PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[Andre]

Well, for substantiating...

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

...how about:
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Actions/RuleOfThirdsPro.html

The general idea of the Rule of Thirds and Golden Mean is that you get pleasing compositions when you place your main compositional elements at certain places in your photo.

http://havemap.blogspot.com/2010/11/look-like-pro-rule-of-thirds.html

Ever wonder what makes professional film or photography better looking than your pictures or videos? Well it's no secret anymore. It's the RULE OF THIRDS.

http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/shoot-like-a-pro/rule/

The Rule of Thirds is a principle of composition used for centuries by painters, photographers and other artists

http://www.photoble.com/photography...-rule-of-thirds-in-photography-with-examples/

The Rule of Thirds is a simple guideline to help you produce a photo that is more likely to be visually stunning based on how you compose and frame your subject.

http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html

The Rule of Thirds.
One of the most popular 'rules' in photography is the Rule Of Thirds. It is also popular amongst artists.

http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_rule_of_thirds.html

You can use the rule of thirds as a guide in the off-center placement of your subjects

Although most beginning artists resist following "rules" - fearing they will hurt their creativity, there are indeed many rules and guidelines that help. One rule in particular is really essential: the Rule of Thirds.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

And to reply,

No new information there.

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

To answer a previous question-
Much of the paper deals with objects that don’t share all the symmetries of a circle, and still suggests the rule of thirds, without other considerations, is not a particularly aesthetically pleasing compositional guide.

But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

I see composition has already been discussed in the Opening Post of a thread-

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460071

where you advised-

“How to make compositions. You could go and take a course for that, but reading a few books on the subject will certainly help too or browsing around on internet finds lots of sites like this.

To quote from the site you linked-
“Rather than placing your subject in the middle of the frame, place them at one of the four intersecting points on your imaginary grid. This will usually produce a more compositionally pleasing result.”

Although composition wasn’t discussed much after that OP, but other things like link accuracy were, e.g. post #9.

 

[Andre]

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

Should I? I apologyze if I have given a wrong impression. I'm not intending to promote things that cannot be substantiated. I just want to learn what is considered to be an aesthetic compostion. I just observe that the rule of thirds is adhered to on a large scale.

 

[Andy Resnick]

And to reply,

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

Aesthetics can't be written as a rule. There is no universal standard of beauty.

The 'rule of thirds' is a guideline that produces images that appear to be well-balanced to the eye. There are many design guidelines: horizontal lines appear tranquil, diagonal lines produce a sense of motion and action.

http://www.yangsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/metropolis2.jpg

Pay attention to the composition- the figures divide the frame into thirds, but there also a diagonal line connecting the line of sight between Rotwang and the robot- and more, that line runs parallel to the line of Rotwang's arm (and his hair). The inverted Pentagram behind Rotwang also introduces a compositional element- like a perverted halo.

The sum total is to produce an image that tells a story. Even without knowing anything about the movie, you can invent a story that relates the two figures.

*None* of that is accidental. Everything in that image is carefully posed and lit- and that's single frame from a movie.

To be sure, artists understand the rules well enough that they can violate them and still produce work that looks pleasing. I don't have that skill, so I use the 'rules' to frame the image.

 

[Andre]

Andy, the point is that the intuition of unbiased test persons in Fuzzyfelts link for aestitics did not support the rule of thirds.

As far as I understand it, it suggests it is much more important that the direction of a subject, (moving/looking) is inwards, so idealy a right oriented/looking subject should just be placed off centered to the left (average mean 42/58%), where left to right writers appear to prefer this setting while right to left writers prefer the opposite.

there is also a strong preference to place a forward oriented/looking object in the center.

Unless of course there is a good reason why to deviate from the principles.

I'm just not happy with the small sample size and I'm toying with the idea to construct a poll to reproduce these results or not

 

[KrisOhn]

I am no longer able to see them both with a naked eye. I am afraid of checking if I can see them in my glases :grumpy:

They're a pretty nice sight, what I find hard to believe though, is that there are reports of naked eye sightings of the star in between Mizar and Alcor.

Very nice! I'm jealous of the clear skies and good seeing.

Thanks! Yea, I love being away from any serious lights and light pollution, my home still doesn't compare to a Bortle1 site though... having the Milky Way cast your shadow on the ground is a pretty awesome experience.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andy, the point is that the intuition of unbiased test persons in Fuzzyfelts link for aestitics did not support the rule of thirds.

