Topic: Working on cropping with the Golden Rectangle.

[6cmsquare]

These are all scans of my latest Seattle at night roll. Since I'm working with 120 right now, and that produces a perfectly square negative, I decided I need to work on cropping, -so I started by using the golden rectangle as my template.

[Indofunk]

I've always wanted to try cropping my 135 shots to the golden rectangle. Much less subject matter will be lost, but the Pythagorean(? or was it another Greek dude?) rule of "pleasing to the eye" will be there. What I should really do is 2x3 vs golden rectangle crops and ask people to choose their favorite.

[Indofunk]

Also, please keep them coming. I want to see more golden rectangle crops

[jharr]

I always thought the point of the golden rectangle was to compose the shot so that there were points of interest along the spiral created by the intersections. I could never quite develop my eye that well, so I just try to compose by the rule of thirds and that seems pleasing enough to me.

[6cmsquare]

I always thought the point of the golden rectangle was to compose the shot so that there were points of interest along the spiral created by the intersections. I could never quite develop my eye that well, so I just try to compose by the rule of thirds and that seems pleasing enough to me.

yeah, I read lots of discussion about "Rule of Thirds" vs "Golden Mean" composition theories and practice, and I think I'm in the Golden Mean camp, i.e., that the rule of thirds can sometimes have a contrived feel, and the golden mean has more of a natural feel - but it's all theoretical, in real life there are plenty of stunning photos that break all the rules, or follow the rule of thirds to a "t", -and I haven't taken any of them.     

- I found this up and have been "meaning" (pun intended) to print it on a transparency to lay it on my viewing screen on the Yashica TLR

[jojonas~]

I always thought the point of the golden rectangle was to compose the shot so that there were points of interest along the spiral created by the intersections. I could never quite develop my eye that well, so I just try to compose by the rule of thirds and that seems pleasing enough to me.

yeah, I read lots of discussion about "Rule of Thirds" vs "Golden Mean" composition theories and practice, and I think I'm in the Golden Mean camp, i.e., that the rule of thirds can sometimes have a contrived feel, and the golden mean has more of a natural feel - but it's all theoretical, in real life there are plenty of stunning photos that break all the rules, or follow the rule of thirds to a "t", -and I haven't taken any of them.     

- I found this up and have been "meaning" (pun intended) to print it on a transparency to lay it on my viewing screen on the Yashica TLR

how were you thinking about putting that in the square finder of your yashica TLR? are you going to crop it to square or have it just cover a bit of the frame?

btw, loving the secret path shot

[hookstrapped]

The first pic definitely has the spiral going.   

Nice shots.  I found that composing for a square takes some time to learn, and I'm still learning.  I think the same rules apply but, obviously, not in such a direct way.  Or maybe just in a scrunched way.

[Late Developer]

It's an interesting topic and I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject down the years.  However, I'm not sure whether I don't have "the eye" or what, but I just don't seem to be able to see these things as others do. 

More fundamentally, I don't get the whole conformity thing.  To me, some scnes lend themselves to square or 4:3 or 3:2 of 16:9 or whatever.  However, I tend to crop or not crop, irrespective of the aspect ratio of the camera I'm using. Perhaps I am seeing it and just not recognising it as such. 

The only person I've seen who uses a small "frame" to compose before shooting is Paul Mitchell.  Maybe that's why he's so irritatingly, unerringly good at what he does?    Maybe there is something in this, after all? 

[Francois]

Good idea to make transparencies for the viewfinder.
I personally take all those composition rules quite lightly and tend to compose loosely (even if it doesn't always show)

[6cmsquare]

I always thought the point of the golden rectangle was to compose the shot so that there were points of interest along the spiral created by the intersections. I could never quite develop my eye that well, so I just try to compose by the rule of thirds and that seems pleasing enough to me.

yeah, I read lots of discussion about "Rule of Thirds" vs "Golden Mean" composition theories and practice, and I think I'm in the Golden Mean camp, i.e., that the rule of thirds can sometimes have a contrived feel, and the golden mean has more of a natural feel - but it's all theoretical, in real life there are plenty of stunning photos that break all the rules, or follow the rule of thirds to a "t", -and I haven't taken any of them.     

