Tag: Photographic Vision

Photography Philosophy – Part V – Identity and Self-Expression

Posted on Posted in photography philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

A photo doesn’t just show you what’s in front of the camera. It shows you something about whoever’s holding it too. What you point it at, what you wait around for, how you frame the thing, all of that gives you away eventually, whether you meant it to or not.

The selfie question

Take the selfie, probably the most modern version of self-expression going. For some people it’s genuine. For a lot of people it’s a carefully staged little performance for Instagram, hashtag lifestyle, hashtag ootd, hashtag me-myself-and-I. I’m not knocking it exactly, but it does make you wonder how much of it is really self-expression and how much is just performance.

That’s not really what I mean when I talk about photography reflecting who you are, though. Photography’s the one art form where you get to look through the exact same hole I looked through when I pressed the shutter. You’re seeing what I saw, in that instant, and depending on how I’ve edited it afterwards you might catch a bit of whatever was going on in my head at the time too.

Picture two people either side of a coin held up between them. One’s looking at the head, the other’s looking at the tail. Neither of them is wrong, they’re just seeing half the thing. A photograph works a bit like that. What you take from it depends on where you’re standing, and more than that, on everything you’re carrying with you before you even looked at it.

What a photo says about me, whether I like it or not

There’s a shot I took at one of the anti-government demonstrations in Nantes a while back. Someone looking at that could reasonably assume I’ve got strong feelings about French politics. Truth is I was about as neutral as it’s possible to be, I was there for the photograph, not the cause. But the viewer fills that gap in with their own assumptions, and there’s not much I can do about that once the shutter’s gone. I do the same thing looking at other people’s work, so I can hardly complain.

Then there’s the question of why I press the shutter at that exact split second and not a second before or after. Cartier-Bresson had a whole theory about the decisive moment. Mine’s less elegant: I try to clear the frame of anything distracting, get my subject exactly where I want them, or just wait until they walk into the right spot. Means I miss plenty of shots. That’s fine, it’s part of the deal. Has it turned me into some miserable perfectionist? No, thankfully. Do I still push for that extra bit of effort anyway? Yes. Not for me particularly, more for whoever ends up looking at the photo afterwards. Call it professional pride if you like. If you’re going to bother doing something at all, you might as well try and do it properly.

Have I actually changed, though?

I’m honestly not sure my subject matter’s moved on as much as I have. Am I still taking roughly the same photos I always did? Probably, yeah. But I’ve picked up plenty along the way, mostly off YouTube if I’m honest. Forty-odd years since I started, and I’m still learning new things every year, more in the last ten than most of the decades before that. I know more about film now, how to shoot it and develop it properly, and I’ve got a lot better at editing. Worth mentioning I trained in desktop publishing back in 2003, of all things. Twenty-odd years ago, Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress, the works. Feels like a different life.

New gear and different lenses got me properly into wide angle for a while, enough to get it out of my system, or so I thought at the time. I’ll probably go back to it again at some point, knowing me. Either way it changed how I look at a scene, and I know how to use the distortion now instead of fighting it. It gives a photo a different kind of impact, something a bit more unusual than the standard view, and it’s occasionally the thing that makes a client notice a shot.

Confidence has come the boring way, just from doing it over and over. Getting out with the camera is still the only trick that actually works. Some people might say I lean too much on gear. Maybe. But I’ve put the hours in too, and at some point that earns you a bit of trust in your own eye.

Do I take the same photos now as I did in 1987? In some ways, yes, because whatever’s essentially me still comes through in the picture. Back then I was purely obsessed with nailing the exposure, and I didn’t have a fraction of the technique or the visual references I’ve got now. I was also fifteen. I’m over fifty now. The core of it hasn’t moved much. Everything around it has, same as it would for anyone after thirty-odd years.

Thirty years in France

Something people might not know: I’ve lived in France longer than I lived in the UK. Has that got into my photography somewhere? Maybe. Probably, actually.

France gave the world Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau, and their street work still gets me every time, that deceptive simplicity that looks effortless and clearly wasn’t. I’d be lying if I said that hasn’t rubbed off on me. It’s there in how I look at Nantes, walking around with a camera, feeling like they’re somewhere just behind my shoulder. Subject matter shifts country to country too. The UK and France don’t hand you the same photos at all.

Doesn’t stop there either. I’ve picked up just as much from photographers online. Sean Tucker, Thomas Heaton, James Popsys, Mango Street, Peter McKinnon, and Jamie Windsor, that lot have all left a mark one way or another. Not a single Frenchman on that list, which says more about me than about French YouTubers. I speak French all day at work and everywhere outside my front door. By the time I’m home I want my own language back. That’s a me thing, not a them thing.

So does the camera show who I am? Some of it, probably more than I control. My photos say something about how careful I am, or I’m not, about being fair to what’s in front of me, about which places pull at me, Nantes streets, French light, and about which photographers I’ve let get under my skin. I don’t think that adds up to some tidy answer about identity. It’s more that every roll I shoot is a little bit of evidence, and I’m not always the one who gets to read it. Maybe that’s the interesting part. I’ll let you decide what mine says about me.

Also in this series: Part I — An Introduction  ·  Part II — Why Do We Photograph?  ·  Part III — The Emotions of Photography  ·  Part IV — The Art of Storytelling  ·  Part V — Identity & Self-Expression  ·  Part VI — Connection Through Photography  ·  Part VII — The Philosophy of Impermanence  ·  Conclusion

Photography Composition: How to Frame a Shot With Intention

Posted on Posted in Photography TutorialsTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Good composition is the difference between a photograph that holds attention and one that gets scrolled past. The rule of thirds, leading lines, symmetry — these aren’t arbitrary rules, they’re the language of visual weight, and understanding them is the foundation of all strong photography. This guide covers the core principles with examples, whether you shoot film or digital.

In my last article we talked about exposure, and balancing the elements that form the “exposure triangle”, i.e. the sensitivity of the film that we’re using, of the ISO setting on our camera sensor, the shutter speed, i.e. how long we let the light hit the film, or camera sensor, and aperture, i.e. the size of the hole that light comes through measured in F-Stops.  When these elements are in perfect osmosis, we should get a decently exposed photograph. 

Introduction to composition principles

Now we shall take this knowledge and build upon it with notions of composition, i.e. how we will organise the elements in our photograph.  Sometimes we have control of where these elements are, for example when creating a still life image.  Other times we have no control whatsoever and just have to move ourselves instead.  The way we do this is by thinking about our “Composition.”

As humans we are all guided by rules, some universally moral, some defined by the country we live in (like in France where they seem to be forbidden to make a decent up of tea), and Art is no exception.  There are rules in Art that make an image pleasing naturally to the eye, and, believe it or not, these “rules” have been around for a long time.  Now I hear you little rebels sat at the back of the classroom near the radiator saying how you don’t live by rules, and that you break every rule in the book.  And I have no problem with that.  I would however suggest you learn the “rules of composition” first and then, and only then break them knowingly.

Photography is art made with light, and the first photographers were heavily influenced by the art and paintings in the local Art Galleries.  They therefore had a very “classical” notion of composition.  I want you to imagine those massive oil paintings in a gold frame showing a Victorian gentleman looking over the top of a waterfall, framed by the forests, and still looking so dapper.

The Rule of thirds

This is one the first things that people will talk about when talking about composition.  The idea, as the name suggests is to divide a photo equally into thirds horizontally and vertically, and put the point of interest (subject) where the lines intersect.  Or you could have a landscape photo where sky will take up two thirds of the photograph and the foreground the other third.  In editing software, when framing you shot they will put a three by three grid on your photo automatically.  Some digital cameras allow the use of this grid inside the viewfinder.  When taking a portrait you would ideally have the eye where the lines cross.  Yes Ian, but this has been done, done, and done again, and has become a cliché I hear you say.  Possibly, but it works mate!  Don’t knock it.  As I said earlier, learn the rule, master using the rule, and then you might consider breaking the rule, but it will be a conscious decision and above all, deliberate.  But it will permit a pleasing and natural result.

