First, a background: there exists a thing in visual design called the "golden ratio", whereby if you make the height of a thing 1.618 (approximately) times smaller than its width, it'll look "more good". I'm simplifying, but it's pretty simple as it is.
For example, take a credit card. Measure its width. Divide this by 1.618, and observe how this gives you its height. Similarly with A4/3/2/1/0/etc paper dimensions, and an untold number of other things.
This golden ratio can be used in photography too, and a recent image of mine piqued my curiosity about it, in a very specific way, to wit; does my "Alone In The Dark" photo look more visually appealing if Danbo is positioned at a point derived from the ratio?
Original image, Danbo positioned somewhere I just liked at the time:
Golden Ratio image, Danbo positioned somewhere defined (I'll explain below)
If you had to say one was more appealing, or just grabbed your attention, or just looked better, than the other, which would you pick?
Now the reason for his placement can be explained with this little diagram:
Firstly, it's 550px wide, so the Ratio says the height should be 340px, so the overall shape observes the Ratio. Here's where it gets funky: if you draw a square defined from the height (the green box, so 340x340) it'll occupy 1/1.618 of the space, leaving another rectangle to the right (red+blue+white space) which still, itself, observes the Ratio (albeit rotated). So again you can draw a new square (in blue) leaving another rectangle below, which you'll have guessed by now, also conforms to the same Ratio. You can keep going, and create a nice spiral, but I stopped there.
So. Danbo in the second image slots into that white gap, a position prescribed by a mathematical rule that's been known about for centuries. Does it make a difference? Does anyone even care? Does my nerdery know no bounds?
Well I can answer the last one myself, but y'know ;)
It's funny, because emotionally I'd say the first works better because he looks more lonely; however, for me the latter is more visually appealing because the 'golden ratio' and the obvious rule of thirds (just about) applies.
The second one looks better to me, but I would probably crop it somewhere in between the two. I often get really involved in cropping when I do it, trying to get to the 'just so' dimensions that work for me. I don't think I have ever been happy when using the golden ratio ( and I have tried a lot), and ended up tweaking it.
@eyebrows I've just thought; surely the golden ratio doesn't really apply in the latter because it's about something being in relation to something else, and because there's dead space surrounding it it's not really being applied?
In other words, the 1.618:1 ratio isn't really applied because danbo doesn't equal '1' and the dead space doesn't equal 1.618? Does that make any sense??!
I think that no.. your nerdery does NOT know any bounds! just as a thought.. did you try turning danbo right so that he looks even more lonely? like a cold shot? does that work?
I wasn't sure my opinion was 'my' opinion or based on what I had read so I asked my husband and friend to look at the pictures (without reading the text) and they both liked the golden ration image better.
Ahh I'm such a maths nerd. :D Love the golden ratio stuff. Amd I love that most of us adhere to it without even realising! Just on the notion that it looks visually pleasing.
I find the golden ratio fascinating, especially when it pops up so often in nature :) I do find it wonderful that so many of us like the second image best!
first of all - that is AWESOME that you went there. I love that! I love the whole concept of the Golden Ratio but didn't really know it applied to a photo in that way.
in any case, at first glance I liked the original - but after pondering further I decided that the second image has a little more drama to it- something about being surrounded by more darkness. As for your nerdery knowing now bounds - true dat.
But I, for one, am grateful for it. Keep on keepin on.
Because of your "nerdery" knuckleheads like me understand things that would otherwise take time and intelligence, neither of which I have growing on a tree out back. Thanks for posting this.
I am still undecided. I agree that emotionally the first one works because it makes him feel smaller and more insignificant. The scale seems more natural. I can't figure out if I am attracted to the second one or not, my gut feeling is not. What if you took out the red+white+blue and put danbo in that space, making him equal mathmatically?
I also think the first one looks better as far as being lonely but if I was to pick the better looking one I'd say the second too. You're just too clever! Even after you've explained it all I'm confused lol. Too many numbers.
Second, hands down. The majority would agree, just by the nature of it. We are predisposed to accept the golden ratio as more acceptable, just because of it's dominance in nature. I use the GR constant all the time when building furniture or laying out door/window locations when framing homes and additions. The ratio is also very key in determing the dimensions of windows within a given space.
Great to see such an old concept being discussed and applied; Euclid would be proud!
I like the first one better. I can't really put my finger on it why. Something about the mood, I think. It could be that I find the black space at Golden Danbo's back a little distracting. Hard to point specifics out, though. I believe blindly applying the golden ration to any composition doesn't work out. There are a lot of great works of art that don't follow this rule.
Well I think in summary the answer is: maybe. I'm still not sure which I like best, but perhaps my current state is not the best one to be in to assess it anyway. Too tired/hungover/etc.
@edpartridge well I took your advice and went out last night but now I definitely need to stay in more!
Somehow @toast when I flipped him he just looked like he was about to fall over, it all looked a bit weird, which is bizarre. Rotated him a bit and it still looked a little off... I think I prefer him staring into a defined void
@vikdaddy didn't really get what you meant the other day and still don't now :p I get the first part, that there's nothing else in relation to him, but the empty space might still be perceived as being broken up into those squares, maybe. idk.
Thanks, everyone, for taking part :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The second image definitely looks more appealing to me........interesting!!
In other words, the 1.618:1 ratio isn't really applied because danbo doesn't equal '1' and the dead space doesn't equal 1.618? Does that make any sense??!
in any case, at first glance I liked the original - but after pondering further I decided that the second image has a little more drama to it- something about being surrounded by more darkness. As for your nerdery knowing now bounds - true dat.
But I, for one, am grateful for it. Keep on keepin on.
I am still undecided. I agree that emotionally the first one works because it makes him feel smaller and more insignificant. The scale seems more natural. I can't figure out if I am attracted to the second one or not, my gut feeling is not. What if you took out the red+white+blue and put danbo in that space, making him equal mathmatically?
Great to see such an old concept being discussed and applied; Euclid would be proud!
And: there can never be too much nerdery!
@stepheesue @amz87 @trishaj @shadesofgrey *curtsy*
@edpartridge well I took your advice and went out last night but now I definitely need to stay in more!
Somehow @toast when I flipped him he just looked like he was about to fall over, it all looked a bit weird, which is bizarre. Rotated him a bit and it still looked a little off... I think I prefer him staring into a defined void
@vikdaddy didn't really get what you meant the other day and still don't now :p I get the first part, that there's nothing else in relation to him, but the empty space might still be perceived as being broken up into those squares, maybe. idk.
Thanks, everyone, for taking part :)