- I found this up and have been "meaning" (pun intended) to print it on a transparency to lay it on my viewing screen on the Yashica TLR

how were you thinking about putting that in the square finder of your yashica TLR? are you going to crop it to square or have it just cover a bit of the frame?

btw, loving the secret path shot

Yes, I was imagining it just covering a bit of the frame, being movable and flippable.

[Indofunk]

I tend to compose, then realize that the rule of thirds dictates I should either pan down a bit or pan up a bit, try both, and then go back to my original composition, whilst whining like a little boy "but I like the subject centered  "

[Photo_Utopia]

Personlly I like squares...
120 can be rectangular and composition might be easier with say a Fuji 6x9 (8 on 120 roll) or similar.

That said I did try a few with the spiral thing, I think now I look for the elements and balance within whatever format I'm using rather that shoehorn them into 'Golden ratio'


An image from 2007 which is about the last time I worried about the mathematical Fibonacci ratio...

[Ezzie]

This could be a good idea for a collaboration?

Rule of thirds or the golden rectangle, whatever works. However, knowledge of the theory, and how to apply it is always a good idea, even when you don't (apply it).

[zapsnaps]

From what I understand, the golden rectangle (or mean) acts as a guide to proportion of physical form, so 3D buildings, rather than 2D paintings (or photos). Paintings rarely conform to the mean in canvass size, although they may more often be seen to conform in content, within the frame. To my eye, wide-screen TVs and computer monitors have given us a wide-screen view of things & I don't like it. It is wider than my natural way of looking at things and often causes my eye to wander around the frame looking for the subject or a landing point (people used to decry 135 format for being too wide and an un-natural letterbox view of the world. How things have changed in just 20-years).

So, walking through a square in ancient Rome or Greece, or looking up a mountain at an isolated monumental structure, the golden mean was supposed to be the most pleasing form. But to appreciate that, the form (or building) needed open space around it to breathe. Which they had in those days. But if you saw half a dozen golden mean photos hung side by side in a gallery these days, I'd mentally be cropping them to 6x6, 6x7 or at the most, 6x9 as those are the shapes which please my contemporary eye and can be filled with content, as opposed to simply filling a gallery wall. Like landscapes? Try a roll of 135 and see if you really need anymore width.

[Francois]

Few people know it but 6x9 has the exact same aspect ratio as 35mm (which is 24x36mm)

[jojonas~]

Few people know it but 6x9 has the exact same aspect ratio as 35mm (which is 24x36mm)

I realised it when I scanned the negs from my first roll I put through a 6x9. somehow, I got a bit dissapointed

[6cmsquare]

But if you saw half a dozen golden mean photos hung side by side in a gallery these days, I'd mentally be cropping them to 6x6, 6x7 or at the most, 6x9 as those are the shapes which please my contemporary eye and can be filled with content, as opposed to simply filling a gallery wall. Like landscapes? Try a roll of 135 and see if you really need anymore width.

I basically am working on cropping as an exercise, I shoot 120, and though I compose all my shots as a square, I find a good cropping afterwards can lead to a more interesting composition over all.  I find that working with constraints, like forcing a squarely composed picture into a rectangle just over half the size, can get me to look at a photo in a way other than the way I've already decided was right. -not that the end result is always better, but often can be.     

[Sandeha Lynch]

If you want a good read on the mechanics of composition, then Rudolf Arnheim is possibly your best man ... The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts.

It's a brilliant study that applies the concepts to painting, sculpture, and architecture, squares, circles and rectangles, frames, no frames, etc, etc.  I'd thoroughly recommend it.

Paul, I also carry a frame - it's a brass square I keep as a key ring with a miniature 4x5 cut out.  Very, very handy.

[Indofunk]

Few people know it but 6x9 has the exact same aspect ratio as 35mm (which is 24x36mm)

I realised it when I scanned the negs from my first roll I put through a 6x9. somehow, I got a bit dissapointed

Haha! That's how I first found out too!

