Let's talk photography

I'll get straight to the point, (mainly because if I ramble too much at this point, the most readers won't make the connection with the analogy  in the title to which I am about to reference) if we want to 'Talk' photography, first we must understand the language that is being spoken. We must understand how to 'Speak' and in-turn how to 'Write' photographically, from whacking-great novels and epic poetry, through the sentences and metaphors, right down to tiny constituents of language; the letters and phonemes. We must also understand syntax, tone, and grammar.


As with written language, there are rules, but there are also different angles or perspectives from which we can approach a photograph. We can look at aesthetics or the tone, the meanings and intentions, our emotional response, or if we want to be a little more impartial and objective, we can look at the smaller, more technical aspects that create the whole.


So here's my suggestion, next time you come across an image that really connects with you, take a few minutes to try and understandwhat effect it has one you, and why it has the effect or impact that it does. Yeah, sure, you can try and decipher how it was made (that's the technical side of things we mentioned earlier), but also take the time to consider the other aspects of the image, like the desired emotional response. A simple example of this would be the shots of starving African children used in charity campaigns. How are these images supposed to make us feel? OK, that's an obvious example, but there are, of course, more difficult versions of this game. Try also to remember to think about the tone of the image. Again, if it were being 'Spoken' would it be said quickly or slowly, softly whispered or shouted, maybe even screamed at you. Usually, we can, via context, quite easily understand how a piece of text is supposed to be read, and we need to learn to be able to do the same with photography - we just need to learn the language.

Moving-on from literature, and into the world of photography, we need to consider things ranging from the obvious, to the more subtle. Take posing for example. Posing can be as simple as making a larger person look thin, or it can offer a glimpse into the mind-set of the subject. Consider reading about the basic principles of body-language, and what these things tell us about the subject. For example, sowing the undersides of wrists suggests vulnerability. Other things to consider may include the lighting, depth-of-field, perspective, cropping, viewpoint, foreground, background, and expression - and the effect that these things have on the overall perception.


But even after we've considered all of these things, we have to conclude whether these individual elements are in harmony or discord. Do the elements of the image all fit together nicely, do they 'Rhyme', is there a discernible rhythm to the image? If not, why not? What effect does this have? Interestingly enough, I find that usually, a little conflict between elements is necessary to make the image stimulating.


Now, after all that reverse-engineering, comes the forward-engineering, or, as most humans would call it, simply 'Engineering'. This is where all the understanding, thinking, and practice comes into it's proper use. We can then use the skills we have learnt from deconstructing other people's images, to constructing our own. The important part to remember, is to actually make a conscious effort to think about all of these aspects when we engineer our own images. When shooting, we must remember to think, amongst other things, not just about the lighting and clutter in the frame, but also about the tone, speed, and intentions of our photographs - we must learn to speak the language.