Problem Solving

At the end of the last post, we looked at a couple of ways of making our pictures stronger by thinking more about shapes in our compositions. In this post I'm going to take things a little farther.

Thinking about the importance of shapes, a good way to start out with this concept is to practice shooting with 'simple' shapes; or rather, things with fairly simple shapes in them. Things like landscapes (a horizon?) or architecture (corners of a building?) to begin with are good.

I don't mean to imply that landscape or architecture photography is the most basic. It is a good starting point and the better you become as a photographer, the better your landscapes and building shots will be!

In talking about shapes and patterns, we should bear in mind that this is a skill we need to develop, rather than a simple adjustment to our technique. It's not only about framing our subject once we have it, it's about seeing and noticing things we wouldn't have done previously. This takes learning; it's a process of increasing our awareness, conciousness and visual literacy.

Visual Problem Solving

In many pictures, I'm struck by how many times I see the same problem. The photo contains something interesting, and much else besides! The old problem of not isolating the subject enough in the frame.

In my experience, this happens for two reasons: Either the photo was taken in haste with no time given to consider the composition. Or two, no thought was given to the composition! At least when I look at a problem photo, it just seems 'wrong'. It doesn't look good sitting in the frame like that. And it is for both these reasons that I like to think of taking photos as a kind of problem solving.

After a while, your eye will begin to develop somewhat and the shapes and patters you'll notice will be more and more sophisticated. If your path of development was like mine, then it will be a little while before you'll be able to place something as complex (pattern-wise) as a human figure in a geometrically pleasing place within the frame.



There are many composition tutorials that talk about framing; they talk about negative space and "Zooming in tight on your subject so as to eliminate any distractions from your image" or "Getting in close on your subject eliminates the need for cropping later". This is sound advice, but to look at this in another way -The viewfinder is a shape. The paper your picture will eventually appear on is a shape.

If you relate your subject to the frame in this way, problems such as 'negative space' will quickly disappear.

© Tatiana Cardeal

Problem Solving

When I think of this, I like to take the example of when trying to draw; as I'm trying to draw a scene, I'm constantly looking and measuring: I'm trying to make sure everything in the scene is in proportion, one bit with the other (easier said than done of course). I do usually make one mistake or another because I haven't seen what is in front of me. It's all there, but it's a question of learning to see the whole scene; It's like the building blocks of any learning process: step-by-step. Only when one part is learned do I understand and am able to move onto the next thing.

The 'problem solving' part comes in when we see something we want to shoot, but don't know how to compose the shot. We're not sure what can be eliminated or included without upsetting the aesthetics. Or we can say that we need to be able to 'see things' and isolate them from it's surrounding...

Attracting the Eye


In trying to take a shot of this laundry rack, I was trying to show the object, but artistically. This composition just didn't feel interesting enough; I liked the texture of the drying blanket, but this view shows too much,
everything is in focus (with nothing emphasized) and just feels a bit 'flat'. As we can see, there isn't a strong shape here either...

Isolating the Subject


...With the next shot I was getting closer. The frame was now divided in two parts: The top part of the frame with the colourful clothes pegs, and the rest of the image being filled with the texture of the fabric. The composition was more interesting, but it still felt wrong. The focus is in the wrong place and there are too many pegs on view. I could even say the representation of the clothes pegs feels a bit too literal rather than 'essence of'!

All but the Essential

...Finally, with this shot everything seemed to fit. The frame is now roughly divided into three equal parts (from top to bottom) which adheres to 'The Rule of Thirds', the focus is on the pegs (close enough to bring out their texture too), there are just enough pegs to give a clue as to what the viewer is looking at, but not too many so the eye can settle on one or two, plus the pattern of the white fabric leads the eye to the subject (also creating an increased sense of distance from near to far)...

So with these particular examples, the 'shapes' theory worked quite well. Of course you wouldn't see this type of shot in a product catalogue! (it doesn't illustrate the product clearly enough) but for 'artistic' purposes this composition is fine.
When out there taking pictures, we need to apply this information. This takes a lot of work. You have to work on training your eye, but also know what will work with each image.

So again, when we see, we see in 3D. The whole problem of seeing a good photo is that we don't look and think in 2D. When we're not taking pictures, we're driving, walking... In short taking in information about our surroundings for a purpose: to get somewhere or to carry out one task or another.

You may have tried these ideas and been happy with the result, or feel there is still room for improvement. The learning process is something that contains many highs and lows. What I think is important is to think about your overall development. Measure your progress in terms of weeks and months rather than shoot by shoot. Sometimes progress is rapid, sometimes it isn't. Patience is the key; almost like taking a back seat whilst you learn and absorb and think about all this information.

