Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Rule of 3rds vs. The Golden Ratio...
Page 1 of 2 next>
Sep 14, 2011 02:47:25   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
I'm curious about how the rule of 3rds and the golden ratio dovetail in the realm of photography, if they do. There are some very highly educated, technical photographers in this forum and I would appreciate it if you would address this issue. I've subscribed to the top five photo magazines for many years now and have done a lot of reading otherwise in various books and I don't recall ever, not once, coming across any reference to The Golden Ratio and yet, as I understand, it is the underlying factor in everything that causes us to presume beauty. How can that not be a huge part of photography? Would that mean that beauty is not, after all, in the eye of the beholder but that beauty is a non-negotiable fact of life and those who don't see the beauty of a truly beautiful object/subject are out of kilter with the world. A discussion of The Golden Ratio can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio for anyone who wants to know about it or know more about it. Please share your thinking on this.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 06:12:15   #
JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
 
As far as I can tell, or would say, the two concepts have no connection apart from their foundation in mathematical ratios. The G/R is an irrational constant, as Wiki points out, of approximately 1.6, delineating the ratio between two segments of a line to the whole. (Plus a lot more fairly confusing geometry). The RoT has to do not with dimensions, but object placement within a frame of a scene, that is suggested to be aesthetically pleasing. The RoT appears to be much more 'fluid' and (here comes a good one..) "violate-able" than the G/R, at least in terms of strict adherence.

I was amused by the notes in the Wiki article that pointed out all the debunkings of earlier analysis that found G/Rs in everything from mollusc shells to the space between Brooke Shield's eyebrows...

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 06:22:18   #
arphot Loc: Massachusetts
 
The Golden Ratio: An Illustration

Maybe these can help (less Wiki, more friendly):

http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Eugene_Ilchenko/GoldenSection.html

http://www.advancedphotography.net/golden-ratio-golden-ratio-photography-composition/

http://fmphotocourses.blogspot.com/2006/10/advanced-composition-and-golden-ratio.html

http://www.photographyicon.com/goldenratio/

It would seem that there are some hard core similarities between the two with some artistic value placed on the GR.

This is the first I've ever heard of The Golden Ratio, so it was an interesting subject. Thanks for exposing us and bringing it to light :lol:

Reply
 
 
Sep 14, 2011 07:52:50   #
Greg Loc: Maryland
 
gessman wrote:
I'm curious about how the rule of 3rds and the golden ratio dovetail in the realm of photography, if they do. There are some very highly educated, technical photographers in this forum and I would appreciate it if you would address this issue. I've subscribed to the top five photo magazines for many years now and have done a lot of reading otherwise in various books and I don't recall ever, not once, coming across any reference to The Golden Ratio and yet, as I understand, it is the underlying factor in everything that causes us to presume beauty. How can that not be a huge part of photography? Would that mean that beauty is not, after all, in the eye of the beholder but that beauty is a non-negotiable fact of life and those who don't see the beauty of a truly beautiful object/subject are out of kilter with the world. A discussion of The Golden Ratio can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio for anyone who wants to know about it or know more about it. Please share your thinking on this.
I'm curious about how the rule of 3rds and the gol... (show quote)


Well, following that train of thought, wouldn't symmetry also violate the rule of thirds? It's been proven in multiple studies that symmetrical faces are perceived as more beautiful that non-symmetrical faces. That said, I think the Golden Ratio would apply more to an object in a picture, rather than it's placement within it. Also, the rule of thirds doesn't require strict adherence for an image to be pleasing to the eye. In fact some subject matter can be better to violate that rule.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 08:47:44   #
josoIII
 
They say the brain is hard wire to respond to that pattern, or to attempt to find that pattern. It looks to create association.
I think it is a complicate as understanding, how you look into a crowd of people and can pick the best looking ones out of that crowd, and the majority of people will zoom in on those select.

What triggers the mind to do that? The brain really calculated all those points on the face and came up with, he/she is good looking.

If this is the case, face detection on your camera should also do that for you, pick the best looking one from the group shoot.
Great way to break the ice with someone one, other than what's your sign, telling them that your camera pick them as the best looking one in the crowd.
Would be very helpful when photographing the homecoming queen when every ones cameras picked the 3 place contestant as the best looking. (maybe this might not be such a good idea)

Or maybe it could be used for facial point detection, and when you are shooting someones portrait, it would give you arrows to what direction and angle the camera wants you or the subject to move, to find that optimum facial beauty.
The you get the green light to shoot. Beauty SWAT team...

It may knock some people of their high horse, and give a needed confidence to others...

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 11:51:06   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Gentlemen, you've exceeded my expectations with your wisdom, not that I'm in a position to judge, but having seen such a scarcity of the mention of The Golden Ratio in my photography reading, and seeing the amount of attention the Rule of Thirds was receiving in this forum, I wondered if it would be appropriate to toss my question out there lest it detract from the daily act of good image shooting. I appreciate your responses and the links. There's some really good info in those links from which some of us will be able to radically benefit so long as we don't try to make it an absolute transition from art to mechanics. Shucks, I think I figured out what my problem was with not seeing enough about The Golden Ratio, and I quote a comment in one of the articles from one of the links, "Golden ratio is an advanced and complex composition technique." The key for me here is "advanced and complex." I just haven't got there yet. I guess some of the pages of all those photography magazines I've been reading were stuck together and therein lies my lack of notice of the mention of The Golden Ratio. Guess I'm gonna have to start lickin' my fingers for something other than after a lil' bit o' KFC.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 12:06:41   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
arphot wrote:
The Golden Ratio: An Illustration

It would seem that there are some hard core similarities between the two with some artistic value placed on the GR.

