Golden Ratio Grid. Powerful technique but rarely discussed?

By the time I would have figured out the Golden Mean, rule of Thirds, 3:2 or 4:3 the sun would have set and I would have lost my image. These 'rules' are as old as the Greeks and are useful but they are only guides. The most important thing about composition is 'is it pleasing to the eye', not whether it conforms to a rule. It so happens that most good compositions do roughly fit these criteria, but don't make them a straight jacket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

The aspect ratio is irrelevant when it comes to using the Golden Ratio. See this for an understanding of how some people apply it to various parts of an image, as opposed to the entire image. When it is applied to only part of the image, the number of potential aspect ratios is infinite.

---

I don't believe in a mathematical approach of composition. Even when I look at the link I just can't find any relation between the spirals and the pictures. Both are wonderful.:rolleyes:
The same counts for the other ratios.

George

The strange thing is that when you have a really good photograph with interesting subject matter how it can often be cropped successfully in several different ways. It is surprising how well a strong image can be cropped to fit a specific format for printing or publication. In my experience the more abstract the photograph the less flexibility there tends to be in cropping.

So many factors are involved e.g. relative scale and number of significant elements, direction or expected direction of any movement, location and dominance of colours, etc etc that it is simply not realistic to try and base composition solely on geometric rules. They offer a starting point for consideration by inexperienced photographers. Composition should almost become instinctive as your photography develops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barrydoig

By the time I would have figured out the Golden Mean, rule of Thirds, 3:2 or 4:3 the sun would have set and I would have lost my image.

---

:) Love it! And amongst the most important statements made in the thread.

You just didn't get onto location early enough, Barry. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

.......................................... Composition should almost become instinctive as your photography develops.

---

I wholly agree with that. It's the way that good images that don't conform with any of the so called rules are made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dem

What about the aspect ratio of the image itself?

---

Good question.

I wrote an article about rectangular watch dials on that very subject about 8 years ago:

http://tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/r...oportions.html

Close to the beginning, it mentions the drafting of rectangles that conform to the three Pythagorean means (arithmetic, geometric and harmonic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_means

On reviewing my article in the light of this thread, I noticed that the position and intersection of many construction lines look quite familiar. Do observe particularly those for the Pythagorean arithmetic mean of 1 and 2! . .

http://kronometric.org/images/blog/rect/3by2.gif

Other adjacent choices from the Fibonacci series of numbers are quite common, e.g: 2 and 3, 3 and 5. Anything above those, less so, but we do know where that series leads to in the limit. :)
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewsugi

But 3:2 and 4:3 is only 1/1.5 and 16:9 is 1/1.78. All those aspect ratios are a bit off from 1/1.618. Doesn't it mean they will not make a golden ratio compotition?

---

It seems you are looking for a mathematical equation to compose your pictures. There are none. Just use the "rules" of composition as a basis to see what looks good to you. After a while you won't even need the grid lines; it will just come naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewsugi

But 3:2 and 4:3 is only 1/1.5 and 16:9 is 1/1.78. All those aspect ratios are a bit off from 1/1.618. Doesn't it mean they will not make a golden ratio composition?

---

It is no co-incidence that sensor (i.e. full image) aspect ratios do not conform to The Ratio which is, after all, a number impossible to produce with whole numbers of pixels!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System - a bit off-topic perhaps.

My Panasonic can produce 1:1, 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9 raw files. Cropping any of those to The Ratio, even if it were possible, would be a royal PITA and a complete waste of time. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewsugi

. . . when I bought my OM-D E-M10 Mark II and started tweaking its settings to seek for grid guidelines, I found something weird. The rule-of-third grid in the Olympus camera don't exactly divided into three same-width sections. Instead, I got a grid which has smaller section in its center and larger sections at its right and left. At that time, I thought that maybe Olympus has its own unique Rule of Third. And I let it slide... until today.

Today, I have found that my Olympus' rule of third isn't exactly a Rule of Third. It is a Golden Ratio/Divine Proportion grid. I found it when I became curious this morning and searched about it.

---

Grid guidelines in the viewfinder are useful for composition.

However what is MORE useful if the situations permits: shoot wide and crop in post.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Grid guidelines in the viewfinder are useful for composition.

However what is MORE useful if the situations permits: shoot wide and crop in post.

WW

---

That's cheating and why I have a D800....:)

I think that lots of folks are scientifically minded and want to "see" photography as a system of mathematical equations. I think (hope) that I see photography from an artistic perspective...

For me, the most useful "grid patterns" used to be lines we termed "the side cutters" which we would etch on 645; 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 viewfinders.

These lines depicted the aspect ratios of the common prints. e.g.: 5:7 (for 5"x7" and 10"x14"); 2:3 (for 4"x6"; 8"x12") and 4:5 (for 8"x10" and 16"x20").

Obviously their use was to ensue that one did indeed 'shoot wide enough' so that there was enough in the frame to allow for a range of (standard) Print Sizes from the one neg..

Nowadays composing for "standard" print sizes is not as important: I guess 99% of images today, never make it to "A Print".

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I guess 99% of images today, never make it to "A Print".

---

I'm confident that your guess is a dramatic underestimation.

made me smile...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

I think that lots of folks are scientifically minded and want to "see" photography as a system of mathematical equations. I think (hope) that I see photography from an artistic perspective...

---

Actually, nature is all about mathematics. This "golden ratio" talked about is called a fibonacci sequence. It is found all over nature and if you align your composition very close to this, the result is a very pleasing-to-the-eye, photograph. Being "artistic" and seeing "math" in photography aren't mutually exclusive. You can both and, if you do, you will usually get a great photo. It is just a matter of training your senses to pick up on this. Pretty soon, it will be instinctive. The "rule of thirds" is just a rough approximation and just for a starting point to get you "in the ballpark". Here is another article that may be helpful. On a side note, this site is an awesome reference. I subscribe to their newsletters and get a steady stream GREAT tips/techniques.

https://digital-photography-school.c...s-on-steroids/

The evolution of a photographer seems to go through three main stages when it comes to composition:

1. Images don't look that great. They try to figure out why and eventually they run across the concept of composition.

2. They study "the rules of composition" and start applying them. Sometimes they get better images but more often than not they still produce images that do not work.

3. They dig a bit deeper and start studying the works of the masters like Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Breslin, Yousef Karsh, etc and discover that they continuously "break" the "rules of composition" that we have studied so well. It finally dawns on them that creating a compelling image takes a lot more than trying to follow arbitrary rules. A compelling image needs to connect with the viewers emotionally. One has to engage the viewer and guide their eyes through the image. Sometimes the "rules of composition" will be part of the solution, but more often other techniques work a lot better.