OT: Background control and influence

hi. Funny title eh?;)

 

well Im trying to understand how the background of some nice subjects

could spoil the whole picture in general. Most times, I hear comments

like:" I don't like the busy background, its distracting"

 

I mean, if you have a subject that is very interesting but is backed

by an uninteresting background like cars and trees and moving people,

how do you control that?!;)

 

Is background important in photojournalistic work? I know for

portraits, its important. For sceneries, they are even more important.

 

I guess if I do street shootings most of the time, the background

elements are half the time out of my control...;( Does that mean my

pictures would be badly interpreted?

 

 

what are your views on background element influence on pictures?

 

 

cheers, be happy ;)

yes, I have used Gaussian Blur in ps...;)

Travis....In my opinion background is always important. In

another recent posting I shared the sage advice given to me by

photographer Jay Maisel: "you are responsible for everything in

the frame....there are no neutral elements in a picture only

positive and negative." So how do you "control" background and

keep it mostly positive? The first thing you ask yourself is, when I

have no control over the environment I'm working in, what DO I

have control over? The answer, for me in most cases is, I have

control over my own position in space. Your position within a

space has as much influence over the organization of the final

image as your subject's position. Sometimes only a small shift

in camera postion [up, down, right, left, nearer, farther] can help

organize the background [even a bad one!] and subject into a

more choreographed scene. That's what I'm after when making

a photograph....the choreography should surprise the viewer of

the final print...that's what good photography [especially the

"street" variety] does better than other art forms.

 

The location of your frame is also important and one of the most

basic decisions you make as a photographer. Use the frame as

your first editing device. Make sure you leave out what doesn't

help the composition and include what helps it. While your mind

and eye are concentrating on the subject, don't lose sight of

what's going on in the rest of the frame especially around the

edges. Make last second adjustments with the frame. Be

conscious of the scale of your subject within it's surroundings.

The concentration of the mind on the subject has a funny way of

distorting our vision into thinking the subject is occupying more

of the frame than it is. Disappointment follows when we see the

processed film and find our primary subject as insignificant in

scale to the rest of the scene....sadly the picture doesn't work

when we thought it did when we were shooting.

 

This is, of course, is a hell of a lot to think about when trying to

grab a street shot! This is why many use Leica cameras and

lenses; we can use all the help we can get!

Travis, there is rarely a background situation that can't be controlled by

squating, leaning, stepping or whatever, to at least place the objects

better, if not minimize their influence on the main subject. The key is to

remember to observe the background, which is basic and sounds easy, but

all to often not how the brain works. We zero in on the subject and

attention is rivited on what is happening there, often to the exclusion of

what is happening behind the subject. It takes a force of will to split

your attention, keeping an eye on both aspects and work out how to

move and frame, all in split seconds. When I take the time to observe the

surroundings before shooting I often can better control my response to it

when I actually shoot. Yet, there are times when that can't happen, and

you take what you can get.

Marc....I totally agree with your post...great minds think alike,

huh? ;-) I especially agree with the "take what you can get" part.

Ain't that the truth.

Marc, you summed up my experience. In the beginning, all I saw was my main subject. The results of course sucked, my beloved one had wires and laundry going right avross her, or other weird - or funny - distracting stuff. Sad is only, that in the end you have a piece of paper, whatever is in it looks much different than the sensation you had when taking the picture. Thanks to digital (i admit, sad but true) i learned more or less to take care of the background and the environment. Within the restricted boundaries of the frame, all elements are equal, and atrract the eye. If you place visual junk in the frame, it will interact with your main subject, and possibly make the image not work.. Part of the problem is in my opinion thet it is so easy to take a picture. You do not have to think about everything within a frame to make the pic, and most of the time you don't. Compare this with painting. If you had to place every element manually in the frame - what would the results be like? I am convinced that a good photo neds the same thoughtful process as a good painting, and random backgrounds really have no place there. I hope I don't get killed for posting non-leica images here, but they seem to be good food for thought ;-)<div></div>

hey, no misunderstandings here, the time when photographers imitated paintings is long over. My point was that a photographer should pay attention to anything in the frame, just like a painter - instead of taking a snap with a main subject surrounded by random elements. Random snaps on the other hand can be good, too. I recently saw some pretty good lomography.

