[OT] Composition...
William D. Tallman
already knows at some level? Put it another away: do you suppose there
are people who haven't the ability to learn how to compose a scene? I know
this is an equipment newsgroup, but it's related to photography...
Bill Tallman
Lionel
that:
>Can one really learn composition, or is it a matter of formalising what one
>already knows at some level? Put it another away: do you suppose there
>are people who haven't the ability to learn how to compose a scene?
That's a really interesting question, Bill. I've often wondered the same
thing. On the one hand, if you spend enough time on any random person,
I'm pretty sure they'd pick it up. OTOH, you get lots of people who seem
to have learnt 'The Rules Of Composition' (eg; rule of thirds), but
don't seem to 'get it' that while The Rules are valuable, there is
plenty of good work that works because it breaks them, & plenty of
boring work that follows them religiously. That latter sense, I suspect,
is something one is either born with, or will never have. IMO, that
talent is what makes the difference between work that is very good &
work that is brilliant.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Denelsbeck
news:101p865...@corp.supernews.com:
Since I believe 'composition' is only a method of structuring what we
already find to be pleasing to look at, instinctually if you will, then I
don't believe anybody learns it, but learns instead to recognize it, and
bring it from the subconscious into conscious control.
Composition is largely up to individual preference anyway (and
rightfully so). Hard to say what influences this, though - is it a matter
of what kind of visual stimulation had a positive influence on us, or
something deeper?
The issue has come up before in other areas of the art world - is it
learned or is it 'natural'? I suspect that there is something fundamental
that guides us towards expression in a visual medium, and the rest of it is
simply pursuing that drive. In other words, some people like it, and those
that do will be motivated to investigate methods, techniques, formats, and
so on. They pay attention to what they like, and seek it out.
So only the people who are interested in the first place, who have an
artistic 'ability' or 'knack' or 'side', will benefit from the attempts to
teach it. Those that don't will carry any instruction as far as most of us
took our Latin classes in high school ;-)
But you started me thinking about what I do when I'm editing. My
editing is minor, and usually consists only of color tweaking and cropping,
with the occasional dodge/burn. On occasion, I'll grapple with an image
that doesn't seem to be 'coming together', and stare at several versions,
flipping back and forth, totally unable to decide what works better. I
suspect at such a point, I've lost the initial emotional response to the
image, and have either become too used to seeing it or have overriden the
emotion in favor of something technical. Since I think that the emotional
response, that first 'gut feeling', is the most important thing to an
image, pushing any particular rules or methods too hard becomes counter-
productive. You need to 'feel' your way, more than anything.
Just my take on it...
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
The Yowie
Discover the answer to that and you will begin to discover that composition
is such a subjective thing, many of the proponents of the 'rules' never get
to see the other pictures available in the one shot.
The answer?
yes.
The Yowie
-----------------------
"William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:101p865...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Kramer
The simple answer is yes. And no. :o)
Yes, we can learn the guidelines that have been handed down through the
ages about what makes a good composition. Note that I use the term
'guidelines' rather than 'rules' as I think that they SHOULD be loosely
adhered to. But they do form a general structure to build upon.
The 'rule of thirds,' using natural frames, using leading and converging
lines, motion, use of depth of field, etc... These all can be taught to
the neophyte photographer. But... using them wisely and well requires
artistic talent, and that part can not be taught.
Plus, we need to add to the equation the fact that most of us have
already been 'taught' certain 'rules,' and many of these need to be
overcome for good composition. We were taught at an early age to keep
our crayon drawing INSIDE the lines. We were taught at an early age to
always aim at the center of the target. We were taught many different
'rules' that we now follow without conscious thought, (just look at any
snapshot and you can see most of them,) and we need awareness of them in
order to avoid falling into these clichés.
So yes, composition CAN be taught. But no, even having been taught won't
turn a non artistic person into an great photographer. Unless they take
MY classes, that is. :o)
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com
--
"The real voyage of discovery is not in seeking new lands,
but in seeing with new eyes!" Marcel Proust
Bob Hickey
into the work, and the less reason there is to do the work in the first
place. When one puts his soul into a work, a psychic vacuum is created,
hopefully to be filled by energy greater than what was lost. If all goes
well, the artist becomes the work. I would imagine that at some point, rules
about diagonal lines become a little silly. Bob Hickey
Dennis O'Connor
William, yes there are general rules of composition... They won't make you
an award winning photographer, but they WILL allow you to start taking
photos that at least avoid the most common gaffes, i.e. the too low camera
position so you are looking up someones nostrils, etc... the branch
sticking out of the head, etc...
And they give you a starting point to begin to think, i.e. "yeah, her head
could be at the upper right 1/3 intersection, but what if I slide her all
the way to the right side of the frame and then have her look back into the
frame so that she is in profile and I include x, or y, oz in the
background?" At that moment you are thinking like an artist, a painter, and
not repeating same portrait you have done the last 23 times... <which was
Bob's point>
And on Bob's point - he has taken it to an extreme... If you follow his
logic he is saying that no child should learn the alphabet because it will
inhibit them from writing creatively as adults... Which might give us
something like,
'Twas brilig and
the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble
in the wabe...'
Dunno what it means, but it sure rolls off the tongue...
Good Shooting ... denny
"Bob Hickey" <Hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aH6Tb.170821$4F2.20...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Matt Clara
Sure, it's just like the piano. Anyone can learn to play one, but very few
will be concert pianists.
Alan Browne
Yes, people can learn composition.
Will they ever be as good as people with a natural eye for it is debatable.
"Formalise"? Yeah, sure. But avoid straight jacket thinking.
If you see people who have the tendancy to P&S a shot ("see something,
shoot something"), then you have someone who is NOT composing. To learn
to compose, people have to *want* to compose. From there you have
somebody who can be opened up to it.... and who can learn.
As often is stated on the NG, books on composition (for all manner of
arts) are available, and can teach a lot. "Rule breaking 101" is
usually included in these books.
Before learning to do unorthodox "stunts" on a motorbike, it is best to
learn to ride the motorbike properly. Good attitude for "composition"
too. Become proficient at the more formal 'rules' prior to breaking them.
The more you shoot, the better you get, esp. if applied to improving in
the many areas...
A last point. A particular subject can usually be shot from many
persepctives, at many FL's and apertures, in various lighting conditions
(natural or artificial), on different films, they can be frozen at high
speed, blurred, shot out-of-focus for effect, multiple exposed, etc.,
etc., etc. These are ALL elements of composition...
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> "William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in
> news:101p865...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>Can one really learn composition, or is it a matter of formalising
>>what one already knows at some level? Put it another away: do you
>>suppose there are people who haven't the ability to learn how to
>>compose a scene? I know this is an equipment newsgroup, but it's
>>related to photography...
>
<<snipped lot's of good stuff>>
> flipping back and forth, totally unable to decide what works better. I
> suspect at such a point, I've lost the initial emotional response to the
> image, and have either become too used to seeing it or have overriden the
> emotion in favor of something technical. Since I think that the emotional
> response, that first 'gut feeling', is the most important thing to an
> image, pushing any particular rules or methods too hard becomes counter-
> productive. You need to 'feel' your way, more than anything.
>
> Just my take on it...
>
>
> - Al.
>
Excellent post.
Cheers,
Alan
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
The Wogster
I think you can, several ways, first you need to determine what good
composition is, and what it does for the photograph. You could take
some courses or study some books on photographic composition (see your
local library), then take your camera out, and look for what you
learned, experiment. Learn to analyse your own photographs, and how
given the same or a similar scene, you can improve composition.
Some people have a natural ability to do this, it doesn't mean that if
you don't you can't do it, just that it's harder to do, and takes more
effort. There are people who can not learn to compose a scene, because
they are blind.
W
Gordon Moat
> Can one really learn composition, or is it a matter of formalising what one
> already knows at some level?
I think it is entirely possible. Once someone is exposed to examples, and
learns why the examples are a certain way, and what makes them compelling,
then it is only a short leap of faith to creating your own compelling
compositions.
> Put it another away: do you suppose there
> are people who haven't the ability to learn how to compose a scene?
Sure, and some just go by the simpler "rules" like the "rule of thirds", in
which the only intention is to get the person to escape from centred or
symmetrical images. Symmetry can be useful in composition, but too many
beginners get stuck in the middle.
> I know
> this is an equipment newsgroup, but it's related to photography...
>
> Bill Tallman
>
When I was first taking art fundamentals classes in college, I already knew
how to do art work, but I did not know how to describe it. It was interesting
to discover that I followed some of the concepts before I knew them, or knew
how to describe them. One example was with the Golden Section. After learning
of that, I went back and checked my recent sketchbook, and surprised myself at
how many compositions fit within the Golden Section. At that point, what was
previously intuitive, now became a more thoughtful approach. While I think
chaos can be more interesting than order, it is good to know when an orderly
approach could produce a compelling image.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
William D. Tallman
A very thoughtful series of responses!
In any case, I'll add my take on the subject:
Given that what we see is what is visible from where we are, there is no
inherent ordering in our environment as to what is visible where. The
fundamental natural frame of things is our individual angle of view, and
our visual attention operates within those bounds. Thus the concept of
boundaries and borders is itself inherent in our visual experience. The
question is: what does that mean to a given individual?
To a significant extent, I think, that depends on what is viewed. In a
static environment, where little is in motion, the eye is drawn to whatever
catches it's attention, whether that be the result of visible
differentiation (brightness, color), or subjective significance. And the
eye tracks the shift of attention as the surrounding environment is
scanned. If there is a return from that scan to the original point of
interest, a composition is implied. If the eye is not drawn back to the
original point, perhaps a composition is not inherent and the scene is not
readily recognized as such.
Shapes and colors and textures contribute to that pattern, of course, and so
they also contribute to the inherent composition. But so do other
considerations as well: relative spaces (Rule of Thirds, Golden Section,
etc.) These mirror deep patterns that we see all around us in nature, and
so have force in whatever identifies to us what we might consider a scene.
These other considerations come to the fore if the shapes and colors do not
dominate. Generally, however, these various aspects of what and how we see
are balanced, or at least in harmony, least they disturb our visual
experience.
A different type of response to what we see is mounted when some significant
part of the scene is in motion. Now, the temporal dimension comes into
play. We commonly think about the subject entering the scene, and when we
do we are identifying with the potential of the scene; perhaps we are
identifying with the moving point of view itself. Sometimes we think about
the subject leaving the scene, where what we see is the past, what the
subject is leaving behind.
Then there are the complex dynamics, where interaction is taking place
between multiple points of interest, and we often compose them such that we
include the parts of the environment that we think will impact those
dynamics. Is what is happening large in scope? Is what is happening of
primary interest only in certain given details? Thus we choose an angle of
view accordingly.
Again, any given scene is likely to include aspects of both static and
dynamic nature, and so a blend of relevant composition considerations
request satisfaction.
Yet another parameter arises when a scene calls forth the memory of previous
experience, real or imagined. In general, these have greatest force when
they are generic, or collective realities (arise from the collective
un(sub)conscious mind?!?...<grin>). To that extent, recognition of this
aspect may be expected by the viewer of the image taken of the scene. The
defining attributes are the same, but can be taken as much, or even more,
from the personal recollection, than from the recorded scene; hence the
need for the viewer to be able to access at least a personal version of
that same recollection.
So, what I think is that for those people who are aware of these things,
composition can more easily be formalized as a pre-existing recognition.
For those people who are not (sufficiently) aware, composition can be a
genuinely new aspect of reality. Obviously, anything that can be made an
artifice can be grasped, given enough effective effort, where the rules of
composition are the artifice and teaching techniques provide efficiency of
effort.
In that regard, then, the reverse process may take place. Having been made
aware of the rules of composition, one may find that awareness of the
specifics of visual cognition is enhanced to the point where it becomes a
significant aspect of one's appreciation of one's environment. Here is yet
again another reason to learn of graphic art... and photography, of
course!
In short, composition is inherent in our perception of our environment. For
those who are aware of this, the rules of composition only require
formalization. For those who are not, learning such rules may indeed
foster such awareness, and that can only add to the enjoyment of one's life
experience.
Make sense?
Bill Tallman
Alan Browne
<snip>
>
> In short, composition is inherent in our perception of our environment. For
> those who are aware of this, the rules of composition only require
> formalization. For those who are not, learning such rules may indeed
> foster such awareness, and that can only add to the enjoyment of one's life
> experience.
>
> Make sense?
Hi Bill,
While I enjoyed your post in general, the use of the word "rules" is
disturbing.
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."
attrib: -Gen I.D. White or Douglas Bader.
Looking at 'rules' (better word would be 'guidelines') for composition
will definitely help, but strict adherence will lead to a formulistic look.
If, as you say, 'composition is inherent in our perception of our
environment.', then he who perceives so will need no 'rules' to compose
appealing photographs and would likely feel stifled in attempting to
formalise them.
Cheers,
Alan.
Al Denelsbeck
A very comprehensive answer, and it's clear you've been thinking on
this for a while. I hope we're not helping you with your thesis... ;-)
Moreover, you and I seem to have similar views on a lot of aspects of
this question, and noticeably the 'education' issue. I've long been a
believer that helping people to understand the reasoning behind the 'rules'
or processes makes them better able to function with them. You can say,
"This is the Rule of Thirds, and it's good, but don't follow it all the
time," and the obvious follow-up, whether voiced or not, is "Why not? And
when shouldn't I?"
So let me put this one to you. The Rule of Thirds bears its 'source'
as the Golden Section, and if you get deeply into this you start dealing
with specific mathematics regarding Phi and the Fibonacci number. These
have noticeable functions in the natural world, and produce some very
efficient evolutionary designs.
But, do you believe that this is what we're recognizing, on some
subconscious level, with composition? Or is it something else that bears a
coincidental relation?
Because it would seem to say that, as efficient as the math is, the
Rule of Thirds/Golden Section should be able to apply to every photographic
situation - otherwise it would run against our ingrained recognition of
efficiency, or perfection, or what have you. But this obviously isn't the
case.
Moreover, this would run into problems with aspect ratio, field of
view, and even viewing distance of a print, since our vision is a fixed
ratio in and of itself. Moving closer to a print changes the aspect ratio
of any subject within our overall field of view. You can argue that our
attention becomes limited by the image edges, and that the entire image is
our foci, but our foci is not rectangular, and most especially not
vertically (with two eyes positioned side by side, you can make an argument
for horizontal rectangles, but this is defeated by the fact that both eyes
focus on the same point, too).
So what do you think? And for that matter, this one's up for anyone
that wants to tackle it. Is the Rule of Thirds based strictly on the Golden
Section and the matehmatical representation that the GS sprung from? Or
something else? I have my own half-baked theories, but would like to hear
others.
Alan Browne
> So what do you think? And for that matter, this one's up for anyone
> that wants to tackle it. Is the Rule of Thirds based strictly on the Golden
> Section and the matehmatical representation that the GS sprung from? Or
> something else? I have my own half-baked theories, but would like to hear
> others.
The GS is (SQRT(5)+1)/2) or approx. 1.62, (or its reciprocal: 0.62),
which is pretty close to 3/2 (or 2/3)... (the same as a 35mm frame).
The 'rule-of-thirds' in large part is borrowed from that...
Where the GS appears in architecture and other arts, it is in the ratio
of lengths (width/height) of a building or its parts (and multiples of
same). As such, the ratios are very close to (SQRT(5)+1)/2 (or the
inverse of same). The eye seems to love this ratio.
Placement of a subject (eg: a persons head) can fall 'on' these lines.
As a persons head in the photo frame is much thicker than a line, it can
vary in position a whole lot, meeting both 'rule of thirds' and the GS.
Further, as we peer into the viewfinder, it is much easier to divide
into thirds than to figure where (SQRT(5)+1)/2 falls...! (On my older
body, the 7xi, the focus screen has 1/3 markings ... the minds of
Minolta could have at least made them 0.618033989.... markings!)
Nature also loves and follows the GS... one example is that sunflower
seeds (and seeds in other flowers) are packed from the center outwards
according to the Fibonacci suite. Ratios of successive numbers in the
Fibonacci suite converge on the GS as the numbers get higher... For
example, after a mere 15 iterations of the Fibonacci suite, the numbers
377 and 610 are generated ... ratio= 1.618037... very close to the GS!
As the suite goes to higher and higher numbers, it converges towards
(SQRT(5)+1)/2 .
Having said all that ... "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the
obedience of fools."
Cheers,
Alan
William D. Tallman
Okay, here's my take on rules:
Rules are expressions of attributes inherent in the context of a specific
reality, and are thus objective in nature. Guidelines are recommendations
based on individual or collective experience. To the extent these actually
correspond, adequate understanding is implied. But that's not necessarily
the case, so best to keep rules separate, as they are not arbitrary and do
not derive from choice.
I like rules rather than guidelines, because I can discover them for myself,
where I can't dependably discover the reasons for the experience of others.
Now, having said that, guidelines that are solidly based on rules tend to
remain valid, and so it's useful to discover if this is the case. If
someone presents a guideline and can explain why its valid, what they are
doing is expressing the validating rule.
Now, a rule is basically an expression, and as such, is most useful in
communication. Who comprehends the essence of a scene can discern the
stable verities thereof, such that a rule is an expression of a verity.
The statement of the rule is an effective way to communicate something of
the nature of that verity.
The key here, I think, is to recognize that the essence of a scene has
deeper existence than the scene itself, and can manifest itself in some
(infinite?) number of scenes. So we can use an understanding of the rule
to identify the presence or absence of that essence, just as we can discern
the existence of a rule within a recognized essence itself. Which is why
we share rules. It helps those who don't recognize those essences to do
so, if only by trial and error.
In short, who recognizes the essence only needs to formalize the rules
inherent therein to the extent that communication about the matter is
appropriate. But the fact of the matter is that no one is omniscient, and
who already sees the scope of these matters knows best how limited that
recognition is likely to be. So rules as concepts to think about are
valuable to us all.
Does that make sense?
Bill
William D. Tallman
>
> A very comprehensive answer, and it's clear you've been thinking on
> this for a while. I hope we're not helping you with your thesis... ;-)
Oh good lord no!! This is all just off the top of my head! The fact is
that I've little opportunity to talk about these things, and this venue
allows me to do so on occasion.
> Moreover, you and I seem to have similar views on a lot of aspects of
> this question, and noticeably the 'education' issue. I've long been a
> believer that helping people to understand the reasoning behind the
> 'rules' or processes makes them better able to function with them. You can
> say, "This is the Rule of Thirds, and it's good, but don't follow it all
> the time," and the obvious follow-up, whether voiced or not, is "Why not?
> And when shouldn't I?"
Which followup is the first step, if followed by enough others, leads to
understanding. But that first step is necessary, for without it, no others
exist.
> So let me put this one to you. The Rule of Thirds bears its 'source'
> as the Golden Section, and if you get deeply into this you start dealing
> with specific mathematics regarding Phi and the Fibonacci number. These
> have noticeable functions in the natural world, and produce some very
> efficient evolutionary designs.
Yep. Actually the mechanism of the Fibonacci series is an elegant trinary,
which is easily encoded: The next one is the sum of the last two. But the
Rule of Thirds has little to do with the Golden Section, I think.
> But, do you believe that this is what we're recognizing, on some
> subconscious level, with composition? Or is it something else that bears a
> coincidental relation?
To the extent that most of our mentation takes place beyond the scope of our
attention, we must expect recognition to grasp at our awareness at some
point fairly late in its development.
> Because it would seem to say that, as efficient as the math is, the
> Rule of Thirds/Golden Section should be able to apply to every
> photographic situation - otherwise it would run against our ingrained
> recognition of efficiency, or perfection, or what have you. But this
> obviously isn't the case.
These considerations probably don't constitute the majority of relevant
considerations in the composition of a scene, however easily expressed they
may appear.
> Moreover, this would run into problems with aspect ratio, field of
> view, and even viewing distance of a print, since our vision is a fixed
> ratio in and of itself. Moving closer to a print changes the aspect ratio
> of any subject within our overall field of view. You can argue that our
> attention becomes limited by the image edges, and that the entire image is
> our foci, but our foci is not rectangular, and most especially not
> vertically (with two eyes positioned side by side, you can make an
> argument for horizontal rectangles, but this is defeated by the fact that
> both eyes focus on the same point, too).
I think that our field of vision establishes the reality of scene
boundaries, but does not define their nature. So considerations of
comparative aspect ratios have indeterminate relevance here. What does
define those matters is the nature of the scene itself, as it is created by
the interaction between us and our environment.
> So what do you think? And for that matter, this one's up for anyone
> that wants to tackle it. Is the Rule of Thirds based strictly on the
> Golden Section and the matehmatical representation that the GS sprung
> from? Or something else? I have my own half-baked theories, but would like
> to hear others.
As I said, I see no relationship between the Rule of Thirds and the Golden
Section. In fact, to some extent, they form a dual. The Rule of Thirds is
an expressed attribute of a stable state, where the Golden Section is an
expressed attribute of process, which is an ordered series of observed
changes.
Three is the number of harmony. There are no opposing relationships or
entities. No entities is unrelated to any other entity, and all
relationships are balanced by the third entity. And so forth. So the Rule
of Three in essence is the statement of that state. The missing
recognition here, I think, is that the Rule of Three doesn't always imply
three equal spaces, although that's the most common usage.
The Golden Section has implications in both directions: A:B as B:(A+B=C).
So there is is implied an excluded quantity that is to A as A is to B, and
likewise a quantity on the other end that is to C as C is to B. Which is
the fundamental signifier of potential process: the statement itself is but
a section of a larger series which is bidirectional (grows/shrinks) in
nature, providing the mechanisms for change in either direction.
But I think that it's probably not that obvious as it applies to
photographic (or any graphic, for that matter) composition. That may not
always be the case, but I suspect that when it is, there are other
contributing factors. For instance, what would it take to emphasize the
effect of either of these? On reflection, it seems reasonable to expect
that other, only incidentally related, attributes would be required.
<thinks about it....>
What occurs is the image of a highway (yeah, Hwy 50, headed across the
desert... <grin>) receding in the distance. What we notice are the stripes
indicating a center line that permits passing. These stripes get shorter
as they recede. Is the relationship at any notable point that of the
Golden Section?
What happens if we somehow contrive to place the key object at that point?
How about the blonde in the white dress, showing a bit of thigh? Too
gaudy? How about roadkill? Yechh!! lol!!! But what if we place
something more subtle there that ties the image together in a message of
some sort? Would that make it more potent? Enough more potent to bring it
to more obvious attention? I suspect it would have to be tried.
No, I think that these are subtle effects, and if they are brought into
primacy, one is dealing with the exception rather than the rule, although
just which exception and rule is beyond me...<grin>
<scratches head...>
Okay, how about the window scene, where there are three windows, the center
one of which is dominant somehow. The Rule of Three in another guise. It
strongly implies status, balance. Often we'd want to place an object
located in an asymmetrical position to give some dynamic tension and
interest. So here the inherent Rule of Three asks for its own
counterbalance. Quite a different effect. And certainly not that of the
Golden Section.
Anyway, some thoughts. Do any of them make sense?
Bill
Al Denelsbeck
to be clipping various sections of the previous messages, mostly mine.
Apologies to anyone that comes in late and wants to follow it...
"William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in
news:101uh2q...@corp.supernews.com:
>> Al Denelsbeck wrote:
>>
>> You can say, "This is the Rule of Thirds, and it's good, but don't
>> follow it all the time," and the obvious follow-up, whether voiced or
>> not, is "Why not? And when shouldn't I?"
>
> Which followup is the first step, if followed by enough others, leads
> to understanding. But that first step is necessary, for without it,
> no others exist.
And that's fine. Again, it's part of the whole understanding. But the
question is, why the rule of thirds? What makes it work? And so far, the
primary answer has been "See Golden Section", and like you, I don't see
that that's really the answer.
> Yep. Actually the mechanism of the Fibonacci series is an elegant
> trinary, which is easily encoded: The next one is the sum of the last
> two. But the Rule of Thirds has little to do with the Golden Section,
> I think.
This has been my suspicion, and my theory is that it lies more in our
fundamental instincts, going way back to 'caveman' times. Not a recognition
of the 'natural order' that gave birth to the Fibonacci series and related
ilk (I'm not keen on math ;-) ), but more in how our environment impinges
on our survival instincts.
>> Because it would seem to say that, as efficient as the math is,
>> the
>> Rule of Thirds/Golden Section should be able to apply to every
>> photographic situation - otherwise it would run against our ingrained
>> recognition of efficiency, or perfection, or what have you. But this
>> obviously isn't the case.
>
> These considerations probably don't constitute the majority of
> relevant considerations in the composition of a scene, however easily
> expressed they may appear.
No, and don't get me wrong, I personally don't like the rule of
thirds, and feel it's far too structured to give a proper impression of
compositional elements and priorities. And those priorities shift
constantly. But it *does* represent an overall tendency to feel more
comfortable with a primary subject that is off-center, and the question is,
why?
Discussing it gives it a lot more seeming importance than it has, as
well. It's an extremely subtle factor, another reason why I don't like it.
But in recognition that it *is* still a factor...
>> Moreover, this would run into problems with aspect ratio, field
>> of
>> view, and even viewing distance of a print, since our vision is a
>> fixed ratio in and of itself. Moving closer to a print changes the
>> aspect ratio of any subject within our overall field of view. You can
>> argue that our attention becomes limited by the image edges, and that
>> the entire image is our foci, but our foci is not rectangular, and
>> most especially not vertically (with two eyes positioned side by
>> side, you can make an argument for horizontal rectangles, but this is
>> defeated by the fact that both eyes focus on the same point, too).
>
> I think that our field of vision establishes the reality of scene
> boundaries, but does not define their nature. So considerations of
> comparative aspect ratios have indeterminate relevance here. What
> does define those matters is the nature of the scene itself, as it is
> created by the interaction between us and our environment.
Alright, let me give an example. Presented with a photograph of a
buoy on the water, shot from relatively high so no horizon, no shore edge,
nothing but the water surface and a buoy. The impression given by the photo
is isolation, because in our mind we automatically extend the water beyond
the photo edges and on into infinity, or as much as our reason will allow.
So the frame edges form no true boundaries or restrictions.
But we tend to still feel the buoy should not be dead center, even
though in the environment we picture, with the infinite water, the buoy
could be anywhere, really. But the image forms the focus of our attention,
and I believe adequately stands in for the fovea of our eyes, the area of
distinct focus (as opposed to peripheral vision).
So the impression is, we have a tendency to be more comfortable with
the buoy being out of the center, even though we will focus directly on it
(since there's nothing else to focus on in this example) and we know fully
that it's the main subject. We just don't like it dead center. There's
something at work here, which is hinted at by the rule of thirds, but not
really explained. And we tend to like a certain distance, regardless of the
image boundaries. It could be a square print, or a panoramic where the buoy
actually falls outside the area of a square print, but if it's roughly a
third of the way, we're happy.
