Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: DougStocks on July 18, 2015, 11:07:24 pm
-
With all due respect to Ms. Tennenbaum (right brain left brain articles). The right, left brain myth has been thoroughly debunked and has no support in the neuroscience field. It's an oversimplification of a small study that has grown into a popular myth.
Here is a link to one of many articles on the subject.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/29/there-is-no-left-brainright-brain-divide/
I won't offer any theory as to why we prefer an image to read from left to right.
-
Yes, this has been known for many years, but the RB-LB mythology has become so ingrained in pop psychology that there seems to be no getting rid of it.
The same is true of all the theories about how certain lines, shapes, and compositions in an image "lead" the viewer's eye around the image in a certain way. Studies that actually determine where someone is looking have shown this to be all nonsense.
-
... Studies that actually determine where someone is looking have shown this to be all nonsense.
Links?
-
Links?
Indeed, I'd be interested as well. Broad sweeping statements should be easy to back up with some links to research papers, me thinks.
BTW, leading lines and such are probably culturally trained by the direction of how we are taught to read. I know of a marketing fuck-up concerning a global producer of baby and infant food in the 70s who started to advertize their goods in new territories around the world. They used large bill boards, with an image of a baby before it got fed with their product, and how happy and healthy the baby looked after eating the product. Obviously the campaign had the opposite effect in the Arab countries, because people there interpreted it that the baby became unhappy after eating the food.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Links?
With all due respect, look it up yourself. It's something I learned during my education as a psychologist/neuroscientist and I certainly do not remember the exact source.
-
I won't offer any theory as to why we prefer an image to read from left to right.
Ask an Israeli. Or an Arab.
Jeremy
-
"Gaze movements during the beholding of paintings (https://books.google.com/books?id=ekAFCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA103&ots=50r66G50SI&dq=eye%20tracking%20studies%20art&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q=%22What%20do%20we%20do%20when%20we%20behold%20works%20of%20visual%20arts?%22&f=false)"
pp79-108 "Art, Aesthetics, and the Brain" 2015 (Google book preview)
-
Thanks for the link, Isaac.
Between centuries of art theory and a few clunky experiments, guess what I am going to stick to?
P.S. On a more general note, worth noting that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
-
The same is true of all the theories about how certain lines, shapes, and compositions in an image "lead" the viewer's eye around the image in a certain way. Studies that actually determine where someone is looking have shown this to be all nonsense.
Thanks for bringing up this thought-provoking subject, Peter. It prompted me to do as you suggested, and search for the evidence backing it up. It turns out not to be all that easy to find, as most writings on the subject hew to the traditional concepts. However, with persistence relevant material can be found. The reference that Isaac linked is a good one. And on p. 48 of Basics Photography 01: Composition (https://books.google.com/books?id=hW9MAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=evidence+photograph+leading+lines+eye&source=bl&ots=Q9D-CEAh_p&sig=iwQRJLGWaiM-HGd8LGnLG7VAWdk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBWoVChMIsZqXtufnxgIVQSuICh1G_w64#v=onepage&q=evidence%20photograph%20leading%20lines%20eye&f=false), the author quotes the following passage from Feininger's 1972 book Principles of Composition in Photography (http://www.amazon.com/PRINCIPLES-OF-COMPOSITION-IN-PHOTOGRAPHY/dp/0817405526): "The entire theory of leading lines - lines that allegedly lead the viewer's eye to the so-called center of interest in the picture - is a fallacy." The Feininger book apparently references some scientific studies as the basis for that statement, although I wasn't able to get to that list.
A number of posts on the Gurney Journey design blog describe interesting experiments along the same lines:
What are you looking at? (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-are-you-looking-at.html)
Eye Tracking and Composition: Part 1 (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/09/eye-tracking-and-composition-part-1.html)
Eye Tracking and Composition: Part 2 (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/09/eye-tracking-and-composition-part-2.html)
Eye Tracking and Composition: Part 3 (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/09/eye-tracking-and-composition-part-3.html)
All very interesting work, which lends some insight into the subject at hand. However, I would respectfully suggest that given the current state of the science, it might be more appropriate to say that some doubt has been cast upon the utility of traditional notions of composition, rather than that they have been proven to be nonsense. The movements the eye makes are certainly of interest, but the eye just collects data; it is the mind that sees. The mind may construct images in a different order and with different emphases than data collection. Some of the material presented in Isaac's reference makes similar points.
-
Very interesting topic indeed.
As a cartoonist I read a lot on composing lights & darks for emphasis in panel layout design in order to direct the viewer to look at the picture and read the captions with ease of flow in mind. Faces being the most recognized are placed within panels to aid this flow.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OAXtkueEx3Q/U3NdVVs2IrI/AAAAAAAAWqs/aWhkdneHHTw/s1600/Terry+Pirates.lg.gif
The same thing works in photography only one frame at a time unless there is a triptych or polyptych ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyptych ) which basically is what a comic strip or graphic novel is.
Here's an example of a photographer who deliberately uses luminosity over detail or line to convey and evoke a unique emotional response in photographs...
http://starr-review.blogspot.com/2013/10/barbara-vogels-luminous-portraits.html
So studying eye movement as a science is also a myth because it doesn't indicate how the viewer feels or responds to each element in an image no matter what gets looked at first. Many people including myself will look at something first and not even see it (missing the exit sign on the interstate while looking right at it) because our mood, level of sleepiness or excitement controls train of thought and consciousness. Surrealism toyed with this kind of perception disconnect.
On the same subject here's another myth debunked by science regarding mental illness as a part of being a genius...
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/14/8955273/mad-genius-schizophrenia-bipolar-mental-health-creativity
-
Yes, this has been known for many years, but the RB-LB mythology has become so ingrained in pop psychology that there seems to be no getting rid of it.
The same is true of all the theories about how certain lines, shapes, and compositions in an image "lead" the viewer's eye around the image in a certain way. Studies that actually determine where someone is looking have shown this to be all nonsense.
Isn't that rather like saying 'the idea we read left to right is nonsense because the eye darts all over the page' - which is proven. The brain then builds a narrative out of the words it sees.
Similarly I would suggest the brain is hard wired to find patterns and paths, the latter being essential to navigate the easiest way over a landscape. A river or a ribbon of tarmac provides exactly the same function in a landscape picture.
With all due respect, look it up yourself. It's something I learned during my education as a psychologist/neuroscientist and I certainly do not remember the exact source.
FWIW (not that you are interested in all likelihood) one of the most tedious responses I find in this sort of discussion. It comes across as extremely high minded as someone who is happy to throw their comment with no substantiation.
How do we know we are looking at the same 'evidence' you are?
-
Thanks for the link, Isaac.
Between centuries of art theory and a few clunky experiments, guess what I am going to stick to?
How are the experiments "clunky." And what exactly does "clunky" mean? Other than you do not like the results.
