The Subject

[FrankMi]

I am fascinated by what makes part of an image the 'subject' and other parts, the elements that support (or at lest should support) the subject.

I have heard that the subject is defined sometimes by size or sharpness or a human element, or a contrast, or brightness... the list goes on.

Sometimes the subject is very obvious, at least to the photographer. And sometimes the subject is very abstract, particularly to the viewer.

Lets take the image below for example. Depending upon the title I might give it, your attention may be directed to a specific element in the image and everything else may become secondary. On the other hand, the subject is sometimes considered to be whatever your eye gravitates to when you first view the scene.

I know what I feel the subject is but I have not titled this image so that you can think about what you feel should be the subject and perhaps you could share your thoughts as to why you feel that way.

I am also curious to see if my view of the subject comes across or would I need to rework the image, if that would be possible, to meet your expectations for what constitutes The Subject.



Your thoughts?

[Geoff F]

In most cases your intended subject should be clear, without any caption. But sometimes a number of elements come together to produce one overall general subject.

With this scene for instance, the subject for me is the Lock; which is an overall subject.

Separate elements include the lock gates, a couple of men, and a distant ship; it even has a nice sky. So everything comes together in an excellent composition, and with good perspective.

[Daisy Mae]

Well firstly I would say never, ever rework your shots to meet anyone elses expectations.It is ( always) your unique choice to frame and compose a shot to your view and your sense of aesthetic that decides everything from exposure to angle of view. No one will ever see the same thing in a scene and to me that's what makes photography exciting and fresh.

In this picture the strongest element for me ( subject if you like to call it that) is the canal wall, the steps and bridge and basin beyond . I am struck by the horizontals which are echoed all the way back to the horizon line. The fact that in 'reading' the shot front to back I get blocked by the wall at the very start means I don't see the verticals.

HOWEVER..if I step back from the scene enough to get perspective the angle in the wall actually add to moving the eye along the verticals ..coaxing it into the far horizon by means of the canal sides and the street lighting which leads you there.

So my unequivocal opinion is actually totally equivocal but it's a Saturday night and wine has been consumed.

The most important thing to my mind is that you are asking these questions and making us think about them...that's what it is all about.

[Manfred M]

Frank - For me the one question I ask myself in every image that I take is "what is the subject". Unless my eyes / brain can figure that out in an instance and not wander all over the image, I know the shot is not as strong as it should be.

I can't quite figure out what the subject is here; the lock gates or the rest of the canal. I would be tempted to either concentrate on the gates themselves and eliminate much or all of the background, or reduce the amount of the gates showing in the image and concentrate on the part of the canal that sits beyond the lock. Either approach would probably result in a stronger image.

[Black Pearl]

Frank are you to looking at it from the wrong end?

Surely the subject of a picture should be the first thing you think about and define in you eye, then viewfinder before the shutter button is even pressed. Then as Manfred said if the subject doesn't carry across to the actual image something has gone awry.

[Downrigger]

A point that I think interesting is that the choice of subject can be very much a matter of the contextual framework provided by the viewer. A balanced image of a striking man and a striking dog might be a picture of a dog to a misanthropic dog lover, or a picture of a man happening to be with a dog to a person who dislikes dogs and likes to look at striking men.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I think the subject here is the guy in the red shirt - that the image magnificently presents him and the mystery of what he is doing, or about to do, in a setting of massive scale. The fact that he is "small", seems the point.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with Geoff that the subject is the lock. I also agree with Manfred's suggestions about how to strengthen the photo.

[Black Pearl]

Anyway, for what it is worth, I think the subject here is the guy in the red shirt

Which one?
There are two...or is it one person taken twice?

[FrankMi]

There are many good thoughts to ponder in these excellent observations, but while we explore this question, perhaps I can clarify the mystery for Mark.



Robin, the guy on the side of the lock is also one of the ships photographers recording the passage of the ship through the locks. If you can enlarge the image enough you might just be able to see his tripod.

[FrankMi]

In most cases your intended subject should be clear, without any caption. But sometimes a number of elements come together to produce one overall general subject.

With this scene for instance, the subject for me is the Lock; which is an overall subject.

Separate elements include the lock gates, a couple of men, and a distant ship; it even has a nice sky. So everything comes together in an excellent composition, and with good perspective.

Hi Geoff, thank you for you thoughts. I think that most folks would consider the lock, or, owing to its large size and prominence in the image, the lock gates (or leafs as the are sometimes called) to be the subject. I also agree that in this image, there may not be a single clearly defined object that is the focal point of the image. That is part of the intrigue of this scene and why I posted the question.

[FrankMi]

Well firstly I would say never, ever rework your shots to meet anyone elses expectations.It is ( always) your unique choice to frame and compose a shot to your view and your sense of aesthetic that decides everything from exposure to angle of view. No one will ever see the same thing in a scene and to me that's what makes photography exciting and fresh.

In this picture the strongest element for me ( subject if you like to call it that) is the canal wall, the steps and bridge and basin beyond . I am struck by the horizontals which are echoed all the way back to the horizon line. The fact that in 'reading' the shot front to back I get blocked by the wall at the very start means I don't see the verticals.

HOWEVER..if I step back from the scene enough to get perspective the angle in the wall actually add to moving the eye along the verticals ..coaxing it into the far horizon by means of the canal sides and the street lighting which leads you there.

So my unequivocal opinion is actually totally equivocal but it's a Saturday night and wine has been consumed.

The most important thing to my mind is that you are asking these questions and making us think about them...that's what it is all about.

Thank you for your valuable insights, Sharon. I am pleased that the image was compelling enough for you to explore it in detail and absorb what I feel is the grandeur of a scene like this. Part of what I feel this kind of scene does is to let your imagination 'fill in the missing elements' that are beyond the scope of our vision from this perspective. Hopefully that process helps to take the viewer into and be part of the environment and not just be a casual observer of it.

[FrankMi]

Frank - For me the one question I ask myself in every image that I take is "what is the subject". Unless my eyes / brain can figure that out in an instance and not wander all over the image, I know the shot is not as strong as it should be.

I can't quite figure out what the subject is here; the lock gates or the rest of the canal. I would be tempted to either concentrate on the gates themselves and eliminate much or all of the background, or reduce the amount of the gates showing in the image and concentrate on the part of the canal that sits beyond the lock. Either approach would probably result in a stronger image.

A appreciate you valuable input, Manfred. When I took this image I had a clear idea as to what, for me, was the subject but I found that it wasn't all that clear one I had studied it a while and I could see how multiple interpretations could evolve as to what this image is really about. In one way it is like a landscape without a clearly define focal point and in another frame of mind it has multiple focal points that a viewer could choose from. Perhaps much of that 'choosing' could relate to the viewer's memory of previous similar scenes and what appeals to them from that memory.

Cropping could more definitively narrow the subject options and make one or another element come to the forefront but when I took the shot I had something a little different in mind so perhaps, with my life's experiences, I simply don't think the same way that others do?

[FrankMi]

Frank are you to looking at it from the wrong end?

Surely the subject of a picture should be the first thing you think about and define in you eye, then viewfinder before the shutter button is even pressed. Then as Manfred said if the subject doesn't carry across to the actual image something has gone awry.

An excellent observation, Robin. And I know that for me, that occurred here as well. What I have discovered is that the image doesn't always convey to the viewer what it is the grabbed the photographers attention. There seems to a feeling that the image is at risk of being a failure if that communication is weak or completely lost. In many cases I would agree completely with that assessment. On the other hand, I've also heard that a bit of mystery can help enhance the viewing pleasure of some images.

[FrankMi]

A point that I think interesting is that the choice of subject can be very much a matter of the contextual framework provided by the viewer. A balanced image of a striking man and a striking dog might be a picture of a dog to a misanthropic dog lover, or a picture of a man happening to be with a dog to a person who dislikes dogs and likes to look at striking men.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I think the subject here is the guy in the red shirt - that the image magnificently presents him and the mystery of what he is doing, or about to do, in a setting of massive scale. The fact that he is "small", seems the point.

And that, Mark, I think is a very valid point to consider. I suspect that much of our likes and dislikes when it come to specific images, is based on our past experiences and how we feel about the various elements in a scene. This is predominately a landscape but for a person that searches out the human element in images, the two people that are fairly insignificant in overall size, could become a primary focal point of the image for that individual.

When I shot this image, the photographer who was photographing us was a fairly important part of what I was trying to capture but, I also wanted that element, small as it was, to be set in the context of where we were and why he was taking our picture.

[FrankMi]

I agree with Geoff that the subject is the lock. I also agree with Manfred's suggestions about how to strengthen the photo.

I appreciate the wisdom of your perspective, Mike. I think that most viewers would agree with you.

[ShaneS]

Interesting discussion...first let me say that what caught my eye in this image was the intricate detail on the gates of the loch and then I wanted to see more of where it met the water at the bottom.

Based on what you and others have stated Frank, it seems to me that this would be an appropriate scene for a photo essay where we seem this grand image, possibly one of the ship passing through the loch and then close ups of the men taking pictures of the process and possibly even some details of the loch itself. It would be a very interesting series.

Does one picture always have to say it all?

[flashback]

Frank,

For starters I don't think any photo is a one-size-fits-all. So regardless of how obvious, prominent or central a/the subject may be, it may simply not be obvious to some, many or all nor may it be interesting even if obvious. So at least for me, any image I create has to first speak (and seemingly only) to me. As others have said, the image is yours and yours to decide how it is represented.

