Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

is it possible to do landscape with 50mm FL on APS-c
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:


No, you don't need a wide-angle lens! IMO, what you need first is to learn more about photographic composition! The photo you submitted would gain NOTHING if a wide-angle lens had been used. The problem lies in the poor composition, which is uninteresting because among other things it lacks an interesting main subject.



Why so rude? What makes good composition is very much subjective, and despite lacking a main subject his photo has a nice simplistic and "geometric" look created with the contrasting color areas. In my opinion it is not a thrilling photography but a very pleasing one.

But i agree with Gerald that this particular scene might have gained nothing off a wider FOV. But a wide angle lens is a very interesting tool to have for landscape, so you should definitely get one!

Just keep in mind that in many cases wide angles (especially on the extreme end) have to be used very deliberately, it's challenging to not make pictures look empty and desolate with them (except when that's the feeling that you're going for). I think the coolest way to use them is by getting close to your subject and being able to include context. You can also experiment with unusual perspectives (from deep down, using features such as stones or trees and bushes as framing etc).

As many have stated it makes sense to go with a modern computation for APS-C such as the popular 11-18ish zooms from Tamron / Sigma / Tokina. Or check out the "chinese primes" like samyang and rokinon etc.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:

Kind regards bluedxca93



Just to emphasize some points of what I said before. A wide-angle lens wouldn't help much in the above shot because the main problem is poor composition. I will now show how the composition could be improved considerably with a little effort.

A good composition has a main element that attracts attention, while having a good balance with the other elements of the image.

The first thing I did was eliminate a part of the uninteresting foreground, in order to make the sky the main element of the composition.

Then I changed the exposure and contrast of the sky to make this part of the image much more interesting.

Finally, I changed the vibrance to make the colors more vibrant.

Two interpretations of the image, the first more natural and the second more dramatic:





PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In defense of Gerald he is entitled to state what he clearly says is his opinion. IMHO there is no need for any "class in forum decorum" to offer opinions, nor is any rudeness involved. I believe the intent is to add information to the discussions. I also believe some members mistakenly take his opinions personally, when in fact, he is speaking to everybody including future members, as any former educator would. And I believe this is simply "culture clash" -- a problem for people of different cultures try to communicate with each other using a third language. I find the bickering and posturing and constant denigration asides and comments are far worse than any of the mistakenly so-called pedantry. The education paradigm is indeed pedantic, by definition! Stop thinking somebody is "talking down" to you personally, when in fact somebody is not speaking only to you!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no much choice of APS-C DSLR ultra wide even from Samyang. For MILC APS-C camera, there will be much more choices.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:


Just to emphasize some points of what I said before. A wide-angle lens wouldn't help much in the above shot because the main problem is poor composition. I will now show how the composition could be improved considerably with a little effort.

A good composition has a main element that attracts attention, while having a good balance with the other elements of the image.

The first thing I did was eliminate a part of the uninteresting foreground, in order to make the sky the main element of the composition.


Again, very subjective. Personally i think the original image is more balanced due to the foreground. Tastes in color and contrast vary a lot but i think we can agree that even your first edit is not "natural".

This got off-topic so quickly...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald's edits are horrid.

Just more evidence that he really isn't anything more than a troll.

Why doesn't he show us some of his landscape work?

Probbaly because he hasn't done any

or his ego is too fragile and he fears criticism

which is the height of hypocrisy when he, himself, does nothing but hurl obnoxious criticism at people


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:
Now im thinking if it would have been better with a 35 mm lens. Not that anything interesting was near but a more wide angle.


It's impossible to answer your question for certain without knowing more about the landscape shots you intend to go for. Maybe you don't even know yourself.

It's not absolutely necessary to use a wide angle lens for landscapes. In fact, I enjoy shooting landscapes most with 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, or even longer focal lengths. This allows you to center on particular features you want to highlight.

On the other hand, if you want big, sweeping, panoramic landscape shots, you'll want a wide angle lens. If you've never tried shooting that way, there's only one way to learn and that's to try it for yourself. I guess that means I'm suggesting you should get a wide angle lens, if only to try it out.

Keep in mind that sharpness and low distortion are especially desirable qualities for landscape lenses.

Good luck!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Images say more than words... Those are some of the worst edits I have ever seen. Even worse than what Kymarto does to his Bokeh :p

I think it already looks better if you brighten it up a little:


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's my take:



PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
I will not open a discussion on this subject. There are tons of articles discussing perspective compression by a telephoto lens.


Well, you brought it up! Wink (and given the OP's question about the use of a wide-angle lens still somewhat on-topic!)

It matters to me as I come from a science & engineering background, and whilst most conventional "photographic wisdom" I am OK with to let slip, some perpetuated myths bug me when I keep reading them...

I am well aware that many articles mention the compression effect of telephoto lenses, and most of those articles are misleading too; they tend to argue based on the unstated assumption that the final print will be of a "standard" size viewed from a "standard" viewing distance. That is all fine and well but unless that assumption is made explicit, it often leads to the erroneous conclusion that telephoto lenses compress and wide-angle lenses exaggerate (space/perspective). The truth is that this is nothing to do with the lens per se but rather an artefact of the viewing environment in which we no longer look at the image from its true centre of perspective.

The apparent effect of compression/exaggeration is very real, but it is very wrong to attribute this effect as being caused by the lens; it is caused entirely by viewing the print from an "incorrect" viewing distance that changes the apparent centre of perspective.

A good explanation of this can be found in the treatise on "True" and "Apparent" Perspective in Optics in Photography, Rudolf Kingslake, SPIE Press, 1992

The perspective-neutral viewing distance for a print is the focal length of the lens used to take the image x sensor/neg size-to-print-magnification. Hence a film frame taken using a 20mm lens, enlarged 10 x as a print, needs to be viewed from a 200mm distance for a neutral perspective, at which point there is no apparent compression/exaggeration. Viewed from more than 200mm distance there will be apparent perspective exaggeration, viewed from less than 200mm distance there will be apparent perspective compression.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's some excellent advice in this thread, I've learned, or perhaps, remembered, a few things I learned long ago.

My best piece of advice is simply this - practice and keep practising, that's the best way to learn.

Theory is all well and good, but practice matters more.

Perhaps a mix of 25% study of the theory and 75% actually getting out into the world and shooting is best.

Personally, I'm very thick skinned about my work as I always value criticism if it's constructive, so if you post some of your work as you go, people will surely be happy to try to offer constructive criticism and advice.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To OP,

Some very respected and famous people were using words, music instruments, dots, aquarelle, oil paint, charcoal … to describe their emotion of a landscape scenery.

So, you are free to use any tool, any lens any camera to do yours.

But when you are going to share your emotion ( thats the picture you took with your lens/camera) be ready for an opinion.

Having just one 'odd' picture (to share) .. well that make's you odd.
When you have 50 odd pictures – you are an artist.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

RokkorDoctor wrote:
It matters to me as I come from a science & engineering background

Me too. I have a PhD in Electrical Engineering.




RokkorDoctor wrote:

It matters to me as I come from a science & engineering background, and whilst most conventional "photographic wisdom" I am OK with to let slip, some perpetuated myths bug me when I keep reading them...

I am well aware that many articles mention the compression effect of telephoto lenses, and most of those articles are misleading too; they tend to argue based on the unstated assumption that the final print will be of a "standard" size viewed from a "standard" viewing distance. That is all fine and well but unless that assumption is made explicit, it often leads to the erroneous conclusion that telephoto lenses compress and wide-angle lenses exaggerate (space/perspective). The truth is that this is nothing to do with the lens per se but rather an artefact of the viewing environment in which we no longer look at the image from its true centre of perspective.

The apparent effect of compression/exaggeration is very real, but it is very wrong to attribute this effect as being caused by the lens; it is caused entirely by viewing the print from an "incorrect" viewing distance that changes the apparent centre of perspective.

A good explanation of this can be found in the treatise on "True" and "Apparent" Perspective in Optics in Photography, Rudolf Kingslake, SPIE Press, 1992

The perspective-neutral viewing distance for a print is the focal length of the lens used to take the image x sensor/neg size-to-print-magnification. Hence a film frame taken using a 20mm lens, enlarged 10 x as a print, needs to be viewed from a 200mm distance for a neutral perspective, at which point there is no apparent compression/exaggeration. Viewed from more than 200mm distance there will be apparent perspective exaggeration, viewed from less than 200mm distance there will be apparent perspective compression.


Everything you said is technically correct, however, when photographers and videographers talk about perspective compression and expansion, they are implicitly using the assumption that the viewing distance is "normal", i.e. the viewing distance is approximately equal to the diagonal of the image being observed.

In the real world, people often use implicit hypotheses, which makes their conclusions and observations look "wrong" in the eyes of a scientist.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
In defense of Gerald he is entitled to state what he clearly says is his opinion. IMHO there is no need for any "class in forum decorum" to offer opinions, nor is any rudeness involved. I believe the intent is to add information to the discussions. I also believe some members mistakenly take his opinions personally, when in fact, he is speaking to everybody including future members, as any former educator would. And I believe this is simply "culture clash" -- a problem for people of different cultures try to communicate with each other using a third language. I find the bickering and posturing and constant denigration asides and comments are far worse than any of the mistakenly so-called pedantry. The education paradigm is indeed pedantic, by definition! Stop thinking somebody is "talking down" to you personally, when in fact somebody is not speaking only to you!


Thank you so much for your honesty and understanding. Like 1 small

The OP's question was: "Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos?" and my response was: "No, you don't need a wide-angle lens" Where's the rudeness there? Only dishonest and malicious people would think I meant to offend the OP.

My intention was just to help the OP, as I honestly think what he needs right now is to learn more about photographic composition, not acquire a wide-angle lens. To clear up any misconceptions, I want to say that I love wide-angle lenses, but I completely disagree with the idea, which seems quite common in certain places, that you can only photograph landscapes if you have a wide-angle lens.

If you'll allow me a more personal tone (I avoid making personal comments in a photography forum), I'd like to say that I was especially grateful for your comments, especially since it came from a Californian. I have a daughter who is an American citizen and lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

All the best


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How pathetic, you do your usual obnoxious troll act and then, when called out on it, try to pretend you're an angel who would never do anything even remotely snide, or unpleasant.

Don't you understand how much you have humiliated yourself in this thread?

Still waiting for a photo, just one single photo from you to prove you can even use a camera.

I think you owe everyone a lot of humble apologies.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

marius.zaech wrote:
Gerald wrote:


Just to emphasize some points of what I said before. A wide-angle lens wouldn't help much in the above shot because the main problem is poor composition. I will now show how the composition could be improved considerably with a little effort.

A good composition has a main element that attracts attention, while having a good balance with the other elements of the image.

The first thing I did was eliminate a part of the uninteresting foreground, in order to make the sky the main element of the composition.


Again, very subjective. Personally i think the original image is more balanced due to the foreground. Tastes in color and contrast vary a lot but i think we can agree that even your first edit is not "natural".
his got off-topic so quickly...


Of course, the edited pictures are not "natural"! Photography doesn't have to be natural. "Natural" photos are usually boring. Maybe you haven't thought of it, but black and white photographs are completely "unnatural" because our eyes see the world in color.

Some photos that are artistically excellent, in my opinion, precisely because they are not "natural":








Even a color photograph can be "unnatural" (photo below), or do you think the real colors in the real world were exactly as shown in the photograph?




NOTE: Photos from the book The Art of Photography, by Bruce Barbaum. By the way, the last picture was not taken with a wide angle lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My current canon kitzoom at 18mm. Thought i deleted it but no i didn`t. So its here. Black white edit cause sky turns purple if i try to set white balance:



Another example.
Colour like it was that day, did my best to get colours etc. more or less like they were:


b/w


This version is just to show off what it would look like if i had preferred dramatic look.:



PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:20 am    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

In answer to the original question, I concur with the advice so far that you don't need a wide-angle lens for landscape photography. However, having access to one will increase your artistic freedom immeasurably esp. with regards to both landscape and architectural photography.


Gerald wrote:
Everything you said is technically correct, however, when photographers and videographers talk about perspective compression and expansion, they are implicitly using the assumption that the viewing distance is "normal", i.e. the viewing distance is approximately equal to the diagonal of the image being observed.

In the real world, people often use implicit hypotheses, which makes their conclusions and observations look "wrong" in the eyes of a scientist.


Fair point Wink

Problem is that for most people these days, viewing conditions are very different from the one assumed in treatises on photographic techniques (practical conditions are almost exclusively skewed toward viewing distances that are too long).

Given that far fewer learner-photographers now make their own full-size prints but rather target smaller reproductions like web images, the general perceived wisdom re. lens' focal length and perspective compression needs updating. The relevant tutorials should become a bit more in-depth re. the inextricably linked issue of viewing distance to final print/image, emphasising that it is the change in the centre of perspective between original subject viewpoint and final image that really determines the degree of perceived depth compression/expansion, and that it is not the lens itself that causes this.

