josoIII

Use Reply, not the Quick Reply. you will have an option to add File/picture attachment. once you browse and open the file you want to attach, then click send.

Strubbles

Thanks to all for the information and the links... and the discussion.

MCHUGH Loc: Jacksonville, Texas

Thanks josoIII for the info on how to add a drawing. Even if I don't agree with those who don't care about the rule of thirds and the Golden Ratio, they certainly have the right to do as they please. Any rule in photography is breakable and should be broken sometimes but only if there is a valid reason. I have often done it according to the rules and then played with it to see what happened if the rule was broken. Having fun is what it is all about. When making a living rules are not broken too often. As in all things in life when rules are broken sometime there is a price to pay, and in the case of selling a product the price is lost of income.

Any way look at the attached drawing. You will notice a minute difference, but it does make a difference in perception. It is less in 5x7 and 4x6. It is most noticeable in non standard size final prints.

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

Even though this thread wained some time ago I will add my 2 cents worth as my perspective may help someone wondering about this. I found pretty much the same as others about the origin of the Golden Ratio although I think the RoT is just a simplification of it. I was questioning the effect of harmony that it is supposed to give a piece of art (photograph or otherwise. Woodworkers have been using it for years) So I thought I would do a little investigation of my own rather that trust the wisdom o f the Renaissance Masters or the repetitive insistence of the golden rule in photography. So here is what I did.

I took 400 (out of about 10,000) from another forum and looked at them in terms of how the ratios had been used in their composition; everything from precise application to great deviation. I asked the photographers why they composed the image the way the did and most said "it just felt right". In other words they had on clue that they had used the one of the ratios. None had ever heard of the GR.

The other thing that surprised me is that the application of the ratio did result in an image that was more harmonious (I'm not sure that pleasing is the right term). BUT my deviating from the ratio one could create increase tension in the scene. For example if I had a picture of a rattlesnake (a subject that has a lot of tension) by composing it to comply with the ratio I would be adding harmony which in is conflict with my subject but if I put that guys eye dead center I would increase the tension and if I cropped it square, even more so. Try it, and see if I am wrong.

I now consider the ratios as concepts to create harmony or tension as the scene suggests. This then would make the RoT just a slight deviation for the GR. Considering all the other elements of composition lending a feel or mood to an image that deviation would not have much effect.

The other thing I discovered was that in scenes that used multiple version of the ratio, i.e.,Golden Angle, Rectangle, Triangle, Arc, Diagonal, etc. with the various elements of the scene I what more greatly attracted to it and would linger on it longer; others interview did also. If you are into that kind of analysis you can see that in the comments in certain posts. Many of the most positive comments are on photos that have multiples... and commonly the photographer don't know what compelled them to take the photo or to compose it the way they did.

I have satisfied my mind that the Masters were probably right in spite of my original doubts. But the are just a concept not a rule or even a guideline.

Works for me....

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Go to Google and enter Rule of thirds / Golden Ratio your question will be answered.

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

PatrickTheCop Loc: Spartanburg, SC

Why do those of us in search of light have to be referred to as, "them damn Masons?" Relax, not picking a fight I know it was in jest as is this reply. :)

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Good morning gdwsr,
I am hoping that you made an innocent typo when you mention 'on' and really meant 'no' and if that is the case then surely we are inventing rules purely for the sake of justifying something that looks nice, or looks right? Is it really a 'rule' or is it opinion that gets accepted as what is right?

I like what I like and dislike what I dislike and I give less than a flying fig about so called rules that I have never heard of and certainly did not compulsorily comply with. Should something really be in one third of an image and something else in another third? Or do we conveniently suggest 'Not always' Or that is the exception that makes the rule.

Is it a bunch of very clever people making 'rules' to justify their very existence as to me beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder. When I look at all the critiques on the analysis page just about everyone has an opinion regarding what is right with an image and what is wrong with it. It is not uncommon for all these learned folk to disagree with each other regarding layout, looks or content so what is right and what is wrong? My thoughts are that this is not an easy question to answer, but if there are 'rules' then it should be??

To me I would like to think it's right if the photographer likes it, and if they dislike something and have done it because the 'rule' says that is how it should, or must be done then what a waste of time and that is not something I would want to be a part of.

My Golden Rule is to shoot what I like, in a layout I like.

Will it comply with these stipulations or rules?