Leading Lines and Perspective

Leading lines are lines that lead the eye into the photograph, turning it into something dynamic.  The lines will converge on a certain point in the image, which, if you want, can be on the grid that I described in the last section.  This point is the vanishing point, and give geometrical forms to your image, and can lead to the subject of you photo.  When using straight lines,you can emphasis to shapes in architecture and acquire a very “graphic” image.  Using a wide angled lens or even a fish eye lens will emphasize these line even further and the distortion of these lenses will add even more interest to your image.  I will talk about the most common lenses in a future article.  We’re not there yet. The lines don’t have to be straight, they can be curved or S shaped.  Think of a winding road in the countryside.  Whichever version you use, there will be a feeling of being drawn in to the scene. 

In the first photograph of the original Pegasus Bridge all the lines converge to a central point with a person standing which gives us an idea of the scale of the bridge.  These straight geometrical lines give a feeling of stability and solidity. 

In the second photograph, we can see an image that uses an S curve, and as you can see, the effect is totally different.  More subtle, but they eye is still drawn in to the image.

 Leading lines can appear in nature and in the landscape.  Look at the way that the tree line and lines in the mountains converge on a specific part of the photograph and show the different layers of the photograph. 

I seem to use them in quite a few of my photos, and with time, you won’t even have to seek them out.  You will be lead…

Symmetry in photography

In last week’s article we talked about exposure and how it is a balancing act between the three elements: film sensitivity, aperture, and shutter speed. We can find this symmetry in our compositions too. 

Symmetry in photography is a fundamental principle that enhances the visual impact of images. It involves balancing elements on both sides of a central axis or point. There are various types of symmetry, including horizontal, vertical, radial, and bilateral, each offering unique opportunities for creating appealing compositions. Symmetry naturally draws the viewer’s eye, adds stability, and is particularly useful in architectural, landscape, and macro photography. However, breaking symmetry with a contrasting element can introduce tension and creativity. By framing subjects thoughtfully, adjusting camera angles, and recognizing symmetry in both natural and man-made subjects, photographers can master this powerful tool for captivating compositions.

In summary, symmetry in photography is about creating balance and harmony through the arrangement of elements within the frame. It provides a sense of order, highlights patterns, and engages viewers, while also allowing for creative deviations when necessary to convey a specific message or emotion.

Conclusion

Firstly let’s not be fixated by these rules. I was right to describe them as “guides” to composition.  Talking about them is fine, but we have to put them into action.  Don’t try to do them all at once.  Take one rule.  Look at it closely.  Think how can I use this one rule?  How can I master it, or at least take it on board.  When you think that is is engrained into your mind, then start using a different concept.  I can’t stress that when learning, take your time.  Let the concept become second nature.   

There will be occasions when you feel that you are no longer advancing in your composition, but stick at it.  You will not obtain mastery after just one outing.  I’ve been doing this for 40 years and am still learning something new each time I go out with my camera.  People talk about being on a photographic journey, and that is a very good way of looking at it.  You can’t run before you can walk.  Don’t let yourself be overwhelmed by what you might see on Instagram, or even on this blog.  We are all at different places on this path.

In next week’s episode we will explore framing, negative space, colour theory, texture.  There will be a third article to cover pattern and repetition, scale and proportion, depth and layering.  There are so many points to talk about in composition that we may even have a fourth article but we’re not there yet! 

See you next week.  Until then, keep shooting!

Also in this series: Part II — Framing, Negative Space & Colour Theory  ·  Part III — Pattern, Scale & Depth  ·  Part IV — Rule of Odds & Rules of Space