Title: Re: Maths, photography and the 'Golden ratio'
Hi Andy,
Thanks again for some more interesting thoughts.
There's maths everywhere once you start to see it...Guess its just a matter of having an eye for it.
I had another idea also, about doing something to do with 'the golden ratio' (which can be defined by a mathematical equation) and composition in photography and wandered if you, or any one one the list has any ideas about relating this concept to architectural photography?
My own composition technique has always been somewhat 'gut instinct' rather than taught technique. I know what the rule of thirds is, which is part of the golden ratio idea I believe, but that's about it. I kind of like the idea of starting the project off with something about the golden ratio (also sometimes called the fibonacci series?) because it relates to all the aspects of the project – photography, Mathematics, and architecture. Also, some of the maths students will be joined by some art students who are doing something about self identity, and I believe the geometry of the human face is also related to the golden ratio...
So, any ideas welcome, or if you know of any websites I could look at explaining the golden ratio as used in architectural photography...? I’ve already spent a fair bit of time googleing this specifically, without much luck surprisingly.
Cheers,
Jonathan.
PS really like the idea about measuring velocity, but definitely won’t be throwing a fridge out the top floor... Though that would be so much fun!
On 13/03/2010 02:17, "ADavidhazy" <andpph@xxxxxxx> -
>
> Anyway, I think this suggestion was made by others and is connected with the
> little size/distance relationship situation. A student of mine suggested you
> make a photograph at right angle to the building wall and with the camera
> level
> encompassing the whole width of the building locating the building's base in
> the
> along a line across the middle of the frame. Then, without changing camera
> location you aim the camera so the top of the building is in the middle of the
> frame. Now you pace off the distance to the building wall.
>
> So now you can compare the width of the image of the building in case 1 with
> the
> width of the building top in Case 2. This should give you an idea of how much
> further the top is from the camera position than the bottom. Let's say the top
> appears to be 1/2 the length of the building side. That means the top is twice
> as far as the bottom. So, if the camera was 25 meters from the building base
> the
> top is 50 meters away.
>
> At this point I'd resort to a graphical solution to determine the height of
> the
> wall. Draw a right angle and call the horizontal ground level. Identify a
> point
> as being located 25 m away from the wall. Use a compass set to an "opening"
> that
> is twice that distance. Draw an arc and where that intercepts the vertical
> part
> of the right angle is an indication of the height of the wall.
>
> To determine that in actual dimensions compare the height of that segment to
> the
> segment you called 25 m. If it is 1.5 times as long as the 25 m dimension the
> height of the wall is 25 x 1.5 or 37.5 meters.
>
> In the case mentioned above actually the height would be 1.73 times the
> distance
> to the building or 25 m. And thus the height would be about 43 m.
>
> Or, you could square the 25 and subtract that from squaring the 50 and then
> find
> the square root of the difference and that would be the height of the wall. In
> a
> right triangle the sum of the squares of each side is equal to the square of
> the
> hypotenuse (side opposite the right angle).
>
> All this assumes a square or rectangular wall.
>
> I hope the logic above is OK - if not hit me with a wet noodle!
>
> Andy
>
> PS: I would not suggest having students at ground level photographing
> something
> like a falling refrigerator!
>
--
Jonathan Turner
Photographer
e: pictures@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
t: 0113 217 1275
m:07796 470573
7 Scott Hall Walk, Leeds, LS7 3JQ
http://www.jonathan-turner.com
