Provide No Escape! The key to holding viewer interest. Part 1 of 4

Somewhere along the way in my development as a photographer, I realized that the "rule of thirds" was not the magic bullet of success I hoped it would be.  Many other elements are involved in making a successful image.  One which I find seldom discussed, but fundamentally critical is the concept of keeping the viewer's eye entertained within the borders of the image.  By this I mean, not letting the viewer's eye escape.  

I want to address four different concepts which I think are key to keeping the viewer's eye entertained, thereby keeping it from escaping the image.  This is not meant to be a conclusive list as much as just "points to ponder."  The four areas of discussion will be:

1. Blown Highlights & Blocked up Shadows
2. Too Much Information
3. Visual Balance & Rhythm
4. Cropping & Subject/Border Intersection

I will be using my own images for discussion on each topic.  So let's get started.

Blown highlights and Blocked up Shadows

The most common (and most easily correctible) way the viewer's eye will escape an image is through poor exposure which renders parts of the image with no details.  I'm talking about the pure whites and pure blacks you get when you blow the hightlights or underexpose the shadows.  This applies to both color and B&W photgraphy.  If these detailess spaces in the image are large enough, they become at best, minor distractions, but often are much worse.  Why?  This lack of detail means the eye has no visual information to hold it's interest.  Given enough dead space, the eye has a perfect escape route right out of the image.  Here's an image guilty on both counts:

Notice that your eye doesn't spend any time exploring the dark shadows on the upper part of the walls.  That's because there is nothing to see, just blocked up shadows.

It only gets worse.  The blown hightights in the background not only provide no visual detail, they are so bright, they are actually overpowering and distracting from the primary subject of mother and child.  REMEMBER THIS TRUTH:  THE EYE IS ALWAYS ATTRACTED TO THE BRIGHTEST PART OF THE IMAGE FIRST.  This photo just never had a chance. 

One last, unforgivable sin of this image is that the highlights provide an immediate escape route for the eye right out the top border of the image.  Whenver the blocked up shadows or blown out highlights touch the edge of the image, the eye will use these to escape the frame.  No debate, no appeal, you lose, three strikes, you're out, now go sit on the bench and think about what you've done.  (I'll write more about this in Part 4)

Anyway, who shot this horrible photo?  (oh yeah, this is mine from Venice in 1993).

Don't believe me on this stuff yet?  No problem, let's explore a similar, but properly exposed image:

So here, we are immediately drawn to the brightest part of the image.  (The photographer who made this was 12 years more mature than the one who shot the first image, so the highlights aren't blown in this case.)  After viewing the main subject, our eye follows the line of the steps out to the border of the image and then quickly bounces back to the main subject.  The shadows have just enough detail as to not be blocked out, but not enough to hold interest for more than a fleeting second (you may need to click on the image to see this in the larger version).  The eye moves in a back and forth pattern, but always returns to the subject.  No Escape! 

Let's look at a couple more images before leaving this discussion.

 

This is an image I made last fall in Florence that I really wanted to like.  I like the subject matter, the story, and the mood.  But it just doesn't make the cut.  And if you've read this far, you know why.  The eye travels to the brightest part of the image first.  Here that it is at the crossroads in the distance.  Now, that part of the image really has nothing to do with the subject matter and is nothing but a huge distraction.  I tried to burn in the details, but couldn't fully recover them.  I tried cropping in from the left to get rid of that part of the image altogether, but that leaves the photo unbalanced and does not provide enough space for the cyclist to "ride" into the distance.  So, poor execution on my part keeps this image from being successful. 

Here, I was a little more successful.  I used the concept of the eye moving first to the brightest part of the image to my advantage.  I was able to anticipate this man and dog walking into the light emanating from the store window and timed my shot so that they would be somewhat spotlighted in that space.  I choose a low-key exposure to keep details in the shadows while not allowing the ornate buildings too much light as to detract from the subject.  When looking at this image, the eye goes first to the man & dog and then explores the rest of the image briefly before returning to the man & dog.  This is caused almost exclusively because of the lighting of the image.  While this image is far from flawless, I think it illustrates the point of this post.

Stayed tuned for Part 2, where we will address the issue of "Too Much Information."

Comments

[Craig Persel]

Excellent essay and food for thought. I'll have to stop and think about my images in this context.

I liked that 2nd image so much I copied it over to PS and played around a bit with some cropping. I took some off the left AND top to give it a somewhat panoramic composition. Seemed to work, but naturally not as well as it would have if the left end could have been saved. Still ... an excellent shot.

The last image is a killer. Has everything going for it with that wonderful spotlight and tonal qualities. In my opinion, a real masterpiece. The eye really does move around the image and return to the spotlighted man and dog.

Craig

[Jeff Seltzer]

Well said! I wonder how this image fits into the discussion?

http://www.pbase.com/jseltzer/image/56705068/large

[Chuck]

Jeff,

Cool image, I remember this one. My thoughts as pertains to this post are that the highlights seem fine and the only blocked up shadows are in the extreme bottom of the image. This could be due to an uncalibrated monitor, but as I see it, the bottom of the image goes pure black. The area of pure black for me is just large enough to be a discraction and give an unbalanced feel to the image.

Because this image is all about line and perspective, the fact that the bottom has no detail leaves me feeling like that part of the image is floating and not grounded structurally. I would think this good image could be stronger with more detail at the bottom.

This image actually leads me down the path of thinking more about tonal range than blown hightlights/blocked up shadows.

You have a captured a wonderful range of tones. I'm wondering if you dodged the floor a bit lighter and made the darkest parts of the image only the baseboard and doors. This might empasize the depth and perspective. Right now, that dark carpet is really competing for attention and it's the least interesting part of the image.

I'm wondering how you feel about how it fits into this discussion.
Chuck

[Sam]

Yes, but why not use software to get what you want with these images.

I've just done that with your first image.

Very often there is enough tones, whether we shoot JPEG or RAW, and sometimes regardless of the histogram's state:

http://thewhatandwhy.slashedcanvas.co.uk/2007/12/16/when-blocked-up-shadows-aren%e2%80%99t-really/

[Burberry Outlet]

This might empasize the depth and perspective. Right now, that dark carpet is really http://www.outletburberryoutlet.com competing for attention and it's the least interesting part of the image.

[Office 2007]

Ah well your comment! I did you good!