Rule of thirds?
Jon C. Zaring
or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the rule of
ninths. How does this work?
Thanks
Jon C. Zaring (jo...@uvsg.com)
Curtis Leeds
>
>I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements. What
can
>or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the rule of
>ninths. How does this work?
>
>
vertically and horizontally, and then place the image's "center of
interest" at one of the points where those lines intersect.
Tim
>I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements. What can
>or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the rule of
>ninths. How does this work?
Joseph Davidchik
In article <4loj2s$1d...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, DZJ...@prodigy.com
(Curtis Leeds) wrote:
> jo...@uvsg.com (Jon C. Zaring) wrote:
> >
> >I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements. What
> can
> >or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the rule of
> >ninths. How does this work?
> >
> >
> The "rule of thirds" has you divide the frame in equal thirds both
> vertically and horizontally, and then place the image's "center of
> interest" at one of the points where those lines intersect.
If you fallow any sort of rule to be able to shoot, you might as well
throw your camera against the wall.
Forget it. Just shoot according to what YOU like in you image not
according to where this has go here or here..
Curtis Leeds
That is ignorance talking. All great art: photography, painting,
sculpture, all revolve around rules of composition and sight. Learning
and understanding these rules are essential to good photography. They aid
is translating the image that exists in the mind's eye into the
artificial and two-dimensional world of photography. That is not to say
that the rules are always to be followed - oftentimes they are to be
broken. Nor is it so say that all the rules have yet to be written - only
a fool would believe that. But the same principals used by da Vinci, Van
Gogh, Monet all translate to photography as well. If you refuse to learn
from the real masters, you are shortchanging yourself.
Chris Graham and Harumi Yamamoto
Jon C. Zaring wrote:
>
> I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements. What can
> or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the rule of
> ninths. How does this work?
>
I'm not sure what the rule of ninths is, although I imagine its just a version of the
rule of thirds.
The main thing about the rule of thirds is in telling you where to position the centre
of interest in your photo. There are four "optimal" spots to position the centre of
interest. To find them, imagine two vertical lines in your viewfinder that divide the
image into thirds. Also imagine two horizontal lines that also divide the image into
thirds. Your centre of interest should be positioned at one of the four points where
these lines cross. In general, this helps create a more dynamic image, rather than
having your subject plunked dead in the middle of the photo.
But don't forget - rules are a guide. Use them if they help you make better photos, but
ignore them if you think another approach will better communicate what you want to do
with a photo.
Good luck,
Chris Graham
--
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
hy...@inforamp.net
http://www.inforamp.net/~hychg
MARTIN TAI
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
-> > jo...@uvsg.com (Jon C. Zaring) wrote:
-> > >
-> > >I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements.
-> What > can
-> > >or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently heard of the
-> rule of > >ninths. How does this work?
-> > >
-> > >
-> > The "rule of thirds" has you divide the frame in equal thirds both
-> > vertically and horizontally, and then place the image's "center of
-> > interest" at one of the points where those lines intersect.
->
-> If you fallow any sort of rule to be able to shoot, you might as well
-> throw your camera against the wall.
->
-> Forget it. Just shoot according to what YOU like in you image not
-> according to where this has go here or here..
On the contrary, composition rules in photography or in painting
are the condensation of past experience. It is quite important for
beginner to learn the rules, master them.
Only then, he can be free on his own.
Shawn Foo
MARTIN TAI (marti...@westonia.com) wrote:
: Joseph Davidchik wrote:
: ->
: -> If you fallow any sort of rule to be able to shoot, you might as well
: -> throw your camera against the wall.
: ->
: -> Forget it. Just shoot according to what YOU like in you image not
: -> according to where this has go here or here..
:
: On the contrary, composition rules in photography or in painting
: are the condensation of past experience. It is quite important for
: beginner to learn the rules, master them.
: Only then, he can be free on his own.
Agreed, it can be quite obvious when somebody has broken a rule because
they didn't know it as compared with somebody who broke a rule because
they knew the rule and knew the picture would look better if the rule
was not applied..
Shawn
--
Hear the joke about the bed?
It hasn't been made up yet...
The pseudo user is back... with more code than ever!
pse...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
C. J. Morgan
Curtis Leeds (DZJ...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>> jo...@uvsg.com (Jon C. Zaring) wrote:
JCZ:>> I know the rule of thirds breaks the picture into three elements.
JCZ:>> What can or cannot go into each third? Also, I've recently
JCZ:>> heard of the rule of ninths. How does this work?
CL: > The "rule of thirds" has you divide the frame in equal thirds
CL: > both vertically and horizontally, and then place the image's
CL: > "center of : interest" at one of the points where those lines
CL: > intersect.
Hi Curtis & Jon,
C.J. here. For what it's worth...
I grew up learning the Rule Of Thirds, but in retrospect, I found it more
an interest of study than of much practical value "out in the field."
The Rule Of Thirds is a compositional rule that's been deduced from
accomplished fact rather than being applied to create it. In other
words, while it may be used by those of us who are constructing images
out in the field, it's perhaps more useful just for those who study art
history.
The pit-fall of using such a rule while "out in the field" is that all
too often it turns into a habit which acts as a poor substitute for what
should otherwise be thoughful and deliberate compositional decision making.
When I first started photography, I shot the way I habitually saw
everyday -- center of my interest in the center of my visual field (which
then became center of interest in the center of the picture).
Learning the Rule Of Third started me thinking about other places in the
viewfinder space that I might place the center of interest. But like I
said, soon this became habit as well, and while my images were now
different, they weren't much better.
Over the years, and now trying to find something of value to pass on to
other photographers, I often avoid talking about the Rule Of Thirds.
Rather, I suggest that any composition will develop quite naturally if
you (1) clearly establish what you want to show in the image, and (2)
spend at least an equal amount of time in an effort to get rid of
unwanted clutter.
I might humbly add to this that there have been times when I have fallen
back on the Rule Of Thirds as a last resort. This usually happens when
the subject matter and what I want to show about it becomes somewhat of
an ambiguous problem. If the composition does not readily present itself
to my eye as I look at the scene before me, I'll then consider what my
center of interest is and likewise consider applying the Rule Of Thirds at
that time.
In this respect, the Rule Of Thirds is useful as a image designer's
"safety net", but more often is the case that that the design and
composition of an image grows naturally when you consider what you want
to show and at the same time consider ways of getting rid of unwanted
clutter.
Hope that helps,
C.J.
--
___________________________
C.J. Morgan
ch...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
___________________________
C. J. Morgan
JD > If you fallow any sort of rule to be able to shoot, you might as well
JD > throw your camera against the wall.
JD >
JD > Forget it. Just shoot according to what YOU like in you image not
JD > according to where this has go here or here..
MT > On the contrary, composition rules in photography or in painting
MT > are the condensation of past experience. It is quite important for
MT > beginner to learn the rules, master them.
MT > Only then, he can be free on his own.
Martin,
My own experience with photographic composition has not been altogether
conguent with your above comments.
For the most part, I have found that rules pertaining to the practice of
composition do more to constrict a budding photographer than to inspire
or help him/her.
As the American photographer Edward Weston once put it:
Such rules and laws are deduced from accomplished
fact; they are the product of reflection and
after-examination, and are in no way a part of the
creative imputus. When subject matter is forced
to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no
freshness of vision. Following rules of composition
can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial
cliches.
Better that we should stay clear of such rules which only stagnate our
visual awareness, and instead look upon each new scene for its own merits.
Rather than just considering where our center of interest "should" go in
the image (often with oblivious regard to those things in the scene that
are junking up our image), let's instead consider what we want to say,
what we want to show, along with ways and means of getting rid of
unwanted clutter.
Good composition is not something we need intentionally strive for by
following rules or any other means. Good composition rather grows as
a natural by-product when the form of our images follows the function
they serve.
If we have a clear idea of what we want the viewer to see when we go
about making our images, and if we likewise make whatever reasonable
efforts to eliminate unwanted clutter from the images we are making, this
problem of composition tends to work itself out without having to imposed
learned compositional rules.
Cody Armstrong
C. J. Morgan (ch...@torfree.net) wrote:
: Hi Curtis & Jon,
: C.J. here. For what it's worth...
good post C.J.
: The pit-fall of using such a rule while "out in the field" is that all
: too often it turns into a habit which acts as a poor substitute for what
: should otherwise be thoughful and deliberate compositional decision making.
good point, art "rules" inhibit free thinking and creativity.
