Better Perspective: Better Images
June 19th, 2008
One of the pitfalls of photography is that by necessity we are reducing three dimensions into two. The moment the shutter is pressed and the image is created we can no longer walk around the scene and see it from different angles. The moment is frozen but so is the perspective. Once the image is made, the angle from which we view the scene is fixed, so it had better be the best angle for what you are trying to say. (more after the jump. Sorry, you RSSers are gonna have to launch a browser for this – but there’re illustrations, so hurray!)
Let’s say I am standing immediately in front of a man who in turn is standing in front of a woman .
![]()
A photograph created from this precise angle will show a man and only a man (fig1). The woman is hidden. If I move to the left my image will now show a man in front of a woman (implied by perspective), but within the frame the woman will be left, the man will be right (fig.2).
![]()
Conversely if I moved to the right, past my previous position, I will capture an image of the same man in front of the same woman, but within the frame the man will now be left-most and the woman right-most (fig.3.) So far we’ve moved our camera and created images from three different angles. Neither is better than the other. Unless you’re trying to say something more than “here is a man in front of a woman.” Because that’s boring and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking of making me look at something like that.
So here’s where it gets more interesting. The woman in the next two images is looking in the same direction (follow the dotted lines that in icon-speak mean “she is looking this way” and in comic-book-speak mean “she has x-ray vision”) In figure 4 she is now looking at the man, in figure 5 she is looking away from him.
![]()
This is not a perfect example, as direction of gaze is implied by her eye position, not just relative position. What I am trying to show is that the camera position relative to the subject matter has a great deal to do with what the image looks like and what it communicates. Take a look at fig.2 and fig.3 again – One (fig.2) implies that he is walking away from the woman, and the other (fig.3) implies walking towards. No, he is not actually walking towards the woman, but within the two-dimensional world of the visual language of the frame, it is implied and both images imply very different things. Same scene, only your angle has changed.
If you want to create a greater implied distance between the man and woman you would swing the camera further left or right. If you wanted to imply intimacy you might bring the camera even closer to center to bring close the implied gap between man and woman.
The same principle applies vertically as well to imply height and power relationships, as well as placing a horizon central, high, or low relative to the subject you are photographing.
And since your choice of lens affects the angle of view and perceived compression of space, that also will affect the implied relationships. From roughly the same camera angle (though not the same distance) figure 6 shows a wide angle lens pushed in tight – notice how it creates a greater perceived distance between subjects, while figure 7 shows a longer lens’ perpsective on the same subjects – tighter, more intimate
![]()
This is one of the reasons my camera so rarely finds itself on a tripod. The moment I put it on sticks I lose my ability to bob and weave, to find exactly the angle I want for the best composition and the right implied angles for the story I am telling. Regardless, which of these choices is right for the specific image you are making depends entirely on the vision you have for your image and the story you are trying to tell. That comes first, the rest is derivative.
Next time you’re out shooting, play with your angles. Move left, right, up, down. Move around and through your scene until you have the angle that best translates your three-dimensional scene into a two-dimensional photograph. Transform straight lines into more powerful oblique lines, bring things into or out of proximity, move until the scene is as powerful, or as simple, as you can make it. Then press the shutter button.
It’s all about the visual/spatial relationship between elements and for many photographers it is much easier to change the position/angle of the camera than it is to move the elements within the scene.
So, I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now and finally got around to looking through your portfolio. I’m glad I did. I found endless inspiration for a trip I am about to go on next week to Mexico. I’m a working graphic designer and amateur photographer… I looked through a hand full of the galleries and found one picture in particular that just made me stop and stare. I really felt as if I were there. It’s like this “calmness” came over me. The composition was amazing, the colors, the clouds, reflections… I believe it was #20 in your travel gallery. Where is that?!?!
I’ve been to Mexico a few times and will probably go many more (my wife has a thing for sun, sand and turquoise waters).
One thing I’ve been trying to understand better is the effect a telephoto lens has on a scene, compared to a wide angel. The compression factor that you get when shooting a tele lens. I just upgraded from a Canon Digital Rebel (300D) to a Canon 40D w/ the 28-135mm IS USM Lens. So I can’t wait to get to Mexico and capture some great shots. Thanks for the inspiration, and hopefully you can do a post on that compression factor. It really helps to hear it more than one way from different photographers.