Simplification as a photographic technique

[Manfred M]

I have been in discussion with another member on how "simplification" is a powerful compositional technique. Making the statement is the easy part; explaining it in terms that others can understand it is a lot more challenging. I would like to hear other's opinion on this topic.

Let me start with a bit of background on where I am coming from on this topic. I suspect that the goal of most photographers is to engage their viewers. What that means is that the images have to catch and keep the viewer's attention. A combination of good technical quality, something that catches the viewer's attention from an emotional side and how the various elements are arranged in the image (organization) are all the key things that an strong image must have in order to achieve this.

When I think of simplification, I look at a handful of approaches:

1. Framing the shot in a way that minimizes the number of elements in the image. The fewer elements in an image, the less distractions there are and the more the viewer is directed to the subject. In this shot there are two elements; the tower and the sky. Pretty simple.






2. Ensuring that the background is fairly uniform and soft. That's what narrow depth of field is all about. The key mistake one sees here is that softening alone does not work as the background still needs to be reasonably free of distractions. Out of focus distractions are still distracting; and






3. Minimizing the colour range that impacts the image. Shooting B&W is the ultimate way of accomplishing that.

This shot is not B&W, but the colours are predominantly black, white and blue.





Thoughts?

[Shadowman]

I think with any composition the "look" first starts with personal preferences, doesn't matter if it's a portrait, architectural shot, landscape, or street photography. The next step in the creative process is whether or not you want to share that "look" with others, some of us shoot strictly for our own personal tastes and other times we shoot for a "look" that might appeal to others and sometimes we want others to embrace our own personal tastes.

Now if you start the days shooting assignment with others personal or worldly preferences in mind then the creative process might be a little different. For instance, your shot of the tower, if your assignment was solely to capture an image of said tower, you might consider taking a typical, touristy looking shot or you might look for a unique perspective, it all depends on what characteristics you want to convey or how artistically you want display the composition. Simplistic rendering can become more challenging just be selecting a different time of day to capture the image, your choice of camera body (smartphone, DSLR, film) can also make a simplistic endeavor even more challenging.

[JBW]

Here is my first problem Your #1 shot is to my eyes not a simple shot. There are two triangular pieces of sky. A circular top to the building. Plus two grey slabs and a central blue ladder of windows.

My eyes climb the ladder and take in the other pieces as, if not distractions, then at the very least parts that need to be brought into the whole.

Shot # 2 starts with the eyes, then the Mona Lisa smile and then the attention goes where it will. Admittedly the globs of soft green are annoying. But is annoying the same as distracting.

#3 has (again to my eyes) no unifying attention grabber even with only 3 dominant colors.

Perhaps in this discussion the distinction between a complex unified shot and a disjointed busy shot might be explored?

[DanK]

A helpful post, and some very nice images.

I agree that simplification is often a powerful tool, and you provided some good examples. However, if I understand Brian's last comment right, I agree with him. Some good images are not simple. Extraneous and distracting detail is usually a negative, but the degree of complexity one wants depends on the image.

For example, I posted this image a long time ago:



It's the back of the old harbor area in Bergen. It's gotten a better response than many of my images. The complexity of the shapes is a key part of the image--although, much like an impressionist painting, it includes a larger pattern that appears when one steps back enough from the detail.

[Manfred M]

A helpful post, and some very nice images.

I agree that simplification is often a powerful tool, and you provided some good examples. However, if I understand Brian's last comment right, I agree with him. Some good images are not simple. Extraneous and distracting detail is usually a negative, but the degree of complexity one wants depends on the image.

For example, I posted this image a long time ago:



It's the back of the old harbor area in Bergen. It's gotten a better response than many of my images. The complexity of the shapes is a key part of the image--although, much like an impressionist painting, it includes a larger pattern that appears when one steps back enough from the detail.

Dan - I totally agree. What I am trying to do is to get people to think about simplification as a compositional technique. Brian and I got into a bit of a discussion where I suggested the reason one of his shots was not working was that his background was too busy and suggested that I would start a thread to discuss "simplification" as a compositional tool. The image of his and thread where this discussion got started is here:

Peek~A~Boo I See You. A flower shot. C&C needed

Now that he has given us his thoughts on my sample images, I have something more to work with in our discussion.

[Manfred M]

Here is my first problem Your #1 shot is to my eyes not a simple shot. There are two triangular pieces of sky. A circular top to the building. Plus two grey slabs and a central blue ladder of windows.

My eyes climb the ladder and take in the other pieces as, if not distractions, then at the very least parts that need to be brought into the whole.

Shot # 2 starts with the eyes, then the Mona Lisa smile and then the attention goes where it will. Admittedly the globs of soft green are annoying. But is annoying the same as distracting.