I have no doubt that experienced photographers like Barnbaum, when they write a book on photographic techniques, are very well aware of issues like this, but leaving any crucial implicit assumptions undisclosed unfortunately isn't going to help the wider public get a better understanding. Ideally, such tutorials should be accompanied by a footnote, or separate break-out paragraph that explains these issues; then readers can decide to read that detail if they want to get the facts right, or skip it if they are happy to work with "rule-of-thumb" but factually incorrect information. Hence the proviso I made in my original comment where I said I didn't know if that excerpt had been taken out of context; I'm not familiar with the book and the impact that print viewing distance has on perspective compression may well have been discussed elsewhere in the relevant chapter.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably the right title should have been : is it possible to do landscape with 75 mm FL on FF (angle of view APSC )? And you've proved it to be right.
Would your 50mm lens (APSC) always be enough to use for landscapes? Well, when playing with only one lens, one is capable to use what he's best got at that moment. Most of the fixed lens cameras haven't had a FL of 75mm since 1970's maybe . Nice landscapes don't have to do with FL most of the times . Of course is easier to be able to switch to different FL lenses , that's the reason we have zoom lenses and some of them pretty good ones.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:

Colour like it was that day, did my best to get colours etc. more or less like they were:



Like 1
In my opinion, I think the photo above is the best in terms of composition. Perhaps you should explore this location more. The quality of outdoor light depends on the time of day, season and weather conditions. The sky, clouds in particular, is very important in a landscape photo, but it can change completely in a few minutes.

Now, I would like to show you some photos (not mine) to better illustrate some points of a good photographic composition. Some of the photos are of urban landscapes, but they all have a common theme: RAIN. Yes, rain can greatly affect photographic composition and completely change the mood of a photo. Rain changes the quality of light, texture and other important elements of the composition. I suggest that you try to understand how the photographer used the elements of composition in each photo:
< Light
< Color
< Contrast and Tone
< Line
< Form
< Pattern
< Balance
< Movement
< Positive / Negative Space
< Texture
< Camera Position
< Focal Length
< Depth of Field
< Shutter Speed


#1:



#2:



#3:



#4:




#5:



#6:



#7:



#8:



#9:



#10:



#11:



#12:



#13:




#14:



I think that each photo would deserve comments and an analysis of the composition used, but that would make the post too long. The photographs were taken from the YouTube video Rain - Pussycat. It is worth watching this video that in addition to the photos, above contains a large number of excellent rain photos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxraqqI0qSs


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh come on, you can't produce at least one single photo you shot yourself?

I say you're a charlatan and a fraud and should just clear off.

You've utterly humiliated yourself and don't seem to realise it.

As for composition, by far the most important principle to learn, and always the starting point for any education in composition is the rule of thirds:

https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/photography/discover/rule-of-thirds.html

Using landscape images I shot myself in the last few weeks, I can illustrate this:

In this example, the wooden beams of the lock gates follow the upper horizontal third and the vertical metal bars are placed roughly on the right hand vertical third.



This example is less obvious, but it still follows the rule of thirds - the stones of the weir follow the lower horizontal third and the vanishing point formed by the river is placed on the intersection of the upper & right hand thirds:



This example, at first glance, appears to break the rule as the strong horizontal line of the edge of the wall is roughly in the vertical centre of the frame, but in fact, the composition does follow the rule - the river bank follows the lower horizontal third and the white boat is placed on the intersection of the lower and left hand thirds.



Once you learn and memorise the rule of thirds, you will start to notice it crops up everywhere and the vast majority of films, tv and photography adheres to it, as does the compostion of all 2D art, be it paintings or pencil drawings or any other form.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
As for composition, by far the most important principle to learn, and always the starting point for any education in composition is the rule of thirds:


Nope. The rule of thirds is just a guideline for beginners in photo composition. Now, to say that the rule of thirds is "by far the most important principle to learn", this is a very narrow-minded idea.
True art does not follow childish rules. Take, for example, the most famous painting in the world, Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci:



What is the main subject of the composition? Jesus, of course. But Jesus is right at the center of the composition!
Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PMSL, you utter clown, yet again you make a fool of yourself. Clearly you have no background nor education in art as if you did, you would know that the first and most important rule and basis of composition is the rule of thirds and one of the men who established this was the man who painted The Last Supper - Leonardo da Vinci.