Copyright © David Brooks 2007

Foundations

First off I guess I should say something about this information:

Firstly I won’t be talking about sports photography or children or still life photography specifically. This theory can be applied to any photo. It is more about the technical/visual/emotional elements rather than skills required for a certain type of photography. In this I hope it will be more readable to a wider variety of people.

Secondly this is fairly analytical, but I would hate to think of someone reading this and then going out to take photos thinking in the same way. Unless you’re practicing shots, it would most likely take all the spontaneity and energy out of your photography.

Thirdly, I'm trying to 'reach' as wide variety of photographers as I can. So this information is not technical in vocabulary. But I hope it would contain enough information to take beginners beyond the usual compositional advice, and I would be really happy if I at least stimulated a few thoughts in the rest of you!

OK, down to business…

Foundations

Technique:

In thinking about what gives a photo visual impact, I guess are two distinct things: Shapes (or patterns) and Light... Within this there are all the other elements such as texture, form, colour, tone etc. So it's safe to say, without having some form of attractive lighting or shape/pattern quality, your photo's gonna lack visual impact.

To give some examples: The image above is a picture in which lines of varying types are dominant (the solid lines of the building are ‘broken’ by the branches of the tree). Although the quality of light is OK, it does not give the image its most attractive quality.

This, on the other hand, does contain some 'pattern' elements but is light based. Without the subdued light giving this dark quality, it would be a far weaker image.

So going back to the first principle (shapes), the way I think about photography is that you’re taking what you see –from a 3 dimensional world- and trying to represent it as best you can, on a 2 dimensional surface (paper, monitor).


If you think of a mug on a table, as you change your angle of view, it’ll look different (obviously). But imagine how it would look in 2 Dimensions. That’s the point. Looking at the mug directly from above it becomes a circle -it’ll look flat-
Now think if that’s what you really want in your photo? Looking at it/photographing it like this will not give a 3 dimensional impression. That’s OK if that’s what you want, but what if you want to make it look more dynamic? What if you'd like to emphasize it? (Small, large?) Do you want it to look more 'exciting' or 'still'? All this can be achieved with the angle of the camera (your perspective), and the different zoom ratios available in your zoom lens (different focal lengths).

But this is a simple subject. What if you’re photographing something more complex such as a human face? With all the differing contours and shapes it becomes something quite different to look at, right?! This may be one reason why some of us find good portraiture so difficult to understand.

So to start off with, think of taking photos of 'simple' shapes such as buildings and other household objects. Be creative with and try to find as many angles and perspectives as possible! If you feel stuck for ideas, don't think, just snap away. Having a digital camera would be really useful as you can see your photos right away and no processing is required.

I will be posting much more on this and other compositional ideas so please stay tuned. Next time I'll take this further...

Copyright © David Brooks 2006

Introduction

As a former student of photography, one of the most frustrating things I experienced at that time was not having the relevant information I so desperately needed.

When I started my year of learning I was a beginner in photography. My classmates were not. The images they produced are still etched in my mind as being some of the best I've ever seen. Moving, profound, artistically awe inspiring... I felt totally overwhelmed at what I was seeing and could never imagine myself producing images of that quality.

I knew I had some talent, but I was in a rut. I was bored with my pictures; I knew a little about photography but needed some inspiration, and more knowlege too! This is the main reason for writing this blogg. It's so I can get everything down that I learned, and for anyone who happens to be in the same situation as I found myself all those years ago, can benefit from my own hindsight!

In every place I looked I saw discussions on lighting technique, technical camera stuff... But no great books on composition or theory of.. When I thought I'd found something, it turned out to be some pseudo psychadellic literature telling me in a very long winded way, that when I looked at a photograph, I was aware I was looking at... a photograph...?

In the beginning I wasn't so concerned with technique -although essential- at that point it wasn't my main concern. This simply was because I couldn't always get the photos I wanted. Simply put, my compositions sucked. Looking at a roll of film as it came out of the processing can, these images lacked visual impact and artistic merit. They contained nothing interesting... I couldn't understand why I took that shot!

Of course sometimes we see something and go for it, but by the time we've raised the camera to our eye, the moment's gone. Sometimes I was simply trying to capture some delicate lighting effect, which having the camera set to 'semi-auto', I was never going to be able to pick up anyway...

So this was why I was so caught up with composition. And thinking of hindsight, what I took away with me from that year of photography was what is possible -compositionally- with the viewfinder...