, guides, notions, hints, reminders, etc. Cheers, ALan Signature-- 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. [SNIP] > Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the > Golden Mean/Section. A point on the thirds is 33.3% in from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > probably considerably larger than the difference between the > point positions, the 4.9% difference is likely to be indiscernible. Try it and see: I find that it's not indiscernible at all to my eye. It's interesting to analyse a number of pictures that different people have composed by eye - ie. they shot what they thought looked best, not what conformed to some rule. If you do this, you'll find a (perhaps surprisingly) large number of the best ones hit the Golden Section with their key picture elements - especially those pictures with a feeling of stillness or calm to them. (That can be the biggest criticism of composing that way deliberately: it produces a picture that feels harmonious even when maybe it shouldn't, so the 'rule' is not always appropriate - like all such 'rules'.) If you do this exercise with pictures of different proportions you'll also find fewer and fewer pictures where the thirds 'works' in this form of intutitive rather than rule driven composition the further you move away from the 2:3 frame proportions of 35mm, whereas the Goldn Section continues to 'work'. Peter >[SNIP] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Try it and see: I find that it's not indiscernible at all to my eye. Absolutely right. It is not only discernible, it is a significant difference. Looking at the ratios will tell you why, because the Golden Section is all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on the Rule of Thirds are very different - 1.500 against 2.000. I suppose 1.500 and 2.000 have a greater appeal to simpler people. It takes a little sophistication to understand why 1.618 works and the Rule of Thirds does not. ;-) >> [SNIP] >>> Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Absolutely right. It is not only discernible, it is a significant > difference. On a 10x8 print, the Golden Section position is 3.81 inches up from the bottom edge, and the thirds position is 3.33 inches up, a difference of 0.48 inches, or 4.8% of the 10-inch dimension, and 0.38 inches in the 8-inch dimension. Given a reasonable sized object at either of those points, say a building or a tree, the less than ½-inch difference will not be noticeable. > Looking at the ratios will tell you why, because the Golden Section is > all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on > the Rule of Thirds are very different - 1.500 against 2.000. 1.5 to 2 (no need for the trailing zeroes) is 1:4 or 3:4, that is 25%/75%. No way is that thirds. Do you mean 1 to 1.5, i.e. 1:3 or 2:3, 33.33%/66.67%? > I suppose 1.500 and 2.000 have a greater appeal to simpler people. It > takes a little sophistication to understand why 1.618 works and the > Rule of Thirds does not. Yes, they would have to be simple to mistake 1.5 to 2 as a third - or two-thirds. {:-) Colin D. > ;-) > SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> [SNIP] >>>> Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Colin D. >> ;-) In my case, these kinds of esoteric calculations might be made while cropping in Photoshop after the fact, but I can't be bothered with them when I am out taking pictures....The best I can do under real circumstances is to make sure I get all the subject inside the frame that I am going to need. In general, if it looks good to me, then I will go with it, and I'll have to leave it to fate and my (hopeful) artistic development to improve my compositions..... >In my case, these kinds of esoteric calculations might be made while >cropping in Photoshop after the fact, but I can't be bothered with them when >I am out taking pictures.... They can be of some use in landscape photography, but their main use is in art. I was looking at some paintings in the National Gallery in London this afternoon - I had a couple of hours to kill while waiting to lecture to some students early this evening - and the use of the Golden Ratio was surprisingly extensive. The ratio of the longer to the shorter side of the canvas, the height above the horizon to the height below, or the other way around, it was obvious that many artists found the Golden Ratio attractive, either by accident or design. Given that some of these works go back to the 15th century, the use of a mathematical ratio is perhaps surprising. But its use was carefully researched by a group of artists, the intention being to find aspects of art that could be used to help make their works more attractive, and therefore to encourage buyers either to buy more works, or pay more for each one. Compare this sophistication and (almost) scientific approach with the sheer crudeness of the Rule of Thirds, which seems designed for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. >The best I can do under real circumstances is to >make sure I get all the subject inside the frame that I am going to need. In >general, if it looks good to me, then I will go with it, and I'll have to >leave it to fate and my (hopeful) artistic development to improve my >compositions..... I am sure that the artists did not set out to create works that complied with some arbitrary rule ... certainly not in the way that some snapshooters without any artistic ability use the Rule of Thirds because they think it will magically make their mediocre work in some way better. What they did was to identify something in their works of art that people might find more attractive. They didn't slavishly use the rule in every work they produced. But they knew