Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
A Theory (And an Alliteration): Image=Impact+Information
February 16th, 2009
The more image reviews I do the more I come back to a paradigm that’s been hatching in my brain. On the off chance it’s helpful to others (or even comprehensible) I’m going to try explaining it here. I’m probably just re-packaging what others before me have taught, but then aren’t we all? This is just the way I look at things. Ok, here goes.
The Premise, Briefly.
Any given image succeeds or fails based on it having a ratio of IMPACT to INFORMATION, and that ratio adding up to 100%.
The Paradigm, Less Briefly.
Impact comes through the emotion created or displayed in the image, the power of color depth, or other content that stirs a strong reaction. Information comes through content that supplies visual clues to what is going on in the image itself. Some images have a great deal of emotion in them, but not many clues as to what’s going on. If there’s enough impact it offsets the lack of information, but as long as the two remain balanced – say an 80:20 ratio then the image is likely to work.
If we reverse the ratio with an image that’s 20% impact and 80% information, that image probably works too. (As long as that’s the intention of the photographer. If she was going for high information:low impact then clearly she’s failed.)
What does not work is an image where the ratio doesn’t add to 100%. An image with low impact (20%) and low information (20%) probably fails. That’s what I mean by balance – he equation comes to 100%.
What about technical merit? Exposure? Composition? Don’t they factor in?
Of course they do. They’re all connected. Poorly exposed images will lose impact and upset the balance, as will poorly composed images. But this isn’t a science, and an image that is high impact for me might not be so for you. I’m not trying here to make it into a mathematical formula rather to put some handles on something that’s highly subjective and often hard to put into words. But this paradigm, looking at the Impact:Information ratio, gives me words to express why I think an image is or is not working.
So What?
More than helping me express thoughts about particular images, this paradigm also helps me sort out the purpose of an image before it’s shot, and in so doing helps determine the way that potential image should be created. A High Impact: Low Information shot will be created for different purposes and in different ways, than a Low Impact:High Information photograph. How so? High Impact will appeal to the emotions, make use of colour psychology, creative lens techniques and framing to create an image that is more emotive. High Information images will appeal more to the intelect, and might use greater depth of field, more static composition, or a wider optic to increase the field of view. These are just possible solutions, each image will have its own purpose and needs, will require it’s own balance between Image and Information, and its own means of achieving that.
Comments are open, feel free to discuss. I’m in Bangladesh, but will check in if/when I can. Remember, Math and I are generally not on speaking terms so if I’ve created a metaphor using math-geek language that just doesn’t work for you, feel free to help me out. I’m not set on being right here, just in creating or expressing some thoughts that make it a little easier to get a handle on our craft.
I think you’re certainly on to something here David although i’ll need to wake up a bit more before daring to even contemplate if the maths is right, let alone actually work it out. Certainly technical merit is important as you say, but at the same time, i’ve trawled through literally thousands of images that are technically excellent and they’ve bored the pants of me.
I put it down to the fact that i’m an emotional person by nature and art has to appeal to that side of me first and foremost but also, one of my favourite quotes of all time comes from an old B&W film about the life of Douglas Bader. In it, Kenneth Moore (DB in the film) says “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”. It comes across almost as a cry to be free from constraint in what we do and I think ultimately, that’s what a good photograph needs to evoke. It needs to fire the soul in some way, be that through thought, impact, or any other name we give to those self-same things.
It’s not about the gear and it’s not about math. Things like emotions are not formulaic. I also think the things that move us the most can’t even be put into words — though we still attempt to — and we fool ourselves when we try. The only math I’ve seen work for photography are the algorithms used by Adobe (and other editing software developers). Vision simply doesn’t transfer to mathematics, IMHO.
I can see why you’ve drawn this conclusion as well as how it might be helpful. You mention low impact and low information images, but perhaps there’s an additional problem.
Most of us are probably trying to wrangle both high impact and high information images out of our visions and cameras. Perhaps by not favoring one over the other we’re setting ourselves up for failure – like the proverbial cook throwing the kitchen sink into the pot. It’s an interesting notion – whether it works mathematically or not.
I think that if this works for you, and obviously it does, then there is some merit in it. If you and I were to sit down and discuss various images I think I would have a better handle as to where you are coming from if you spoke of the impact:information ratio.
It presents an interesting way at looking at images. I, personally, am drawn to impact images more so than information images (although this is not always true). What can I say, I like the bright and shiny.
Something I’m struggling with now is how do you have a successful peaceful image with low information? Can impact be senenity?
Serenity can certainly have a strong visual impact.
With respect to information, perhaps the issue isn’t the amount of information (low/high) but rather the quality of information. Serenity, for example, could be illustrated well in a shot with a low amount of high quality information.
Perhaps it’s another function of being careful of what falls within the frame, and what falls outside.
I think when I refer to the impact/information paradigm I am not truly making it mathematical. It’s a metaphor. By impact I do not mean necessarily bold or strong impact, and I don’t mean it to be the opposite of serene. An image can strike you emotionally as much with its sense of serenity as with a sense of power. What I mean is that an image MUST appeal to you on some level. If it fails to appeal emotively it might appeal cognitively. But if it fails on both counts, what is left? Nothing. But usually it’s a mix of both – emotional and cognitive appeal.
Or maybe I was just over-tired. Still, it works for me as an evaluative tool. Descriptive, not prescriptive.