cluttered backgrounds

Mike Johnston's <a

href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/some-classic-ph.html">post of Oct

19</a> prompted me to purchase Alfred Stieglitz's <i>Camera Work</i> collection which I am impressed with.

<p>

I think looking at any important volume of photography like that one is a kind of training of the eye. What my

eye has noticed in this book is a common theme that is perhaps Photography 101 but still important: "Watch your

backgrounds" and I must say that, in an interesting way, most if not all of the photos in the book, where the

background isn't the main subject, are all without a cluttered background. Once my mind latched onto that little

rule of thumb, it kept applying itself with every turn of the page. Interestingly, when the background is the

subject, it seems always isolated in a way.

<p>

One photograph in particular is of Notre Dam in Paris which is presumably the "subject" of the photo (based on

the title of the photo), but the focus is on the foreground on some tree branches/leaves and the cathedral in the

background is blurry, yet the cathedral is the subject and it works really really well.

<p>

I think the photography in the book can be considered street and/or documentary photography (but there are also

many portraits). Could it be that they just had a lot less clutter back in 1905 than we do now? I doubt it.

How can I make my photos less cluttered and more like the stuff in Stieglitz's book?

Practice. I still get distracting elements more then I'd like to. So I try to pay close attention to the background before pressing the shutter.

In painting class

years ago, "background" was the unspeakable 'B' word. Point being that

"background" is a pejorative, implying that what it consists of is an afterthought. You don't want it to look like an

afterthought. Sculpture is

for focusing on a single subject, but

photography, like painting, is a 2-

dimensional art form in which every square inch of the frame is the subject.<p>So one answer to your question is:<p>

Try to see the whole frame at once, shoot a lot, and edit. <p>Another answer: <p>Limit the scope of what your lens is taking in. This

might be

easier with a normal lens, as opposed to wide angle.

.... and yet wider angle might be the ticket to get enough in the frame for it all to be interesting.. so take my second answer

with a grain of salt.

<i>How can I make my photos less cluttered..</i>

<p>

Ray posts better pictures than words, IMO. ;) His terrific shot in the Pic of the day thread is the proof. Great composition and a riveting/engaging subject would make any clutter more of an interest than a distraction.

<i>How can I make my photos less cluttered.</i><p>If you are shooting on the street, stake out a location with both a good background and interesting possibilities. I've done this quite a bit with good result.

" Watch your Backgrounds "

 

Can be applied in both directions. Lee Friedlander for example.

There is no background when you are doing street photography.

 

Street photography, in my view, is about the interplay between a central subject and the peripheral.

This seems to me a simple and basic question. Either use a shallow depth of field or shoot only when the background is not

cluttered or when it coalesces successfully with your main subject.

I guess from a photo 101 point of view that it is as simple as the above posts suggest. Yet Dayrin's reference to Friedlander is interesting. The issue being how much clutter, noise, detail can you include within the frame and still make the photograph work. Deviation from the so called rules can lead to very intersting photographs. Another example of rule breaking is Ed Leveckis's work(formerly Edmo on this site) Ed breaks alot of the traditional rules with the result that he is producing some of the most intersting Street Photogarphy I have seen in years. By the way , for the most part , I am not one of these damned rule breakers.

There's really no background clutter rule, though, John. The Photo 101 answer is merely a good starting point to learn from

without Tony's jumping off into more expert work like Ed's.

I don't know, Ed's street photography is very traditional in many ways. What so-called rules is he breaking? I'm not being

sarcastic, just curious what it is you're referring to.

>>> I don't know, Ed's street photography is very traditional in many ways. What so-called rules is he breaking?

 

Was wondering about the comment myself. He does have a great eye and imagination - and experiments in post.

Examples of where Ed can be described as breaking the rules can be seen in his journal and is very worth the trip. Check out the following # photographs as examples of non traditional Street Photography: 374, 371, 368,364, 361,348, 346, 332, 328,327,315,314,307, 306, 296, 295, +287 for just a few. And if you don't agree that these images are not your tyoical Street Photography that's OK with me.

<i>Ed breaks alot of the traditional rules..</i>

<p>

He does not break any photography rules and in fact almost all his images are conforming.

Easier to educate one by looking at Ed's images on composition than reading any (boring) book.

<p>

Composition and light- he does a superb job playing with the light.

<p>

BTW, there are no "street photography rules".

http://www.leveckis.net/journal/

Rules, Shmooooles! There aren't any rules....!!

http://web.mac.com/cyrs

and here's proof.

I think that the key is to study your background, and see if it helps your shot. It it adds to the shot, include it. If it detracts, remove the bad aspect, reframe or walk around and find a better frame angle.

The important word is "context." What is the purpose of your photograph? Sometimes a subject in a "cluttered"

background is appropriate. Here in Japan the urban landscape is cluttered. It is something you have to work with.

Too much thought is going into this. When I'm shooting I'm almost totally driven by instinct, luck, and a kind of panicked

guessing about the image. I could care less about bokeh, so most of my shots show the background in pretty good detail.

Timing and where you stand are key in making the background contribute to the overall image. Ha, maybe I'm now putting too

much thought into it.