Do you use golden ratios/compositional guidelines with your work?

People like to put them all over images that I doubt had the ratio in mind, so I dunno.

>>2993707

ok look its the reddit spiral again.

only dumb normies and the Tool fanbase fall for that bullshit.

>>2993710
That's how I've always seen it too. I doubt 90% of people who 'use it' actually set out to use it, but instead crop their images to fit the meme spiral

>>2993710
>>2993717
I think a lot of cinematographers study the ratio to keep it in the back of their mind. Chivo's compositions are riddled with the spiral/ratio lines but you can see in b-roll that he doesn't have it taped on the monitor or anything.

>>2993718
>Chivo's compositions

take your plebtrician crap back to rebbit with you.

>>2993707
>like his fucking ear is the center of the golden spiral
the scene is about seeing so its probably vincente's left hand or eyes

Diamond ratio is all the rage now

http://petapixel.com/2017/01/02/diamond-ratio-ultimate-rule-photo-composition/

>>2993769
Wow, that looks like bullshit. You can put that rectangle on anything.

>>2993769
>6x8,4cm
Close to 6x8. Interestingly recently acquired a Fuji GX680III, and find that ratio to be very comfortable to compose with.

>find 35mm and 6x9 to be a bit wide
>6x6 and 6x7 (4x5) too narrow.

>>2993779
>>2993769
Satire

compositional 'guidelines' are okay for people who don't know anything about intentionally composing visual elements within their photographs and don't know where to start. It's not some kind of magic making beautifier, but it can get newbs thinking about being aware of the elements they see through their viewfinder, especially those who are uncomfortable or unsure where to start with composing an image.

Are you a......photographer?

>>2993824

But why worry at all about composition when you can just draw a chalk cube around a naked girl?

>Do you use golden ratios/compositional guidelines with your work?
No

>What do you think of them?
whatever, if they're useful for you use them

>>2993935
>still this mad about isis cuckening

i use rule of thirds a lot but only as a backup if i cant figure out any better composition. rule of thirds doesnt usually fit compositions too well, it gives you funky framing.

>>2993942
i guess i should have said i use rule of thirds sometimes. i use it a lot in proportion to the other guides, but i dont really use any of them consciously very consistently

Is there a good book on composition in photography?

>>2993872
Filmmaker

File: Chivo 136.jpg (153KB, 1280x539px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1280x539px

I think that, with 2.39 aspect ratios, the vertical guide lines are more important to know than the horizontal. The horizontal rule of thirds lines are pretty easy to approximate on the spot and even then the shot can be more successful if they're a bit off. But the vertical rule of thirds lines and the longest golden ratio line (the one going through the brim of Joker's hat in OP's pic) are more often than not the better places to put an object. I'm not advising to default to those, but being familiar with where they are and trying them out may be just what a shot needs.


But really, it all comes to balance, and guidelines are nothing but suggestions. If you have to move a figure away from the golden ratio line to make it more balanced, then do it. The lines aren't more right than you are, so don't enforce them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:09 16:40:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	539

>>2993972
>brim of the hat
Which line do you mean? The right vertical line or the curve?

File: 1483260656732.gif (595KB, 157x195px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 157x195px

>>2993969

The correct answer was "No I'm a combat correspondent."

File: Chivo 3.png (1014KB, 1220x526px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 1220x526px

>>2993974
The longest vertical line, my bad.

>>2993977
lol
full metal jacket

>>2993978
Also, by vertical rule of thirds do you mean horizontal lines or vertical ones? I'm asking because horizontal lines are responsible for vertical arrangement of a photo.

File: FMJ.gif (990KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 500x281px

>>2993977

>>2993972
What should one study/do to know better than the guidelines do? I see many people thinking how artistic their bad photos are, and for all i know i might be one of them.

File: the new world.png (469KB, 1024x426px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1024x426px

>>2993981
Vertical ones, but you're right in that they can be responsible for where something is vertically. The positioning of people's eyes comes to mind. I was talking about using it more like pic related, where the characters run down the vertical rule of thirds lines.

>>2993983

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgyH9k1CSM

The irony of this thread is FMJ is a Stanley Kubrick film, who regularly used golden mean in his films and IIRC got his start in photography.

File: Framing Guide example.png (3MB, 1275x544px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1275x544px

>>2993985
What I recently did for studying cinematography (you can do this to study photography too) was create a transparent framing guide with all of the lines I think are important and put it over frames from films to see where the elements of the composition are in relation to the lines. I normally take notes on patterns I notice, like how the edge of a person's face will often look better touching a third or golden ratio vertical line than if the line ran up the middle of the head.

