The Golden Ratio
In my books and live workshops on more satisfying composition, I teach more than two dozen different rules and principles of good composition. The very first rule I usually bring up is The Golden Ratio.
Sadly, I strongly suspect that my discussion of it has never made a proper impression on even one person.
Why might that be?
There are lots of reasons, I suppose. It’s hard to illustrate, hard to explain and hard to fully understand. It is deep, subtle and complex. It involves math.
There are so many sexier rules of composition that are worthy of sound bites. The Rule of Thirds, leading lines, direction of movement…. Even murky visual balance is less incomprehensible than The Golden Ratio.
Still, most of the blame lies with me.
I fear I’ve never quite been able to instill passionate interest in it. I’ve never properly communicated what it means and how to use it.
I hope to change that going forward. I’ve just recently been reading a fascinating book titled “The Golden Ratio” (Mario Livio, ©2002). It has given me many ideas that I hope will help make this fundamental rule of composition more accessible and more interesting.
Or it could be that I’m just a math geek.
Although the book is under 300 pages, it is not light reading. Livio quotes complex mathematical formulas like most people quote song lyrics. He gives the history of the early development and understanding of mathematical concepts in humans. The search goes back 5,000 years or more and involves archaeological as well as linguistic analysis.
What does linguistics have to do with math? That’s part of what I find so fascinating! Have you ever wondered why we use different units of measure for different objects? Why is there a pack of wolves but not a pack of birds? It isn’t just in English; it so happens that I know a bit of Chinese and I can tell you that the Chinese use different measure words too. In fact, I’ve spoken with other bilingual people who speak other languages and most languages do it.
Livio makes a compelling case that it derives from the very earliest development of language, which predates our understanding of math. So a people whose level of counting sophistication is essentially “one”, “two” and “more than two” would not be coordinated enough to develop a single all-purpose unit of measure for a group of things.
Fascinating stuff to a math geek.
Back to what this has to do with The Golden Ratio, or more importantly, to photography.
The Golden Ratio can be used to describe all sorts of things in nature. For example, it defines the way that a rose’s petals overlap one another. Even the much vaunted Rule of Thirds is really just a simplification of The Golden Ratio.
The better you understand this stuff, the better your pictures will be for it.
And whether they realize it or not, once most people learn what the buttons and menu options on their camera mean, the next thing they most need is a better handle on the rules of composition.
To learn more about all the rules…
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Fireworks in the Capitol
One thing that I had always wanted to do was to spend Independence Day in Washington, DC and watch the fireworks over America’s capitol. Of course I’d seen it on TV before and had even watched one of the first webcasts more than 10 years ago.
Given that I live less than two hours from Washington and even visit the city several times a year, it’s a mystery why I’ve never gone there on the 4th of July.
A chance comment to the woman I’m dating sealed the deal for this year. She’s always up for an adventure and a day trip to Washington sounded like fun to both of us.
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, in past years I recall there being fireworks over the White House and over the Capitol Building. (Not both at the same time, but different locations in different years.) So we researched it for this year. According to the National Parks Service (the National Mall in Washington is America’s busiest national park), fireworks would be over the Capitol Building this year. Their web site even showed photos of fireworks over the Capitol.
When we arrived in the afternoon, we found that there was a large festival on the Mall. Much of it was taken up with large tents and pavilions.
In order to have the clearest view possible, we made our way toward the Capitol end of the Mall about an hour before the scheduled start time.
Imagine our surprise when the first bursts of fireworks appeared behind the Washington Monument, at the far opposite end of the Mall!
We scrambled to relocate.
Despite the fact that I was using a tripod (or, ironically, because of it), many of my pictures came out disappointingly blurry. I got only a few really sharp ones and a few that are acceptable at small size but would not hold up well to being viewed at larger sizes.
You might think that this is a product of any one of several problems:
- Being jostled by massive crowds.
- Being in a hurry to move while stopping to grab shots along the way.
- Very long shutter speeds.
- A long telephoto lens.
As it turns out, I wasn’t using my own camera for this event. I had loaned my camera to someone else so I was using a borrowed camera myself. I’d forgotten to turn off image stabilization.
Stupid me! I’ve warned in many of my workshops and even written in my first book about how image stabilization is only effective when shooting handheld and can even make your shots worse when using a tripod. Now I have proof.
Oh well, I guess there’s always next year.
To learn many strategies for travel and event photos…
For the fundamentals, including advice to turn off image stabilization when using a tripod…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Progress… In Reverse
A very good friend of mine told me yesterday that she’s selling her DSLR. (If anyone is in the market for a very nice Sony A100 with a couple of good lenses a flash and some other accessories, I can put you in touch.) There’s nothing at all wrong with the camera. In fact, I’ve used it myself and can attest that it’s a great camera.
