Golden Section cropping helper overlay-an interesting little app. (atrise)

I spent many years studying the theories and logical assumptions that underlie mathematics to become a mathematician and it always amazes me how excited silly people get about descriptive statistical observations that completely miss the point.

The idea that phi has anything to do with composition is absurd. The number phi and its inverse are commonly called the golden mean, the golden ratio, and the golden section. None of this has anything to do with design. The usage of this number (phi) and others in developing an understanding of composition is call numerology. Yes, it is an *ology just like astrology. It is true that at times there is a statistical correlation between these numbers and reality. But they are descriptice and not prescriptice statistical correlations. But unlike astrology or tarot cards, photographic composition and the human visual system is incredibly simple in comparison to the full range of human feeling which astrology and tarot cards attempt to explain.

Imagine the example you get that prove the golden mean is a real ideal. You will typically get three rectangles with aspect ratios os 1:1.2, 1:1.68, and 1:2.5 which are clearly disparate. One is nearly square, the 1:1.68 approximates the golden ratio, and the other is a panoramic format. Yet the truth is that if you take three reasonably similar aspect rations, say 1:1.6, 1:1.68, and 1:1.76 you will find that on average they are prefered equally. Why, because on average most people cannot tell the difference between any of the three of them unless they are shown side by side. And even when shown side by side, they are very similar.

Or better yet, let the OP pick a single image of theirs they created before they have ever hearing of the golden section and I will derive how it was fundamental to their compositional choice using standard numerological techniques (often called fast talking and hand waving).

Whereas photographic composition is not based on such silly psuedo-religion. Instead, photographic composition is always about manipulating the human visual system. It is not about manipulating what a dog or cat sees. Heck, last I read humans are the only mammals with tri-chromatic visual systems. And in reality, the receptors in the average human eye also have a ultrasensitive sensor called a rod that notes light and dark. The human visual system is not simple it is not easy to understand. Yet, at the same time, the human visual system is not overly complex nor difficult to understand. What is hard is finding a photographic text that will teach you about the human visual system and geometrical optics.

But, amazingly enough, once you develop this moderately complex understanding you will never see an image that breaks the rules but still works. Why? Because there are no rules, instead there is only the human visual system to manipulate.

But if you choose to work with rules, then there will always be exceptions to the rules. Why? Because the rules almost invariably attempt to simplify several different aspects of manipulating the human visual system into a single concept which fails to encompass the complexity of human vision. And when you attempt to ammend rules that do not work to begin with you get a huge mess of rules. This is the same reasoning that led us to realize that the Earth is not the center of the Solar system. This is the same type of reasoning that through a study of the orbits of the planets in our solar system show Newton's Laws are simplifications of reality and not actually true.

Yet at the same time, if you do not wish to go far with your work, then you can use Newton's Laws. Study such silliness if you wish, but you are limiting yourself and your photography by filling your mind with nonsense. Feel free to stare at those wonderful images that break your 'rules' in incomprehension. Or instead, open your mind, accept that photography requires thinking, and learn to manipulate the human visual system. Then someday you will see that those rule breaking images merely use concepts of the human visual system in a negative fashion.

Myself, I have yet to truly master composition. I can look at those great images and see what they did, but I have yet to intuitively integrate such negations into my work. I do not claim to know it all, but I do claim to have a solid grasp on where to expend ones mental energy to understand the basics. If anyone wants to continue this discussion in detail about the human visual system and how it correlates to photographic composition, then please let me know as I would be happy to do so. I will also note that the basic concepts will require a minimum of 10,000 words to get across without discussing how the ideas work together.

As always, this is the internet, so please treat this as a rough draft.

Lastly, if you take offense at what I have to say, then please take a look at yourself and not me. I am fully aware that photographic composition is a complex subject. Heck, photography is a complex subject. But you can also use your automatic settings and let your camera make mediocre choises for you. But if you want consistently good results, then you need to make those choices for yourself. Make your own decision to meet your own needs. After all, what is the point in pursuing photography if you do not enjoy it.

best of luck,

Sean

No offense at all, Sean. Yours is precisely the kind of post that used to abound at photonet in the old day, but alas, has become rarer. Thanks for the critical, well-thought out and relevant input.

I am reminded that I was indeed fortunate not to be taught numerology whilst I was getting my own degree in mathematics.

;-)

Mani,

Can't justify Photo Shop's price, however ........ The inexpensive (approx $110) Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8 has a powerful cropping function which will easily accomplish full previews of any ratio, size or position you prefer.

John, I will check it out; fortunately, here in Singapore Photoshop CS goes for around $250 with a valid student ID, so the difference in price is not as great as in the U.S.

Don't knock numerology - I once won $90 on a state lottery playing the focal lengths of my lenses (grin).

As it happens, just last week I spent some time with a book on "natural patterns", that expanded on not only the Golden "thingies" (including the Golden Triangle, which Sean omitted) - but also the root-2 rectangle (ratio 1.41....), "Triangle of Price", root-4 rectangle (your basic tatami-mat 1:2 double-square ratio) etc. etc.

It's interesting stuff to know - for example you suddenly notice that Natl. Geographic, unlike most other magazines, uses a format based closely on the root-2 rectangle, which means they can crop 35mm frames slightly, and by the same amount, whether using them as 7x10 1-page verticals, 10x14 2-page spreads, or 5x7 half-page horizontals.

In fact, it's worth noting that the 35mm frame (1:1.5 ratio) falls neatly between the Golden ratio (1.618..) and the root-2 ratio (1.41..), giving it some cachet in both directions. But ideal-format users should know that cutting their 6x4.5/6x7 images diagonally produces two "triangles of Price" more or less, (or are they 3:4:5 triangles)?

And then there's the "gnomon" - but let's not go there... 8^)

As a designer and photographer, I find these relationships and proportions more useful for arranging multiple pictures on a page/screen than for determining the internal composition of a single picture. But even then they are, at best, guides, not rules.

Intellectually stimulating, without a doubt. But see the movie "Pi" as a cautionary tale about letting the numbers and proportions take too much control...

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34... anyone recognize those? I bet Sean does - and knows what they have to do with the golden section/ration/rectangle.

Fibonacci series. Divide two consecutive elements and you get the GM or it's inverse <grin>. The further along the Fib. series you go, the closer you get to the real GM, which, I believe, is irrational, and so, unattainable ( or so I'm let to believe ).

The ratio of root 2 is valid mathematics. Not because it creates good pictures magically, but because cutting a root 2 ratio rectangle in half yields another root 2 ratio rectangle. The entire european paper sytem (A1, A2, A3, A4, etc) is based upon this fact.