Talk:Diagonal method

Untitled

"Reverted 1 edit by DarkCryst; Until there's some assertion of notability backed up by refs to independent reliable sources, let's not bring this back. (TW)"

Given the fact that: 1. This method is in use in Adobe Lightroom 2. A method in itself cannot be proven right or wrong. It can only be proven to be fit for a purpose. However in the case of cropping images there is no ultimate proof in right or wrong use. 3. The use of this method be researched at multiple universities in the Netherlands.

I suggest to leave this page up, or expand it, until someone finds proof that use of this method is malpractice. Mostly since beneficial use of this method has already been proven by the inventor and has been confirmed independently. For references see http://www.diagonaalmethode.info.

Deleting this content with the sole argument that it is not backup up by independent reliable refs is a fallacy: 1. There is a reliable reference: namely to the independent magazine Focus 2. Applying this argument to all recent scientific advances would deny them an entry into the Wikipedia. Since only one reference to the original publication is not enough according to the above argumentation. Furthermore it might take quite some time before original publications are backed up by others. The author has proven its findings, and no one has yet disproved the findings.

Furthermore 'notability' and 'reliability' are not fixed values, subjective, and open to interpretation. Thus a significant number of people (random sampling) should be asked for their opinion in this particular matter before one is to delete the page.

critique

This "method" is in fact the Rabatment (see Rabatment of the rectangle). This is researched in lengths and includes also the diagonals of the inscribed squares. For example Charles Bouleau describes it on pages 43 to 46 of his book ""Bouleau, Charles (1963). The painter’s secret geometry: a study of composition in art. New York: Harcourt, Brace." The statement of the "inventor" that artists place elements unconsciously shows that he doesn't know how artists worked and still work - they place all elements very consciously. There was a significant loss of knowledge about this in the 20th century but it slowly re-establishes. Regarding photography: Even photographers do place their subjects consciously using systems of design, for example dynamic symmetry or rabatment. Examples are Annie Leibowitz or Bresson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.17.185 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think your critique is based on a misinterpretation of what the diagonal method is claiming. You assert it is identical to the rabatment, which it is not. To clarify before I can make the distinction: the rabatment is about placing objects or aspects of the full composition at a location that allows the imaginative creation of a square. This is similar to the rule of thirds, in which linear aspects (e.g., a horizon) is placed along the top or bottom third line, or in which objects are placed on an intersection of these lines. In fact, in a 3:2 image, the rabatment and the rule of thirds coincide on the vertical plane. The placement of objects along a (diagonal) line or on an intersection is, however, not what the diagonal method is concerned with. Instead, what the inventor is saying, is that a point of interest is placed EXACTLY on one (or more) of the 45° lines from the corner of the image, with "exactly" meaning that the line really cuts through the center of that point of interest (such as the eye of Vermeer's girl with the pearl earring shown on the Wiki page). In other words, the diagonal method is not concerned with the division of space, but with the placement of objects, and it tolerates very little deviation from this placement: exact placement rather than estimates.

The use of the word "unconsciously" on the page does not pertain to the understanding of how an artist's mind words (the inventor is a photographer by trade), but on the fact that these points of interest are placed so perfectly well ON a diagonal, rather than 2 mm or 2 cm away from it. Of course, this precision could be achieved on a painting, if a painter would start with drawing a 45° diagonal, mark where the point of interest should be on that line, and then create the composition around it. However, the inventor has found no reports on any painter obsessing over making sure that particular parts of a painting are placed on the diagonal coming from a corner of the canvas. With photography, this is even a different story. If a photographer has made a picture and crops it without using image guides that help him consciously make sure that important parts of the composition are precisely placed on a 45° diagonal, the fact that the point of interest ended up exactly on the diagonal anyway (and not even a little away from it) suggests that he did so unconsciously. Again, the inventor found no reports that any colleague of his used such a cropping approach, and the mainstream graphics editors at that time did not support cropping by diagonals. On his website, he presents several of photos and of paintings/drawings that show the placement of objects on diagonals. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)