sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Golden section vertically, horizontally and diagonally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Hi sfage, Take a look here Golden Section. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
starwatcher Posted October 2, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 2, 2006 Shane, this proves very well, that a theoretical approach does not necessarily produce a good photo. It falls back over, cuts triangle tops and the right door... best - Klaus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted October 2, 2006 Fair enough Klaus. I accept that. I accept your analysis. It is not a good photograph. I am really in to études these days. I want to do a lot of studies. The foundation of all study... is study. I was looking at the tops of the arches. I was looking for those horizontal divisions. I see the division of the top of the frame (above the arches) as the .618 of the section. Everything below is the 1.00 of the section. The totality as the 1.618. That is the horizontal Golden section.... but it isn't horizontal. It is angled, and within the angle (itself) is another Golden section. If you devide the dimension from the straight line, the arch peak to the right and the left, you'll see it. There is a tertiary Golden section at the top (straight line) leading to the bottom of the inverted triangle over the doors is another. The vertical divisions are very easy to see (although, one may miss the sillohette at the bottom left). The diagonal is the problem. The shadow deliniates the diagonal. That is the fourth. Essentially, I am working on "technique". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
starwatcher Posted October 2, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 2, 2006 Shane, don't misunderstand me. This was not meant as criticism; I assume you composed the photo to match exactly the golden section. What I do not know is whether the church architect also had this in mind :-) What I want to say is that specifically for architecture photos both (clipped) building ratios and your frame selection need to match... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted October 2, 2006 Well, with respect, the Golden section is central to the function of Gothic (and pre-Gothic) architecture. In my opinion, the architects always had this in mind. One should be able to deliniate proportion in every section of the architecture. The point is: the sectionalisiation can be taken in (literally) dozens of ways. Here is a classic: Look at the left side of the larger (double) door. Draw a straight line from the left side of the door to the top of the arch. Divide the arch with that straight line in to sections. I am looking for this: Golden Section ... and this in music Symmetry as a Compositional Determinant: VII Bartok & Webern Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
starwatcher Posted October 2, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2006 Shane, thanks for the links! If you have an opportunity to make the photo again try to get it upright. My personal interest is focusing on romanic architecture, I've made a lot of photos over time and learned that if perspective is delineated too much I either don't make the photo or look for a more distant point, this in regard to making a photo showing proper perspectives. If I want to record specific details (pillars, capitals, ornaments etc) then I do not care. But again: I believe demonstrating a golden section requires a correct perspective... Pls correct me if I am wrong... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted October 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the real problem, Klaus, is making art rather than taking a picture of someone else's art. This is an ethical issue. In my opinion -and some may not share it (and that's fine)- I do not want to take a full frontal picture of a church. I want to take "some" section of it and tear it apart for myself. That's why I didn't include the apex of the upper architectural triangles. And... if I did, that would have ruined the proportion. To a certain extent, the mere suggestion that they (the peaks) exist is enough to lead the audience to believe that they do. It is a little like the theatrical "suspension of disbelief". I like to think of a quotation: "Predictability is the death of aesthetic." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau). That is -for all intents and purposes- my "mantra". Another example: I do a lot of graffiti work. Taking a picture of an entire wall of graffiti is just that... a picture of a wall of graffiti. That is the artistic property of someone else. On the other hand, if one takes a 15X20cm spot of the wall and manipulates the image to the point where it would not be immediately recognized as the original wall, then that would be "his" image. So, for example: if the word "component" were spraypainted on a wall, and I took a shot of only the bottom half of the letters and only the letters c_o_m_p, then that would be "my" composition. What do you think of that?... this question of artistic ethics... as it pertains to composition? I have this image but it is more artistic than mathematically sound or functional. I have other upright photographs but they are not as interesting as the others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