This may be an overly-thorough method (I cropped all the terms for each line out of the pic related example) but I'm learning a lot fairly quickly. In my experience, it helps to have these compositional ideas in the back of your head while shooting.

>>2993988
So he did. He was given a camera by his father to his 13th birthday and soon became an avid photographer.
> Many crew members were upset by his style: cinematographer Russell Metty complained to producers that Kubrick was taking over his job. Kubrick's response was to tell him to sit there and do nothing. Metty complied, and ironically was awarded the Academy Award for his cinematography.

File: KubrickPhotography.jpg (179KB, 928x307px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 928x307px

>>2993988
Yup, he started working for LOOK magazine instead of going to college. I'm not sure if he purposely planned on using the golden ratio in shots, but knowing his meticulous nature I wouldn't be surprised.

>>2993993
Thanks for sharing.

File: Kubrick.jpg (121KB, 615x640px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 615x640px

>>2993994
That's hilarious. I always wonder how much/how little the cinematographers did on his films, given how much control Kubrick had on everything.

File: IMG_9277.jpg (82KB, 364x550px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 364x550px

>>2993935
She was clothed, m8, get it right.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:11 11:48:21
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Chivo 109.png (294KB, 852x354px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 852x354px

>>2993997
No prob.

>>2993993
Recently I've read a book on painting, i think I'll post some of the examples later.
I also try to watch films from a photographer's standpoint.

>>2994002
How did you come up with the lines, though? Apart from the ibvious rule of thirds ones.

File: Framing Guide example2.png (4MB, 1500x900px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1500x900px

>>2994005
Here's the version of the guide I made for printing (I put that shit on 3x5 cardstock -- so fucking dope). Many of the lines/terms are my own creations.

Third and center are explanatory, so I'll skip those (although I will say I am surprised how many times cinematographers put something on a center line since I was taught that was taboo)

Starting with the top horizontal:
Grace Space is the average amount of space I allow for the top of heads/objects from being to the edge of a frame. The space shown is the maximum amount, since I normally move it closer and any more space than that usually looks bad.

Horizon Line is pretty much just how it sounds: where I normally put the horizon (if not near a third/center line)

Now going vertical:
Near-Edge is similar to Grace Space, but its also where I typically put vertical shapes to compliment/enforce the sides of the frame.

Off-Third is also pretty explanatory. I typically put stuff around there to counter-balance some element on the other half of the frame. The golden ratio spiral also begins around the bottom of the Off-Third line and ends up touching where the next guideline meets the top of the frame:

"Fang" is the shorthand term I use for things that go in that aforementioned longest vertical Golden Ratio line. Its probably my favorite guideline for the reason mentioned here >>2993972

Even though a lot of them are my own creation I'm surprised how often other cinematographers' compositional elements line up with them pretty perfectly.

>>2994020
center isnt taboo if it has symmetry.
besides which the rules are really only guidelines and the whole point of knowing them is so you can break them creatively.

File: Chibo 38.png (326KB, 720x304px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 720x304px

>>2994024
That's kind of exactly why I made the framing guide in the first place: to set up a base of formal elements that I can break away from with my own compositional language.

It seems that using any template or grid is in the wrong direction. If our eyes and brains find, for instance, still iamges, to be beautiful, then will you not of course find some type of geometry/order, given that we find geo/order to be beautiful?
Seems like looking through the viewfinder of your camera and seeing and capturing pleasing compositions will undoubtedly yield some order, after the fact... Music and painting are different but i cant not describe how exactly it is. maybe it is the creation comparing to the construction of forms/elements.
Did Debussy cheat and have climactic event at the golden ratio bar of his works, or is it that only discovered after creation? I read that Bartok consciously used the gold ratio in his composition

File: cinemagraph01-web.jpg (691KB, 1500x847px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1500x847px

>>2994025
2.39:1 is such a cool aspect ratio to work with. I posted this in the recent photo toilet a couple of days ago, my attempt at cinematic framing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2994020
I liked this ratio, going to use more often

File: Chivo 52.gif (1MB, 540x223px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x223px

>>2994026
I think I understand what you're saying, and if I do then I agree. I think the conventional beauty of stuff like the rule of thirds, golden ratio, etc. are only helpful as a place to start. To only think of an image as being beautiful if it completely adheres to those lines is so creatively limiting. The reason I'm studying the lines is just so that the beauty is in the back of my head while I'm creating my own shots. I don't want to approach something and think "how can I incorporate a Golden Spiral into this shot" or "is the rule of thirds being applied here?" What is above all is the function of the shot in relation to the content of the scene, whether that be story, tone, character dynamics, etc. This is especially true in moving camerawork, as one shouldn't base creative decisions on how to move the camera on if it'll adhere to a compositional line but instead be based on what is being shown.

