Thoughts on Photography

Thinking in B&W to Improve My Photography

 
   

I've long suspected that my move from film to digital has come at a price.  Very simply, digital photography, with its full color in-camera previews makes it easy to get in the habit of ''point, shoot, check the histogram then re-shoot if necessary."  This method has created a lazy approach to the fundamental components of photography. 

Back in my film days, 90% of my photographs were shot in b&w.  Over time, I came to think in b&w.  Only now do I realize what a powerful mindset that was.  When you remove the color information, your mind changes.  Think about how your previsualization works when you know that the color you are seeing will not be part of the final image.  You immediately begin to focus on things like texture, contrast, tonal range, shape, and form.  All of the subtle things can turn a good image into a great image.  Heck, I used to actually use the "zone system" to place the shadows or highlights right where I wanted them.  Just thinking about the zone system before pressing the shutter is an exercise in good photography.  It causes you to consider the elements in the photographs as elements and how they should work as part of the whole. 

Digital photography's convenience and free do-overs has made me lazy.  "I can always fix it later in Photoshop," I would think.   Well, as any good photographer will tell you...getting it right in camera is the beginning of a great image. 

An additional benefit of removing color information from a photograph is that it allows the image to be viewed in a new way...one that emphasizes things that can get lost or muted otherwise.  An example is above.

The color image was created five years ago; the b&w version was created yesterday after I came across the image while backing up files. The potential of this image escaped me when I first processed the color version five years ago.  Look at how the contrast, tonal range, and texture really show up in the b&w version.  I finally saw the power of these elements by converting the image to b&w.   

Its time for me to get back to thinking in black and white. 

Working a Subject

Through my many on-line photography classes, I have been repeatedly instructed to "work the subject."   Applying this advice when I find a subject that interests me forces me to look at the subject from many different perspectives.  A few simple concepts for working a subject:

• Choosing perspective:
  • low or high
  • askew or balanced
  • dominating the frame or part of a larger composition
• Choosing composition
  • centered or off-center
  • "rule-of-thirds" or breaking the rules
  • minimalism or regular scale
  • horizontal or vertical orientation
• Choosing lighting
  • back-light, sidelight, front light (amazing differences when dealing with foliage)
  • is there a better time to revisit the subject than right now?
  • strong light or diffused light
• Other Considerations
  • shallow depth-of-field or maximum depth-of-field
  • frame within a frame possibilities
    
    

The list goes on and on, but this sets the mind in the right direction.  In practice, I will usually shoot about 30-50 images of a subject I really like, modifying my camera position for each shot.  Trying to compose multiple ideas of the same subject often yields interesting results.  Sometimes I am frustrated by how I only have one image out of 50 that is actually good, while other times, I come away with more than one image from the bunch that I like. 

An example using my own photographs:

The following four images were taken on a trip to South Africa last November.  The first one I shot before going into the winery and tasting the local grape juice. While sipping the wine and viewing my images in-camera, I realized that I had a subject that deserved to be "worked."  The last three images are the result of that extra work. 

Flipping Photos

I had an "AHA!" moment this weekend.  I have been watching instructional videos on using Photoshop CS3 and reworking some old images that I liked, but never loved...just to see if I could make some magic happen.  Well, I didn't make any magic, but I did learn something simple and effective for improving an image.  The FLIP. 

In my prior post (Feedback from a Pro), I shared the pro's idea about how we read left to right and how this also impacts how we view images.  His instruction to me was to have something interesting on the left side of the frame and avoid dead space there.  I further interpreted this to mean that the image should flow from left to right if it is to feel natural or more soothing.  Not all images flow, but those with pattern, repetition and strong line tend to.  "Feeling natural or more soothing" may not be the objective of the image, but if it is, this left to right idea makes some sense. 

Here are a couple of photos I worked on yesterday where I like the overall composition, but found that by FLIPPING the image horizontally, I had a much more natural flow and balance.  I'll discuss why I think so under each photo.

Before:

After:

Why I like the Flipped Image better:

In this case, this image is slowly paced and flowing. The original version, with the women walking to our left (opposite of how we read) creates a sort of tension among them.  Not sure why, but it does.  With the women walking to the right, they seem to flow thru the image more naturally.  In addition the lamp on the wall to the left provides a key element in drawing us into and then across the image.  On the original version, the lamp just seems to be in conflict with the women's pace.  Finally, and this may be just me, the Flipped version seems brighter and just a tad more vibrant to me, even though I know it is not.

Before & After:

 

Why I like the Flipped Image (the one on the right) better:

It actually hard for me to say why I like this one better, but I do.  For some magical reason, the red umbrella becomes the subject of the flipped version, where as the original version seems to be struggling for a subject.  I would even argue that, in the original version (left image) the blue umbrella is competing (and failing) to be the prominent subject.  Its interesting to me that the red umbrella looks brighter and more saturated in the flipped version, even though I know it is not. 

