Light, shape & tone
Some photos are taken because of the quality of the light and simplistic forms presented in them. They have no other reason to ‘be’ except that they are pleasing.
I say this because this photo of the beach at Solas in North Uist doesn’t really have any specific land mass. No famous mountain range, no definable point of interest. I often feel we go looking for that shot of the Buchalle Etive Mhor, or a picture of the Cuillin range at Elgol because it’s an obvious marker. But what about things that are just beautiful for just existing. Dave, one of my workshop participants in April was telling me that David Ward calls it the ‘anonymous landscape’.
I find this an interesting topic because I feel that a lot of new photographers and especially people who don’t photograph, feel that a photo should have a ‘reason’ for existing.
For example, I made a photograph of some ice bergs in Iceland and presented it as a gift to one of my oldest friends for his 40th. He told me that he loved the shot but was surprised by visitors reactions to it. He said that some of them were perplexed and often asked ‘but why a picture of ice?’. It’s as if some people don’t understand a photograph unless it has some context for them. Pictures of Aunty Ethel are self explanatory, as too are pictures of an event like a friends birthday. But pictures of floating ice in a lagoon, have no meaning for some people.
I think as photographers, we have to please ourselves first and foremost. If we find beauty in something abstract, then we make a photo of it. I did this at Solas. I loved the textures in the sky and sea at the time and tried to come up with a simplistic composition to let them breathe.
I know it’s not the dominant part of the photo, but for me it’s the sea that makes this photo. The colour and tone draws me in, and it gives a feeling of depth to the photo.
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 9 July, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Bruce, it sounds to me like personal vision which is the most important thing to me. I think that many photographers never achieve this but copy others, I suspect that is why we see so many massively saturated images on the web. They are popular and achieve ready acclaim but are not about an emotional response to a place but rather forcing the image to a preconceived result.
Comment by jeffg53 — 9 July, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Hi Jeff,
I think over-saturated images are appraised more on the web because of the nature of the beast. It’s hard to get impact with a small real estate and most folks computer screens are anything but close to accurate as well. So the high-impact image often wins.
I agree that there are a lot of ‘forced’ images out there. Often badly edited, but usually by someone who is starting out in image making. Over saturation, high contrast images look very exciting to the newbie, but as we progress, we start to learn to appreciate the more subtle. Well, that’s my take on it.
As for vision, I think it takes time to get a personal style. Most of us have one, but don’t realise it to its full potential because we either lack confidence and end up feeling we have to look up to someone else’s work and copy it, or we’re not listening to ourselves.
I was merely discussing how some folks think images have to be about events, people they know or places they know. An image can be valid just because we find it pleasing.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 9 July, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
Some of my thoughts on contrast (for what they are worth). High color contrast can be very useful but not necessary. It is common because it is easy to see even for new photographers like me. In this picture there is little color contrast or tone contrast but it is a very pleasing image. The only way it could be better is if it were mine :). But there is great contrast. The amazing softness of the sky and water contrast sharply with the hard, rigidness of the land.
Sometimes the color contrast gets in the way of seeing other more emotional contrast. For example, I have an image of 2 leaves one laying on the other. The leaf on the bottom is dark green and the one on top is yellow. Clear color contrast which is what drew me to take the picture. However, as I have thought about the image since having it printed I now see even more interesting contrasts.
One is the contrast of an evergreen plant to a plant that reacts to the seasons of the year. This relates fall is in the air and everyone reacts to the seasons.
Another is the humor that the bottom leaf is way bigger than the top leaf. The smaller leaf was dropped by a tall tree while the bigger leaf is on a shrub in the yard that is only 3 feet tall. Granted one needs to know a little more about the plants for this contrast, but I do so it works.
Anyway my main point is sometimes the obvious contrast of saturated (over saturated) colors is hiding a more emotional contrast.
Getting back to this image. Just a few short months ago I would have looked at this image and said why a picture of a little tiny strip of land? Now I look at the subtle color variances and they are beautiful to behold. But now I also see contrasts that would have eluded me a few months ago. Softness and hardness. Many (clouds) to one (island). Colorful (tones in the clouds) to dull (brown land). Motion to immovable. And I am sure there are more.
I hope to learn to shoot and appreciate things simply because they are pleasing to me but also hope to never loose interest in the events, places and people of life. What a world God has created.
Comment by Gary James — 20 July, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
Hi Gary,
Apologies for the very late posting ( over a year late ). Somehow I missed your entry and have literally, just finished reading it now.
Thanks so much for a great posting. I thought it summed up beautifully many aspects of photography and also, how we interpret our world.
Take care.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 8 August, 2011 @ 12:10 am