Traditional (and even some current) photography books recommend using the edges of the image to frame the picture. They suggest overhanging branches or trees on either side.
In general, I hate overhanging branches used as a frame, particularly when they don't have a trunk in the image from which to sprout.
But that leaves us with the question of what good are the edges of the image. Do they only serve to give the subject some space, or to keep your eye from wandering off to the right and out of the picture (another traditional piece of advice)?
What if instead we considered the edges of the image - that last inch or so of the print as being every bit as important as the centre of interest (which usually but not always is away from the centre)?
Strong composition demands good use of all the real estate of the image.
Let's take the example of a long lens image of a rugby tackle - with a long lens, only the ball and the fingers of the tackler digging into the thigh of the runner with the ball are sharp, the background completely blurred.
The lines that show, all be it blurred, are part of the composition and either form interesting shapes or help emphasize the ball and the hand, or they don't. If the left edge of the image is sharp while the right is blurred, there is a sense of imbalance, not to say distraction. The blurred background could be grass or the rest of the team roaring up, but ideally it contributes to the picture. Odds are that if the tackle happened on the side lines right in front of the photographer who happened to have a 28 mm. lens on one body, the photograph wouldn't be as powerful as if shot in the distance with the isolating power of the long lens.
Lines can run parallel to the edge of the image, resulting in stability, or they can angle ever so slightly and introduce tension. Lines can cross the edge or radiate from a corner. Shapes which can be real or simply of similar tones, or they can be shadows, or just large blurred areas. the edge of the shadow can just reach the edge of the print, or almost reach it or go a bit past it or can appear to be still expanding at the edge of the print - each gives a different feeling.
An edge can give the feeling that something is continuing, or it can give you the sense that you are missing something important beyond the edge - the latter being generally undesireable. A shape that is still expanding implies there may be more, one that is already contracting at the edge isn't likely to give that feeling.
Don't forget the space between shapes - that too is a shape and can be important.
The edges of the image can be light or dark but take into consideration the viewing circumstances - if the image has to be mounted on white board - say for an upcoming show - a lot of white at the edges can be a problem. Consider changing the background colours on screen in Photoshop to test various situations. Try printing the image with a large white border and see how it looks.
Fred Picker used to recommend burning in the eges of the print as a matter of routine. While some of this had to do with light falloff in the enlarger, he was also aware that strengthening the edges helped focus the eyes within the image. An area which you might want just barely off white in the middle of the image, may be better burned down a bit at the edges even if it's the same subjet material (though remember to be subtle here).
Bottom line is make your edges earn their keep.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment