The Elephant in Our Images

[LeeR]

The Elephant in Our Images

There is an elephant in our images and no one seems to be talking about it. It looks at us from the pictures we took of the distant waterfall. We can see it again in the photos we took of our children. Every image we look at contains this same elephant waiting patiently for us to put him to work. All to often he is ignored, and our images suffer for it. Few of us are putting it to work properly and I want to see if I can begin to change that.

The elephant is composition. Occasionally you will find someone brave enough to refer to it, but finding solid information on the subject is nearly impossible. I have seen books with "composition" in the title but they are usually just an excuse for a seasoned photographer to reuse some of his better work. Seldom have I seen a well thought out examination of the subject in relation to photography. I don't know that I can do any better, but I am going to try to begin a dialogue that may be instrutional for us all. This is not a tutorial where I bestow my pearls of wisdom, but one where I invite you to participate in a process that may instruct us all.

When I was in school I was told that the most powerful things in the image were the most subtle. Subtlety sneaks past our defenses and makes an impression deep on our brains without our realizing it. Composition is that subtle elephant that hides in the background waiting for us to us him to storm the hearts and minds of our viewers without their even knowing he is at work.

For our purposes I want to limit my discussion of composition to the way elements are arranged inside the frame. As you look at these images try to do the same. Concentrate on how and where things are placed and how those things relate to the subject. In the end this is what we want; a kind of interplay between the subject and the composition, sometimes reinforcing it, sometimes working at odds. Try to think about how you might be able use some of these techniques the next time you go out to shoot. Try also to think about compositions you have created that were particularly effective.

One last note: I have made a list of thrity different common compositions and I know there are more, but this forum is only going to allow me four images. If there is enough interest, I can post more, or, better still, you could post some of your own. Perhaps you can add to our body of knowledge on this vital subject.

With that being said, let's get started:


Graphic Movement
Graphic artists have known for years that bold simple lines have the power to create a sense of movement. Lee Iaccoca said that one of the reasons the Mustang sold so well was because it looked like it was moving even when it was parked. You can create movement in your images the same way. You can use bold lines to add zip to already moving objects, or, like the Mustang, create movement where none existed before.





Visual Balance

Like the old apothecary's balance used in measuring weights, a large weight near the center (fulcrum) is required to balance a much lighter weight near the edge. Here the moon, placed near the edge, balances the silhouettes near the center. Notice how one small circle of light is balanced by a silhouette that takes up nearly half the image. There are times when this can be used to create some rather elegant balances, but don't be afraid to occasionally bump the composition just off perfect to create some dynamic imbalance. Visual balance or imbalance implies the same emotional balance/imbalance in the image. Therefore, you can let the emotion you want to evoke dictate the kind of balance you use.






Splatter
Splatter is a kind of all-over pattern. Think; graduates throwing their caps in the air, a bullet bursting a watermelon, kids toys thrown across the living room floor. Haphazard with no apparent pattern. These images (though not the one below) often create a sense of frenetic energy. As a matter of fact, that is what drew me to this image; the fact that a compositional device that usually implies energy and action was used in opposition to the calm quietness of the subject.






Near to Far
Any time we can invite our viewer's eye from the near foreground to the distance, it's a good
thing. It's like giving the viewer the opportunity to explore, usually starting near the bottom and working your way to the distant top, finding little surprises along the way. This image would have benefited from some clouds to add interest to the sky, but, of course you can't manufacture them every time you need them. However, notice that this is exactly the same image as above with the camera tilted a bit more. Often you will find this the case; moving the camera just a bit can have a profound effect on the composition, in this case, changing it from one kind of composition to another. Yosuf Karsh has said, "The difference between a $10 photographer and a $1,000 photographer is two stpes forward and a half step to the side." He is talking about composition.





There you have it; the first five. I have more, though, honestly, I'd rather see yours. Submit a composition that you believe works well and give it a name. Then tell us why you think it works. Be prepared; there may be some who disagree with you, but that's OK, it's just part of the process. We can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

[RichardTaylor]

You are right. I usually don't even think about let alone write about it, and usually just go with a "gut" feeling of what looks good even when not shooting and sometimes when cropping during post processing.
Without any formal formal training in art or photography I needed to look up Wikopedia etc for some ideas and a bit of clarification.
Some of these, from my Flickr stream, may fit the bill.

(1) Lines & shapes / Curves.


(2) Here I feel it is shape (the river), colour (if a bit subtle) and perspective cause by the the receding river, light and atmosphere.


(3) Again forms, Tension (from the two team members) and space (being isolated by DOF).


(4) Contrast in texture, colour and a bit of curved shapes.


Edit:
Just thought of a few more.

[ravncat]

Leer- hopefully this isn't too big or rotten an egg for your omelet



Here's an image that does and doesn't work. I think the primary strength of this image is repetition. More importantly when trying to use composition, is maybe understanding how it affects how we look at an image. I'll be the first thing you noticed looking at the image was the moon. - the second thing probably the central tree. Why, the moon is brightest, and the central tree is the area with the most contrast going on... Our eyes tend to go to the brightest area first....

It's easier to see compositional elements with these horrible overlays, that should really be on different frames, i've jumbled them all up here, in an attempt to replicate a teaching tool I saw somewhere once...

There are really four main areas to this image, labeled in no particular order, foreground, front wall of trees, rear wall of trees sky. These four are a base of the image, and maybe show that the epmhasis is on the foreground by having alot of area there. They also give distance cues, though the telephoto lens and perspective are working hard to compress this image and make it flat... This was shot with a short tele (85mm)





So next, repetition, it shows up in many ways in this image...

lets look at the purple lines, we see the same kind of bumpy curved line here in the foreground ice blocks as well as the tree line.

We also notice that the jumpled patterns of the ice blocks almost look like the jumbled patterns in the trees, and in a way we have some other jumbled patterns in area 2, with the dark trees and then again even in the sky we have the moon jutting out...

If you take area 1, and rotate it, you'll find that the bumpy pattern almost fit's in to itself, scroll back up to the top image and look at the curves in the negative space behind the tree zone... they fit together well. I've made them into a triangular area in yellow so you can see, triangles 1 and 2 are similar, not the same, but it reinforces the idea. You can also see elements of other triangles hiding within the triangles.

Also take note of the green lines, they almost converge at the same point of the image - they're like radial lines, which in it of themselves have nice proportion. They're not quite there though - in fact, nothing in this image is really quite there - I am not sure I like the overall balance. Take a look at what happens if you cover up area 3 - I think the image is more balanced there. When I was in the field, I didn't like having more sky in the image, and I found ending the image there had poor edges - which is why I haven't cropped it there either, perhaps I should.

One of the main reasons that I framed it this way, is noted at the large block of ice in the lower left, it creates a nice curved line, up through the tree trunk, and through the dark trees in area two, finally ending on the moon.

One final note is the color composition, it's really white brown blue, with white overwhelming the image. This image would work in black and white, perhaps even better than it does because of all the texture, and it would accentuate the lines. Unfortunately, the tone of the foreground snow and sky are very close - and the image would need much dodging and burning to really make use of the tonality available.

Repetition and use of negative space to create an image can be a strong tool. Here's one more image where Repetition is an important compositional element - and an image which relies on color contrast to "separate" the repetitive elements. It's also an image I prefer to the one above...

[junglebear]

The first rule of composition every photographer learns is the rule of thirds, but this can become more of a habit than a technique, it's all too easy to fall back on.

Sometimes a centred composition is the most powerful.





Also, fill the frame!

[bikingbadger]

This is one elephant as a new photographer I'm in great need of working on. I really appreciate the time you guys have to share your thoughts on the subject.

[LeeR]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

You are right. I usually don't even think about let alone write about it, and usually just go with a "gut" feeling of what looks good even when not shooting and sometimes when cropping during post processing.

I do have a formal education in art and photography and yet it still all comes down to "gut feeling." Regardless of how we learn it, we all have to develop that sensitivity that tells us when something "works" and when it doesn't. I loved all your images, but that first especially is just terrific. You have told your story with nothing more than a few simple lines and shapes. Nicely done.

[LeeR]

Originally Posted by ravncat

Leer- hopefully this isn't too big or rotten an egg for your omelet



Here's an image that does and doesn't work. I think the primary strength of this image is repetition. More importantly when trying to use composition, is maybe understanding how it affects how we look at an image. I'll be the first thing you noticed looking at the image was the moon. - the second thing probably the central tree. Why, the moon is brightest, and the central tree is the area with the most contrast going on... Our eyes tend to go to the brightest area first....

I rather like this image but I disagree in part with your assessment. For one thing, it is true that our eyes are attracted to brightness, contrast and sharpness, but in this image the moon is no brighter than the snow in the foreground. No, I think our eyes are attracted to the moon because of where it is in the composition and the zig zag lines that lead up to it. During the Renaissance there was a popular technique called "chiaroscuro," a pattern of opposing lights and darks, and you have a bit of that going on in this image. I agree that it may look better in B&W, though I think there are better tools to use than the ones you mention.

[LeeR]

Originally Posted by junglebear

The first rule of composition every photographer learns is the rule of thirds, but this can become more of a habit than a technique, it's all too easy to fall back on.

Sometimes a centred composition is the most powerful.





Also, fill the frame!

I agree that the "Rule of Thirds" is one of those rules made to be broken. It might be more accurate if we called it the "Suggestion of Thirds" though it wouldn't be nearly as catchy. Speaking of rules, however, "fill the frame" is another one ripe for abuse. I have seen images where the primary subject was only a small part of the composition and still worked well, though your clock image works well because it does fill the frame. Also, you have instinctively ignored the rule of thirds in your first image to great effect. That image would not have been nearly as forceful if you had chosen to place your subject anywhere else.

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by LeeR

I rather like this image but I disagree in part with your assessment. For one thing, it is true that our eyes are attracted to brightness, contrast and sharpness, but in this image the moon is no brighter than the snow in the foreground. No, I think our eyes are attracted to the moon because of where it is in the composition and the zig zag lines that lead up to it. During the Renaissance there was a popular technique called "chiaroscuro," a pattern of opposing lights and darks, and you have a bit of that going on in this image. I agree that it may look better in B&W, though I think there are better tools to use than the ones you mention.

Thanks for that, and this thread- I don't have a formal training. I think that the moon appears brighter due to the sky. I would agree that the zig-zag helps lead to the moon. I also think it may do in part with the way I see, the abstract shapes kinda pop in my head alot. For example I see the image of the centered person as an application of the rule of thirds - if you look at it in areas, the top third for example taking the line where the negative space is, and the bottom two thirds again split into three, with a mid ground . fore ground. mid ground kind of break, like a flag really.

I think sometimes it is difficult to break an image down to just one compositional element, I have to wonder if multiple compositional elements work together more often than not - if there are any general guides for which work against each other.

[mikerob2334]

Originally Posted by LeeR

I do have a formal education in art and photography and yet it still all comes down to "gut feeling." Regardless of how we learn it, we all have to develop that sensitivity that tells us when something "works" and when it doesn't.

I believe you nailed it with this statement. Although there are rules (or what I like to call general guidelines) the intentions of the artist is what should drive the final composition. If you are taking a photograph of a subject, there are most likely certain aspects that attracted you to the subject to begin with. As artists, and photographers ARE artists, the problem is how to convey those attractions through your composition. If you can do this through use of the "rules" then that's what should be done. But, if the "rules" constrain the image it's time for problem solving. Although I haven't taken the advice, I was told to think as if I were still shooting with film. With digital, it has become easy for us to just toss an image that doesn't work. If we stick with the thought that "this is my LAST shot, on my LAST roll of film and I can NEVER make it back here again", a lot more thought would be put into conveying the image properly. Now that I'm shooting in RAW, I'll have to start using this advice. Looking back, I wish I had taken this advice to heart long ago. If the "rules" help your composition then use them. If they don't, make your own rules.