#3 has (again to my eyes) no unifying attention grabber even with only 3 dominant colors.

Perhaps in this discussion the distinction between a complex unified shot and a disjointed busy shot might be explored?

Thanks for the feedback Brian as it gives me a better idea as to where you are coming from.

The whole premise of what I was trying to do is nicely summed up in the 2nd paragraph of #1:

" I suspect that the goal of most photographers is to engage their viewers. What that means is that the images have to catch and keep the viewer's attention. A combination of good technical quality, something that catches the viewer's attention from an emotional side and how the various elements are arranged in the image (organization) are all the key things that an strong image must have in order to achieve this."

That does not preclude other techniques and in fact most images are more complex because images can be too simple, and that makes them boring. To quote Albert Einstein; "Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". He was writing about scientific theories, but I find the concept can apply to photographs as well. That existing light shot of the black cow standing in the middle of a country road on a heavily overcast night is probably not going to wow a lot people...

What the photographer has to do to capture the viewer's attention is to present them with an image that catches the viewer's eye. Once that has happened, the next step is to keep the viewer's attention long enough for him or her to want to explore the whole image. These are two distinct but relate processes. If the viewer's eye is attracted to the image, but the second step isn't there, they will quickly move on to something else.

One of the easiest ways of losing the viewer's attention, once they start to become engaged with the image is if the photographer does not provide a scene that is visually interesting to explore at a more close up level. Here technical issues and organizational issues become critical to keeping the viewer's attention. If the subject or area of interest is overshadowed by other elements of the image, the viewer will likely just move on. This is why simplification is such a powerful tool as it ensures that the distractions are minimized.

When it comes to "simple" images, the first two I posted are quite simple. The subject and the background; that's it. I had considered posting two other similar images, but didn't want to go quite that simple. Let me post them now to compare.


1. This tower shot is even simpler; a very simple obelisk with a plain blue sky.





2. This is a shot of a model taken on white seamless paper. Seamless is very popular for studio work because there are no distractions, but the downside is that they tend to be a bit more sterile looking.




The third shot is definitely not simple, but the simplicity comes through the restricted colour range. To some extent, that is why Dan's image in #4 is effective; the elements in the image are largely warm tones and mostly simple lines, even though I would not view this image as being a "simple" one.

[pnodrog]

As Brian observed some of the shots are not simple.

I am a great fan of Pablo Picasso's statement "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" and think it is very pertinent to photography.

[Manfred M]

As Brian observed some of the shots are not simple.

I am a great fan of Pablo Picasso's statement "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" and think it is very pertinent to photography.

"Simple" is of course a relative term. What is simple for one person or context is complex for someone else, especially in a photographic sense. Context matters.

One of my photography instructors once pointed out that painters add elements to a canvas, while photographers look at how to remove things from a scene, either while composing the shot and / or later on in PP.

On the other hand, I am not writing about "simple", but rather "simplifying" which implies making something more simple.

[JBW]

"Simple" is of course a relative term. What is simple for one person or context is complex for someone else, especially in a photographic sense. Context matters.

One of my photography instructors once pointed out that painters add elements to a canvas, while photographers look at how to remove things from a scene, either while composing the shot and / or later on in PP.

On the other hand, I am not writing about "simple", but rather "simplifying" which implies making something more simple.

When I used to whittle I found myself removing what wasn't needed. It was an organic way to find what was already in the wood.

With photography, for me, and perhaps only me the process is reversed. I find myself deciding what to put into the scene through framing and then in pp deciding how to make the the eye focus on what I see as the main thing.

[Manfred M]

I find myself deciding what to put into the scene through framing and then in pp deciding how to make the the eye focus on what I see as the main thing.

I take a slightly different approach. When I shoot, I do so with a PP concept for the image. It's an integrated approach and the end produced is usually very close to what I planned to do.

[JBW]

Manfred, do you see this as a busy shot?

[Manfred M]

Manfred, do you see this as a busy shot?

Brian - yes it is busy, but perhaps you are asking the wrong question. A more suitable question should be "are there elements in this image that are distracting and taking away from the subject / centre of interest?"

If the answer to that question is yes, you should be looking at ways that would reduce the impact of those elements. This step is something that is best done while you are shooting so that they are not even in the image. That is not always possible, so the second question to yourself would be "can I fix this in post?". The answer to that question not only relates to the capabilities of the software and user skill, but also to the time and effort involved in doing the work. If it is going to take your three hours in post, why would you not take an extra 5 minutes in shooting to get a shot that works?

The piece of bamboo along the bottom, the large piece on the right and some of the bright areas all add to the complexity of the scene and detract from the subject (yellow flower). Downplaying them and enhancing the subject would strengthen this image.




By the way, Brian. There is nothing wrong with complex images, so long as they work well.

This is not so much a question of simple versus complex but simplification; i.e. removing or downplaying elements that do not add to the composition.

[JBW]

I'm curious what others will say.

I think part of the problem is that you want a single point flower shot. Keeping the main thing the main thing. Whereas I'm attempting to create a scene. A scene where the main thing is the whole thing.

Brian

[DanK]

I'm curious what others will say.

OK, I'll weigh in.

Manfred wrote this:

This is not so much a question of simple versus complex but simplification; i.e. removing or downplaying elements that do not add to the composition.

I think this is an excellent summary statement. For painters, the issue is what to add; for photographers, the question is often what to avoid, remove, or downplay (e.g., by darkening or blurring).

Sometimes, the impression one wants to make, or the story one wants to tell, requires complexity. but complexity that doesn't contribute to this is usually a distraction.

In the case of your image of the yellow flower, I agree that much of the background is simply distracting. You wrote that you wanted to display a scene, but there isn't much interesting in that scene other than the flower, and I find it distracting. For example, the bamboo on the bottom doesn't provide a leading line into the main focus (the flower); it takes they eye off to the right-hand edge. I agree with Manfred that the right-hand side distracts as well.

There are no hard and fast rules for this, and some of it is just a matter of taste. However, I find it useful to ask myself: where do I want the viewer's eye to go? Details that cause the eye to go somewhere else are usually--but not always--a negative. As an example of an exception: sometimes people use material on the edges to provide framing, and if that is done well (I generally do it poorly), it doesn't distract.

[Manfred M]

This is simple and effective:




I might quibble about some of the decisions that you made in creating this image, but they are quite minor when compared to the comments on this one.

Sometimes, the impression one wants to make, or the story one wants to tell, requires complexity. but complexity that doesn't contribute to this is usually a distraction.

Hoping and wishing something is going to work is generally not a good approach when one is trying to create something. A more hard-nosed approach of analyzing what is working and what is not working in the image is what one needs to do.

In the case of your image of the yellow flower, I agree that much of the background is simply distracting. You wrote that you wanted to display a scene, but there isn't much interesting in that scene other than the flower, and I find it distracting.

Agreed! The viewer's eye should move to the subject or area of interest in the image right away, without being impeded by distractions. The moment the viewer starts getting distracted, he or she will quickly lose interest and move on.

There are no hard and fast rules for this, and some of it is just a matter of taste. However, I find it useful to ask myself: where do I want the viewer's eye to go? Details that cause the eye to go somewhere else are usually--but not always--a negative

There never are any hard and fast rules that one can apply every time, but that being said, the rules usually do work.


The famous architect Mies van der Rohe, of Bauhaus fame, followed his motto "Less is more" throughout his career. Robert Capa, the famous photographer, said "if your images aren't good enough, you're not close enough". Both of these examples really move in the same direction - simplify and eliminate the unnecessary.

Just as an aside, one of the examples I had thought of posting in #1 is this shot of one over van der Rohe's last projects:

[rpcrowe]

Dan wrote, "Details that cause the eye to go somewhere else are usually--but not always--a negative. As an example of an exception: sometimes people use material on the edges to provide framing, and if that is done well (I generally do it poorly), it doesn't distract."

Right on Dan... Materials on the edges can provide framing and when they do, they direct our interest to the subject or area that has been framed... However sometimes (possibly most times) when materials on the edges of he image have not been purposefully selected as framing, they interfere with and direct our attention away from the center of interest.

IMO, one great difference between beginning photographers and photographers of more sophistication can be found in the edges and backgrounds. These are extremely important to the quality of the image but, quite often overlooked by photographers of less talent and/or experience.

I have to add one thing about backgrounds and sides of images. It is extremely difficult for me to survey the sides and background of any image when I am viewing it at a distance of 12-18" away from my face, on a LCD of about 3-inches in size with the additional problem of my hands, the camera body and the rest of the world competing with the tiny image for my attention (and adding the distraction of the sun hitting the LCD when shooting outdoors).

It is far easier and more pleasant for me to view a life-sized image surrounded by black with the only competition for my attention being the camera control data which I tend to keep to the minimum whenever possible. That is why I far prefer an eye level viewfinder to framing my image on an LCD held at distance away from my face...

[DanK]

[QUOTE]
Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
Sometimes, the impression one wants to make, or the story one wants to tell, requires complexity. but complexity that doesn't contribute to this is usually a distraction.[\QUOTE]

Hoping and wishing something is going to work is generally not a good approach when one is trying to create something. A more hard-nosed approach of analyzing what is working and what is not working in the image is what one needs to do.

