john_a5

<p>Well, so far the only references I can find to the Rule of Thirds are in books which seem aimed at the amateur photographer. And, until recent publications, it is often suggested as one of many visual theories, none of which should be used except, essentially, when they work. Actually, most suggested you should compose intuitively, that these were just more like ideas to plant in your head along with the principles and elements of art/design, to be drawn on when they were applicable to your composition.</p>

<p>Certainly, my survey isn't exhaustive but has included probably 30-40 books going back into the 1800's--other than the 1797 citation where we first see the name used, the term disappears for over 100 years and then is applied to a principle that is somewhat more defined but less robust.</p>

<p>If anyone knows of any sources that refer to the Rule of Thirds or the use of the grid other than the 1797 text that isn't a photography book, I would be appreciative of knowing about it.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>I came across a 1947 text that correlated the grid and intersections--still not being called the "Rule of Thirds" but was loosely referred to, without capitalization, as "the thirds method" familiar to photographers--to the theory of Dynamic Symmetry.</p>

<p>Essentially, that specific permutation of the theory, where one divides the full frame diagonally and then the half frame diagonally,((diagonal analysis/principles of composition are often cited, without all of the math, in many other books on composition that I have been reading) ends up yielding the magic intersections and included the grid as well. Searching the source of the theory of Dynamic Symmetry, a mathematician, he also included the grid overlaying the diagonals--the book states that his research into dynamic symmetry happened 20 years before that book, which is dated 1920.</p>

<p>This certainly raises the question as to the possibility that this theory, and not the golden ratio, might have some bearing on the formulation of this rule. The problem is that this is but one of the divisions of space included in the theory, the permutations seem endless to me! So, why this one! (I haven't gone through all the math nor am I a mathematician)</p>

<p>Fortunately, the author of the 1947 book on composition states clearly: "As we have always stated, we believe beautiful pictures are composed instinctively, and any beautiful picture is well composed; and any well composed picture will fit into various theories of design." She goes on to describe proportion analysis and picture dynamics with several other devices as well.</p>

<p>I feel a bit closer.....</p>

<p>Laurentiu, thanks, I actually have a copy of that book--I erroneously referred to it as 1750 in my opening statement. It is named there but the grid isn't defined only the proportion, which was also applied not just to the whole, but to the parts and further to color and elements as well. The familiar grid and intersections have been traced to 1920, although it wasn't called the Rule of 3rds in those sources.</p>

<p>Just an update. Matthew's entry started me looking and eventually I found some resources that I wasn't aware of before. I not only found a copy of the book on-line but that has led to finding other books, so far back to 1920, that actually had the grid and mention the intersections. None of these books, unfortunately, cites what the source material was nor do they suggest it as a rule--but certainly as a relevant, if not important guide. Most of these do seem directed primarily at amateur photographers, but also have some extremely good information on the broader principles of design--maybe better than most contemporary books that seem more interested in rules and guidelines than visual principles.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks again for those that contributed and if anyone does find the "source" or a reference to it, I would appreciate a shout here or through PN's mail.</p>

<p>Well, everyone knows most things come from that camera club in Columbus!</p>

<p>Matthew, that is certainly the first citation I have ever heard that suggests both 1/3 vertically and horizontally. Are there any footnotes in that section that refer to any source material for their statement--I am just trying to dig as deep as I can and this seems to be getting at maybe the genesis of the current "rule".</p>

<p>Karl, I have actually found quite a bit of literature on the Golden Ratio and its lineage is quite a bit more defined. Thanks for that reference, though, as it isn't one I had seen.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far. I could probably write a treatise on the subject as I have been doing research on this for over a year now--off and on. The issue isn't what it is or isn't or how valuable it is or isn't, but rather where the heck did it come from and when did it enter the mainstream for amateur photographers.<br /> <br /> I will say, that for myself, I would probably be a bit more generous than to suggest a dumbing down of the Golden Ratio but rather point to a right brain versus a left brain analysis of the same phenomenon. 1.618.... to 1 sounds like a big difference to 2 to 1 but when you boil it down, it means that the line of demarcation is 61.8% vs 66.66% or more commonly 2/3's--which is not really all that significant. Personally, even though I have pretty good facility with both hemispheres, 2/3's is much easier to calculate and to intuit as an approximation versus 61.8%, which would seem more a statement of certainty!<br /> <br />For those with the predilection to do so, there is a good video (not suggesting I totally agree, again, it would take a treatise on the topic) on YouTube by a Stanford Math professor that challenges the "visual" veracity of the Golden Mean/Ratio while does confirm the use of the ratio in other areas of nature.</p>

