[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: esoteric question

Yes, Darryl, you are technically right.  The actual proportion is 1.62
approximately; it is the division of a line into two sections so that the
ratio of the whole to the larger part is the same as that of the larger to
the smaller.  The reason in my mind, and certainly not an original thought
I'm sure, is that since this ratio is found all over nature, like in the
growth of a nautilus shell or a whorl on the top of a baby's head, we
intuitively respond positively to it.  It's probably in our genes, as a
matter of fact (I think I remember somewhere it relates to the DNA
helix....).  Since we have a positive response to this proportion that is
probably why in composition this proportion also feels good.  It gives us a
sense of balance, order, growth and movement all at the same time.
Photographers, instead of quoting the .62 part of the proportion, have
standardized it as a .66/.33 thing.  But it originates most definitely from
the same source of thinking.
      I don't question that the rule of thirds works, and I do agree with
you that there are times that such a formula is successfully broken, in
square and circular formats, for instance.  Anywhere that tension instead of
balance may be more beneficial.  But my real question is, is there one of
the four "power points" that is the most "powerful"?
     And, as far as teaching beginning photography students this picky
ridiculous point, I would not even go into this long explanation, but
instead just say, hey, there are four areas in a pic that are great to put
your pet hamster, just not dead center...(they aren't using hassies, yet...)
     Thank you, also, both you and Pam, because indirectly with your graphic
design and newspaper info, you are giving me further input into composition!
Chris  >
> BTW, the golden mean (section) doesn't mean thirds? It is a system of
> proportion, based on a mathematical formula (based again on a pentagon)
> which divides a given line into extreme and minor means (or sections).
> While this may look like a two-thirds to one-third system, it isn't. It
> also doesn't take into account square images (or circular ones like the
> Hobo camera of Gordon Mark). I would say force lines, visual center,
> borders, and the actual frame's shape have as much to do with the
> composition as any mathematical rule. I looked this one up,
> algebraically it is a:b = b:(a+b). Ouch, my brain hurts!
> Darryl Baird
>