analyzing a photograph

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
1:35 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Location
Canada, eh.
View My Gallery
Aspects of a photo:

-content (how compelling - subjective)

-composition (how pleasing - subjective)

-lighting (how interesting and/or appropriate for the subject - subjective)

-extraneous visual elements that do not add to the image (the fewer the better unless the desired effect is chaotic, but then they would add to the image and not be extraneous)

-technical considerations (exposure, focus, brightness, contrast, camera movement, etc. - mostly subjective)

When all of these aspects are favourable, one has a better chance of making a good photo than if some aspects are missing/deficient. When there are several deficiencies, only compelling content is capable of salvaging a photograph. (I'm thinking of Cappa's beach landing war photo.)


What do you think? Do you approach this differently? When I'm shooting or looking at images, I just go with my instincts and intuition, but if I had to verbalize what I look for, this would be it.
 
Last edited:
Frank,

Good topic. Surprised there are no responses yet.

I wouldn't use the would "Analyze" in talking about how I look at photographs. It implies some methodical or structured process which I don't have. I certainly don't have any kind of checklist that I refer to.

In your last sentence you sort of restate the question as "What do you look for in a photograph"? To that I would say, I don't look for anything. Or rather, I look to be surprised and for that I think you just need to be open.

I guess if pressed for more, I'd say that a good photograph must be complete in that it has an underlying coherence, and every element in the picture should contribute to that.

Very general I know, but the best I can offer.

How about taking a specific photograph and discussing that?
Say, Moriyama's "Stray Dog". Pretty much everyone knows that, right?
What do you think?

Cheers,
Gary
 

Attachments

  • daido.jpg
    daido.jpg
    101.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I concentrate entirely on the photo's visual impact / evocative emotion / telling a story. That's really about all that counts.

There are a number of things that are just given as mandatory requirements. They include all the technical things like exposure, focus, composition. These can "break" a photo but never will "make" one. You can get all of these perfect but without creating some visual impact or emotion, you have a perfectly boring photo.
 
I like the aspects you define, but I'm not sure about your project of trying to systematize a way of making a judgment. For me, the important photographs are the ones that affect me in spite of not meeting my criteria of "goodness".
 
Thanks for your comments.

If you had to verbalize what characteristics a good image has, in order to help learners, how would you? Simply saying that you know a good shot when you see one, isn't going to help others.
 
That’s composition Keith, get the composition right and any old rubbish will hold the viewer attention

2852915321_2985eda411.jpg




http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2852915321_2985eda411.jpg
 
Also depends on what you are shooting. Landscaping is probably much more adapted to have a fully thought out approach of the picture one is going to take. On the contrary, street is more complex, the full analysis must sometimes happen in less than a second so some elements of a pictures will be ignored and instincts followed. Usually, I react to :
- a scene/moment/meaning
- light
- lines
- contrast
- objects/details
If my instinct feel the first four are alright, I snap unless there is a compelling reason to snap an individual element.
After that, sometimes it takes luck to go from a good to a great picture as further analysis show some previously unseen elements that add to the quality of the picture.
 
Here you can find 11 very interesting articles by Ben Lifson about photograph analysis, composition, and "understanding" a photograph. I think it is worth reading, especially the last 6 articles.
 
It’s probably quicker to check out the “thirds rule” and “gestalt theory” on Wikipedia, that chap seems a bit wordy, why do experts have to make things so complicated?


 
Last edited:
A good way the “see” what’s going on is to abstract the image by rotate the picture through 180 degrees and by sort of half closing your eyes so you just see the strong elements.

That way you can see the major features and not be distracted by the context, and if those features contain your interest in the frame, or lead your eyes to the subject of the photo your in with a chance of it working.




In practice when you’re actually taking real life pictures it all happens so quickly snap and wish still seems the best policy.
 
Stewart, thank you for pointing out that composition can hold a viewer's attention (as well as compelling content, which I initially thought was the only single aspect capable of doing so.) In abstract art, composition is often all there is.

Just to restate, I do not suggest that everyone consciously go through a checklist while photographing. This verbalizing exercise is just a way for me to understand what the aspects of a good/poor image are.

BTW Stewart, one of your examples has a pleasing composition, and the other has compelling content. 🙂
 
Frank, I specialise in well executed rubbish

I may start a genre



PS It’s not simply content in the picture of my daughter the repeating V shapes in the arm, hand and chin all concentrate ones attention on the face, composition again I'm afraid, pure luck on my part in that case
 
Last edited:
Photography is so big that interpretations of what a good photograph is has to be personal. Technical analysis on composition can be an interesting exercise but can also result in dull, recycled images. There is a trap following so called rules that everyone is supposed to keep to. I like Friedlander and Eggleston precisely because they basically flaunt the lack of compostion, subject, and content in many of their photos. I also like Ray Metzker, whose compositions and approach is a bit more straight up, because of his obvious talent working with shadows and light. A mixed bag is what photography is and why it is so fun.
 
What have liking and disliking got to do with this? those are just your personal prejudice.

Aesthetics is a psychological response to an image it has the same effect on the vast majority of people they don’t get a choice, that’s why trying to work out what’s going on is worth the effort
 
When I llok at photographs, mine or anyone elses, I am looking at the juxtaposition between the formal elements, the emotional, and the narrative of the photograph.

I kind of look at as though the formal drives the mystery, drawing your eye inward, around and back out again; the emotional evoking memories, nostalgia, a since of longing, desire for what is seen and not seen; And the narrative allowing the viewer to create the story.

There are many images that come to mind: Koudelka's work the gypsy and the horse; Minamata, Eddy Adams of the right before he is shot, Robert Capa's the following soldier (however that is more about the mystery of story telling for me), Harry Callahan's work of his wife Elizabeth, Elliot Erwitt's series of Edith, Ralph Eugene Meatyard's work. Iterbide, Flor Garduno, too many examples to list . . .
 
A totally different way of looking, that's great! Can you elaborate on what are formal elements, emotional elements, and narrative elements? I'm hoping to tighten up your explanation if possible. Your second paragraph sounds loosy-goosy to me, and I'd like to understand it better.
 
Sparrow said:
What have liking and disliking got to do with this? those are just your personal prejudice.

Aesthetics is a psychological response to an image it has the same effect on the vast majority of people they don’t get a choice, that’s why trying to work out what’s going on is worth the effort
Click to expand...

There is no circle here just a few scribbled lines, but everybody who looks at it will see a circle they won't have a choice

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom