Several beliefs govern photography, resulting in a monotonous similarity in images. Breaking free from the restrictions imposed by peer pressure can revolutionize your photos. But don’t expect people who get lost in the fog of mediocrity and with limited imagination to appreciate it.
There are expectations in photography that images from particular genres will look a certain way. Subjects may vary, but there are limited approaches to capturing them that the establishment considers acceptable.
For example, photographers often try to make the subject dominate the frame. The typical approach is that the subject stands out above anything else. We then illuminate to make it noticeable and use depth of field and other separation techniques to make that subject stand out from the background.
But what if we choose a different approach. Instead of making the main subject dominate, reduce it until it is barely noticeable and is only visible if the photo is sufficiently studied.
Take for example, the image below. Click it to fit your screen.
How are your eyes tracking through the frame? For most people, it starts at the lighthouse on the island. Next, it moves to the moon at the top of the frame. Then his gaze lingered for a moment in the pre-dawn light hitting the clouds. Finally, viewers notice a distraction on the rocks below. Only then did they realize it was a bird, a curled one.
Before you scream that you saw the first bird, that’s okay. Not everyone’s eyes will follow the image in the same way.
This won’t work with the way people view Instagram photos so quickly – scrolling and clicking “Like” on the small screen without studying the image. The bird won’t even go unnoticed. But if displayed in a quality gallery where the viewer stops and studies the image, applying lag is a perfectly acceptable approach.
We usually draw the viewer’s eye around the photo using leading lines. That curled photo behaves differently. It uses distraction points to move the eye from place to place: the lighthouse, the moon, the illuminated clouds, and the bird.
Presented at photo contests, judges may not appreciate such photos for their merits. They may see the bird as nothing more than an unwanted distraction in a landscape photograph, rather than how the photographer intended to view the photo. Is this the fault of the photographer or the examiner? I would say it is a limitation of the latter.
The following photo has a leading line. A row of footprints leads the eye to the main subject: a woman in a pink robe. She was walking on a wide, deserted beach. Reflecting on the photograph, one can infer a story from the photograph. First, her path is winding, and she goes around the seaweed and doesn’t step over it. That suggests it was a carefree stroll and not a determined march. Then the path she was on was about to intersect with what looked like another set of footprints. This beach isn’t quite as deserted as we first thought, is it?
However, a closer examination revealed that we were mistaken. It was not a footprint, but a seaweed trail left by the receding tide.
Again, the examiner may mark the image down because that seaweed streak is an unwanted distraction. As a result, the photographer can remove both it and the cluster in the middle of the foreground during the editing process. That would simplify the photo, which I usually like, but that secondary, misleading story would be lost. It also makes the composition unbalanced.
So there is a dilemma: do we bow to the idea that images must be easy to understand or sacrifice simplicity and even beauty to create something that requires more thought to understand. it’s correct? In other words, should we make the viewer work to understand the image? We often discuss the relationship between the subject and the photographer, especially the human subject. However, the relationship between the photographer and the viewer is more complicated.
Maybe we always think of the viewers, especially when filming commercials. The picture must not only satisfy the customer, but also their customers. For example, if catalog photography is taken for a clothing company, the client wants the photos to make their products sell. Unless specifically asked, photographers will not open their creative toolbox and apply unusual and interesting artistic techniques.
This limitation is a compromise many photographers make whether shooting product, portraits or pets. Forgive the constant insinuations, but even social media, sports, and street photographers take photos that live up to viewer expectations.
What if you shoot just for the sake of art? This relationship becomes more strained. First, artists present themselves in their photographs, and in doing so, they shouldn’t come up with a fake two-color cake like what others think. But if they don’t live up to the establishment’s expectations, they’re less likely to get noticed, let alone get organized. The exception, of course, is in the academic art world, where progressive creativity and avoidance of the norm – quite rightly – are welcome.
If so, if creativity is truly confined to academia, then most of us are shackled by limitations imposed by peer pressure. We are limiting ourselves by trying to achieve what others have done before us, held back by so-called truths that are merely the subjective opinions of the people.
Let’s take the argument for the 35mm sensor as an example. They give a distinct look to an image that the marketing departments of major camera companies consider the gold standard. Because of that pressure, the full-frame look has become the expectation of many, though not all, commercial photographers. That expectation has landed in the worlds of non-commercial and creative photography. As a result, there is a lot of snobbery about full-frame cameras leading to a disdain that limits diversity and creativity.
Do not misunderstand me; there’s nothing wrong with the 35mm sensor. But the creators should realize that there is nothing superior or inferior about it or any other sensor format. They are just different. Each has its advantages, just as each has its trade-offs. If a full frame camera gives you the look you want, that’s fine; I don’t argue with that. However, if we shoot to create art, perhaps we should question why we like it. Is it just convention compliant – we want it because it’s what we expect? If so, then we should challenge that.
The same can be said about camera brand, depth of field, lens sharpness, development technique, focal length, composition and exposure expectations, black and white conversion, etc. Are we using them in some way just because of other people’s subjective expectations?
Luxury popular fashion needs bravery. Many people believe that the universal approach is best, and strong camera brands favor them because it helps their sales. Furthermore, when you break away from the norm, there will be people who don’t understand it and they will criticize you for being too attached to popular opinion. But that problem is with their understanding, not with your photos.
