The Design of a Photograph

Photography is a curious art form. Heck, give a chimp one of the latest cameras and they would probably take decent photos. Don’t believe me? How about this link to a monkey taking self portraits and other photos? (OK, I know a monkey is not a chimpanzee)

Most people know that exposure, shutter speed, depth of field, rule of thirds, the golden ratio etc. are the basic vocabulary of photography. For an image to be successful, the basic techniques must be good. Notice that I did not say correct, as there are different techniques that can make the same scene and situation good, albeit in different manners.

If you ask people what makes a memorable picture, most people would say something about the content – Moonrise over Hernandez, the Naplam Girl, Flag over Iwo Jima etc. Those images are seared into the collective visual cortex and most people can recall them. Some people may mention fantastic light, and that’s certainly one reason why works by Fan Ho, Linda Connor and others are so admired.

So it’s not surprising that most photographers chase the light, they chase the content and they do artsy things to elevate their images above others. But sometimes they forget a fundamental principle: design elements, the same ones used by painters, are what differentiate between very good from the very best images.

Don’t believe me? Read this article on Eugene Smith, thisĀ  one on Henri Cartier-Bresson, and this one on Craig Semetko and Henri Cartier-Bresson. I don’t know about you, but when I first read them, they took my breath away.

I’m sure some people may still think the content or that the fantastic light is king. Perhaps, but starting now, I’m going to pay more attention to good design. This will be especially challenging for panoramic format.

As an example, to celebrate the Leap Day, I took a couple pictures of my wife leaping, also a nod to Henri Cartier-Bresson’s leap photo. When I saw the preview on the LCD, I know I got something utilizing the diagonal lines. After I imported and processed the image a bit, I added the diagonal lines as a visual aid for me to understand the image better.

Is this image successful? If so, do the lines help to make it so? Let me know what you think.

 

p.s. for a hilarious tongue-in-cheek (at least I hope it’s tongue -in-cheek) “design element treatment” of the recent World Press Photo of the year, see here.

Gloria Deen - March 1, 2012 - 3:50 am

Hi Richard,

I really like this photo. You have brought together numerous elements and it all highlights your wife’s playfulness. It made me smile. I will really miss seeing you both at Albion this year.

Julie H - March 1, 2012 - 8:37 am

What I like is you have a number of slightly tilted horizontal lines going and with the big arrow all point to the left of the photo. Which is the direction Karisu is heading. So even though the building and the painted house are static, you have motion and direction going. You could have a bunch of people standing around and one’s eye would still be drawn to her and we think that she is going while everything else isn’t.

The horizontal lines definitely over-rule the vertical which is why the act of motion stand out.

Which fits in with what that comment said, about the story happening in your photos.

Trying to remember how they worded the use of diagonal in some of the design classes I took. I know in interior design it’s used to make a room look less formal and more active. In flower arranging and with still life it’s used to keep the object from feeling static and boring. They do add energy to your photo.

So yeah, it works. Sorry for the long comment but some things are hard to put into words.

admin - March 22, 2012 - 1:00 am

Yes, too bad, but may be next year. All the Best.

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

There was an error submitting your comment. Please try again.