Looking at Pictures the Psychology of Images ... or putting the Horse before Descarte

[Sparrow]

There is a second version of this thread Here from which I've removed the conversational elements to make it easier to follow ...

... I'm not sure its worth completing the article itself all the humour got knocked out of it and the surrounding 'white noise' distracted my thoughts anyway

-----------------

Looking at Pictures the Psychology of Images ... or putting the Horse before Descartes

... yes I know, but I'm not twisting your arm up your back ... you don't have take any notice, and even if you do, you don't have agree with me

Composition ... would you say has component parts? ... simple enough concept I'd have thought, and it would follow that if the artist understood those parts, and understood how to put them together he could communicate his vision more accurately to his audience? ... well if he chose to use them in that way ... and, of course, if he can see what those parts are in the first place ... in any event why would any artist not be interested in learning them?

If you don't see that then you'll probably not need to read the rest of this ... as I intend giving a guide to some practical ways of analysing art and design ... and some tricks of the trade that makes it easier to see.

I realise photography doesn't lend itself to Composition like many other arts do, and that encourages the 'no rules' and 'rules are to be broken' folk to involvement ...

First off ... Line, viewpoint or mind's eye ... I've always know it as just line and my daughter who is modern, and looks likely to get a better degree than I did, now uses eye-line so I'll go with that ... so

Eye-Line ... is the way ones eyes naturally explore a picture when the viewer is relaxed and isn't concentrating on other aspects of the image. This oddly is the basis of nearly all composition, eyes, brain and mind almost unconsciously do this all the time without their owner knowing the reason they like some things and not others

... it can follow lines the outline of shapes and may be delineated by colour, tone or contrast. Keith commented his eye found the knotted string in this photo courtesy of Bingley and I can see how and why.

next ... How to make stuff easier to see ...

-----------------

 

[Sparrow]

-------------------

... the trick is learning how to relax the facial muscles around the eyes, clear the conscious mind and just allow ones eyes to find their own way around the picture without even thinking about it. Once you get the hang of it its dead easy ... almost closing your eyelids as if looking into the sun can help to blur and abstract the image too.

You can get this sort of effect, blurred and with more contrast ...

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8664/16559350409_719beae927_c.jpg

... often this is enough of an abstraction of original image to remove all the distracting bits'n bobs and any story (narrative) that get in the way seeing the Elements of the image ... you will have seen artists tipping their head on one side, turning images upside-down or viewing them negative, closeup or from a distance? ... all we are trying to do in doing that, is to remove some of the reality so we can actually see at the elementary parts of the image ... of course back in my art college days it was much easier, we just got drunk or took a creativity-pill ... but that was 1968

... either way by the time one is looking at this any semblance of reality is pretty much gone ...

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8656/16123147884_90954b9d7b_c.jpg

... now we can see at least something of the fundamentals, and it's easy to work out that those repeating rectangular windows dominate the photo, the composition is almost wholly created by contrast and shape, and while the girl is visible she clearly is not going to be the centre of attention, the subject, the whole emphasis is elsewhere.

You can also see that the curve of the chair-back and the lines formed by the straps and that knotted string are still working to retain the eyes' attention around that area ... something Keith noticed in the 'brutally' thread.

next ... The Elements of Composition ...

------------------

 

[michaelwj]

Interesting Stewart,

I only noticed to knot once it was inverted, it's obviously the dominant feature. Initially, and even on a second look, my eyes went straight out the window to see what the lady was looking at and settled on the out of focus figure - probably also drawn there by the brightness.

Looking forward to the next part.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[tomtofa]

I like this series, Stewart. It wasn't clear to me until the upside down shot how important the book and table top are to the composition.

Also, love the simple tips to see composition: just clear the conscious mind - simple for those who have pursued a lifetime practice of meditative arts, easier said than done for most of us ;-)

 

[OurManInTangier]

Acute disappointment when I came to the first posts from others, shaping up to be another very interesting topic much like your Dark Art Of Composition thread. Just please, stop stopping; I'd like to know why I see the way I do 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

I think it's just like in music, or in science.
In principle, you can learn the components, you can figure out what components make a good picture, you can assemble this way a good, or even a great picture...
But there will always be someone who can do it better without mastering the components and doing the assembly... some genius as we like to call these people, who will see through the chaos and who doesn't need rules and hints and analysis to burp up a miracle.