File: Framing Guide example3.png (3MB, 1275x546px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1275x546px

>>2994029
As just an "attempt" its really quite good! The only really disharmonious element I can see is the wall with the swan emblem on it -- it kind of disrupts the triangle crowning the man in red.

Just for fun I put my framing guide over your image lol. Again it really isn't that bad and is WAY more interesting than a lot of the over-the-shoulder closeups that cinematography is riddled with.

>>2993710
It doesn't even work in this case because while Jokers position is fine fatboys is just not in the damn thing.


I would prefer it to the rule of thirds gridlines as an option on the LCD screen though.

>>2993950
Practice

File: 34db5d1056fd6bc4244e8999a74872f4.jpg (394KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1024x768px

>>2993950
>Squint eyes in viewfinder/ground glass. Looks at the scene as you would with one of those 3D Magic Eye posters.
>Instead of looking for a hidden picture, look for balance/harmony.
>Desregard compositional "rules"
>????
>Profit

A lot of the time the cinematographer isn't even behind the camera. The recent Terrence Malick films with Lubezki have other people operating the camera, so executing the composition lies with them.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-03 at 4.46.00 PM.png (1MB, 1478x858px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1478x858px

>>2994459
Same anon: you can see in this b roll footage from Arrival that the DP, Bradford Young, isn't even next to the camera.

>>2994459
>>2994463

Uh, why would they be behind the camera? 99% of composition is done with your feet. That stupid wanky OMG GOT THE DIAGONAL EXACTLY ON THE THIRDS is lame and contributes nothing to the photo.

>>2994471
>99% of composition is done with your feet
>with your feet

Interesting method

>>2994549
4chan is riddled with footfags.

>>2993994
Haha, this is fantastic.

>>2994563
kek

>>2994020
I would only use a guide like this for adjusting the compositions in post, never for actual filming. Balance should be what is sought on the spot.

Have you spergs ever thought that maybe people with artistic vision plan a shot in a way that they think it will look good, instead of just following some contrived set of formulaic bullshit rules? Watching /p/ talk about composition is like watching failing math students talk about who has the best formula sheet. Understanding != possessing a step-by-step instruction book

>>2994020

holy fuck the autism is off the charts.

please stop touching cameras.

>>2994026
Its helpful at least in the beginning to "train" your eyes. Lots of folks starting out don't see things pbotographically and their vision of beauty is the subject itself, which is center framed and captured on a cell phone or similar inexpensive camera.

When I started out, I would shoot a lot and look at them all in Lightroom to find which ones stood out the most compositionally.

When I got my first dslr I went straight to one of my favorite parks and shot there. After returning several months later I was looking at the park completely differently; I was "seeing" compositions I wouldn't have noticed or just taken for granted before. I'll always value that sort of experience.

>>2994020
>that image

lmaooooooooooo.

File: dd1ecc44f54625525f4a10a8c2048155[1].jpg (22KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x390px

>>2994020
this is a retarded way approach to composition
even kubrick would agree
i'm not claiming to know all the aesthetic rules of visual arts (no one knows) but in my experience good composition is all about the dynamic relationship (regarding shape/color/contrast) of the elements of the frame (subject/foreground/backgroud).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=panAJxOD_do

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	© Carl De Keyzer - MAGNUM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2011:05:24 09:25:52

File: shining.jpg (109KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x600px

>>2995378

pretty much

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot A95
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2005:05:05 17:04:54
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.81 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Image Number	107-0755

>>2994029

What did you shoot this with? I really, really like it.

>>2999279

You have pleb taste.

the golden ratio is a dank meme, there are loads of other spirals that look almost the same
rules of composition are not complete trash though. they exist to teach autists that symmetrical compositions aren't usually good and how a normal human being would frame a portrait

File: 10INT.png (165KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 303x311px

>>2999280

What is cinematography for if not the plebeian class?

>>2999279
zach snyder get out of here

>>2999279
Shot with a Ricoh GR

ISO 800, f2.8, 1/200th

>>2999304

Thanks for the oats, brother. Keep it up.