A well written article arguing against the standard “rule of thirds” being the go-to standard for photographic composition, and instead arguing for things like “a Root 4 Rectangle with its Basic Armature (two diagonals, four reciprocals, horizontals and verticals)”.
My head is spinning, but it’s got lots of example shots that are excellent, and definitely worth the read.
2 thoughts on “…and you thought photography didn’t involve math”
Tried to read this the other day and got about halfway through.
For me art is a form of expression that creates a feeling, both in the artist and those that view it. When you break it down too much or try to get technical about it, it can take something away from it.
Now, I’m not saying that these techniques are not used (since I’m sure they are) or that they don’t make sense, since I’m sure they do….
I guess when it comes to art, I’d rather “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” and simply enjoy it for what it means to me. :-)
I’m not entirely sure you were the target demographic for th article. Aspiring photographers are frequently taught the “rule of thirds”, as if it is a sacrosanct requirement of photography. The point of the article was to say that, while the rule of thirds is the simplest to follow, it’s far from the only way to compose an image in a way that is effective.