when to use it, why and, above all, how. > They can be of some use in landscape photography, but their main use > is in art. I was looking at some paintings in the National Gallery in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and therefore to encourage buyers either to buy more works, or pay > more for each one. When I was much younger I was really into origami, which normally needs a square of paper. Now most paper is not square but a rectangle so you trim the paper to be square and are left with a new rectangle, you can then take a sqaure off of this piece and so forth and so forth. But with an arbitrary piece of paper the leftover rectangle is not the same proportions as the starting one. But if you start with a sheet that is (sqrt(5)+1)/2 longer on one side then the other the new rectangle is the same proportion as the old. I use to make a sheet as close to this ratio as I could and see how many times I could pull a square off it and make a crane, it gets pretty small pretty fast. And of course (sqrt(5)+1)/2 is about 1.618.. Scott >>In my case, these kinds of esoteric calculations might be made while >>cropping in Photoshop after the fact, but I can't be bothered with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Given that some of these works go back to the 15th century, the use of > a mathematical ratio is perhaps surprising. Umm, if you say so. Math, I guess, being in its infancy in the 1400s. *When* was the Golden Section/Ratio/Mean first documented in detail, again? You might find this enlightening: http://plus.maths.org/issue22/features/golden/ ...where the concept of being attracted to a mathematical ratio is called into serious question. On that webpage, he references Leonardo's reliance on the Golden Yaya and says that this is clearly evident in the Mona Lisa/La Giaconda. However, this page doesn't seem to display it all that well: http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/mona/jbmona.htm You can move around and resize the Golden Rectangle, but each time it seems to be off by up to ten percent. Hmmm. But its use was carefully > researched by a group of artists, the intention being to find aspects > of art that could be used to help make their works more attractive, > and therefore to encourage buyers either to buy more works, or pay > more for each one. And there's http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908036/ > Compare this sophistication and (almost) scientific approach with the > sheer crudeness of the Rule of Thirds, which seems designed for people > who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Umm, if you say so. Considering that the Golden Whatzit was primarily implemented in architecture and design, the concept of it being mathematical applies very easily. As opposed to art and photography, where it becomes very obvious that mathematical calculations don't really hold up, *and* are both tedious and formulaic - definite no-nos. Add to that the facts that numerous subjects can't be forced to conform to a particular ratio, and that nature itself couldn't give a crap, and you find that using a loose "thirds" structure is a lot easier to express. The biggest mistake in all of this is that there is some "right" way to do art/photography/whatever, and most especially, that it can be expressed mathematically. If such were the case, there should be absolutely tons of images that *everybody* adores without exception, instead of, quite simply, none. What's most amusing about this post is Tony's obvious disdain for anyone using a concept of "thirds," and at the same time believing that using the "right" formula will produce magic. Whatever you say, Tony. Jump in there with the art students who attempt to demonstrate how often artists adhered to this idea, which will definitely require you, like the others, to ignore the countless examples where it falls flat. >>The best I can do under real circumstances is to >>make sure I get all the subject inside the frame that I am going to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because they think it will magically make their mediocre work in some > way better. I have to admit, I have yet to see anyone at all, ever, who adheres to this blindly. And in fact, most people's introduction to the Rule of Thirds virtually always comes from instruction on composition, every last sample of which that I've ever seen makes it very clear that it is not a "rule" in any way. And in the five years I've spent on this newsgroup, I've seen one (a number that even Polson should be able to handle) person who seemed chagrined that a focusing screen with precise thirds markings on it was so difficult to find. But I guess Polson's universe is different. Anyone surprised? > What they did was to identify something in their works of > art that people might find more attractive. > > They didn't slavishly use the rule in every work they produced. But > they knew when to use it, why and, above all, how. So, I'm left with two questions, Tony (and which I'm quite sure will remain unanswered): 1. When you were doing your little perusal of the art gallery and noticing how the artists clearly followed the Golden Triangle instead of something so clumsy and gauche as simple thirds, does this mean you were going over those paintings with a tape measure? 2. Considering how you've mucked up the math in previous posts (despite this being available on countless websites), are you sure you knew when they were using it and when they had failed? Cheers! - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > Al Denelsbeck wrote: > 1. When you were doing your little perusal of the art gallery > and noticing how the artists clearly followed the Golden Triangle > instead of something so clumsy and gauche as simple thirds, does this > mean you were going over those paintings with a tape measure? LOL! I was thinking along the same lines when I was reading it. > You might find this enlightening: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You can move around and resize the Golden Rectangle, but each time it > seems to be off by up to ten percent. Hmmm. I've always had my doubts about the Golden Ratio, which seems to be treated by some as sacred and beyond question. At school I read that when people were asked to choose which of a number of rectangles looked the most pleasing they'd always go for one with sides in the proportion 1:1.618. So I tried it for myself, using a continuously variable rectangle and asking people to set it to the proportions that looked best. Values chosen varied from around 1.3 to 1.7, distinctly biased toward the low side of the Golden Ratio. There's not even any reason to suppose that we might possess any built-in mechanism for recognising a numerical ratio as complex as (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2. The only ratios we know are aesthetically pleasing, such as those in music, are simple ones like 3:2 or 5:4. I'd venture to suggest that the Golden Ratio is a numerically cute approximation to 2:3 or 3:2 rather than the other way around. It seems to me that it's intellectually pleasing because 1/phi = phi - 1 and phi squared = phi + 1, but it's aesthetically pleasing because it's close to 3:2 and 5:3. It's an interesting exercise to look around and see how many things have proportions that feel right but that are nowhere near the Golden Ratio. If the precise ratio was that important you'd expect to find it more often, instead of "close but not quite" values like 1.7 or 1.5. SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] >> You might find this enlightening: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Ratio. If the precise ratio was that important you'd expect to find it > more often, instead of "close but not quite" values like 1.7 or 1.5. No, I have to disagree with the above. There are numerous examples in nature of the Golden ratio, and it is not just an approximation to 1+2/3. Examples seen in the spiral shells of sea creatures, for example. Of course, none of these examples speak to the aesthetic satisfaction that we might feel about its use in art. - This would have to be shown statistically by evaluating many artistic works, if it could be proved at all. One might say that it's use by early Greek and Roman artists have, "contaminated" our preferences, so even statistical evaluations that "prove" it today, might be discounted. [SNIP] > > It's an interesting exercise to look around and see how many things > > have proportions that feel right but that are nowhere near the Golden [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nature of the Golden ratio, and it is not just an approximation to 1+2/3. > Examples seen in the spiral shells of sea creatures, for example. Of course, > none of these examples speak to the aesthetic satisfaction that we might > feel about its use in art. - This would have to be shown statistically by > evaluating many artistic works, if it could be proved at all. One might say > that it's use by early Greek and Roman artists have, "contaminated" our > preferences, so even statistical evaluations that "prove" it today, might be > discounted. Fairly recently I was preparing to go off on a week where I'd be tutoring. I was going to be focusing much more intensively on composition than I'd done before and wanted to be able to do just this sort of post-shot analysis on students' work. To make it easy, I cut out a couple of cardboard frames to the sizes we'd be printing to and covered them with transparent plastic. I made one set where I marked up the plastic window with lines showing the thirds, and one set for the Golden Section. As I was doing his, my mother happened to be visiting. She'd just come back from a trip to Russia and was showing me her pictures. Mother's a painter, and her photographs are often technically lacking, but work for her as reference materials for her paintings. However, as you'd expect, she has a very good eye for composition and when she takes time over a photograph it can be good. So out of interest we spread out her photographs and started comparing them to these 'viewing frames' I'd just finished making. It was very interesting... First thing to note: the 'snapshots' that had been taken in a hurry were usually not really badly composed, but few were that striking. Few of these pictures 'hit' either the thirds or the GS with their key elements. Second: of the ones that she'd taken time over, in about three quarters of them a key picture element was aligned along either the thirds or the GS or placed at their intersection with a really very high level of accuracy and consistency. (I didn't do a statistical analysis, but have done enough stat.s in the past to have a strong 'gut feel' that the level of 'accuracy' was more than enough to be significant - also that there were separate peaks around the third and the GS, not just variation that encompassed both.) Third: my mother is clearly much more a Golden Section than a thirds person, by about three to one, of the pictures where she had thought about the composition. Note that she never thought of any 'rule' when shooting any of these - she seldom does when painting and never when taking photographs, composing (as I do) simply on the basis of what looks right. (Some people seem to be more 'thirds' people, though this seems to become less common when one works in formats other than the 3:2 proportions of 35mm.) Fourth: beforewe'd even