The Golden Ratio

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ed Harp on February 2, 2010 at 9:29pm

Though the rule of thirds at first made me aware to think of somewhere else rather than in the center to place a subject, it was only instrumental in sending me on my way. After shooting for stock, doing weddings, portraiture and taking several nature-wildlife photo trips a year, seldom do I consciously think of the rule of thirds. It was only a vehicle--a "tool of composition." Yes this simple rule was liberating but not confining.

As an interesting study go through the various Picture Social pages and take note of the photographers whose works are notable. Notice how many focal points in images have aligned with the rule of thirds. Most probably did not strive to follow the rule, maybe they just strived for balance and harmony within the frame. I wholeheartedly agree that though there are many "rules" they should never shackle us. They should only help open our eyes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on February 4, 2010 at 4:58pm

The rule of thirds is a convenient concept to get beginning photographers to stop centering everything. It's supposed to be simple and easy to understand so that we don't have to spend much time dwelling on it. With practice composition should become more instinctual. The rule of thirds probably is derived from the golden ratio, but the camera manufacturers rarely pick the right format size for the golden ratio. The rule of thirds fits into any rectangle no matter what the aspect ratio.

There are many guides to composition besides the rule of thirds and golden ratio. Now that we have computers people have scanned the great art masterpieces and precisely analyzed them. All the reports/studies I've read suggest that these "rules of composition" have about the same bearing on reality as astrology.* There is no one perfect aspect ratio or composition formula that is significantly more pleasing to the human eye than many of the others. Obviously the golden ratio is found often in nature, and to some this suggests importance. My opinion is that humans have an incredible knack for spotting and even inventing patterns. Explore the ideas, and use the ones that suit your taste, style, technique, etc...

A bunch of articles on composition http://photoinf.com/

"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." -Edward Weston

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

* Ironically they did find that in a majority of the great painted portraits the subject's eye closest to the viewer is often centered on the horizontal axis. So much for the rule of thirds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Jones on February 5, 2010 at 4:44pm

I agree with Jan's comment - "understand those so called rules of composition before breaking them!"
KJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on February 7, 2010 at 11:52am

I think the Edward Weston quote begs the question as to whether people 'develop' at all... did he for instance get any social influence? Did his work develop? At all? From what age? Did it therefore develop in a total social vacuum? Did he 'reinvent' everything in his work himself or did he get any influence at all from looking at paintings or photographs? Was there no subliminal influence... ? Really, none... ? It sounds like fairly typical artists bullshit (and yes, I also exhibit - I just hate the self deluding bull that often goes with the territory!). :-)

So I beg to differ and I'd certainly not denigrate Weston's work while I disagree with his statement... which I think is actually about something else completely.

You certainly can teach composition, but I don't believe it is a set if rules - more a set of guidelines. If you understand how these guidelines or principles actually work, then you can start to make and break the 'rules' successfully. But like a lot of stuff in photography it tends to be dreadfully taught and treated as 'rules of stone'. As such it is the polar opposite of creativity and maybe this is what Weston really meant... !

The principle behind the rule of thirds is that visual 'weight' needs to be 'counterbalanced' by 'space', hence it works if you put a lone, small tree at the golden section on an otherwise empty landscape. And that it works gives the image meaning.

The 'rule' can be broken - and it should be as often as possible, as long as it's done successfully: imagine a photograph of a wall and a subject just(!) walking in to the frame from one side: what does this 'say' as opposed to the same subject just within the frame but a fraction of a second before they walk out of the picture... which creates a different kind of 'dramatic tension', especially if it deliberately breaks the 'rule of thirds'.

Weston was right when he said you can't teach someone to see, that takes a lot of time and study. So does understanding light... but again, it can be learned and therefore it can also be influenced by a teacher, you just can't give someone your eyes. If this stuff can't be taught then how did Weston 'mentor' Ansel Adams... ?

Composition definitely can be taught just as painting can and is taught - almost all of the great masters studied(!) under great teachers, so in this respect I believe Weston was making more of a 'positioning statement' about his own work than a genuinely serious comment about what you can and can't teach in the world of art or photography.

I subscribe to the David Bailey philosophy here, broadly stated as: you can teach it, you can learn it, but only when you know it inside out so you forget about it on a conscious level have you mastered it. (it's not a direct quote but the implication is that 'technique' is about understanding the basics so well that you no longer use them on a conscious level)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radcliffe on February 9, 2010 at 5:40pm

Hi everyone . . . i may not be able to add value to your interesting discussion, but I can say that you've all added value to my body of knowledge w.r.t photography.
I didn't know about the Rule of thirds and the Golden Ratio (didn't go to Photography or Art school), but I certainly started reading up on it . . .
Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on February 11, 2010 at 12:31pm

If the statement wasn't made in the context of composition when what was the intent, since he clearly says it is about composition? (This quote was taken directly from one of his Daybooks, which were his personal journals). The simple fact is that composition is exactly what he was speaking about. I'll go back to my original premise. There are no rules of composition, except as they are extrapolated by people looking for an easy fix; for lack of a better term. Making good composition, or bad, has more to do with a persons ability to judge spacial relationships than it does with any external "rule". To say, or imply, that adhering to a "rule of composition, whether it be the "rule of thirds", the "golden mean" or any other guideline, will insure strong or good composition is folly. Yet that is what is happening when these rules are taught.

It's interesting to me to note that most people who teach this silliness say learn the rules of composition and then ignore them. If you're going to ignore them, why learn them at all? It sounds to me like mental clutter! I am much more interested in teaching my students to see light and to watch for visual clutter, intrusions and items that are out of character with the rest of the photograph.

FYI. Weston had no formal training as far as I can find out. When he began photographing there were no schools and he didn't have the benefit of having people who could mentor him. He moved from Chicago to Tropico, Cal. and opened a studio. One of his photographs recently sold at auction for $1.4 million. So yes, I'd say his work developed, no pun intended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed Harp on February 9, 2010 at 6:56pm

Thanks Sean for posting. This has been one the greater discussions on this site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on February 11, 2010 at 1:59pm

'Black cape waving' and 'puff of smoke' is non explanation, it's often a thin disguise for an assertion of individual superiority based on inherent personal (and non transferable) giftedness. I don't buy that...

Composition has been taught for at least 2,300 years, its roots go back to axiological principles of Aristotle in Metaphysics and Plato in the theory of forms, among many other great minds in history... to suggest that it can't be taught it also to suggest that those same great minds completely wasted their time in trying to explain the inexplicable! Hmmm... :-)

Lots of pretty serious folks are still wasting their time in studying it today apparently as it is still a central subject in top design, art, architecture and graphics courses... I'm doubtful that there is anything inherently unique about photography that makes it above such principles.

So, in my personal opinion it's incorrect to assert such things cannot be taught - everything can be taught, but yes, there is also allowance for personal giftedness here: we are all better at some things than others. The subject itself is rooted in natural laws of physics and mathematics, as the Fibonacci spiral illustrates.

The rule of thirds is (as has been shown here) not well understood and it is only one of a number of compositional 'devices' including balance / harmony, duality, triangles and diagonals. Just about everything in life can be explained by rules, the interesting thing is to choose which one to use and when to make or break it.

There seems to be a majority who are saying from personal experience they have learned something beneficial for their photography by studying composition... I think that evidence speaks pretty decisively. If people say they have learned then they have learned. If other folks want to believe they have special gifts that others don't and can't learn then they have special gifts that others don't possess, but it's clearly wrong to say that study can't and doesn't aid or influence others. That is anti education and anti learning.

We can all learn, if we put our minds to it and if our minds are open to learning.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on February 11, 2010 at 5:54pm

"Black cape waving' and 'puff of smoke' is non explanation, it's often a thin disguise for an assertion of individual superiority based on inherent personal (and non transferable) giftedness." That is a strange statement to make...

I've stated my case; again! I believe what I believe, understanding that I have taught these silly rules, in all their wretched details, at the university level so I do know whereof I speak. I even have a book all about "Rules of Composition" including the rule of 13ths, 15ths, 17, and 21sts as well as the Golden Mean Golden Triangle etc. by a man trained at the Bauhaus so I do understand the theory. I just think it's bogus! If I raise a contrary pint of view and it makes people think then that's good. If everyone just follows like a lemming then they'll never understand that there is a different, maybe even better way. I am not interested in converting you, or anyone else, only in stating that there may be a better way.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page