# How do you capture emotions?



## floatingby (Jul 24, 2015)

I travel a lot. To define a lot, I have done about 120 000 km of air travel in the last 4 years. I've seen magnificent places, ugly places, places that fill me with aw and wonder, other that fill me with dread and all kind of emotion in between.

What I fail to do is bring those emotions home with me in my pictures. As example, when I look at work from Ansel Adams, I feel something that I associate with what it would feel like if I was there. I can't do that. Can this be learned, and if so, how?

Example of the stuff I bring back so you know what I'm talking about:





It is properly exposed, in focus and there is interest in the foreground and the background. It's also completely devoid of emotions, the best word I'd use to describe it is: sterile. When I look at this it bring back memories, but that's it.

I understand this could be a complex subject, so link to book or web article would be ok.


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 24, 2015)

It takes practice. It takes time.  Lots of time.  Very infrequently do I feel like I take an image that captures "emotion." The latest image that I have captured emotion is the one I'll post below.  Part of what makes an image display emotion is the caption you give to it.  




_RSP5512 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

With the following caption:
"Think of this more as an artists statement rather than a "here look at my pretty picture." We (landscape photographers in general, myself mostly) spend so much of our time focusing on the grand things. The incredible sunsets. The beautiful clouds. The massive waterfalls. And for me, it's often difficult to enjoy the simpler things--take this shot as an example. To me, it represents calm. Focus. Peace. But it's not grand. It won't ever be an award winner. It's not a shot that would stand out in a group of landscape photos. But I love it. Somehow, it's simplicity speaks louder to me than some of the "whoah!" shots I've taken."

What I've found is that you often don't capture emotion when your searching for it.  When you take a photo because you feel an emotion, rather than taking a photo to epitomize an emotion.. that's when you'll get it right. 

But no, it's not teachable.  It's what we all strive for.  I'll spend my whole life trying to capture "emotion."  And most times I'll fail. 

Jake


----------



## Designer (Jul 24, 2015)

floatingby said:


> How do you capture emotions?


Aye, now there's the rub, in't it?

If it was easy, then we wouldn't need Ansel Adams, would we?


----------



## floatingby (Jul 24, 2015)

Designer said:


> floatingby said:
> 
> 
> > How do you capture emotions?
> ...


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean Ansel Adams was a super-hero of photography, an outer-worldly being sent to us by the 14 gods of ancient Greece to wow us with his magical photographic plate? If it is, I'm not sure I'd believe that. Partly because I have seen some of his earlier work, and it wasn't that great, which means he had to learn somehow, so if he had to learn it means it's not magical, and that it is learnable; partly also because I have seen other do work that come and get you, I've used him as an example because pretty much everybody involved in photography has heard of him and seen an example or two of his output.

I've established that it is possible to learn simply by the fact that others have learned before, I just don't know where to go from here.


----------



## floatingby (Jul 24, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> What I've found is that you often don't capture emotion when your searching for it.  When you take a photo because you feel an emotion, rather than taking a photo to epitomize an emotion.. that's when you'll get it right.


I believe you're talking about instinct, and yes some have more of that in specific field, but that only means they'll get out the gate faster.



> But no, it's not teachable.  It's what we all strive for.  I'll spend my whole life trying to capture "emotion."  And most times I'll fail.
> 
> Jake


Not teachable? Maybe not formally, I wouldn't know, but sometime all it take is for somebody to say something, or you read something somewhere, and suddenly it "clicks", and something you struggled with, maybe for years, become easy. As an example, in my trade I often have to weld steel parts together. For 15 years I struggled with welding vertically, it was solid enough but not very esthetic and I didn't know how to make them better; then one day a co-worker, out of the blue, said while I was welding "don't look at the bottom, just look at the top". A simple thing, but from that day on I could have put my vertical welds side by side with anybody's in the world and not be ashamed.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2015)

There are NO emotions in landscapes or cityscapes. PEOPLE exhibit emotions. The easiest way to get viewers to "feel" or experience an emotion is to guide them, by using a title or caption. Half of the "emotion" people experience when looking at a photo is provided by external clues and cues that the artist, or curators, or editors plant in the minds of readers. Second, as far as the hackneyed work of Ansel Adams...if the stuff were stripped of the name an exhibited anonymously in this era, it would go unnoticed for the most part. He shot over 90% of his nature stuff from his car, right by the side of the road. In 1940, that was good enough. Today, not so much.