As far as I understand it, it suggests it is much more important that the direction of a subject, (moving/looking) is inwards, so idealy a right oriented/looking subject should just be placed off centered to the left (average mean 42/58%), where left to right writers appear to prefer this setting while right to left writers prefer the opposite.

there is also a strong preference to place a forward oriented/looking object in the center.

Unless of course there is a good reason why to deviate from the principles.

I'm just not happy with the small sample size and I'm toying with the idea to construct a poll to reproduce these results or not

Yikes... that article is tough to make sense of.

 

[Andre]

Ah so it's not only my limited command of the language.

But another factor is, that if one is told/taught/indoctrinated that the rule of thirds is the ultimate in aesthetic composition, maybe one may tend to dislike compositions that do not follow the rule.

So I have a test/poll in mind to be given both to artists/photographers and complete lay people at the other side to see if they have different opinions in practice about the aesthetics of compositions that do and do not follow the rule of thirds

 

[Andy Resnick]

So I have a test/poll in mind to be given both to artists/photographers and complete lay people at the other side to see if they have different opinions in practice about the aesthetics of compositions that do and do not follow the rule of thirds

That seems tricky- how can you eliminate your own bias in selecting images? But I understand what you mean.

 

[Andre]

No I won't need to do that. I will just create a bunch of crops of a few images with different properties and ask to judge which is the best and the worst.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's what I was thinking of as well.

But I think the real issue is the whole idea of a 'rule' in the context of art. Consider music- the idea of playing a certain time signature, like 4/4. Switching time signatures (to 3/4, for example) may sound good or bad depending on what else is going on. If performed deliberately, it can sound very pleasing. Or, it can make everything degenerate into arhythmic noise... which could *also* be deliberate!

So for me, the 'rule of thirds' is more like a 'rule of thumb'- a good place to start, but definitely not the end.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Aesthetics can't be written as a rule. There is no universal standard of beauty.

The 'rule of thirds' is a guideline that produces images that appear to be well-balanced to the eye. There are many design guidelines: horizontal lines appear tranquil, diagonal lines produce a sense of motion and action.

http://www.yangsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/metropolis2.jpg

Pay attention to the composition- the figures divide the frame into thirds, but there also a diagonal line connecting the line of sight between Rotwang and the robot- and more, that line runs parallel to the line of Rotwang's arm (and his hair). The inverted Pentagram behind Rotwang also introduces a compositional element- like a perverted halo.

The sum total is to produce an image that tells a story. Even without knowing anything about the movie, you can invent a story that relates the two figures.

I think people, generally, unless they haven’t held a camera before, or have really no idea what they like, tend to have some ability with composition. I think this is at least the standard of photographs shown at this forum. But, if not, then maybe the rule of thirds would help where there would otherwise be no structure to speak of.

As the rule of thirds is about one aspect of many aspects of composition, it is usually required to work with other aspects, and they with each other, etc. The paper I linked to attempted to isolate it and some other aspects, and didn’t go on to test the impact of more aspects. But as other aspects affect the success of composition, it would seem worth mentioning these when discussing composition.

I believe quite a number of photographers here seemingly consider many aspects of composition and seemingly show a familiarity with different ways these may be successfully used, beyond a more basic natural ability. With their understanding they are probably in a good position to judge whether or not rules in general, and rules about particular aspects of composition work for them in combination with other aspects, or not.

Andy explained how the rule of thirds worked for him. He explained his views and shared a small critique of a linked photo. There could be other aspects of composition in the photo that could have helped or masked the effects of the rule of thirds, but he was able to offer a reasonable explanation of how he finds it successful. I agree, I think it is successful and believe there are many things working well together.

But for those who are looking to improve on natural ability, concentrating on one aspect of composition could skew a natural feel, and without regard for other areas of composition, impact detrimentally on success. To my (possibly tainted) eye, such photos are amongst the least successful serious photos I believe I’ve seen as the whole of the composition together may not work. This was why I wondered if there was a reason why that rule was noteworthy, and also why it was linked to elsewhere regarding compositional advice, aside from the word of blogs, as, for me, it doesn’t seem to work very well without other considerations. I think Andy has offered a reasonable explanation for why he would use it, although, I still don’t believe it is good basic advice without taking other factors of composition into account.

I think in such cases it would be more successful to start with the consideration of various areas of composition and how they work together and can impact success. Then, broader rules could be considered with an understanding of how they can be used while retaining a feel for over-all compositional success. Then concerns about varied placement can be explored if desired.

 

[Andre]

Well, if unbiased people don't have a natural tendency to prefer rule of thirds compositions, one may wonder about it's basic validity

I shot this earlier this afternoon, and cropped it until if felt good for me.