[hookstrapped]

If you want a good read on the mechanics of composition, then Rudolf Arnheim is possibly your best man ... The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts.

It's a brilliant study that applies the concepts to painting, sculpture, and architecture, squares, circles and rectangles, frames, no frames, etc, etc.  I'd thoroughly recommend it.

Paul, I also carry a frame - it's a brass square I keep as a key ring with a miniature 4x5 cut out.  Very, very handy.

Thanks for the book tip!  Looks great.

[jharr]

Just try finding a 2x3 aspect ratio frame! You might find a 4x6 for small prints, but 12x18? Who ever heard of such a thing?

[GrainTrain]

-and I haven't taken any of them.     

This put a giant grin on my face. 

I like the idea of laying a transparency over the viewfinder as well.

[mcduff]

This may sound  pretentious, cliché or lazy, but I hate cropping. When I print or scan I like to see the edges of my frames.Why? It is probably some goofy, metaphysical thing. I like "the image" to be "the image" and don't like altering it compositionally once it is locked onto film.

If I am shooting for myself I pass on any specific cropping ratios, rules of thirds, etc.,  despite my love of Fibonacci -- and as failed math nerd and artist I have fallen down that 1.618 rabbit hole a few times. So given I have no camera that pops out that lovely shape (and it is lovely), I don't have photographic images with this ratio. I have certainly drawn and painted to this ratio. In fact for a more conceptual class I walked a few KM of gold coloured thread through the campus, trying to drop a golden spiral at the feet of the unwashed masses. Not cliche and pretentious at all 

Lastly, Satish, stop being so danged mathy or I am gonna petition you and James (who gets pulled in for his involvement in this math stuff) to chat about  senistometric density curves (or some other such frippery) with Francois et moi! Please note the math-irony® of being flowerbombed for a Golden Rectangle discussion by a sunflower, one of the more Fibonacci-est of the flower world. Also enjoy the uncropped image and its frame in all its blown out glory.


BIRD FEED by mcduff!, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

Please note the math-irony® of being flowerbombed for a Golden Rectangle discussion by a sunflower, one of the more Fibonacci-est of the flower world.

Glad you stated this, because of course I saw the picture before I read your post, and the whole time I was thinking "oh, I'm gonna get him with this...." but of course you knew what you were doing

And I will object on a technicality by saying I was not being MATHY (oooh, how I hate maths), but rather BIOLOGY-Y (and oooh how I love biologies )

[hookstrapped]

This may sound  pretentious, cliché or lazy, but I hate cropping. When I print or scan I like to see the edges of my frames.Why? It is probably some goofy, metaphysical thing. I like "the image" to be "the image" and don't like altering it compositionally once it is locked onto film.

If I am shooting for myself I pass on any specific cropping ratios, rules of thirds, etc.,  despite my love of Fibonacci -- and as failed math nerd and artist I have fallen down that 1.618 rabbit hole a few times. So given I have no camera that pops out that lovely shape (and it is lovely), I don't have photographic images with this ratio. I have certainly drawn and painted to this ratio. In fact for a more conceptual class I walked a few KM of gold coloured thread through the campus, trying to drop a golden spiral at the feet of the unwashed masses. Not cliche and pretentious at all 

Lastly, Satish, stop being so danged mathy or I am gonna petition you and James (who gets pulled in for his involvement in this math stuff) to chat about  senistometric density curves (or some other such frippery) with Francois et moi! Please note the math-irony® of being flowerbombed for a Golden Rectangle discussion by a sunflower, one of the more Fibonacci-est of the flower world. Also enjoy the uncropped image and its frame in all its blown out glory.


BIRD FEED by mcduff!, on Flickr

I also don't crop because I'm lazy (one fewer thing to muck around with in post), I like the black frames, but most of all (or a rationalization for the first two reasons) not cropping forces you to be deliberate and decisive when you're composing and shooting -- which often means you have to move your feet and get closer, which are generally good things.  And in circumstances where you can't be deliberate or you just mess up, it helps you to accept that fact rather than be tempted by the delusion that you can turn a lemon into lemonade.  If you missed it, you missed it.  Get it next time.