Who knows but if it does it will not be by design, which then makes a mockery of these 'rules'. If someone had never heard of a rule and they have produced an image that complies with this so called rule then 'foul'.. They have not complied with anything... They have enjoyed the day and took a nice picture? :D

Your post quite correctly points out that a significant number of photographers had not heard of these so called 'rules' but had still taken very nice pictures, so to me they are mere words (not rules) that perhaps offer guidance as it looks like those that know the 'rules' are the experts on the topic and perhaps do not need 'rules' to know how to take a good picture?

Why not give this 'Golden Gizzmo' a completely new name and congratulate the uninitiated for complying with it? They would definitely be none the wiser.

gdwsr Loc: Northern California

Yeah, just a typo; there is another in that sentence too.

I agree with you entirely. Largely my reason for posting. I think many people with an intuitive ability to composes a photo to project the feeling and mood that they desire are lead astray by the those touting the verities of the Rule of Thirds. That actually applies to all the other "rules" of composition; they are Concepts not rules.

I also strongly agree that a "good" picture is one that the photographer is happy with, one that depicts what he or she was striving for. In many posts here the photographer asks, "what do you think?" or "suggestions?". I would prefer that ask "does this make you feel sad?" or "I was trying to capture the tranquil feel of this place. How did I do?" or "I am trying to make this photo look natural. Does it look over saturated?" You get the point.

In defense of the experts here. When the photographer doesn't ask a specific question (even for a "just sharing" post) the actually see the photo different. One may make one comment about it if the photo was hanging in a gallery and a different comment if it was on a greeting card.

I try never to say: "I like it" or "I think it works" or stuff like that (sometimes I get in hurry and slip, but I try) Rather I try to comment on the feel or even just that I enjoyed viewing it.

I think you and I are on the same page. Thanks for reiterating what I was trying to express.

angiehunt Loc: Florida

In PE 10, when cropping you have a choice between the rule of thirds grid and the golden ratio. I was familiar with GR, having written a book on beauty , etc., but when it comes to cropping my photos, I find that not every image works well with the GR--Maybe one in fifty. To use it would mean cropping out something important, so most of the time I go with the RoT.

But still, it's a nice piece of knowledge to have in one's toolbox. :-)

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Years ago I was talking to an artist and photographer about this very subject. She said she used the GR extensively when composing her paintings but said it was much more of a challenge when shooting. Although GR was deeply ingrained into her view of things she rarely was able to apply the GR effectively as the subjects being shot didn't place themselves according to the GR. :-D

So, the lesson I learned there was GR is easier to apply when composing a painting and the RoT was more practical to apply to photography. Then again, all rules are made to be broken in the world of art.

gessman Loc: Colorado

To close out this thread perhaps for good, I had already researched this issue prior to raising the question. I wanted to see what kind of wisdom was available in uhh about this subject. Mission accomplished! There was a documentary on the National Geographic Channel that I had watched much earlier dealing with why we perceive beauty to be as we do and found it interesting in conjunction with all the talk about photographic composition. It seems that the tendency is hard wired into our brains and almost defies explanation.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

The rule of thirds is easy to do yet a lot of people still get it wrong. The golden ratio is a very specific spiral that is much harder to perceive when framing a subject.Therefore, even less used.

Woodworking golden ratio is what dictates the width and depth of furniture not quite 321 as it is 1:1.8 It makes proportions more pleasing but seems to have disappeared when chipboard and mdf 'fittings' became the norm.

if you look at a conch shell or a snail shell the spiral is the same ratio no matter the size. If you measure leaves most comply with the ratio. It is considered therefor as being 'natural' nothing to do with beauty per sec.

A lot of ART 'science' gets transferred to photography out of context. You might as well insist on having sheep in all religious photos or wormy apples around 'ladies of ill repute'.
Science came after art and in the 18th century was expected to be able to 'explain' why some art was good and some great. Up to you whether you believe science can do this...

gessman Loc: Colorado

From my readings, it would seem to involve a little more than a spiral and would seem to involve the natural balance and beauty inherent in nature in almost all things, not merely those things manufactured by man. I alluded to the documentary on human beauty and did not mean to imply that that was all that is involved in The Golden Ratio but it is being used to explain the proportions that are present in our general perception of what is beautiful in the human face and is doing so in terms of balance and measurement, not spiral. Perhaps I don't know enough to read between the lines of what you've said but you seem to be offering an overly-simplistic explanation of what The Golden Ratio is.