As a result I see that the eye is roughly on the centerline and the center of gravity of the body looks closer to the centerline than the rule of thirds would prescribe.

Details: used small jpg have to process the CR2 for posterformat print. Furthermore, flash used EX430II camera in manual mode Shutter 1/100. Lens 70-300mm at 135mm F 5.0 (full open) ISO 200. It was inside a barn hence the limited light.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This discussion has been very timely- a cable station (AMC) has been playing all of Sergio Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns"- Fistful of Dollars; The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly; High Plains Drifter; etc.

I have benefited immensely from our discussion- I can see, much more clearly than before, how Sergio was able to make such compelling imagery, and his ability to direct my eye as the camera pans.

A good example- near the end of "For A Few Dollars More", there's a standoff scene- for a minute or so the film just cuts between extreme close-ups of the two men's sweaty, grungy, faces. Then a drop of something (sweat?) comes into the frame, and the camera tilts up a fraction- just enough to tell that it's not sweat, but a *tear*. Sergio was able to hold together that scene- no dialog, no movement, nothing- then get me to focus on that small drop: the only movement in the scene. And in addition, have that drop be *significant* to the storyline- the bad guy is revealed to be not such a bad guy, after all. Genius.

 

[Andre]

Nice Andy,maybe we can do some more exploration of aestetic techniques.

Meanwhile I did some cropping, that could be a question of the poll, what is the worst and what is the best compostion?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Nice Andy,maybe we can do some more exploration of aestetic techniques.

Meanwhile I did some cropping, that could be a question of the poll, what is the worst and what is the best compostion?

Personally, I like two- the 'inside crop' and 'intuitive crop'- because on both, my eye is naturally drawn out from the beak into the rest of the photo, and so I become curious- what's there? What is the bird trying to get?

Also, the 'intuitive crop' centers the eye of the bird- what did you center in the 'centered'?

Just my (untutored) opinion...

 

[turbo]

When shooting a bird or mammal, I try to leave extra frame-space in the image in the direction that they are looking, aside from the thirds-rule. It helps establish a sense of "flow" in a static image.

Having spent many years shooting film and composing with the viewfinder, I catch myself doing that with the DSLRS and the pocket-cam. You can easily lose a great shot by doing that, and I have to discipline myself to "shoot wide and crop-to-suit".

 

[Andre]

I agree Turbo, the same for me. Have to redo all the butterflies and allow for cropping space

Andy, the (estimated) optical center of gravity of the bird is centered in the "centered" crop, the lighter spot.

Personally I would chose the intuitive crop, the one third is just too unbalanced for me. But I have the impression that the rule of thirds would only work when there is more than one subject, or when the subject is shaped more complex

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I agree Turbo, the same for me. Have to redo all the butterflies and allow for cropping space

Andy, the (estimated) optical center of gravity of the bird is centered in the "centered" crop, the lighter spot.

Personally I would chose the intuitive crop, the one third is just too unbalanced for me. But I have the impression that the rule of thirds would only work when there is more than one subject, or when the subject is shaped more complex

I'd go for something in between the "intuitive" and "centered" crops, as I feel that the tail of the bird is uncomfortably close to the edge of the frame in the "intuitive" one. I agree that having more space in front is good, but I'd like a little space behind too.

 

[turbo]

I'd go for something in between the "intuitive" and "centered" crops, as I feel that the tail of the bird is uncomfortably close to the edge of the frame in the "intuitive" one. I agree that having more space in front is good, but I'd like a little space behind too.

Personally, I'd favor the "centered" version and drag out the right-hand side of the frame a bit to leave more space there.

 

[Andre]

I see your point Jonathan, however imo the body shape of the bird looks sufficiently free from the edge, arguably. Anyway with that suggestion, maybe we do a cropping exercise, everybody posting his/her own preference.

Here is the orginal small JPG direct from the camera, crop as you like and reduce to maybe 25%.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21940023/IMG_1352.JPG

 

[turbo]

Here you go.

The bird's eye is still about on the center-line, the right-most third of the frame is "blank" except for the beak, and the diagonal line of the birds' posture lends a little dynamic. Edit: I would like just a little more background at the top of the image, but it wasn't in the original. Still, it would make the composition a little more ideal for me if I could have 5% or so more background at the top.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm happy with turbo's version.

 

[Andre]

Thanks,

As I infer from the paper, the test persons preference peaked at an offset of 42/58%

I used the "optical center of gravity" like this:

Turbo put it on 43% and I used 39% whereas the rule of thirds would demand 33%.

