• Members 535 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 12:57 a.m.

    Alan,

    Thanks for both of these. They've helped a lot.

    Steve Thomas

  • Members 1182 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 1:47 a.m.

    There's that stupid "rule" again ... grump.

    How about: "if an object is to be offset, then move it's centroid (center of area) off by the Golden Ratio."

    If I had a camera that "struggled" to recognize tungsten light, I'd sell it right quick!

    Something missing there, I think.

  • Members 692 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 2:17 a.m.

    Is the opening photo an example of a great photo taken by a pro who shoots models?

    expertphotography.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IMG_3741-2011-06-03-at-19-23-24.jpg

    The legs are too big because of the perspective and the wide angle. He says If you’re trying to direct the viewer’s attention to a certain part of the photo but the first thing your eyes are drawn to is something else, and this is a good example of that. Or maybe this is what he meant?

  • Members 433 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 7:39 a.m.

    That website has some serious deficiencies in technical understanding. I noticed that their page on focal length says:

    "Your lens has many different pieces of glass. The elements interact to direct light into your camera. There is a point where light converges, or crosses, on the way to your sensor. That is the point of sharpest focus.
    Lens manufacturers have done the testing and the math. They have measured the distance between this point of convergence and the camera’s sensor. That is the focal length of the lens."

    I hope they are better on the artistic aspects of photography!

  • Members 1627 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 8:14 a.m.

    I completely agree! While taking a quick look at the article I was sure that must be referring to the legs being the main point of focus and I thought this was shown as a less than ideal example... But now I'm not so sure that's the case. This shot certainly doesn't help the article and it's not the only one...

    I assume the writer is more than capable of making good portraits, but choosing good sample images to illustrate an article is something completely different. Almost nothing in there appeals to me, and I'm sure I'm far from the most critical viewer when it comes to portraits.

    The author also seems to have a kind of fear of anything approaching a clichè and of post-processing, making generalisations like:

    "I find that the majority of cliche photos come about from a lack of photographic inspiration, which leads us to taking photos of our pets, flowers or sunsets, or putting a garish border on our photos.
    If you have to implement ‘cool’ photo effects from your computer, then chances are you’re not trying hard enough with your photography."

    In combination with the images shown, that really doesn't convince me at all to be honest...

  • Members 1627 posts
    Nov. 23, 2023, 8:21 a.m.

    Come on... I feel like the stupid thing is the name 'rule of thirds' as it makes many people believe straying from it is a kind of mistake, but it's way more approachable and easier to implement than the Golden Ratio as a general rough guideline for most people.

  • Nov. 23, 2023, 9:36 a.m.

    Thanks - more to come soon. And it's thanks to Mike Fewster for finding them.

    Alan