> Three is the number of harmony. There are no opposing relationships
> or entities. No entities is unrelated to any other entity, and all
> relationships are balanced by the third entity. And so forth. So the
> Rule of Three in essence is the statement of that state. The missing
> recognition here, I think, is that the Rule of Three doesn't always
> imply three equal spaces, although that's the most common usage.
What first came to mind is some seminar I took back when I was a
manager, on human interaction. Three is most definitely *not* a number of
harmony - it always turns into two partners and an odd-man-out. Never have
three people on a project ;-)
But otherwise I agree with you - three is stable, and indicates
balance, and represents a pyramid (which is the natural shape of
gravitational pull - you can't get sand to pile into a cube or rod), and so
forth. But five is strong too, and represented by numerous other things in
nature, including our own hands. Like three, it also represents balance,
and has a middle value, unlike an even number of something which splits
into two sides. You can't pick the middle stone in a line of four.
> The Golden Section has implications in both directions: A:B as
> B:(A+B=C). So there is is implied an excluded quantity that is to A
> as A is to B, and likewise a quantity on the other end that is to C as
> C is to B. Which is the fundamental signifier of potential process:
> the statement itself is but a section of a larger series which is
> bidirectional (grows/shrinks) in nature, providing the mechanisms for
> change in either direction.
Progression. Interesting thought, one that hadn't occurred to me. By
splitting an image into "one" and "two", you show a natural progression,
growth, increase, and so on. Hmmmmmmmm. Something to think about.
> <thinks about it....>
>
> What occurs is the image of a highway (yeah, Hwy 50, headed across the
> desert... <grin>) receding in the distance. What we notice are the
> stripes indicating a center line that permits passing. These stripes
> get shorter as they recede. Is the relationship at any notable point
> that of the Golden Section?
After thinking on this one for a little bit, I believe it's a
cube/square thing, and that effectively dodges the Golden Section.
> What happens if we somehow contrive to place the key object at that
> point? How about the blonde in the white dress, showing a bit of
> thigh? Too gaudy? How about roadkill? Yechh!! lol!!! But what if
> we place something more subtle there that ties the image together in a
> message of some sort? Would that make it more potent? Enough more
> potent to bring it to more obvious attention? I suspect it would have
> to be tried.
I'm game. Anyone got a blond with good thighs handy?
But I'm unsure what 'point' you're referring to above.
If you're talking about separating an image into distinct sections
with some visual element, and applying compositional rules either within or
in spite of these separations, that *is* an interesting thought...
> No, I think that these are subtle effects, and if they are brought
> into primacy, one is dealing with the exception rather than the rule,
> although just which exception and rule is beyond me...<grin>
>
> <scratches head...>
>
> Okay, how about the window scene, where there are three windows, the
> center one of which is dominant somehow. The Rule of Three in another
> guise. It strongly implies status, balance. Often we'd want to place
> an object located in an asymmetrical position to give some dynamic
> tension and interest. So here the inherent Rule of Three asks for its
> own counterbalance. Quite a different effect. And certainly not that
> of the Golden Section.
This is a good example. A vase, for instance, in the right window. In
the center window, it has much the same effect as centering your subject,
generally not pleasing. But off to one side it offers something unbalanced,
out of the 'natural' order or the tendency to have a geometric layout.
Now, is that a 'rule of thirds' preference, or simply the charm of
being a little incongruous? What if the image were composed to put the
righthand window dead center, with all of them still within the frame? I
suspect that would be bad.
Here's my semi-orderly thoughts on the rule of thirds...
First, there's some obvious elements that fit into it readily. The
'room to move' aspect, the 'direction of attention' aspect, not crowding
the subject, and so on. These are actually not related, per se, but adapt
well into the 'rule'.
But more fundamentally, something right in the center demands our
attention, and confronts us. Back when we were hunting mastodon and
avoiding predators, this could be a bad thing. Something head on was a
threat, especially if it was looking at us. Surprise was gone, distraction
was gone - it had to be dealt with. Typical prey, something unthreatening
like a rabbit, doesn't do this - it would be poised for flight, and the
direction of attention is away.
Additionally, something in the center blocks our view (and path), and
interferes with our parallax vision, and thus depth perception. We have
less ability to see the environment, especially in our intended field of
view dead ahead.
Off to one side, however, the threat is diminished, our path is
unobstructed, we have an escape and a view in the direction we're facing.
While we still can keep an eye on the subject, we have situational
awareness too.
Moreover, being off to one side favors the position of our arms and
optimal reach. Where is the coffee cup on your desk right now? This
naturally leads to some thoughts on an experiment, where picures of nice
succelent fruit were shown to a large selection of people - would the
right-handers prefer the composition where the apple was to the right of
the frame?
All of this applies more readily to horizontal compositions.
Vertically, it doesn't seem to follow the pattern too well, but then again,
vertical compositions tend to be used on a vertical subject (and very
frequently the sky as well). But with people as a subject, our natural
attention falls into that area anyway - we can see the facial expressions
and what the shoulders, and often arms, are doing. Very key indicators of
someone's disposition. Moving someone too close to the top of the frame
accomplishes two things - it implies no headroom, a very uncomfortable
feeling, and brings us into a lower and submissive position in relation to
them.
This is all just speculation, and anyone is welcome to chime in and
tear it to shreds (someone could make a case that the heart is about 2/3 of
the way up a person's body, too - you can make numbers mean a lot if you
try). I've just been pondering, off and on, where some of this 'instinct'
for composition comes from.
My own approach for the rule of thirds, when explaining it to people,
has been that a centered subject simply says, "A flower". But an off-center
composition says, "Here is a scene with a flower in it", and provides more
recognition of the surroundings, and a lot of times more depth as well. And
it starts people looking at what else gets to be included in the
composition. I feel the thirds gridline is pretty much nonsense, far too
definite for something as wildly variable as photography, and becomes too
restrictive of creativity.
Lionel
Thanks so much for your posts on this topic; you've really gotten me
thinking hard about the whole creative process. I've wanted to join in
several times during the thread, but keep on trailing off on facinating
tangents. I eventually gave up on following up here, sat in front of the
keyboard & tried to organise my thoughts well enough to comment
succinctly, & ended up having several interesting (IMO, at least)
insights on the whole artist => composition => viewer relationship.
So far, I'm up to about a page worth of outline points that I'm going to
try to turn into a cohesive article on the subject. :)
Dennis O'Connor
the pictorial center... zappo!
denny
"Al Denelsbeck" <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote in > .
Presented with a photograph of a
> buoy on the water, shot from relatively high so no horizon, no shore edge,
> nothing but the water surface and a buoy.
> But we tend to still feel the buoy should not be dead center, even
Alan Browne
>
> Okay, here's my take on rules:
>
> Rules are expressions of attributes inherent in the context of a specific
> reality, and are thus objective in nature. Guidelines are recommendations
> based on individual or collective experience. To the extent these actually
> correspond, adequate understanding is implied. But that's not necessarily
> the case, so best to keep rules separate, as they are not arbitrary and do
> not derive from choice.
I am confused <somewhat natural state> by the 'high order' thoughts you
espouse v. the insistence that 'rules' (low order) are a requirement.
Low order rules will strangle higher order ideals that you wish to
express with the photo.
>
> I like rules rather than guidelines, because I can discover them for myself,
> where I can't dependably discover the reasons for the experience of others.
> Now, having said that, guidelines that are solidly based on rules tend to
> remain valid, and so it's useful to discover if this is the case. If
> someone presents a guideline and can explain why its valid, what they are
> doing is expressing the validating rule.
Agree. But still, the variety of images we make leads to a variety of
situations where a basket of rules will fall apart... hopefully!
>
> Now, a rule is basically an expression, and as such, is most useful in
> communication. Who comprehends the essence of a scene can discern the
> stable verities thereof, such that a rule is an expression of a verity.
> The statement of the rule is an effective way to communicate something of
> the nature of that verity.
Again, I get the feeling you are mixing high order artistic ideals with
nuts and bolts rules. This can only, IMO, lead to a formulistic view of
things. Unless the last rule in the rule list is "okay, now what new
rules do we invent and what old rules to we break to really get effect
and communication."
>
> The key here, I think, is to recognize that the essence of a scene has
> deeper existence than the scene itself, and can manifest itself in some
> (infinite?) number of scenes. So we can use an understanding of the rule
> to identify the presence or absence of that essence, just as we can discern
> the existence of a rule within a recognized essence itself. Which is why
> we share rules. It helps those who don't recognize those essences to do
> so, if only by trial and error.
Any scene can of course be shot any number of ways ... effective
photography (or painting or songwriting) means deciding on as few ways
as possible that effectively (or dramatically, or subtely, or ...)
capture the scene in a meaningful way. The photographer has to develop
the ability to decide on the spot what the rules for the shot will be...
and if this requires the invention of new rules on the spot, and
breaking other rules on the spot, then so be it.
> In short, who recognizes the essence only needs to formalize the rules
> inherent therein to the extent that communication about the matter is
> appropriate. But the fact of the matter is that no one is omniscient, and
> who already sees the scope of these matters knows best how limited that
> recognition is likely to be. So rules as concepts to think about are
> valuable to us all.
