Photographic Distractions

<p>A criticism I often read about photographs is that there is some kind of distraction in them or about them. It seems to me this kind of criticism is made quite a bit more readily about photos than about other endeavors. Though I've heard people say that the lady unwrapping her cough drop at a concert was distracting or the rustling of programs at the theater was distracting, those distractions come from without. I can't remember often if ever hearing someone say the notes played by the oboe were distracting in the symphony or a certain line of dialogue was distracting to the play.</p>

<p>Is color really distracting and black and white not? Not to me. Yet I've heard color called a distraction often. I may or may not like the colors used or the fact that color was used (or I may think those inappropriate decisions), but color does not distract me. And is it that hard for so many of us to focus that we want to crop photos because things at the edges or in the background or in the distance are such a distraction? How often have you heard the suggestion that a painter crop his painting? Why photos?</p>

<p>Does it have something to do with expectations? Judging by what I have read, viewers have more expectations about photographs than they do about paintings and than listeners do about music. It's as if photos "should" look a certain way. Does this have to do with the "reality" thing? Either we expect them (as in the case of "manipulation" horror) to look more like what we think the original scene would have looked like to us or (as in the case of telephone pole horror) we want them to look less like the original scene. Viewer expectations can be a lose-lose.</p>

<p>Do photos necessarily engender comparison to the world? Does that yield more viewer expectations when it comes to photos? When we think something is a distraction is it possible that we just can't handle the truth (the truth of the photo, that is)?</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Is color really distracting and black and white not? Not to me."</p>

<p>Not when the photographer is seeing in color, as opposed to using it as a default.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Judging by what I have read, viewers have more expectations about photographs than they do about paintings and than listeners do about music. It's as if photos "should" look a certain way. Does this have to do with the "reality" thing?"</p>

<p>Photography is static, music is dynamic, and harder to criticize in some ways. The population is more acquainted with (commercial/illustrative/ad) imagery than with music. They expect things to look the way they're used to things looking in the images they see. For the uninitiated, Realism has always been a concern, if not a signifier of professionalism. When it comes to art, however, the most popular style is Impressionism.</p>

<p>As I mentioned recently in another post, most people's consciousness is locked/boxed-in. There's little exploration and a desire for pat answers to identifiable issues. In a fixed setting, this probably enhances the individual's chances of survival. In others, it can be detrimental (if not lethal).</p>

<p> </p>

<p> <em>How often have you heard the suggestion that a painter crop his painting? Why photos?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

The good painter envisioned what the final painting would look like and has chosen his canvas size appropriately. So they already "cropped" the image in their mind.</p>

<p>Most photographs should be cropped in one dimension because the real world usually does not fit the somewhat arbitrary aspect ratio of our camera (3:2 for most DLSRs).</p>

<p>First, the apples/oranges issue. Music and paintings, generally, are synthesized by the artists/performers, whereas photographs (I know, I know) usually include something that's actually right there in front of the camera. While I agree that the cough-drop-unwrapping is a poor comparison to color in a photograph, perhaps we can compare a recording engineer's decision about how to mic an acoustic guitar (in a way that expressly brings forward the finger-on-string noise in the mix) to a photographer's decisions about tone curves or saturation. An orchestra can decide to seat their first violin in a squeaky chair, or not, and a photographer can decide to bother with fixing that scratched negative, or not. But the squeak and the scratch are both distractions, to me.<br /><br />I realize that this is not the same as the decision to compose in a way that has a telephone pole sprouting out of the subject's head (or the decision not to clone it out in post). But certainly such elements can capture more of the audience's attention than they ought. It really all depends on what the photographer is trying to communicate. I agree that if the use of color, in and of itself, is considered a distraction, then it's because the subject matter (or the viewer's understanding of it) is weak - not because the color is at fault, per se.<br /><br />I should add that with most people now shooting digital devices that, by default, record color images, the decision to present the image in B&W is something I always "see" when I'm looking at the results. Unless I know the image was shot on B&W film, I cannot escape the knowledge that the photographer has chosen to take a color image and to drain it of color for a specific reason. I do it myself, so of course that's not a complaint ... but it's such a deliberate decision that it's often the very first thing that "distracts" me when looking at the results.</p>

<p>While you've got Marcel Duchamp on one end of the scale (<em>"Art is art when an artist says it is art</em>") on the other end you end up projecting too much of yourself into another ones work which, as we all know is a trap most of us fall in regularly. Finding that middle ground is never easy, especially when you're a photographer yourself. There is a reason after all why most photographers suck at reviewing photographic works, even their own. What doesn't help either is that photography is a technical craft so most photographers tend to look at the technique used and as a result comment on that, often with too much emphasis.<br /> Still, it also deals with individual perception and what can fit perfectly for one in any given composition can be a huge distraction for another one.</p>

