Leading Lines

I have read several books and articles which explain and support the ?Leading

Lines? lines concept. On the other hand I have also read articles on research

that strongly disputes the scientific basis of this theory. I have also spoken

to established and competent photographers who seem to have divided opinions

on the subject. What do YOU think?

I think it's one of those things which manifestly work on many occasions, but become millstones if too much applied as conscious "rules" of composition.</p><p>If that sounds dismissive, it's not meant to be. I find it very interesting as an area of study, and strongly related to the habitat theories of aesthetics suggested by Jay Appleton et al. I also think it has something to offer as <i>one</i> ingredient in a general analysis of image psychodynamics. I just don't think it ought to be at the <i><b>fore</i></b>front of my mind as I click the shutter.

leading lines are sort of "middle of the road". Composition has rules and leading lines can be great to use. However, more important than the ones you see are the invisible ones that make for an interesting composition as every painter can tell you.

As photographers we mainly deal with what we see while we should be looking out for what's there but that a lot of people just don't notice. The best feel that on a more instintive level. When you look at great photo's a lot of them are great because of a very good composition. Just try to see all the imagenary lines you can find in a photo (or a painting for that matter) and you'll soon see.

Nick,

 

are you not mixing concepts from very, very different areas here?

 

"Leading lines" are in the artistic, the compositional range of things, such as taste and

like/dislike ...

 

"Scientific basis of this theory" deals with quantifiable science.

 

How can you think out of two sides of your brain at one time and not realize you are doing

it.

 

A scientific theory of artistic taste? is that what you want to get answered here? Good luck

at the race track using "Number Theory" then!

Frank: I dare say that it's possible to speak in scientific terms about how one experiences an image. After all, the meat computer we're all using has followed millions of years of evolution, and is driven by some pretty low-level functions without which our more subtle cultural tastes wouldn't be possible. That which we find visually soothing, or stimulating, or upsetting can be a product of very stylized, civilized, specialized culture or schooling... but it can also be (and I think always is, at some level) driven by powerful evolutionary forces.

<br><Br>

A leading line, which brings your eye to a key part of an image, is analagous to the physical path you might walk if - as a curious primate - you were to go and inspect that which interests you. Water, food, shelter, prey, a mate, a threat, something simply shiny and interesting... we like to check things out, understand them, lay hands on them. We have to get there. When looking at an image (painted, photographed, doesn't matter), the part of our brain that we use to plan the safest way to cross the street - or the most pleasant way to get across a shallow pond, or the most comfortable route through a crowd or a dense landscape - starts looking at that image in the same way. It's normal to mentally navigate what we see before us. An artist can make that trip compelling, but certainly doen't NEED to exploit that part of our brains in order to make good art. But I certainly find it reasonable to talk about one's visual engagement with an image at least in poart in terms of scientifically measurable behavior.

<br><br>

There are devices (goggle-ish things) that advertising producers use to watch the eyes of test subjects who are watching television. This allows them to track, over the life of a 30-second ad, exactly where the viewer's eyes have gone on the image. This allows them to fine-tune the placement of a product, or a logo, etc. There is solid science readily available to look at how 1000 people physically encounter (in terms of where on an image their eyes first land, where their eyes wind up, and how they got there) a photograph. The subjects of such a test wouldn't have to be able to articulate the notion of leading lines to never the less demonstrate that their eyes use them, ignore them, etc. It would be an interesting thing to study, and science absolutely can play a role there. It's not magic, it's physiology. Learned behavior, natural variation, personal experience, etc., are all going to be piled on top of our basic behaviors, but I'm certain there are going to be patterns there. We're all wired pretty much the same way. Interesting topic, Nick.

A principal of composition such as "leading lines," aka perspective, can be studied analytically, however, it may do little to improve one's images photographically. Understanding the concept enough to internalize it takes looking at other forms of art; drawings and paintings in particular. Learning what doesn't work is as important as learning what does.

To me, this is the kind of topic that makes for great insight. I love to hear the gurus opinion on these concrete subjects, which can inform everyone who holds a camera.

 

Frank/Matt:

 

I do think it's an interesting quandry ... applying scientific observation to artistic questions. I think it would be scarry to arrive at a place where we could say ... You image is a 7/7 when "A + B + C ... occurrs". I have aways fealt that art is more spiritual than that. But maybe "good focus + pretty subject + pleasing light + rule of 1/3rds + leading lines = 7/7".

 

I frankly am not a believer of this yet.

I find the linear compositional elements most often after development and not in the viewfinder -- this may be due to technique, not applicable to the studio or to studied photography with tripod and lights etc. It might have something to do with the difference between the 3d reality in front of the lens and the 2d reality of the photo.

 

It seems likely that the linear qualities of a scene, although not in my awareness at the moment of exposure, influence the choice of composition, even if the shot is taken 'on the hoof' so to speak.

Thanks to everyone for their input!

 

I am of the current opinion that the Leading Lines concept is a legitimate (although possibly overrated) factor in the way we observe scenes. Although research indicates that other factors such as High Contrast, Angles and Curvature are probably stronger in attracting attention it is nevertheless a justifiable tool in one?s technical repertoire of the craft of photographing.

 

The great Jazz pianist Fats Waller was once asked by his son why does he practice so many scales every day and he replied: ?Son, we need scales for those nights when we don?t have an inspiration?

 

For me this always was a beautiful sum of what technique actually is. It is a basis for ones craft of which on special occasions the product is that something special that we like to refer to as art. There are excellent guidelines available for good craftsmanship but of course no guarantees the outcome will be perceived as art.

 

But that is a whole other theme possibly worthy of a separate thread.

I prefer the term "consideration" to "rule" or even "guideline". It's something to consider, but standing alone would not influence my POV on a shot

leading lines create an illusion of depth in a frame when actually a pic is 2 dimensional image......there are so many things that make a pic,colors,contrast,etc but creating a depth,feel of a natural look,like our eyes create...thats a great effort.

Shiny and interesting. Yup, that about sums it up.

Hi,

 

Leading lines can be considered a good guideline but to make the sole aesthetic consideration in a snap is to miss

out on a lot of creativity and potentially great snaps.

 

Thanks and Regards

Neeraj Tyagi