More wall or less wall
One of my greatest photographic pleasures is getting together with a few savvy individuals and a box of prints and then proceeding to disembowel, dissect and reconstitute the latter (doing it to the former would be self-defeating). I most recently did this with Ben Roberts: we lay a bunch of prints from his series The Gathering Clouds on my floor one afternoon and whipped up an effective initial edit in about half an hour.
However, in these cases you’re usually dealing with fully formed, relatively mature images that have already made it through several quality gates. You’re trying to decide which of several very different scenes works best in a specific sequential context. But sometimes I want to play this game at a lower level: to identify which particular representation of a scene works most effectively. To pick a champion who may or may not survive the great gladiatorial struggle to find a proper place within a larger body of work.
William Eggleston famously claimed he only made one photograph per scene because he found the process of selecting a ‘winner’ too difficult. Several years ago, when I was still coming to grips with the way I worked, I showed several contact sheets to an established, considerably well-renowned photographer.
“You’re only making one or two exposures in settings where I think you need to take more to truly get a feeling for the compositional possibilities. I don’t buy Eggleston’s spiel and even if it’s true, I hate to tell you this but you’re not him. You’re no genius, you might miss something and what could seem the ideal composition at the time may not remain as ideal upon further reflection. And then you’ll be left without enough material and you’ll never really know if you could have done any better.
Besides, you’re shooting medium format, you don’t have to carry the cross that a 8×10 photographer bears. You cannot and should not get away with ‘just’ dragging yourself to a location, methodically setting up your camera, making a single exposure and then relying on that large format goodness to compensate for a sub-optimal or conservative composition. Don’t settle for less especially when you have more flexibility… give yourself some bloody options”.
So, if resolved to make multiple photographs of a scene, how could I get better at making and then picking the “best” one? While clearly a loaded and some would say fundamentally unanswerable question, one tactic I’ve found to work in certain scenarios is to walk away from the location and return straight away (possibly from a different path). Because you’re effectively starting all over again, you can reassess the entire composition and free yourself from any creative corners you may have painted yourself into.
When it comes to analysing actual images, I learned a few things from my peers. One was to free yourself temporarily from the intricate details of a photo (that so many individuals obsess over) and concentrate solely on form. By squinting and allowing the image to become indistinct, you can make distinctions based purely on primary shapes, the broader brush strokes.
Going further, comparing photographs which are viewed upside down AND reflected in a mirror can disassociate yourself entirely from their contextual baggage, separating completely their connection with reality.
Many people can just rely on contact sheets and a decent loupe. I still resort to making screen-sized scans of my negatives and use software like Aperture or Lightroom to quickly flip back and forth between variations and narrow the choices.
Regardless of how the approach, it can still be a very difficult process. I remember reading that Josef Koudelka took “proof prints of near misses, cut out all the elements in the image, and rearranged them – as a guide to the picture he should have taken”.
Here’s a recent email conversation I had with the insig.ht crew about a problem I had with two of my photographs:
Hin: Hi everyone, I’ve just had a big debate with my girlfriend about this pair of photographs taken in Chennai. Fundamentally, do you prefer the image with “more wall” or “less wall”?
Initially I went with “less wall”; the balance seemed off with “more wall”, it felt like there was too much dead space in the left of the scene. Then she convinced me that the ‘visual path’ of “more wall” is more effective: the larger amount of wall is better at leading your eye across the frame. I definitely see her point, but one part of me still prefers the compositional purity or starkness of “less wall”. And now it’s late and I’m exhausted and confused… so what are your thoughts and opinions?
Ben: I prefer the image where the wall dominates the frame: the closer crop. Go with your gut instinct!
Hannah: If it’s about the wall then, for me, it’s about the holes in the wall. Two holes in a wall is better than one, so more wall.
Michael: Two holes are better than one, yes.
James H: I keep going back and forth, but I think I prefer “less wall” overall. I like the two holes in “more wall”, but the bit of bush peeking over the leftmost segment weakens the picture for me. Also, in “less wall” there’s a more forceful contrast between the wall and the shrub in the foreground on the right and a more binary relationship between the wall and its natural surroundings. Because of the starkness of the “less wall” composition, the break in the wall seems more clearly articulated. I guess the “less wall” wall seems more dominant in the frame, which then underscores its fallenness. There’s more of a “once great” feeling, a greater sense of dramatic reversal.
