Did I miss something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomdinning

As for the 'bloke' I mentioned, I didn't want to get too pedantic or intellectual. I'm not sure how literate people are.
Robert is having difficulty writing in English.
Cheers
Tom

---

You appear to be someone who is a rule breaker (which is no wrong thing), but when someone expresses them self in their own mother tongue you want them to adhere to the rules of written English.
The Scots have a diversity of languages, from Gaelic to Auld Scots and as such we do not have adhere to your rules of written English.
I would overly worry on being to pedantic or intelligent.
An Auld Scots saying "Haud Yer Wheesht"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

But given that many great artists over those hundreds of years used it ...

---

Donald, do you think that that is correct - as in "great artists ... used it", namely the rule of thirds? Or is perhaps it is more that there is an intrinsic compositional value in where objects are placed that the great artists are (perhaps subconsciously) aware of and that often means something is on a third? But it is a bit of leap from there to the part of the definition of rule that says "... principle governing ...".

There are other "rules" at least as widely and effectively applied by artists, including the "golden spiral".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

...It has always intrigued me that a lot of my photographs also conform to the thirds as there is certainly no conscious effort to do so.

---

The "rules" of composition as I understand them weren't/aren't any more arbitrarily written than are the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc. The "rules" are simply observations of what does/doesn't appeal to viewers more often than not. Ostensibly, and as suggested by the above, due to some innate human perception, whether or not the viewer is conscious of it. As civilization has a tendency to do, somewhere along the line these "rules" are observed and documented in order to shorten the learning curve of that hard won knowledge. Ironically once that short cut process begins, the recipients of such knowledge, without the benefit of understanding its foundations, often become misdirected. Then the rules become rules for their own sake, intent of laws fall by the wayside, etc. This discussion is in regards to art(and therefore psychology and human perception). The same inexorable progression occurs in law, science, and religion. The ages old losing sight of the forest for the trees.

As Paul pointed out, Tom's own photos support the "rules" of composition in spite of his rhetoric to the contrary. Suggesting he's a lot more "normal" than he may care to admit. Go figure ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomdinning

Learn from whom?

Who decides they are the authority?

Why is questioning the authority frowned upon?

Why is pointing out a discrepancy or miss-information or poor spelling considered insulting?

Since when does presenting a question in order to determine what people think an adverse strategy?

Seems like we should all bow to niceties, agreement and the continuation of fallacy.

Sorry for wasting you time.

I guess there will always be discention when pointing out the stupidity of the ignorant. It comes easy whe all one need to do is ask questions or challenge answers.Or offend someone's dignity.

Cheers

---

Then you should not feel insulted if someone were to point out your poor spelling, typographical errors and atrocious grammar.

My sincere apologies to the Moderators for momentarily lapsing into pedantry.

Also, please pardon me for "feeding the troll" . . :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomdinning

I like Cambridge in colour and its fellow members.

I often pass on information that I have read here.

I was checking the tutorials of late and read with interest the Rule of Thirds.

Now, I've read a lot about art. photography, science and the like, so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

I know there are a lot of people who swear by it. There are those that a make judgement by it. There are those that use it but are never too sure. There are those who think it is god's gift to photography and there are those that just follow blindly.

What baffles me is that those images that we deem worthy of continuing praise in an historical sense or those that seem to gain the greatest attention or are found more 'interesting' are those that show little or no concern for such a rule.

The excuse for this contradiction appears to be shallow. 'Learn the rule then ignore it' or some such. 'It's only a guide' is another. 'It's been around for years' doesn't add any value to my existance but it is used to give veracity to the rule. 'It has ancient connections', quoting Pideas and the like. Nothing likea Greek to give a sense of importance to an argument. Maths helps some. fter all, who can argue with numbers?

So, I'm left with a hollow heart. My photos are worthless. They have no value, meaning or structure.

---

and then ...........................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomdinning

What am I to do?

---

Take and produce images that you like.

Ted,

You missed this:

Quote:

---

...so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

---

tenacity perhaps, but hardly rash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikesan

Ted,

You missed this:

tenacity perhaps, but hardly rash.

---

OT story:

I worked for a Gas Turbine company and there was a meeting to discuss a site problem and who should go. Someone suggested Eli Guzmán. Our red-neck Service Supervisor said immediately "Whut? Yew cain't send thet Eelah, he don't hardly speak good English!". A stunned silence . . followed by much hilarity. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

OT story:

I worked for a Gas Turbine company and there was a meeting to discuss a site problem and who should go. Someone suggested Eli Guzmán. Our red-neck Service Supervisor said immediately "Whut? Yew cain't send thet Eelah, he don't hardly speak good English!". A stunned silence . . followed by much hilarity. :D

---

Hmmm. The humor in that story depends on whether you were selling tur bins or tour bynes ;)

Gentlemen,
I think it is time to cease and desist, as I suspect Mr. Dinning has left the building. He appears to have gone some time after post number 11 back on page one.
Robert

Personally, I think Mr. Dinning came back to burn one of his few remaining bridges. His re-introduction post did say a lot.

I hope Tom will join us again. I like his photography and some of his refreshing comments. The main point he seems to be making is that we should not judge photography, just enjoy it if we want to, but it does make it hard to critic (oops I mean critique) or offer opinions without making some sort of assessment.

The problem here may be the use of the word "critic" (or "criticism") which contains an element of judging; perhaps the allied "critique" (evaluate something in a detailed and analytical way) may be more appropriate to what happens in CIC, and is what we intend when asking for "C and C".

I spent many years working in the area of technical auditing, and our training programs emphasised the need for auditors to leave their baggage at the door, and to discuss findings as opportunities for improvement - not as failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billtils

The problem here may be the use of the word "critic" (or "criticism") which contains an element of judging; perhaps the allied "critique" (evaluate something in a detailed and analytical way) may be more appropriate to what happens in CIC, and is what we intend when asking for "C and C".

I spent many years working in the area of technical auditing, and our training programs emphasised the need for auditors to leave their baggage at the door, and to discuss findings as opportunities for improvement - not as failures.

---

Yes. I had indeed intended to use the term critique.