<p>Color isn't a distraction per se but a modality that can be used either effectively or less so. As an example let's look at street- and documentary photography. One of the most asked questions is why so much of it is presented in b&w. Frankly I don't know. In my case it's merely a personal preference nothing more, nothing less. But it certainly isn't that I can't convey whatever it is that I want to convey in color.</p>

<p>As for seeing in either color or b&w that's a myth that can't seem to be rooted out. Most of what I do is b&w and I'm perfectly able to translate everything into my viewfinder into b&w in my mind as in how it will end up in a print. I'm equally able to do that in color. If there are people who aren't able to do that they should work harder at it or simply get more experience. It's not a question of "seeing" in either, that is merely BS.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do photos necessarily engender comparison to the world?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly for most.</p>

<p>Black and white, color, or whatever, it really doesn't matter. Nor does a "real" representation matter, if the objective is not descriptive photography but photographic art or a communication of some sort.</p>

<p>What matters, I think, is the question, "If I add (or allow to appear) this element to a scene, does it add to or subtract from the aim or the effect of my image"? If it does not add to it, it is likely a distraction. </p>

<p>I might have added to my criteria (question) that it also applies I believe to painting, sculpture, writing, music composition. </p>

<p>"Is color really distracting and black and white not?"</p>

<p>I find that an odd way of putting it, so I think no.</p>

<p>"I've heard color called a distraction often"</p>

<p>It can be, sometimes. Sometimes colour distracts from shape and composition. Take out the colour, and the shapes and combinations of shapes are more visible and striking. This may not be true for everyone, but for some images, for most people, it will be. Whereas sometimes a picture is all about colour, take out the colour and its just bland. Usually, neither extreme is true, and image is a combination of form and colour.</p>

<p>"How often have you heard the suggestion that a painter crop his painting? Why photos?"</p>

<p>A painter will choose the composition, and decide what to put in and what to leave out. A photographer will try to do the same thing, and where it isn't possible to take just the right picture on the spot, continue the process on the computer or in the darkroom.</p>

<p> "It's as if photos "should" look a certain way."</p>

<p>I have to smile at this. I think many people have had an expectation based on experience that a photo is glossy stiff paper or card, and the image should be as sharp as possible, and some ideas about style and subject matter. They have often said that my inkjet prints don't look like photos, or they didn't realise it was a photo. They're beginning to wise up. I think they're still puzzled by my cyanotypes though!</p>

<p>"When we think something is a distraction is it possible that we just can't handle the truth (the truth of the photo, that is)?"</p>

<p>I don't think so, because, if there is something distracting from the main theme of the image, it should only be there intentionally, in which case in the context of this discussion, it wouldn't classify as a distraction. It might be distracting the viewer from something else, but maybe that is the intent of the photographer. If it isn't intentional and useful, and if the photo isn't being kept purely as a technical record, then the distraction doesn't need to be there, and it probably shouldn't be.</p>

Color is not distracting. That could be left over mumbo jumbo from B&W purists. But garish, unnatural digital color is

hideous and repugnant. I am not guilt free here. The are a few images in my portfolio that I need to tone down a bit.

The worst of all is that HDR rubbish.

 

Why don't painters crop? Because they sketch the composition in advance and they choose the dimensions of their canvas. A

camera has a fixed aspect ratio that might not fit every subject on every occasion. Further, many photos are taken in the moment

without a lot of planning. Sports, event, street. Cropping afterward can sometimes help the quickly composed photo.

 

Maybe Jack Nicholson can't handle the truth (movie reference) but I can't handle a portrait of a bride and groom with

dirty dinner plates in front of them. That is a distraction that I would remove. Is it the truth that they just stuffed their

faces with filet mignon and mesclun salad? Sure. But I am not a witness for the prosecution. I'm a photographer. I don't have to tell the truth, only the story as I see it.