----------



## floatingby (Jul 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> There are NO emotions in landscapes or cityscapes. PEOPLE exhibit emotions.


Yeah, probably poor phrasing from my part, but you get what I was meaning, yes?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2015)

I guess so. Again...titles and captions and context play a huge part in how people experience a photo.


----------



## limr (Jul 24, 2015)

So, to be more precise, you don't want to capture emotion, you want to elicit emotion from the person viewing the photo. Is that what you mean? You want them to feel something when they see the picture.

You mention Adams. Is that because his landscapes make you feel something? What do they make you feel? Look around the picture and see how you are responding to the different elements. Is it the light? The sky? The composition?

Go find other pictures that elicit emotions from you. Is there anything that they have in common with Adams' pictures? What is the common thread? Try to do a little deconstructing of the image to figure out what elements you are responding to. That might lead you to notice those things more quickly when you are the one behind the camera.

Of course, as you've already found out, once you simply set about with a checklist of "Things That Elicit Emotion" and you take pictures with everything on your checklist, you might still be falling flat. But let's say you don't go looking for the elements of the photograph, but instead you wait until you feel something, and only then do you attempt to capture that feeling (rather than just capturing a pretty scene.)


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 24, 2015)

When you "see" something that you want to capture in a photograph, you should stop and really think about what it is that made you think it was worth it.
Many photographers miss ALL the elements that make up the image.
It could be as simple as a shadow ... or as complex as the wind blowing, the feel of the sun, the wide expanse of land, movement of the sand ... all those elements made up the feeling you had in stopping.

Now taking all those elements in an image ... ah, now that is picture. This is where knowledge of manipulating the camera/lens to get that comes into play.

... just don't ask me how to do it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 24, 2015)

I once heard a cartoonist explain how if he wants the strip to feel like it's moving forward and the characters are progressing, he draws the horizon lines so they lean down to the right. If he wants the reverse, he draws them down to the left.

I once heard a puppeteer explain how a puppet falling and looking up is thinking of where they came from. A puppet looking down is thinking of the impending impact with the ground.

As a writer, the shape and sounds of words I choose has an effect. Short words with hard sounds can be harsh and abrasive. Longer words with soft sounds can be gentle and soothing.

As artists, we have tools within any space that we work within.  In some cases the tools are less readily available, such as in the case of a landscape, however, there still are tools you can use.

Photography is made up of subject, composition, color, exposure, focus. What of those things can you change within your image? What of those things can lend emotion.  What about standing lower?  Higher? What about later in the day? 

You also seem to suffer from what many photographer's do... thinking that you can dial in the technical aspects and have an image that works. Unfortunately so many of us strive so long to get those technical aspects right (as well we should), that by the time you get to the point where you have it down, you've sort of lost sight of the artistic part that was the point in the first place. Think beyond the image that is properly exposed and framed. It's not just about what is proper, it is about what has impact.

Think through some scenarios, try them out. See how you feel when you look at them. I believe you will find some differences.


----------



## Designer (Jul 25, 2015)

floatingby said:


> Do you mean Ansel Adams was a super-hero of photography, an outer-worldly being sent to us by the 14 gods of ancient Greece to wow us with his magical photographic plate?


From your original post:  *"As example, when I look at work from Ansel Adams, I feel something that I associate with what it would feel like if I was there."
*
You brought up Adams, so you tell me.


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 25, 2015)

limr said:


> So, to be more precise, you don't want to capture emotion, you want to elicit emotion from the person viewing the photo. Is that what you mean? You want them to feel something when they see the picture.



This is correct. You _don't _capture emotion, you elicit.

The problem with that is that everyone that looks at any given piece of art has a different response. The emotion you're looking for you're never going to find as it's in the viewer, not in the picture.

Think about any pictures that you have seen that have caused a response, good, bad, sad, happy, in you. Dorothea Lange's pictures from the Dust Bowl era might not necessarily be technically great but they strike emotion. Most any pictures from the Holocaust aren't technically great but those sure as _hell _bring forth emotion. Some of those I can look at even for a minute and tear up. That's not emotion in the picture, it's emotion in me.

What does have to do with you is being able to see it and realize that this particular moment will, in fact, result in an emotional response in many viewers.

When my best friend's daughter got married someone at the wedding just happened to catch a moment when the bride and her dad hugged after the ceremony. There is a look on her face of just absolute bliss that will choke you up in minute. All because someone was there at just the right moment.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 25, 2015)

I think what you are looking for ... are images which draw viewers into the picture ... images that causes the viewer to linger and think. (Much of Adam's magic is lost in this day and age because cameras and image processing have become so good and easy. When Adams first started making an impact on photography the image quality and his tones alone were head and shoulders above 99% of everyone else. But I digress...)

Your image shows a desert scene ... and it is on the meh end of the scale. What were you attempting to project to the viewer, the heat ... the solitude ... the vastness ...? Look at a scene, figure out what that scene says to you and that is what you have to capture. Shoot for one theme, previsualize in your mind the final image, then position the camera, select the lens and settings that best reflects in the camera, the final image that you envisioned. 

Your image is flat, unmoving, meh ... largely because of lighting. Shooting from the same vantage point later in the day would have gone a long way to making the image more interesting. You can create optical drama, use the FOV/DOF to your advantage. Moving into focal lens which are different than how we see makes image or interesting. Using DOF/aperture different than how we see makes images more interesting. Harmonize with your equipment to the point that you see images at different focal lengths and different apertures without raising the camera to your eye. With landscapes, think more, shoot less, but make every photo count.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 25, 2015)

Your picture above doesn't elicit emotions because, imo, there is no hint of what is important to you and why you took the picture. 
The elements in the picture have some  symbolic meaning to us but the PPing doesn't add anything and the formatting is confusing.
Are we supposed to look at cacti or mountains or river?
How do you feel about them?
If you don't know what's important and, if you don't point to that in some way, viewers don't know how to feel.

This is an extreme example of PPing but a fair example.


----------



## limr (Jul 25, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So, to be more precise, you don't want to capture emotion, you want to elicit emotion from the person viewing the photo. Is that what you mean? You want them to feel something when they see the picture.
> ...



Why is this a "problem"? You're never going to get the same emotional response out of everyone. Why would you even want to? You might feel one emotion when taking a shot and your viewer feels something different, but that doesn't mean the picture has "failed" or that something is wrong.



> Think about any pictures that you have seen that have caused a response, good, bad, sad, happy, in you. Dorothea Lange's pictures from the Dust Bowl era might not necessarily be technically great but they strike emotion. Most any pictures from the Holocaust aren't technically great but those sure as _hell _bring forth emotion. Some of those I can look at even for a minute and tear up. That's not emotion in the picture, it's emotion in me.
> 
> What does have to do with you is being able to see it and realize that this particular moment will, in fact, result in an emotional response in many viewers.
> 
> When my best friend's daughter got married someone at the wedding just happened to catch a moment when the bride and her dad hugged after the ceremony. There is a look on her face of just absolute bliss that will choke you up in minute. All because someone was there at just the right moment.



These examples you mention all have people in them. Does that mean you're saying emotion needs to be portrayed in the photo to elicit emotion as well? Emotion in the subject or emotion from the photographer?

Not everyone is going to have the same emotional response even if it's clear from the context and facial expression what emotion we are "supposed" to feel. Someone might be choked up, thinking of the bride's happiness. Some might feel bitterness or sadness or envy because they never got to experience that moment for whatever reason. Others might roll their eyes or feel anger. Others might feel nervous or excited because their wedding or child's wedding is coming up. And all this time, despite acknowledging that the moment is worth capturing for its emotional impact, maybe the photographer feels absolutely nothing. So where does the emotion come from? The people in the photo.

But your picture in the OP is a landscape and you cite Adams' landscapes as an example of what you'd like to achieve. Obviously, emotion is not going to be portrayed by people, so it has to be elicited in another way. You already know that technical precision alone isn't the answer. So what is? If you are not relying on people to portray emotion, then where does the emotion come from? I say the photographer. How can you convey an emotion in a landscape that you don't feel yourself? And does it matter if the viewer doesn't feel the same thing that you do?

Perhaps you already answered your own question. You spoke of capturing a moment when you gave the examples of pictures with people in them. Facial expressions, body movements, interactions...these all happen pretty fast and you have to have good timing. Mountains, trees, rivers...yeah, they don't move around a lot, so what moment is being captured? It becomes all about the light at that point. It's the light and how you capture it that can create a mood in a landscape image. That particular quality of light at that moment might not happen again any time soon, so you have to move - sometimes really fast - to capture that moment of light on that particular scene. You have to be in the right place at the right time, which could mean getting up early, hiking a long way to get to the right scene/composition, waiting a long time for the light and maybe having to come back another day.

So there's your common thread: the moment that you have capture, whether it be on a person's face/body language/setting, or in the light that falls on the land.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 25, 2015)

floatingby said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > There are NO emotions in landscapes or cityscapes. PEOPLE exhibit emotions.
> ...


I find it hardest to capture emotions as it is something I don't feel.
I asked a good friend how she did it.
She said photograph things that frighten you the most. Capture in images that which you long the most. Put aside cliche and things you've seen before. Face your fears and desires - capture those.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 25, 2015)

Shooting in the middle of the day often gives you flat pictures.  The lighting is very poor because the landscape is getting the same amount of light.   If you want "oohs" and "aahs" shoot during magic hour.  That's during one-hour after sunrise and during one-hour before sunset.  A low sun creates dramatic side-lighting, shadows, heightened contrast, and warm colors which will stimulate these kinds of reactions.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 25, 2015)

Here's a desert scene taken by another photographer.  Notice how the low sun creates shadows on the mountain and beside the plants.  That contrast is enjoyed by the eye.  This shot also used a polarizer filter that darkened the sky making it more dramatic.  This filter reduces reflections on things which brings out the colors more profoundly.  Of course we all find that most of the time is during the day and we can't wait around for late afternoon or early evening.  During the daytime you may be able to get interesting shots of closeups, flowers, etc.  Good luck.
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Nevada Flickr - Photo Sharing


----------



## JoeW (Jul 25, 2015)

Okay, I have multiple thoughts that I hope will provide some insight for you.

1.  It's not about "shooting emotions."  You may want to elicit an emotion from a viewer.  But more importantly, it's about "telling a story."  Which means you need to do more than take photos or "captures" (lord how I hate that word).  Instead, you need to compose/create a picture.  This is not about semantics.  It's about looking at a scene you find notable and rather than saying "okay, I'm going to document this!" instead you look at a scene and ask "how can I use the tools at my disposal to manipulate this scene in order to express a feel or mood in the picture or tell a story or create a common/shared reaction from viewers?"

2.  Understanding the rules of composition are critical here.  Someone may chip in at this point by saying "there are no rules" or "rules are made to be broken" and those cliches absolutely don't apply here.  There are thousands of composition rules in photography/visual art....and they're contradictory.  Let me phrase that another way:  you cannot mutually follow all (or even 10%) of the rules on visual art and composition.  So you have to pick and choose which ones to use...much like you pick and choose which lens to use or if you're going to put a filter or gel on the end of your lens.  What makes a great photographer is the ability to chose the rules that are going to tell the story/generate the emotion you want to create and then use them effectively to create that mood or tell that story or elicit that emotion.  For instance, white balance can be a very effective way to help tell a story or create a mood....shoot with a fluorescent setting and get a blue tint that implies coldness, distance, not friendly.  Or set the WB so you get a extreme contrasty tint that creates a noir feel to it.

