[house]

The reason I give for that is that, traditionally, in design, it's always been the relationship of those rectangles and squares that matter, specifically for the length and width of whole assemblies and also for individual parts of assemblies.

I completely agree with this and those stating that spiral movement *in general* can be a useful compositional tool.

A comment about your golden ratio cross. In my view you can only use *one* of the vertical and one of the horizontal lines at a time. If you compose a scene with emphasis on both vertical lines you no longer have a golden ratio relationship in your image.



To divide the field into three you'd have to do it like this. The red lines are the ones that matter regarless of image proportions. The rest is only there to show how it's constructed. You could equally well invert the relationships such that the center area is the small one.



Inverted is equally valid (the construction lines are messy and wrong due to lazyness)


The above could be extended to any number of divisions and still maintain golden ratio relationships. (this is how it's used in architecture). You could for example place a subject centrally so that it fills the width between the red lines leaving space left and right. Or the opposite leaving a gap of some between two subjects at the edges.

You could place the "center of gravity" of subjects at the verical lines. etc etc etc.

The above is only the show that it's not the spiral its the relationships and those can be between many elements.

---

Last edited by house; 09-07-2022 at 08:30 AM.

[AgentL]

I'll bold a slightly different part:



To me, that's the key takeaway from all this. When article writers create examples that stretch and skew the spiral, they're really losing the plot so to speak.

At the same time, I feel that there seems to be, in the articles, and also here, a fixation on the spiral. The spiral is not the Golden Ratio. The spiral is simply the result of stacking different golden ratio rectangles and squares in ever decreasing size and then creating a spiral from that. I propose therefore that placing too much emphasis on the spiral is a mistake.

The reason I give for that is that, traditionally, in design, it's always been the relationship of those rectangles and squares that matter, specifically for the length and width of whole assemblies and also for individual parts of assemblies. Spirals are, most often than not, a construct added later and not a design principle from the start. Design does not, after all, naturally include spirals very often, except in nature, and, then, it's the logarithmic spiral which is far removed from the Fibonacci and Golden Ratio spirals.

Here you can see how the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci spirals follow each other closely (because the Fibonacci number series fluctuates about the Golden Ratio) while a logarithmic spiral is entirely different. (The green line is a logarithmic spiral)

Interesting, so should we be looking more to place things in such a way within the photograph that we represent rectangles of this size/shape, or divide the photograph into sections with similar proportions, or something along those lines (no pun intended, heh)? I think I might be able to understand the concept a little better by forgetting about the spiral. You're right that many of the articles fixate on the spiral alone.

---------- Post added 09-07-22 at 08:55 AM ----------

A comment about your golden ratio cross. In my view you can only use *one* of the vertical and one of the horizontal lines at a time. If you compose a scene with emphasis on both vertical lines you no longer have a golden ratio relationship in your image.

This comment makes sense to me.

[MarkJerling]

I completely agree with this and those stating that spiral movement *in general* can be a useful compositional tool.

A comment about your golden ratio cross. In my view you can only use *one* of the vertical and one of the horizontal lines at a time. If you compose a scene with emphasis on both vertical lines you no longer have a golden ratio relationship in your image.



To divide the field into three you'd have to do it like this. The red lines are the ones that matter regarless of image proportions. The rest is only there to show how it's constructed. You could equally well invert the relationships such that the center area is the small one.



Inverted is equally valid (the construction lines are messy and wrong due to lazyness)


The above could be extended to any number of divisions and still maintain golden ratio relationships. (this is how it's used in architecture). You could for example place a subject centrally so that it fills the width between the red lines leaving space left and right. Or the opposite leaving a gap of some between two subjects at the edges.

You could place the "center of gravity" of subjects at the verical lines. etc etc etc.

The above is only the show that it's not the spiral its the relationships and those can be between many elements.

Absolutely agree. That "cross" is simply something I've seen often as others have tried to create a Golden Ratio inspired "rule of thirds" type grid.

[GUB]

First of all i have to thank Mark to bring up the topic, because it has brought me some insights I hope I can improve on.

