I need some help...

[mysteryscribe]

It was supposed to be an general statement. I'm sorry if someone took it as an inditement of their critique, it wasn't meant to be at all.

As for appling the thumb you should but remember there is more than one direction the thirds work it is actually sixths. You divide the vertical plane and the horizontal plane. In my opinion and mine only maybe.

And yes I still believe a off center object is out of balance, unless there is a reason for it clearly visible in the photograph.

 

[mysteryscribe]

this is a little tighter than I would have liked to crop it but for an explaination of what I said earlier it will do.

Obviously I don't understand the rule of thirds please explain it to me. Im not being a wiseass I would like to know where I have been going wrong all these years.

I never thought of them as rules to be obeyed like cops but I did think they gave you a foundation to make decissions on. I know this must be wrong since this golden rule seem to be the excuse for doing things that make pictures less than they could be .... of course in my humble opinion....

If the idea is us all to share and all of us to get better, then share your thinking with me on why the original butterfly isnt off balance. I am seriously curious.. what keeps the eye from seeing a tilt.

By the way another general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.... different just to be different isnt necessarily better.

and the classical version that is boring I understant

 

[markc]

this is a little tighter than I would have liked to crop it but for an explaination of what I said earlier it will do.

This doesn't really follow the rule of thirds. It's a basic centered composition. That's fine in and of itself, but I find that it lacks life and dynamics. My eye gets bored with it almost immediately.

Obviously I don't understand the rule of thirds please explain it to me. Im not being a wiseass I would like to know where I have been going wrong all these years.

Here's an older thread where the question came up.
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5878

I never thought of them as rules to be obeyed like cops but I did think they gave you a foundation to make decissions on. I know this must be wrong since this golden rule seem to be the excuse for doing things that make pictures less than they could be .... of course in my humble opinion....

If the idea is us all to share and all of us to get better, then share your thinking with me on why the original butterfly isnt off balance. I am seriously curious.. what keeps the eye from seeing a tilt.

I guess that goes down to personal taste then. But a large number of people do seem to find using compositions using thirds to be more pleasing. Personally I think this has a lot to do with familiarity. Close approximations of the golden ratio show up a lot in nature. These kinds of compositions have a more natural balance to those of us who prefer them.

In the case of the butterfly image, if it were just out-of-focus grass in the background, then I wouldn't crop it using the proportions motcon used. There'd be too much non-information hanging on the left. As it is, there are the white flowers, which I think balance the butterfly well enough. Like it was pointed out, the compositions probably could be improved by positioning the camera differently, but given the current image, I think motcon's is an excellent crop.

I can't comment on the farm, other than that the second image is lacking in contrast, as I'm not sure what you wanted to show there.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Now we are going to differ slightly in our undestanding in the rule of thirds..

There is also a breakdown of the verticle plans in thirds and the beetle head is above that location and the crop is pretty close to verticle. thats my take on it anyway. But since my day is going pretty badly I'm going ot just say okay you are right.

How is that I capitulate....

When I'm in a better mood i would love to discuss with you about the butterfly. But right now I'm just gonna say what you posted is exactly what I understand. Except that some subjects are inherantly veritcle some horizontal unless there is something actually in the shot to change the standard crop. However let me say this. I have recently decided that what I do know isn't really applicable to the way things are right now.... so I capitulate again.

 

[elsaspet]

Personally, I like the original composition. The lighting (if shot in RAW) can be fixed to a certain degree. It could use a tad of light painting and a small burn, but nothing major in my book. I liked it just fine.

Could resist playing with in. I really like the subject. Anyhoo, I prolly overdid it, but just got back from a wedding, and trying to wind down, but I'm still tired. (LOL)

 

[mysteryscribe]

This is my understanding of the butterfly crop I made and the rule of compsition as to placement in the from ie thirds

In my opinion the flower wasn't really that much a part of the shot but I can't read what was in the mind of the artist/photographer.


As for the farm I think that the raise in the contrast was less important than the ending of the frame at a spot that it didn't just trail off. It actually had a place to end.

Now all this said, I am again admitting that I am pretty much hopelessly out of date. I am still working with techniques that date back to the dark ages literally, so feel free to reject any of my thoughts, when you do, you will by far be in the majority. And if I had shot it I would have shot it verticle.

As for the rant it is more about people who use off center compostion for it's "artistic" aspects not for any other good reason. When asked they will quote to you how it fits into that mystical thirt of the frame and is therefore wonderful. Again I'm out of date but people have been saying that since bfore there were digital cameras.

But again let me state in no uncertain terms I SURRENDER. Even I know when i am dragging a dead mule.

 

[magicmonkey]

well, for what it's worth, here's my PS edit with the original again for comparison...

Original:

Edit:

I selected to sky and then did a levels adjustment using another layer, then selected the sky, inverted the selection to select the landscape (much easier than trying to select it with the magic wand, too many colours to get) and did another levels layer adjustment on it, then a crop and finally a curves adjustment by layer to add some more contrast. I should really have spent a bit of time sorting out the horizon line so that it didn't look PS'd but as this is just for a quick example I left it as it was.