Lost me here, sorry. Your response seems like a non sequitur. I wasn't saying anything about hoping vs. analyzing.

[QUOTE]The famous architect Mies van der Rohe, of Bauhaus fame, followed his motto "Less is more" throughout his career. /QUOTE]

Bauhaus is one style that appeals to some people's taste but not to everyone's. Not all impressive buildings are as minimalist. There are breathtakingly beautiful neighborhoods of Victorian buildings. Sometimes ornamentation accomplishes what the architect desires. The point is to avoid detail that doesn't help accomplish the goal.

[William W]

I have been in discussion with another member on how "simplification" is a powerful compositional technique. . . . I would like to hear other's opinion on this topic. . . . I suspect that the goal of most photographers is to engage their viewers. What that means is that the images have to catch and keep the viewer's attention. A combination of good technical quality, something that catches the viewer's attention from an emotional side and how the various elements are arranged in the image (organization) are all the key things that [a] strong image must have in order to achieve this. . .

1. Framing the shot in a way that minimizes the number of elements in the image.
2. Ensuring that the background is fairly uniform and soft.
3. Minimizing the colour range that impacts the image.

Thoughts?

Much of my photographic effort has been working for Wedding Clients.

The main part of my job was to understand what the Clients wanted as the product that they would take away.

I agree that elements of: technical quality; framing important elements; smooth backgrounds (nice Bokeh); un-muddled colours, and etc are all relevant.

However, above all else, if I ever missed the moment, then realistically I missed that shot and there was never another chance to get it, ever again.

It might be simply habit and/or not extending my brain enough to adapt to NOT making Wedding Photos, but what I prioritized the most, and what I still prioritize as the most important element is: TIMING.

So if I see an image which captures a special moment, then it grabs my eye even if is too “complicated” in other of its facets.

Additionally, I believed that I learned to appreciate and understand the ‘moments’ which would capture my Clients’ eyes: even if those images might appear mundane to the broader viewing public. I think that this skill has allowed me to see images through my own eyes and at least one other’s eyes – which I think is worthwhile.

For one example:



This is a photo that I made in Venice of a little girl sitting in a doorway: likely her Mum and Dad’s house. We looked at each other, exchanged smiles yet I waited until she cuddled her Puppy and then waited more until the look in her eye of her “showing off” her Puppy to me, showing me the love that she had for her puppy.

That was ‘the moment’ and that was ‘the shot’.

> I wasn’t concentrating on all that much on Framing - I was shooting wide to allow freedom of cropping later
> I wasn’t concentrating all that much on a soft background – I was probably around F/5.6~F/8 - the adage “F/8 and be there”
> I wasn’t concentrating all that much on lack of grain (noise) - I was probable at ISO1600 to ensure a fast Shutter speed to alleviate Subject Motion Blur
> I wasn’t concentrating all that much on colours – the colours are what they are
> I wasn't in rat-a-tat-tat Mode - crikey that would have likely scared the kid to run back inside
> I pulled that shot with my eye away from the Viewfinder, both my eyes communicating with the little Girl - so I had a reasonable idea of how it was framed, but I wasn't "talking aim" with a 5D Series, Battery Grip and Red Stripe Zoom Lens at her face - crikey I was only about six feet from her

Do I think that the shot works for me: yes it does - the reason being that the Mother cried when I showed the image to her.

"TIMING" is my answer to 'Simplification' in my work.

WW

[rpcrowe]

All decent images are not simple...
This is not a simple image but, I think that it works...

However, the above image is more simple (in being monochrome) than the origunal...


This IS a simple image of a fairly complex subject

[JBW]

This is simple and effective:




I might quibble about some of the decisions that you made in creating this image, but they are quite minor when compared to the comments on this one.







Hoping and wishing something is going to work is generally not a good approach when one is trying to create something. A more hard-nosed approach of analyzing what is working and what is not working in the image is what one needs to do.





Agreed! The viewer's eye should move to the subject or area of interest in the image right away, without being impeded by distractions. The moment the viewer starts getting distracted, he or she will quickly lose interest and move on.



There never are any hard and fast rules that one can apply every time, but that being said, the rules usually do work.


The famous architect Mies van der Rohe, of Bauhaus fame, followed his motto "Less is more" throughout his career. Robert Capa, the famous photographer, said "if your images aren't good enough, you're not close enough". Both of these examples really move in the same direction - simplify and eliminate the unnecessary.

Just as an aside, one of the examples I had thought of posting in #1 is this shot of one over van der Rohe's last projects:

Manfred, you seem to equate lots of empty space or lots of what you consider the main object as correct and simplified. I don't agree.

As for the main object needing to grab the viewers attention right off the bat... does anyone here not have their eyes drawn to the yellow bell ?