This is the first I've ever heard of The Golden Ratio, so it was an interesting subject. Thanks for exposing us and bringing it to light :lol:


See. That's what I'm talking about. How has that escaped those us who've been doing this stuff for so many years and presumably with our eyes open. Obviously, we are curious people demonstrated by the mere fact that we're in this forum. What's going on with this? Could this be an alien conspiracy or maybe another Vatican coverup, to keep the uninitiated and unwashed in the dark on what beauty really is? I think we need to get Nicolas Cage and Harrison Ford on this right away. It's probably them damn Masons or the Knights Templar.

Reply
 
 
Sep 14, 2011 13:02:01   #
arphot Loc: Massachusetts
 
Quote:
It's probably them damn Masons or the Knights Templar.


I thought I was the only one who thought that. :lol: I think there is just far too much visual and immediate stimulus nowadays (thank you internet/Google/Gates) that we see something we like and then the next thing you know we're all ADD or ADHD and can't concentrate . . . oooh look at the pretty cursor going across as I type . . . sorry, you get my drift.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 13:31:15   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
arphot wrote:
Quote:
It's probably them damn Masons or the Knights Templar.


I thought I was the only one who thought that. :lol: I think there is just far too much visual and immediate stimulus nowadays (thank you internet/Google/Gates) that we see something we like and then the next thing you know we're all ADD or ADHD and can't concentrate . . . oooh look at the pretty cursor going across as I type . . . sorry, you get my drift.


That's funny!

:D

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 13:32:44   #
arphot Loc: Massachusetts
 
gessman wrote:
arphot wrote:
Quote:
It's probably them damn Masons or the Knights Templar.


I thought I was the only one who thought that. :lol: I think there is just far too much visual and immediate stimulus nowadays (thank you internet/Google/Gates) that we see something we like and then the next thing you know we're all ADD or ADHD and can't concentrate . . . oooh look at the pretty cursor going across as I type . . . sorry, you get my drift.


That's funny!

:D


At least there's that. :lol:

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 15:02:03   #
MCHUGH Loc: Jacksonville, Texas
 
For many years I made my living as a Photographer. I used both the rule of thirds and the golden ratio. The rule of thirds when I took photographs to get me very close to the golden ratio. In the darkroom when printing I used the golden ratio. In using the GR I created a diagonal from one corner of the paper to the other and then went from that line perpendicular to a corner of the paper. There are four such points diagonal and perpendicular lines intersect and they are very close to the intersecting points in the rule of thirds. I put the primary subject or point of interest on one of the points. It does make a difference to the person looking at the finished print but they do not know why they like one photo more than another. Of course all rules are to be broken and/or bent if so desired.

Reply
 
 
Sep 14, 2011 15:21:27   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
MCHUGH wrote:
For many years I made my living as a Photographer. I used both the rule of thirds and the golden ratio. The rule of thirds when I took photographs to get me very close to the golden ratio. In the darkroom when printing I used the golden ratio. In using the GR I created a diagonal from one corner of the paper to the other and then went from that line perpendicular to a corner of the paper. There are four such points diagonal and perpendicular lines intersect and they are very close to the intersecting points in the rule of thirds. I put the primary subject or point of interest on one of the points. It does make a difference to the person looking at the finished print but they do not know why they like one photo more than another. Of course all rules are to be broken and/or bent if so desired.
For many years I made my living as a Photographer... (show quote)


So, see there - I knew there was someone in here who would "Moses" us out of our bewilderment. It's because we don't know why we like it but we do anyway - that's why we need both the r of 3s and gr, like MCHUGH said. That also must be why so many of us who don't know all of that stuff can occasionally get a picture that everyone really likes - 'cause we accidentally get it right. That's not very reassuring to some of us, MCHUGH. But thanks!

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 16:21:59   #
josoIII
 
MCHUGH wrote:
For many years I made my living as a Photographer. I used both the rule of thirds and the golden ratio. The rule of thirds when I took photographs to get me very close to the golden ratio. In the darkroom when printing I used the golden ratio. In using the GR I created a diagonal from one corner of the paper to the other and then went from that line perpendicular to a corner of the paper. There are four such points diagonal and perpendicular lines intersect and they are very close to the intersecting points in the rule of thirds. I put the primary subject or point of interest on one of the points. It does make a difference to the person looking at the finished print but they do not know why they like one photo more than another. Of course all rules are to be broken and/or bent if so desired.
For many years I made my living as a Photographer... (show quote)


can you please show an example of that, I am not following why you would add diagonal lines, when some enlargers already have RoT etched in a piece glass that use for set up, and they cast a shadow on your print paper, with those grid lines.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 16:49:53   #
MCHUGH Loc: Jacksonville, Texas
 
Yes Rot is etched in the glass on some enlargers and you can get very good results. The intersecting points are close to the Golden Ratio. The points shift as the paper size changes from 8x10 to 5x7 to 4x6. I am new to the forum and am not sure yet how to add a drawing to this response. When I learn how I will do just that and hopefully it will make be more understandable.

Reply
Sep 14, 2011 17:05:04   #
liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ
 
The so-called rule of third stems from a flawed study in 1850's by a statistics Prof who decided to learn what makes a great painting..yada yada yada..learn the rules then throw them out and have fun!

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.