analyzing a photograph

Why restrict yourself to photographs? We're dealing with images. We might learn more by looking at drawings and paintings because our brains won't get side tracked by the nitty-gritty aspects that are related to the mechanics of phography, everthing from bokeh to choice of film. http://tonymafiathepainter.blogspot.com/ Tony has been dead now for several years, but he had a big influence on my "vision" when I knew him back in the sixties.
 
Last edited:
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...

Because it gets you in the door, so to speak. Liking or disliking are responses that get people involved. Perhaps a simplification, but most here at RFF like photographs enough to become involved in the hobby/profession. I could be wrong, but indifference doesn't lead to investigation.

Understanding why a person likes a particular image could well be due to recognizing hardwired patterns and if this is the case then personal prejudices may have a smaller role than thought.

I would certainly agree that we are hard wired to recognize patterns and even to get pleasure from recognizing them but I am not convinced that is what art is in its entirety. But Mr Whitehead is smarter than I and spent more time thinking about such things.

Of course, my dog just looked at my face and wagged his tail. Whether he did this because the symmetry of my face gave him a recognizable pattern causing pleasure, or he wants to go for a walk, we will never know!:angel:
 
If one of your criterion is so superior to others then you will have a good photograph. And if you have two criterion that are great you have a winner. If you don't excel but follow the rules you might have an acceptable image. Ansel Adams, because of his technically superior images, could take an image of almost anything and have a winner; example, a freeway.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

To be more specific, I am interested in the formal aspects of an image, and how it supports the narrative, while helping to evoke emotion. For example, if you follow this link it will bring you to one of my images. I am using this an example because I think this works quite well for the discussion I am about to present.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_Vjxl549wG1g/RwhpCVTldWI/AAAAAAAAAF4/GAMB5oQ4-Us/s1600-h/Manuel+008+Toned.jpg

When I refer to the formal elements I am refering to the juxtaposition of shapes; circles, rectangles, squares, triangles; The layering of an image its foreground in relationship to its background, DOP; The objects in between the spaces (as we see in Alex Webb's work a lot); And the play of light in relationship to these shapes, how they help create the shapes or take away parts of shape to create a new one; Whether or not the image is black and white or color and how the density or tone or color interacts with the image.

In this image that I am presenting to you there is an intense of formal elements being presented; triangles, squares, rectangles, and even a spiral motion if you choose to look at this image like this. I tend to start with the boy's face, which leads me in a clockwise motion around his arms to his hands, back to his face, brodening the circular motion to his legs and outward to the other elements like the dark blanket leading my eye to the lighter blanket, even futher outward to the wal, the color of the wall, the shpaes on the wall, due to the light, making my way to the bed post. And then wrapping my eye all the way back to his hands at further glance i see the tip of an object, which is where the mystery begins for me. Why is he holding his hands in such a pecliar way? Why is he leaning on the bed in such an awkward manner? As I stare more and more into this image I can feel the texture of the blanket, which makes me feel like it is that stainless steel wool that you clean your pots and pans. After viewing the formal elements, I am asking myself what mysteries or emotions does this image evoke for me? When I go back to looking at just his eyes, and his face, the fact that he is not wearing a shirt brings back the memories and emotions of when I was a boy playing and finding things to play with; a nostalgia of my own childhood, and that desire to be taken back to that place of when I was a boy. This is how this image evokes those memories for me, and each person my have their own narrative about the circumstance of a scene or a situation, a memory or feeling. I also think this image holds a lot of mystery just in his eyes, and his hands.

I don't know if I explained this any better than I did previously? I rely on the formal elements of a scene to help establish the narrative or to create a stronger narrative. Sometimes an image is just about narrative, such as Robert Capa's, Soldier being shot in the Spanish war. There are of course formal elements, however, this image is all about narrative for me. Where as a lot of Alex Webb's work is more about the formal elements and the layering of his images which seem to really establish his narrative, and someone like Sally Mann or Elliot Erwit seem to cross this gap the formal element are intertwined with the Narrative. Or Josef Sudek, where it seems his work is all about the formal elements creating a narrative onto their own.

One book you might be interested in is Stephen Shore's book "The Nature of Photography." Another person that speaks about this, but in a more abstract way is Eric Hoffmann.

I hope this is better explanation for you, and it makes sense?

Best
 
I do not think people "recognize patterns," as stated above, that evoke a certain satisfaction w/ the image. I believe indivuduals are much more complex than this.
 
Lately I've become very intrigued by negative space, the shapes of out of focus areas in front of or behind the subject, or the shapes of patterned areas within solid ones, or perhaps varying in color from the surround.
 
On a video I saw on the internet, HCB said that you should know instantly if a picture is good or not. I agree with this. Usually if someone has to explain the quality of the picture by bringing out the magnifier and explaining all the various elements, then the picture is probably not too good.

The paradox of art is that you can't use logic to determine what's good and what isn't. That's the basis of postmodernism.
 
Last edited:
I agree with antiquark, but given a good image, if on tries to understand why it is successful, it MAY help in achieving more successful images.

Thank you for your further explaination, Sisyphus.
 
FrankS said:
given a good image, if on tries to understand why it is successful, it MAY help in achieving more successful images.
Click to expand...

For example, I like the following image:
http://www.yamasakiko-ji.com/20061217231855.php

If you tried to apply the rules of good photography, this photo is an abject failure in all respects.

However it succeeds at evoking a certain mood for me.

Maybe a simple rule for analyzing a photo could be "does it evoke a mood or sensation?" The only problem with that rule is it's far from objective.
 
charjohncarter said:
Ansel Adams, because of his technically superior images, could take an image of almost anything and have a winner; example, a freeway.
Click to expand...