The problem is that she simply doesn’t use it all that much. Sure, if she’s going somewhere specifically to take pictures she may have it with her but more often she carries her compact point-and-shoot everywhere she goes. When life presents photo opportunities, that’s the camera she uses to capture them.
It basically serves all her needs. In fact, she recently upgraded her point-and-shoot to a newer, more capable model. That was what pushed her decision to get rid of the DSLR. If over 90% of her picture taking is with the P&S, and if that will handle 90% of the type of pictures she takes, then the DSLR is of little value to her.
I can sympathize. I have sort of made similar decisions twice myself.
The first time was when I bought a second camera body for my own DSLR system. At the time, the camera I was using as my main body had already been replaced by two newer models. When I bought a second camera body, I actually bought one that was even older than the one I was already using!
Why did I decide to “downgrade“?
A couple of reasons, actually. The older body used a sensor that has since been discontinued. Sure, it’s only 5MP but that didn’t bother me at all. Megapixels are not everything and the color rendition and image quality of this particular sensor inspires both love and lust in almost everyone who sees it. This camera body also has a handful of other useful features that simply aren’t available in what I would consider an affordable package.
In fact, I have since lost that camera to divorce and am seriously considering buying another.
The second time that I found the direction of progress to be the reverse of what others might think is less direct. It was when I basically made the conscious decision to keep using what I’ve got rather than buying something newer.
My main camera (still the same one I was using back then) has now been replaced by five new generations of models. It is rather old by technology standards. It’s essentially worthless on the open market. And yet it still works just fine. It serves all my needs quite well. I’ve taken around 40,000 pictures with it, including just about every picture seen on this and on my other web sites. I simply don’t find compelling value in buying a newer camera body.
It’s not that there are no other features on those newer cameras that I wouldn’t love to have. Or that there’s anything wrong with newer cameras. I would take one in a moment. I simply don’t see value (for me) in paying for one.
Most of my photography purchases lately have been for new lenses. Glass holds its value even more than camera bodies. As long as you take care of it and keep it clean and scratch-free, image quality of a good lens will never deteriorate.
Want to learn what I look for in a new lens? Check out our ebook on the subject. This isn’t just for lens buying but also for choosing the right lens for your picture taking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beach Photos and Boogie Boarding
For many, summertime is beach time. Those not living in coastal areas will often retreat to a nearby lake or river. The weather conditions that make for the best beach days are not the same as those that make for the best photos.
Bright, direct sun is harsh. It casts dark shadows and forces cameras to do more than they’re really capable of doing.
The best light for taking pictures is light overcast under high clouds. If you have a partly cloudy day, try to time your pictures for those times when the wind pushes a cloud in front of the sun. Even the thinnest cloud will make a surprising amount of difference.
For certain types of scenes, such as the classic beach shot above, harsh sunlight may not be your enemy. In fact, it may even enhance the look of the photo.
The key thing about this shot though, is that there is no central subject. The subject is the collection of colorful umbrellas. Fine details lost to the shadows in any one of them is not as important as it would be if shooting a portrait of an individual.
In this picture of two teens waiting on their boogie boards for a wave, the harshness of the sun is a lot more evident. Note that sunlight reflecting off the water and off the boogie boards actually helps to lighten the shadows from how deep they would be otherwise.
A long telephoto or zoom is almost a necessity in situations like this. You have a subject who is relatively far away and it’s all but impossible to zoom with your feet and get physically closer. Unless of course you have a waterproof camera.
I was actually standing in the water up to my knees using a 300mm lens. (Yes people thought I was crazy but my cameras are insured so I have little fear of using them.)
You also need patience. On particularly nice days, the beaches will often be crowded. When you do get a clean surrounding without a lot of strangers in it, your subject may be looking away or doing something not especially photogenic.
When you do capture a really nice action shot, the waiting will all seem worthwhile.
One less conventional type of beach shot is one taken at night. It’s not completely original but it’s not commonly done either.
A shot like this requires several things:
- A tripod. You simply can’t take a shot like this and keep the camera steady without one. (The exposure time was six seconds.)
- A relatively, but not completely, darkened stretch of beach.
- A nice looking moon out over the water.
- One or more subjects who will sit still for long periods of time.
- No one else wandering into your camera’s field of view.
All of this falls under the heading of travel photography. This article touches on a host of basics but there is much more to the subject of getting great travel photos. For a more complete look, check out our ebook on the subject.
If capturing surfing or boogie boarding photos is your thing, you should check out our ebook on sports and action photography.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back Soon
Just a quick notice to our regular site visitors and subscribers. I’m sorry there haven’t been any recent new articles. They are coming!
I briefly went on a short vacation — a long weekend, really — to Washington, DC for American Independence Day. I not only wanted to see the fireworks over our nation’s capital (a first for me) and all the other festivities, but I also wanted to photograph it and bring back lessons for all of you.
Unfortunately, no sooner did I get back than I got word that my mother had passed away and I had to unexpectedly go out of town for her funeral. (Oddly, I learned some photographic lessons there too.)
So now I’m back and getting back into the swing of things. I will sort through the photos I’ve taken and begin posting photos and comments in the coming days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusting White Balance
A while back, reader S.W. posted the following comment on an article I wrote:
My camera allows me to adjust the WB exactly as I want it using the primary colors plus green. I use this setting often to convey more of intention to the veiwer, as shown in the two pictures of the beach and of the icicles. However, I find it difficult to gauge the correct WB for a ‘true to life’ shot and so I tend use the most suitable auto setting and make any adjustments in post processing. A grey card is not always convienent and more often than not there is no handy reference in the shots I take, and so I fear that my post processing adjustments are not ‘correct’.
Is there any method I can use to make sure my post adjustments are correct? The main problem is I lack the confidence of my convictions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
This struck me as interesting. There are several elements all packed into that one little comment so let’s pick them apart a bit.
- There are many cameras that will let users control or adjust individual color channels. (I don’t recommend this for most users because it can throw off your color balance and be very difficult to reset back to normal.) However I do not know of any camera which doesn’t also offer all the standard preset white balance settings.
- Photographically, primary colors are Red Blue and Green so I’m not sure what “the primary colors plus green” means. Perhaps there is some other color set represented?
- “I find it difficult to gauge the correct WB for a true to life shot…” This is precisely why I don’t recommend that users monkey around with adjusting individual color channels.
- “A grey card is not always convenient” Why not? I don’t use grey cards often but I do almost always have one available. You can even make your own grey cards if you know how. Also, it’s surprising how many things in nature will approximate the tonality of a grey card. Especially for B&W shooting.
- “Is there any method I can use to make sure my post adjustments are correct?” Correct for what? A completely faithful and accurate representation of the scene as it originally existed?
Let me expand on that last point a little.
Most people aren’t all that concerned with a 100% faithful reproduction of the original scene. They just want a picture that looks good. Some people will manipulate their photos to actually make them look better than the original scene. (I do that from time to time.) Still others may even exaggerate the scene for artistic effect.
If your goal really is a 100% accurate representation of the scene, be prepared that it probably isn’t possible. Different digital sensors represent colors differently. Olympus, for example, is well known for its particularly vibrant blues. That means that, no matter what camera you use, the camera itself will not record a completely faithful reproduction of the original scene.
With that being said, if you still want to get as close as possible, you will need several things:
- A grey card. There simply is no other way to ensure color and tonal fidelity than to have a fixed reference which is in the original scene and that you can carry back with you when you edit the photo after the fact.
- A color calibrated monitor. 90% of all computer monitors are actually pretty terrible when it comes to color and tonal representation. If you’ve never calibrated your monitor before, you’ll be astounded at the difference it makes. (Just one more thing to love about Macs, the operating system includes a utility for manually calibrating any monitor. It’s not as precise as calibration hardware and software you pay for but it’s rather good.)
- Color calibrated monitors for everyone who ever looks at your photo. I can’t even tell you how many photos look gorgeous on my color calibrated monitors but hideous enough to be embarrassing on a non-calibrated one.
A lot of this really comes down to understanding how cameras work. For a whole book that covers that very topic in great detail:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portrait Question
Reader F.S. recently wrote in to ask, “In using Portrait Mode how should you best set up the shot so you get that ideal blurry background?”
This is a fairly common question. Obviously there are many different kinds of cameras and lenses on the market so it’s very difficult to give a guideline that will work in all situations.
In general it all comes down to camera-to-subject distance versus subject-to-background distance. My rough rule of thumb is that if the background is at least twice as far behind the subject as the subject is from the camera, the background will be pleasantly out-of-focus in most situations. This is easiest to understand by looking at the following graphic.
Of course there’s more to it than just that but this one quick rule of thumb gives a very good starting point.
To learn lots more tips for taking great portraits, check out our ebook on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concert Photography
I went to a Jimmy Buffett concert last week. It was my first time seeing him in concert. Talk about a fun, festive atmosphere!
Photo taken by S.K.
Most big-name venues — sporting events, concerts, etc. — do not permit “professional” cameras. By and large, their definition of a professional camera is any camera with a removable lens.
Since I don’t have a decent pocket camera, I went without any camera at all.
The photo above was taken with a low quality cell phone camera in tricky lighting conditions. Under the circumstances, it does an admirable job of capturing the atmosphere at the concert.
Beach balls were flying randomly all throughout the crowd. There were crazy costumes and outfits. Everyone was a friend and everyone was in a good mood. It was warm and the threatened rain held off to make for a perfect evening.
Photographically, this image does a lot of semi-complex things really well.
- It effectively captures the essence of how many people were there. Obviously it doesn’t show the entire crowd, but one can easily get a sense of the size and density of the crowd based on what is seen in this photo.
- The crowd is not tiny. The photographer got close enough so that some of the people in the crowd appeared prominent in the frame.
- The crowd is in context. There are a number of subtle clues in the photo to give indications of what kind of crowd is shown. And yet, it’s all still generic enough to excite a viewer’s interest and imagination.
- There is a beautiful sunset filling the sky.
- With the city skyline and the beach balls, there is enough action to make the sunset interesting. (This is not a Photoshopped image but she did shoot more than a dozen frames to be able to capture this one with enough beach balls in the air all at once to truly show the festive atmosphere.)
Event photography such as this falls under the broader heading of travel photography. To learn more tips on getting great travel photos, check out our ebook on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bad Advice on Reflections
Is there any way you can stop bright things reflecting in a person’s spectacles? I took a photo of my brother and his wife and the shot is good, however the reflection off the white table cloth is showing in his spectacles. Also is this hard to remove in photo editing software?
That was a question I saw asked recently in a photography forum. Boy, if I had a dime for every time I heard, read or saw bad advice being given to a question about photography…. Sometimes the advice isn’t necessarily “bad” so much as it’s simply not useful. Here were the first three responses to the above question.
Response #1:
The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. What that means is light travels in straight lines. It will always come back at you at an equal angle as it was to the reflective surface. What you can do about it is walk around with a 10FT long protractor, see where the light is coming from, where it will go and then move over a few steps so that it doesn’t hit your camera.
Although this advice is technically correct, it’s simply not valuable for someone just starting out. Heck, it’s not really all that valuable to anyone who isn’t an engineer or mathematician.
There’s no need to be so technical. What this guy was trying to say can really be summed up by the last part of his last sentence. Move around a little and see if that changes the reflections you (and your camera) see. Sometimes it will make them worse, sometimes it will just make them different, sometimes it will reduce or eliminate them. Every situation is different.
Also, bear in mind that moving changes your composition and your background slightly.
Response #2:
I rather like reflections in the glasses…often you can find something interesting….
I like reflections too but this doesn’t answer the question.
Response #3
Circular polarizer mounted on the lens when you take the photo (if your lens accepts filters), helps to reduce reflections if adjusted correctly.
Of the three, this is the best advice. Yes a polarizing filter will usually reduce or eliminate reflections on glass. This is highly dependent on angles. (The first guy’s advice.) It also reduces the light that gets through your lens. Sometimes that may not matter. Other times, especially when you’re already dealing with low light, it matters a great deal. He seems to have forgotten to mention that part.
There actually is no simple answer to the original question and all three of the answers given are valid. In fact, a combination of the three is ultimately the best answer. Just make it accessible and understandable.
There was a second part to the question which no one addressed: is it hard to get rid of these with photo editing?
The answer to that, like so many things in life, is “yes and no”. If you just want to get rid of the reflections and they are small, there are several ways to do that. The most obvious two being to clone them out or simply to darken them. (Limit your darkening to just the reflections with a selection wand.) That may or may not lead to a satisfying result. Again, every photo and situation will be different.
If you’re doing anything more than spot correction and are not an experienced photo editor, this is a very big job.
Want to learn to understand the properties of light better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weddings, Part 5 (Candid Shots)
Finally we get up to the only part of wedding photography that I actually like. It’s also the least important part. The candid shots.
These are the “fill-in” shots that flesh out the empty spaces in a wedding album.
Sure, they’re the only ones that tell the real story if the day, but they’re so real that most couples don’t think much of them. Or at least, if you missed one of these here or there, no one would notice.
Catch just one or two really great ones however, and it can do wonders for your reputation.
Once you’ve gotten all the necessary and expected shots out of the way, this is when you can start to have fun. The guests become more relaxed and they start interacting with one another more naturally.
Kids, in particular, can be great fun to watch.
Look for the contemplative moments.
And those times when guests are interacting naturally. Those are the best times!
One item of special note, I generally make it a personal rule (and encourage you to do the same) not to photograph people while they’re eating. No one looks flattering when they’re eating. When you are being paid to take pictures, getting unflattering shots is the kiss of death.
The one occasional exception to this is children. They can often be quite entertaining and even downright cute when they are eating. Not always, but sometimes.
All of this is really just a specialized variation on taking portraits. For more portrait taking techniques:
If you want to learn other ways of making money with your camera:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