-
How are the experiments "clunky." And what exactly does "clunky" mean?
With all due respect, figure it out yourself ;)
-
Between centuries of art theory and a few clunky experiments, guess what I am going to stick to?
iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.
-
It could be rejecting, or it could be being sceptical about the quality and validity of the new information.
-
It could be not being sceptical about the quality and validity of the existing beliefs.
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
-
My logical half wants to believe the theories. But my emotional half wants to believe what makes me feel good.
-
My technique for understanding how well a picture works, what it means, how good it is, well, it's radical and a little crazy.
I just look at the picture for a while.
-
Are detailed theories of eye leading actually very old?
My modest exposure to pre-twentieth century art theory pretty much stopped at 'the point of highest tonal contrast is where people are gonna look'
Practically everything photographers tell one another is ancient stuff going back to Leonardo is in fact twentieth century balderdash.
-
iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.
Reading this again, I am not sure if that was a rhetorical "you" or you were addressing me directly?
-
iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.
And some people will jump on any information for no other reason than it challenges current orthodoxy.
Artists did not wake up one morning and decide to invent some rules that the artistic cabal should work to. The 'rules' (leading lines, rule of thirds etc) came out of an analysis of what makes a pleasing picture (to the western senses).
The examples that Arlen linked to were not really about composition as far as I could tell but about the kind of elements the person focuses on. And, as the article mentions, people are hard-wired to focus on other peoples' faces and as such the title of the article is either misleading or not really about leading lines at all. Additionally the first of those pages even says the experiments do not explain what a person is thinking and it is the 'thinking' part that is crucial to this discussion.
-
I know about the rule of thirds.
That was invented in the early 20th century by a photographer, for photographers. Painters and everyone else think it is very amusing.
(I mean the rule that says "place the subject on a 1/3 line" not the one about pleasing proportions within the painting, which is quite a bit older).
-
FWIW (not that you are interested in all likelihood) one of the most tedious responses I find in this sort of discussion. It comes across as extremely high minded as someone who is happy to throw their comment with no substantiation.
How do we know we are looking at the same 'evidence' you are?
Point taken. However, let me make two comments. First, I am not trying to prove I am "right" or smarter than others (as happens so often on this forum), I am merely contributing to the discussion from my knowledge and education. If someone finds my comments interesting or provocative, they can investigate further on their own. To expect me to serve as their unpaid research assistant is a bit nervy, don't you think? Second, many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.
So, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?
-
The earth is flat.
There you go. Just don't expect me to serve as your unpaid research assistant and provide links and evidence. Besides, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?
-
The earth is flat.
There you go. Just don't expect me to serve as your unpaid research assistant and provide links and evidence. Besides, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?
Now you are just being silly.
-
Point taken. However, let me make two comments. First, I am not trying to prove I am "right" or smarter than others (as happens so often on this forum), I am merely contributing to the discussion from my knowledge and education. If someone finds my comments interesting or provocative, they can investigate further on their own. To expect me to serve as their unpaid research assistant is a bit nervy, don't you think? Second, many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.
So, why should I bother finding links to evidence that will be ignored?
Thank you for taking the time to reply, Peter: my cynicism was thankfully misplaced on this occasion. Yes, it can be frustrating when someone disguises interest as a reason to disparage but sometimes contentious topics need to be actively supported.
-
I know about the rule of thirds.
That was invented in the early 20th century by a photographer, for photographers. Painters and everyone else think it is very amusing.
(I mean the rule that says "place the subject on a 1/3 line" not the one about pleasing proportions within the painting, which is quite a bit older).
and yet, the rule of thirds often works very well - it is too often quoted as a 'rule' when it is often little more than an aid to not placing the main focus centrally. and I have seen some pretty loose definition of what constitutes a 'third'. But we digress.... but in the same way, lead-in lines do seem to work on many shots.
Whether the research proposed disproves it I am not sure, or whether doing visual studies is merely the first step in investigating 'why' it works. I suspect the latter.
-
Yes, stay away from the middle is a consequence of the theories of composition I've read.
I'm still interested in whether eye leading is a modern idea.
Certainly lots of people will claim that it dates back to da Vinci, but they say that about everything.
-
Reading this again, I am not sure if that was a rhetorical "you" or you were addressing me directly?
As requested, my guess about you :-)
…guess what I am going to stick to?
-
... many people do not really care about evidence. They pretend to care, asking for "links," but when evidence supporting my statement is actually presented (as was done by a couple of other people on this thread), it is dismissed as "clunky" and is ignored.
As a man of science, you surely must allow the possibility that those links do not provide (sufficient) evidence, nor support your statement? Especially not that it is a "nonsense." Just because something has a "science" label, does not make it unquestionable, otherwise science would be just another form of religious dogma.
-
As requested, my guess about you :-)
Fair enough. However, my concern was with your claim that I "typically reject" new information. I would appreciate some justification for the "typically" part. You might PM me, if you do not want to derail the thread.
-
I would appreciate some justification for the "typically" part.
It's just the impression that remains after years of discussion.
-
Going back to the OP
With all due respect to Ms. Tennenbaum (right brain left brain articles). The right, left brain myth has been thoroughly debunked and has no support in the neuroscience field. It's an oversimplification of a small study that has grown into a popular myth.
Here is a link to one of many articles on the subject.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/29/there-is-no-left-brainright-brain-divide/
I won't offer any theory as to why we prefer an image to read from left to right.
The complexity of the brain and its endless subtleties, allied with what is really still very early stages of understanding how it all works, has left the door open for a whole host of gross simplifications at best, or at worst an opportunity for anyone with anyone with a partially formed theory to sell a few million books. Examples are anything to do with the 'battle-of-the-sexes' ("Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" etc), many theories underlying NLP and a host of self-help books.
I am not saying the underlying research are not helpful stepping stones, but like a lot of genetic research, are jumped on by people thankful for having a reason to explain why they are like they are.
-
It's just the impression that remains after years of discussion.
Ouch!
-
Sorry.
-
iirc You'll typically reject new information in order to defend your existing belief.
And some people will jump on any information for no other reason than it challenges current orthodoxy.
And this is not a dichotomy. Let's go through Door #3.
-
... I am not saying the underlying research are not helpful stepping stones...
Indeed, Mike, that's what they are. And that is how I see all those studies I referred to as "clunky." Treating them, however, as an ultimate "myth debunking" or "evidence" that centuries of accumulated human knowledge is "nonsense" is not doing science a favor.
-
… or "evidence" that centuries of accumulated human knowledge is "nonsense" …
Although they may be. It wouldn't be the first time centuries of accumulated human knowledge has been revealed as no more than a nice story.
-
There is no eye leading.
People look at what they want/desire and if it's a boring image with a boring subject or boring layout, they'll move on no matter what and how the elements within an image are arranged.
