Problem: Bad Case Of Lens Flare

[Swampy]

Blue Dog...

There is rhyme and reason why your granddad off set his photos. Designers called it the "Golden Rule of Thirds". There are other names, but the principal remains the same. Put the main element of your design at a juncture of the crosses on a tic-tac-toe grid. Do a google on "rule of thirds". Interesting reading all over the place.

Below is an example of a photo framed by the rule.

[blue dog]

Intuitively I know that, but I didn't get any formal training in art or photography and I think that gives me a lack of confidence in my 'instincts'. It was such a surprise 'working' in a strange format. It reminds me of shooting 4x5. Composing a picture when the image is upside-down, backward, and green like a night-scope was so unsettling that it made me rethink the whole 'automatic' 35mm process that was burned into my brain. Ultimately it made me a better photographer.

Funny, he started photography during the recession. Not only was it a recession where he and everyone else were despirately trying to keep their jobs, but on top of that he broke is collar bone playing basketball and got let go. The family can't figure out where he got the money to do any of this because everyone was so dirt poor before the recession!

[byRo]

I went to get a cup of coffee and swampy beat me to the post...

Originally Posted by blue dog

..... but I soon discovered that he had an excellent eye. ....... He liked to place the center of mass of the subject above the geometric center of the frame, often leaving considerable space below the subject.

When talking about composition in art, one has to start with a disclaimer - there are no rights and wrongs.
That said, the composition of this photo is beautifully done.
I use a composition guide based on the Golden Mean (and its "multiples"), and it's uncanny how this hits all the sweet spots.

Originally Posted by blue dog

Of course, this results in a slightly unbalanced picture, that creates a little stress and hence a little more interest. It works double on the picture of him and my mother; her being held so high above the ground.

(see disclaimer) I see it exactly the other way round. If you put the mass at the centre of the image it is then that we get uncomfortable as our eyes wander between one side and the other. Putting the mass off-centre, we know there's a big side and a small side and don't have to think about that any more, so the result is more "restful".
The best ratio big / small turns out to be the "Golden Ratio", which photographers have distorted to the "rule of thirds".

Rô

[blue dog]

I did a lot of reading recently when I got hooked on the Da Vinci Code. In one of the related books, might have been "The Knights Templar" , there was a long analysis showing the role of the Golden Ratio or Golden Proportion or Divine Ratio in the architecture of the Masons of ancient Egypt, the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, a French renaissance artist (Poisson?), Boticelli, Fibonnaci, Seurat, on and on. Oh what a wonderful, fertile ground for conspiracy theorists! (I am sure I mis-spelled at least half of those!)

I just wish that I had been able to study this stuff when I was young.

[blue dog]

There are some subjects that I am an expert or nearly so, depending on your own point of view. You said you were an "Englishman in Brasil". Are you an ex-patriot or was that a humorous reference to Sting's song.

Anyway, one of my great loves and a subject that I know far to much about is Jobim. Surely, you haven't lived there since the 60's? Ah. I keep forgetting that there aren't that many people who even remember the 60's. Well, I have always wanted to go to Brasil and even thought of learning Portuguese. Unfortunately, language is not something that I am any good at.

PS. My Avatar is Franklin, my best friend. He's a Portuguese Water Dog. The best dog I could ever imagine.

[byRo]

Originally Posted by blue dog

...You said you were an "Englishman in Brasil". Are you an ex-patriot or was that a humorous reference to Sting's song.

Ex-patriot, been here since 1979 (known to be humorous at times).

Originally Posted by blue dog

Anyway, one of my great loves and a subject that I know far to much about is Jobim.

He is still an icon here. Just this week they opened a centre in the botanical gardens (his favourite hide-out) with his name, dedicated to the musical arts.

Originally Posted by blue dog

Well, I have always wanted to go to Brasil and even thought of learning Portuguese. Unfortunately, language is not something that I am any good at.

Great, just remember there's a lot more to Brazil than Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.
People around here don't like it when I say it but, (ordinary) Portuguese is pretty easy. Regular constructions and simple read-it-say-it phonetics.

See you soon!

Rô

[blue dog]

I forgot Elis Regina. The first time I heard her sing she brought tears to my eyes. Still does. God bless her.

[dkcoats]

Interesting:

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~markov/GoldenRatio.pdf

dc

[byRo]

Yes, quite interesting.

