Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152

    Exclamation Dump the rule of thirds?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    Interesting. I will try playing with this in LR.

    It would be helpful if camera makers allowed us to change the "grid" in the viewfinder to methods like this, and others like:

    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    814

    Thanks for the laugh...

    Oh dear.....

    Yet another photographic image "theorist"! Do we really need to worry about this alleged issue at all?

    The point that Edwin Westhoff misses entirely is that the 'rule of thirds' (and for that matter his diagonal method) is purely and absolutely arbitrary. If he presumes to judge all images on that single criterion being the defining quality, then he's gonna miss out on enjoying a lot of famous (and not so famous) images!

    There's thousands of photos out there, and thousands of old paintings that totally ignore either of these concepts.

    Westhoff is making an issue of something that simply doesn't need to be an issue. Is he doing it for notoriety, or money, or for ego? Who knows.

    It's interesting to note that he's selectively chosen images that satisfy his theories. Try it with Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" (the geometrical arrangement of which is based on a vertical isosceles triangle) and you'll find Westhoff's silly rule doesn't hold water.

    I also had to laugh at the way he blithely dismisses any images that don't "fit" his theory When the important subjects (whatever they are?) are not on the diagonals, there is a good reason this is done. Apparently (and he seems to know LOL) the composition of the bigger parts (again, whatever they are?) is simply more important!

    Ed will have to try a lot harder to convince me, although I'm guessing his sycophantic little band of students are sucking it up it up like so much sodium thiosulphate.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    If L Ron Hubbard had written a "cropping guide", this would probably be it.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Everyone seems to have theories or ideas, and hey if something someone else comes up with works for you, or a part of it can be another tool to use or play with so be it. There is still a lot of good stuff photgraphers can learn for the old oil and canvas masters, I have posted this link before but I think it is very informative and educational.

    http://digital-photography-school.co...its/#more-1922
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    814

    Mona's math...

    Thanks for the last link.

    It's interesting that it shows Mona Lisa framed as an irregular quadrilateral (rather than as the normally accepted triangle). Usually, the lower vertices of the triangle are pushed down to nearly coincide with the points of Mona's elbows, with the lower edge of the triangle laying horizontally along top of her left forearm.

    Interesting theory about the "missing" columns too. Hadn't seen that before.

    Cheers

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,562
    Sean, I read that somewhere before and was going to look for it. Glad you posted it.

    Frank
    Sony A77
    Sony A580
    Sony A 100
    Maxxum 400si.
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70
    Minolta AF 50 f/1.7
    Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD
    Tamron 60mm Macro
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    Tamron 2x Converter
    Sony HVL-F42AM
    Quantaray 70-300 4.5-5.6 Macro
    Slingshot 200 Bag



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22083244@N06/

    http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/sparkie1263/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    I expected this to provoke more debate.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    Rules are for sheep.......

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Maybe instead of rules we should call things like this GUIDES or applcable theories LOL I found the Mona lisa article interesting the first time I read it and have passed it on since.
    'irregular quardrilateral" also known as 'arrow head' You just wonder what lead to that lay out? and the missing colums, early cropping tool lol. I have looked around for other mathmatical or the like assessments of other great works but have not found any.
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •