Rabatment of the rectangle as a composition aid

[bleirer]

I've been rereading The Painter's Secret Geometry lately, and I'm impressed how many artists of yore relied on this simple technique and it's variations. Got me wondering if any of you thought about it when placing the focal point or area of emphasis or for cropping? Or is simply the rule if thirds, the rule of space, and possibly the rule of odds basically the same idea.

The simple idea is just to visualize any rectangle as containing a square based on the short side and a leftover part. If the picture is horizontal then the right side rabatment line would be where the square starting from the left edge would end, and the left side rabatment line would be where the square starting on the right edge would end.

One idea for composition is simply that the area of emphasis would be near the rabatment line (just to the left of the right rabatment or just to the right of the left rabatment. All the important stuff would fall between the two rabatments. It could be as simple as that. For images in the 3:2 aspect ratio it would correspond to the rule of thirds, but not so for other aspect ratios.

Getting more involved, the diagonals of the left square and the diagonals of the right square (corner to corner of the rabatment square) intersect to form a small diamond (really a square turned on end). The top and bottom of the diamond mark points for horizontal lines and the left and right corners of this tiny diamond mark points for vertical lines. These lines also can aid in the placement of important objects.

Digging even deeper, the points where the diagonals of the whole larger rectangle taken corner to corner intersect at certain spots with the diagonals of the rabatment squares, and these points are supposed to be sweet spots for focal point placement.

So all in all, something to think about when the old rule of thirds doesn't seem to hit the mark. I think it's pretty easy to imagine where the rabatment would fall, but in Photoshop one could add a layer and draw lines, holding shift for straight lines.

 

[Nimi]

I've been rereading The Painter's Secret Geometry lately, and I'm impressed how many artists of yore relied on this simple technique and it's variations. Got me wondering if any of you thought about it when placing the focal point or area of emphasis or for cropping? Or is simply the rule if thirds, the rule of space, and possibly the rule of odds basically the same idea.

The simple idea is just to visualize any rectangle as containing a square based on the short side and a leftover part. If the picture is horizontal then the right side rabatment line would be where the square starting from the left edge would end, and the left side rabatment line would be where the square starting on the right edge would end.

One idea for composition is simply that the area of emphasis would be near the rabatment line (just to the left of the right rabatment or just to the right of the left rabatment. All the important stuff would fall between the two rabatments. It could be as simple as that. For picture in the 3:2 ratio it would correspond to the rule of thirds, but not so for other aspect ratios.

Getting more involved, the diagonals of the left square and the diagonals of the right square (corner to corner of the rabatment square) intersect to form a small diamond (really a square turned on end). The top and bottom of the diamond mark points for horizontal lines and the left and right corners of this tiny diamond mark points for vertical lines. These lines also can aid in the placement of important objects.

Digging even deeper, the points where the diagonals of the whole larger rectangle taken corner to corner intersect at certain spots with the diagonals of the rabatment squares, and these points are supposed to be sweet spots for focal point placement.

So all in all, something to think about when the old rule of thirds doesn't seem to hit the mark. I think it's pretty easy to imagine where the rabatment would fall, but in Photoshop one could add a layer and draw lines, holding shift for straight lines.

All the time, but never in the finder, always in post. That's one of the attraction of the big sensors to me, in addition to the FF "look," the ability to recompose.

 

[bleirer]

Examples are welcome.

 

[EricBowles]

Here are a couple of good videos that discuss the concept.

The first two videos talk about how Dynamic Symmetry works as a compositional tool - there are two examples. Aspect ratios are very rigid - and this makes it hard to apply.

This one talks about why Harmonic Armature is preferred to Dynamic Symmetry for photography. This provides complete freedom in the aspect ratios while maintaining proportions withing those compositions.

I think the idea has some merit, but is hard to apply when creating a photo. It seems to be a lot easier to apply when cropping or for a basic composition. Cowan has a number of good videos on composition.

 

[EricBowles]

This is a good video applying the technique above to Landscape Photography.

 

[bleirer]

So I think dynamic symmetry and also the harmonic armature are different than the rabatment, which focuses on how our eyes seem to "see" the square within a rectangle.

 

[Replytoken]

This is a good video applying the technique above to Landscape Photography.

I watched all four videos and wished I had time to watch more of his channel. I agree that training the eye with various methods of composition is important, but I also find that applying these models after the fact to be a bit of a mixed bag. I say this because in his examples, he does not take into account the cropping ratio that one may want for their final product, so it seems a bit of an academic exercise. And the cynic in me says that if you break down enough of an image with lines, you can pretty much justify the composition to a certain degree.

Having said that, I do crop many of my images in LR Classic to either fit an output size/ratio and/or to strengthen the composition. Plus, I will freely admit that I often cycle through the various crop overlays in the Development module's Crop tool. I do find many of them useful, but I do not find any of them to be the last word in composition. A large portion of my college studies were devoted to art and architecture classes and learning composition was a key component of many of these classes (especially when studying the design of Gothic cathedrals). So, I do appreciate the tools being offered, but I also believe there are other tools that are also helpful.

Looking at the photo that he cropped in the last video, I suspect that I would have come to very different decisions. I thought that the subject (the fortress) crowded the image and lacked sufficient negative space above. I also did not like that such a heavy object was "floating" towards the top of the frame. I would have at least seen what the image looked like with the fortress placed lower in the frame with more sky above it. I cannot say for certain that these would have been my final crops, but I certainly would have given them consideration. Then again, YMMV.

--Ken

 

[bleirer]

I watched all four videos and wished I had time to watch more of his channel. I agree that training the eye with various methods of composition is important, but I also find that applying these models after the fact to be a bit of a mixed bag. I say this because in his examples, he does not take into account the cropping ratio that one may want for their final product, so it seems a bit of an academic exercise. And the cynic in me says that if you break down enough of an image with lines, you can pretty much justify the composition to a certain degree.

Having said that, I do crop many of my images in LR Classic to either fit an output size/ratio and/or to strengthen the composition. Plus, I will freely admit that I often cycle through the various crop overlays in the Development module's Crop tool. I do find many of them useful, but I do not find any of them to be the last word in composition. A large portion of my college studies were devoted to art and architecture classes and learning composition was a key component of many of these classes (especially when studying the design of Gothic cathedrals). So, I do appreciate the tools being offered, but I also believe there are other tools that are also helpful.

Looking at the photo that he cropped in the last video, I suspect that I would have come to very different decisions. I thought that the subject (the fortress) crowded the image and lacked sufficient negative space above. I also did not like that such a heavy object was "floating" towards the top of the frame. I would have at least seen what the image looked like with the fortress placed lower in the frame with more sky above it. I cannot say for certain that these would have been my final crops, but I certainly would have given them consideration. Then again, YMMV.

--Ken

I think that a lot of the composition rules and tricks are more ways to avoid possible issues than anything else. The so called rule of thirds at least avoids centering the subject, gives a fair shot at balance, avoids symmetry, helps avoid tangents, and to a degree gives some breathing room. For all I've read and mostly self studied about composition, I'm still pretty intuitive for composition, but maybe I have something I've learned lurking when I compose and or crop.

 

[bleirer]

I think there is a certain tyranny to the rectangular frame. Out in the world we don't see nature in a frame and are free to focus how we will, but within the 4 walls of a format our eyes respond to the limits of the sides and bounce around within it even if the picture was just a field of color with no content. To paraphrase the book, the framework is there imposed by our brains need to organize space, and we are free as artists to make use of it or not.

Getting back to the rabatment though, which the posted videos did not address, I think part of our brain naturally sees the square within the rectangle, and also the eye is prone to follow the implied diagonals in the implied square, which gives that central diamond/tilted square and also our eyes imply the diagonals of the whole rectangle, and can easily come to rest at the points of intersection.

However, context is still everything, and our eyes will still be drawn to anything living, anything made by humans, anything bright or shiny, any patterns, and any areas of higher contrast. If where these things fall in the frame also corresponds to some framework it strengthens them as the area of emphasis or focal point.

