Thursday, March 15, 2007

Complicated Doesn't Cut It

I've written about subtle photographs and how it can be difficult to separate those from almost good enough images. Today I'd like to point out some observations about the top images from the best photographers.

Almost invariably these are images which have a simple design - it doesn't take work to appreciate them - they may well have hidden depths but they are hidden under a bold simple design which is easy to recognize. Of course, one could argue that since more people are capable of understanding a simple image, it's obvious that these would be the most popular images - yet critics, museums, publishers and photographers themselves seem to consider these same images as the great ones.

Go to Masters Of Photography and look through a good number of the famous photographers represented and their classic images - I think you'll find that the designs of the images are elegant and simple, easy to understand at a glance, while offering more for the person who stays with an image.

This has implications for our own images. We may choose to balance half a dozen different image elements, but for the image to have widespread appeal, the image better have two or three main elements which are easily apparent and which aren't disguised by the other elements. Those three main elements better take up most of the picture unless they sit on an uncomplicated background.

For example:

last fall I was photographing a series of small falls and pools, carved rocks and reflections. An image which has three main elements (say three small reflecting pools) better have them balanced throughout the picture - if the bottom right part of the image is a bunch of jumbled rocks, then i's going to distract from the three pools. If an image has six features going for it - that gorgeous curve on the left, the light stone half out of the pool on the right, the fall of water in the top, the shadow on the bottom, the reflection in the other pool... well you get the idea - with that much clutter, the odds of making something out of it is poor.

I think many photographs fail because they aren't simple enough. You'd think it would be easy to make images simple, but it isn't!

2 comments:

Howard Grill said...

It sort of reminds me of the quote that goes something along the lines of "Painters start with nothing and keep adding until they get something beautiful and photographers start with everything and keep removing until they end up with something beautiful". I guess the trick is to remove just the right amount, no more and no less.

Dave New said...

The Master of Photography site is riddled with pop-up and pop-under ads with misleading buttons designed for the unaware to end up with adware or spyware on their machine.

Please don't refer to sites like that from your blog. I'd like to believe that links you post are at least vetted to not be vermin's nests of virii.

Thanks.