Composition and Critique - understanding a photograph
Understanding how to look at a photo and see what bothers you about it is the key to everything. I looked up a few sites that purported to tell you about the 'Rules' of composition and came up with this list.
And of course any list of 'Rules' comes with the admonition that these are really just'Guidelines' that you should follow until you know better. This is like wanting to learn to be an architect and getting instead a book of building codes.
So what is it that you are expected to learn?
What you will eventually learn is how people see and interpret pictures that are shown to them. These 'rules' are actually just efforts to express this in an understandable and technical way.
We aren't actually aware of everything we see during the normal day. Out subconscious filters out some high percentage of the signal and only passes what we know from experience to be useful.
There is a simple example that makes this obvious. If you have ever been to a new city or culture, the first day or so, you are overwhelmed at trying to understand what is going on around you. Your subconscious doesn't have any filters and it passes everything your eye sees to your brain. After two or three days, you've developed the filters for that environment andmost of what your eyes see goes unnoticed by your consciousness. Seeing a picture is a different experience. A viewer knows the picture has been captured and presented and really has no preconceived filters. When anyone first looks at a picture, their subconscious parses every element and struggles to decide what is important and what isn't. It uses hints about brightness, color, focus, position.
Everything in the frame either contributes or take away from the overall impression. So, from this understanding of how people actually see and comprehend comes the only real 'Rule' and its three corollaries.
Rule: Know exactly what you want to take the picture of and let that guide the composition, exposure, framing and editing.
Essentially, understanding a photo presented for critique and giving advice on what could or should be done to it is the same process as looking at your own work and deciding how to edit it to get to the best possible result with the exception that you didn't take the picture and, most of the time, you are looking at the mid-point of the edit. Things might have been done that don't jibe with what you would have done and, at the same time, some things haven't been done that you would consider important.
How is this ‘critique’ actually done? There is a skill that can only be developed by exercise of a certain unnamed mental skill. We have to train ourselves to look at the image objectively and compare that image to what we think we see in our mind and both understand the difference and see the path from one to the other.
A good/great photo is that way because everything in the frame contributes to the picture and your mind's eye sees it as a gestalt - an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.
To understand that visceral response, start off by asking yourself questions and the responses build the critique. The questions separate out the various components of a picture into manageable quantities so you can understand why you feel as you do about the picture.
Each of these questions is meant to put every characteristic into one of three categories: adds to impact, detracts from impact, neutral.
General questions that deal with the content and the composition as presented.
·What feelings or impressions come from the picture?Are these feeling congruent with the content or subject? Is the photo interesting, does the content draw the viewer in?
Specific issues with the handling of the material
Remember that wonderful, successful pictures may have many small defects and still be great. Conversely, a technically perfect picture may be completely uninteresting. Photography, as all arts are, is clearly a realm where the whole may not be equal to the sum of the parts.
Now, once you are aware of the differences between what you see and what you believe is the final, best result, it's becomes easier to formulate a plan to 'fix' everything. In a critique, you might stick to the major issues; for your own work you will have to formulate a workflow to correct what you see as defects and eradicate the difference between that you see now and what you want.
The more times you do this, the faster and more intuitive the process. Like an outfielder that starts running at the instant the ball leaves the bat, you will look the original shot and 'see' what the final result must be and the path to it.
A critique has two benefits; the intended one is to allow the photographer to see how his/her image is seen by others’ eyes - eyes that are unclouded by any emotional attachment to the image. The second benefit is that every critique can be a learning experience for the critic who sharpens his/her own eye by disentangling the many components of a photograph and weighing each of these to understand the photograph’s strengths, weaknesses and ultimate success.
Great post, Lew. I know you've provided this information to me before, but I still enjoyed reading it again. I'm practicing and working on this, and hopefully it will become second nature.
I hope you and yours are doing well.
No comments posted.
(For some odd reason the option to subscribe by email is given above and the option to subscribe using an RSS reader is below the following text. you figure that out.)
Recent PostsComposition and Critique - understanding a photograph Customizing the Lightroom Metadata Panel An Approach to Post Processing. The Salt of the Earth – a film about Sebastiao Salgado - review The Rules of Composition, The Rules of Art. Is post processing cheating? Combat Photography Using Fluorouracil for Actinic Keratosis - case study Review: Focal Point: Fine Art and Creative Photography - MD Fed Art Review- Naturevisions Traveling Exhibit at the Oakland Mills Interfaith Center