The Last Supper, in common with all of Da Vinciu's work absolutely does follow the rule of thirds and another key tenet of composition - the Golden Mean. In fact, The Last Supper is one of the most commonly referenced paintings in teaching these rules to art students, such as this online lecture:

http://drawingandcomposition.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-golden-mean-lecture-5.html

And in this lecture:

https://rogerrowley8.wordpress.com/research/compositional-techniques/

"As an example, by applying this theory to Da Vinci’s The Last Supper note how the table itself sits along the bottom horizontal line. The left vertical line crosses Judas, Peter and John, and the right vertical line crosses Thomas, James and Philip. Interestingly, the greatest tension in the piece is at these two points, while Jesus occupies the exact centre of the painting with a calm demeanour. Whatever your religious beliefs are, the story this painting tells is furthered by Da Vinci’s use of the Rule of Thirds."



Even a first year art student knows this, it is one of the first things that is taught in art and Da Vinci and his use of the rule of thirds and the Golden Mean is taught to every art student as a case study.

Everyone is familiar with Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man - it is drawn in order to illustrate the rules of composition, i.e. the golden mean and rule of thirds:



There is a huge amount of material written about Da Vinci, the rule of thirds and the golden mean, it is the basis of Western art and has been ever since the Rennaissance. The rule of thirs is a visual expression of the mathematics of the golden mean, it is one of the intrinsic, foundational aspects of all visual art.

https://www.zenartsupplies.co/blogs/toolkit/golden-rules-of-composition-in-art-explained-illustrated

https://lorimcnee.com/rule-of-thirds-composition/

So once again, you prove to be completely full of shit and nothing more than a snide, obnoxious troll who seems to take vicarious pleasure in continually humiliating himself.

You have shown that you don't know even the most basic rules of composition or the intrinsic basis of visual art, so I suggest you go away and find somewhere else to troll as you're achieving nothing here other than making a total fool of yourself.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
all of Da Vinciu's work absolutely does follow the rule of thirds


Complete ignorance. The rule of thirds was first documented by John Thomas Smith around 1797, well after the death of Leonardo da Vinci. This is very well explained in Myth #7 of the video below by Tavis Leaf Glove, professor of Fine Arts and writer of books on art and photography (there are several books of his authorship, including on composition, for sale on Amazon.com ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7fahM5sBQ

In the video Tavis Leaf Glove destroys the various myths about the rule of thirds. The rule of thirds is only useful for beginning photographers and painters. Leonardo da Vinci didn't use (nor knew, actually) this silly rule of thirds. This is clear in the Last Supper, as I have shown, but also in the Mona Lisa. Note that there is nothing important in the 4 points given by the rule of thirds!



PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just stop this bullshit now, you are making an utter and total fool of yourself and making it extremely obvious you have zero knowledge of this subject beyond what you can quickly Google.

The rule of thirds, the golden mean and the Fibonnacci spiral are all aspects of the same mathematical principle that has been at the heart of all visual arts for more than two millennia, the mathematic principles were known to the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians and as a result, surviving examples of art from all that time ago follows the exact same rules of composition as Da Vinci and Michaelangelo did millenia later. Why? because the underlying mathematics did not change and has not changed to this day.

Euclid defined the basic maths behind the rules of thirds/golden mean in the third century BC, however he wasn't the first, much earlier scholars such as Pythagoras had also studied these principles:

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Golden_ratio/

The material discussing how theese mathematical principles influence the visual arts is almost endless:

https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/golden-ratio-designers/

As for your statement about the Mona Lisa not following these rules, well, that is absolutely hilarious and ranks alongside some of the most stupid and ill-informed things you have said.

The Mona Lisa is one of the textbook examples of the use of these rules of composition and has been used for centuries to teach these rules to art students :

https://jackkvalee.weebly.com/photography/rule-of-thirds

"The Golden Spiral is created using the Golden Rectangle. Once you have your rectangle of 1,1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 units squared boxes respectively, as shown in the image above, you can start constructing the golden rectangle. Using the square side as you radius, you are to create an arc that touches both the points of the square diagonally. Repeat this for every square within the golden triangle and you’ll end up with a Golden spiral.



This technique has been used in many great and famous piece of art such as the mona Lisa shown below.



Leonardo Di Vinci was also a fan of the Divine proportion (and many other curious subjects as a matter of fact!). The wondrous beauty of the Mona Lisa may be due to the fact that her face and body respect the Golden ratio, as do real human faces in nature."



https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/golden-ratio-designers/



https://www.imagen-estilo.com/Articles/Photography-basics/rule-of-thirds.html