A couple of early oddities from my film days.

Tim Tucker

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
660
Reaction score
579
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
These were the shots I liked and more often than not are the ones that created the most excitement, and disappointment. Shall we say that these were 'unconstrained by rules or convention'.
It's odd, but when I look back I was never really concerned with things such as 'the rule of thirds', though I knew of it as golden mean and it was only ever something that was posted in magazine articles. In all the extensive reading I did I never really found anyone that attached much weight to it. The impression I always got was that images should flow, they should have balance, and they should be comfortable within the four boundaries of the frame, never seeking to escape.
So much for theory, here's what I ended up with. Both shot with my Nikon F2 on B&W film which was developed in a bathroom. Offered here as full frame (yes those are the borders of the image and not a fancy mask).
 
Last edited:
#1; asymmetric balance
#2; movement juxtaposed with static line
 
#1; asymmetric balance
#2; movement juxtaposed with static line

I can see that you're right, it's just that I know it didn't occur to me at the time. Sometimes you're drawn to something without understanding why, what's the phrase? "Shoot now ask questions later." :D
 
I agree. I have any number of pictures that are freely composed, and later I'll overlay a guide (cropping for paper sizes) I see an important element or constellation' of things are aligned on it/next to it, or anchored by it. I think it's that you are in the zone and in tune.
 
#1; asymmetric balance
#2; movement juxtaposed with static line

I can see that you're right, it's just that I know it didn't occur to me at the time. Sometimes you're drawn to something without understanding why, what's the phrase? "Shoot now ask questions later." :D
No. It is instinct.
Good shooting.
 
The "rule of thirds" is largely crap. It's a "new" and a "made-up" bit of nonsense, designed to distill the entire theory of composition, down into something that can be typed up and written about in a few sentences, and taught to happy-snappers, so that they can be told how to make passable images, using something that can be written up, and remembered, in less than five minutes. The "rule of thirds" is a MODERN invention...it is NOT the old one third one third one third concept that some painters used as a way to apportion areas of the frame with foreground and sky, or fore-,middle- and background proportions. No, the "rule of thirds" is something that was invented relatively recently, and it has no basis whatsoever in formal art theory. it is a MODERN, shorthand HACK. it's like those listicals on Buzzfeed...they are in no way articles, not even essays, just...listicals. People who do not know the history of the "rule of thirds" will bristle and what was written, but it's true...it has ZERO basis in any fine art theory. it's a crutch. And it does not date back very far; instead of being something old, and scholarly, and actually worthwhile, this rule of thirds nonsense appeared, fully-formed, you know, like the zombies in a George Romero film.
 
The "rule of thirds" is largely crap. It's a "new" and a "made-up" bit of nonsense, designed to distill the entire theory of composition, down into something that can be typed up and written about in a few sentences, and taught to happy-snappers, so that they can be told how to make passable images, using something that can be written up, and remembered, in less than five minutes. The "rule of thirds" is a MODERN invention...it is NOT the old one third one third one third concept that some painters used as a way to apportion areas of the frame with foreground and sky, or fore-,middle- and background proportions. No, the "rule of thirds" is something that was invented relatively recently, and it has no basis whatsoever in formal art theory. it is a MODERN, shorthand HACK. it's like those listicals on Buzzfeed...they are in no way articles, not even essays, just...listicals. People who do not know the history of the "rule of thirds" will bristle and what was written, but it's true...it has ZERO basis in any fine art theory. it's a crutch. And it does not date back very far; instead of being something old, and scholarly, and actually worthwhile, this rule of thirds nonsense appeared, fully-formed, you know, like the zombies in a George Romero film.

Not of course to be confused with Golden Ratio, sometimes also known as Golden Mean, and it's derivatives that have been around since the Greeks. But as you indicate they are to do with proportion and volume, not lines and placement. Thirds can work but I think it is taught in the wrong way, as the placement of a horizon line rather than a balance of volumes. I think this over-emphasis on line and placement misses the most important part of composition which is volume and value. Thirds may've been ok in film because relative brightness and contrast was largely preserved, but in digital relative contrast and brightness can be flattened by a single global slider. The horizon line in the second image doesn't really exist, it's just an illusion caused by the sharp change in different relative contrasts, values, brightness and therefore textures. Yet you see many images where the horizon line is placed on thirds and the relative contrasts, values, brightness and therefore textures are completely flattened by tone mapping and contrast boosts for 'punch' and with them much of the difference that created the line and the composition.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top