What I have learned is:
- The golden ratio is about composition through proportion.
- It is about proportion of the main elements.
- It has nothing to do with placing your subject onto crossings or with having some element somewhere in a field of that spiral (makes me think of Bingo).
- Mathematical precision is not needed. The rule of thirds is close enough if you follow the mindset of the golden ratio.

Based on what I have learned, I would say the last picture in the original post is a near perfect realization of the golden ratio in a photography, while every other picture in this post has nothing to do with it.

I hear what you are saying and I agree that the last image is the best portrayal. I struggle in practise with getting anything from the GR concept without placing the focal point of the image at the vanishing point.
I went out this morning with the concept in mind when having a play with a Chinon (tomioka) 55mm 1.4 wide open on the K-1. (A morning's play - don't expect a Rembrandt ).
And yes I was thinking of the bokeh bubbles as part of the construction.
But, like the last image in the first post, the image is dependant on 2/3rds of the real-estate being basically empty. This can of course be effective - but not all the time - that would be monotonous.
Yes there can be a proportionally larger second element in that largest square but almost by definition in photography one of the two will have to be out of focus.
I would love to see others go out and interpret the GR in some shots.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[yucatanPentax]

Despite the reductio ad absurdum response with dog shi# which followed, these really were sincere questions attempting to understand your reasoning in the OP, given your illustration in black below:

I see these spirals as fairly close to the same thing. They seem generally compliant. Do you feel more precision is needed? A greater adherence to the Golden Ratio (rectangles) and Golden Spiral for photography rather than Fibonacci or logarithmic?

When I view several of the example photos posted, I have the same reaction as to the second image shown here: yes, perhaps the author distorted the precise spiral / ratio / rectangles*, but looking at where the elements of the photo appear, it seems that they "fit" either the red or the black lines -- the man walking, the tree trunk at the center origin of the spirals (smallest boxes), an empty roadway occupying a larger square to the lower right, while much of the tree foliage is within a yet larger square to the upper right, etc.

I understand that you feel that authors have played fast and loose with the Golden Ratio. I was simply inquiring as to whether you felt that successful (attractive, interesting) photos need to comply more precisely than perhaps they do? To me, either way (red lines or black lines), the below image is just as successful in being visually attractive.

Anyway, happy travels, successful photography wishes, and thanks for the post


____________________________________________________________________
*(whichever you prefer to focus upon, trying not to get hung up in terminology cross-talk)

[MarkJerling]

I appreciate your thoughts. For me, there's a few key take-aways, as I have pointed out:
When viewing the sites that proclaim to explain how the Golden Ratio is used, and then, in their examples, none of them use the Golden Ratio.
An attempts by amongst all these sites to place a high importance on the spiral, rather than on the Golden Ratio itself.
Distortion of the Golden Ratio rectangle which means it's no longer the Golden Ratio.

I'm sorry if you found my response flippant. That was not my intention. I'm simply trying to point out that it's easy to place spiral overlays onto nearly any image and therefore I wonder if that really shows a "good image" or not.

[GUB]

An attempts by amongst all these sites to place a high importance on the spiral, rather than on the Golden Ratio itself.
Distortion of the Golden Ratio rectangle which means it's no longer the Golden Ratio.

So has any manufacturer embraced this ratio in their sensor?
And could it be a cost effective upscale to a sensor in a future FF?
The K-1 would need another 580 pixels horizontally creating a cool 39mp sensor.
Which raises the question would FF lenses manage the reach.
It certainly would make an awesome landscape camera but when I think of my normal photos I find I tend to crop (if any) towards the square.
I am not so sure that the GR is so important that it would validate such a trend..

[acoufap]

I usually don't compose my images according to concrete "guides" like golden ratio or "rules" of thirds. Although I find this discussion very interesting. Many thanks for focusing on this topic!

The raw converter I'm mostly working with is Capture One Pro. It supports special guides. These are "Rectangular" that simply shows the Rules of Thirds, "Golden Ratio" that doesn't show a spiral but Third guides according to the Golden Ratio and the "Fibonacci Spiral".

