How to make dramatic images?

Some people have described this image as 'dramatic', (in a positive

meaning that is). The longer I think about trying to describe the

factors that cause 'drama' the less i can think of. Maybe someone

can post something they think is dramatic or mention things they

generally consider dramatic in street or people photography. <p>

<img src="http://home.student.uva.nl/martinus.vangenugten/4-32.jpg">

Being the type that often goes to http://dictionary.reference.com/ let me quote:

 

"A composition, in prose or poetry, accommodated to action, and intended to exhibit a picture of human life, or to depict a series of grave or humorous actions of more than ordinary interest, tending toward some striking result."

 

That puts it succintly. Yes, "striking" and "more than ordinary interest" are in the eye of the beholder, which is why something that is dramatic for a person is quotidian to another.

I consider the documentary photos of eugene richards quite

dramatic especially his earlier work with the 21mm lens.

 

Anyone care to differentiate the line ( if there's such )of

photojournalism from documentary photography?

I wouldn't call it dramatic but I think some of the elements that add interest, action or drama would be the converging lines leading the viewer into the scene and the diagonal white stripes. Strong graphical elements can add interest. The scene itself doesn't hint at anything dramatic going on.

Drama could come from content (action, violence, etc.), perspective, use of colour, or graphic design. I don't find that shot particularly dramatic, but what drama there is (to me) comes from the receding pattern of stripes.

 

A lot of people shoot as if drama is a high value in itself, but it is probably harder to make a good photo that is undramatic. The antithesis of drama would be Sam Abell.

I don't see the picture as "dramatic" in the literal fashion described in Ricardo's definition. However, I think it is a good composition with strong graphic appeal which might be liberally described as dramatic. The strengths or features which are important in the composition are the high contrast patterns, the pronounced perspective, and the sense of imminent action which is particularly embodied in the posture of the figure in the right foreground. Verbal descriptions of pictures are never perfect, and terminology always has to be evaluated in context, I think.

"<i>Anyone care to differentiate the line ( if there's such )of photojournalism from documentary photography?</i>"<br><br>

Seems like a very worthwhile question given the focus of the forum. My sense is that photojournalism is generally more concerned with current events in the present time. Documentary photography tends to have a broader time perspective and to look at larger issues of society and culture.

William Klein took many dramatic street photos. Check him out

as well.

I think people who call your image "dramatic" are referring mostly to the high contrast and wide angle. These devices are sort of "cheap" ways to make a picture look eye-catching, but in saying that I admit that I often rely on these devices in my own work.

 

Real "drama" arises from the action or tension of the subject matter, which this image doesn't have. Although it makes a good photo to get one or the other, really great photos usually have both kinds of drama: something captivating going on, captured with graphic flair.

The image is not dramatic, but the printing is.

i dunno i've been told this image of mine is dramatic.

What about wet streets? I think for some people that is a dramatic factor as well. <p>

<img src="http://home.student.uva.nl/martinus.vangenugten/4-34.jpg">

Mart, in that second shot, I think the dramatic feel comes in part from the fact that, framed on white, it feels like we're standing on the same white line as the guy in the foreground...

 

In your first shot, it seems to me that the perspective is everything - for some reason I have a very strong sense that I'm about to risk my life in front of the car, out of shot, just behind that SUV.

<p>I do not believe the image is especially dramatic, however the contrasty print is very dramatic. There's a difference between <i>dramatic photograph</i> and <i>dramatic print/printing</i>.<br><br><br>--Dominic</p>

Photoj to me, in general, is just coverage of an event. It's about getting those few shots that capture what the event is. Documentary on the other hand is something that you live day in and day out. You breathe it, you live it, you research it. You know it. Documentary is work that encompasses a much greater time span, while also creating connections(both with your subjects and your photos) that run deeper than any photoj story could. That's my take atleast, but I'm just a student with nothing to lose and everything to learn so take anything I say with a huge grain of salt. :)

 

For an interesting look at the differences a good read is How I Learned Not to be a Photojournalist. My copy is tattered with post-it notes and scribblings.

The word "photojournalism" has been dumbed down in current usage to mean newspaper (or news) photography. But what goes into Nat Geo is still photojournalism, as is a documentary project. It's still visual storytelling -- only the scale of the story has changed. "Photojournalism" should be understood to include both documentary photography and news photography.

 

Consider that any photojournalist's portfolio should include not just news photos but also a photo story.

To me, your photo doesn't really have much dramatic value except for the contrast. I read in the thread that wide angle and contrast are "cheap" tricks to make an image dramatic. It is true, but why "cheap". A trick is a trick, and if it fits the image, fine by me. Among the tricks I often use, because I came to like them:

<p>

1) High contrast, but based on harsh lighting, not just the print.

<p>

2) Impactful expression - especially strong when they are coupled with harsh lighting.

<p>

3) Camera slants when appropriate.

<p>

4) Wide anles (20 to 28mm) with a near foreground

<p>

5) Unusual composition with cropped foreground subjects.

<p>

6) Shooting up or shooting dow when it matches the essence of the subject and/or my perception of it.

<p>

7) Tele-lens with a full straight-on view of a face or barely more - provided expression and light are very dramatic.

<p>

Last note: I don't think you necessarily need a strong tension in a situation to take a very dramatic photo. It all depends how you look at things. Every day in the street you will miss THOUSANDS of dramatic and meaningful bits of life, and the fun is to try finding them, and conveying them as well as possible - eventhough they are not, per se, exceptionally strong moments in time.

i would say the quality of light tends to make or break the best pix ive seen....aside from the obvious dramatic content that happens to be in front of some photogs....