Rule of Thirds: Musings on Composition

02/02/2005 08:35:20 PM · #26

The actual ratio is 1.61803....

Another way of visualizing it: imagine a line stretching from A to B with a point along that line marked as P. When point P is in the correct place, the ratio of A-P to P-B is the same as the ratio of A-B to A-P. Construct a recatngle based on the A-B dimension, with the other side being the A-P dimension, and that's a Golden Rectangle.

n interesting aspect of the Golden Rectangle is that if you construct a square from one end of the rectangle, such that all sides are equal to length A-P above, the remaining portion of the rectangle is itself a golden rectangle, standing at 90 degrees to the original orientation.

This is the reverse derivation of the spiral mentioned before; start with a very large golden rectangle and keep squaring off sections, and you will spiral into smaller and smaller squares indefinitely.

In any case, call it 1.62 for our purposes:

1 x 1.62
2 x 3.24
4 x 6.48
8 x 12.96

etc.

Yoiu can see that in terms of "whole units", the closest yoiu can come is 8x13. Incidentally, "legal" size tablets are close â�� 8.5 x 14, where it should be 8.5 x 13.77.

Robt.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2005 10:33:20 PM · #27

I always thought it was the ratio of 1:1.4142 (the square-root of two), obtained by starting with a square, placing compasses on the opposite corners, and drawing an arc (length of the hypotenuse of an isoceles right triangle) down to the baseline, and then from that point a perpendicular up to an extension of the top.

02/02/2005 10:42:40 PM · #28

Nope... Golden Ratio

Robt.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2005 10:49:46 PM · #29

Originally posted by bear_music:

Nope... Golden Ratio

Robt.

Ahhh ... the diagram I almost remembered is in Addendum #3. The center-point of the arc is not the opposite vertex but the midpoint of the bottom limb.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/02/2005 10:54:22 PM · #30

I want to propose a silver rectangle, a bronze one, one of brass and another of copper, although I'm more partial to wood and stone.

In the silver rectangle P would be very close to the (mathematically) 'correct' place, but never 'on' it. In the bronze one P would be found on the half-way point between A and B, but further away from P in the silver rectangle than from A or B in the bronze one. In the brass rectangle P would, indeed, occupy the 'correct' point, but only with respect to a horizontal plane. Its vertical position would be central. The reverse should also signify brass, with vertical 'correctness' and horizontal symmetry. In the copper rectangle...

My favourite one is the blank rectangle. P would so far from anything, even NASA wouldn't be able to find it - but there it is, right under our nose, looking at us with a face like a sky.

;-)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2005 10:58:20 PM · #31

I have to go make more coffee now : )

02/02/2005 11:02:02 PM · #32

Yup. that's a one-pot post for sure...

jejeje Zeus...

Robt.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/02/2005 11:11:33 PM · #33

Originally posted by bear_music:

Yup. that's a one-pot post for sure...

jejeje Zeus...

Well, I appreciate this thread and the articulate efforts that come with it. When the numbers of numbers began to exceed the numbers of letters, however, tedium set in and I was, suddenly, overcome with a capriole itch.

I apologize for the diversion. After all, I worship at the same temple.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2005 11:13:22 PM · #34

Originally posted by zeuszen:

... After all, I worship at the same temple.

Pray to the Queen of Caffeine?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2005 11:14:38 PM · #35

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Wait a second, I made sure to write out my numbers in letters ... it's a great thread though : )

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/03/2005 12:25:13 AM · #36

I have to admit, I don't measure my composition with any amount of mathematical precision. I recognize the principle and, by and large, aim to compose in accordance with it.

The reality of it is that composition is a fickle thing, which frequently requires considerations beyond the mere placing of a subject. Light and dark, colours, lines, shapes and gradations exist in the average photograph, all of which bear on P with their relative weights. Balance is what we're after, a balance true to a specific picture.

I find myself squinting or stepping away from it or both sometimes. I cover parts of it with my thumb or piece of paper. I rotate the damn thing. Why, to I wring lilies from an acorn? No, to get a sense of it.

I may need to, temporarily, 'disable' distractions. I need to be able to visualize the image as a whole (as opposed to the sum of its parts). I need to juggle things around a little, so I can, sensibly, ask 'what if' with any hope of a response. I need to visualize a result. I need to compare the result to everything I've seen arranged, juxtaposed, positioned and ordered before. I need to make my peace with it. It has to feel 'true'.

If it doesn't feel true, I have no conviction. When I have no conviction, I can still shoot an elastic band at it to mark a spot. Things can get quite primal: first thought - best thought, pebbles, anything short of conjecture. Point is, you wrestle with this beast to understand it. You have to, also, know when to let go and discover it new, no matter how old the hat.