: Over the years, and now trying to find something of value to pass on to
: other photographers, I often avoid talking about the Rule Of Thirds.
: Rather, I suggest that any composition will develop quite naturally if
: you (1) clearly establish what you want to show in the image, and (2)
: spend at least an equal amount of time in an effort to get rid of
: unwanted clutter.
: C.J.
: C.J. Morgan
: ch...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Good explaination. In my opinion, static rules for personal expression
is an oxymoron...the deliberate breaking or disregard of art rules,
photographing what *you* see or want to portray rather than what the
critic/text book/"experts" expect....'nuff said.
Cody
P.S. I'm working on a landscape...is it ok if I put the horizon dead
center in the pic? :)
--
Joseph Davidchik
In article <4ltssr$k...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>, DZJ...@prodigy.com
(Curtis Leeds) wrote:
You are saying that these painters sat there and thought how they were going
to compose their art by some rule? You call me ignorant?
My whole idea is that a photographer takes what he feels like inside, not
based off
some textbook or guidelines. I photography accoding to my own composition,
if you
don't like it...SO WHAT! It is my own work. In the same ideas that the
painters that you mentioned
painted for theselves.
In article <DqqB5E.3J5...@torfree.net>, ch...@torfree.net (C. J.
Morgan) wrote:
> My own experience with photographic composition has not been altogether
> conguent with your above comments.
>
> For the most part, I have found that rules pertaining to the practice of
> composition do more to constrict a budding photographer than to inspire
> or help him/her.
>
> As the American photographer Edward Weston once put it:
>
> Such rules and laws are deduced from accomplished
> fact; they are the product of reflection and
> after-examination, and are in no way a part of the
> creative imputus. When subject matter is forced
> to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no
> freshness of vision. Following rules of composition
> can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial
> cliches.
Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidchik
davi...@oro.net
MARTIN TAI
-> My own experience with photographic composition has not been
-> altogether conguent with your above comments.
->
-> For the most part, I have found that rules pertaining to the practice
-> of composition do more to constrict a budding photographer than to
-> inspire or help him/her.
->
-> As the American photographer Edward Weston once put it:
->
-> Such rules and laws are deduced from accomplished
-> fact; they are the product of reflection and
-> after-examination, and are in no way a part of the
-> creative imputus. When subject matter is forced
-> to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no
-> freshness of vision. Following rules of composition
-> can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial
-> cliches.
->
-> Better that we should stay clear of such rules which only stagnate
-> our visual awareness, and instead look upon each new scene for its
-> own merits. Rather than just considering where our center of interest
-> "should" go in the image (often with oblivious regard to those things
-> in the scene that are junking up our image), let's instead consider
-> what we want to say, what we want to show, along with ways and means
-> of getting rid of unwanted clutter.
->
-> Good composition is not something we need intentionally strive for by
-> following rules or any other means. Good composition rather grows as
-> a natural by-product when the form of our images follows the function
-> they serve.
I still insist that beginner need to learn the basic of good
composition, later on when he becomes more mature, then he can
be free of the rules.
This is Hegelian's three stage of development process,
From no rules --> rules --> then no rule.
The third stage no rule is not the same as beginer's no rule.
Hegelian negation of negation.
Hegel : Encycopedia of Logic.
Graham Wills
Joseph Davidchik wrote:
>
> (Curtis Leeds) wrote:
> >
> > That is ignorance talking. All great art: photography, painting,
> > sculpture, all revolve around rules of composition and sight. Learning
> > and understanding these rules are essential to good photography.
> > Gogh, Monet all translate to photography as well. If you refuse to learn
> > from the real masters, you are shortchanging yourself.
>
> You are saying that these painters sat there and thought how they were going
> to compose their art by some rule? You call me ignorant?
Well, ignorance is not necessarily perjorative. You clearly do not know anything
about how painters paint. Great painters follow rules and styles very clearly.
When they break a rule, they do it carefully, thoughtfully and studiously. If it
is sucessful, they study and develop how that rule should be broken until a new
rule is evolved.
Look at the works of innovative rule-breakers such as Picasso. He started with
extremely standard, well-produced strongly rule-based work. He then relaxed his
syle as he experimented in the 'blue' period. When he decided to break the
single viewpoint rule, his best efforts are those where he follows the majority
of other rules very strictly. Look at 'Guernica' - there is exactly one rule
broken, and broken carefully. If he had tried to break more than this one rule,
the result would have been less profound.
