Maybe I was just too tired when I read that, but I am THOROUGHLY confused. I kept looking at the rectangle and squares and it was saying "If you take out the square, you have the same thing left over." And I kept thinking, no you don't!! If you take out the square you have almost a perfect square left. Maybe it's too technical for me. I may just have to stick to the rule of thirds. In ANY event, I appreciate the new reading and the new idea/technique just the same!
i kept going over this in a composition book i had, even asked hub if he could figure it out so once i saw pictures here i figured it was easier to get at least for me..don't ask me to explain it but i can understand the "put an x thru the photo and shoot the subject so it's 1/2 way down the line which looks pretty much like the rule of thirds places to me so all this for nothing ???
i figured out the bit with the diagonal line...if you noticed farther down they just took a square with the sides the length you want the side of the rectangle to be, cut it in 1/2 the put a diagonal corner to corner, the length of that diagonal line would be how long the golden rectangle top and bottom would be when you add that to the square's top or bottom ie if the square is 7"x7" the g.rectangle would be 7" + the diagonal line's length (for the top and bottom) and 7" on each side