An artist or photographer must have a level of sensitivity in order to make choices with their wandering eye and creative mind to not make images that are boring. Fortunately there is an endless supply of those with this level of sensitivity.
One sees with their mind. Others who do not see this way are merely watching a magic act or being conned by slight of hand.
-
Prior to 1900, at any rate, the term "leading line" was rarely used, and seems to have meant "major lines" or "important lines".
This appears to be another invention of the 20th century to systematize composition as a simple set of rules and tricks for photographers.
-
Prior to 1900, at any rate, the term "leading line"...
Just to be certain we are talking about same things, Peter's initial "nonsense" claim referred not just to "leading lines" but also:
... how certain lines, shapes, and compositions in an image "lead" the viewer's eye around the image in a certain way.
-
I make no large claims!
It's possible that the idea of a photographer's "leading line" (a line that the eye follows from one place to another) was in fact around prior to 1900 in textbooks on drawing and paintings. The phrase "leading line" does not seem to carry that meaning, however, prior to sometime in the 20th century, and my reading (by no means complete) has not run across the idea under any name.
I don't know if "eye leading" works, and I don't know if "eye leading" is an older idea, although I am beginning to suspect it is not.
It is the sort of thing they might have thought of. Voice leading is a definite thing in music, and it's reasonable to suppose that someone might have tried to do something similar in painting and drawing, by analogy. I have not found any references to the idea, however.
-
I finally got around to reading the eye tracking blog posts. Thanks for those.
While a limited study to be sure, they make a lot of sense. It's widely established that faces are interesting to us, and that we have huge amounts of brain devoted to studying them. If there's a face in-frame, it's practically a no-brainer that's what we're going to look at most. Human figures, animal figures? Sure, that also makes sense.
If you think about it, it's ridiculous to suppose that we're going to slavishly be directed by geometry, by tonal values. Our eyes exist to examine and evaluate the environment, not to blindly "follow lines" or to "identify high contrast points".
In the absence of other clues, probably tonal and color values are going to serve some sort of function.
Slobodan is fond of citing Molly Bang's book "How Pictures Work" and if memory serves a great deal of the supplied example can be interpreted primarily as our ability to identify fairly abstract shapes as "figures and faces" with some minimal cues, and the rest is really just supporting those basic identifications with color and tone.
The eye tracking study was very limited, and I'm certainly not saying that it's Truth. It does seem to be consistent with other things I know to be true, however. There's definitely room for a much more detailed study, with a lot more abstract pictures examined, and a bunch of work to determine if whatever we learn about abstracts applies usefully to realistic pictures, and so on and so forth.
-
If you google for eye tracking studies of Art you'll find there's tons of them.
A quick skim of a few of them suggests that:
human faces trump everything, unconditionally
human and animal figures trump everything except faces, again, unconditionally
after that we get some stuff about contrast and color
Nothing whatever about lines leading the eye around. We look at what's interesting, and we don't give a damn about the bloody railroad tracks.
But that's a summary based on a 10 minute survey of the literature, so, take with several largish grains of salt.
-
Just to be certain we are talking about same things, Peter's initial "nonsense" claim referred not just to "leading lines" but also:
…how certain lines, shapes, and compositions in an image "lead" the viewer's eye around the image in a certain way.
Please take the time to read the text I referenced "Chapter 5 The moving eye of the beholder: Eye tracking and the perception of paintings." It's up-to-date, based on studies of 57 paintings from different epochs and different genres. You'll find evidence that supports some old ideas but not others.
"In 1767, … he drew an explicit link between the composition of paintings and the gaze of the beholder. For Diderot, composition is an instruction to the eye (https://books.google.com/books?id=-oraCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA79&ots=EF4xuIhUdL&dq=%22composition%20is%20an%20instruction%20to%20the%20eye%22&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=%22composition%20is%20an%20instruction%20to%20the%20eye%22&f=false), a path which the gaze follows in a certain order.
…
Eyes do not follow any line of composition in a continuous manner, nor do beholders scan paintings from top to bottom or left to right continously. … the general assumption of art historians … that viewers' eyes move predominantly from left to right - as when reading - when looking at European paintings is empirically incorrect …
…
However, … several aspects of Diderot's text are indeed correct (https://books.google.com/books?id=ekAFCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA79&vq=%22For%20Diderot%2C%20composition%20is%20an%20instruction%20to%20the%20eye%22&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q=%22several%20aspects%20of%20Diderot's%20text%20are%20indeed%20correct%22&f=false) …"
-
...I am not saying the underlying research are not helpful stepping stones, but like a lot of genetic research, are jumped on by people thankful for having a reason to explain why they are like they are.
It's more fun and less work blaming how your parents reared you. It's their fault! Now we don't have to change ourselves.
-
If you google for eye tracking studies of Art you'll find there's tons of them.
A quick skim of a few of them suggests that:
human faces trump everything, unconditionally
human and animal figures trump everything except faces, again, unconditionally
after that we get some stuff about contrast and color
Nothing whatever about lines leading the eye around. We look at what's interesting, and we don't give a damn about the bloody railroad tracks.
But that's a summary based on a 10 minute survey of the literature, so, take with several largish grains of salt.
It's more about breaking up space in an interesting way as demonstrated in this blog which borrowed pages from the "Famous Artists School" books from the 50's &'60's.
http://sevencamels.blogspot.com/2006/03/10-minute-art-school-composition-101.html
In that you'll find references to leading lines but only as a starting point to build an overall interesting composition. Photographers do this composing through the viewfinder.
Here's another study on composition in the Famous Artist Course books provided by the creator of Ren & Stimpy cartoons.
http://animationresources.org/instruction-composition-how-to-make-pictures/
-
Indeed, Mike, that's what they are. And that is how I see all those studies I referred to as "clunky." Treating them, however, as an ultimate "myth debunking" or "evidence" that centuries of accumulated human knowledge is "nonsense" is not doing science a favor.
It's not unusual to find that 'centuries of' in reality is only a generation or two i.e. a few decades. Many long standing traditions for example are simply made up and often far more recently than people think.
-
It's not unusual to find that 'centuries of' in reality is only a generation or two i.e. a few decades. Many long standing traditions for example are simply made up and often far more recently than people think.
If, as has been proposed, the eye studies negate the idea of leading lines because the eye does not follow the 'leading line' then the same could be said about perspective in a picture (itself an extension of 'leading lines') and the use of the golden ratio that has been the basis of composition styles since the renaissance.
-
The golden ratio as a compositional device has been thoroughly debunked.
It is mentioned, I think, once, in relevant writings prior to the twentieth century, in an ancient book about architecture. The examples of its use are always the same handful of paintings with golden rectangles drawn more or less randomly on them.
While photographers have kept on that one with a glass cry, as they tend to leap on all simple mechanical systems for 'composition' this'd one doesn't serm to have been invented by a photographer.