>
> Does that make sense?
To you maybe, but...I'm confused, as I say above, by the mix of high
ideals v. the intent to reduce the art to a set of rules. You can be an
artist or a draughtsmans, but not both on the same piece of paper.
A fault of many photographers (I am not imune) is to spot an 'object'
and then decide to photograph it. That's okay. The failings are
usually in the isolation of the object or in taking the subject in
harmonious (or purposely contrasting) relationship with its
surroundings, or photographing detailed parts of the subject... All to
say, before even deciding on 'rules' or 'guidelines' for the shot, the
photographer needs to take time to think about the subject and its
meaning. David Allen Harvey would say "Find the symbol". That is one
of his 'rules' and it certainly says nothing about 'rule of thirds' or
other low level mechanics. (He probably has a bagful of 'rules' but the
one he talks about is far above these details.)
My observation of photo club contests is that the judges, faced with 20
- 30 excellent slides, are reduced to looking for 'little things' that
detract from the image. The problem with this is that it enforces a
'rule' based approach to photography... the less imaginative members of
the club gobble this up... sigh.
The one useful point here is that we should spend a few moments looking
for things that will detract from the image and see what can be done
about fixing them... here is where a set of rules / guidelines is
valuable ... as long as we have the discipline ... to BREAK them as
appropriate.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> Bill T. & Al D.,
>
> Thanks so much for your posts on this topic; you've really gotten me
> thinking hard about the whole creative process. I've wanted to join in
> several times during the thread, but keep on trailing off on facinating
> tangents. I eventually gave up on following up here, sat in front of the
> keyboard & tried to organise my thoughts well enough to comment
> succinctly, & ended up having several interesting (IMO, at least)
> insights on the whole artist => composition => viewer relationship.
> So far, I'm up to about a page worth of outline points that I'm going to
> try to turn into a cohesive article on the subject. :)
>
I look forward to it.
Cheers,
Alan
William D. Tallman
> Bill T. & Al D.,
>
> Thanks so much for your posts on this topic; you've really gotten me
> thinking hard about the whole creative process. I've wanted to join in
> several times during the thread, but keep on trailing off on facinating
> tangents. I eventually gave up on following up here, sat in front of the
> keyboard & tried to organise my thoughts well enough to comment
> succinctly, & ended up having several interesting (IMO, at least)
> insights on the whole artist => composition => viewer relationship.
> So far, I'm up to about a page worth of outline points that I'm going to
> try to turn into a cohesive article on the subject. :)
>
Hey ho!!! When you get done, start a new thread, and we'll continue this.
Bill Tallman
William D. Tallman
> William D. Tallman wrote:
>>
>> Okay, here's my take on rules:
>>
>> Rules are expressions of attributes inherent in the context of a specific
>> reality, and are thus objective in nature. Guidelines are
>> recommendations
>> based on individual or collective experience. To the extent these
>> actually
>> correspond, adequate understanding is implied. But that's not
>> necessarily the case, so best to keep rules separate, as they are not
>> arbitrary and do not derive from choice.
>
> I am confused <somewhat natural state> by the 'high order' thoughts you
> espouse v. the insistence that 'rules' (low order) are a requirement.
> Low order rules will strangle higher order ideals that you wish to
> express with the photo.
Hi Alan,
How about: Rules are an expression of the objective reality of the
environment as it presents itself, and therefore not subject to arbitrary
alteration. Having said that, the part of this we often fail to see is
that we are also part of that objective reality, and so rules also speak of
our own interaction with the presentation. As such, they also cover what
might be seen as default human response, such as is inherent in our
physical being. In that regard, they impinge upon human artifice to the
extent that our physical response are, in some part, acculturated.
Guidelines are an amalgamation of successful responses to a perceived rule,
set of rules. If we wish to do snapshootery, we can probably rely on the
default to the extent we understand it; here, we can guess that experienced
snapshooters discover such rules by trial and error, etc, although they
don't formalize them and thus make them reusable except to the extent
they're able to perceive their existence in any situation.
However, if we wish to be artists, and most of us do at least to some
extent, we seek ways of responding to such rules more effectively, and
guidelines speak to those possibilities of response.
>> I like rules rather than guidelines, because I can discover them for
>> myself, where I can't dependably discover the reasons for the experience
>> of others. Now, having said that, guidelines that are solidly based on
>> rules tend to
>> remain valid, and so it's useful to discover if this is the case. If
>> someone presents a guideline and can explain why its valid, what they are
>> doing is expressing the validating rule.
>
> Agree. But still, the variety of images we make leads to a variety of
> situations where a basket of rules will fall apart... hopefully!
Rules are inherent in the scene, which is why only those already observed
are applicable. We carry the basket in order to address a variety of
scenes, but we don't apply them inappropriately, or so we hope <grin>
>> Now, a rule is basically an expression, and as such, is most useful in
>> communication. Who comprehends the essence of a scene can discern the
>> stable verities thereof, such that a rule is an expression of a verity.
>> The statement of the rule is an effective way to communicate something of
>> the nature of that verity.
>
> Again, I get the feeling you are mixing high order artistic ideals with
> nuts and bolts rules. This can only, IMO, lead to a formulistic view of
> things. Unless the last rule in the rule list is "okay, now what new
> rules do we invent and what old rules to we break to really get effect
> and communication."
Assumptions: Higher order == more general. Lower order == more specific.
If those assumptions are valid, then I would observe that much of human life
is about striving to create higher order from lower order. This is a
stated goal of science, of course, and could probably be said as well of
art; art and science do it quite differently, though... <grin>
Now, I guess I'm a bit leery of the notion of artistic ideals. Probably
because I don't understand them... lol!!!! But, having said that, perhaps
the concept of extracting and presenting an essence of human meaning from a
scene is one of those ideals. Universal art is that which dependably
evokes a response of any given observer, presumably of a specific nature as
well. Art, then, is that which evokes a predictable response from the
observer. An artist can do this dependably, and so knows somewhat of the
particulars of how to create art, as well as possessing the skill to apply
that knowledge successfully.
I would suggest, then, that an artist, to be successful, must address the
entire range of relevant considerations. That range spans, among other
things, the general to the specific, the subjective to the objective, etc.,
and must be able to weld all this into a cohesive and applicable base of
knowledge, a basis of understanding what art is and how to create it.
There is a lot of supporting material that I'm not including here, but I can
drag out what is required if needed. Otherwise, obfuscation!!!
>> The key here, I think, is to recognize that the essence of a scene has
>> deeper existence than the scene itself, and can manifest itself in some
>> (infinite?) number of scenes. So we can use an understanding of the rule
>> to identify the presence or absence of that essence, just as we can
>> discern
>> the existence of a rule within a recognized essence itself. Which is why
>> we share rules. It helps those who don't recognize those essences to do
>> so, if only by trial and error.
>
> Any scene can of course be shot any number of ways ... effective
> photography (or painting or songwriting) means deciding on as few ways
> as possible that effectively (or dramatically, or subtely, or ...)
> capture the scene in a meaningful way. The photographer has to develop
> the ability to decide on the spot what the rules for the shot will be...
> and if this requires the invention of new rules on the spot, and
> breaking other rules on the spot, then so be it.
A scene is an aspect of our environment. How it presents itself to us
depends on our position as witnesses thereof. Position here includes both
space and time, and the attitude and configuration of the witness as well.
What we see depends on where we are, when we're there, and the (for lack of
a more concise term) "mind-set" we have at the moment. From the specifics
of the instance, there emerge rules that are inherent, that encompass both
the environment (scene) and the witness (the viewer). Fortunately, there
are threads of commonality involved: the presence of the human witness.
And so we are able, with experience, to recognize their existence more
readily.
Now, what is at issue here is whether the emergent rules will dictate a
default response. Guidelines can be expressions of generalizations of
rules, or they can be expressions of successful alternative responses. We
observe the rules, and we create the guidelines. Neither of these,
however, exhaustively define possible responses. It's up to the
photographer to choose to seek alternative responses, but that means the
ability to perceive options and to choose therefrom. That ability takes
time and effort to generate, and probably requires some unusual innate
talent as well. Dunno about the latter.....
>> In short, who recognizes the essence only needs to formalize the rules
>> inherent therein to the extent that communication about the matter is
>> appropriate. But the fact of the matter is that no one is omniscient,
>> and who already sees the scope of these matters knows best how limited
>> that
>> recognition is likely to be. So rules as concepts to think about are
>> valuable to us all.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
> To you maybe, but...I'm confused, as I say above, by the mix of high
> ideals v. the intent to reduce the art to a set of rules. You can be an
> artist or a draughtsmans, but not both on the same piece of paper.
Oh sure you can be both an artist and a draughtsman! In fact,
draughtsmanship is a huge asset to an artist! What you can't do is to
relinquish the opportunity to interpret, and take advantage thereof at the
same time. Can't have your cake and eat it too, unless there's another
cake in the oven... <grin>
Again, I suggest that mixing these two conceptual categories is what we do
in any case. That's how we extract possibilities and probabilities from
the present as we comprehend it.
> A fault of many photographers (I am not imune) is to spot an 'object'
> and then decide to photograph it. That's okay. The failings are
> usually in the isolation of the object or in taking the subject in
> harmonious (or purposely contrasting) relationship with its
> surroundings, or photographing detailed parts of the subject... All to
> say, before even deciding on 'rules' or 'guidelines' for the shot, the
> photographer needs to take time to think about the subject and its
> meaning. David Allen Harvey would say "Find the symbol". That is one
> of his 'rules' and it certainly says nothing about 'rule of thirds' or
> other low level mechanics. (He probably has a bagful of 'rules' but the
> one he talks about is far above these details.)
Yep. Find the symbol is a useful guideline, not a rule. I think we carry
the ability to recognize what is meaningful to a human observer, whether
specifically or collectively. We also acquire an insight into how such
meaning is presented, as we gain experience. The photographer's skill,
then, is how to capture that meaning in the acquired image. To some
extent, these initial responses exemplify the inherent rules as they
manifest, and thus these are default responses.
Now, if we're serious about what we're doing, we'll maybe do all that and
then step back and see what we've missed. Inherent rules that are not so
obvious, and possible responses to those rules. In thinking about these
matters, we conceptualize them, so that they emerge as Rules, thereby
bringing to bear our experience more fully. Often that is a second stage
activity that follows the initial response shots. I think it's probably
good to indulge ourselves in this regard: film is cheap and digital image
storage needn't be permanent.
In the process of that initial foray, we might discover what we otherwise
would have missed, and that's useful in itself.
> My observation of photo club contests is that the judges, faced with 20
> - 30 excellent slides, are reduced to looking for 'little things' that
> detract from the image. The problem with this is that it enforces a
> 'rule' based approach to photography... the less imaginative members of
> the club gobble this up... sigh.
Yeah, which is why I don't belong to photo clubs. Those guys have their own
tastes, which sets the criteria by which they judge. which becomes codified
as the preferred "rule set". Because it's very often the same guys each
time, there's little opportunity for growth.
> The one useful point here is that we should spend a few moments looking
> for things that will detract from the image and see what can be done
> about fixing them... here is where a set of rules / guidelines is
> valuable ... as long as we have the discipline ... to BREAK them as
> appropriate.
I agree. It's usually good to observe the rules for some shots, and then
consider the possibilities of observing these rules creatively with non
default responses. Thing is, it takes work to develop the ability to do
this, and all too many people don't want to expend the effort.
Most, if not all, photographers whose work is well regarded will admit that
they've built their ability by inspecting and analyzing wastebaskets full
of blown shots, bad shots, mediocre shots, etc. There are formulas for
building such ability, such as mercilessly throwing away everything but the
very best work. Anyone who wishes to develop the ability to do well
regarded work must eventually discover for themself what does and does not
work.
You have, however, pointed out a human verity: Without the discipline to
pursue a course of action even when one has run out of the fuel of
inspiration and enthusiasm, a course comes to a premature end. And the
goal is not achieved.
We all have to decide, at some point, how we regard such issues, and pursue
photography accordingly. Which is why these discussions in this venue are
good: they're useful to lurkers and newbies.
<grin>
Bill
William D. Tallman
> I hate doing this, but in the interest of space and brevity I'm going
> to be clipping various sections of the previous messages, mostly mine.
> Apologies to anyone that comes in late and wants to follow it...
Yeah, and I just lost the entire response I had by clicking on the wrong
icon!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll do it again after a while.... <grin>
Bill Tallman
William D. Tallman
Take two.........
<snip>
>> Yep. Actually the mechanism of the Fibonacci series is an elegant
>> trinary, which is easily encoded: The next one is the sum of the last
>> two. But the Rule of Thirds has little to do with the Golden Section,
>> I think.
>
> This has been my suspicion, and my theory is that it lies more in our
> fundamental instincts, going way back to 'caveman' times. Not a
> recognition of the 'natural order' that gave birth to the Fibonacci series
> and related ilk (I'm not keen on math ;-) ), but more in how our
> environment impinges on our survival instincts.
We are part of that 'natural order' ourselves, and part of our instincts
rise therefrom.
<snip>
>> These considerations probably don't constitute the majority of
>> relevant considerations in the composition of a scene, however easily
>> expressed they may appear.
>
> No, and don't get me wrong, I personally don't like the rule of
> thirds, and feel it's far too structured to give a proper impression of
> compositional elements and priorities. And those priorities shift
> constantly. But it *does* represent an overall tendency to feel more
> comfortable with a primary subject that is off-center, and the question
> is, why?
Good question!
> Discussing it gives it a lot more seeming importance than it has, as
> well. It's an extremely subtle factor, another reason why I don't like it.
> But in recognition that it *is* still a factor...
Why not the center? Because that's the dead point. That is the stationary
point that never moves, that remains static while everything around it
moves. It's the anchor point for the frame, the point to which the entire
frame has reference of some sort. For anything that is there, the
implication is that it is at ground state, possessing the least amount of
energy possible for existence. Not good enough for life.
Anything that spans the center must needs be asymmetrical in order to retain
any dynamism at all, and generally is there in response to forces from
without the frame. Those force may or may not be implied, but the attitude
of anything that spans the center needs to have reference to something
other than the frame itself. Sort of like the orientation of the frame
within the context that is implied for it.
<snip>
>> I think that our field of vision establishes the reality of scene
>> boundaries, but does not define their nature. So considerations of
>> comparative aspect ratios have indeterminate relevance here. What
>> does define those matters is the nature of the scene itself, as it is
>> created by the interaction between us and our environment.
>
> Alright, let me give an example. Presented with a photograph of a
> buoy on the water, shot from relatively high so no horizon, no shore edge,
> nothing but the water surface and a buoy. The impression given by the
> photo is isolation, because in our mind we automatically extend the water
> beyond the photo edges and on into infinity, or as much as our reason will
> allow. So the frame edges form no true boundaries or restrictions.
No, but the fact that they're there implies that something is contained
therein, and probably not just the buoy itself.
> But we tend to still feel the buoy should not be dead center, even
> though in the environment we picture, with the infinite water, the buoy
> could be anywhere, really. But the image forms the focus of our attention,
> and I believe adequately stands in for the fovea of our eyes, the area of
> distinct focus (as opposed to peripheral vision).
Well, perhaps. But I think that there is something about the buoy in the
frame that is of interest, else the image isn't worth a second glance. For
instance, a harbor buoy is subject to the tides, and so is nearly always
leaning one way or another. We would have it most likely leaning toward
the center of the frame, so that it is balanced with the implied water flow
coming at it from the other side of the frame.
Or perhaps the buoy is under direct sunlight, such that casts some shadow.
The sun will be coming from the other side of the frame, I would expect.
This is all assuming that there is no action on the water's surface.
Positioning the buoy within the waves provides its own dynamics. But, in
general, we would expect the buoy to be interacting with something, some
dynamic that is either in the frame itself or has force within the frame
(sunlight, tide), such that it implicitly occupies a balancing part of the
frame.
> So the impression is, we have a tendency to be more comfortable with
> the buoy being out of the center, even though we will focus directly on it
> (since there's nothing else to focus on in this example) and we know fully
> that it's the main subject. We just don't like it dead center. There's
> something at work here, which is hinted at by the rule of thirds, but not
> really explained. And we tend to like a certain distance, regardless of
> the image boundaries. It could be a square print, or a panoramic where the
> buoy actually falls outside the area of a square print, but if it's
> roughly a third of the way, we're happy.
Sort of like an orbit, an ellipse with an unoccupied focal point. That
focal point becomes the center of the opposing force, whatever that might
be. OTOH, if the depiction is a static one, then the displayed object is
sharing the center space with the implied object.
But there is an entirely different parameter that is not all that well
recognized, I think. That parameter is the dimension of time.
Asymmetry implies dynamism, the potential for change. What is implicit here
is the presence of the past and the future.
Consider the image of a man standing. The composition tells the story. If
the man is standing dead center and facing us, it is the man himself who
has the story. Richard Avedon's "Faces" is a great example of this,
although AFAIK none of them is a full body. The message is written in the
face itself. If there is nothing there, the only message the image conveys
is emptiness. Not good.
Now consider a man standing to one side of the center. If the man is facing
the center, he is balanced by his potential future, because his attention
is on the opposite side of the frame; it could be that he intends to occupy
that side of the frame if he's walking. If not, what he is regarding will
somehow affect his future. If the man is facing away from the center, then
the bulk of the frame presents his past. It is what is behind him, and
presumably has had his awareness. If that's not the case, then there needs
to be something else in that part of the frame to make that story clear.
If the man is walking, the man has walked by whatever is there, and it is
what he is leaving behind.
Suppose the man is standing to one side facing out. What is implied is that
he has made room for something that accompanies him, or will accompany him,
or has in the past accompanied him. He has our attention, has caught our
eye. What is it that he is sharing? Perhaps the fact that he has nothing
to share. Even so, that is what the dynamic implies. Suppose the man is
facing into the frame, so that we see his back. We presume that we can
look past him to see what has caught his attention, unless the objects in
the frame tell another story.
So there is another part of composition: what has been and what will be.
>> Three is the number of harmony. There are no opposing relationships
>> or entities. No entities is unrelated to any other entity, and all
>> relationships are balanced by the third entity. And so forth. So the
>> Rule of Three in essence is the statement of that state. The missing
>> recognition here, I think, is that the Rule of Three doesn't always
>> imply three equal spaces, although that's the most common usage.
>
> What first came to mind is some seminar I took back when I was a
> manager, on human interaction. Three is most definitely *not* a number of
> harmony - it always turns into two partners and an odd-man-out. Never have
> three people on a project ;-)
Make the odd man the team leader!!!! That's the natural position. Here's a
slightly different take on three guys at a job. Remember building custom
houses long ago. Quite often there would be three of us on site at any one
given time. The rule was that one man stood and paid attention to what the
other two were doing, but not only for safety, but because it actually
resulted in an increase in productivity. The two guys working simply did
their jobs because they knew they didn't have to do anything else but do
the job. Two guys could reliably put out more work with less effort than
could three guys all working together. Of course, what would happen is
that the watcher role rotated so that everyone got to take a break at that
position.... <grin>
>
> But otherwise I agree with you - three is stable, and indicates
> balance, and represents a pyramid (which is the natural shape of
> gravitational pull - you can't get sand to pile into a cube or rod), and
> so forth. But five is strong too, and represented by numerous other things
> in nature, including our own hands. Like three, it also represents
> balance, and has a middle value, unlike an even number of something which
> splits into two sides. You can't pick the middle stone in a line of four.
Yep. However, three is the minimum stable number.
<snip>
>> What occurs is the image of a highway (yeah, Hwy 50, headed across the
>> desert... <grin>) receding in the distance. What we notice are the
>> stripes indicating a center line that permits passing. These stripes
>> get shorter as they recede. Is the relationship at any notable point
>> that of the Golden Section?
>
> After thinking on this one for a little bit, I believe it's a
> cube/square thing, and that effectively dodges the Golden Section.
Well, that would be a static consideration, the balancing of such attributes
without the dimension of time, where the GS necessarily (I think) implies
progression.
>> What happens if we somehow contrive to place the key object at that
>> point? How about the blonde in the white dress, showing a bit of
>> thigh? Too gaudy? How about roadkill? Yechh!! lol!!! But what if
>> we place something more subtle there that ties the image together in a
>> message of some sort? Would that make it more potent? Enough more
>> potent to bring it to more obvious attention? I suspect it would have
>> to be tried.
>
> I'm game. Anyone got a blond with good thighs handy?
<Waylon Jennings in the background.... hmmm......>
"Photographers have to save their money, do research and all that bit,
So they can go down to the store and buy themselves a kit.
So ladies when they ask you don't refuse,
Let's all help the photographer do his nudes....."
Ladies????
Welllll... okayyyy....
ROFL!!!!!
> But I'm unsure what 'point' you're referring to above.
Not surprisingly, neither am I!! I think I was imagining that at some
point, the relationship of the receding stripes would demonstrate a GS.
Dunno, but I must admit there are some areas of the top of my head that I
hesitate to claim... idea must have come from there, I guess.
> If you're talking about separating an image into distinct sections
> with some visual element, and applying compositional rules either within
> or in spite of these separations, that *is* an interesting thought...
Something of the sort.
>> No, I think that these are subtle effects, and if they are brought
>> into primacy, one is dealing with the exception rather than the rule,
>> although just which exception and rule is beyond me...<grin>
>>
>> <scratches head...>
>>
>> Okay, how about the window scene, where there are three windows, the
>> center one of which is dominant somehow. The Rule of Three in another
>> guise. It strongly implies status, balance. Often we'd want to place
>> an object located in an asymmetrical position to give some dynamic
>> tension and interest. So here the inherent Rule of Three asks for its
>> own counterbalance. Quite a different effect. And certainly not that
>> of the Golden Section.
>
> This is a good example. A vase, for instance, in the right window. In
> the center window, it has much the same effect as centering your subject,
> generally not pleasing. But off to one side it offers something
> unbalanced, out of the 'natural' order or the tendency to have a geometric
> layout.
You could put the vase in the center window, and there perhaps the rule of
thirds could be discerned. But it on the border between to sections of
three, with something implicit on the other side. Light?
If you put it in the right window, you are creating a tension in the other
two that will require resolution. What's there, or will be there, or is
there by effect or indirection? What has been there? Put a vase in the
right window and make a mark on the sill of the left, where the matching
vase has been.
Essentially, the further from the center, the greater the amount of tension,
or need for a potential balance.
> Now, is that a 'rule of thirds' preference, or simply the charm of
> being a little incongruous? What if the image were composed to put the
> righthand window dead center, with all of them still within the frame? I
> suspect that would be bad.
Not necessarily. Suppose there was another dynamic visible. Lets have
sunlight streaming in from the upper right. Now there are shadows falling
away down to the left, and the centered vase becomes an active fulcrum.
Would have to be done carefully, perhaps, but there's one idea.
> Here's my semi-orderly thoughts on the rule of thirds...
>
> First, there's some obvious elements that fit into it readily. The
> 'room to move' aspect, the 'direction of attention' aspect, not crowding
> the subject, and so on. These are actually not related, per se, but adapt
> well into the 'rule'.
Each are rules in their own right. Choose those that emerge, and determine
your response.
> But more fundamentally, something right in the center demands our
> attention, and confronts us. Back when we were hunting mastodon and
> avoiding predators, this could be a bad thing. Something head on was a
> threat, especially if it was looking at us. Surprise was gone, distraction
> was gone - it had to be dealt with. Typical prey, something unthreatening
> like a rabbit, doesn't do this - it would be poised for flight, and the
> direction of attention is away.
Okay.....
> Additionally, something in the center blocks our view (and path), and
> interferes with our parallax vision, and thus depth perception. We have
> less ability to see the environment, especially in our intended field of
> view dead ahead.
Okay.....
> Off to one side, however, the threat is diminished, our path is
> unobstructed, we have an escape and a view in the direction we're facing.
> While we still can keep an eye on the subject, we have situational
> awareness too.
Okay.....
> Moreover, being off to one side favors the position of our arms and
> optimal reach. Where is the coffee cup on your desk right now? This
> naturally leads to some thoughts on an experiment, where picures of nice
> succelent fruit were shown to a large selection of people - would the
> right-handers prefer the composition where the apple was to the right of
> the frame?
????? I'd have never thought of this! That, I think, is worth
investigating. Something to watch for. Might point out and explain
responses unnoticed and/or misunderstood. I'll remember that!
> All of this applies more readily to horizontal compositions.
> Vertically, it doesn't seem to follow the pattern too well, but then
> again, vertical compositions tend to be used on a vertical subject (and
> very frequently the sky as well). But with people as a subject, our
> natural attention falls into that area anyway - we can see the facial
> expressions and what the shoulders, and often arms, are doing. Very key
> indicators of someone's disposition. Moving someone too close to the top
> of the frame
> accomplishes two things - it implies no headroom, a very uncomfortable
> feeling, and brings us into a lower and submissive position in relation to
> them.
Implicit granting of potential, room to move and expand. And implied
attitude as well. Good observation, Al.
> This is all just speculation, and anyone is welcome to chime in and
> tear it to shreds (someone could make a case that the heart is about 2/3
> of the way up a person's body, too - you can make numbers mean a lot if
> you try). I've just been pondering, off and on, where some of this
> 'instinct' for composition comes from.
IIRC, that was a "metaphysics" concern, but that was the '60s and I don't
know recall. And yeah, numerology from Qabalistic gematria. Doesn't work
as well in other languages, or does it.... LOL!!!!!
> My own approach for the rule of thirds, when explaining it to people,
> has been that a centered subject simply says, "A flower". But an
> off-center composition says, "Here is a scene with a flower in it", and
> provides more recognition of the surroundings, and a lot of times more
> depth as well. And it starts people looking at what else gets to be
> included in the composition. I feel the thirds gridline is pretty much
> nonsense, far too definite for something as wildly variable as
> photography, and becomes too restrictive of creativity.
The flower spans the center of the frame. It needs asymmetry to remain
viable, and part of the implication present in the image is the cause of
that asymmetry. Trope? Wind? What?
I think what you are saying is that for those for whom the rule determines
the default response, there is a) not enough understanding of the material,
the subject, the art, or maybe all of these, and b) unfortunate laziness,
indicating lack of... passion? discipline? intelligence? sensitivity?
For the rest of us, rules are inherent in the circumstances. We may choose
to accept them as default responses, but we can also choose not do to so.
The extent to which we can satisfy the requirements expressed by the rules
in a new, unexpected, seminally different, whathaveyou, way, is an
indication of what we have to offer photography, and a measure of what
value we can extract therefrom.
Or something like that.
<feels top of head. Temporarily empty!!>
Bill Tallman
Martin Djernæs
Gordon Moat wrote:
> how to describe them. One example was with the Golden Section. After learning
How would you describe the difference between the Golden Section and the
rule of thirds?
Martin
Dennis O'Connor
That's a golden section...
denny
"Martin Djernæs" <mar...@djernaes.dk.del> wrote in message
news:9ZlUb.95632$U%5.484444@attbi_s03...
Alan Browne
> Well, when we divvy up, I get a third, you get a third, and I get a third...
> That's a golden section...
> denny
no, a golden section is when we divvy up and I get half, and you get
half, and your brother gets half, my sister gets half, ...
Alan Browne
> How would you describe the difference between the Golden Section and the
> rule of thirds?
>
> Martin
>
depending on what "difference" you look at:
(SQRT(5)+1)/2 - 3/2 = 0.118033988...
(SQRT(5)-1)/2 - 2/3 = 0.048632677...
[ note 1/((SQRT(5)+1)/2) = ((SQRT(5)-1)/2) ]
Okay, enough with the jokes...
The real difference is that it is realtively easy in the viewfinder to
divide the scene into thirds. Placement of an object on such a line has
lots of room for slop. Placement of a line on a 1/3 (or GS line) is
harder to accomplish with any accuracy unless there are lines etched on
the focus screen...(as my older 7xi had).
There is a good text on the golden section in photography at photozone
in the technique section.
http://www.photozone.de/bindex4.html see "The Golden Mean" on the left
frame.
Gordon Moat
Simply stated, the Golden Section is a proportion based on observations of nature.
The Rule of Thirds is a simple division based upon the human nature to notice
things in odd numbers more than in even divisions.
Plato observed what he termed the "Harmony of Nature", as did Aristotle, and
discovered a proportion that occurs quite often. It was also discovered that this
proportion could be translated, mathematically stated, and used for man made
objects.
The best representation in nature is the shell of the Chambered Nautilus. Each
successive smaller shell division is a proportion equal to the Golden Section, and
the spiral they form also followed Golden Section divisions. Since this is not
rectangular at all, it is easy to see how that is different from a division of
thirds.
The best representation of the Golden Section in architecture is the Parthenon.
The size of the outer columns are smaller than the inner columns, and are spaced
wider apart. All the proportions of the column, arches, vaults and other elements
are derived from Golden Section relationships.
Read through this short article. The second bold text paragraph is the expression
of the Golden Section in words. Using that, it is possible to draw without need of
calculations:
<http://www.goldenmuseum.com/0305GreekArt_engl.html>
While in photography, drawing and painting, the temptation is to use the simplest
proportion lines as derived by Golden Section, usually be calculation. Actually,
an more thoughtful understanding and appreciation of this could lead to a
composition in which the relative proportion of objects within the picture plane
are Golden Section proportions. This makes it not so much a matter of placement,
unlike the Rule of Thirds, as a matter of proportions.
I hope I have explained this well. I find it easier to show people with drawings,
so it is tough for me to relate this in words.
Martin Djernæs
The reason for my question was that I do know (technically) what the
golden section is and I know that it's often used when talking about
paintings. My real interest was if you felt that your knowledge about
painting and the golden section could be of (additional) use when you
were doing photographs. Judging from your answer below I guess the
answer is yes, but I do have a few more questions inline.
> The best representation in nature is the shell of the Chambered Nautilus. Each
> successive smaller shell division is a proportion equal to the Golden Section, and
> the spiral they form also followed Golden Section divisions. Since this is not
> rectangular at all, it is easy to see how that is different from a division of
> thirds.
Now I also tried to read the bold section in your link (and I will have
to read that one a few times more before really understanding it), but
basically the golden section says more about how to select the position
of individual parts in the image than where to place the lines in the
image (which is my very basic understanding of the rule of thirds).
> While in photography, drawing and painting, the temptation is to use the simplest
> proportion lines as derived by Golden Section, usually be calculation. Actually,
> an more thoughtful understanding and appreciation of this could lead to a
> composition in which the relative proportion of objects within the picture plane
> are Golden Section proportions. This makes it not so much a matter of placement,
> unlike the Rule of Thirds, as a matter of proportions.
So your saying that "good use" of the golden section is to choose your
view point so the proportions of the elements in the picture satisfy the
golden section (or just look pleasing to the eye).
> I hope I have explained this well. I find it easier to show people with drawings,
> so it is tough for me to relate this in words.
;-)
So when Plato and friends said that when "things" (images, buildings,
etc) look pleasing to the eye when it happens to satisfy the golden
section I can help thinking about something I've heard about in music. I
do not know much about music, but happens to be married to a baroque
musician. In music there are harmonies which people find pleasing to the
ear and therefore you should try to use these when composing music, but
the interesting part is that different cultures (Asian, European and
others) have developed different preferences and therefore the harmonies
which are considered pleasing in Europe isn't the same as the ones the
Asians find pleasing. Do you think that some cultures relate more than
others to the golden section?
Martin
Gordon Moat
is being typed on a borrowed machine.
Martin Djernæs wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
> The reason for my question was that I do know (technically) what the
> golden section is and I know that it's often used when talking about
> paintings. My real interest was if you felt that your knowledge about
> painting and the golden section could be of (additional) use when you
> were doing photographs. Judging from your answer below I guess the
> answer is yes, but I do have a few more questions inline.
I do tend to think in a manner somewhat like how I do my paintings, but
not exactly. My paintings are often composite images, so when I do
photos to gather information for painting, then those photos deviate
from composition influences. With my regular photography, it is an
opposite tendency. Anyway, on to the questions.
>
>
>> The best representation in nature is the shell of the Chambered
>> Nautilus. Each
>> successive smaller shell division is a proportion equal to the Golden
>> Section, and
>> the spiral they form also followed Golden Section divisions. Since
>> this is not
>> rectangular at all, it is easy to see how that is different from a
>> division of
>> thirds.
>
>
> Now I also tried to read the bold section in your link (and I will have
> to read that one a few times more before really understanding it), but
> basically the golden section says more about how to select the position
> of individual parts in the image than where to place the lines in the
> image (which is my very basic understanding of the rule of thirds).
Approaching it as positioning, rather than divisions, would be one
approach, but not the only approach.
>
>
>> While in photography, drawing and painting, the temptation is to use
>> the simplest
>> proportion lines as derived by Golden Section, usually be calculation.
>> Actually,
>> an more thoughtful understanding and appreciation of this could lead to a
>> composition in which the relative proportion of objects within the
>> picture plane
>> are Golden Section proportions. This makes it not so much a matter of
>> placement,
>> unlike the Rule of Thirds, as a matter of proportions.
>
>
> So your saying that "good use" of the golden section is to choose your
> view point so the proportions of the elements in the picture satisfy the
> golden section (or just look pleasing to the eye).
Think of how things appear in nature, and then try to convey that
approach to photographic images. Probably a bad example . . . how about
something different: find an area in which rectangles predominate in the
composition; place yourself and your camera in a position to view two
rectangular areas in the image plane; make sure one rectangle is smaller
than the other rectangle, or contained within the outlines of the larger
rectangle; take the photo (or three). Inspect your results later, and
see if the areas are proportions of the Golden Section (a little math
might make this easier). You could also do this by inspection of other
images, such as architecture images.
>
>
>> I hope I have explained this well. I find it easier to show people
>> with drawings,
>> so it is tough for me to relate this in words.
>
>
> ;-)
>
> So when Plato and friends said that when "things" (images, buildings,
> etc) look pleasing to the eye when it happens to satisfy the golden
> section I can help thinking about something I've heard about in music. I
> do not know much about music, but happens to be married to a baroque
> musician. In music there are harmonies which people find pleasing to the
> ear and therefore you should try to use these when composing music, but
> the interesting part is that different cultures (Asian, European and
> others) have developed different preferences and therefore the harmonies
> which are considered pleasing in Europe isn't the same as the ones the
> Asians find pleasing. Do you think that some cultures relate more than
> others to the golden section?
Sounds like Fibanachi numbers (sequences?). I don't have my college
notes on that handy, but I do recall that some musical sequences also
fit a proportional patterning, very similar to the Golden Section.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
It occurs to me that in Plato's time, there was much more nature for us
to observe. Since the Golden Section was derived from an observation of
nature, perhaps the current intrusion of nature by man makes this less
intuitive in a modern era. While those not living in cities might find
this less of an issue, it seems to me that inner city influences, or
even television and movie viewing, might take our intuition away from
concepts such as the Golden Section.
Anyway, try not to think of grids, nor divisions. Try to image
proportions, especially with non-square objects. Start with architecture
images, then move on to compositions.
Martin Djernæs
Thanks a lot for your answers, I found them very interesting. I was
mostly asking out of curiosity as to what your take was on the
difference in idea and usage, and I have to say I got what I was looking
for .. and much more.
> Anyway, try not to think of grids, nor divisions. Try to image
> proportions, especially with non-square objects. Start with architecture
> images, then move on to compositions.
Maybe one day I'll try do your square "exercise", just to see if I
really understood what your said.
Thanks again,
Martin
Dennis O'Connor
more about composition than a ten foot tall, pile of photography books..
denny
"Martin Djernæs" <mar...@djernaes.dk.del> wrote in message
Martin Djernæs
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> Again, read, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"... You will absorb
> more about composition than a ten foot tall, pile of photography books..
Thanks,
Martin