The graphic strength of overlaying that lovely snail on Ians photos is very strong.
However, the conclusion is facial. The concept it Greek to me - think of what you area saying here. The Golden Mean is a very precise concept, we're talking square roots here and maths which we don't carry in our heads when shooting. I don't see any relationship between the underlying images and the shots.
I bet there has never been a commercial focusing screen available with the snail etched onto it.
I have spent the last several days reading your thread and studying
the golden mean. I think that all of your photos shown fit the golden
mean rule.
I guess that means that not only do you see balance but you also see
the golden mean at the same time. I agree with someone who stated
earlier... It like swimming against Michael Phelps!!!
This cs2 shape is available at
http://www.photoshopmama.net
Thanks Photoshop Mama, I searched for days for something like this!!
Kelly
So lets look at number 1. Striking image - it achieves drama from imbalance, so maybe not the best example in the thread. So what of the snail? It doesn't hit anything - OK it goes through the light, but lets face it, draw a long squiggly snail on any photo and it almost bound to pass through a part of the main subject.
Now here you could have something, the prow of the boat does pretty much hit that all importan vertical, and the centre of the spiral does represent exactly what the U-boat captain would want to see through his periscope - but the dynamics of this image are about the line of boats and glorious sky, which largely ignore Brian.
For those out of the UK, Brian was a very likable snail in The Magic Roundabout - a childrens 5min animation imported from France, then given a fresh voice over with no reference to the translation. It had a wonderful surreal quality which was totally lost on the children of the 60s - but was ever so watchable.
Once more Brian works his magic - smack on the fisherman's armpit - a simple crop would get him right on the line so I'll give you that - but in this and the previous shot, surely the key line of both images is the horizon... which totally ignores the major horizontal line of Brian.
Now this one's single point of interest so far as Brian is concerned is where the near shore meets the frame, right on Brian's toe. Errrr, but at the expense of the key element of the image, the primary stanchion. Our U-Boat commander is at it again and scores a direct hit on the deck - provided his torpedoes drink Red Bull®. But that hot spot is a real vague area, I'm not really sure what it is trying to show 'hey, get a part of your subject within this jumble of lines and you get the cigar'. No, I don't think so, Ian's shot is for more complex than the Ancient Greeks suggest.
I've stated elsewhere that I don't understand the mechanics of this composition, and according to my inbuilt aesthetic it doesn't work. I can usually analyse good photos like this and decide why they do work, but with this one I simply trust my emotion. The success of this one is actually due to the post processing (eat your heart out, Aristotle, a man who didn't foresee photoshop), Ian's first version didn't work, yet this one is a gem.
--
Whatcha think, Kelly? Fair, unfair - am I missing something (such as tact!)?
'No man is as large as when he stoops to help a child.'
Abraham Lincoln
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/
Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