-
The golden ratio as a compositional device has been thoroughly debunked...
How so?
-
A Google search will turn up as many references as you care to read.
The summary, though, is that nobody wrote about using it (and they wrote quite a lot about what they did use, often), and all the modern observations of golden rectangles in older art are, on closer inspection, remarkably loose fits, on a remarkably small number of objects.
The temple in Athens fits nicely in a golden rectangle if you include just the right amount of the porch steps. But not at all if you include all of the porch steps or none of them. And on it goes through the usual samples. The rectangles look nice but are, upon inspection, simply drawn on there, chopping off parts of whatever the figure is as necessary to fit.
Finding an approximate golden rectangle in Mondrian is not going to be hard. Finding virtually any other rectangle isn't any harder, though.
-
The 'golden ratio' may have been debunked as a tool that artists used, but its prevalence in art suggests that there is something aesthetically pleasing about an image that has major constituents on, or approximately on, the relevant sections of the picture. I agree that some of the superimpositions that people put on a picture can be, shall we say, 'optimistic' as a justification but that does not mean that the brad principle does not have some justification.
So again, it may well be that the golden ratio has become a viable explanation of aesthetics rather than a tool actively used by the artist.
-
The golden ratio as a compositional device has been thoroughly debunked.
You should tell nature, that the golden ratio (Phi) and related Fibonacci ratios do not apply. Evolution and designers of architecture apparently beg to differ, looking at the arrangement of e.g. sunflower seeds, as would Leonardo DaVinci and contemporates, and the Romans before him, and the Egyptians (A pyramid based on Phi varies by only 0.025% from the Great Pyramid’s estimated dimensions), and ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The golden ratio as a compositional device has been thoroughly debunked.
I will show you mine if you will show me yours
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/ca.22580/
http://www.goldennumber.net/fast-company-design-john-brownlee-golden-ratio/
-
I will show you mine if you will show me yours
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/ca.22580/
http://www.goldennumber.net/fast-company-design-john-brownlee-golden-ratio/
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit2/unit2.html
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/nature-golden-ratio-fibonacci.html
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
¿ What was the reason that the monitor viewing ratio changed from 4 : 3 to 16 : 9 ?
None of both fit the ratio of 35mm ... 3 : 2 ...
and then we have a circus of different ratios as shown below which go from 1.333 : 1 up to 1.78 : 1
just asking ???
-
Hi,
¿ What was the reason that the monitor viewing ratio changed from 4 : 3 to 16 : 9 ?
None of both fit the ratio of 35mm ... 3 : 2 ...
Often for practical reasons, and relatively little to do with aesthetics. 35mm film was just double the size of the 18 x 24 mm (35mm film) motion picture format. For 16:9 see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Thanks. Just digged a bit more in the internet about film sizes and well, looks like Kodak with their films had a major word and well now the producers of sensors I guess try to optimize the space of a wafer ... ¿?
Interesting things come up :)
-
A Google search will turn up as many references as you care to read.
And --
How do we know we are looking at the same 'evidence' you are?
-
If the Thesis Of The Use of Golden Ratio In Art can be paraphrased as:
"Artists from time to time use pleasing rectangles, neither too fat nor too skinny, except for when they need a fat one or a skinny one"
then it's obviously true. But too weak of a thesis to be remotely interesting.
If the claim is that there's something special about that particular rectangle and ratio, as distinguished from rectangles that are fairly close but not the same, then it falls apart. If you claim everything from 1:1.5 to 1:1.8 as "Golden" then you've captured a lot of rectangles and ratios, and you'll find it all over the place. If you insist that only 1:1.61 through 1.625 are, then you're not going to find a lot of them. No more than rectangles in the ratio range 1:1.51 through 1:1.525.
-
See, for instance, http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/maa/markowsky.pdf which cites Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Dover, 1957.
If you don't know who Martin Gardner is, I suggest you go find out. Look under "credible" in your dictionary, you'll probably find his portrait.
Just as an example, the golden ratio in the Great Pyramid in Egypt. One online reference I found quoted measurements to three decimal places. It quotes height and base width at the time of construction to the millimeter, which is pretty funny. Then it calculates one of, I don't know, at least a dozen likely candidate ratios, and comes up with the golden ratio to FIVE DECIMAL PLACES!!!! If you use more realistic estimated at-construction dimensions, quoted merely to the nearest 10th of a meter, you get a whopping 2 decimal places.
If you have a bunch of pyramids to pick from, and a bunch of measurements on each one you can pick from, and then help yourself out a little by altering the measurements to make them fit better, then, yep, you can likely find a Golden Ratio here and there. And don't worry, if the pyramids don't work out, there's plenty of other monuments and temples and crap to choose from.
ETA: See also https://xkcd.com/882/
-
The problem with people is that they want to see patterns, and when the see patterns they want to 'codify' it, and when they codify it 'nearly' is not enough. It has to be precise. Once they have found a link they then go overboard in making the data fit their hypothesis.
So as I see it, the golden ratio (and the rule of thirds is a close approximation) does produce aesthetically pleasing images and shapes and because of that people approximate it whether they realise what they are doing or not. But the problem the artist has other considerations - you cannot, for example, often model a picture strictly on the golden ratio because there are other things to consider such as the colour balance or the size of different elements, but the golden ratio is one element that influences the final image.
The problem comes when someone analyses it - if you take my first paragraph they try too hard to find repeating rectangles and here I agree with amolitor that it is effectively 'data mining' - try hard enough and you will eventually find a rectangle that fits. The author does not like to say 'it does not fit exactly but it is close enough' and the problem is that they then open themselves to cynicism.
So the question, as a few have said, is we have two options: the artist decides 'I will design this piece of art to the golden ratio because I have been told it is aesthetically pleasing' or does the artist do what looks aesthetically pleasing and an analyst comes along and says 'goodness me, there are repeating patterns that are all aesthetically pleasing and they just happen to approximate to the golden ratio. I wonder why'.
I favour the latter.
-
That's pretty much it, but I will take an opposing position that is, I admit, a difference only in the fine shading:
The Golden Ratio specifically as an aesthetic element is nonsense, but rectangles that aren't too fat and aren't too skinny are often a useful thing.
The Rule of Thirds specifically is nonsense, but sticking interesting things not in the middle, nor too close to the edge, is often a good idea.
Leading Lines, specifically, are nonsense, but sometimes an interesting thing's interest can be subtly clarified or enhanced with some lines (arrows, almost) that point to it.
and so on. In each of these idiot things there is a germ of an idea.
Are they pedagogically useful? Do they provide a useful stepping stone to the more important underlying principle, which is quite a bit more flexible than the "rule" or whatever you want to call it?
Undoubtedly they are useful for some people.
In many cases, though, and for many people, they actually obscure the genuinely useful ideas be replacing them with an easily memorized bit of dogma. I think they tend to freeze the mind into a specific shape, rather more than providing a stepping stone to something bigger and better. The underlying principles, the flexible set of ideas that something like the "Golden Mean" might represent, are simply not very hard. You don't need, in my opinion, to "ease into them with some simpler baby steps." You can just jump right in to the real thing, and ignore the simplified, inflexible, version.
I have, on several occasions, seen people reduced to shrieking maniacs over one or another of these things, insisting that Old Masters used these rules, and that I should just go look at some paintings. It became painfully clear that, while I had looked at a lot of paintings, the screamer hadn't. The screamer, in all cases, had been done some real damage by the rules, and was locked into an excessively inflexible state artistically, as well as a profoundly embarassing one intellectually.
-
... the use of the golden ratio that has been the basis of composition styles since the renaissance.
I am with amolitor on this one. I once went through dozens of catalogs of famous paintings and drawings from about 13th to mid-20th century, gathered the aspect ratios, and looked at their redistribution, and there was not the slightest hint of clustering near the Golden Ratio "Phi" [about 1.62]. If anything there was a bit of a gap between 1.5 and 2. Several shapes are far more common, such as 4:3 [about 1.33], 7:5 [1.4], 3:2 [1.5] and 5:4 [1.25]. Modern visual artists seem to agree, judging by the distribution of shapes in drawing paper and pre-stretched canvases: a huge variety of sizes and a far wider variety of shapes than with photographs prints are available, but 4:3 leads, followed by 3:2, 5:4 and 7:5. The main shapes outside that dominant range of 5:4 to 3:2 are 1:1 and 2:1. And need I mention the historical dominance of film, sensor and print formats by 5:4, 4:3 and 3:2?.
In summary, evidenced shape preferences consistently cluster well to the square side of "Phi".
Note: I am responding to claims of a preferences for the Golden Ratio over the centuries amongst creators of "rectangular, stationary images". This has no necessary connection to the common occurrence of the Golden Ratio in natural phenomena, or in motion picture shape preferences, or in the shapes of rectangles in classical architectural forms. Fitting content into a suitable rectangular framing is a major issue here, not just how people react to a blank rectangle.
P. S. The Golden Ratio has nothing to do with the Rule of Thirds, which is a guideline about relative positioning within the rectangle ("one third of the way in from the top, bottom left or right edge") equal applicable to any rectangular shape. I personally find the Rule of Thirds to be useful starting point, but have not looked into the "science" of it.
P. P. S. I just say amolitor's latest post, which is a good summary, but I have one quibble:
The Golden Ratio specifically as an aesthetic element is nonsense, but rectangles that aren't too fat and aren't too skinny are often a useful thing.
Yes, except that a far better numerical guideline would be be something between 4:3 and 3:2. Maybe the former for verticals, the latter for horizontals, and 7:5 for the who insist on one number to rule them all.
These are also much simpler numbers to work with than Phi = (sqrt(5) + 1)/2 = 1.618... !
-
P. S. The Golden Ratio has nothing to do with the Rule of Thirds, which is a guideline about relative positioning within the rectangle ("one third of the way in from the top, bottom left or right edge") equal applicable to any rectangular shape. I personally find the Rule of Thirds to be useful starting point, but have not looked into the "science" of it.
Strictly, I agree with you. But the intersection of thirds is 'close enough' to the position of a golden mean for all practical purposes. You try and explain the 'golden ratio' to someone as a compositional aid and they will glaze over....talk about an intersection of thirds and it is immediately understandable. Both help get the point of interest out of the middle but not too close to the edge.
But I agree with yourself and amolitor - it is unfortunate the the term 'rule of' has taken hold. Too many become enslaved by it.
-
I will show you mine if you will show me yours…
There was a famous photographer who's artistic training emphasized geometric composition (http://mediation.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-HCB/#signes_ascendants), and who showed continued interest in "Le nombre d'or (http://mediation.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-HCB/#note3). Rites et rythmes pythagoriciens dans le development de la civilisation occidentale".
However:
"… the two main shortcomings of claims about the presence of the Golden Ratio in architecture or in works of art, on the basis of dimensions alone: (1) they involve numerical juggling, and (2) they overlook inaccuracies in measurements.
p46 The Golden Ratio (https://books.google.com/books?id=bUARfgWRH14C), Mario Livio"
The data from the present work leave the study of rectangle preferences in a quandary. There is no doubt that participants differ quite dramatically in their preferences, and … those preference are surprisingly stable … yet -- and it is a big "yet" -- none of the individual difference measures, either in personality, interest in aesthetics, or in response to experiment, explain those rectangle preference differences. The ritual obeisance to the Golden Section ... is not going to be of help in explaining the phenomenon as it seems to play no role, either generally or in the specific details …
…
Explanations in terms of the Golden Section need play no further role in understanding the phenomenom, but that does not mean that there is no phenomenon to be understood.
pp124-125 pdf Beyond the Golden Section and Normative Aesthetics: Why Do Individuals Differ so Much in Their Aesthetic Preferences for Rectangles? (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/publications/Reprints2010/2010-PACA-BeyondTheGoldenSection.pdf) 2010
-
It seems to me there is much more nonsense in this thread than "leading lines" and "Golden Ratios." ;)
-
For example?
Any posts that disagree with Slobodan''s world view I would imagine. :P
-
Any posts that disagree with Slobodan''s world view I would imagine. :P
Just blending in with those here who proclaim things that disagree with their world view "nonsense." :P
-
Just blending in with those here who proclaim things that disagree with their world view "nonsense." :P
What were you calling nonsense?
The Golden Ratio specifically as an aesthetic element is nonsense, but rectangles that aren't too fat and aren't too skinny are often a useful thing.
When studied, people do not actually show a preference for Golden Ratio rectangles.
The idea that people would show a preference for Golden Ratio rectangles, is not nonsense - but it does seem to be wrong.
-
There are relationships in photos and video that provide for aesthetic viewing. It's all kinds of things yet we seem to be stuck on the rule of thirds only. There's the rule of getting the subject in focus, getting the right exposure, not having a telephone pole go through someone's head (unless it really is), the rule of looking into the frame not out, the rule of not cutting off limbs at the joint so the subject looks like a amputee, etc. These artistic and aesthetic concepts are just what our brains find pleasing to look at. The worse thing that has happened is that someone decided to call them rules. People don't like following rules. Maybe we should have called them aesthetic concepts instead of rules.
The point is if you compose a picture aesthetically using what your brain finds the most pleasing, you will discover that you're following some rules. Next time when you go to a movie, really look at how the cinematographer and director frames the picture and moves the action so that the picture holds up aesthetically and artistically. You'll be amazed how many rules are followed.
-
The rule-ification is quite modern, and largely photographers talking to other photographers, although it has started to creep out into popular texts on drawing and design and so on. Photographers are particularly prone to preferring rules based composition, to their detriment.
There's no doubt that all these things produce pleasing pictures. But the mainly produce the same pleasing picture over and over.
See the pictures attached to this little piece I wrote for ToP some time ago: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/08/your-turn-recipe-culture-by-andrew-molitor.html
It's a perfectly nice picture of a windmill. 4 copies of it. One could find thousands more in a few minutes.
-
Let us perform a test. Someone select a ratio between 1 and 2, that is distinctly not 1.618. Say, between 1.1 and 1.5, or between 1.7 and 1.9.
To two digits after the decimal please.
I will take the first number posted, and go of and attempt to find rectangles and ratios in famous paintings and buildings. We'll see how it goes!
-
... There's no doubt that all these things produce pleasing pictures. But the mainly produce the same pleasing picture over and over...
So?
If your goal is to deliver pleasing pictures, it makes sense to employ certain rules/guidelines/concepts that are known to produce pleasing results.
If your goal is to produce something different, chances are it won't be pleasing. At least not to your contemporaries. You might be celebrated in the next century as a trailblazer though.
-
There are many pictures just as pleasing which do not slavishly adhere to these specific recipes.
-
About rules... reminds me of a discussion we had a couple of years ago on this forum, where a member known as "popnfresh" said the following:
"... People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing."
-
There are many pictures just as pleasing which do not slavishly adhere to these specific recipes.
Ha! But only because they adhere to some other specific recipes.
-
The rule-ification is quite modern, and largely photographers talking to other photographers, although it has started to creep out into popular texts on drawing and design and so on. Photographers are particularly prone to preferring rules based composition, to their detriment.
There's no doubt that all these things produce pleasing pictures. But the mainly produce the same pleasing picture over and over.
See the pictures attached to this little piece I wrote for ToP some time ago: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/08/your-turn-recipe-culture-by-andrew-molitor.html
It's a perfectly nice picture of a windmill. 4 copies of it. One could find thousands more in a few minutes.
The article would have made a point if it showed a windmill that in comparison was special and different.
What this is all about is that no one wants to be just another face in the crowd. We all want our place in the sun. Highly understandable. So we twist aesthetics on its head. We turn the camera so horizons are tilted. We over or under expose. We stick people against one side of the frame leaving the other side empty. We make them look grungy using HDR. We desaturate to BW and add sepia tints. All of these to make our photos different. And they are. But do they pass the acid test of acceptability by others? If they do, great. If not, maybe its time to study the basics of composition, color harmony, and visual aesthetics. Painters do. Are we better then them? Bending the rules only works if you're making a point or maybe an aesthetic that's rarely applied works for a particular shot. But willy nilly distortions won't get it.
-
What painters study has very little to do with Rule Of Thirds, Golden Ratio, or Leading Lines.
You are correct that they study color harmony (so do successful landscape photographers, but they jolly well don't tell anyone they did!) and so on. Balance, unity, variety. Breadth. How to distribute tone. Lots of things.
But nothing about rules of Thirds. Nothing about leading lines.
And that's the painters who just want to be Turner.
-
I use balance a lot in my photos almost to the point of obsessiveness. It probably gives me a lot of static pictures but I can't seem to get out of the habit. It just looks right to my eye. What often happens is that when I balance the composition that has multiple items, things just seem to fall into places where thirds would be or certainly not centered. Roughly, anyway.
-
Where would we be without rules! Rules dominate our lives. Think about it. Every aspect of most of our activities tends to conform to rules. We have rules of etiquette, dress, and behaviour towards each other, whether religious, traditional or legal. Rules of grammar when we speak or write our language. Rules for driving a car, with numerous speed limits that vary along the roads. Rules for playing every type of game, such as cricket and football, chess or cards. Rules for eating, for example, breakfast, lunch and dinner in that order.
Then we have huge sets of complex rules dealing with commerce, taxation, insurance and health. We also have a huge industry of workers who job it is to create, amend and monitor rules, and another huge industry, the police and legal system, which spends huge sums of money to determine who has broken the rules and what their punishment should be.
And I haven't even mentioned the rules (or laws) of science. Crikey! It's enough to drive any sane person into the production of art, free of all rules. ;)
-
"Every composition is unique, and following some concocted formula will not guarantee a good photograph. There are no formulas; there are no rules of composition. I strongly urge all photographers, beginning or experienced, to avoid any instruction that claims there are -- it's bogus (https://books.google.com/books?id=G2MpBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20essence%20of%20photography&pg=PT382#v=snippet&q=bogus&f=false)."
The Essence of Photography: Seeing and Creativity, Bruce Barnbaum
-
Isaac, you can give any meaning you want, prove anything you want, when you take a single sentence out of context. Especially if that sentence is a very general, blanket statement. And parsing the vast universe of quotes that are available today to us on the Internet, one can always find one to match whatever one wants to prove. Not to mention that the author of a single quote, like the one you quoted above might have had something else in mind and simply did not express himself clearly enough. Reading the whole page, surrounding the above quote, one gets a distinctly different impression than what the quoted sentence appears to say.
-
If you read Birbaum you'll see that although he says do not follow rules, his book is full of concepts and how they work in a photo. (Why else would he write a book if there are no theories about good photography? He'd have nothing to say.) His point about rules is that you cannot follow a specific list of rules to get a good picture for a specific scene. You have to look at it to see what works and apply concepts that work with that view. Each view is different so you can't apply a set list of rules. You're not using a recipe to cook a picture. But you can pull concepts out of you head that may help you.
-
Isaac, you can give any meaning you want, prove anything you want, when you take a single sentence out of context. ...
Slobodan,
I am not sure what position you are advocating here beyond a generic "I disagree with Isaac". On the subject of the myth of an esthetic preference for Golden Ratio shapes for photographs, paintings, drawings and such, can you point us to some source of evidence? And not just for the vague idea of "not too square, not too long and thin", but evidence of a tendency towards that 1.618 shape over the familiar range from 1.25 to 1.5, where 5:4, 4:3, 7:5 and 3:2 all lie and for which I mention some evidence above?
-
Isaac, you can give any meaning you want, prove anything you want, when you take a single sentence out of context. Especially if that sentence is a very general, blanket statement. And parsing the vast universe of quotes that are available today to us on the Internet, one can always find one to match whatever one wants to prove. Not to mention that the author of a single quote, like the one you quoted above might have had something else in mind and simply did not express himself clearly enough. Reading the whole page, surrounding the above quote, one gets a distinctly different impression than what the quoted sentence appears to say.
Slobodan, you can make a very general blanket statement - "you can give any meaning you want, prove anything you want, when you take a single sentence out of context. … And parsing the vast universe of quotes that are available today to us on the Internet, one can always find one to match whatever one wants to prove" - even though that is not a true description of the particular circumstances. Not to mention that the author expresses himself exceptionally clearly, and expresses the same sentiment repeatedly.
Reading the whole book (as I've done (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=73133.msg834672#msg834672)) and reading his previous book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Xza4BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) (as I've done), one does get a very clear impression of what the author wishes to say --
"Rules are foolish, arbitrary, mindless things that raise you quickly to a level of acceptable mediocrity, then prevent you from progressing further. Several of the most well-known rules - the rule of thirds, the rule of avoiding a horizon in the center of an image, the rule of having an image read from left to right, the rule of not placing the center of interest in the center of the image, and so many others - are undesirable constraints with no validity." [My emphasis.]
The Art of Photography: An Approach to Personal Expression, Bruce Barnbaum
-
Slobodan,
I am not sure what position you are advocating here beyond a generic "I disagree with Isaac"...
I have no reason to disagree with Isaac as a matter of generic policy. I do not have anything against Isaac. I do, however, often disagree with some of the quotes he posts. I do not think that even he agrees with every quote he posts. I like to believe he posts certain quotes as a contribution to the discussion, an attempt to illuminate it from different angles, rather than as a reflection of his propensity for argumentativeness.
... On the subject of the myth of an esthetic preference for Golden Ratio shapes for photographs, paintings, drawings and such, can you point us to some source of evidence? ...
Frankly, I have no idea how this discussion about rules that guide composition inside a frame ended up about outside dimensions of the frame!? In all my readings and experience I never encountered anything that dictates outside dimensions. I always thought that those dimensions are set for reasons of industrial design or other unrelated matters, historical, etc., and not artistic preferences. Leica format (24x36 mm) derived from 35 mm cine film at the time. And that cine film derived by halving Kodak's 70mm cine film. There must be some other, perhaps quite banal, reason for such a plethora of "standard" framing sizes that are often quite a mismatch to original film/sensor proportions. Or A4 vs. US letter size. And to be clear, I have zero interest in discussing outside dimensions of anything from a compositional standpoint. I simply take them as given and work with what I got.
-
... Reading the whole book (as I've done (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=73133.msg834672#msg834672)) and reading his previous book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Xza4BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) (as I've done)...
Congrats on being such a great bookworm. And while you are reading about photography, I am photographing, using a bunch of those ah-so-nonsensical rules.
P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist a dig that has become a staple of many posters against you on this forum :)
-
Congrats on being such a great bookworm. And while you are reading about photography, I am photographing, using a bunch of those ah-so-nonsensical rules.
P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist a dig that has become a staple of many posters against you on this forum :)
You're in a hole and still digging.
"The intention of the perpetrator of this fallacy (https://books.google.com/books?id=xRCkNvDlRtYC&lpg=PA11&ots=QNbBuf6Aih&dq=The%20intention%20of%20the%20perpetrator%20of%20this%20fallacy&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=The%20intention%20of%20the%20perpetrator%20of%20this%20fallacy&f=false) is to divert an audience's attention from the argument, usually because the perpetrator is getting the worst of it."
As it happens, I'll be spending the next 5 days in the mountains around Lake Tahoe: photographing.
Have fun with your rules :-)
-
... As it happens, I'll be spending the next 5 days in the mountains around Lake Tahoe: photographing.
Have fun with your rules :-)
Can't wait to see the result of your photographing without rules... Oh, wait, we won't! Maybe for the better? ;)
-
I'm a little baffled by the apparent difficulty with imagining a practical middle ground between slavish adherence to the handful of rules photographers love to cite, and some imaginary territory in which all bets are off, and we, I don't know, simply hurl our cameras into the air with the motor drive clashing wildly?
I work in a zone somewhere between these two extremes. I assure you that the territory exists.
-
Bruce Barnbaum seems fond of Edward Weston's rule-less notion "Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject".
"Now to consult rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk." :-)
-
I'm a little baffled by the apparent difficulty with imagining a practical middle ground between slavish adherence to the handful of rules...
Only if you assume I've been advocating such slavish adherence ;)
-
Your position is remarkably unclear, Slobodan. You appear to be disagreeing with someone or something and I honestly cannot make out what o who.
Which, due to natural human impulse, however irrational, makes me suspect that it's me.
-
..."Now to consult rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk." :-)
Battle of quotes:
Miles Davis (paraphrasing): "First you learn everything there is to learn about jazz. Then you forget it all and play until your head spins."
If you insist on that gravitation metaphor, then the this follows: the rules of compositions exist wether you consult them or not, just like the law of gravitation exist whether we are aware of that or not.
The way we "consult" rules of composition however is much closer to Miles Davis' quote: we learn about them over time, either by actively studying them or by absorbing works of art around us. All that accumulated knowledge and influences, conscious or not, as well as natural predisposition, is combined in each of us slightly differently. That is why we can "forget" (in Miles Davis' sense) about the rules of composition (or not consult them) when we press the shutter.
-
Your position is remarkably unclear, Slobodan. You appear to be disagreeing with someone or something and I honestly cannot make out what o who.
Which, due to natural human impulse, however irrational, makes me suspect that it's me.
My position is absolutely in agreement with your latest post (#92).
I did disagree with you earlier in the thread when you seem to be advocating (or agreeing with) the notion that rules are nonsense, creating the impression that you are leaning toward "some imaginary territory in which all bets are off."
-
Battle of quotes:
Miles Davis (paraphrasing): "First you learn everything there is to learn about jazz. Then you forget it all and play until your head spins."
If you insist on that gravitation metaphor, then the this follows: the rules of compositions exist wether you consult them or not, just like the law of gravitation exist whether we are aware of that or not.
The way we "consult" rules of composition however is much closer to Miles Davis' quote: we learn about them over time, either by actively studying them or by absorbing works of art around us. All that accumulated knowledge and influences, conscious or not, as well as natural predisposition, is combined in each of us slightly differently. That is why we can "forget" (in Miles Davis' sense) about the rules of composition (or not consult them) when we press the shutter.
+1 If you allow your head to compose a picture that is most pleasing to your eye and brain, you will be subconsciously following the rules.
-
+1 If you allow your head to compose a picture that is most pleasing to your eye and brain, you will be subconsciously following the rules.
I was about to post something in a similar vein but Alan beat me to it and probably stated it better than I could. To sum up, using rules puts your photographic thoughts into a straightjacket.
-
Frankly, I have no idea how this discussion about rules that guide composition inside a frame ended up about outside dimensions of the frame!? In all my readings and experience I never encountered anything that dictates outside dimensions. I always thought that those dimensions are set for reasons of industrial design or other unrelated matters, historical, etc., and not artistic preferences. Leica format (24x36 mm) derived from 35 mm cine film at the time. And that cine film derived by halving Kodak's 70mm cine film. There must be some other, perhaps quite banal, reason for such a plethora of "standard" framing sizes that are often quite a mismatch to original film/sensor proportions. Or A4 vs. US letter size.