starwatcher Posted October 2, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 2, 2006 Shane, that of course is a completely different approach and 110% acceptable. While you're embedding the artistic component I mainly practice the documentary way. I like your last photo very much; it represents the pursuit for hight which is so characteristic for the gothic style. Thanks for clarification and I hope, I'll see many other pictures from you. best - Klaus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #9 Posted October 2, 2006 Yeah, that's a very "loaded" picture. It becomes more loaded when one is aware of the story behind it. It is a religious commentary. While it is true that the Church is, in fact, gothic... this is actually a Mosque. It became a Mosque after the Turkish army intervened (in Northern Cyprus) in the early 1970s. The building was damaged during an earthquake in the 19th century. That is why you can see pieces missing on the right side of the photo. ... but the real conflict is in the left side of the shot. That's a Minaret. It was added in the mid 70s. For some people, the bird represents "holy ascension". That's fine... but I have never told people that I have sold this image to that this is not what the bird represents for me. I don't see the bird "ascending to the heavens", I see the bird *escaping* the "heavens". For me, it is a negative commentary on organized religion. You see, the Greeks did a lot of nasty things to the Cypriot Turks. There was a campaign called "Enosis" (ethnic cleansing). There are many mass graves around Cyprus. The Turkish military came in -and from their point of view- "liberated" their people. But, as a point of sort of... "getting even", most of the heads of the gargoyles on this Church have been shot off or chopped off. Now, one religious militaristic occupier has been replaced by another. The Greeks are catholics... and did a lot of terrible things; the Turks are Muslim... and did a lot of terrible things. .... and that's why the bird is in the picture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 2, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 2, 2006 The cliche "Every picture tells a story" was never truer than in this one, Shane. Thanks for sharing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #11 Posted October 2, 2006 Yeah, it's true Andy. It's quite a story. ... and not a particularly positive one, at that. The funny thing is, when you cross the border from the Turk side, over to the Greek side, there's nothing. But when you come back to the Turk side, the Greeks have erected a whole bunch of signs (before you cross back) saying: "they have defiled our churches"... "this person and that person is missing". Well, there's no mention of WHY those things have happened.... just they they HAVE happened. ... and this is a lot like the western media. "They did this and they did that"... but there's no discussion of WHY they did it. It's just like September 11th. People don't fly planes in to buildings "just because". There must be a reason, otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. It's just like the old question: "why did the dog bite the postman?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 2, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 2, 2006 It is a truism but every picture really does tell a story ..... that's what stimulates me to want to take photographs in the first place. At the risk of revealing myself to be a complete peasant what is wrong with correcting the verticals and enjoying the geometry of the facade presented as an (almost) flat surface? [ATTACH]10493[/ATTACH] Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share #13 Posted October 2, 2006 I think I enjoy abstraction too much! That's normally what I do and I like the three dimensionality. This is -once again- is the problem with (or question of) ethics. If I take a picture of a wall that someone has painted, and I capture it in its entirety, and insert nothing of my own artistic values or conceptualization in to it... is it my painting? Is it my photograph? Personally, I don't think so. A photograph of a wall of graffiti... is a photograph of a wall of graffiti. That is my opinion but many wouldn't agree. Now, a "protion of wall" executing a compsition of colour, light, texture and overall geomtery is another thing. For example, here is a very small portion (about 5 inches by 7 inches) of a Castrol oil drum at a mechanic's shop. The barrel was covered in oil and filth, and yet, I see a snowy landscape next to a river with a white and black mask to the right of the image.... something along the lines of Native Indian Shamanism. That -to me- is my photograph. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 3, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 3, 2006 That is a great photograph and would blow up to an interesting poster. Personally I find it more accessible than the geometry of your original post but then that is the point of all art: personal reaction. LouisB Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 3, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 3, 2006 "For me, it is a negative commentary on organized religion." Amen to that! Now I REALLY like the photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #16 Posted October 3, 2006 That is a great photograph and would blow up to an interesting poster. LouisB Yeah, actually it is. 75X100cm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share #17 Posted October 3, 2006 "For me, it is a negative commentary on organized religion." Amen to that! Now I REALLY like the photo. Yeah, no kidding. Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.