[02Pilot]

And I will object on a technicality by saying I was not being MATHY (oooh, how I hate maths), but rather BIOLOGY-Y (and oooh how I love biologies )

Math, science, makes no difference - you all make me nervous with your complicated formulae and weird symbols and white lab coats. When you want to talk about the nuances of Bismarck's diplomatic balancing of the Great Powers or a comparison of Schopenhauer's philosophical approaches with those of Buddhism, let me know.

[Indofunk]

And I will object on a technicality by saying I was not being MATHY (oooh, how I hate maths), but rather BIOLOGY-Y (and oooh how I love biologies )

Math, science, makes no difference - you all make me nervous with your complicated formulae and weird symbols and white lab coats. When you want to talk about the nuances of Bismarck's diplomatic balancing of the Great Powers or a comparison of Schopenhauer's philosophical approaches with those of Buddhism, let me know.

Oh you are getting SO damn close to a flower foul there, don't push me 

[02Pilot]

And I will object on a technicality by saying I was not being MATHY (oooh, how I hate maths), but rather BIOLOGY-Y (and oooh how I love biologies )

Math, science, makes no difference - you all make me nervous with your complicated formulae and weird symbols and white lab coats. When you want to talk about the nuances of Bismarck's diplomatic balancing of the Great Powers or a comparison of Schopenhauer's philosophical approaches with those of Buddhism, let me know.

Oh you are getting SO damn close to a flower foul there, don't push me 

I live to agitate. 

[Indofunk]

And I will object on a technicality by saying I was not being MATHY (oooh, how I hate maths), but rather BIOLOGY-Y (and oooh how I love biologies )

Math, science, makes no difference - you all make me nervous with your complicated formulae and weird symbols and white lab coats. When you want to talk about the nuances of Bismarck's diplomatic balancing of the Great Powers or a comparison of Schopenhauer's philosophical approaches with those of Buddhism, let me know.

Oh you are getting SO damn close to a flower foul there, don't push me 

I live to agitate. 

And after you agitate, tap gently on the countertop.

[Flippy]

I've never bought into the golden rectangle, either in theory or in practice. The only part of it which makes sense is setting up a composition which leads one's eyes around the frame. But you can do that with any shape in any proportion if you're clever enough.  The bit about the rectangle is basically, in my eyes, hokum.

Last year I was a guest at a comic convention to give a presentation about composition in comics. And composing comics is probably the most complicated effort relating to composition in art there is. Although I went into length about the utilization of horizontal, vertical, square,  borderless/open, and even round panels on a page - I didn't have a word to say about the golden rectangle. 

[jojonas~]

I've given up on composing by the golden rectangle 

but I've started agitating after it!

[hookstrapped]

 

[Jeff Warden]

That's good Jonas ;-)

For those interested in proportional theory (for photography or just for fun) my two favorite books are:

Le Modulor by Le Corbusier, in which Corbu helps to define a new measurement system using proportions related to humans instead of the status quo at the time.  He wanted to patent the system and change how architecture and products were made.  Nobody listened.  ;-)




There's even a proportional tape measure where numbers are optional.  How cool is that?



And just like that you're Mondiran.  ;-)




And The Power of Limits, by Gyorgy Doczi.





Neither is likely to change the way you compose, but both are interesting.

[Francois]

Strangely, I found that I don't compose much. My theory is to move the viewfinder until what's in it looks good... I call it real time optimisation of composition

I don't like cropping much either. The only time I do it is when I print in the darkroom... My easel has fixed borders so I'm stuck with that. Though I might end up making a custom one to get the full frame in.

[mcduff]

Haha that is great Jojonas!

This is all reminding me of a recent conversation with my daughter about complementary colours, and her realization that she does not buy into them -- not even split-complementary or traidic complementary colours, gasp gasp! Burn her, she is a heretic!!!!!