We seem to be in agreement on image shape then -- but dare I suggest that choosing what part of the scene is in an image is part of the decision about composition, and so the print shape is part of that compositional decision? (I am not talk about "subject framing", not physical picture frames!)
By the way, the mismatch between standard larger-than-snapshot print shapes (like 10x8, 14x11, 20x16) and the currently dominant film and sensor shapes (1:1, 4:3 and 3:2) might be traced back to the common shapes of large format plates and film sheets, combined with "inertia" in the design of printing paper and picture frames. For some decades, most 36x24mm snapshot prints in English speaking countries were 5"x4" or 5"x3 1/2": the 3:2 print shapes like 6"x4" and 12"x8" arrived far later! (Some European countries instead had centimeter-based" common print sizes, but the ones I know of were 4:3 shapes, not 3:2.)
-
Of course rules of photographic composition exist! Bruce Barnbaum names half-a-dozen. They are bogus rules.
What actually happens when people look at paintings has been studied - the information is available.
What rectangle ratios people prefer has been studied - the information is available.
-
My personal vocabulary distinguishes between "rules" and "principles" here, somewhat arbitrarily. No on rules, yes on principles.
But word choices aside, the point is what you choose to follow.
Or, really, what's actually going on in the pictures you choose out of the pictures you shoot. I do try to consciously apply principles and design ideas, sometimes, but by no means all the time. But either way, they're quite visible in the pictures I select out of the pictures I've shot.
-
I remember when 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 (which comes close to a 5:4 aspect ratio) was touted as the "perfect image size," and was a selling point for the KoniOmegaflex cameras. Of course, the fact that it would enlarge nicely to an 8x10 was just a coincidence.
Tom
-
The 'rules' as they are incorrectly called are nothing more than guidelines for those who struggle to see images without help.
Learn the guidelines and then break them whenever it is appropriate.
As far as I am am concerned there is only one rule in photography - get the nearest eye in focus.
The farthest eye being the sharper of the two always looks like a mistake and weakens the photograph.
Both out of focus can work however.
-
Both eyes in fact the whole head in focus is best.
-
Both eyes in fact the whole head in focus is best.
Not necessarily. Just one eye in focus can look really good and everything in focus can look really dull. Or the other way around.
Both can work just fine, all depends on what you are trying to achieve.
-
...Just one eye in focus can look really good...
Indeed. Even Rembrandt knew that and used it.
-
Not necessarily.
So not even a usable rule / principle / guideline :-)
-
Indeed. Even Rembrandt knew that and used it.
That may be true. But you seem to favor both eyes and head in focus according to your own People album. Very nice shots, eyes and head all in focus. I don't think you would have improved on them if you narrowed the focus to the leading eye.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/sets/72157622783120385
-
Alan. I am traveling, so can't access the original files. If I remember correctly, on many of my shots that appear equally sharp when reduced to Flickr size, you would notice that the further eye is slightly out of focus when viewed at 100%. The point is to focus on the closer eye and let the other one fall where it may.
-
So not even a usable rule / principle / guideline :-)
So selective quoting and also ignoring the context of the whole conversation to make a non point. ::)
The rule related to when only one eye was in sharp focus. The conversation had moved on from that and my reply was to Alan's preference for deeper depth of field.
-
I agree Slobodan that the nearest eye should be in critical focus. My preference though is that the DOF should be set so both eyes are in focus, and the entire head if feasible . People generally look better that way in portraiture. I find that when the back eye is out of focus, it's distracting to the viewer and takes away from the "beauty" of the subject. Of course there are exceptions. But those are in the minority.
I don't know what your full size versions are like. But the ones on Flickr that i looked at have nice dof and full focus. And they look very nice to me. I ask others to look at your People album and see if they agree.
-
Slobodan I went back to Flickr and enlarged some of the shots. I see what you mean that the back eye in some of them are not as sharp as the front eye. But I like the smaller version of the same shots when both eyes appear the be focused. Don't you find that better as well?
-
Tell that to Mrs. Cameron.
-
Tell that to Mrs. Cameron.
Julia Margaret Cameron (for anyone who wishes to obscure less and learn more).
-
The rule related to when only one eye was in sharp focus. The conversation had moved on from that and my reply was to Alan's preference for deeper depth of field.
No, but have fun promulgating another authoritative rule / principle / guideline.
-
What's your point about Cameron?
-
Cameron is widely recognized as a portraitist of tremendous ability, who pulled some of the truly great portraits, and she seemingly didn't give a damn if anything was in focus.
-
"… my first successes in my out-of-focus pictures (https://books.google.com/books?id=QAu1CAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA73&dq=%22my%20out-of-focus%20pictures%22&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q=%22my%20out-of-focus%20pictures%22&f=false) were a fluke. That is to say, that when focusing and coming to something which, to my eye, was very beautiful, I stopped there instead of screwing on the lens to the more definite focus which all other photographers insist upon."
Julia Margaret Cameron, pdf "The Annals of My Glass House (http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/lklichfall13/files/2013/08/Cameron-Annals-of-My-Glass-House.pdf)" 1874
-
Anyways, the point is that pretty much anything you can do in terms of technical/photographic choices has some sort of visual effect.
Good composition is about assembling a set of visual effects to create a picture that has the result you're looking for. There's a lot of general discussion available about what sorts of things one visual effect or another has that one can read about in books on painting, and early texts on photography, but ultimately it's about the gestalt effect produced by all of them that appear. Yellow is usually warming, a happy color, a good feeling color. But not always. Shove it in with the right combination of subject matter and other visual effects, and it might feel menacing.
It's not bad to have some guidelines and some ideas about how things work.
But ultimately you're going to need to deep visual vocabulary, and the technical mastery to pull the elements of that vocabulary off (that part's pretty easy, the harder part is simply knowing what is possible). When you have that in place, then you can start to visualize ideas for rendering whatever it is you want to show, and, if you're lucky, some sort of inspiration will strike and you'll know what to do to get the effect you want.
The option is to do what most people do (including plenty of internet-famous photographers) which is to simply ring the changes on standard compositions, and hurl masses of technique at them to attract the adulation of the gearheads. Which is a whole lot easier to monetize, I have to say, then actually taking interesting pictures. And, obviously, a lot easier to do as well.
-
Andrew: I suggest you aim for sharp focus on the eyes. You don't have breasts like Madam Cameron. :)
-
All I can recall in the way of vision experiments is a short pilot study tracking eye movements in pathologist trainees and experienced pathologists while evaluating tissue on a microscope slide. Not too surprisingly, the experienced pathologists are more efficient. This is an efficiency of pattern recognition task.
-
Andrew: I suggest you aim for sharp focus on the eyes. You don't have breasts like Madam Cameron. :)
Evidently you're the one who belongs in the Victorian era.
-
No, but have fun promulgating another authoritative rule / principle / guideline.
Not another rule, the only rule. Pay attention Isaac.