# A series on how the photographer can make images with impact



## The_Traveler (Nov 22, 2012)

I have had this material rolling around in my mind for the past several months and have even given a couple of talks based on it but I really wanted to put these ideas out in a more public way to engender some response.
So, I've made this a series on my blog at LewLortonPhoto.com

The first post of this series is *"Getting to the Image-the first in a series of blog posts on creating images with impact" **
*


As I make successive posts I will link to them in my signature.
I would appreciate any feedback I could use to clarify the blog post or extend the ideas in a comment on the blog post itself, as a response here or even a PM.

Lew


----------



## KenC (Nov 22, 2012)

Great introductory post.  I'm interested to see where you go with this.  I've been interested in the intersection of photography with the study of symbols or semiotics or studies of visual perception as a way of understanding abstract images (including my own), but have found mostly a lot of stuff that is really dense academic s*** not written by anyone who knows anything about photography.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Nov 22, 2012)

I agree with Ken, great introduction and food for thought.  Being one of the beginners you speak of I don't have any suggestions but look forward to future posts.

But I must ask is that a spelling error in the title? 
[h=1]Getting to the image - how people see and how the photographer nust can use that. [/h]What's "nust"?


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

Have you ever read The Photographer's Eye by Michael Freeman?  His approach to composition seems to be much like yours.  

Compositional C&C gets so tiresome here at times because it's pretty much regurgitated 'rules' that people have heard, with no real idea on if that 'rule' should apply to the picture at hand.  

For instance, you can literally take a picture of ANYTHING, and if it's not on either the left or right 1/3 line people will 'bust you' for rule of thirds infraction.  People have no conception of the rule of thirds, why it is often applicable, why it works when it works, and perhaps most importantly when it doesn't work.  Same thing with 'leading lines'  Pretty much any sort of diagonal gets praised as a 'leading line' forgetting that the whole reason for leading lines is to take a viewer from a primary point of interest to a more subtle, but more rewarding secondary point of interest.  Most of the time I see them, they simply take the viewer away from anything of note in the picture and actually do active harm.  

I nearly get physically ill when I read people giving the well intentioned advice of 'study the rule of thirds and leading lines!'  Rule of thirds and leading lines aren't things to study.  They're consequences of broad concepts that need substantial study.

In the case of rule of thirds, the concepts are image balance, the static nature of central compositions, harmonic ratios and (when people and/or movement are in the frame) directionality of eyelines and movement.  In the case of leading lines the thing you need to study is how the human eye traces a scene and how to give the viewer's eyes a path to take it in.  

I think this also gets at a certain other sort of bias TPF has towards extremely simple images.  Because a lot of people don't fully get how to direct an eye through traffic with composition, they tend to believe that a 'busy' image can't ever work.  Whereas a great street photographer (or really a good any type of genre photographer) knows how to compose an image such that even if it's busy, the photographer knows how to guide the viewer to make sense of the image.  It's like some people on TPF don't even get the idea of secondary subjects and think you're breaking some rule of composition if the subject isn't the only thing in the frame.  

I've always felt there aren't 'rules' in photography, but there are sound, and at this point, well understood principals of how a viewer takes in a photograph.  And then, there's what you, as a photographer want to convey.  As you stated, realizing that you CANNOT produce great photography if your goal is to merely create photography people will like.  You MUST have a vision for the photograph, and then if the viewer understands and appreciates that vision, the photograph will be well liked.  

So, to the extent there are rules in photography, the rule is simply know what you want out of the image, and know how to get the viewer to what you want from the image.  In photography you have to understand the beginning point (you) and the endpoint (the viewer) and then there are graphical principals to help you navigate the rest of the maze from there.

edit: all of this is in some way to say, I definitely appreciate the first post, and greatly look forward to your expansion.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 22, 2012)

Thanks all for the responses - and the spell-check.  I also correctred some syntactical errors and it should read a bit more coherently now.

I think I agree with fjrabon. 

IMO, all the commonly accepted "Rules of Composition" are simplifications reductions of much more complex ideas intended to give usable guidelines for people who're not yet able to integrate complex concepts into compositions.  

Even simple compositions can be the result of complex concepts.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Thanks all for the responses - and the spell-check.
> 
> I think I agree with fjrabon. IMO, all the commonly accepted "Rules of Composition" are simplifications reductions of much more complex ideas intended to give usable guidelines for people who're not yet able to integrate complex concepts into compositions.
> 
> Even simple compositions can be the result of complex concepts.



Yeah, I can get behind them being helpful guidelines for beginners.  The problem comes when people don't realize they're simplified 'rules of thumb' and view them as the end game pieces of composition.  There are some people here who seem to think that the ultimate idea of composition is the rule of thirds.  The best books I've ever read on composition actually don't even mention rule of thirds.  It's not even that I'm picking on rule of thirds, so much as it's the most obvious example of the regurgitated rules of thumb as if they're ultimate guidelines.  

Rule of thirds isn't even a rule to be broken.  Rule of thirds is something that frequently falls out of higher level concepts.  I never think "hey let me use rule of thirds here!"  I think "how can I balance this image out without it being static?"


----------



## tirediron (Nov 22, 2012)

"Images with impact"... is that like when I dropped my F5 onto the concrete a year or two back?


----------



## tirediron (Nov 22, 2012)

Great article Lew; I'm looking forward to the next installment.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 25, 2012)

I have posted the second piece at Zenfolio | Lew Lorton Photography | Semiotics of Images - why some images are more comfortable than others -Part 2


----------



## OriginalPerspective (Nov 26, 2012)

I just recently started a few blogs myself and am getting used to the whole idea... Other than what I think must be a typo, "nust", there seems to be a strange line that runs across the page, right through the middle of a word in the right side bar.


----------



## shefjr (Nov 26, 2012)

Ive just started reading your blogs and thus far enjoy. I do have one personal statement and am going to show you the quote from your second article. (I hope it's not bad form to do and apologize if it is)
"It is my belief that all viewers, no matter their level of sophistication in photography, get subliminal cues from images about how to understand them and the message the photographer is sending."
I am the exception to this rule :/ much to my dismay. When studying and trying to learn about photography composition, I have never followed the leading lines or followed the "direction the eye should follow" when viewing an image. This frustrates me and makes me wonder if that's why I can't seem to get the hang of composition.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts when I read that part of your blog which I am enjoying.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks all for reading.
I have corrected the 'line' business and deleted the typo.
In a PM, someone expressed the concerns that the points made in these posts weren't well enough developed and I will be going back and reading and editing.
Right now I am wrestling with the next post on 'centers of interest' and as soon as I have that one in a headlock, I will look at the first two.


----------



## Demers18 (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks for doing this Lew, I know that there are a lot of us who can benefit from your knowledge.

I have not read your blogs yet but I have bookmarked your site and plan to read it in the near future.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks.

I'm hoping that by writing this all down, I can clarify and organize my beliefs and opinions in some more coherent way.
I am perfectly happy when readers point out faults, inconsistencies, inadequacies or fallacies; that will just help me to shore up weak spots.

Lew


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 26, 2012)

shefjr said:


> I am the exception to this rule :/ much to my dismay. When studying and trying to learn about photography composition, I have never followed the leading lines or followed the "direction the eye should follow" when viewing an image. This frustrates me and makes me wonder if that's why I can't seem to get the hang of composition.



Just to respond to your comment specifically, I've added an example to that second post.
You may not have as highly developed artistic awareness as you'd like but, it is my contention, that everyone has some and can be trained to have more.

Lew


----------



## shefjr (Nov 26, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> it is my contention, that everyone has some and can be trained to have more.
> 
> Lew



I was wondering what your opinion was on this. I don't have the "photographers eye" and was beginning to feel it couldn't be learned and so I guess I was wondering what a professionals opinion on it was. It may sound silly but this opinion gives me a renewd sense of hope. So, thank you for that!
I look forward to your future blogs and appreciate your opinion. Also appreciate that you changed your statement although I really hope that you don't do that on my account otherwise your libel to be changing it all too often for me or maybe other noobs who comment. 

John


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 26, 2012)

John,

These statements in those blog posts are only my conviction about the way people see images.
No research, nothing, only inferring from how I react and how others critique images.
If what I write works for you, good. I'm happy.
If it doesn't, tell me.

I'm pretty/very opinionated but am not always clear when I write. Don't be concerned that I am changing to match your comments but only being a little more precise about what I thought.

I encourage you and everyone to comment on the blog posts themselves so that any useful discussion can be preserved.

Lew


----------



## JackandSally (Nov 26, 2012)

I think I must be missing something:

*The Axioms that follow from the Rule at the Top*
Below that most important Rule are three axioms that govern making successful images.


Everything in the frame must have a purpose

Important things should be in important places

Elements that add to the image should be maximized and elements that detract from the image should be minimized.
These four statements above comprise my entire philosophy for making images.


I only read 3 statements?  Am I missing something?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 27, 2012)

JackandSally said:


> I think I must be missing something:
> 
> *The Axioms that follow from the Rule at the Top*
> Below that most important Rule are three axioms that govern making successful images.
> ...




Know what you are taking a picture of. 
Everything in the frame must have a purpose
Important things should be in important places
Elements that add to the image should be maximized and elements that detract from the image should be minimized.

I changed the sentence to "_The main rule and the three axioms that descend from it comprise my entire philosophy for making images_ " so there is less confusion.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 28, 2012)

I have posted the third in this set at                                   [url]http://lewlortonphoto.com/blog/2012/11/creating-an-image---the-important-things-and-a-start-on-composition             [/URL]


----------



## Derrel (Nov 28, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I have posted the third in this set at  Zenfolio | Lew Lorton Photography | Creating an image - the important things and a false start on composition - Pt 3



Best one in the series so far. The tombstones photo with the city far in the distance? Outstanding!


----------



## CherylL (Nov 28, 2012)

Thanks for posting your blog series on photography.  I've printed out the main rule & 3 axioms.  On a black & white photo I posted you asked me questions about the photo based on your 4 rules and it really made me think.  Looking forward to more in your series.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 28, 2012)

Thanks, Derrel.  I know you don't suffer fools gladly and so your positive comments are more meaningful for that.

CheryIL,
Thanks for responding.

 After reading what you wrote, I went and put in a comment in the blog pointing out that these are rules for the behavior and thought of the photographer, not how to make pictures.
I think that is a crucial point; pictures succeed because the maker knows how viewers think and respond and creates the image to take advantage of that, not to conform to any (silly, almost arbitrary) rules of composition.
Thanks again for commenting.

Lew


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2012)

A new blog post on Centers of Interest, what are they, how to handle them and what their position can add to an image.

http://lewlortonphoto.com/blog/2012/11/managing-the-center-s-of-interest---part-4


----------