I told her that us humans find comfort in developing 'scientific' models to rationalize our experience. Sometimes complementary colours (in their dozens of versions) work and sometimes they are a great way to make things nice and trite. As we all know dissonance and noise can be farkin' lovely. I have always loved this quote by Frank Lloyd Wright: 'Less is more only when more is no good' This is the one design rule I think I can buy into if for no other reason that he is having fun with it and it can be turned on its head to recursively eat itself.

BTW, this is the "other Don" trying to speak, the one that is not wanting to carpet bomb the joy out of everything with the gods of Math and Physics. The 'nerd Don' is going to read about Corbu's measurement system and grab a copy of that awesome looking book by Doczi that Jeff was kind enough to mention! Then maybe the two Don's will go out for a ski and agree not to think for a while! Maybe they will bring a camera for a freaking change.

[mcduff]

I don't like cropping much either. The only time I do it is when I print in the darkroom... My easel has fixed borders so I'm stuck with that. Though I might end up making a custom one to get the full frame in.

Francois, this is a case where I am totally lazy and nasty in my way that I print with the frame. Firstly I don't have a custom easel. I use one of those hideous hinged easels with the 1/4" fixed border and then just frame it so that the image has breathing room on the paper. While it is possible that some light may spill onto the area that is exposed (but outside of the frame), I never see any ghosting or edge around the 1/4" that is fully covered.

To be even more slack, I sometimes 'upsize' my negative carrier (eg use a 645 carrier when I am shooting 35mm) so that I can ensure I get the border. So much for nice flat negs haha. I have access to a machine shop, I should just modify a carrier to have a bit more breathing room. Sounds like work!

It winds up looking like this (and I apologize for posting basically the same image twice in short order, but it was an easy example to find as I was looking at it yesterday). It may not be for everyone, but this is how my 'mind's eye' sees all my images. (This is "Little Miss Complementary Colours Are For Chumps" BTW )

[jharr]

I'm not big on cropping either and as for math driving aesthetics... I'm in the "that's a bunch of hooey." camp. If I have learned nothing else here on FW, it is that a photo that is pleasing to my eye may not be to someone else's. That could be for many reasons, but that's the thing, isn't it? There are so many variables at play in a photograph, composition being just one of them, that trying to come up with a "rule" for making "good" photos is just chasing the wind. The Greeks loved their math and applied it in lots of ways that were truly beneficial, but would the Acropolis really be "just another building" if it was built to a 2:3 ratio? I think not. I like Francois' approach. Look through the viewfinder and pivot at the waist until it looks like a good photo. Press button. Sorry Don. All due respect to the mathletes!

[Indofunk]

This is all reminding me of a recent conversation with my daughter about complementary colours, and her realization that she does not buy into them -- not even split-complementary or traidic complementary colours, gasp gasp! Burn her, she is a heretic!!!!!

We should form a club! I don't "believe" in complementary colors either! Colors are simply waves, just like microwaves and sound waves. Wavelength is a continuum, not a "circle" with "complementary" or "opposite" colors. Human color perception is only based on our 3 cones, which aren't even evenly-distributed along the visible color spectrum!

[hookstrapped]

This is all reminding me of a recent conversation with my daughter about complementary colours, and her realization that she does not buy into them -- not even split-complementary or traidic complementary colours, gasp gasp! Burn her, she is a heretic!!!!!

We should form a club! I don't "believe" in complementary colors either! Colors are simply waves, just like microwaves and sound waves. Wavelength is a continuum, not a "circle" with "complementary" or "opposite" colors. Human color perception is only based on our 3 cones, which aren't even evenly-distributed along the visible color spectrum!

Not to get all Mathy, but there is something to color addition and subtraction.

[mcduff]

Ya Satish, as James said it is all kind of hooey! To my daughter I compared the tyranny of complementary colours to a world of music without any dissonance.

And I feel the need to put out a disclaimer to James as you do not need to apologize for slagging math in this forum: Despite working in IT, I am a university physics dropout (I only lasted one year before realizing I was hopelessly outclassed), eventually graduating as a geographer. While being a geographer does explain my love of spatial metadata, my masters thesis was on the fringe: An analysis of anarchist though (specifically Kropotkinian Communitarianism - Kropotkin is still my man!) to provide an epistemological framework for modern environmental thought. I then went and did a fine arts degree (where I was truly happy mashing away with oil sticks). In fact in my fantasy world I would stop shooting and just go back to abusing paper and vellum!