Latter with fitting frame. There's no way to distort this figure. Only options are to spin and mirror it and you can choose to follow your crop or apply the figure to the uncropped full image. It's not possible to size the fibonacci spiral figure within the image. It's always attached to at least two opposite borders and is centered. If "Follow Crop" is activated and you change the crop, the Fibonacci Spiral follows the sizing change automatically and even spins the figure when the crop changes from horizontal to vertical orientation and vice versa. Never played with these things - interesting ...

[MarkJerling]

Here's a screen grab of one from a couple of years ago that I remember definitely using the golden ratio for. It wasn't shot with the golden ratio in mind, but it turned out to be the best way to figure out how to crop the final shot. (This is the original crop that I ended up with, not recropped just for this thread.)



The Photoshop Elements 12 golden ratio guide is overlaid, and as you can see it doesn't show the spiral. But it DOES show the diagonals, and for me personally those are much more important in a composition. The key to this one is actually the diagonal from top left to bottom right, with the angel statue looking down directly along that line and her raised hand looking like she's about throw something right down the diagonal. The horizontal line across her eyes and the vertical through the raised hand were the other two key elements.

I suppose perhaps the strict golden ratio would have forced me to put the vanishing point right in the middle of the statue's face, but I don't think that would have worked for the photo as a whole. In photography we are always trying to build a composition using whatever happens to be there in the real world in front of us, so perhaps a reasonable approximation of the golden ratio is the best we can hope for in most real life situations.

Thanks for posting that Dave. I think yours is a very elegant example of the Golden Ratio used, and used well!

[Dartmoor Dave]

Thanks for posting that Dave. I think yours is a very elegant example of the Golden Ratio used, and used well!

Thanks Mark.

[GUB]

Dave - your image is a great example of a secondary image in that "waste 2/3rds". And it is the luxury of a wide angle to give you that dof.

[house]

The golden ratio or any other proportional system wont make a good image. It can improve a good image though.

I find that I often place vertical lines or the center of gravity of subjects very close to the golden ratio. Sometimes I turn on the cropping guides in Rawtherapee and make the image conform a bit more precisely. Often that does "tighten" up the frame.

[AgentL]

Here's a screen grab of one from a couple of years ago that I remember definitely using the golden ratio for. It wasn't shot with the golden ratio in mind, but it turned out to be the best way to figure out how to crop the final shot. (This is the original crop that I ended up with, not recropped just for this thread.)



The Photoshop Elements 12 golden ratio guide is overlaid, and as you can see it doesn't show the spiral. But it DOES show the diagonals, and for me personally those are much more important in a composition. The key to this one is actually the diagonal from top left to bottom right, with the angel statue looking down directly along that line and her raised hand looking like she's about throw something right down the diagonal. The horizontal line across her eyes and the vertical through the raised hand were the other two key elements.

I suppose perhaps the strict golden ratio would have forced me to put the vanishing point right in the middle of the statue's face, but I don't think that would have worked for the photo as a whole. In photography we are always trying to build a composition using whatever happens to be there in the real world in front of us, so perhaps a reasonable approximation of the golden ratio is the best we can hope for in most real life situations.

It seems to me like the golden ratio can only be used as a very general guide for where elements in the scene should be placed. Your image is actually a pretty good example of how to generally place elements which have a lot of weight within the image. The golden ratio turns out to have been a good general idea, but the golden ratio (if I'm understanding it correctly) doesn't tell, for instance, how close to the top of the image you should have let the large cross in the foreground be placed. You had to rely on a good sense of balance and photographic skill to place that correctly. The golden ratio perhaps informed where in the frame you could use as a starting point, but it still could have been a poorly balanced and crappy image if you'd been sloppy with the frame. Superimposing a golden ratio spiral, like so many articles do, might show the image as conforming but you'd still have a garbage image (if you had neglected framing it correctly).

[35mmfilmfan]

I'm sure I'm not alone :

OUCH !!!!!

My brain hurts.

To me, if it looks right, it is right - unless I deliberately include elements which are aesthetically 'jarring', for effect.

.
.
.

[swanlefitte]

Has anyone tried any other arbitrary ratio and found images just don't work?
I feel like this is like noticing a number and then seeing it all the time.

Instead of confirming I prefer to see a pattern that never works in any aspect ratio.