Project 13; The Golden Section.

Having been initially puzzled by the difference between the golden section and the rule of thirds I am at least in my own head a little clearer. Both are theories on how to subdivide the frame of a photo or a painting.

It seems to me from the little research I have done on the internet that the rule of thirds is derived from the golden section. So far it seems to me that it is an approximation or quick and handy ready reckoner for the golden section.

The golden section is a theory or rule originally used in painting. It has been variously called the golden section, the golden mean and my personal favorite the divine proportion.

This idea has been written about and used by such artists as Leornado Da Vinci, Salvadore Dalí and Mondrain.

In the notes on the AOP course Michael Freeman states that "the ratio inside the frame, from the small part to the large part is the same as the large part and the whole". I can see that it is possible to get more and more engrossed in this. Basically in composing a picture there are ways to subdivide the frame that give a harmonious composition, I suppose its possible to call this balance? So in order to achieve an aesthetically pleasing composition one would use the golden mean. On the other hand perhaps to achieve a picture with tension or disharmony would one deliberately ignore or break the golden mean?

One of the interesting things that I have realised about this is that it happens unconsciously.

Here is a picture that I took several months ago, its of the old harbour in Biarritz. The subject of the picture is the light house. I have drawn a grid on top of the picture using the principles of the golden section and the light house is sitting pretty right in the centre of the golden section.

Scan of the photo on ordinary paper and the original.

Here are some shots that I have deliberately composed on the golden section.

Having been busy composing using the golden section I began thinking about this rule and the possibilities offered by deliberately breaking it. I came across the work of Paul Reas in Langford's Basic Photography. Here is a link to some of his work;

http://amd.newport.ac.uk/displayPage.aspx?object_id=4834&parent_id=4642&type=PAG

The photo on this page reminds me very much of the work of Mondrian. Here is a link to some information on his work. http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/mondrian_piet.html

Paul Reas's website can be found here;

http://www.paulreas.co.uk/

There are some good example here on how to create tension, chaos almost by changing the camera angle.

project 12; Positioning the horizon.

Positioning the horizon;

The horizon in a photograph is a point of division. It is a division in the frame. By positioning the horizon in different places the emphasis of the photo changes. These to photos have completly different feeling by changing the position of the horizon.

The viewer must see through the foreground to get to the subject of the photo here.

A different perspective. This second photo has a more desolate, wild feeling to it. Perhaps its because of the scale change. The subject feels smaller.

This next series of photographs shows how changing the position of the horizon changes the scale, perspective and emphasis of the photo.

The mountains look a little insignificant here.

A little more significant here.

Beginning to dominate the picture and you get a feeling of how big they actually are here.

Here the viewer is dwarfed by the mountains.

I think that the horizon works well in many different positions. I think where it is placed in the picture depend on what the photographers intention is. More and more this word is coming up for me with photography, what is my intention with this photograph?

Project 11: Balance

Photo 1 and sketch showing balance.

Photo 2 and sketch.

Photo 3 and sketch.

Photo 4 and sketch.

Photo 5 and sketch.

Photo 6 and sketch.

project 10

Photo 1; 17 mm.

Photo 2 35 mm.
The wider angle is creating converging lines, look at the cars. Also the angle of view seems different, in the wider angle shot the viewer is looking up at the house more. In the first shot we are right at the house while in the second shot we are a little further away from it. The scale looks a little different also in the first shot the house is more imposing.

Project 9; Focal lenghts.

Photo 1. Focal lenght 15 mm. Fish eye lens. Obviously a very wide angle view, I like the distortion on the tree on the right hand side and at the edges of the frame. On a landscape like this there is a lot of detail perhaps too much. Its difficult to know what to look at.

Photo 2; 17 mm. Again lots of detail, its almost a miniature.

Photo 3; 24 mm. the scale is getting gradually larger. Now its beginning to look like the building in the centre is the subject.

Photo 4; 35 mm. as above

Photo 5; 50 mm. My second favorite shot. Now it is easier to see the sheep and the mountains in the background.

Photo 6; 70 mm. The picture makes more sense now, or is it that the subject has changed? Perhaps it is more of an obvious subject now.

Photo 7; 105 mm. Of the photos in this sequence this is my favorite. There is enough detail here. The sheep are clear in the fore ground and I can see the mountains behind.

Photo 8; 135 mm. Problem here is the tree on the right.

Photo 10; 200 mm. Both the tree on the right and the lack of detail in the background take away from this shot.

Project 8; Recording a sequence

I have had my first attempt at this project. Its quite tricky. I did see several moments worthy of photographing however, I found it difficult to actually capture them with the camera.

I chose to use a walk which I went on with my wife and our neighbor.

in the first photo I liked the view of the mountains and the people show some

thing of the scale of the place. I feel though now that this photo lacks impact. the second

photo is similar. The next few shots were taken because I turned around and saw the sunlight hitting the trees behind be and it really brought out the autumn colours. I was using a wide angle lens and took these shots with it. I felt however that I needed to get right in on the subject I wanted to capture. I was too far away and then changed to a zoom lens 24

to 100 mm. and took the next few.

However by then the light was almost gone, I tried to capture the moment but failed. Also I have over exposed the sky and the highlights are burnt out.

So I moved on because the moment was gone.

I like this last shot although its not technically perfect. I moved on because there was nothing left that caught my eye.

We met a shepherd and I was really interested in him as a subject. I wanted to have him in the landscape. I wanted a portrait that was natural, a candid so I tried to shoot blind but it didn't really work.

It didn't really work. Technically the shots are both over and under exposed. It was time to move on.