James W: I’m going to agree with James H on the less wall is more argument. For me it came down to that second hole and bush peeking over the wall being a distraction from the grandness of the wall. The picture becomes more about the hole and less about the wall, and it’s the edge of the wall that is so bloody cool.
Hannah: Interesting to see which aspects of the image make it more or less effective as a photo for each of us. Compositionally we can trick anything into significance, but if the object itself actually has a significance or at least can suggest something about its significance (within a greater narrative), that to me, is what will make a photo. Does playing a game within the frame to make a vase of flowers more looming make the the fact that they’re flowers more significant?
It’s the subject that we see and should think about, the balance of the elements, the game of tension between elements, the way the eye moves in the service of the subject, in my opinion. If the subject is a ruin than what makes a ruin more ruined, or more something else? What is the subject to you, Hin?
James H: Hannah, you might just be intending a narrower sense of the word there, but can’t the subject be something we don’t directly observe? To me the subject of that picture is not the wall in its ruined state but rather its fall from a greater state. Not the pictured object itself but the change it has undergone, not the rubble but the collapse. What makes the “less wall” version work for me is that the composition succeeds better at suggesting the wall’s former grandeur, and it is the way this suggestion mingles with the pictured decay that conjures an impression of a change, a fall.
But I agree with you that the composition should serve the subject, and since it’s Hin that has to choose one composition over another, it’s his notion of the subject that counts. Loosely related, about landscape paintings of the Song dynasty in China:
“There was an abstract quality to the paintings that gives them a special appeal in the present day. The artists were not concerned with depicting nature accurately but rather with creating a highly personal vision of natural beauty. A premium was placed on subtlety and suggestion. For example, the winner of an imperial contest painted a lone monk drawing water from an icy stream to depict the subject announced by the emperor: a monastery hidden deep in the mountains during the winter.”
Hin: Thanks for the feedback, really thought provoking and it helped to crystallise how I and other people look at these photos.
Looking through my scans, it’s clear that my focus was less the entire wall than the edge of the wall: the gash that separates red brick from green. My first image is of the wall quite a way back, then I slowly get closer till all I have is just the edge and the shrubbery. You can see through the process that I’m trying to get the balance of concrete and green just right; for me it’s not one or the other, but both. The holes are important, but after further thought, one is sufficient, two is superfluous. So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m going with “less wall”.
Sometimes when I’m literally or figuratively beating my head against a wall, I wonder if Eggleston was right. What are your approaches to making on on-the-spot compositional choices and later assessing your photographs?
[...] One of my greatest photographic pleasures is getting together with a few savvy individuals and a box of prints and then proceeding to disembowel, dissect and reconstitute the latter (doing it to the former would be self-defeating). I most recently did this with Ben Roberts: we lay a bunch of prints from his series The Gathering Clouds on my floor one afternoon and whipped up an effective initial edit in about half an hour. [...]
[...] something we should think about during our crits in class. The post and conversation can be found here. [...]
My absolute first reaction without even reading a word was “the one on the right, no question.”
Then I read the article. I'm more inclined to make multiple exposures these days because I've been burned by “Eggleston's logic” too many times. More often than not I go with my initial reaction, but for me, coming upon a scene that I really want to photograph is a gift these days, and I'd rather make the most of it, especially when I'm shooting with the Mamiya. It's a bit different with 35mm I suppose, but after this last batch of negatives, I'm thinking it won't hurt to make multiples in that format either. Good article.
Emily Graham and Shane Lavalette have come out in favour of “more wall” on Google Buzz.
That makes it 5-5. As Hannah conveniently points out, I'm screwed.
I tend to take 1 shot after doing a lot of moving about – but it's not a hard and fast rule, the greater the emotional response I get to something the more shots I'll attempt.
On a lighter note, when are the Jawa's going to hop out of that thing?
An interesting discussion of a problem that I, like most people, grapple with regularly. I've often found that some temporal distance helps initially; leaving some time between shooting and scanning (or at least viewing/editing) allows me to create an emotional gap, and reassess the image on its aesthetic merits alone. Beyond that, the emotional element returns – I'm ultimately aiming to create a particular sense/feeling with a body of work, and each image needs to operate within that sensibility. The image that achieves that becomes the keeper, often driven by the kinds of thinking that James H talks about above; the 'notion of the subject' being at the discretion of the photographer.
For me, the fourth (of the bottom five) images is the strongest, although the fifth has a lot to offer too.
Next time, take a picture of cowbell. The answer will be obvious.