I have to say that my choice was also influenced by my desire to get close to a common rectangular frame ratio, which I did not specify before.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's what I came up with:

[PLAIN]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6255/img1352crop12.jpg

 

[Borek]

Late to discussion...

1. Thirds rule seems to me to be a poor's man version of golden ratio. Could be that's because I have learned golden ratio rule many years ago, could be that's because I have seen on too many occasions people using bastardized rules instead of the right ones, when the right ones are beyond their comprehension. (And if you were ever trying to help in homework sections you know that ratio of ratios IS beyond comprehension of Joe Average). In practice the difference is not that large - it is enough to move the object about 5% to the side to switch between both rules.

2. I like the first picture most (intuitive crop) but I agree with Jonathan that there is not enough space of the left. Perhaps the best approach is to change the width of the picture, leaving starling eye in the exact center? Interestingly, seems to me that would be the same as cropping original picture symmetrically.

Great shot BTW. Spring is coming, I have heard a lot of singing birds yesterday.

 

[Andy Resnick]

One of the papers Fuzzyfelt posted (#979/#980) specifically mentions that the rule of thirds could be a simplified version of the golden ratio.

Something to consider as well- film formats (and now sensor formats) are not square- I haven't sat down and characterized the aspect ratio of them all, but they all appear to be golden-ratio-ish. Which is odd if you think about it- lenses are circular; why standardize a non-symmetric film shape?

 

[Andre]

Thanks for your interesting crop Andy, looks very powerful that way.

Borek, the centered eye is logically explained as I used the center focus point on the eye to focus and then I recomposed by moving the center straight down before shooting, so the eye stayed in the vertical centerline.

Maybe I'll also upload the full processed Raw later, to demonstrate the difference. But chores first

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Yes, the ratio was mentioned, but there are so many related names. Arnheim's "centre" was also mentioned. The ratio and thirds are close, but the thirds is restricted to one grid, whereas the golden ratio is about proportions, which allows flexibility, and amongst other things, can be applied to other aspects of composition more, too.

I see I was wrong about the level of difficulty the ratio involves, sorry. I’m not in the position to compare, it and others like it, being the maths I've studied and spent time on, and I had the wrong impression.

There is lots of research on the topic of the ratio, and tests, and also, I thought there was one especially good discussion I read here some years back, I'll keep looking for it.

Nice to see so many opinions. Scrolling down gave me a cropped bird itself, which I liked, too, as well as Turbo’s.

I liked more of Andy’s opinions of film, too.

 

[Andre]

Meanwhile http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21940023/IMG_1352-2.jpg is the full processed raw, for Borek to see that the basic 70-300mm zoomlens doesn't have to disappoint too much when hooked onto the 7D.

Also, I found http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167 very useful for a first reconnaissance of the dazzling capabilities of the 7D

 

[Borek]

Meanwhile http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21940023/IMG_1352-2.jpg is the full processed raw, for Borek to see that the basic 70-300mm zoomlens doesn't have to disappoint too much when hooked onto the 7D.

Thanks. It looks great in the center - but is hard to judge on the borders, as they are blurred for a purpose. But the shot is really great, one of those you remember you took them for the rest of your life

Also, I found http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167 very useful for a first reconnaissance of the dazzling capabilities of the 7D

Yes, they are quite good. I have already seen some of them, they explained at least one mystery.

At the moment I already know what I am missing - A-DEP mode. Not that I ever used it as designed, but it was quite useful.

I still can't decide if I could afford the camera, but at least I will save on the birthday gift for Junior in April Sadly that will mean parting with 28-105 lens, which was my main workhorse for years.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks for your interesting crop Andy, looks very powerful that way.

Borek, the centered eye is logically explained as I used the center focus point on the eye to focus and then I recomposed by moving the center straight down before shooting, so the eye stayed in the vertical centerline.

Maybe I'll also upload the full processed Raw later, to demonstrate the difference. But chores first

Heh.. you didn't think I'd stick to convention, did you? :)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Meanwhile http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21940023/IMG_1352-2.jpg is the full processed raw

Oh, good! I was running out of pixels before. I wanted to try and do something like this:

[PLAIN]http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9168/img13522.jpg

I was also drawn to the strong lines in the wing.

 

[Andre]

Heh.. you didn't think I'd stick to convention, did you? :)

Most amused that you didn't

 

[Andy Resnick]

I've also been remiss- I want to thank you for giving me permission to cut up your image. It's quite excellent "as is"!