Anyway, this is just how I would have edited it, like I said earlier, there are plenty of people on this board who would do a much better job and probably in a less complicated way...

There are some really good tutorials on luminous landscape which really helped me get to grips with photoshop and a few other things. This is probably the most understandable explanation of how to use curves I've found.

Mysteryscribe: I'm enough of a 'noob' to take critisism as a good thing, it's all much appreciatied

 

[mysteryscribe]

You are one of the best then.

You will also see and hear a lot of crap from me dont pay too much attention to it. Listen to everyone one then see what you like and what works for you. I doubt that any of us would say there is just one way.

By the way I am coming around to all this stuff slowly. So in a way I'm as much a noob after 30+ years as you. And to top it all off the familier ground I have been standing on is being shaken to the core by the digital earthquake and the things you guys can do. So please bear in mind that every opinion comes from a human being with his own set of problems.

I think that those who truly want critique, have the best chance to learn, and that's what I hope all this is about. There are too many atta boys for things that really should be corrected. I include myself in that as well.

I know I'm learning even though it might not seem that way. So in that regard I should be thanking you. Thank you for the opportunity to rethink my world on a day by day basis.

 

[markc]

This is my understanding of the butterfly crop I made and the rule of compsition as to placement in the from ie thirds

In my opinion, the centered butterfly overrides any impact coming from the head being near the top horizontal. It's a bit of a gestalt. We can try and break down "rules" for it, but it still comes down to explaining, not following. For me, that's a centered composition. The subject being smack center is what I see. My eye doesn't even go to the head or the orange bit in the tail. It gets bored and I want to go to the next image.

In the first crop, my eye wanders around, exploring. I find the head and the orange bit in the tail. I following along the white flowers. I come back to the butteryfly. It doesn't last long, but it is much more interesting for me. Part of why can probably be explained by the crop and the position the various points of interest take. There's a tension of a sort that helps keep my eye moving.

Sometimes a centered subject will help accomplish this. Luigi Ghirri often has a subject or some sort of rectangle at the center of his images.
http://www.sapere.it/tca/minisite/arte/nonsolomostre/ghirri_bio.html
http://www.photographers.it/articoli/ghirri.htm
Sometimes it works for me, and sometimes it doesn't, but he can use that quite successfully. The difference is that this isn't the whole of his composition, but just a part. Looking at just one or two of his images gave me the feeling of snapshots, but after looking through many, I began to see a style and found it intriguing. Having someone familiar with him instruct me on his work was enlightening. There is a lot more to what he does than center the image. I guess that's getting a bit off-track and he might not be the best example, but he does show that I don't feel that thirds is a rule.

One of the most important criteria that I judge an image on is how well it engages me. Do I want to spend time looking at it and exploring it, or do I get bored and want to move on. It doesn't have to be complex; a simple portrait can hold my attention. But there does have to be something interesting happening between the different elements of the image. As a quick example, #6 of Peanut's here does that for me. Sure, there may be a better crop to be found (and that's a maybe), but as is, I want to keep looking at and studying this image. I don't know exactly why (and if I did I would be a better photographer), but it really works for me. This is something that I really want to develop more in my own photography. A lot of mine have impact, but lack a strong holding power.

Now all this said, I am again admitting that I am pretty much hopelessly out of date. I am still working with techniques that date back to the dark ages literally

Well, they didn't even use perspective back then, so that could be an issue when it comes to photography. As I understand it, a lot of the techniques we use today date to the Renaissance.

As for the rant it is more about people who use off center compostion for it's "artistic" aspects not for any other good reason. When asked they will quote to you how it fits into that mystical thirt of the frame and is therefore wonderful.

Then I don't think they understand what the rules of thirds is about either. But from what I've seen of your responses here, I'm guessing that anyone that brings it up falls into this category for you. I mentioned how the golden ratio related to the rule of thirds, and it seemed like you took it to task. I responded.

But again let me state in no uncertain terms I SURRENDER. Even I know when i am dragging a dead mule.

Personally, I hate this even as a debate technique, and I thought this was a discussion.

 

[markc]

I think shows what you were talking about magicmonkey, but unfortunately it looks rather unnatural to me. The ground looks more lit than what a sky that dark would be giving off. That's probably the wrong way to say it. The ground basically looks washed out compared to the sky, which gives the impression that a storm cloud is overhead, but sun is coming in from an angle. I think you are on the right track, but perhaps each one a bit less.

 

[mysteryscribe]

This is a very interesting and informative thread in a lot of ways. I don't agree with a lot of it, but I do think It is the type thing that should be going on here.

Of course it also reminds me a little of alice's restaurant and the blind judge.

Okay then i won't surrender.

note this is the quote I was referring to in the rule of thirds comment not even yours. If you don't remember alices restaurant you should grab a copy of the lyrics. And note the blind judge part of it.

Im sorry you took that a personal inditement. I said in the last couple of posts I did not refer to you at all.

My take on the rule of thirds is frankly the butterfly should have been a verticle shot and the head should be on that axis. Now that is my take and it may not be yours but it is valid.