thought about this experiment, we both agreed entirely on which one was by far her best picture of the trip. This was of the monument to the unknown soldier outside the Kremlin wall, which she had taken considerable care over framing and catching the sentry in just the right position. The composition of this was beautifully balanced, with a sense of stillness and calm - a piture I'd be very pleased to have taken. The whole picture seemed balanced, but the eye kept returning to the flame at the centre of the monument. When we put this one under the 'viwing frame' we both started to laugh: that flame fell _exactly_ on the intersection of the horizontal and vertical Golden Sections. When I did the same thing later with my students we found similar things, but I thought it was seeing how the work of someone who is an intuitive 'composer' of pictures - rather than a photographer who had just been discussing composition before taking the picture - came up when analysed this way was very interesting. It was a fun exercise, I do recommend it. Peter > Fairly recently I was preparing to go off on a week where I'd be tutoring. > I was going to be focusing much more intensively on composition than I'd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I made one set where I marked up the plastic window with lines showing the > thirds, and one set for the Golden Section. Something like: http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg ? > As I was doing his, my mother happened to be visiting. She'd just come back > from a trip to Russia and was showing me her pictures. Mother's a painter, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > usually not really badly composed, but few were that striking. Few of these > pictures 'hit' either the thirds or the GS with their key elements. Like: http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg for example! > Second: of the ones that she'd taken time over, in about three quarters of > them a key picture element was aligned along either the thirds or the GS or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was more than enough to be significant - also that there were separate peaks > around the third and the GS, not just variation that encompassed both.) Like: http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg for example? > Third: my mother is clearly much more a Golden Section than a thirds person, > by about three to one, of the pictures where she had thought about the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seem to be more 'thirds' people, though this seems to become less common > when one works in formats other than the 3:2 proportions of 35mm.) So 3 out of four are red? http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg > Fourth: beforewe'd even thought about this experiment, we both agreed > entirely on which one was by far her best picture of the trip. This was of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frame' we both started to laugh: that flame fell _exactly_ on the > intersection of the horizontal and vertical Golden Sections. Please tell me: How much of the subject covered both? http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. > > Fairly recently I was preparing to go off on a week where I'd be > > tutoring. I was going to be focusing much more intensively on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Something like: http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg ? Yes, somewhat like. :-) I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two 'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). Apart from the fact that they work in rather different ways, I look at your drawing and see how far apart they are, not how close. As another poster pointed out, the difference will be about half an inch on an 8x10" print - now, to me that seems like a big difference. Think about how you compose, and see if you are really so sloppy that you wouldn't place elements a great deal more carefully than that: those of your pictures that I've seen suggest that you would. [SNIP] > > Fourth: beforewe'd even thought about this experiment, we both > > agreed entirely on which one was by far her best picture of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Please tell me: How much of the subject covered both? > http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg Absolutely none of it. As I said, the flame fell exactly centred on the intersection if the GS lines, and it was small enough that none of it came as close to the thirds as halfway between them and the GS lines. See my earlier comments about this, and that in a sample of pictures "there were separate peaks around the third and the GS, not just variation that encompassed both". Peter >I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two >'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). > >Apart from the fact that they work in rather different ways, I look at your >drawing and see how far apart they are, not how close. Exactly, Peter, exactly. Thank you. ;-) >>I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two >>'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ;-) I have to say, there is a noticeable difference between the "1/3" rule, and the golden ratio. Putting the main subject at the 1/3 point, puts them just a little too far toward the edge of the frame.....Moving them a little closer to the middle is frequently a big improvement. The golden ratio seems to do this very well...... > >>I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two > >>'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > closer to the middle is frequently a big improvement. The golden ratio > seems to do this very well...... Ok, here is a totally unscientific test but it is at least a test. I took an image that one might try and apply the rule of thirds to, a photo with a horizon. I produced two crops one at 1 to 1.618 and one at 1 to 1.5, or close to it in both cases. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71350467/original I make no assertions that this test is in any way general or really speaks to the differences between the two ratios and their effects on aesthetics, it is just one photo where there was a strong component that could be placed with some degree of accuracy. But at least for this one photo and picking the horizon as the element that we are going to place there is clearly a large difference between the two crops, and as much as it pains me I do like the 1 to 1.618 one much more. I have been reading this thread with some interest (other then the insults going back and forth) and unless I have missed it no one else has posted a photo showing what effect the different ratios have, I find this odd since it is not all that hard to do. And feel free to blast away at the composition of my photo. Scott >>>>I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two >>>>'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it in both cases. > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71350467/original Hmm, the kayakers heads are at 1/3 though <grin>. > I make no assertions that this test is in any way general or really > speaks to the differences between the two ratios and their effects on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott > Hmm, the kayakers heads are at 1/3 though <grin>. Well that is part of the unscientific bit. But I think the photos do show that the difference can be fairly large. I am thinking that rules for this kind of thing whether they be rule of thirds of golden ratio might not be as good as just eye balling what looks good. Scott > Ok, here is a totally unscientific test but it is at least a test. > I took an image that one might try and apply the rule of thirds to, a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the two crops, and as much as it pains me I do like the 1 to 1.618 one > much more. Isn't that down to the fact that the main subject is below the horizon line? In both pictures the boat is getting squeezed between the frame and the horizon, and in the "thirds" one there's just not enough space below the subject. A better test for a low horizon would be a subject that extended into the sky area. Until this thread it never occurred to me that the "rule" of thirds was something to be used as a precise positioning tool. I always saw it as a concise way of saying "If the subject's in the centre of the frame it'll cut the frame in half, and if it's too near the edge it'll look like a framing device and the viewer will wonder what you were trying to photograph, so start by putting the subject a bit off centre and then move around to see what works best." SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] > Matthew Winn wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > below the subject. A better test for a low horizon would be a subject > that extended into the sky area. Myself, I would consider the critical portion to be the people in the kayak, not the horizon line. The kayak draws my eye. > Until this thread it never occurred to me that the "rule" of thirds > was something to be used as a precise positioning tool. I always saw [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trying to photograph, so start by putting the subject a bit off centre > and then move around to see what works best." Whenever I'm consciously using the "rule of thirds" it has never occured to me to make it a precise measuring tool, either. I compose by sight roughly using the concept until it's pleasing to my eye. I could very well be closer to the "golden rule", or whatever it's called, and not now or care. I just see it as a rough concept. > Absolutely none of it. As I said, the flame fell exactly centred on the > intersection if the GS lines, and it was small enough that none of it came > as close to the thirds as halfway between them and the GS lines. See my > earlier comments about this, and that in a sample of pictures "there were > separate peaks around the third and the GS, not just variation that > encompassed both". To me that suggests nothing more than your mother is aware of the rules and uses them. If there truly was something special about the Golden Ratio then you would expect to see a clear difference in aesthetic appeal when something followed the ratio precisely compared with something that was slightly off. If you play two notes with frequencies in a ratio like 2:3 or 3:4 they sound harmonious, but if the ratio is even slightly different the result is discordant and strange, indicating that as far as music is concerned there's a clear aesthetic preference for certain ratios. You don't see that with visual proportions. It's not enough to find pictures that match the Golden Ratio and use that as evidence for the idea that the ratio is important. It's also necessary to show the opposite: that different ratios are displeasing. I've just measured a few pictures around my house, some of which are my own and some from others, and although a few come in at the Golden Ratio there are others where the significant elements are positioned at places such as 0.70, 0.68, or 0.58. One picture (not mine) would actually look far better were the subject _not_ placed 62% of the way from the top, as the existing placement has created an unnecessarily deep and uninteresting foreground. However, the photographer appears to have stuck to the rule even though a position of 69% looks better. SignatureMatthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] >>>Fairly recently I was preparing to go off on a week where I'd be >>>tutoring. I was going to be focusing much more intensively on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't understand why you post this as a way of showing how close the two > 'rules' are (other than because you think it will annoy TP). I can't control what annoys TP. I suspect it has something to do with his early childhood. I posted it to show simply (as I stated 5 years ago) that there is little real difference in placement of a subject at the 2/3 or GR point. TP went on to claim, insue, imply that I'm a moron for such a claim. I wish I had thought of putting up that simple graph then... ah well. As to TP, I will faint, and possibly have a coronary seizure the day that he posts a competent photograph. If that isn't incentive for TP I don't know what is! > Apart from the fact that they work in rather different ways, I look at your > drawing and see how far apart they are, not how close. As another poster [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deal more carefully than that: those of your pictures that I've seen suggest > that you would. It's not about absolute dimension as proportion. I look at an 8x10 at a foot or so away. I look at a 36 x 24 at a few feet away. So the proportions are what count, not how far apart they are in units. >>Please tell me: How much of the subject covered both? >>http://www.aliasimages.com/Thirds.jpg [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > separate peaks around the third and the GS, not just variation that > encompassed both". Well, that's exceptional. I don't shoot many images where a subject of interest is less than 5% in ea. direction of the frame. Exceptions to this include intersecting lines, of course. But I sincerely doubt that the "beauty" of an image is affected so much by such a small difference. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- 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. > It's an interesting exercise to look around and see how many things > have proportions that feel right but that are nowhere near the Golden > Ratio. If the precise ratio was that important you'd expect to find it > more often, instead of "close but not quite" values like 1.7 or 1.5. That it. Precisely. Or rather a damned fine approximation! Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. > Tony Polson wrote: > Compare this sophistication and (almost) scientific approach with the > sheer crudeness of the Rule of Thirds, which seems designed for people > who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Wow. The best snobbery I've seen in quite some time. Impressive. > Tony Polson wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > They didn't slavishly use the rule in every work they produced. But > they knew when to use it, why and, above all, how. The Scenario: Chicago, Illinois. 23rd story apartment balcony. Wayne Campbell, portrayed by Tony Polson, explaining to Garth, Benjamin, and Cassandra, why the original "Star Trek" will always be superior to "Star Trek: The Next Generation". >> Tony Polson wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >why the original "Star Trek" will always be superior to "Star Trek: The >Next Generation". Nah, "Next Generation" wins every time. Never equalled, let alone surpassed. ;-) >>> Tony Polson wrote: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > ;-) They are running the original series on one of our rerun channels right now....I have to say that I still prefer the original. (dated though it is) To use one of Spock's terms, It's "fascinating"....... > They didn't slavishly use the rule in every work they produced. But > they knew when to use it, why and, above all, how. And *do* please show us where you've deliberately, intuitively or hell, I'll give you a break: accidently used the golden ratio ... or even the rule of thirds... Signature-- 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. [SNIP] > In my case, these kinds of esoteric calculations might be made > while cropping in Photoshop after the fact, but I can't be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fate and my (hopeful) artistic development to improve my > compositions..... That's always been my position on compositional rules. Compose because it looks good, not because some rule tells you it 'should' look good. Knowing the rules can be useful on ocassion - but internalising a good sense of what makes a composition 'right' is infinitely more important. Peter > [SNIP] >> In my case, these kinds of esoteric calculations might be made [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Peter I think the idea behind the "rule" is when you analyze what "looks good" in the sense that it is pleasing to a large varied number of viewers, it appears there is some instance of these golden ratios will be in the composition, whether it's intentional or not. I don't see it as a tool to guide every composition, as much as one to help you understand why some compositions appeal more than others. >I think the idea behind the "rule" is when you analyze what "looks good" >in the sense that it is pleasing to a large varied number of viewers, it >appears there is some instance of these golden ratios will be in the >composition, whether it's intentional or not. That's it, exactly. Tony Polson wrote: >>I think the idea behind the "rule" is when you analyze what "looks good" >>in the sense that it is pleasing to a large varied number of viewers, it >>appears there is some instance of these golden ratios will be in the >>composition, whether it's intentional or not. > > That's it, exactly. Then please *do* show us some examples where you