| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2011 01:07:13 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My original reply, Margaret, was somewhat of a jest in reference to your statements in the DNMC thread. ;-) |
I knew that, I was just too annoyed to smile :) |
|
|
|
08/25/2011 01:08:12 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My original reply, Margaret, was somewhat of a jest in reference to your statements in the DNMC thread. ;-) |
I knew that, I was just too annoyed to smile :) |
I'm never too annoyed to smile :D |
|
|
|
08/25/2011 01:47:33 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
I smiled when I saw this post because on Tuesday I was reading "The Art of Photography, an approach to personal expression" by Bruce Barnbaum and came across a paragraph that I almost posted here on DPC straight away. But I'll post it now since it seems very relevant to this thread.
The whole chapter (about myths in photography) is interesting, but the paragraph that made me smile is:
Originally posted by The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum:
The Rule of Thirds is a cornerstone for much teaching about composition - sinking to its lowest ebb in camera club and professional photographic competitions, where it's considered the epitome of fine composition. It's an idea that belongs in the trashcan |
The quote was prefaced by a lot of other text, this was merely his conclusion. He was basically saying that whilst it is a valid compositional guideline, images that do not follow the ROT are not bad. Different compositional techniques are also perfectly valid and should be explored etc. You get the gist. |
The rest of that book is quite nice, too ;)
I'd also lean others towards Susan Sontag's On Photography and Robert Adams' Beauty in Photography, which are both interesting discussions. Really, most of Adams' stuff is interesting- he writes quite well about theory and visual ideas. |
|
|
|
08/25/2011 11:47:32 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
Here explained with Donald Duck.
|
That was great! My wife, daughter, and I watched it.
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
Here is a beautiful video about how math and numbers relate to some of the structures found in nature. Also related to the golden spiral. |
Thanks for this one, too! |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 12:08:50 AM · #30 |
ROT is ex post facto. It's the result of people looking at beautiful shots and trying to figure out why they're beautiful. In other words, it's just a guess.
Always putting your subject on an intersection of the thirds is like always using lots of red because it's an exciting color.
Use the techniques appropriate for that particular image. It's an art, not a science. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 09:57:17 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
ROT is ex post facto. It's the result of people looking at beautiful shots and trying to figure out why they're beautiful. In other words, it's just a guess.
Always putting your subject on an intersection of the thirds is like always using lots of red because it's an exciting color.
Use the techniques appropriate for that particular image. It's an art, not a science. |
Probably one of the most useful things I've ever seen Don say. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 10:06:22 AM · #32 |
If you think you are prisoner of ROT then you probably are!!!
|
|
|
|
08/26/2011 02:07:41 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
ROT is ex post facto. It's the result of people looking at beautiful shots and trying to figure out why they're beautiful. In other words, it's just a guess.
Always putting your subject on an intersection of the thirds is like always using lots of red because it's an exciting color.
Use the techniques appropriate for that particular image. It's an art, not a science. |
Probably one of the most useful things I've ever seen Don say. |
Not to be pedantic, but you didn't actually "see" him say it. For that matter, he likely didn't even "say" it.
...ok, going back to my prison to ROT... |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 02:12:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
ROT is ex post facto. It's the result of people looking at beautiful shots and trying to figure out why they're beautiful. In other words, it's just a guess.
Always putting your subject on an intersection of the thirds is like always using lots of red because it's an exciting color.
Use the techniques appropriate for that particular image. It's an art, not a science. |
Probably one of the most useful things I've ever seen Don say. |
Not to be pedantic, but you didn't actually "see" him say it. For that matter, he likely didn't even "say" it.
...ok, going back to my prison to ROT... |
Actually, I always say everything I type out loud. And Cory's been stalking me for months, so...
I wish you could see me say HLKJHFDLKHFDILUHDF |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 02:20:26 PM · #35 |
| shoot. all the time I spent ignoring this thread I thought it was about rotation. and all the time it was rot. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 02:24:35 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by tnun:
shoot. all the time I spent ignoring this thread I thought it was about rotation. and all the time it was rot. |
I initially thought it was a new Harry Potter movie. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 02:38:09 PM · #37 |
For me the ROT is a starting place. When nothing in the composition calls out in any way, it is useful. When something seems to want to be centered, or pushed further to the edge to create a different effect, the ROT is still there, but intentionally violating it creates an effect. You are either forcing attention to the static center, or creating pressure by going to the periphery, past the third mark. The rule does not cease to exist when it is flouted, but you are intentionally transgressing to create an effect.
While the golden spiral and the like are nice comparisons, they can't be causal because the ROT applies in square compositions or extremely elongated compositions as well. Why the ROT is pleasing is anybody's guess, but it is. A friend suggested that it is a function of the elements being at area of greatest vision, the intersection of the rods and cones in the retina, when the eye centers on the image's center. Sounded like biological determinism to me but I couldn't think why it was any worse than any other theory. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 03:17:16 PM · #38 |
Random Operator Thrust
Remote Occular Timing
Respectable Older Thesis
Robust Order Test
Ruined Oversimplified Trash
|
|
|
|
08/26/2011 03:27:59 PM · #39 |
| random operator thrust has me a little worried: did you mean Right Off Target? |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 04:11:46 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by tnun:
random operator thrust has me a little worried: did you mean Right Off Target? |
Away from the jockstrap, boy - think camera strap, like randomly thrusting the "take picture" button downwards. hehe |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 05:00:10 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
While the golden spiral and the like are nice comparisons, they can't be causal because the ROT applies in square compositions or extremely elongated compositions as well. |
The golden ratio still applies to both those shapes. I think it is causal. I have trouble believing that thirds have some inherent power.
And don't forget the counterbalancing rule: Polishing Thirds. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 05:27:56 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And don't forget the counterbalancing rule: Polishing Thirds. |
ROFL!
|
|
|
|
08/26/2011 06:21:59 PM · #43 |
I think of ROT as the poor man's Golden Mean. It works because it occurs naturally. Follow it & you follow Mother Nature. Not necessarily a bad thing. If you ignore ROT, nothing bad happens. An already good shot will not be harmed by ROT. A composition that has nothing much going for it can use ROT to benefit a little bit from the power of Nature.
I looked over my own portfolio & most of my work seems to ignore ROT (maybe that's why I don't score very high). My obsession is the edges of the composition. I call it framing the shot & I'm not talking borders. I'm amazed nobody ever talks about it here. The edges of the comp are where I decide what not to include. It's the boundary that implies the story outside the shot. The shot lives or dies by its edges. IMHO. I have never tried to put anything about framing the shot in my comments. I feel I will be misunderstood or give offense where none was intended. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 06:25:17 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The edges of the comp are where I decide what not to include. It's the boundary that implies the story outside the shot. The shot lives or dies by its edges. IMHO. I have never tried to put anything about framing the shot in my comments. I feel I will be misunderstood or give offense where none was intended. |
You shouldn't worry about that. It's always fascinating to gain in sight into how others construct their images.
R. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 07:20:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You shouldn't worry about that. It's always fascinating to gain in sight into how others construct their images.
R. |
I put a comment on The Potato Eater motivated by my interest in the edges of a shot. FWIW. Hope you like. |
|
|
|
08/26/2011 08:36:31 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You shouldn't worry about that. It's always fascinating to gain in sight into how others construct their images.
R. |
I put a comment on The Potato Eater motivated by my interest in the edges of a shot. FWIW. Hope you like. |
It's a lovely comment. You should do more of that sort of stuff :-) We all should, actually, me most of all.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-08-26 20:37:03. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 02:14:17 PM EDT.