I don't find off balance pictures things I want to look at, but that's me. Just as you find this boring, I can't get past the 'its hanging crooked' sensation. Just for the record I also don't find empty black space attractive unless it frames something.


I have no idea what you mean by perspective in the middle ages, but the rules (or guidelines if you perfer) of composition were hammered out, I think, by the pictures that survived from that period of time. The ones people didn't like the owner's children burned to stay warm, I expect. So the ones that survived are more than likely the ones people thought more important than firewood.

Those are the ones I studied and the ones I find appealing. My own perspective of what is acceptable composition is not really in step with what people are accepting now, so more than likely what I like will be firewood for the next generation. That is the i surrender statement. There is no need dragging a dead horse around in a pickup truck.

Again I'm sorry if you think I was assaulting you personally. I hope that I wasn't. It surely was not my intention. It seems that reasonable men can disagree on issues without it becoming anything but a reasonable discussion even if in elevated voices.

At this point I need for my wife to come in and tell me to shut up. I have said way too much.

If i come off as a pompus a** im sorry.

 

[magicmonkey]

Markc:
Yeah, I can see what you mean, it's the sort of thing I tend to need pointing out to me though!

Mysteryscribe:
'one of the best' might be pushing it a bit! I do try and take all the critisicm with a pinch of salt as well, it's all subjective. A friend of mine who is a MUCH better photographer than me often rips my shots to shreds but tells me why, I tend to leave his house a little better than when I went in even though I have realised that my 'masterpeice' was really just a snapshot...

Bythch mynickname:
I hope this is helping you mate!!

 

[mysteryscribe]

Believe it or not photography is a journey from the first camera to the grave. It is ever evolving and changing. Even those people you think are great, are still learning and exploring.

And yes take all the advice then experiment with it and make it your own.

 

[markc]

note this is the quote I was referring to in the rule of thirds comment not even yours. If you don't remember alices restaurant you should grab a copy of the lyrics. And note the blind judge part of it.

You made the comment about people bringing up the rule of thirds immediately after my post bringing up the rule of thirds, which is why I thought that you meant me specifically.

I don't find off balance pictures things I want to look at, but that's me. Just as you find this boring, I can't get past the 'its hanging crooked' sensation. Just for the record I also don't find empty black space attractive unless it frames something.

I usually don't care for hanging dead space either. I guess we see balance differently. In the case of motcon's crop, the white flowers provide balance for me, but I can understand that we will see things differently. I was trying to explain why the rule of thirds is important. Many people see the balance this way. If you see it differently, then it will be very difficult to demonstrate it.

I have no idea what you mean by perspective in the middle ages

http://www.ski.org/cwt/CWTyler/Art Investigations/PerspectiveHistory/Perspective.BriefHistory.html
http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art340/sp06/renaissancepainting.html

It's a mathematical tool that we can use to explain how we see. We can use it in our art to attempt to make it more lifelike. The arguement can be made that those that use prespective in their paintings are hacks who only follow rules, but that seems a bit overboard to me. Personally, I prefer the more "natural" art of the Renaissance over the flat art of the middle ages, but everyone has their own personal tastes. Abstract art doesn't usually make use of it. I do think it's important to understand perspective, even if you don't care for it in art though. I think the golden ratio falls into that same category.
http://students.bath.ac.uk/ma1caab/art.html
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#art
But to quote that second link:
"There are many books and articles that say that the golden rectangle is the most pleasing shape... However, the "most pleasing shape" idea is open to criticism... At best, the golden section used in design is just one of several possible "theory of design" methods which help people structure what they are creating. At worst, some people have tried to elevate the golden section beyond what we can verify scientifically."

It may yet again be a matter of familiarity.

Those are the ones I studied and the ones I find appealing. My own perspective of what is acceptable composition is not really in step with what people are accepting now

If your taste falls more in line with art from the middle ages, then I can definitely see where it wouldn't sync up with much of what is common now.

Again I'm sorry if you think I was assaulting you personally. I hope that I wasn't. It surely was not my intention. It seems that reasonable men can disagree on issues without it becoming anything but a reasonable discussion even if in elevated voices.

If i come off as a pompus a** im sorry.

I mentioned the reason I thought this above. If that wasn't the intent, then thank you. I know I can come across as a bit hard-nosed, but for me, it's about being thorough.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Okay the post actually was ready to go before you made your post... Yours got here first. As you said it was right after but note again the reference to alices restaurant and the photographs with the circles an arrows n the back that went before the blind judge. Okay its an old reference.

Yes I think we do see blank spaces differently...To me a blank space is anything I (note the I) don't see as needed in the picture.

Yes I know now that I see things alot different than younger photographers. How long this has been going on is hard to say since the only contract with anyone else in the business came just a couple of years ago when I retired. Up to that point I was dealing with my own peer group. We most likely are all behind the times. My son in law calls me old school maybe it worse than that.

You know my first day here, we pretty much defined our thinking and it hasn't changed much and probably won't. We most likely will agree on the broad strokes but it's the#000 we will differ on.
And again it was not meant as a shot across your bow. How about we close this and just move on to the next disagreement.