Painting is EXTREMELY rule based. Genius occurs when a rule is broken to form a
new set of rules - or a 'school' of painting.
> My whole idea is that a photographer takes what he feels like inside, not
> based off
> some textbook or guidelines. I photography accoding to my own composition,
> if you
> don't like it...SO WHAT! It is my own work. In the same ideas that the
> painters that you mentioned
> painted for theselves.
Art for arts sake? I assume you know the reply: Money for God's sake!
Even if they were not as interested in popularity, they were and are very
concious of critical success, even at the very low level of friend's
appreciation.
> Joseph Davidchik
> davi...@oro.net
I would be curious to know if you follow rules for exposure settings and so
forth. Or do you just set the dials acording to whim?
-Graham Wislls
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization group, Lucent Technologies
gwi...@bell-labs.com Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill, Naperville IL
C. J. Morgan
MARTIN TAI (marti...@westonia.com) wrote:
: I still insist that beginner need to learn the basic of good
: composition, later on when he becomes more mature, then he can
: be free of the rules.
: This is Hegelian's three stage of development process,
: From no rules --> rules --> then no rule.
: The third stage no rule is not the same as beginer's no rule.
: Hegelian negation of negation.
: Hegel : Encycopedia of Logic.
Hello Martin. C.J. here.
I see you have some very strong convictions about what you believe and
don't believe. I admire your clarity, although it may not leave much room
for the chance to modify and refine one's opinions.
In my previous article in this thread, I was suggesting that the "Rule of
third" need not be learned by the newbie photographer. That said, I
might however quality my position by perhaps saying that if anything
constructive can be taught about composition, it is more helpful to
present it as a guideline, rather than as a rule.
Specifically, on the topic of photographic composition, I might say that
I personally (i.e. my own style or mode of guiding principle) is to
compose subject matter in a way that presents what I want to show with
clarity, directness, and impact. With each image being made, I try to be
deliberate and thoughtful about what I want to show, and even more
deliberate and thoughtful about what steps I might take to help minimize
what I don't want showing (i.e. the stuff that usually only clutters up
the viewfinder and the the eventual images and distracts the viewer's
attention from what I want him or her to see).
If, by your definitions, you wish to call this process a compositional
rule, than by all means I will agree with you since it has become a
standard habitual way to which I personally approach my own image making.
In as much as I did not use this approach when I started photographing
(at age 11), and learned it until it became second nature and no longer
requires any conscious effort (i.e. I no longer need to think about being
thoughtful and deliberate about each composition I make; being thoughtful
and deliberate is my habitual approach), then I will agree with you that
I once had no "rules", then had "rules", then evolved into having no
"rules" again.
Be that as it may -- and now we come back to the subject of this thread
-- I have found over the years that the learning of the "Rule of thirds"
where composition is concerned does more to hinder budding image makers
than to enlighten or advance their progress.
If I were placed in the position of having to teach others, I believe I
would not say anything to them about this "Rule of thirds", but perhaps
rather give them the guideline to seek simplicity in their images by
making deliberate efforts to rid their image-in-the-making of whatever
unwanted clutter presents itself.
More generally, it would seem that there might always be those who -- for
whatever reason -- feel compelled to seek rules and follow them
religiously. Others, I would imagine, see a greater advantange in only
setting for themselves some guidelines, by which their work at making
images has a consistency of method, but retains the flexibility to depart
from those guideline if the situation suggests this would be more effective.
If you will, I suppose that I have certain "rules" that I try to follow
even now. For example, I find that my image generally work out better if
I (1) have film in the camera (2) take off the lens cap before shooting,
and (3) try to avoid shooting in total darkness.
If you must insist there be rules Martin, then those are some of the ones
I follow. That said, however, I maintain that the need for the "rule of
thirds" is not among them. At best, it is a fall back position when I
just can make heads or tails of how I believe the image before me might
be composed.
Tom Benedict
I think I agree with both Martin and CJ, but would like to throw this
out to be buchered:
One reason that new photographers often get handed the "rule" of
thirds (as CJ pointed out, it would be better to call it the "gosh
that's a neat idea" of thirds) is that without such a guideline, too
many starting photographers wind up with hundreds of pictures where
the subject is dead-centered in the frame.
Not that there's something inherently wrong with centering a subject.
There are times when I center the subject, but each time it's a
conscious choice. Without SOME set of guidelines, new photographers
are often left with a stack of pictures they've taken, and a slightly
lost feeling when they compare their work to that of more artistically
advanced photographers.
This is one of the sources for the whole myth of "If only I had the
same camera so'n'so uses, I could make pictures JUST AS GOOD!" More
often than not it's less a question of the hardware, and more a
question of the software. Without some grounding in artistic
composition (as Martin Tai pointed out), beginning photographers wind
up in a stylistic hole.
The solution I used when I first started was to look around at stuff I
liked, and try to see what the artist did that turned me on so much.
In particular I looked at stuff by Ansel Adams, John Shaw, Galen
Rowell (to some extent), Rembrandt (still having a blast with that
one), a number of impressionist painters, and a number of Japanese and
Chinese painters (and never have I found a better lesson in the use of
null-space).
The bonus here is that you still wind up with guidelines for
composition, but you get to draw your own conclusions and make your
own "rules".
Tom
P.S. And suprise, suprise, the "rule" of thirds happens to be one of
them. ;)
Joseph Davidchik
In article <TOM.96Ma...@peggysue.as.utexas.edu>,
t...@peggysue.as.utexas.edu (Tom Benedict) wrote:
> I think I agree with both Martin and CJ, but would like to throw this
> out to be buchered:
>
> One reason that new photographers often get handed the "rule" of
> thirds (as CJ pointed out, it would be better to call it the "gosh
> that's a neat idea" of thirds) is that without such a guideline, too
> many starting photographers wind up with hundreds of pictures where
> the subject is dead-centered in the frame.
My question is so what?
>
> The solution I used when I first started was to look around at stuff I
> liked, and try to see what the artist did that turned me on so much.
> In particular I looked at stuff by Ansel Adams, John Shaw, Galen
> Rowell (to some extent), Rembrandt (still having a blast with that
> one), a number of impressionist painters, and a number of Japanese and
> Chinese painters (and never have I found a better lesson in the use of
> null-space).
>
> The bonus here is that you still wind up with guidelines for
> composition, but you get to draw your own conclusions and make your
> own "rules".
>
> Tom
>
> P.S. And suprise, suprise, the "rule" of thirds happens to be one of
> them. ;)
Well, now I heard it all when Galen Rowell and Rembrant are in the same
sentence....
Anyway, this is really getting old. So, everyone shoot how you like and
let there be peace in the world...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidchik PGP upon request
(davi...@oro.net)
At the hole where he went in
Red-Eye call to Wrinkle-Skin
Hear what little Red-Eye saith:
"Nag, come up and dance with death!"
- R. Kipling
MARTIN TAI
-> I see you have some very strong convictions about what you believe
-> and don't believe. I admire your clarity, although it may not leave
-> much room for the chance to modify and refine one's opinions.
->
-> In my previous article in this thread, I was suggesting that the
-> "Rule of third" need not be learned by the newbie photographer. That
-> said, I might however quality my position by perhaps saying that if
-> anything constructive can be taught about composition, it is more
-> helpful to present it as a guideline, rather than as a rule.
"Rules" seems to convey a sense of rigidness. I agree
that 'guideline' is more appropriate word.
I my self take the so call 'rule of the thirds' in
a very loose sense, in that one should consider the positioning
of subject in the picture frame.
Depending on the subject, the positioning convey different
meaning.
For intance if you put a seagul at edge of picture, it
may convey a sense of 'end of the road' ' nowhere to go' fealing
|
| <
|
|
Where as if position such that there is a lot of space
in front, then it conveys a sense of freedom etc.
Ancient Chinese painting masters had left a rich legacy
on composition, such as how to manage empty space vs substance
fullness vs emptiness, dense vssparse, contrast, balance,
symmetry vs asymetry, foreground/backgroud etc etc.
And they emphasis to learn diligently the methods and
rules of masters. A great caligrapher Wang Xi Zhi,
learn the style of a master by studing for five long years
the few dozen characters left by this master.
Leonardo da Vinci, in his writings on painting also advice
newbies to begin by copying masters.
