The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Ricoh GR II

S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Day spent photographing so I haven't got the energy to closely read every post here. Forgive me if I miss something... Golden section? A few comments: the size of the "canvas" isn't that important. What matters more is the divison of the available surface. Any format can be divided according to the rule. Examples? Rembrandt, for a start. Photographers? Come to mind: Stephen Shore (just draw some lines over the pictures in "Uncommon Places" - I bet he had pencil marks on the ground glass)
I studied under Stephen Shore for four years and he remains a friend. The "golden section" never interested him in the least, to my knowledge. His ideas about composition are much more complex than that and had much more to do with the relationship of the picture's space to its edges.

As for the myth of the "Golden Section" having been important to painters generally....see the study I quoted above for one perspective on that.

Cheers,
 

Maggie O

Active member
I studied under Stephen Shore for four years and he remains a friend. The "golden section" never interested him in the least, to my knowledge. His ideas about composition are much more complex than that and had much more to do with the relationship of the picture's space to its edges.

As for the myth of the "Golden Section" having been important to painters generally....see the study I quoted above for one perspective on that.

Cheers,
I did four years at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design (MCAD) and I can't recall a single time anything even like the "golden section" ever came up.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Mitch, this sonnet is new to me, so I'll have to think it over.

Let me try to expand on what I tried to say previously: a premise along the lines that as a picture deviates from the 'golden section' it becomes more uncomfortable for the viewer. The 'golden section' as represented by, say, 13:8:5 is only an approximation, and mathematically unattainable: so 'perfect' harmony is unattainable...

Interestingly, all the discussions have been about various rectangle aspects - and a square is only a type of rectangle. I have never seen a picture as, say, a pentagon, - though no doubt someone will correct me. Nor have I ever seen a picture in the format of 'aviator glasses'.

I'm suggesting that we have learned that a picture should be in some sort of rectangular format - learned, perhaps, in primary school. We subconsciously recognise 'rectangular' as 'picture' - a representation of reality. We also recognise doors and windows in the western world as being rectangular, and we 'know' the relationship between the door handle and the hinge. But, if I give you a door where the handle is on the same side as the hinge you will be quite disorientated - you have 'learned' how a door works.

Rudolf Steiner thought that as there were no right angles in nature there shouldn't be any in houses etc: looking at an anthroposophical house is very odd - crazy angles of windows and doors.

I'm not suggesting that we all now make pentangular pictures; rather, we should try to recognise that our subconscious modifies our perceptions in ways that, unless we look closely, we don't - and perhaps - can't appreciate.

Bertie
 

Mitchell

New member
I've pretty much resolved to buy a GR II, but now seem to have met a stumbling block.

I would like to buy an external viewfinder, but none except the Zeiss at $347 seem to be made to accept diopters which I need.

Anyone with the same problem? Solutions?

Thanks,

Mitchell
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I did four years at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design (MCAD) and I can't recall a single time anything even like the "golden section" ever came up.
I went to the School of Visual Arts in NY many moons ago and never even heard the words.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
...Let me try to expand on what I tried to say previously: a premise along the lines that as a picture deviates from the 'golden section' it becomes more uncomfortable for the viewer. The 'golden section' as represented by, say, 13:8:5 is only an approximation, and mathematically unattainable: so 'perfect' harmony is unattainable...

Interestingly, all the discussions have been about various rectangle aspects - and a square is only a type of rectangle. I have never seen a picture as, say, a pentagon, - though no doubt someone will correct me. Nor have I ever seen a picture in the format of 'aviator glasses'...
Robert:

One can superimpose golden sections, rectangles and spirals, in the manner of Le Corrbusier, but, in my "view it don't mean a thing" — and maybe it would be appropriate to add "if it ain't got that swing". In other words there are no rules but only what the artist sees and brings to the picture. One can just as easily select hundreds of masterpiece paintings, where no golden section fits.

On differently shaped paintings, there are a good number of oval Renaissance paintings, although I forget what these are called.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Golden sections, rules of thirds and even rectangles are all human constructs or paradigms, without which daily existence is impossible. Yet, we should see them for what they are, and recognise the limitations of these 'blinkers'.

Let me try a different tack: photographs for the first 75 years or so were all B/W, so we are well used to seeing life not in colour, but in B/W. Suppose colour photography had been invented first, and then B/W a century later, would B/W have been a success? I think not.
 

Will

New member
I went to the School of Visual Arts in NY many moons ago and never even heard the words.
I have to say I'm a little surprised. Back in the deep distant past,when I was at school as a fifteen year old, we covered things like the golden section when learning the history of art and design. I seem to recall it came up in Latin and classics as well. It wasn't pushed as being correct, in fact our art teacher made many of the points that people have in this thread warning against limiting our thinking. Never the less it is a part of the development of western art and design and as such should have a place along side colour theory, perspective and all the other aspects of the teaching of the visual arts. Whether or not any of them are used or regected is, of course, up to the creative inclination of the artist.
 
C

Chris

Guest
Let me try a different tack: photographs for the first 75 years or so were all B/W, so we are well used to seeing life not in colour, but in B/W. Suppose colour photography had been invented first, and then B/W a century later, would B/W have been a success? I think not.
I don't think that b/w photography is all about being used to seeing pictures in b/w. A main reason for me to take a picture in b/w is - beside the aesthetics - that it "calms" down the picture (colours sometimes distract from what you want to show). Therefore, I am sure that b/w would have been used even if invented later.


Best regards,
Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21306283@N05/
 
Last edited:

Mitchell

New member
All of art is a simplification, and selection, a imposition of order on what we see and experience.
B and W can have an advantage in revealing shape by removing the distraction of color.
Clearly painters see B and W drawing as something useful long after color was introduced (in cave paintings.)
I think street photography tends to B and W, because the emphasis is on the meaning of the interactions between people without the distraction of color.
It's interesting that the really great street photos have both meaning, and strong visual form which somehow enables rather than distracts from the meaning.

I myself shoot exclusively in color (while respecting and enjoying others B and W efforts.) I think this is because my concern is almost purely visual. I'm not interested in meaning or symbols so I tend to color abstraction.

Fun conversation.

Best,

Mitchell
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Very interesting one for sure. i think B&W has a certain mood to it that attracts folks to it also. We don't see in color and being different to our normal vision , i believe most people like to see this way. My wife not being of the artist type loves my old B&W stuff i shot years ago when i was in school and did a lot of shooting around New Orleans. To her she loves looking at the street images in NY on display of shots made in B&W so i think for the non artist folks they like looking at it as a different way of seeing.
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Golden sections, rules of thirds and even rectangles are all human constructs or paradigms, without which daily existence is impossible. Yet, we should see them for what they are, and recognise the limitations of these 'blinkers'.

Let me try a different tack: photographs for the first 75 years or so were all B/W, so we are well used to seeing life not in colour, but in B/W. Suppose colour photography had been invented first, and then B/W a century later, would B/W have been a success? I think not.
"without which daily existence is impossible" That's a strong statement. Why do you say that?

Yes, I think B&W photography would still exist as a medium even if color capture had been discovered first. Other monochromatic mediums have always existed as contemporaries of painting. Photography, though, grew out of the camera obscura; specifically out of a drawing aid. So the evolution was really:

line (as a tracing on paper, made from a camera obscura image, as opposed to a picture)

line and shading - exposures in which images were recorded as BW photographs with tonality

line, shading and color - where we often are now

It's unfortunate that the words image and picture are now often used interchangeably. There's traditionally a distinction between the two, in that an image is transient and a picture is fixed, and that distinction can help us to distinguish the "image" that appears on a mirror, or is focused on a camera sensor, as separate from the "picture" that may come from it. Ben Lifson has written some interesting things about this difference.

Cheers,

Sean
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
My feeling is that the word "image" is used so much instead of "picture" because of the implicit assumption that it's something more "sophisticated". But, then, I also dislike the word "captutre", as in "that image is really great capture".

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
My feeling is that the word "image" is used so much instead of "picture" because of the implicit assumption that it's something more "sophisticated". But, then, I also dislike the word "captutre", as in "that image is really great capture".

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
For the sake of precision, I always try to not mix up "image" and "picture". But since Photoshop itself uses "image" as a synonym for picture...

Cheers,

Sean
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
in that an image is transient and a picture is fixed,


I agree with this statement at least that is my thoughts also. i also rather say image instead of picture.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
"without which daily existence is impossible" That's a strong statement. Why do you say that?
There are at least two types of investigation:

1. Experimenters have put volunteers into specially prepared rooms, where the sizes and shapes of everyday things have been grossly distorted. The volunteers rapidly become disorientated.

2. A number of unfortunates who have had small strokes to very specific brain areas have been studied. Such people can, for example, see a knife and fork and can name them, but don't know what they are for - they have to be told every time. This suggests that the brain 'knows' what knives and forks are, so we don't have to work it out every time we see them.

If we had to work out every time what a picture/image was, to realise it was a representation of reality - well, we wouldn't get very far.

I'm trying to suggest that though we think of ourselves as rational, we are 'prisoners' of our subconscious constructs or paradigms and that realising this, and trying to see around them is actually very difficult.

Bertie
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
There are at least two types of investigation:

1. Experimenters have put volunteers into specially prepared rooms, where the sizes and shapes of everyday things have been grossly distorted. The volunteers rapidly become disorientated.

2. A number of unfortunates who have had small strokes to very specific brain areas have been studied. Such people can, for example, see a knife and fork and can name them, but don't know what they are for - they have to be told every time. This suggests that the brain 'knows' what knives and forks are, so we don't have to work it out every time we see them.

If we had to work out every time what a picture/image was, to realise it was a representation of reality - well, we wouldn't get very far.

I'm trying to suggest that though we think of ourselves as rational, we are 'prisoners' of our subconscious constructs or paradigms and that realising this, and trying to see around them is actually very difficult.

Bertie
OK, I can see the relationship between that idea and our "knowing" what a rectangle is. But I don't think the idea of a "golden section" fits that analogy. It's a debatable theory not a common concept such as "fork" or "rectangle".

Yes, folks, we've traveled a ways from the GR 2 at this point but anyone who wants to can post directly on topic again if desired.

Cheers,

Sean
 
C

Caer

Guest
For the sake of precision, I always try to not mix up "image" and "picture". But since Photoshop itself uses "image" as a synonym for picture...
Maybe it's because in the context of Photoshop, they really are "images", since they're just light shining on a computer screen, with no real physical presence. Perhaps it's only when they're printed that they become "pictures".
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
That's a really interesting thought because until they're saved, they really are images. I think of saved pictures, however, as "prints" of a kind so when I prepare pictures for an article, for example, I think of that process as a kind of "printing". But you're right that while they're in flux on the screen, they really are images.

I'll ask Thomas Knoll about this.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I

IamJacksBrain

Guest
Let me try a different tack: photographs for the first 75 years or so were all B/W, so we are well used to seeing life not in colour, but in B/W. Suppose colour photography had been invented first, and then B/W a century later, would B/W have been a success? I think not.
I think black and white would still be successful, but I can't help but notice the distinct lack of black and white only digital cameras. I know I'd buy a well made black and white only digi compact.
 
Top