<p>I am still want for some indication of where this Rule of Thirds came from, where did it originate in its current form and when did it become mainstream (in amateur literature anyway).</p>

<p>Again, thanks, but any ideas on factual origins and formulations as we know it, and who/when, would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Anyone who frequents photographic sites on-line or picks up a current book on photographic composition knows about the “Rule of Thirds”.</p>

<p>The funny thing to me is that as pervasive as it seems to be, that having been an active photographer since 1978, I never heard of it before 2005 when I first visited this site. And that in light of the following facts:</p>

<p>Early on, I subscribed to Consumer/Amateur photo publications and remember no mention of it. I have a Petersen’s Photographic book “Basic Guide to Photography” from that time period (1973) that has a very good section on Composition but no mention of the Rule of Thirds. A 2000 Amphoto book, <strong>John Garrett’s Black and White Masterclass</strong>, that has several chapters on compositional considerations but no mention of it. I also have several other books from the 80's and 90's on commercial photographic topics that never mention it.</p>

<p>I took art classes that covered the principles of Design and Elements of Art in the early 80's and there was no mention of it. In fact, I have yet to find a textbook on art that includes it or even mentions it.</p>

<p>I took photo classes at an art school, also in the early 80's and no mention of it. I have taken workshops during the 80’s with the likes of Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Jerry Uelsmann, Richard Misrach, Linda Conner, Frank Goelke, all great photographic educators—guess what, no mention of it.</p>

<p>I taught photography in the early ‘90’s at an accredited Art College and no where was it in the curriculum nor was it ever mentioned. And with 25 years of working with top art directors and designers from around the country creating images for them, there has never been any mention of it—even though we obviously discussed the design considerations of hundreds, maybe thousands, of images. I have even asked some of them if they heard of it, once I had, and the answer was always “no”.</p>

<p>I checked the internet and Wikipedia gives a resource from 1750, a copy of which I have obtained, that is supposed to be the first codification of the term—although there is no mention of a Tic-Tac-Toe Grid or the magic intersections that are so frequently referred to on Photo sites.<br /> <br /> So where did it come from and when did it get into the vernacular of the amateur photographer? Certainly, it didn’t sleep for 250+ years since one person made the observation and then magically appeared as a well defined grid sans many of the other elements of proportion described in that original manuscript.</p>

<p>Most principles of composition have a well defined and scholarly vetted lineage while this one, seemingly held in such high regard by so many, seems to have materialized sometime in the last 8-10 years out of the ether.</p>

<p>Can anyone help?</p>

<p>I think you know your way of shooting. What others think is pretty irrelevant actually.</p>

<p>But your logic is pretty right on, a 40mm and a 50mm really aren't all that different and a small crop like that isn't going to do anything but eliminate the weaknesses you might find in the zoom lens--unless you intend to print 40x60 prints.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't think there is any fault in your logic if you are happy with the quality of the lenses you are taking and the applications you intend.</p>

<p>By the way, I own the 16-35 as well as the 70-200 and 24-70 and 40 stm. I never use the 70-200 except when I shoot commercially and need that length for a job, otherwise it is almost always can be found on my wife's camera when we are out doing personal work. Instead, I either have my 16-35 or 40mm on my FF camera (she also uses FF. The 24-70 is generally just there to make my shoulders hurt by the end of the day. We all work in different ways, go with your gut, it sounds right on to me!</p>

<p>I don't know that there is a better angle if you aren't dealing with a surface you are shooting through. I have shot at all times of day and in all directions with regards to the sun from the air with no issue. Am I not understanding your question? <a href="http://acurso.com/AmtrakAir/Amtrak-Air.html#1">A variety here.</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have to think about what you're doing; work against the grain of your natural inclinations, push against what comes naturally, squelch all those built-in compositional inclinations and aesthetic urges.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a recipe for actually getting creative!</p>

