Landscape Photography Part 2

There is a very well known calculus known as the 'Golden Mean', 'Golden Ratio', or 'Golden Section' and no doubt many other terms. The Golden Mean is intrinsically linked to the Fibonacci Series, and if you want to read more on the subject try Wikipedia. The use of recurrent series like Fibonacci can be found in the architecture of many cultures (not simply those influenced by Ancient Greece), and can be found in nature, famously in the Nautilus shell. It has also been used as a framework for artistic composition, although the idea that the golden ratio is somehow fundamental to an aesthetically pleasing image first appears in the mid 19th Century.

Image taken from Wikipedia, under GNU free documentation license

Some of the great Western artists from the Renaissance onwards have used the golden ratio as a general rule of thumb for calculating where best in the picture to place their main subjects. If you look at many of J.M.W. Turner's works for example, you will find the main elements are almost always positioned around points where the lines of the golden mean cross. Its use is not limited to landscape artists, either; many of Jan Vermeer's portraits place the significant elements within the composition along golden mean lines.

Rule of Thirds

Of course, when you're taking a photograph you don't have the time to calculate precisely where the golden mean lines would cross. One way around this is to just think of it simply as thirds, this being - one third up the frame from the bottom, one third down the frame from the top, and one third in from each side. Most artists never bother to calculate the exact golden mean, but simply use this 'Rule of Thirds' as a rough alternative.

These images have constructed this using a couple of clip-art images from Microsoft Presentations. Here the main subject and the horizon are both dead centre. Sometimes this can work, when you want the subject to appear utterly dominant in the picture (such as Neil Leifer's legendary sports photo of Muhammad Ali in the centre of the frame, towering over Sonny Liston http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0201/nl01.htm). In most scenarios though, this composition sucks the life from the photo. What's to the left of the people? Who cares?

All that's changed here is the tower is lower in the frame and the woman and children are roughly one third in; the children's heads being one third up and the woman's head roughly one third down (in the real world, this might mean moving the camera up, angling it down and taking one or two steps to the right. It might also mean moving the people slightly, if possible). The horizon also sits on the one third up line and the tower itself is one third in. This composition is far more pleasing on the eye, although the lack of crowds queuing to ascend the tower show this is NOT the real world.

This is an oil painting by the famous TV artist, Charles Evans, who has kindly given permission to use it. With the superimposed grid in place, note how the horizon is set low; just over one third up the overall height of the painting (if you've seen Evans at work, you'll know he loves his big skies however). The main focus of attention is the cottage, of course, placed nicely on the two crossing lines.

The cattle are also roughly one third in from the right, but because they are closer, they appear a little lower than one third up. The tree line above them finishes one third up though and that helps balance the work. What you do notice about this painting is that it is open and invites you to walk in, across the fields and down towards the town in the distance. It all makes for an absolutely cracking composition.

Evans' website is www.charlesevansart.com/gallery.htm, and it's worth taking a look at the other paintings to see how many place the point of interest lies at or near these one third markers. Not all do, though, because before painting a picture, an artist often makes several sketches and chooses what they believe to be the best.

So there's yet another lesson; take plenty of photographs from many different angles, some with high horizons and some with low horizons. These days with digital cameras it costs nothing except a little extra time spent at the computer comparing them, but the rewards might surprise you.

Here's a photo of mine of a small row of old cottages. Not too bad at first glance, as the first door is about a third in from the right and finishes about a third in from the left. It might have benefitted from a view slightly more to the left. The horizon is nice and low too, but that's not enough.

The problem is that the hedge and the gate, which is shut, cut right across front of frame. Aesthetically, they add nothing whatsoever to the shot and they stop your mind from getting into the picture and walking down the path. The whole thing suggests 'Keep out!' How much nicer it would have been had the gate been opened?

With the benefit of hindsight, this image would benefit from getting closer with maybe a more wide angled lens. Robert Capa's famous saying - “If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough” - still rings true today. Or, it may have paid to have opened that gate and stand back a little more to show the hedge off. It's difficult to say now, but a great shot may have been missed. Fortunately the cottages are just on the other side of town and come another nice day… who knows?

Here's another of Charles Evans' paintings, no need to say where it is unless you've never been south of Birmingham before. A high horizon this time, but again the two points of interest - the entrance hall and the pontoon - are roughly one third in from each edge. It's a good composition, but it does come with a warning for photographers.

Watch carefully what you have close to you. An artist like Evans can put sufficient detail on this very close stonework to make you feel like you're resting against it, but a camera's lens, unless stopped down to a fairly small aperture, might merely record it as a blurred blob. Just be mindful of what's right in front of you and were this a photograph, it might have been better to avoid the stone completely.

Artists can't magically draw guidelines in the air, but we photographers have an advantage here. Many cameras can display gridlines - either through the viewfinder when composing or overlaid on the LCD preview screen after the image is taken. Unfortunately, often these fail to comply with the Golden Mean or the Rule of Thirds, but again, they're close enough to use as a guide and you won't go far wrong with them.

Finally, bear in mind that although there are four points, you don't have to fill all four with points of interest. In fact, this would be more likely to create confusion rather than a good image. So, just go for one or two, three at the very most.

As with last time, I'll leave you with an image of mine to pull apart. It's of the Grand Union Canal at Bulbourne near Tring; a popular spot where a friend and I have fished many times, but that's not us in the background. This is the un-doctored original and if I have used it, I have corrected it.

So, what would you do or would have done to improve this picture? Feel free to copy it, crop it, draw on it, pull it apart, whatever you like, but please leave a posting on the forum thread.