 

[Pherdinand]

ps: oh my god you deleted Bowie 😀

 

[Pherdinand]

Interesting Stewart,

I only noticed to knot once it was inverted, it's obviously the dominant feature. Initially, and even on a second look, my eyes went straight out the window to see what the lady was looking at and settled on the out of focus figure - probably also drawn there by the brightness.

Looking forward to the next part.

Cheers,
Michael

You are a viewer, if you only noticed the knot upside down and photoshopped, then it CANNOT be the dominant feature by definition 🙂
The maker of the photo might be biased and not see the dominant feature but a, by definition, must see the dominant feature first and clearly otherwise it is not a dominant feature...

 

[Sparrow]

----------------------

... I was convinced there were six when I was at college, but luckily I avoided looking any more of a fool than I normally do by checking the interweb ... and it seems new elements have been added like so many umami flavoured higss-bosons since I last looked ... nine in one list I found

Anyway ... I intend persisting with just the six I know about, and where I can I'll use the photographic terms not the arty ones, those six being;

Line ... straight curved matriculated, any linear element however formed that the eye can follow
Shape ... a line that joins up with itself
Depth ... a shape with a perceived three dimensional form
Contrast ... any of the above which is visible due to being a different value or tone
Texture ... the surface finish of any of the above
Colour ... the colour of any of the above

This is sort of the vocabulary of images, the building blocks to which we have to play with.

Obviously, each Element can be formed in an almost unlimited number of ways, but the human-mind tends to find some ways more attractive than others. The convention is to call these attractive ways Design Principles or Rules ... but it much easier to think of them as just 'things arranged nicely' ... Things (the Elements) and Nicely (the Principles)

next ... Design Principles or Rules of Composition

----------------

 

[Sparrow]

Many things don't work with this image... Ok, sexy girl with a sexy neck. Not enough.

... you thought of sex where as I thought of cancer

 

[airfrogusmc]

... you thought of sex where as I thought of cancer

I thought of cancer to. And no one mentioned that wonderful upside down triangle with the wonderful know being the tip. Bresson would always turn his images upside down to see if they still worked visually.

 

[Sparrow]

You are a viewer, if you only noticed the knot upside down and photoshopped, then it CANNOT be the dominant feature by definition 🙂
The maker of the photo might be biased and not see the dominant feature but a, by definition, must see the dominant feature first and clearly otherwise it is not a dominant feature...

... maybe not the dominant ... the repeating rectangles are that, but it is certainly a feature. The point is that aesthetics work below the conscious level, you know pretty face when you see one, but could you explain why?

 

[airfrogusmc]

"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

 

[Sparrow]

Acute disappointment when I came to the first posts from others, shaping up to be another very interesting topic much like your Dark Art Of Composition thread. Just please, stop stopping; I'd like to know why I see the way I do 🙂

... I'm posting them as I get them ready, my daughter is doing her finals at the moment ... so I thought I'd write them up while they're fresh, so to speak

 

[Sparrow]

------------

... although I should probably address the ... 'we don't need no stinking rules ... there are no rules and ... and, rules are there to be broken anyway' brigade so here we go ...

1) 'We don't need no stinking rules' ... yes, you are correct, but you failed to grasp the meaning of the third paragraph of my first post.

2) 'There are no rules' well, sorry but there are and denial does not constitute evidential proof come back with a cogent argument ... or bugger off

3) 'Rules are there to be broken' yes, very true even today ... but! after one knows the rules involved and why one is breaking them. Not because you can't be bothered to educate yourself and just trot out something smart someone else said and you chanced upon somewhere on the internet.
If you stick with the design principles you will end up with a nice picture, harmonious and coherent ... the reason we break the rules is to introduce something offensive, dissonant or disordered into the image intentionally ... if we choose to make an image dissonant it isn't forced on us by ignorance, we control the medium it's no longer simply chance.

anyway, next ... Design Principles or Rules of Composition

-------------

 

[bobbyrab]

I don't think there are many who would argue with you Stewart, however sometimes an image will be analysed by someone with lines and triangles drawn all over an image to explain it's compositional form, but you can draw triangles on almost any image and find lines that are supposed to lead, but they don't always work do they?
This image is probably a good example, you can certainly find your compositional forms, repeating shapes, leading lines and triangles, but for me it doesn't quite come together, altogether too messy to really work.
I would say the reason the eye is drawn to the tie is more to do with it being one of the few sharp details in the photo rather than any compositional lines or triangles, it's srtongest element is the elegant head and neck shape of the woman, had they been more isolated or better framed then it could've been a contender, in my opinion of course.

 

[michaelwj]

... maybe not the dominant ... the repeating rectangles are that, but it is certainly a feature. The point is that aesthetics work below the conscious level, you know pretty face when you see one, but could you explain why?

Sorry, I meant the dominant feature in upside down shot, really it's just the sharpest object.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't think there are many who would argue with you Stewart, however sometimes an image will be analysed by someone with lines and triangles drawn all over an image to explain it's compositional form, but you can draw triangles on almost any image and find lines that are supposed to lead, but they don't always work do they?
This image is probably a good example, you can certainly find your compositional forms, repeating shapes, leading lines and triangles, but for me it doesn't quite come together, altogether too messy to really work.
I would say the reason the eye is drawn to the tie is more to do with it being one of the few sharp details in the photo rather than any compositional lines or triangles, it's srtongest element is the elegant head and neck shape of the woman, had they been more isolated or better framed then it could've been a contender, in my opinion of course.

... yes sticking any old bit of geometry on a photo isn't analysing it, I'm hoping to explain what tools you can use, the basics so you can argue your own case, it became clear in that brutal thread the other week people were seeing all sorts in the photos but were struggling to explain what and why or find the words to describe it

In that photo the windows are just too strong, had the girl been framed in one of them then maybe it would have worked ...

 

[Sparrow]

I like this series, Stewart. It wasn't clear to me until the upside down shot how important the book and table top are to the composition.

Also, love the simple tips to see composition: just clear the conscious mind - simple for those who have pursued a lifetime practice of meditative arts, easier said than done for most of us ;-)

... yes, I can see that ... but you get so much more out of 'art' if you master it

 

[Sparrow]

--------------------

... there are lots of these, first off the so called Gestalt principles (Berlin School of Experimental Psychology) it was part of those 'new' arts that erupted at the end of the 19th century and continued until the Second War ... I work with these Modernist principles most of the time, these and the phycology that goes with them has experimental proofs to back them so this bit is more than just my opinion ... it's the phycology of our perception of form, or how we see nice stuff, we all do it and this just explains why. The word Gestalt simply means shape or form,

Gestalt Principles or Gestalt Psychology:

Proximity ... we see objects close to each other as nice ... we like repeating patterns and we enjoy finding them even in random images and when we find them we treat them as a group.

Similarity ... we tend to think that similar things are a group ... we like uniformity, just think of tiled floors, venetian blinds or even brick walls, how often do stuff like that feature in photos you like?

Closure ... when looking at the stars we tend to enjoy joining the dots and we tend to perceive the whole when we only see a part ... simple as that, we find order in chaos given half a chance you only need to see a fraction of a curve for ones' mind to perceive the whole circle

Symmetry ... we like symmetry and are attracted to the focus point of that symmetry, next time you make a sandwich try cutting it slightly it off centre and at a slight angle ... and see how wrong it looks

Ground-Figure ... those tricks drawings that look like a woman's face or a man playing a saxophone, clever but not that useful to photographers. (you'll find the term Pragnanz used by some, pretentious enough to be the next Bokeh eh?)

... they've possibly added a few over the years so you can might find others on the net ... and personally I'd dismiss that last one as stating the obvious

... the truth is ... when your first impression of a photo is positive, or when you instinctively see it as 'good' more than likely it is because one or other Gestalt principles is to be found working within it. When you look at photos you admire, you'll find it is likely to adhere to one or more Gestalt principles, and being able to analyse a photograph can help in planning and taking other photos somewhat, but more importantly it gives us the ability to communicate with each other about them ...

next ... Classical Principles:

-------------------------