3.  Take the picture you posted.  You may like it b/c it provides memories and an accurate depiction of a magnificent scene you saw.  Fine--you got that.  Don't expect anyone else to "aw" or "ohhh" over it b/c it's your memory, not there's.  No insult intended, but that is why the vast majority of family members groan when Uncle Jed says "does anyone want to see my photos of the family trip to Yellowstone?"  Instead, when confronted with that scene (in your picture), you should be asking yourself..."what's the story I want to tell?"  Is it about distance--that in this part of the world stuff just goes on and on and on and on?  Then you look for a leading line or something to provide perspective.  Is it starkness (the dry and brutal climate)?  Than maybe you look for a prop in the foreground (like a skeleton or dead tree).  Is it about the heat?  Than you shoot when the sun is low and you see gigantically long shadows extending for distances. And no, those are not the only ways to tell those stories or capture those emotions, they're just examples.  But the point is, by understanding composition you learn to shape the reaction you get from your photos...they become more than just a "capture" of something you saw, instead you have "created" art by shaping and manipulating the scene through our tools (the camera, the lens, post-production, but mostly our vision and knowledge of composition).


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 25, 2015)

What I noticed right away is that the composition and angle or vantage point could have been different (and yes, different light at a different time of day could have helped, but you have to work with what you've got if you won't be back). The foreground seems a little cut off and the mountain to the left seems chopped at an odd place too, the balance in the composition seems off.

What I think you're trying to do is capture what you feel when you see what you photograph. If you develop skills in composition and framing etc. then you can learn how to best show an image the way you want. If you don't have a background in art you could try searching 'elements of composition in art' instead of in photography and that should give you some sites to look at.

I have a photo that's been on display that was literally taken pulled over to the side of the road. I've done that sort of thing often enough; it was a moment in the evening that I had to get quickly before the light changed and was gone.

I had another accepted into a juried exhibit that was of an abandoned looking building I saw from the parking lot of the big boy! really. I'd used up all my film that day and grabbed my digital camera and took pictures thru the windshield when my friend pulled over to check our order. lol There was tall grass in front with sunlight hitting it and I found myself scrunching down to emphasize what I saw and felt, to make the grass seem taller and the building more empty and isolated. I don't think I thought all that thru at the time, it seems more like instinct, but I think the more you practice and the more you take pictures the more that becomes second nature.

With your photo I'm not sure that it shows any one thing. There could certainly be more than one photo there. I find the cacti and the road winding off in the distance interesting - if you'd moved around and changed your vantage point you may have been able to put the cacti in relation to the road in a different way, change the positions, and you might have had an 'a-ha' moment and been able to get a photo that shows the scene the way you saw it and how it made you feel. I often turn and see something and it's like a little light bulb goes on and that's it - that's a picture. 

I think photos need to be able to stand alone. Maybe that's partly due to having photos exhibited (the most usually that will be there along with the photo would be the photographer's name and maybe a brief blurb) but I think that's always how I've taken photos. A caption can help identify what's happening or the process used etc. and a description can enhance a photo or expand on the meaning, but if it needs a lengthy explanation then it doesn't seem like it completely works.

I don't think you quite nailed this one, although you could try making some copies and doing some cropping and see if you can get a different/better picture. But you may want to work on composition so you can better express what you want in your photos.


----------



## kathyt (Jul 25, 2015)

I thing composition can be a key factor in creating emotion.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2015)

I see your question was blogged about today...

Photos and Stuff How do you capture emotions


----------



## floatingby (Jul 26, 2015)

Thanks to the post here I've managed to pinpoint the major problem I have with landscape. When I'm front of a vista I instinctively want to capture as much of it as possible, forgetting everything I ever learned about photography in the doing, so I always go to a wide lens to get as much of it as possible. And if that doesn't work? I'd go wider still.
Might sound stupid to some, and it possibly is, but without analyzing my last 10 years worth of picture taking, helped with example, tip and guidance provided here and elsewhere, I'm not sure I would ever have come to that realization, or it might have taken years still.


----------



## KmH (Jul 26, 2015)

When the light is less than ideal, no doubt - take a photo to document your travels.
But, don't expect a landscape photo to be top notch and able to evoke emotion in a viewer if the light direction and quality sucks.

Ansel Adams was very, very, very good at making prints in a wet lab.
He made many different prints of many of his best images over the years as new materials and techniques became available to him.

IMO. Electronic online display cannot come anywhere close to the image quality a well made print can achieve.


----------