 

[fcotterill]

I've read across interpretations of the Great Masters, as they offer photographers many valuable insights for composing images. I've also found a couple of Michael Freeman's recent books useful about the geometric "rules" - including The Photographer's Mind: Creative Thinking for Better Digital Photos. 2010.

In his most recent book, he used iMotion software to reveal how audiences look at images. He exploits this technology in On Composition. 2022. ILEX. I find this new pedagogical methodology as useful as it's fascinating. It refines and builds on how fine art students learn and apply the rules of composition and colour science etc....

Freeman's other recent books in same series include On Light and Shadow, and On Color and Tone.

 

[bleirer]

I've read across interpretations of the Great Masters, as they offer photographers many valuable insights for composing images. I've also found a couple of Michael Freeman's recent books useful about the geometric "rules" - including The Photographer's Mind: Creative Thinking for Better Digital Photos. 2010.

In his most recent book, he used iMotion software to reveal how audiences look at images. He exploits this technology in On Composition. 2022. ILEX. I find this new pedagogical methodology as useful as it's fascinating. It refines and builds on how fine art students learn and apply the rules of composition and colour science etc....

Freeman's other recent books in same series include On Light and Shadow, and On Color and Tone.

Thanks. I've read a couple of his books, as I recall he focuses strongly on Gestalt visual principles. Much to be considered...

 

[EricBowles]

The newest program I'm delivering to camera clubs is about what photographers can learn from painting. While there are some very well composed photos, a painting is a complete blank slate. The painter supplies the priorities and the concept - and may even create their own set of rules. It's not that every photo needs to respect every rule - it's more a matter of understanding different approaches to contribute to when and how they are incorporated in a photograph. Of course, you can go down a rat hole and find the rules and guidelines become more important than the image. Sometimes art that follows all the rules lacks a reason to exist.

I admire artists and photographic artists that can use rules and composition theory to form more precise compositions and more compelling or more interesting photographs. In some cases the specific concepts and execution is only noticed by those with significant art education. The novice or intermediate viewer without that context might just admire some basic elements and the subject matter.

I found Cowman's examples applied to street photography could also be applied to wildlife photography. The importance of subject isolation, avoiding overlaps, and using diagonal lines all make sense and resonate with most photographers. I also noticed he did not place much weight on the value of negative space. But overall, there are some interesting ideas and things that can be applied to photography.

 

[Replytoken]

The newest program I'm delivering to camera clubs is about what photographers can learn from painting. While there are some very well composed photos, a painting is a complete blank slate. The painter supplies the priorities and the concept - and may even create their own set of rules. It's not that every photo needs to respect every rule - it's more a matter of understanding different approaches to contribute to when and how they are incorporated in a photograph. Of course, you can go down a rat hole and find the rules and guidelines become more important than the image. Sometimes art that follows all the rules lacks a reason to exist.

I admire artists and photographic artists that can use rules and composition theory to form more precise compositions and more compelling or more interesting photographs. In some cases the specific concepts and execution is only noticed by those with significant art education. The novice or intermediate viewer without that context might just admire some basic elements and the subject matter.

I found Cowman's examples applied to street photography could also be applied to wildlife photography. The importance of subject isolation, avoiding overlaps, and using diagonal lines all make sense and resonate with most photographers. I also noticed he did not place much weight on the value of negative space. But overall, there are some interesting ideas and things that can be applied to photography.

I hope your program is well received. I find that exposing myself to all kinds of art very useful in helping me to "see" better (to borrow from Ernst Haas). I learned a lot from studying paintings as well as many other arts, like sculpture. When I compose scene shots in the viewfinder, I find that I tend to compose in styles similar to how the Dutch Masters set up their paintings. Whether I compose in their style because I like their style of painting, or vice versa, is up for debate, but it does not really matter to me as it has mostly been internalized in my shooting style.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

For all I've read and mostly self studied about composition, I'm still pretty intuitive for composition, but maybe I have something I've learned lurking when I compose and or crop.

I guess for me that is the goal - to internalize what I have learned and apply it accordingly (i.e. intuition). Yes, I do take a moment to compose when I look through the viewfinder, but it is less about applying rules and more about reviewing, and questioning, what I see. With static scenes, I will often take a series of shots with different compositions, if only so I can see how they look as images. The gridlines in the viewfinder are helpful, but only to a degree.

--Ken

 

[bleirer]

Yeah sometimes there is time to reflect and compose in the field, but more often it's a pretty rapid decision. Rabatment is one of those quickies, I can visualize a square portion of what I see in the viewfinder and the diagonals of the square. Like the other knee jerk automatic checks like rule of thirds, rule of odds, rule of space, check for tangents, this one can be checked pretty quickly.

 

[R_Warshaw]

In the far distant past I received a classic art education that included life-drawing, color mixing and painting. While I was taught color theory my education did not include rules of composition. Working as a photojournalist I "learned" to compose on the fly even with the camera held at arms-length above my head and people and objects flying around me; no rules, just experience. As a commercial photographer I learned to compose within the constraints of the film format I was using but also to leave space for the art directors I worked with. Now that I have only myself to please I compose more tightly within the camera format. My current cameras have a full-frame 2 x 3 aspect ratio but I prefer to set them for 5:4. How I place things within this frame is a Gestalt process and follows no rule that I'm aware of. My point? Consider the frame in the same way that a painter considers a canvas and conform (or not) to that frame in a way that satisfies you. This will probably evolve over time so be prepared to embrace that change.

 

[bleirer]

In the far distant past I received a classic art education that included life-drawing, color mixing and painting. While I was taught color theory my education did not include rules of composition. Working as a photojournalist I "learned" to compose on the fly even with the camera held at arms-length above my head and people and objects flying around me; no rules, just experience. As a commercial photographer I learned to compose within the constraints of the film format I was using but also to leave space for the art directors I worked with. Now that I have only myself to please I compose more tightly within the camera format. My current cameras have a full-frame 2 x 3 aspect ratio but I prefer to set them for 5:4. How I place things within this frame is a Gestalt process and follows no rule that I'm aware of. My point? Consider the frame in the same way that a painter considers a canvas and conform (or not) to that frame in a way that satisfies you. This will probably evolve over time so be prepared to embrace that change.

I read somewhere that painters say the first line one makes in the painting is really the fifth line of the painting.

 

[O]

This is a good video applying the technique above to Landscape Photography.

Isn't it a bit like the rule of thirds, as humans tend to see things in 3d segments ??

Only an opinion

 

[bleirer]

The book I mentioned, The Painters Secret Geometry, goes through history with all the schemes that were popular for dividing a rectangle into areas for composition. Very dense read, I've reread several times and find something new each time.

Basically the greeks had the root rectangles where root 1 was the square, then taking the diagonal of the square and bringing it down to extend the rectangle was root 2, bringing the diagonal of that one down formed a root 3, and so on, so these root rectangles were used in various ways within an image to place objects. The root 1, root 2, root 3, etc. is the golden progression. The golden rectangle came from taking half of a square (the mean) and bringing down that diagonal to form a rectangle. So the "golden mean" i guess. As the famous Fibonacci sequence gets larger the numbers next to each other start to resemble the same ratio.

Tiring of that, the next big thing was using musical ratios. On the idea that dividing a string into 2/3 was the basis for the perfect fifth and 3/4 was the basis for the perfect fourth, the fifth plus the fourth making an octave. So division points like 9/12/16 were used. 9/12 reducing to 3/4 and 12/16 reducing also to 3/4.

After that came the armature discussed in the videos. This was simpler, based on taking points to mark a half and a quarter of any rectangle, then connecting all the points with diagonals. The idea was anywhere diagonals crossed could be a division of the scene.

Next was the rabatment of the rectangle, even simpler. My topic for the thread. Take any rectangle and find the square from the left and the right. This forms a rectangle in the center. In a 3:2 aspect ratio this also corresponds to the rule of thirds. Take the diagonals of the two squares and a central diamond/tilted square is formed. Take the diagonals of the original rectangle and where the various diagonals cross are important points in placing areas of emphasis.

Now it's pretty much anything goes, I guess the general pattern toward reduced complexity, but folks refer back to these retro patterns sometimes.

 

[Dave Stargazer]

Interesting thread (for me) - thx for all the info. Let me add my favorite quote...my second favorite quote - amongst my favorite quotes!

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - I find these composition tools useful...at times.

Human perception/analysis is always seeking patterns - even when none is there. To me, some of these tools stray into that area - you can make anything fit if you want to/try hard enough. Is this analysis of a great painting really why it's great? (it's more than one factor of course)

But, I want to ask/challenge you to show counter examples using these analysis tools - a work (e.g. photograph) that isn't great, and use these composition tool to show why (and I'm not talking about an image where the head is cut off etc. lol). In computer program design we call these things anti-patterns (i.e. don't do this!).

A different type of counter example (for me) is when Cowman analyzes the drawing of a kid on a teeter totter/board - all the way at one end. He uses his chosen methods to show why it's a good composition. But IMO (art! it's a personal opinion!) I don't think it's a good composition - or at least anything interesting. It follows his rules of progressive subdivisions, but that doesn't make it good imo. I do think it's interesting that he thinks it's interesting.

Thoughts? Cheers!

 

[bleirer]

I guess the question is would it be worthwhile for someone like me, who is very intuitive about composition, to be mindful at least in the back of my mind of some of the various ways that past masters have approached composition. Just like some people might benefit from being aware of the various "rules" that are popular such as rule of thirds, rule of space, rule of odds, it might be also be good to be aware that there are other possibilities for composition beyond those basics.

Richard Schmid comes to mind as a more recent master painter. He often places subjects closer to the center than the rule of thirds would suggest, yet he masterfully places objects in a way that draws the eye away from the center and often takes eye movement on one of the classic paths through the scene. I don't know if he is consciously employing a particular division of space, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Andrew Wyeth is another that comes to mind.

 

[Palouse]

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - I find these composition tools useful...at times.

Back in my teaching days I'd share this with my conservation planning students. It applies here too.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Dave Stargazer]

Richard Schmid comes to mind as a more recent master painter. He often places subjects closer to the center than the rule of thirds would suggest, yet he masterfully places objects in a way that draws the eye away from the center and often takes eye movement on one of the classic paths through the scene. I don't know if he is consciously employing a particular division of space, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Here's one of Schmid's landscapes - I like it, but how do the geometric models convey *why* this is an interesting work? I'm sure you can "make them fit" but imo they wouldn't tell the core reasons why I find this quite interesting (see bold above).

https://s29608.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/hm_bbpui/1402314/2jy6g862nr6f9r0xbwr86ddjncca27u0.jpg

That said, I am a sucker for dreamy impressionism haha

Cheers!

 

[bleirer]

I have no way to presume what he had in mind in planning the work, not really the point. The point is that structure is there inherent to the rectangular format for the artist to use to a greater or lesser degree as they see fit, and they are free to totally ignore it as well.

 

[Ed Erkes]

Here are a couple of good videos that discuss the concept.

The first two videos talk about how Dynamic Symmetry works as a compositional tool - there are two examples. Aspect ratios are very rigid - and this makes it hard to apply.

This one talks about why Harmonic Armature is preferred to Dynamic Symmetry for photography. This provides complete freedom in the aspect ratios while maintaining proportions withing those compositions.

I think the idea has some merit, but is hard to apply when creating a photo. It seems to be a lot easier to apply when cropping or for a basic composition. Cowan has a number of good videos on composition.

I just recently came across James Cowmans's website on The Art of Composition and have been looking at his videos and articles. I personally don't see how it can be useful to photography, unless it were in setting up a still life or other type of studio shot. It seems that he is only using it after the fact to analyze images. I'd like to see a video where his using it in the field. I don't see how it can be done-- overlaying an armature grid and then connecting diagonal and vertical lines to place compositional elements. Also in his analysis of images, I find that I would choose pretty much the same composition just on an intuitve method of composing.
I'd also like to see some of his own images, but haven't been able to find any. I'd likely be more interested in his approach and teachings if he could support it with a body of his own work. I find it strange that I cant find any of his images online.