<p>There is one sense in which I think a photograph can be distracting. Although the photographer's production of it may involve an intention to lead the viewer's eye in a certain direction, something in the photo may lead the viewer to focus on something else.</p>

<p>In general, a person viewing a photograph with oversaturated colors, or involving poor composition, or with an element that is totally out of place might be inclined to say that there are distractions in that photograph. More likely, the viewer is simply going to say that the photograph is bad.</p>

<p>Finally, "representational" photographs do engender comparison with the world, in your terms, Fred. That is why they are taken. A viewer looking at such a photo may think that it faithfully represents the subject-matter. If the color is oversaturated, or if the hue has been changed, the viewer might very well conclude otherwise. However, not all photographs are representational. </p>

 

<p>"However, not all photographs are representational."</p>

<p>I think I would stop photographing if the contrary was the case, and take up painting or sculpting. The nice thing about non-representational photography (I prefer the word "descriptive" to "representational" because the latter seems to suggest a more perfect adherence to "reality") is often the greater potential of freedom to compose without distracting elements, and to more easily eliminate them (physical objects, colours that have poor or distracting chromatic relationships with others, etc.).</p>

<p>I find reality often too distracting to an artistic intent.</p>

<p>(color here would have been an impediment to the objective). http://www.photo.net/photo/8083671 <br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>A criticism I often read about photographs is that there is some kind of distraction in them or about them<br>

Judging by what I have read, viewers have more expectations about photographs than they do about paintings and than listeners do about music.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eliminating "distractions" is an inherent part of all work of art. It has even been the basis of movements in view of ending up with what is important seen from the intentions of the artist. It is the very basis for most of Asian philosophy (Tao, Zen..) - eliminating the superfluous.<br>

So I don't see why suddenly reference to distractions should be reserved for photography. How many versions did Cezanne make of "Five bathers" before he left it alone or how many versions did Degas make "Spartan exercising" before it ended up on the walls of the National Gallery? The whole process Cezanne or Degas went through was all about eliminating "distractions" (persons, colors, composition). I don't know how often you go to the opera, Fred. But also in the here we are often confronted to setups that distracts from original the perceived original intuitions of the composers. Again "distractions" is the main point of orientation of most critics.</p>

<p>No, the question is not why the critics referring to distractions should be reserved for photography, but why you by the way you formulate the question's argue for excluding photography from the very core of most critics of art.</p>

<p>It has indeed to do with expectations: Expectations that photography is art.</p>

<p>Your question on color and black and white photos is of another order and believing that photography is nearer "truth" than any other art, I find personally far fetched. You should be the first to know to which degree photos are arranged, cropped, framed, selected etc with the objective of the photographer expressing certain feelings, messages and not others. The art of visual manipulation is nearer to photography than "truth" - whatever that is. Another thread I would believe.</p>

 

<p>Luis, I hadn't thought about the photograph's static quality compared to the more dynamic quality of music. Helpful point! As is the idea that photographs are generally more familiar. I think what you're saying in your last paragraph is that people are "distracted" by things out of the ordinary and we're on the same page because that's what I was getting at with viewer expectations.</p>

<p>Matthew, Keith, and Dan, I wasn't asking why painters don't crop, though your answers to that question make a lot of sense. I was asking why critics don't suggest a <em>further</em> or <em>different</em> crop to painters as readily as they do to photographers. Why are elements so often seen as distractions and worthy of being cropped out of someone else's already finished photographs? I rarely hear critics of paintings suggesting that an element of the painting be cropped out.</p>

<p>Ton, you really struck on something crucial to me. I meant this thread to be about <em>viewing</em> and <em>critiquing</em> and finding things distracting in that context. I think this notion of distraction may go along with the notion that viewing a photograph is a strictly "subjective" matter, which I think is an approach that lacks nuance and depth. This strict "subjective" approach allows viewers to put a whole lot of demands on the photos they view. The "now it's mine" syndrome. Then, when the photo in some way doesn't comport with the viewer's demands on it, the viewer is distracted. In a sense, I don't think photos or elements in them are as distracting as much as viewers are simply prone to getting distracted, especially from what they want.</p>

<p>Arthur, for me, if something does not add to a photo and I decide to leave it out or bypass it some way, I do just that and I usually do it because I don't want it in there, not because it distracts me.</p>

<p>Keith, you make a good point about removal of color allowing shapes to be more visible. Yet, black and white can offer a lot of tonality. We don't generally say that gray tones should be removed because they distract from shape. Why do we burden color with so much capacity to distract?</p>

<p>Dan, good example with the dirty dishes at a wedding. I'd get rid of them, too. I'd find them out of place in most wedding portraits and they'd probably destroy the mood.</p>

<p>Michael and Arthur, interesting observations about "representational" photographs. Arthur, I'd consider some of my documentary work representational and even many of my portraits have substantially representative aspects. I don't find that at variance with creative or artistic intent. I like the process of blending the two.</p>

<p>Anders, I don't find photography nearer truth than other arts. I did use the word "truth." What I meant was similar to what I stated earlier in this post: that many viewers don't accept the photo's truth and instead want to project their own truths onto it. And, I think what Cezanne and Degas were doing by going over their paintings and making several versions was going through a very natural and careful process of refining those paintings and their visions.</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p>In reading through the various posts and thinking more about the subject, I have a feeling that focus and peripheral vision play some role in all of this. I love being on the periphery.</p>

<p><blockquote>It seems to me this kind of criticism is made quite a bit more readily about photos than

about other endeavors.</blockquote></p>

 

<p>

I'm not really sure this is true. We often criticize bad writing for distracting from the message. Strunk & White

can be read almost entirely as a method of reducing distraction and getting on to the point. Architecture

critics often criticizes ornament as distraction from form (or lack thereof). Graphic design is open to (often

much deserved) criticism for distraction. Coaching in public speaking often involves reducing ticks and verbal

habits because they distract from the message. The list could go on and on…</p>

 

<p>Photography is peculiar because in unskilled hands much of what ends up in the frame is unintentional

making it especially prone to accident. The likelihood of accidents supporting the photograph are slim—the

alternative is they go unnoticed or else they distract.</p>

<p>Mark, you have some good points. I do find the notion of photographic distraction has its own particular characteristics (in addition to the overlap with the other endeavors you mention) and find the distraction criticism itself an interesting one to consider no matter what it's aimed at.</p>

<p>"if something does not add to a photo and I decide to leave it out or bypass it some way, I do just that and I usually do it because I don't want it in there, not because it distracts me." (Fred)</p>

<p>Fred, please read carefully over my stated criteria again to understand it. That is exactly what I am saying. The unwanted element distracts from the rest of the image, from my intent and the quality of the desired image.</p>

<p>"If I add (or allow to appear) this element to a scene, does it add to or subtract from the aim or the effect of my image"? If it does not add to it, it is likely a distraction."</p>

<p>I don't worry about distracting any persons, certainly not myself.</p>

<p>Fred you are normally more sincere ! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a very natural and careful process of refining those paintings and their visions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This very "natural and careful process" is the process of eliminating "distractions" as in all arts including photography, so what is the problematic you have in mind? If "distractions" are more mentioned in critics of photography (you might be right) it might just be that photographers in general don't eliminate enough compared to whatever works of art you referred to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When we think something is a distraction is it possible that we just can't handle the truth (the truth of the photo, that is)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The truth of a photo might just be that there is too much distraction and not some righteous dream that the photographer was right in the first place and the viewer just some lousy individuals without courage seeing a "truth" among others. </p>

 

<p>I think it's all about composition, exposure and light, depth of image.</p>

<p>It is my understanding that opinions on this aspect can vary, but as I personally see it, and what I like, photos have to pass a <em><strong>clean </strong></em>visual message.</p>

<p>Clean means - to me - uncluttered, with no distracting elements. A colourful photo, as some of Eggleston, can be very clean and pass a clear visual message.</p>

<p>Clean means a black and white photo with clear distinct elements: yesterday I was sitting in a tiny ancient trattoria in Florence. The scene was interesting, but too crowded. I would not have managed to single out one distinct element to compose a message. It had too many distracting elements. So I did not take it.</p>

<p>Cartier Bresson's photo of the guy overcoming a large puddle using chairs is clean. Garry Winogrand's photo of the crowded bench is clean, despite some details around. But the centre of focus is so strong that it rules out the rest.</p>

<p>When we photograph, we place a frame around something we see to make a visual message stand out. What we include, and what we exclude from this frame makes the photo distracting or focused.</p>

<p>This issue of cropping or not seems a bit of a purist attitude: placing a frame around a scene we definitely crop it. Whether this is done when the photo is taken just shows the photographer's ability. Of course does a painter crop: in his mind, when deciding what to put on canvas. Cropping afterwards, a personal choice.<br>

Michelangelo said: the statue is already in the marble block. My task is to take away what's not needed. Do you see any similarity when photographing?<br>

Whether details are distracting or not probably largely depends on the viewer, his/her attitude towards views around.</p>

<p>I definitely like clean photos. With the right amount of details.</p>

<p>What this amount is I honestly can't tell upfront.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Mark's answer contains a good point, I think. People also say it about writing. About speeches. About photos indeed..... Maybe it is indeed the viewer's expectation, but with the twist Mark indicates: they do not think of photography or writing as something that requires skill, because nearly all of us can write or push a button on a camera. So, "technically" we are all capable of doing it. While the majority of us is no good at composing music, drawing, painting.... People dare to be more critical about something they feel they could have done themselves as well.</p>

<p>At the same time, it happens for me often enough too. Both in taking photos as well as in looking at the works of others. Easily distracted by a detail that should not need to be there. Then again, typically these are photos taken outside of studios or controlled environments, these 'distracting details' are also just part of the scene and setting. </p>