Not intending to be argumentative... but have you seen some of the 1940's vintage Ansel documentary work done around Los Angeles. The LA Public Library made them available (they were on the web somewhere; I wish I remember where) and it was amazing how ordinary, boring, and imperfectly executed they were. He has a large body of top-quality, award-winning images, but he also has a large body of pretty normal, almost amateur snappies.

EDIT: Look here:

http://catalog1.lapl.org/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?resultsScreen+13561+1+10+3
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
For example, I like the following image:
http://www.yamasakiko-ji.com/20061217231855.php

If you tried to apply the rules of good photography, this photo is an abject failure in all respects.

However it succeeds at evoking a certain mood for me.

Maybe a simple rule for analyzing a photo could be "does it evoke a mood or sensation?" The only problem with that rule is it's far from objective.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm not trying for objective criteria, just an understanding. In my initial post I stated that evaluating the aspects I put forward was mainly subjective.

The picture you linked to does nothing for me. A weak image will still be able to reach some viewers who have a particular sensitivity to it due to their personal experiences.
 
Very interesting analysis of your picture. Now were you aware of all of that before you took the picture ? Or did it show afterwards when you had time to contemplate it ?
Click to expand...

I aware of a lot of the things happening in the image as I was taking the photograph. For instance I was aware, of the boy's body and the formalism he was starting to create as he leaning on the bed. I was aware of the streak of light beaming on the wall, and the color of the background, and the darker tone blanket.

I was not aware how perfectly the light hit his shoulder, I was not aware or paying attention to the brightness of the sheet, which may or may not be a distraction, I was not aware of the pink shirt that is slightly behind him or in between, which I find a little distracting, but it is something I can live with; I know I can photoshop it out, but I don't feel that is appropriate though. I was not sure of my exposure either, this image was taken with Kodachrome 200, which can be a bit finicky. And, I just discovered recently, or noticed, I should say, the gray shadow the boy creates on the sheet blocking the light with his body. I am always amazed, how much I am beginning to see when I photograph, but even amazed more by how much I don't see, or how different the color looks compared to what it looks like photographed.

In general I see a lot of the formal elements, and when I am photographing I position myself in areas that will create a sense of layering, between foreground and background and wait. Sometimes I will wait for hours or return to the same place on another day, waiting for light and an interesting subject. I have more failures than successes, but it is all those failures that make my few successes so sweet.

Here is another example where I saw this enitre seen, the main subject of the pig, and waiting for my scene to unfold and to be photographed. I saw the people, anticipating there movement, but not really sure, and saw the light, and again was not sure if that would work, but my guessing and anticipation, I feel led to a successful photo:

http://unguided-tour.blogspot.com/search/label/Pork

I kept photographing and kept waiting for the dog, not knowing that whether it would cooperate with me or not, and waiting for the man to walk into position in between the pork vendor's rectangular thing.

Here is a link for the contact sheet of the images leading up to the final frame:

http://unguided-tour.blogspot.com/search/label/Contacts


For example, I like the following image:
http://www.yamasakiko-ji.com/20061217231855.php

If you tried to apply the rules of good photography, this photo is an abject failure in all respects.

However it succeeds at evoking a certain mood for me.

Maybe a simple rule for analyzing a photo could be "does it evoke a mood or sensation?" The only problem with that rule is it's far from objective.
Click to expand...

I think your example above is wonderful. It may not have the formal qualities that I generally like, but I agree with you that this image evokes an emotion and mystery, which I think makes this image successful in other ways; plus art is subjective.

And Ansel Adams is another excellent example opposite of what we see above, where his work is so polished and so exquisite. I believe, he used formal elements and lighting, which created a sense of mystery that creates his narrative. Yet both examples, to me, anyway, are successful, one because of its imperfections, darkness and light; the other which is seems so unflawed.

Thanks for looking and reading,

Sisyphus
 
When I take a good image, I know it at the time the photo is taken. It usually is something striking, staring at me through the viewfinder that attracts me to take the photo. The light can play a major role, but sometimes it is small things that make the entire image more effective. A look from someone, or the geometry in the image, or catching a split second event, or other factors that make an image a better image.

This is a good thread, Frank.
 
raid said:
When I take a good image, I know it at the time the photo is taken. It usually is something striking, staring at me through the viewfinder that attracts me to take the photo. The light can play a major role, but sometimes it is small things that make the entire image more effective. A look from someone, or the geometry in the image, or catching a split second event, or other factors that make an image a better image.

This is a good thread, Frank.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, I know which shots on a film are likely to work and which won’t, I often admonish myself for taking stuff I know I’ll never use.

Now the fact that I know that proves to me that I have recognised something in the finder, a set of visual forms that not only I find pleasing, but that I can predict that others will also find pleasing.

If that’s not worthy of study and analysis what is?
 
antiquark said:
For example, I like the following image:
http://www.yamasakiko-ji.com/20061217231855.php

If you tried to apply the rules of good photography, this photo is an abject failure in all respects.

However it succeeds at evoking a certain mood for me.

Maybe a simple rule for analyzing a photo could be "does it evoke a mood or sensation?" The only problem with that rule is it's far from objective.
Click to expand...

How so? there is a pretty traditional set of things going on there the dark concave area and two vertical liner features lead my eyes around the centre and down to the subject, the car, and there is also a gestalt thing going on with the repeating triangular motifs
 
Grumpy, I agree I have seen those and some of his Polaroids, even 35mm, but IF he had used all of his expertise on a freeway it would have been a winner. Also, I have been thinking about this subject, and again what turns you on is a personal choice. For me, an image that is technically superior will always be my favorite over one where the photographer has change the models hair green with PS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom