Isolate
Hi All,
On my recent trip to Patagonia, a member of the trip told me he tends to try to ‘get it all in’. We were standing on a little bridge over to a small island in Lago Pehoe at the time.
What I recall about this little discussion was that I thought we had both ’seen’ the same thing. I took my shot and then went over to see what he was doing, only to find out that he was trying to get the lake, the mountains and the hotel, situated on the small island into the shot. I showed him what I had composed (see below), and his comment was ‘you go for very simple compositions’. It was a concise point. He was concise with his words, whereas I tend to be quite verbose. But in terms of picture composition, he was pretty verbose while I was concise.
I think the strength of an image lies many times in what we exclude from it. Putting more things into a scene can often dilute the strength of the message. Keeping it simple is key.
With the image in question, what I was grabbed by was the sweeping curve in the dark sand in the foreground. I’m a sucker for composing landscape shots in portrait mode. I’m convinced this is because of how I actually interpret scenes, but also, because the 6×7 aspect ratio lends to this. I tried to compose the same shot using a 5DII while I was there and it simple didn’t work. Too much height – too much sky and too much forground. I find 35mm aspect ratio of 3:2 not conducive to how I think about objects and place them within the frame. But that’s just me.
Focus and isolating down to the barest components of a scene is the way forward to making a strong image. When looking at a scene next time, try to think about what it is you are actually drawn to, and whether everything in there actually needs to be there. Remove items and reduce. Isolate and improve impact.
OK, Bruce, on the basis of simplicity and of the image being all about the curve, have you thought about cropping the image along the opposite shore so you just have the reflection of the mountains? What do you think?
Comment by john b — 29 April, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Hi John,
Yes, that would work, if you wanted to make it more abstract of course. But it, for me, has lost a lot of impact now. The curve was being used to draw the eye in, made for a less cluttered approach while the mountains were really the main focus of the image.
I think this is an example of cropping in too far. Isolating so much that you’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Perhaps I wasn’t too clear in my explanation, but in terms of keeping the image simple, it *is* all about the curve. But in terms of what the image is all about, it’s about the mountains and the lake. The curve in the shoreline is there to lead the eye in. It’s also so simple that it doesn’t detract too much from the mountains. I used the curve of the shoreline as an ‘anchor’ to help set context and also to enable the eye to be lead into the scene.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 29 April, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Hi Bruce. Great photo of Pehoe. It’s still possibly my favourite place from all of my time in Patagonia. Funny, it looks completely different in your photo from when I was there with you.
I really felt like it was a spot where you could loosen the pan on the tripod head, close your eyes, spin the head like a wheel of fortune and flip the shutter wherever it ended up. Not that some skill doesn’t help but it was like being a kid in a candy shop at that spot!
Niall
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 29 April, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Hi Bruce; I too am a big fan of portrait oriented pictures but have never found the 3×2 ratio satisfying. I have a saying that in every 3×2 portrait picture there is a 4×5 trying to escape. 6×7 is fairly close to 4×5 and is a ratio I should like to use (I’ll have to get a 6×7 back). The picture is very satisfying, the sweep elevating it beyond mere description. Out of interest, what is got preferred landscape orientation aspect ratio? I find 4×5 too boxy, 3×2 ok but 2×1 has some real pluses…
Comment by timparkin — 29 April, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Hi Tim,
Yes, I do find sometimes that 4×5 is too boxy, but I’ve since discovered that the Mamiya 7 (which I use) is not really 6×7, it’s more like 6×7.5 which roughly works out at the same aspect ratio as 5×4.
I know Colin Prior loves panoramic and also feels that 35mm aspect ratio of 3:2 is really useful, but like you, I tend to agree that 3:2 tends to contain a nice 5×4 aspect ratio image within it. I certainly find that for myself, in terms of how I compose an image anyway. When I was comparing what I was composing, with partners on the workshop who had 35mm digital systems, I found I couldn’t transfer my composition over to their systems – it simply did not work. 35mm I feel, forces you to fill out the edges of the wider side of the frame. I think that’s why there’s a tendency for ultra-wides now with 35mm, as they allow you to really fill the frame.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 29 April, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Hi Niall,
Yes, it’s a favourite place of mine also.
Regarding the light : I shot this and thought I’d forgotten to focus the camera (It’s a rangefinder, so you don’t see if it’s out of focus), so I went back about an hour later and it simply did not look the same. The light was very harsh by then, and that quality which I feel I captured in this image was not there.
Each landscape has many faces, and in Patagonia, where the light is often changing, a place can look quite different upon several visits.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 29 April, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
re: 6×7.5 – wow! thats exactly 4×5! I was going to say that I’ve added a 4×5 masked viewfinder screen to my 5D and taped up the back of the camera to only show the 4×5 crop. (It also makes the 5D a wonderful composition tool for the large format – if a little large).
Comment by timparkin — 29 April, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Hi Bruce,
The photo above of a Lago Pehoe Curve has an interesting light, but I cannot understand when it was taken. It seems that it was time between moring and noon.
I just wonder is this a sky that gave blue hue to the surrounding mountains?
As for crop suggested by John, well there is a saying: “everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler”.
Comment by Victor — 7 May, 2009 @ 5:02 am
Hi Victor,
Torres del Paine is in the far southern hemisphere. The word Paine is a Tehuelche (native indian) word for dark blue and was used in reference to the mountains. But I think the blue you are seeing is a combination of colder light (southern hemisphere), Velvia (it over-saturates) and of course, my own leanings. I tend towards colder temperatures in my pictures.
Thanks for sharing your saying about ‘everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler’. You don’t want to get to a point where you throw out the Baby with the bath water.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 8 May, 2009 @ 8:56 pm