And how does eye dominance figure into your statement?
Composing images for maximum visual impact and for directing the eye and for creating senses of tension and repose has been around a lot longer than photography. Condensing composition into guidelines or rules is just a way to start understanding and getting a handle on the concepts and techniques. Painters have been learning rules of composition for centuries. The good ones go on to individualize and extend the impact of their compositions. Learning the rules of composition is like learning the rules of harmony; once mastered, you have a good jumping-off point for becoming an artist.
FWIW, composition and harmony are both based on how humans are hard-wired; our perception responds to certain arrangements more strongly than to others. Then there's education... but that's for another thread.
Best,
Doremus
Maybe because the optic nerves of both eyes connect to both lobes, the dominant eye is less of a factor than handedness, since the left hand is associated with the right hemisphere where spatial relationships and visual thinking are concentrated.I am left handed but because of the orientation of the eye cup I use my right eye with the Hasselblad. For 35mm Nikon SLR photography I use either eye and never think about it.
I wonder how this issue affects people's use of the rule of thirds either by design or naturally.
It obviously doesn't. I was responding rather obliquely to other comments about rules of composition (which didn't have that much to do with eye dominance either). Conversations in threads like this tend to digress a bit, which can be irritating (I guess, for you) or interesting. I have simply accepted that as part of the fora I participate in and don't really try to stay 100% on topic. (This post being yet another exampleAnd how does eye dominance figure into your statement?
I was reading an article that suggested that we tend to look at a subject on one side more than the other not in the middle between two eyes. That's why we find see subject a third from the side more pleasing. I wonder if the third has to do with the fact that we favor one eye when looking. So while the subject is in the middle of that eye, it's off to the side in the other giving an overall appearance of being at one-third of the distance from the side.
Sort of like this. (yeah I know the eyes are not equal but you should get the idea.)
Maybe someone should develop a camera with two viewfinders so you could use both eyes to compose in stereo vision. Or like some of the reflex viewers for view cameras.
View attachment 325203
The so called one third rule has nothing to do with eye dominance, but is guidance to tell new photographers not to put everything in the center. the article writer is probably desperate to earn some money so he or she is blathering on about something they know nothing about.
It is called a waist lever finder, WLF, but is does not use stereo vision.
The eye dominance is my blather. But the article writer did explain how a human pointing at a subject keeps it about 1/3 to the right (if the right is dominant) while pointing with his right arm. He doesn't;t aim in the middle between two eyes. I assume left-eyed people point with their left arm so their view would put the subject 1/3 from the left side. Try it yourself. So we naturally see a scene with subject 1/3 from the edge which could make us appreciate photo that way as well.
Of course, eye dominance kind of forces us to look that way. We look (aim) with one eye, the dominant eye, not with both eyes. The second eye goes along for the ride and is more offset from the subject view.
But people look at a print or slide with both eyes.
But people look at a print or slide with both eyes.
They're not composing the photo, just observing it. But the right hemisphere of the brain will appreciate the composition.
And if they are familiar with optics/photography, their left brain will appreciate how they achieved the composition.They're not composing the photo, just observing it. But the right hemisphere of the brain will appreciate the composition.
And if they are familiar with optics/photography, their left brain will appreciate how they achieved the composition.
Alan...along the same lines, a tall building in an image photographed at ground level with the sides of the building perfectly vertical, will appear to be looming over us because the sides are not retreating to a vanishing point. The brain says, "something is wrong here." It is not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
This was with a Rolleiflex, with a compositionally interesting enough foreground and midground to be able to keep the camera level on a slightly elevated viewpoint. And it is always good to know where the sky is. I was looking at this without and with the camera before the woman walked out of the doors, becoming part of this permanent reality.
RA4 print years ago from 120 Kodak Portra 160VC, probably. The negative carrier cut a row of window off in the upper left. I still miss those windows after all these years (about 1999).
To keep this on topic -- hand-held Rolleiflex with waist level finder and used both eyes to follow image on the ground glass.
Our brains play tricks with the images our eyes see. For example, when we look up towards the top of tall buildings, our brain doesn't see the tops leaning in towards each other like the do when looking at the image on a 2D photo print. Our brains automatically adjust the picture in our heads so they look parallel going straight up into the sky. The photo print can't do that so we get that leaning view which makes it appear abnormal. Our brains aren't used to looking at scenes on a 2D piece of paper.
Chrysler Building by Alan Klein, on Flickr
Keep in mind that the surface the lens of the eye projects upon is not flat, but rather curved and irregular. How do you suppose parallel vertical lines are rendered with that projection? Neither parallel nor even straight lines!
Perception straightens things out for us. Still, we are used to looking at "reality" and images that depart from the natural tend to seem strange. This can be the point of a photograph or its downfall; it depends on the intent of the photographer.
Realizing and utilizing the differences between the way the eye sees and the way the camera sees is an important step to make on the journey of becoming a master photographer.
Best,
Doremus
And as you noted, not just the differences in the way the eye sees, but how the brain creates a 3D real-time movie from the signals from the eyes (the perception of a scene)....
Realizing and utilizing the differences between the way the eye sees and the way the camera sees is an important step to make on the journey of becoming a master photographer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?