PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[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"!

 

[turbo]

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

Nice detail in that shot, Andre, and I'm impressed by the lack of noise. Maybe a 70D is in my future. I'd love to have a 100 mm L macro, too. I'd better find a money tree.

 

[Andre]

You're welcome Andy, the pleasure is in sharing.

Turbo, between the old 100mm macro and the 100mm L macro of Borek, when t L first came, I wondered if I made a wrong choice, especially since the L has image stabilisation.

However the folks at dpreview reassured me. No doubt the L is the better lens, but, a big but, while the image stabilisation is great under normal conditions (4 stops) in marcro conditions the testers could not get better than one stop.

Moreover the image quality of the L is clearly superior to the old version, at large apertures, that is, smaller than 5.6 the image quality is virtually identical. You can all see that in that test. However the old lens is slightly better at chromatic abbaration.

So as a telelens, the L is clearly better, as a macro lens using small apertures, you're basically left with only one stop image stabilisation effectivily.

So even if I'd had the choice today (not needing the 100mm as a tele) I'd probably still go for the old 100mm at a considerable better price point, using it predominantly for macro.

 

[Borek]

This can be a little bit tricky. In my experience lens quality is not only a property of a model, but also property of a particular piece of hardware. At least in theory L is built to better standards, so should be better on average.

Doesn't have to. We are waiting for spring, to see how it will work in field. At home it works OK, although focusing is often tricky.

 

[Andre]

True, I'm merely reflecting that http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=67,69&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=100,100&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2 , if you move the aperture past F5.6/8 you'll see that the difference diminishes and for macro, I rarely work below F11.

But indeed I have the impression that my 70-300 performs better than this one here

 

[turbo]

So as a telelens, the L is clearly better, as a macro lens using small apertures, you're basically left with only one stop image stabilisation effectivily.

So even if I'd had the choice today (not needing the 100mm as a tele) I'd probably still go for the old 100mm at a considerable better price point, using it predominantly for macro.

And that is a big part of my quandry. I like to shoot candids of friends and family at gatherings. When I was using Olympus OM-series cameras, my very favorite portrait lens was the Zuicko 135mm prime at f:2.8. Long enough to let me shoot without crowding the subject, and long enough to avoid facial distortion. With the crop factor, the 100mm would get me right into that range, and give me enough aperture to get a shallow DOF, PLUS image-stabilization, so I could get some extra stops for portraiture. Can I justify the extra money for the L? I don't know.