I keep an 8x10 posted on my darkroom wall. It's a photo of my then 10-year-old son in the Paris catacombs. Every time I look at it I am reminded that I don't want any more photos where an obelisk appears to sprout from the top of the subject's head.

<I>"I mean, if you have a subject that is very interesting but is backed by an uninteresting background like cars and trees and moving people, how do you control that?!;)"</I><P>

When you look at an image you look at the entire image, not just the foreground subject that interested the photographer in the first place. Whatever genre you are working in (photojournalism, portraits, landscapes, etc.) you have to consider the all of the elements of what will become the image.<P> "Photojournalism" implies that you are telling a story. As a viewer I take in the entire image: all of the elements in that image -- light, framing, composition, foreground, background, colors, gestures, everything is what makes up that story. If any of those elements detract from the story you are trying to tell then you have automatically screwed your and done a major disservice to your subject.<P> The solution is to edit ruthlessly, and to learn how to see photographically. Spend time looking at the work of some ofthe masters of photojournalism and photo-reportage ( <A HREF = http://www.viiphoto.com>VII Photo</A> is a great place to start). Sometimes an image alone to tell. Sometimes a caption can mislead, but words and images have always gone together all the way back to the cave paintings created by the Neanderthals.

"You are responsible for everything within the frame..." what a perfect piece of advice. Reading that alone has made my day. I should post it over the studio door (on both sides).

Jean: I hate the background in that portrait you posted. Just way too busy, and it adds nothing to the gal. Who ever took that shot should have his Leica taken away! (lol)

 

All good comments so far. While everything within the frame either adds or detracts, and we're responsible for what we include or fail to "manage" in some clever way, as Marc said, sometime ya just have to take what you can get. And, in doing so, sometimes the subject of the image will overcome the distractions, sometimes not.

 

Ellis, I think, also makes a good point about photojournalism. While it is supposed to be a true, unstaged representation of "the truth" of the situation, it's still "managed" through how the photographer frames the shot and the timing. The idea being to present the truth in a way that people will get it, and it will have some impact.

 

It would be interesting, though, to see a street photographer with an assistant pushing around a nice painted muslin background on wheels. ;-)

Many times when I've been photographing business leaders or politicians in what were supposed to be candid and journalistic looking photos I've moved furniture, straightened the mess on a desk, turned lamps on or off, etc. Even strangers on the street will be most accomidating if you politely ask them to move a bit or turn slightly before resuming their activity. Most people are flattered to be photographed. And they want that picture to look good!

Many interesting thoughts so far. Here's for some additional practical advice. <p>Control (basically reduce) the depth of field of your shot, by either<p>a) chosing the longest focal length possible/appropriate for the subject<br>b) chosing the widest open f-stop possible/appropriate

<br>c) using ND filters, in order to push on measure b)<br>d) directing your subject in a position further away from the background (if you have a chance to)<p>Control foreground/background contrast by<p>e) moving yourself to find a perspective that will place a dark background behind a bright subject (and viceversa)<br>f) directing your subject (if possible) to a spot where it will be illuminated by considerably more (or less) light than the background<p>g) crop<br>h) dodge<br>h) burn in

Hi, Travis:

 

Lutz' advise is sound to me and when even after trying Lutz' advises I'm not really happy with the background I just don't shoot and add the situation to my mental hardrive so that in future situations I can take advantage of the just learned item. I just don't see the point in taking a picture that I know beforehand that I won't be happy with later on.

 

Only exceptions: situations when even the worst background can't detract from the main documentary or anecdotical interest. Seldom happens in front of my camera. . .

 

My 2 cents. Regards !

 

-Iván<div></div>

yes, i'll try to move alot now to compensate for background distractions . I'll not be concerned with backgrounds ONLY when a FIST(S) is headed towards me in streetshoots without permission..;)

 

 

Its either you want the scene or you don't want it.

 

thx guys!

Hmmm, Ivàn... I think your pic is a near miss of an interesting foreground/background juxtaposition of "three individuals waiting". If I could see just *slightly* more of the woman standing behind the man... Sometimes backgrounds can make pictures work.<p>Cheers.

Or, with all respect, Iván, maybe there's a chance to give it a different crop...?<div></div>