Ignore the ‘Active Space’ Rule for Moving Subjects
Another rule of composition that we’ve talked about previously is creating Active Space for moving subjects to move into.
The idea is that if you are photographing a subject that is moving you should place more empty space in front of it than behind it. This gives the viewer of the image a sense of where the subject is moving and creates a sense of anticipation.
While following this rule can produce some excellent results, breaking it can add a little tension and intrigue to your images.
It can also convey a sense of speed and/or give the viewer a sense of where the subject has been rather than where they are headed.
For instance - the image to the left would not have been as dramatic without the trailing smoke behind the place. The fact that it’s approaching the top edge of the frame also gives a sense of speed as it almost bursts out of the frame (not to mention the clever mirroring and contrasts in the image).
This post belongs to our series of posts on breaking rules of photography to get great images.
Read more posts like 'Ignore the ‘Active Space’ Rule for Moving Subjects'
Digital Photography School is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!
In a way this can be considered reverse active space; when I first looked at the photo, my eyes were on the plane - and only then they followed the trail - almost like the action would have happened in reverse.
Interesting article, with a very suggestive photo! In this case, I think the statue from the back also plays an important role; the similarities between the two (the statue and the plane) are striking, both of them having a cross-like shape.
It would be interesting to see an article on this; two unrelated subjects that put together create a different concept.
Love the shot. Thanks for the tip.
You’re wrong.
More space in front would have made a better photograph.
I have many photographs that break the rules of symmetry, thirds etc. - and some work - but that picture doesn’t.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that comment, David. I think the photo works quite well in breaking the rule: the mountain is rising, the smoke is rising, both ending in a similarly shaped object of completely different natures. Positioning the point of focus so that the active space is ahead of the plane would leave us with empty sky and cloud, eliminating the upward motion of the mountain (and smoke) and generally be boring (IMHO).
What is the subject? Not the plane, as it is crammed into a side. So it must be the smoke trail. And what is the relationship between that statue and the smoke. None unless we should consider the locale.
It’s a little hard to tell without more context, but the statue in the background appears to be Christ the Redeemer on top of the Corcavado Peak in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
In contrast to Tharry’s comment, I think the plane could be the primary subject, with the statue being the secondary subject. Both occupy a traditional 3rds rule position of their own, and the lines created by the smoke point to the plane, making it a primary subject. The darker silhouette of the mountain create lines to the statue, although my interpretation is that the subtle nature is secondary to the plane.
In response to David, I would tend to agree with Alan. If you cover up the smoke trail and envision what the sky would look like, it strikes me as there would be a lot of dead space. You need the trail to imply motion, otherwise the plane would look even more stalled than it does now.
That is one goregous shot! I am a pilot, and do a lot of aviation-related photography, and sometimes the most difficult thing is to give the photo some sort of context, rather than the typical aircraft-in-the-clear-blue-sky shot. This ‘breaking the rules’ tip is a good one to keep in mind for this type of photography. This shot is probably from the Rio de Janero stint of the Red Bull Air Races, held in various scenic locales around the world. And it succeeds in doing what all great photographs do… makes me want to go out there and start shooting!
i find it hard to believe that this is a real photo. looks more like a photoshop job to me.
after going to Jim Skea’s site, this one isn’t the only one that is fake. he is good at photo shop for sure. i am not a professional photographer but i could see that something was wrong w/ this picture & then my husband confirmed it, just look at the light on the plane vs the light on the statue of Jesus among other things.
hey i just noticed~~ the date of my entry is wrong. today is the 14th & it’s 5:31 pm, here in Virginia anyway.
This site is run out of Australia where we’re proud to be ahead of the rest ;-)
oh thank you~~ i had no idea mate~~ bless you, want to visit some day~ but if a certain someone gets elected pres, we may move there~ what photo ops you must have~
In response to Greg W. - I wouldn’t necessarily have left out more trail, just, well maybe increased the frame height or increased the whole picture area.
Who knows? The picture is (hopefully without sounding like a card carrying photo club freak) a creative experience that you play with until it’s right.
That one just isn’t - although I take the point.
every photo has shows its self story rather to show just a click without think before this photograph doesn’t show me any good purpose
Great short article. This photo is a perfect, and inspiring example of your point. Great shot!
i think this is a beautiful and creative photo. I love how the statue has a similar shape as the plane.
Nice photo!! NZ is more ahead than Australia :P