My impression of your photo is this: I found my eyes wandering throughout the image (BTW there are 13 light stanchions closely associated with the lock). The man in the foreground is too 'distance' and the entire image to broad to create any interest for me. But that's just me.

As for titling an image, I've seen images (e.g., here in CiC) that speak clearly to the subject matter and others that either allude to it or are (intentionally) vague. I think a title can *enhance* the viewer's experience in that they are directed to see what the artist intends. In other cases though the title may have nothing to do with the actual image but instead could be an emotion, feeling, color or some misdirection. But again how an image is titled is up to the discretion of the artist but I don't think that it should handhold the viewer to an epiphany either.

Back to your image; Viewing it in the lightbox my eyes are immediately drawn to the lock gates and the patterns therein. To me I find something very captivating about the repeating patterns of rivets and plates. However, had the image been in B&W I think it would have grabbed me more because, without the distraction of color, the image would have been more about convergence and divergence of lines throughout. But overall there is no clear subject, no drama, no tension or sense of foreboding. In fact it strikes me as a image of something gone past, or maybe something happening out of view but unconnected to the image. As it stands, I'm kind of under the impression that there are two people, the person who took this image and the gentleman on the lock, both photographing and waving to each other.

Jack

[Ady]

Hi Frank,

As an image it works for me on an aesthetic level, I like it. As for the 'subject', well to a certain extent that's dependent on the size I viewed it.

As a smaller inline image in the thread it was the mix of converging lines, verticals and horizontals that drew me in. However when I looked at it full screen it became much more about the textures and colours in the lock gates. But then I was drawn down the line of the canal to the horizon, specifically to the point where the canal appears to meet the sky.

The fact that I don't see a single overiding point of interest/subject doesn't concern me and isn't something I concern myself with when shooting either. When I'm not shooting for a client I enjoy creating images that I like, generally without concerning myself with the why.

However once an image is printed and open to scrutiny its no longer mine but belongs to the viewer, it's up to them to figure out what they see and why, to make up stories or pick out 'the subject' and ultimately to decide it is a good image or not from their own perspective.

If you had a specific intention in terms of subject or story that you were keen to press upon the viewer then it's possibly not worked for me, but then I don't consider that to be an issue. I like to wander around an image, make my own stories, get up close and lose myself in the detail or view from afar.

Cheers,
Ady

[Brev00]

After my first few exposures to modern art a la Rothko, Pollock, etc., I gave up on the notion of the imperial subject. Yes, most of my images have an easily identifiable subject but many do not. Some may critique a subject-free shot as lacking but, perhaps, they have not seen much of art since the 1920's. Of course, it could be, my image is lacking. But not, I would propose, for lack of a subject. What if, for instance, a small portion of the Grand Canyon fills the frame. Clearly, the Grand Canyon is the subject but any one group of pixels may not be more important than any other. Sometimes, it is the overall impact, the ability to be transported within the frame of the image and enjoy the visit that matters and not any one element. This image seems a little easier to differentiate than my example since there are easily distinguishable elements that form the entire image. One can break it down different ways and come up with different answers as has been done. If one were to look at the story of the shot and that might be a relevant way since we are talking about the subject (a story element), the person waving is the center of the story and therefore the subject. The fact that he is dressed in a red jacket against the mostly green and gray scene gives him a certain amount of color weight. The poles seem to echo his raised arm giving him a sense of power (a la a conductor). The lock, itself, is foreground in this analysis, the man with the yellow fence is midground, and the rest of the image is background. The man is also at the intersection of two main leading lines, the seam of the lock and edge of the canal. One's eye must stop with him before continuing to view the excellent photo.

[FrankMi]

Interesting discussion...first let me say that what caught my eye in this image was the intricate detail on the gates of the loch and then I wanted to see more of where it met the water at the bottom.

Based on what you and others have stated Frank, it seems to me that this would be an appropriate scene for a photo essay where we seem this grand image, possibly one of the ship passing through the loch and then close ups of the men taking pictures of the process and possibly even some details of the loch itself. It would be a very interesting series.

Does one picture always have to say it all?

Interesting thoughts Shane. Although the story behind this image was deliberately not presented as I was curious what others saw as viewers. For me, this image is about the passage of the ship through the locks and how it was recorded by the ship's photographers. The ironic part is that the ship in question is not in the image, not even as reflection or shadow, nada. A clarifying title, descriptive text, or perhaps a series of images could have clarified that view.

Like you and others that have commented, there are a number of interesting elements in this scene, from the way the suns rays lit up each individual rivet on the gates to parallelisms in the locks and light poles, to the photographers and what they are photographing. As viewers, we see what resonates with us in an image.

As a result of these articulate comments, I can now see much more in this scene than I ever imagined was there and for that I am indebted to each of the participants in this journey of exploration.