Faith-filled Photographers

Several weeks ago we began a series on composition and intent — the main point being how we should allow our intent in taking the picture to dictate the composition of the photograph rather than blindly following rules. One of the first questions we can ask is how far away from the norm, from the expected, are we willing to go. Do we want to create a predictable and understandable photograph or do we want to challenge the viewer to see something new or different or unexpected?

So what is your intent? Are you trying to clearly show a feature of something? Are you documenting something? Are you trying to make something as attractive as possible? Are you trying to create a postcard picture? Then you will probably want to follow the standard and expected rules of composition: placing your subject somewhere along a 1/3 division or using the most flattering light to show off the subject.

On the other hand, do you want to show your viewer something different about the subject? Do you want to do something a bit more creative or imaginative? Then you can push the rules of composition a little bit. Put your subject in an unusual location or use the light to partially obscure the subject. The problem with this approach is to not be different just for the sake of being different. And it can be very difficult to pull of without looking silly or pretentious.

As Michael Freeman writes, “It is very easy to praise attempts at originality, with some implication that the conventional treatment is ordinary and less imaginative. In fact, this basic advice, to look for the different, is in danger of becoming conventional itself…Different is not necessarily better, and it is a poor goal to aim for without good reason and some skill.”

My photo of the moon is very conventional. It’s placed exactly on a third division in the upper left corner giving it room to “shine” into the frame. Since you can’t really change your perspective of the moon (unless you can hop onto the next shuttle) how would you construct an unconventional composition of the moon?

Almost every beginning photography article about composition begins with a discussion of the importance of the rule-of-thirds. The theory that, after dividing the scene into thirds horizontally and vertically, you should place your subject in the scene at the intersection of those lines. Easy enough. But then, almost right away, they will say that you shouldn’t ALWAYS do that because sometimes a photograph will be stronger when the subject isn’t place accordingly. So, which way is it?

The truth is that your purpose should determine the composition of the image — not the reverse. Do you wish the photograph to be simple or complex? Do you want to convey a conventional point of view or do you want to challenge or surprise the viewer? These considerations should determine how you place your subject in the scene, not some hard and fast rule.

To create a strong image, we have to do more than simply react to a scene. We should understand the intent behind our reaction to take a picture and then plan the composition — moving around and adjusting the scene filling the viewfinder as necessary. What is it in the scene that caught our eye and what is it that we want to convey. Taking time to do this will move your final image from a mere snapshot to something more meaningful. It was Edward Weston that said “composition is the strongest way of seeing.” Take the time to see.

Michael Freeman, in his book The Photographer’s Eye, groups different kinds of “intent” into contrasting pairs. Is your intent to be:

• conventional or challenging?
• reactive or planned?
• documentary or expressive?
• simple or complex?
• clear or ambiguous?

I think it would be interesting to take each pair and look at them over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, it would be an interesting exercise to look back through your images and see if you can classify them into one type of intent or the other. I know that I am much more prone to be conventional and reactive (happily snapping away from a safe vantage point) even though I’d like to think I’m challenging and ambiguous.

Take a look at your work and see. Photographically speaking, what’s your intent?

Today our featured image is from Agustín in Madrid. He captured an incredible sunset and in my opinion his photo is both amazingly simple and wonderfully expressive. And he didn’t follow the rule-of-thirds!