[Jakes]

Hi all
Can some one please help me with the following. I came across a very, very interesting article by James Brandon titled:"Devine composition with Fibonacci's ratio(The rule of thirds on steroids)", posted on DSP. It speaks about Fibonacci's ratio. My question is, when you look at the "38575 Focussing Screen LL-80 AF crossed". No where the rule of the thirds lines, and the lines as drawn through by the right and left, top and bottom brackets, meet, would those intersections be an indication of the Phi grid?
This would be really interesting to know.
Regards

---

Last edited by Jakes; 12-03-2010 at 06:51 AM. Reason: Needed to mention the article and author- don't want to get in trouble

[kh1234567890]

Not quite :

[extravagrant]

The "aesthetic beauty" of phi is a load of crap.

Yes, it shows up in nature for very, very interesting reasons (my favorite is the angle at which leaves shoot off of a stem), but most things in nature don't fit into a rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.618...

The best tool for composition is your eyes and your experience. PLAY! Try new things, study photographs and paintings that catch your eye (try turning them upside down or inverting them in photoshop to focus on the composition) and see what works and what doesn't.

[kh1234567890]

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Easy way to play with it is a PS plugin : Golden Crop for Photoshop - Home Page

Golden Ratio SmartSet - a set on Flickr

[snipenekkid]

Lightroom has a "golden ratio" "grid" if you cycle through the crop grids in the Develop module and pressing "R" activate the crop tool then use the "O" key to cycle through the crop grids. There are either four or five crop grids which as I recall can be further customized.

[mattdm]

Read: Good stories, pity they're not true

[pschlute]

Read: Good stories, pity they're not true

The "rule of thirds" is certainly a technique used by artists for centuries, and the fact that we still use it today (sometimes), is not made "untrue" because it does not equate exactly to the Fibonacci 1.618 ratio.

The article you link to spends a lot of time recognising that the ratio exists in many aspects of nature, but then tries to rubbish it because of some of the more outlandish claims (Egyptian tombs etc.).

His final paragraph also says there is no evidence to support the claims that fibonacci numbers have a role to play in predicting the stock market. I suggest he does a bit of research and speaks to actual practitioners who use Fibonacci ratios in technical analysis of all financial markets. He would find out that it is not "profane", but very mainstream.

[Brangdon]

They are different rules. The Rule of Thirds isn't precise. Really it just says, "Don't put your subject slap-bang in the middle, or right at the edge."

There is a deeper rule which says putting the subject slap-bang in the middle will tend to produce a static image, and putting it right at the edge will produce a tense image. Either of those is sometimes what you want. The former emphasises power and stability: for example, a shot of a lion full-on facing you will often be composed like that. The latter is good when you want a dynamic image: for example, a shot of a lion leaping will often put it at the edge leaving a big space for it to leap into. It's an artistic choice, depending on what you decide the picture is about. If you don't want either of the extremes, avoid the centre and the edge.

The Golden Ratio is a different guideline with a different origin. It is much more precise.

[mattdm]

The "rule of thirds" is certainly a technique used by artists for centuries, and the fact that we still use it today (sometimes), is not made "untrue" because it does not equate exactly to the Fibonacci 1.618 ratio.

The article you link to spends a lot of time recognising that the ratio exists in many aspects of nature, but then tries to rubbish it because of some of the more outlandish claims (Egyptian tombs etc.).

From the article the original poster is talking about:

Fibonacci’s Ratio is a powerful tool for composing your photographs, and it shouldn’t be dismissed as a minor difference from the rule of thirds. While the grids look similar, using Phi can sometimes mean the difference between a photo that just clicks, and one that doesn’t quite feel right. I’m certainly not saying that the rule of thirds doesn’t have a place in photography, but Phi is a far superior and much more intelligent and historically proven method for composing a scene.

The claim is that this slightly different placement is "more intelligent" and "historically proven" compared to rule-of-thirds is pretty much bogus.

[pschlute]

The claim is that this slightly different placement is "more intelligent" and "historically proven" compared to rule-of-thirds is pretty much bogus.

I would agree with you there Matt. As far as I am concerned I have always regarded the "rule of thirds" and the Golden ratio as far as they apply to photography/the arts, to be interchangeable. Furthermore, as far as photography is concerned I regard them as guidelines rather than rules, and should be broken as much as adhered to, in line with the artists intentions.

[Jakes]

Thanks all. I just wanted to know about the viewfinder. kh1234567890 answered my question.

[Class A]

The claim is that this slightly different placement is "more intelligent" and "historically proven" compared to rule-of-thirds is pretty much bogus.

Andreas Feininger disagrees with you.

I found reading the article a waste of time. Feininger's books, on the other hand, are well worth reading.

[Postumus]

I've heard of the Fibonacci number not the ratio.
I expect they are the same. Somehow the number keeps coming up. In natural and artificial systems. A bit like the Titus Bode Law for the spacing of the planets.

[mattdm]

Andreas Feininger disagrees with you.

I found reading the article a waste of time. Feininger's books, on the other hand, are well worth reading.

The article I linked to may not be the greatest; I just picked one quickly from google results. The fact remains, though, that the magical (and particularly, historic) qualities of Φ are much overstated. Off-center composition works; getting the lines matched up to some particular ratio can be an interesting tool, much in the same way it's interesting to write 14 lines of a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g iambic pentameter rather than free verse. But anyone claiming more than that about any particular number is on very, very shaky ground.

I've heard of the Fibonacci number not the ratio.
I expect they are the same. Somehow the number keeps coming up. In natural and artificial systems.

They are related -- the ratio between successive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence converges on Φ.

A bit like the Titus Bode Law for the spacing of the planets.

Which didn't work out so well once Neptune showed up.

[extravagrant]

Andreas Feininger disagrees with you.

I found reading the article a waste of time. Feininger's books, on the other hand, are well worth reading.

I will always take fact over opinion, no matter how well regarded that opinion may be.