<p>I think lens needs tend to get slimmer if you only do personal work and have developed a personal style. I think at some point you just adapt to what you have as well. For instance, when I shoot a fixed lens camera or my <a href="http://acurso.com/Lensless/Lensless.html#1">zone plate on my dslr</a>, I don't ever miss having options for anything wider or longer.</p>

<p>Commercial work is different, you have what you need to do what you do or rent when you need something for a specific use. "Needing" any lens is often more about how one has been marketed to rather than what one really needs.</p>

<p>Matt, I agree that the cloud is probably pretty good for those that use a lot of programs or those who work with a "limited tail". What I mean by this is that if I am creating client websites or brochures and I retire or decide to do other things, I don't care if I can access those old files (lost use of programs by ending subscription). Photographers are a bit different. Even if we are commercial photographers, we will still want to be able to access our files in the future without having to resubscribe--and we need to be able to do it when we want, not when we pay.</p>

<p>The other issue to me is that if one is an amateur, photoshop is really an expensive program but it is the state of the art. I understand its value but as a commercial photographer, I don't charge the same to Joe's Deli at the corner as I do to IBM to do a photoshoot. Also, as a commercial photographer, I keep PS totally up to date. But I am also near retirement and maybe having a new upgrade, after paying for everyone since 1993 (PS3, NOT CS3), every other time would be a more economical way to use the programs than buying a subscription. Adobe ends up with more money than me giving up and going elsewhere and i get a reasonable cost program for my less intense use of the program.</p>

<p>Over the years, I have bought a lot of their programs, some now extinct. Things like Dreamweaver (bought twice now for full perpetual license) and Flash. Both of these were only accessed maybe a couple times a year at most. I would love to just pay a subscription for a month as needed for these, but PS is a totally different type of program. I can't see my PS files without the program!</p>

<p>Anyway, I first saw this "rental" model with an audio program that was several thousand dollars. You could rent it by the day, week or month but you could also buy it and upgrade it over time. I thought it was great as I needed it only for cleaning up a few interview files. If I needed to access it all the time in my business, I would certainly want t buy it. Adobe seems to have forced us into the rental model with no way to use the program, and access our files, if we then stop our subscription--even if we already paid for the perpetual license (the subscription price is more than the cost of historic upgrades, paid in advance and yet you don't get to keep those upgrades and continue to use the program).</p>

<p>If I were 20 and just starting out and never bought the programs, I think maybe the rental model would be pretty attractive--it would take about 7-8 years to break even buying PS and the upgrades. But, again, it is really the ability to use--or in this case, NOT--the program after termination that I think doesn't fit PS like it might most of the other programs.</p>

<p>Adobe is doing surveys now on a few different ideas for the CC (including the one noted above--it also has another wrinkle to it) but none that I saw were particularly attractive for single product users who already own a perpetual license and want to stay that way. There was also an indication that they still "sell" the products and upgrades, although I couldn't find same on their website.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see where they end up, although the scenario above seems likely.</p>

<p>Both answers here are good ones. But if what is happening is as you say, that the image ends up "wider" field than what you see through the viewfinder, I would tend to consider the issue being with the camera viewfinder and not the lens. </p>

<p>Are you thinking about these as fine art finals or are these just for proofing? I ask because I have been recently converting my proofs to digital--mostly 4x5 but I also have some 8x10 and mf as well--and although I have a Hasselblad scanner for up to 4x5, I decided to try just shooting them with my dSLR on a light table. For proofing, this works very well and I can do a lot of negatives very quickly--you could probably also make prints from these as well, although a good scan would be a much better option. I shoot them in raw and I created an ACR preset that turns them positive and bumps the contrast to an acceptable level. When needed, I will fine tune them and crop them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are no size specs on the plans, but it certainly looks like the Manfrotto quick release plate might be close. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=554141&is=REG&A=details&Q=">Look here</a>--you'll see the plate on the page as an available accessory. You just need to get the dimensions of your slot and this plate to see if they might fit. BH is pretty good at returns if it seems it might fit but ends up not doing so.</p>