So really the math nerd likes to pretend he is the dominant personality but really he is just the one that pays the bills and I let him mouth off now and then

[mcduff]

Not to get all Mathy, but there is something to color addition and subtraction.

For sure, but there is something about relationships to various colours on the colour wheel too. It is just when the start getting walloped down as Theories (which sometimes is shorthand for Rules).

BTW, even my artsiest and anarchic side does not have a problem with things like the colour wheel as it has real world practicality.Such as explaining to folks how to paint without buying 100 tubes of pigment. And as I used to work for a bit in the graphic arts (and always had great respect for the printing world) clearly a master press operator needs to not toss theory and science out the window!

[Indofunk]

Ok there Mr McDuff, there were definitely way too many big words in your previous post, so by the power vested in me by Bill Murray, I officially call a flower foul on you.


The prettiest little street in Philadelphia by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr

Let this be a lesson to you 

[jharr]

Satish, the pink flowers are clashing with the orange pots and your magic spiral is going left instead of right. What a beautiful photo!

[mcduff]

Ok there Mr McDuff, there were definitely way too many big words in your previous post, so by the power vested in me by Bill Murray, I officially call a flower foul on you.

Let this be a lesson to you 

Dang it, I thought I was skirting under the rules by havin' no sciencey stuff in them there words!

[Indofunk]

Big words are big words. If I don't know a word without looking it up, that's an immediate flower foul 

[Pete_R]

Wavelength is a continuum, not a "circle" with "complementary" or "opposite" colors.

Hallelujah!

The number of times I've banged on about exactly the same thing to people who try to explain the effects of filters by using a colour wheel. At last, someone who understands.

But to get back on subject...  I used to have a fetish for composing by numbers - but I'm cured now. And I crop EVERYTHING. Just do it by eye.

[Jeff Warden]

. . .
But to get back on subject...  I used to have a fetish for composing by numbers - but I'm cured now. And I crop EVERYTHING. Just do it by eye.

As a product design student I had to learn a few proportioning systems (mostly to be aware of their existence rather than to actually use them).  Once you spend enough time with them though you tend to use certain proportions, whether you try to or not.  I don't use any particular proportions for design or photography but I suppose they're still influencing me.

And I agree - your eye is what matters really so following your own intuition is probably better than holding hands with a dead architect.

 

[Francois]

I'm wondering if there's a way to add economics to this... that would finish making this thread totally messed-up

I know there is some land based economics theories that could possibly make this totally cooky....

[Indofunk]

If the Freakonomics guy could tie economics to children's names, then you can tie economics to photography. Go. I challenge you 

[Pete_R]

As a product design student I had to learn a few proportioning systems (mostly to be aware of their existence rather than to actually use them).  Once you spend enough time with them though you tend to use certain proportions, whether you try to or not.

Probably true. And I'm sure some of mine conform to rules sometimes, but more through coincidence than anything else.

The way an image is composed and cropped affects the feel or mood of the image and can help convey a message. Some rules may assist that but to apply the same rule to all pictures would severley limit the range of results obtainable. For example, I often place key elements in the centre of the picture to emphasise symmetry or to increase the feeling of isolation - I don't know any rules that account for that. Take these two examples:


. by ridgeway photographer, on Flickr


ridgeway94 by ridgeway photographer, on Flickr

As I said, I always crop and a change in crop can change the feel of the picture. Here's a re-crop of the second one which has now lost the sense of isolation and has become more abstract (to my eyes at least).


5839570509_f59a501e92_o by ridgeway photographer, on Flickr

All I see in the tighter crop are lines and shapes made by the elements of the picture. Like this:


5839570509_f59a501e92_oa by ridgeway photographer, on Flickr

Whereas in the original crop, I get the feeling of space and isolation I was aiming for.

So I would say ignore all the rules and go with what just feels right for the result you want to obtain.