->
-> Specifically, on the topic of photographic composition, I might say
-> that I personally (i.e. my own style or mode of guiding principle) is
-> to compose subject matter in a way that presents what I want to show
-> with clarity, directness, and impact. With each image being made, I
-> try to be deliberate and thoughtful about what I want to show, and
-> even more deliberate and thoughtful about what steps I might take to
-> help minimize what I don't want showing (i.e. the stuff that usually
-> only clutters up the viewfinder and the the eventual images and
-> distracts the viewer's attention from what I want him or her to see).
->
-> If, by your definitions, you wish to call this process a
-> compositional rule, than by all means I will agree with you since it
-> has become a standard habitual way to which I personally approach my
-> own image making.
'Simplicity' is in itself an important rule or guide line
in graphic art.
-> In as much as I did not use this approach when I started
-> photographing (at age 11), and learned it until it became second
-> nature and no longer requires any conscious effort (i.e. I no longer
-> need to think about being thoughtful and deliberate about each
-> composition I make; being thoughtful and deliberate is my habitual
-> approach), then I will agree with you that I once had no "rules",
-> then had "rules", then evolved into having no "rules" again.
->
-> Be that as it may -- and now we come back to the subject of this
-> thread -- I have found over the years that the learning of the "Rule
-> of thirds" where composition is concerned does more to hinder budding
-> image makers than to enlighten or advance their progress.
->
-> If I were placed in the position of having to teach others, I believe
-> I would not say anything to them about this "Rule of thirds", but
-> perhaps rather give them the guideline to seek simplicity in their
-> images by making deliberate efforts to rid their image-in-the-making
-> of whatever unwanted clutter presents itself.
->
-> More generally, it would seem that there might always be those who --
-> for whatever reason -- feel compelled to seek rules and follow them
-> religiously. Others, I would imagine, see a greater advantange in
-> only setting for themselves some guidelines, by which their work at
-> making images has a consistency of method, but retains the
-> flexibility to depart from those guideline if the situation suggests
-> this would be more effective.
-> If you will, I suppose that I have certain "rules" that I try to
-> follow even now. For example, I find that my image generally work
-> out better if I (1) have film in the camera (2) take off the lens cap
-> before shooting, and (3) try to avoid shooting in total darkness.
Add to these may be:
Focus then lens; don't put finger infront of lens, focus
before you shot, watch out for people blinking etc etc ....
->
-> If you must insist there be rules Martin, then those are some of the
-> ones I follow. That said, however, I maintain that the need for the
-> "rule of thirds" is not among them. At best, it is a fall back
-> position when I just can make heads or tails of how I believe the
-> image before me might be composed.
I am no expert on poetry, music nor ballet etc. But I believe
poets musicians or ballet dancers have a lot of rules to learn.
If some poet or musician or ballet dancer says that he/she does
not need any rules, just play the violin as he/she likes or dance
what ever he/she likes, there is nothing wrong with it, I suppose.
MARTIN TAI
|
| <
|
|
learn the style of a master by spending five long years
styding the few dozen characters left by his foremaster.
Leonardo da Vinci, in his notebook on painting also adviced
newbies to begin by copying masters.
->
-> Specifically, on the topic of photographic composition, I might say
-> that I personally (i.e. my own style or mode of guiding principle) is
-> to compose subject matter in a way that presents what I want to show
-> with clarity, directness, and impact. With each image being made, I
-> try to be deliberate and thoughtful about what I want to show, and
-> even more deliberate and thoughtful about what steps I might take to
-> help minimize what I don't want showing (i.e. the stuff that usually
-> only clutters up the viewfinder and the the eventual images and
-> distracts the viewer's attention from what I want him or her to see).
->
-> If, by your definitions, you wish to call this process a
-> compositional rule, than by all means I will agree with you since it
-> has become a standard habitual way to which I personally approach my
-> own image making.
'Simplicity' is in itself an important rule or guide line
in graphic art.
Xie He,in his "Six Methods of Painting" called one
of his method as " The Management of Position", that is what
we understand as 'composition'.
MARTIN TAI
|
| <
|
|
Xie He in his "Six Methods of Painting" (written in
545 ) called one of his method as " The Management of Position", that
But great painter Wan Bin Hong taught the methof of learning
"First begin with rules, then go for the meaning, and then go
after the feeling and mood; for rules, follow strictly, practice
hard...; for meaning, start from loftiness, greatness, depth
and profound, for the feeling, must begin with reading thousand
volumes of books and traveling tens of thousands miles, cultivate
a vastness of chi... when learning from tradition, you must
digest them, merge them with you own understanding, then learn
from nature and recreat the nature in your mind with the methods
of you hand......"