have naturally or deliberately done so. Signature-- 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. > > That's always been my position on compositional rules. Compose because it > > looks good, not because some rule tells you it 'should' look good. Knowing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't see it as a tool to guide every composition, as much as one to > help you understand why some compositions appeal more than others. > >> [SNIP] > >>> Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > object at either of those points, say a building or a tree, the less > than ½-inch difference will not be noticeable. Would you honestly say that when you compose a shot, or crop a print, that a difference of half an inch on a 10x8 wouldn't matter to you? Seriously, I'm sure you compose to much tighter parameters than that. I'd say that's a pretty big difference: there's plenty of landscape images I can recall where a 'key' tree might have a trunk 1/16" wide or less on a 10x8 - half an inch is a huge difference. Peter >>[SNIP] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on > the Rule of Thirds are very different - 1.500 against 2.000. Er, not quite. 3/2. And you used to say 1:2. Please be consistent, even if wrong. > I suppose 1.500 and 2.000 have a greater appeal to simpler people. It > takes a little sophistication to understand why 1.618 works and the > Rule of Thirds does not. As very few elements in a scene are "points" but subjects, it is rare indeed that they can map to precisely to 1.618. It's not about sophistication, certainly in any of your photos that we've seen. Signature-- 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. > Looking at the ratios will tell you why, because the Golden Section is > all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on > the Rule of Thirds are very different - 1.500 against 2.000. Dear Tony, Considering http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/GoldenRatioExtremeAndMean_1000.gif [1] AC = 1.618.. (SQRT(5)+1)/2 or phi (Ø). CB = 1 AB = 2.618.. AB / AC = Ø (1.618..) ; AC / AB = Ø^-1 (0.618..) ; AC / CB = Ø (1.618..) ; CB / AC = Ø^-1 (0.618..) Therefore it is easy to see that 0.618 (AC) falls very close to 2/3 (0.666) of the length of the line AB. That is why the "rule of thirds" is considered "close" to the golden ratio (w/i 8% of phi or 5% of the image dimension). Esp. as Colin and Alan mention with respect to an image element covering that point. IOW, without a ruler, a quick glance at the graphic referenced above would have one say that point C is 2/3 of the line. Does that help you? Regards, Dave. Ref: [1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html >> Looking at the ratios will tell you why, because the Golden Section is >> all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Does that help you? I have no need of your help. You clearly cannot understand the point of the Golden Ratio, which is significantly different to the Rule of Thirds. Perhaps the purpose of the Rule of Thirds is that it is suitable for people who can not, or will not understand the Golden Ratio. That was probably just as true in the 16th century as it is now. ;-) >>> Looking at the ratios will tell you why, because the Golden Section is >>> all about the ratios being the same at 1.618, whereas the ratios on [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > ;-) You haven't yet acknowledged that your understanding of the rule of thirds is faulty, given your post of 3/12 (12/3 to Americans) stating that 1.5 to 2 is the rule of thirds - a fundamental math error. And, as far as the Golden Mean/Section is concerned, the mathematical ratio of 0.618:1.618 is simply the modern way of expressing what was originally a Greek geometric construct with no numbers involved. It is not a magic ratio, nor does it have magical powers that raise it far above similar ratios. Such a position is precious, pompous even, specially when coupled with your obvious disdain for simple people like myself who properly understand the rule (tool) of thirds. What I can't understand is how you appear to know all about the Golden Section, its ratios, how the point of it is significantly different to any other ratio, and yet you appear not to understand the simple thirds ratio. Please, humour us simple folk, and enlighten us with pearls of wisdom from your superior intellect {:-) Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> I have no need of your help. You clearly cannot understand the point >> of the Golden Ratio, which is significantly different to the Rule of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thirds is faulty, given your post of 3/12 (12/3 to Americans) stating > that 1.5 to 2 is the rule of thirds - a fundamental math error. He's been hung up on that falsehood for about 5 years, so g'luck in brekaing him free of it. > And, as far as the Golden Mean/Section is concerned, the mathematical > ratio of 0.618:1.618 is simply the modern way of expressing what was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Please, humour us simple folk, and enlighten us with pearls of wisdom > from your superior intellect {:-) Or better yet with some presentation of a photograph with any (*any*) photographic merrit! Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. >>> I have no need of your help. You clearly cannot understand the point >>> of the Golden Ratio, which is significantly different to the Rule of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Cheers, > Alan That's my third (!) post directly challenging TP on his (lack of) understanding of the minor difference between thirds and the Golden Section. He st |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message