I'm with Eggleston on this one – a single shot will make your life easier.
All the pictures are good. The fact that there's no consensus hints that the pictures are equal. Even each of the five contacts at the bottom is good. I think that the scene itself is inherently interesting, and all the pictures reflect that. That's why it's so hard to decide!
if you're at the point of actually comparing the different frames then it's going to, more likely than not, go into the loose edit. if you're being honest then you'd already know if you've missed it or not so generally you're not comparing a missed frame to a successful one..
i'll usually look at the pictures for a bit then just close my eyes and go blank mind. open my eyes and pick it within a second or so then trust it. basically, forcing a gut reaction.
on one hand, i'd really just rather see the one that you show to people but since it's up for dissection, i'd go with the one on the left. the right one is more stark.. maybe even a stronger composition. it definitely grabs my attention first.
after i get into it for a minute thought the one with more wall is just better (and better to the point where it doesn't get to the nitty_gritty_pick_one for me).. with more wall you can see that it's actually falling in but as you look further back this cool little thing happens where the wall kinks. that angle makes a strong point in the wall and is holding it up to an extent. the whole wall (and picture) has that tension in there that i more-or-less crave in a photograph. the exposed tree top is a quirk that i enjoy as well. it's just looser, more alive(?).
the other one is way more precise and the wall has this distinguished look to it (and if i stare at it too long, and i guess i have, it begins to take on the stature of an eagle as the u.s. has presented it to me since as long as i can remember).. i dunno, i'm just not really into getting a preciseness fix out of photography. there are other things i'm into which handles that part of my life. i want the pictures to reflect more on myself and less about what i should strive to become..
anyway, i guess i've made this into 'more wall or less wall? and why?' instead of what you're really asking. the beginning of my post is the assessment part.. for on-the-spot, i'll take what i can get
[add] i read bryan's post and i think relying on “absolute first reaction” should be less strict. for me, at least get decently familiar with them first just to make sure i'm not missing the secondaries (or maybe even the whole thing like my initial gut reaction did above!). if i still couldn't decide then i'd go with gut reaction.
sorry for the multiple posts but i'll say something about this part:
“Going further, comparing photographs which are viewed upside down AND reflected in a mirror can disassociate yourself entirely from their contextual baggage, separating completely their connection with reality.”
i suppose it ultimately comes down to the photographers intent and/or what they're trying to show in their pictures but the above surely can't be done seriously. if i look at the upside down versions then i'm definitely going with the less wall.. for reasons similar to my other comparison, it has the tension.. in both cases, the tension is caused by gravity.. i really like how the wall is hanging there were as the morewall version just looks sloppy.. the main reason i like the rightsideup version is gone.
but yeah, if straight form is what you're after then go ahead and flip your photos. again, i think this falls in line with my other comment about preciseness but i get my form fix from other parts of my life (i'm a designer/builder by trade). i don't really need that kind of stuff to dominate a picture. that's not to say i can't enjoy a set of photos that's focused around form and precision and i do enjoy looking at it from time to time.. photography aside, i can relate to the need/want to get that out of the brain and into something more tangible.
my favorite pictures however are generally looser and more context based.
Hi Hin, first of all I'd like to say that looking at your work I would never have expected that you face such dilemmas! I feel so outta my league here but I have thick skin so here are my thoughts…
I'm an amateur who shoots digital, so my approach to composition is to keep going until I get one I like, the foremost criteria (other than proper exposure) being a sense of balance in my image, not necessarily symmetry, but balance. A lot of it depends on the subject-matter and what kind of mood or information you want to depict. I think each of the 5 images have something unique to say but my favourite is top right because to me, it contains just the right amount of visual information, and is the best balanced.
Seeing as this comment is many months late, I wonder which image you eventually went with?
Hey there,
As an experiment, I ended up having dozens of discussions with various friends and associates about this problem and it ended up being deadlocked at about 12-12. In hindsight, I was prepared to go with my gut feel unless there was a strong majority of qualified opinion and convincing arguments in the other direction, but this fortunately never came to pass.
In the grand scale of things, as important as being foced to make the individual choice was, I don't know how what ultimate effect it might have. I'm currently putting together an edit of my project as a kind of “where After the Fall is at in 2010″ and at the moment I have no idea if this image will even make the cut.
12-12! what are the odds of that?
Honestly, I think this image has enough going for it to make the cut but After the Fall I and II has set such high standards! Anyway I'd love to see what you're gonna do to this image in processing : )