I wholly agree with a lot of what is said there. People do strive to find a simple rule that will explain "Life, the Universe and Everything"*. Sites like this one demonstrate how things can go way too far.
But just like the modern "myth busters", our friend here seems to also "go too far" in his eagerness to bust the myth instead of stopping to think why the "golden mean" (or whatever you may call it) gets quoted so much.

Maybe the Greeks didn't go around measuring everything using bits of string wrapped around 1,2, sqrt(5) triangles (practical way to measure in those times). Maybe they just piled up the columns until the boss said "Stop, that looks pretty now".
Now we come around centuries later and shine our lasers and come up with ratios of 1.618. Does it make any difference how it got there or what it was called? It looked good then, and looks good now.

One thing to ponder a while though. Are our preferences changing?
You are (very probably) looking at a 4:3 screen.
If you have a sheet of paper in front of you it will (quite probably) be A-4, with proportions sqrt(2).
Are you fixing a photo, maybe its 4 x 6, or 8 x 10?
You (well, I do) spend your day surrounded by things with proportions 1.25, 1.3333, 1.414 or 1.5. Sometimes I try cropping a picture to the "golden" 1.618 - it always ends up looking too long.

The "shortening" process is already an issue for the cinema. Well, at least, an issue for me and you who try to watch a wide-screen movie on a PC Monitor!

blue dog, Elis was great, (and her daughter is fast becoming very popular) but my favourite from those days is Vinícius de Moraes.

Have fun,

Rô
* the answer is still 42.

[Swampy]

Oh, Ro...

You tax my feable brain at this hour of the evening waxing so philosophical.

I do set my Photoshop defaults up to give me guides at 33 and 66 percent on horizontal and vertical regardless of the size document I create. They are there unless I choose to turn them off, but often when I can't decide how to position something, I find those guides handy.

[byRo]

Swampy, it's been some time that I've been thinking about composition "rules" - in fact, I've been planning a tutorial in the subject.

Seems that I came over as being against the thirds rule. Not quite.
As a quick simplification it does help, but if you have time and the tools to compose an image then a little theory (with the usual disclaimers) would come in useful.

Take a look at the two bars in the first attachment. The first is divided at a third and the lower at the golden ratio.
Says "theory" that the top one makes us more umcomfortable because the larger side looks like it needs some balancing - as in the second attachment.
The lower bar, in the Golden ration however looks more "balanced".

I stole your photo and did two versions - one by thirds, one by Golden ratio.
For the thirds I put in a little bird (well, a check mark really) at the opposite third - called the "counterpoint". As you can see, that one little black spot balances all the rest - and pulls a lot of attention to itself.
For the other version, no need for extra balancing - everything is at peace.

Well, that's the theory - hope this helps.

Rô

[ifixpix]

This link is to Cardas Audio, one of the most respected makers of cable, who bases his designs around the golden mean.

Audiophiles are even more nutty about their gear tha photographers, and spend thousands of $$$ on cable!

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...n+Stereo+Magic

[ifixpix]

This link is to Cardas Audio, one of the most respected makers of cable, who bases his designs around the golden mean.

Audiophiles are even more nutty about their gear tha photographers, and spend thousands of $$$ on cable!

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...n+Stereo+Magic

[Kraellin]

interesting discussion.

i'm not normally a 'numbers' guy. maybe i shld be, but i'm really not. i look at something and if it looks 'right' then ok. so, i guess this is a discussion on what is 'right'. most of us who've been here for any length of time have probably also heard the discussions on skin tone and color numbers and more recently the light source thread; all worthy discussions with some interesting ideas.

and since i've heard some of this discussion before, golden mean, rule of thirds and so on, i looked it up on google. there are some good explanations of all this out there for anyone that wants to know. it would seem Aristotle was the first to 'do the math' on all this.

but i'm mostly just fascinated with Ro's use of and reference to 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe' and the Myth Busters

also, what the heck is 'sqrt(5)' and 'sqrt(2)', square root of 5 and of 2? is that what that means?

craig

[blue dog]

Ro,

Very effective demonstration. I am going to start giving the Divine a try and see where it leads.

If you should write a tutorial be sure to address the vertical and the combinations too. Oh, this may be more than you care to tackle, in one of those analysis of a classic painting I saw arguments about the 'golden' size relationship between near and far objects.