In the end, when you have a satisfactory result you should be convinced it is so. How could you be not convinced now that it is 'true' if you have measured yourself?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

02/03/2005 01:04:16 AM · #37

I'm a moderator at a poetry workshop, an editor, a book designer... This discussion, especially Zeus's last post, reminds me of the whole "prosody" debate in poetry. Prosody is the art of measuring metrical effects, "scanning" lines to see how they work. Some poets, usually not very good ones, "write by scansion"; they say "I need an iamb here, I need a trochee here...", whatever.

Good poets write by ear; the art of prosody is to go back and measure what you (or others) have done, either to see why it is working so well or, more usually, to try to pinpoint what it is about the line that is NOT working. And when we teach poetry we teach prosody, the mechanics of rhythm and meter. Basically you need to learn the "rules", internalize them, make them second nature, before you can become truly creative. Creation in the absence of awareness of the mechanics of any art is a scattershot approach, usually, unless one is some sort of a naive prodigy who "knows" these things from the get-go at a visceral level.

So it is with composition. Speaking for myself, i certainly don't frame a picture saying "I need a diagonal here, I need a point-of-interest here.." I do whatever I do more or less unconsciously, but I have internalized all these rules and now I just let my unconscious take over a lot of the time. Much of what i do is unconventional, but it is at a deep level intentional. Like my architecture entry, which was criticized by many as being an inadequate composition; but I made this picture fully aware of what i intended to do, and I had the opportunity in post-processing to "correct the errors of composition" and chose not to do so, because it was doing what i wanted it to do. Not surprisingly, few voters agreed, but this doesn't change that I accomplished what I wished to accomplish.

In studying images to "learn" from them, or to "critique" them, however, it is very useful to take a more structured approach. If an image appeals greatly to you, take the time to dissect the techniques of its composition and see why it works so well. Likewise, if it does NOT please you, especially if it looks like it ought to but does not, then also take the time to dissect it and see if you can isolate what's "wrong" with the composition, that it makes you feel this way. This is the essence of a workshop IMO.

Therefore, it's good to promote awareness of these "rules" or "models" of composition, not so that others will follow them slavishly but so that they can determine how what their eye sees and what their heart says fits within the compositional spectrum that comprises the visual history of art through the ages.

Robt.

whagerbaumer

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/03/2005 01:06:21 AM · #38

Here is a 4x6 1.5 photo:

And here it is as approximately a golden ratio 1.618 (640x396) borders included.

Note: any photos to be sold by dpcprints will have to meet their aspect ratios, which can be done by using larger borders along the long side of aspect less than 1.618 formats or by using larger borders along the short sides for formats with aspect ratios greater than 1.618.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 02:14:47.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

02/03/2005 01:16:26 AM · #39

I think I have finally perfected my steak ala electric stove technique. This is sooo good and this beer is so...

Oh, sorry. Wrong thread.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/03/2005 01:33:07 AM · #40

Originally posted by bear_music:

Good poets write by ear; the art of prosody is to go back and measure what you (or others) have done, either to see why it is working so well or, more usually, to try to pinpoint what it is about the line that is NOT working. And when we teach poetry we teach prosody, the mechanics of rhythm and meter. Basically you need to learn the "rules", internalize them, make them second nature, before you can become truly creative. Creation in the absence of awareness of the mechanics of any art is a scattershot approach, usually, unless one is some sort of a naive prodigy who "knows" these things from the get-go at a visceral level.

I want to meet a prosody prodigy ...

If you aren't already involved, check out OEDILF

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

02/03/2005 01:41:02 AM · #41

I suggest that the rule of thirds (ROT) works for only one reason:
It makes pictures pleasing to the human eye.

It works in exactly the same way that white space on the printed pages of a magazine make it pleasing to the human eye. The ROT is photography's way of adding "white space" to an image for the same purpose.

Like in the case of the printed page, this is unrelated to mathematics or the "Fibonnaci Series" of numbers. Don't get hung up on calculating numbers.

The ROT is just a subset of the concept of perspective in photography. Photographs that take a different view or perspective on a subject often are the most interesting. ROT is just one way to accomplish that.

Should you apply the ROT to all your images? Of course not.

Should you apply it to some images? Absolutely, but only if it "works". That is, it makes your composition more interesting than it is without it.

Does the ROT have to conform to mathematical precision to be "correct"? Nope, not at all, but that often works best based on the framing of the images.

There used to be a good tutorial on the ROT on DPC, but it has disappeared along with some other good ones. A decent basic description of the ROT is found here:
//www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html

nsbca7

02/03/2005 01:42:20 AM · #42

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I want to meet a prosody prodigy ...

Where would you like to meet?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/03/2005 01:55:49 AM · #43

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I want to meet a prosody prodigy ...

Where would you like to meet?

It would have to be inexpensive ... based on our locations, North Platte, Nebraska seems a likely choice.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

02/03/2005 02:07:14 AM · #44

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I want to meet a prosody prodigy ...

Where would you like to meet?

It would have to be inexpensive ... based on our locations, North Platte, Nebraska seems a likely choice.

I'll be in Memphis the weekend.