Something else at play here is the direction of the glance of the woman in the light colored jacket. Her glance to the left in the original version causes a subtle tension, while in the flipped version it seems more natural.  Again, this is that "reading right to left" thing coming into play.

All of a sudden, I'm feeling compelled to revisit all of my favorite images to see if flipping them will have me seeing them in a new way.

 

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."

Isolate and Simplify

Robert Capa's oft quoted saying "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" is advice to make a career on.   This post is closely related to that idea.  It is about seeing a potentially good image and then choosing a compelling composition to make an impactful image. 

A quote from Charles Mingus will start the mind in the right direction.  He said "making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.   For me, this applies just as much to photography as it does to music. 

I relate this idea to my photography by endeavoring to create an image that tells only one story, and then have it tell that story in a simple, yet sophisticated way.   I do this by removing any elements that aren't supporting the story.  I isolate and simplify before I release the shutter.  And often during post processing I will isolate and simplify some more, by changing to a non-standard crop, for example.  If I'm successful, I have an image that has just the right amount of visual information and not a bit more.  With photography, a medium that captures an infinite amount of detail, the art isn't in the inclusion of subject matter as much as it is the exclusion of unnecessary elements within an image. 

I'm going to use one of my own experiences to make the point.   Last September, I was in Venice, Italy and came across a scene with tremendous photographic potential.  It was a scene that I felt captured the essence of being in this beautiful place.   The scene I came upon is seen below in an image taken by a fellow traveler:

Upon seeing this, I thought, "Wow!  Look at that cat on the ledge!  What a shot!"  So in the short time I had to think and compose, I realized a few things that would make a more powerful image of this subject matter before me.  First, I realized I wanted to have an even focal plane and moved directly across the canal from the cat and window.  Next, I zoomed in as far as my lens allow to "isolate and simplify" the scene.  In the end my lens wasn't long enough and I did additional cropping to simplify even further. 

The result is one of my favorite travel images and is seen below:

It was good fortune that the lady came to the window just as I had set up the shot.  It was also good fortune that the cat glanced away at the same time. 

The second image is exponentially more memorable, interesting, emotive, and pleasing to look at.  Let's look at why this image works. It works because all the elements contribute to the story.  It works because I removed any elements that complicated the story.  I chose NOT to include the edge of the building with the boring sky in the distance.  I chose NOT to include the windows below or any hint of the boat/canal.  The reason for this is that the textured wall and shuttered window gives just enough information to give the image a sense of place without detracting from the storyline of the woman and cat.  Isolating the scene in this way also serves to give more drama to the actual ledge, not knowing exactly how high it is, or what is below. 

Isolating and simplifying, in this case, turned a fun snapshot into something much more. 

Negative Space - Going Beyond the Rule of Thirds

Negative space, I've learned, is a concept most drawing and painting students hear about early on in their education.  Somehow, the school of photography seems to skip over this idea.  I've read countless books on photography, taken a number of classes and not once has this lesson come up. 

Someone introduced me to an article about negative space a couple years ago and I've been struggling to learn the concept.  Well, yesterday, I was browsing through some galleries on altphotos.com and came across a prolific photographer whose gallery is full of many compelling images.  After spending time trying to figure out what it was that set these images apart from the many others I have seen done in a similar style and of similar subjects I settled on this:  his effective use of negative space makes all the difference. 

I am not a master of negative space, conceptually or photographically.  So, I find the best thing I can do is share the article and photo gallery mentioned in the previous paragraph.  It's really good stuff.

The Article:

Composition, A Primer on Positive and Negative Space, by Michael Fulks

The Gallery:

Krzysztof Lisiak

Take Two - Double Your Chances for a Successful Image

Here's a quick tip to double your chances for getting a great photograph.  Whenever you finish a shot, rotate the camera 1/4 turn and shoot the scene again.   Make a habit of shooting your subjects in both horizontal and vertical formats.  Professional photographer Bryan Peterson has been quoted as saying "the best time to shoot a scene vertically is right after you've shot the scene horizontally."

After doing this for awhile, I'm a big believer.  Horizontal and vertical compositions can bring completely different feelings to the same scene.  In general, a horizontal composition will give a calmer, more expansive feel to an image.  Vertical compositions work well at giving a subject more stature and tend to feel more dynamic. 

When switching between formats, you often need to recompose the scene a bit.  Sometimes, you will even find yourself switching lens focal lengths.  To be sure, you will leave the scene with more images to choose from and a better understanding of the strengths that each orientation brings to your compositions.  In the end, you will have doubled your chances of getting the shot you envisioned. 

A couple of my own images to illustrate the point (click the images for the full-size version):

Notice in the images above how the horizontal image gives a different feeling than the vertical.  The trees have much more stature and impact in the vertical composition.  The horizontal image emphasizes the lengthly shaded pathway and feels a bit calmer. 

In the cityscapes above, I recomposed with a shorter focal length for the horizontal image.  Both shots were taken within 30 minutes of each other with the tripod located in the same spot.  Unfortunately, I lost the beautiful sky in that time on the horizontal image, but that's a topic for another blog.  Which image do you think presents a more vibrant interpretation of the city?  Which image gives the city a more expansive feel?  Which image gives the buildings downtown more stature? 

The simple choice of camera orientation has great impact on how an image is interpreted.  When working a subject, double your chances of getting just the shot you are hoping for by remembering to shoot both horizontally and vertically before moving on. 

Telling Stories with Photographs

I like images that tell a story. Even better, I like images that only begin a story, or tell the middle of a story, but leave the ending open to interpretation. Images that force me to use my imagination stay with me much longer after viewing them than those that don't. It may be that the image is mysterious, or curious or even a bit absurd. No matter what the storyline is, if it is unfinished, then the image to me is almost always stronger because of it. To me, this is the difference between art and a snapshot.

Key to this concept of storytelling is keeping an image simple. An image should only be telling one story. It is tempting as a photographer to tell as much of the story as possible by including many elements in the image. Usually this creates multiple storylines that compete with each other and dilute the real impact of the image. What I am finding is that the image is much stronger, the less of the story it tells.

A few images of my own to illustrate the point:

Frankly this image is just a snapshot from a trip I took to Kuala Lumpur. The subject is chinatown but there is just way too much going on here for the image to even begin to tell a story. It's only use is to serve as a documentation of the place itself and what it looks like.

This image was taken a few minutes later and has eliminated many of the unnecessary elements/distractions. Doing so allows it to really begin telling the story of this place. The limited (albiet still too much) information in this image puts the imagination to work filling in the gaps of the story. This to me is a much better representation of chinatown than the first image.

This is one of my favorite images of all time for the very reason that it is all about storytelling. We arrive here, not necessarily at the beginning of a story, but in the middle. And the end of the story is completely left to the imagination.

By deliberating framing this image to include only the men's bodies, the imagination is forced to look at all the other details for clues.  We tend to do this naturally, without thinking that we are doing it.  Who are these men?  How old are they?  What kind of relationship do they have?

One final note about creating storytelling images.  The key to success lies in choosing to include only enough content to tell ONE story.   Always remember when composing your image:  Less is More. 

Photography as Art: Form and Subject

An image is a portrayal of both FORM and SUBJECT with one usually dominating the other. For me, the most memorable images balance the two in an interesting way. One dimensional images that emphasize FORM become cliché very quickly because the cleverness wears off and there is nothing of interest then left. Those images that emphasize only SUBJECT have a better chance of being memorable if the subject is unique, but more often become repetitions of work already seen (take the ubiquitous look-a-like sunset images one sees in nearly every photo album).

So it is the image that blends form and subject in an interesting way that really becomes a work of art. It this kind of image that forces the creator of the image to think beyond just capturing what is there or being clever in composition. When it is done well, the emphasis of both subject and form in an image offers an open canvas for deeper expression and interpretation...it becomes thought provoking art.

Furthering these thoughts, two types of photography come to mind that serve as examples of singulalry focused imagery.  By this, I mean they emphasize Form or Subject almost exclusively. 

First, minimalist photography is all about form. It's at first very attractive and fun to look at because it does one job very well....forces a photographer to simplify an image (which pays big dividends in making an image effective). But upon living with minimilist photos for a time, the cleverness wears off and there really isn't anything else left to ponder or interpret. So a minimilist image fulfills it's objective of making FORM interesting, but falls short soon after that. 

Second, nature photography is predominantly about subject. Again the beautiful sunsets and changing leaves make for some truly stunning images, but at the end of the day, these are mere recordings of beautiful places and times. It's easy to become saturated and bored with these images after a short while because of the simliarity and "expectedness" of the subjects. A few nature photographers' work beyond this, and their work really bucks this trend (see Steven Jusczyk's galleries). But for the most part, nature photography for me is more documentary than it is artistic.

Here are a few of my own images to illustrate the point:

FORM
Although this is at first interesting for it's pattern (form); there isn't anything here to keep the interest long or offer a canvas for contemplation or interpretation.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

SUBJECT

I like to call this kind of image "bathroom art". It's nice to look at, but not entirely interesting beyond just what is in the picture.

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

BLEND OF FORM & SUBJECT

Here is where I think the blending of form and subject are really at work in unison...I have titled this image "exclusivity" and based upon the feedback I've gotten from different viewers of the image, it has been interpreted in multiple ways - each comment revealed as much about the viewer as it did about the image. That's where we cross the line into photography being a form of thought-provoking art...where an image becomes more about the interpretation of the image than the image itself.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

For me, really good photographic art is going to make me stop and think, not just about what I am seeing or how clever it may look, but about the story, message or idea that an image is communicating.  Further, what does my interpretation of that message say about me, about society, about whatever thought process the image sparks?  For me, if there is no idea, then there is nothing to hold my interest, and in the end, there is no meaningful art.