<p>Larger scans often push the resolution of the source image and thus a smaller scan can look sharper and when up sampled, not be much different in appearance to the larger scan except where some pixelization might appear--the larger scan is actually a better starting point. My own experience is that if you can get at least 100 dpi in a scan to the size of the print you want to make, that you will not have pixelization appear even if you upsample to the desired size (my experience is going from a minimum of 100 to 300dpi. Generally, I also find that the print will "pull" together a bit better than what we often see on screen at print size (often, not always).</p>

<p>When you compare the small difference between the cost of the scans to the cost of such a large print, I would suggest getting the largest, best quality scan for images that you plan to print so large unless the quality isn't an issue (wont be seen up close). There have been 20 foot wide billboards done with 4 MP cameras and no one could see the pixelization.</p>

<p>I have always had a bit of a reservation with this sort of thing, however, in a fairly recent show of another photographer's work, there was a print of a negative that he never printed--one he had just chose not to print apparently. That image was just incredible and maybe the best in the show (and in concert with the type of work he did overall). It was printed by the photographer's son or at least with his input. That particular experience made me reconsider my view point.</p>

<p>In addition to this, I also know that I often find important images, to me, in my own work several years after I created it. The subconscious often works way ahead of the conscious mind, so maybe this is another reason to reconsider such things.</p>

<p>Basically, I guess I have come to a point where I don't think it matters all that much who picks or prints it. Even in life, often the selects for a show or book is not made by the artist but by a curator or publisher. The fact that gems are discovered after someone's death doesn't diminish the work that was already done.</p>

<p>Andrew, I used that adapter for almost 20 years on my studio stand's geared head. It worked great with cameras from MF to 8x10. I never felt it compromised the security over direct mounting to the head itself.</p>

<p>Matthew and I cross posted and it is definitely a Manfrotto/Bogen plate (I have one and use it on my wood field camera, as it appears to be here. But I only found one head (quick search) that used this style of plate. http://www.manfrotto.us/3d-super-professional-head The outside of the small plate in the picture fits like the three protrusions on this plate.</p>

<p>That is a pretty standard Manfrotto plate. They have a couple of other types but this is the one that has been around a long time and is on most of their tilt pan heads.</p>

<p>I don't know Sony cameras, but I think most dSLR's will shoot with a pinhole, I know I do with a similar device. Of course, there is a lens cap attached to the camera but I would assume that is how your adapter connects to the camera.</p>

<p>Is there a Sony forum here, maybe they would know a work around to not having a lens on the camera if it, in fact, wont work without one. (I use Canons).</p>

<p>You really don't need a signed contract but you need to specify who you are granting the rights to--the contract just gives you more weight if THAT person violates your contract, if that isn't the person who violates the contract, it is of no use. But an unathorized user has to prove they had the right to use the images, your specific written use agreement--one time use in brochure for "such and such" charity in 2013 precludes proof that anything else was agreed to.</p>

<p>A sponsor might be paying for it but it is for the charity? Then, you could license the sponsor for the use of the images in a brochure to promote the charity. Specificity is important here. You could also just make the designer the client and give him the rights to use the images in a brochure promoting the charity. The important thing here is that you have basic trust in the people you are dealing with and make it clear, in writing, what you are allowing to be done with the images. Then, you have a complete paper trail as to your copyright and what you licensed or didn't.</p>

<p>Getting someone to sign and date the paper work, even the designer if you end up making the charity the "Client" gives you a strong paper trail. I did a lot of charity work and would specify the Charity as the client and the ad agency/design firm as the "Agency". I actually never had anything signed in any of those cases as that really wasn't the custom in the local market. I trusted the people and knew I had copyright and any abuser would have to prove they had the rights to use the image--and the agencies I worked with had great reputations and were well known to me.</p>

<p>Well, you have to deliver the images to someone, you have to specify "who" the client is so that you can specify who you are giving the rights for the one time use to and if they can't give you that information, then there is something wrong, IMO. Someone is publishing the brochure and that is who you want to grant the one time use to.</p>

<p>Don't assume no one will step up, you just need to be positive and ask who the client is so that you can write up the rights agreement.</p>

<p>QG, FYI, Mamiya sold metal masks that would insert back into the dark slide slot so that you could shoot either a vertical or horizontal Polaroid image with the same crop as the film. As I said, I used them to not confuse my clients as to what the film would render.</p>