<p>Wouter, I think that's a really good point about people not thinking of photography as something that requires skill. Though, interestingly, I hear these kinds of comments a lot on PN, made by other photographers.</p>

<p>Luca, regarding the cropping part of the discussion. I understand that people either frame in the camera or crop later. I do both. I am happy to crop many of my photos when post processing. That's not what I'm talking about. And, yes, the painter crops (frames) in his mind and on the canvas. Again, not what I am talking about. I'm talking about viewers suggesting alternative crops, which I think is more prevalent in critiques of photographs than critiques of paintings. As for your clean test, thanks, your honesty and candor is always appreciated. I have a different aesthetic, part of what I'm trying to communicate in this thread. It's not that I don't appreciate simplicity and cleanness when it moves me, but I don't put a premium on it. I can be very attracted to messy, not necessarily haphazard.</p>

<p>I agree that having things willy-nilly in a frame can be distracting. And I agree that some elements are, indeed, distracting in a negative way (though I think distraction can also be a plus in many instances).</p>

<p>What I particularly mind is when storytelling is aborted or emotion and visualization is neutered by the critiquer of a photo because the viewer finds anything but the main subject distracting. The tendency to want portraits restricted only to the face and even worse to extreme close-ups of the eyes for fear of the environment or surroundings distracting from the essential being of the person. The many missed opportunities for layering and subtlety of vision in favor of the blatant attention-focusing approach.</p>

<p>I am, indeed, critical of viewers. I think that's fair game. Looking and seeing can be an art. Not everybody does it well. We take seeing for granted but we can also learn how to look at photos.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We don't generally say that gray tones should be removed because they distract from shape. Why do we burden color with so much capacity to distract?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not quite there yet. I wanted to learn more about black and white film photography, specifically what compositions would work and what would be wasted effort, and to estimate how a subject would look in mono. As a first step, I tried desaturating some of my digital images. From this I found that sometimes the colour appeared to be masking a stronger image, baffling vision, preventing me from seeing clearly. So sometimes removing the colour from a digital image is worthwhile.<br>

The effect of tonality, and perhaps texture, the extent to which it enhances or detracts, is a step further on, and a useful one to consider. At the moment, I'm satisfied if my rare attempts at film turn out a moderately good image.</p>

<p>On the matter of artists and criticism, I really don't know what criticisms are made of aspiring painters or composers, although the remarks here about writing and graphic design ring very true.</p>

<p>Perhaps we do use the word distraction too much. Its in our internet discussion vocabulary, along with ROFL and bokeh and many other well worn words and phrases which are quick and handy and save typing, but might lose some subtlety of expression.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>A colourful photo, as some of Eggleston, can be very clean and pass a clear visual message."</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I can be very attracted to messy, not necessarily haphazard."</p>

<p>So could Eggleston. I couldn't find it on the web just now, and have no time to keep looking, but think of the older woman sitting on a floral print swinging couch in a back yard. Cluttered, full of apparently discordant elements, and a work of genius.</p>

<p> There's a danger in all of this simplifying business of ending up with sparse, sterilized imagery.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We can probably agree that what distinguishes successful art or photography and indeed other creative activity is the mind of the artist and the approach he employs that understands what his image (or other creation) is meant to show and includes all that is necessary to pass his message and nothing else. If there is some "clutter" or apparently undesirable elements in the picture perceived by the viewer, one should ask the question of why it or they are there, before finding them distracting. Many observations of fleeting nature only reflect on the ability of the viewer. If you cannot say that removing something you consider non-essential would improve the image, how and and why, then likely the image is as good as it can get. Some photographers are very quick to suggest that the image should be reframed or something needs to be removed because it is distracting, without seeking to contemplate the primary message of the art or the photograph. </p>

<p>The simplicity of the act of photographing unquestionably produces photography of a wide variety, and we are conscious of many images that contain discordant elements (those without artistic purpose) or superfluous information. The ease of driving a vehicle does not mean each driver is accepted to compete at Le Mans.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The many missed opportunities for layering and subtlety of vision in favor of the blatant attention-focusing approach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good point for sure.<br>

And it comes a bit back to the earlier point I raised. Most people, I think, are not that trained at all for layers and subtle gestures. So, they want the message clear and simple (it's not meant denigrating, because frankly, I think I am typically no better than this too).<br>

So, it's not strange elements are labelled distracting frequently in critiques here: all people here are working on photography in one way or another, so we are aware of the possibilities one has. But as viewers, well, we're no different except we understand how things could have been done different. So, in a hyperbolic way, it's non-expert feedback with expert suggestions.</p>