MARTIN TAI
|
| <
|
|
Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519), in his notebook on painting
(Codex Urbino ) also adviced newbies to begin by copying masters.
Willian Hogarth (1697-1764) in his "The Analysis of Beauty"
discussed the compostion of wavery lines, serpentine lines,
on unity, simplcity, symmetry, relation of light shade and color
with composition.
->
-> Specifically, on the topic of photographic composition, I might say
-> that I personally (i.e. my own style or mode of guiding principle) is
-> to compose subject matter in a way that presents what I want to show
-> with clarity, directness, and impact. With each image being made, I
-> try to be deliberate and thoughtful about what I want to show, and
-> even more deliberate and thoughtful about what steps I might take to
-> help minimize what I don't want showing (i.e. the stuff that usually
-> only clutters up the viewfinder and the the eventual images and
-> distracts the viewer's attention from what I want him or her to see).
->
-> If, by your definitions, you wish to call this process a
-> compositional rule, than by all means I will agree with you since it
-> has become a standard habitual way to which I personally approach my
-> own image making.
'Simplicity' is in itself an important rule or guide line
in graphic art. (See William Hogarth's book )
Xie He in his "Six Methods of Painting" (written in
545 , almost one thousand years before Leonardo ) called one of his
method " The Management of Position", that is what we understand as
'composition'.
and profoundness, for the feeling, must begin with reading thousand
volumes of books and traveling tens of thousands miles, cultivate
a grand vastness of chi... when learning from tradition, you must
digest them, merge them with you own understanding, then learn
from nature and recreate the nature in your mind with the methods
of you hand......"
carl cook
In article <TOM.96Ma...@peggysue.as.utexas.edu>,
t...@peggysue.as.utexas.edu writes...
>I think I agree with both Martin and CJ, but would like to throw this
>out to be buchered:
I've enjoyed what little of this thread I've seen, and agree with all three of
you. I like your description, Tom of why beginning photographers are taught
the rule fo thirds:
>One reason that new photographers often get handed the "rule" of
>thirds (as CJ pointed out, it would be better to call it the "gosh
>that's a neat idea" of thirds) is that without such a guideline, too
>many starting photographers wind up with hundreds of pictures where
>the subject is dead-centered in the frame.
In fact, I teach it to my students as well, but I tell them that this, like
all so-called rules in art are simply guidelines, places to start. Pretend
these rules are walls surrounding you and your creative voice. As you learn
them, and how to use them -- and when *and how* to ignore them, the walls get
pushed farther away, until they fall away altogether and all that's left is
your art (photography) presented exactly the way you want it to be.
>This is one of the sources for the whole myth of "If only I had the
>same camera so'n'so uses, I could make pictures JUST AS GOOD!" More
>often than not it's less a question of the hardware, and more a
>question of the software. Without some grounding in artistic
>composition (as Martin Tai pointed out), beginning photographers wind
>up in a stylistic hole.
Exactly. I have some gorgeous portraits that were made by someone I once knew
back in the late 1960's. They are black & white, some gold toned, some
straight. All have a timeless quality about them. I pull them out when the
talk turns to the "you have to have the latest, most expensive" bs we all know
and love so well. After everyone has admired this collection of beautiful
work, I pull out the identical twin of the camera that made the pictures -- a
Brownie Target box camera. It came from Goodwill and cost 20 cents. Then I
pull out a shot of the photographer shooting the best portrait of the lot. The
camera is attached to the tripod with rubber bands. There are laughs all
around, with the talk turning to other things besides hardware.
>The solution I used when I first started was to look around at stuff I
>liked, and try to see what the artist did that turned me on so much.
>In particular I looked at stuff by Ansel Adams, John Shaw, Galen
>Rowell (to some extent), Rembrandt (still having a blast with that
Ha! For me, it was the work of Leonardo. Still is. Then it was Eugene Smith.
But then, aren't they one and the same? :)
>The bonus here is that you still wind up with guidelines for
>composition, but you get to draw your own conclusions and make your
>own "rules".
>P.S. And suprise, suprise, the "rule" of thirds happens to be one of
>them. ;)
Yup, yup...and thanks!
Carl