Page 1 of 1

Oh no! Not neat and in the middle again!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:24 pm
by Matt. K

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:47 pm
by gstark
Well, let's see ...

The ground is placed roughly along the lower third line, and the two elegraph poles don't simply frame the centre portion of the image, they almost do it from a position of one third in from each edge.

I'd call that rule of thirds.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:58 pm
by Matt. K
C'mon Gary! They are just pictorial elements! My subject....the 2 people are obviously in the middle. I rest my case.
Oh...and they are undeniably neat!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:01 pm
by Raydar
Matt. K wrote:Oh...and they are undeniably neat!


Yes Matt 8)

They are well dressed.

Cheers
Ray :lol:

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:09 pm
by sheepie
They could have brished their hair!

Otherwise, I agree - looks like a good old thirds-type composition.


:)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:00 pm
by Matt. K
Let's see? I want you all to look carefully at the image, and then mentally remove the 2 people from it. What's left is all rule of thirds...and it stinks! It is not an image without the subject. Now mentally remove the poles and ground....and its still an image!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:19 pm
by Greg B
Matt

The middle is good Matt. Sure. We all like the middle.

Are you, perchance, a bit centre-centric?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:25 pm
by Matt. K
Greg
The middle is holy ground. New comers to photography put everything in the middle...and professionals avoid it like the plague. After many years of experience...the pro's come back to the middle. They do what the unskilled do instinctively, reluctantly admitting that the unskilled were instictively right. It's a hard lesson to learn and one has to swallow ones pride. Meanwhile, the unskilled have become skilled ....and avoid putting things in the middle.

Do you get my drift...or am I aiming too high?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:43 pm
by Greg B
Matt, the middle is holy ground if you are talking about a donut.

In relation to your other assertions, I believe a period of reflection will be necessary prior to responding.

Let me say, however, that your philosophical approach to the concepts of composition is very zen.

I will refer to texts, and look within myself, in an endeavour to find enlightenment and to develop a suitably thoughtful contribution.


:idea:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:04 pm
by Matt. K
Thank you Greg. You humble me.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:28 pm
by phillipb
Just for you Matt! :D

Image

Classic composition, you first look at the subject you then look in the direction that they are looking (or pointing), the pole stops your eye going out of the picture and you return back to the subject.... isn't theory great? :wink:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:37 pm
by W00DY
Greg B wrote:Matt, the middle is holy ground if you are talking about a donut.


Love it :lol: :lol: :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:06 am
by gstark
Matt. K wrote:Let's see? I want you all to look carefully at the image, and then mentally remove the 2 people from it. What's left is all rule of thirds...and it stinks! It is not an image without the subject.


Yes it is. Always was, always will be.

It's a different image, and perhaps it doesn't say too much, but it is still an image. :)

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:49 am
by Matt. K
phillipb
I am impressed.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:53 am
by gstark
Phil,

Classic rule of thirds.

And what's left in the middle is just the fence and sky. Not a subject within coo'ee!

:)