And how does eye dominance figure into your statement?
Eye dominance and ability to compose a photo
-
- Thread starter snusmumriken
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
And how does eye dominance figure into your statement?
I’m right-handed but have never thought about what else might be dominant. When using a 35mm camera I tend to look with my right eye but with age I’ve developed a floater and sometime have to switch to my left.
That said, I tend to look at the scene without the camera, choose composition, and then line up the camera and make the shot. After all, I don’t use a camera to compose my drawings or paintings.
As for compositional “rules,” I certainly don’t see them as rules but rather as a way to explain why an image may be appealing after the fact. We tend to find somethings attractive such as repetition, textures and patterns, lines, color and contrast, etc. And there are certainly many images that lack all of those that are successful/appealing due to subject matter devoid of traditional compositional elements.
That said, I tend to look at the scene without the camera, choose composition, and then line up the camera and make the shot. After all, I don’t use a camera to compose my drawings or paintings.
As for compositional “rules,” I certainly don’t see them as rules but rather as a way to explain why an image may be appealing after the fact. We tend to find somethings attractive such as repetition, textures and patterns, lines, color and contrast, etc. And there are certainly many images that lack all of those that are successful/appealing due to subject matter devoid of traditional compositional elements.
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.
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 wonder how this issue affects people's use of the rule of thirds either by design or naturally.
I doubt that there is any correlation between dominant eye and third rule.
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.)
Sort of like this. (yeah I know the eyes are not equal but you should get the idea.)
Attachments
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 example
)Best,
Doremus
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.
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.
By the way, the "rule" is not for new photographers. It just reflects human aesthetic appreciation when the subject is 1/3 from the edge, especially if there is balance weight on the other side.
Even with a WLF at just below eye level or a foot or two away, the dominant eye is a major factor in what the brain "sees." It is only at far distances that eye dominance does not come into play.
But people look at a print or slide with both eyes.
But it's the brain that assembles the image.
They're not composing the photo, just observing it. But the right hemisphere of the brain will appreciate the composition.
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
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
Nice shot.
Today, I sometimes re-tweak the photo to remove the illusion with buildings using the transform sliders in Lightroom. Of course, because you lose some of the photo, you have to remember to shoot wide. Of course, with LF, you can adjust with movements of the camera or "movements' while enlarging and printing.
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.
You could use PC lens. I have a Nikon fl2.8 28mm PC lens which is manual focus that I use in my Nikon AF cameras. On the other hand I do like your photograph which shows great detail at the bottom of the photograph -- well done.
Thanks for your comments. Sorry it's not film but a grab shot with a P&S, a Canon S400 4MB camera. Sometimes I wonder if I should have kept using those little digital elphs.
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
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
With a rectilinear lens such as the Zeiss 38mm Biogon lens in the Hasselblad SWCs.
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).
Which way does one wish to get the idea of the space across to ones viewers...by using the mental image created by a frozen moment of seeing -- limited depth of field, aperture (pupil size) selected for most detail in selected area(s) of same brightness? Or the mental image created from the gestalt of ones vision of a scene...full Dof, almost all tonal areas with detail? Each will affect the viewer differently.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |