Composition: Should We Incude People In Our Photos?
Feb 2, 2017 21:22:33 #
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
I think I understood that. I'm just saying in effect that if most pictures that are submitted have people, then of course slightly less than most of the winning pictures will have people. Its like a race where 90% of the runners wear green. Not a coincidence then if the winner happens to be wearing green.
Have we got a kodak moment?
If we take the lighthouse photo for example, we could probably go to the lighthouse and weather permitting take a very similar photo of the lighthouse, maybe go every day for a week and you probably wouldn't see much difference in each photo. You won't have the woman taking a selfie in any of them. It may have been a 30 second window of opportunity for that photo to be taken.
A couple of months back there was a shot taken in kerry at a well known beauty spot that was posted on a group i'm in. Funny thing was i had taken nearly the same shot a few days earlier. Very little difference between them both pretty, composition was near identical. we both failed to capture a moment sadly. A person an animal a bird would have improved either shot.
It's a weakness i find in my photo's, a lack of a moment, too often you can go back tomorrow...
Feb 2, 2017 21:24:27 #
quagmire
Loc: Greenwood,South Carolina
In the tower one I would have liked it better if it was a man and a woman,if could have waited long enough.
Feb 2, 2017 21:48:34 #
wanderingbear
Loc: San Diego
Years ago National Geographic always had a person usually in some form of red attire in their landscape photos. They might be just a tiny part of the photo.
Bear
Bear
Feb 2, 2017 22:17:21 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
You must be a mind reader! I get together with a ... (show quote)
rd, You are so right about this image.
This image is very beautiful but it very much needs something to set it off. Even a few swans in the river might do it.
Maybe a little REVERSE PP!! Instead of taking things out, this is where you can put something IN! LoL
Put in a couple of rowing sculls!! LoL
SS
Feb 2, 2017 22:30:31 #
G_Manos wrote:
Just a rewind here - the statement doesn't say 90% of the pictures (that were submitted) had people in them, only that, of the winners. 85% had people in them.
GM, that's correct. It never said that a majority of the entries had people in them. My guess is that the % of entries with people would be representative of what might be entered from this readership.
Mainly they were just giving tips on how to possibly up your chances of having a winner. I'll just assume the study cited included everything from Nat Geo contests to School competitions.
The percentages weren't as important as that humans probably relate to and react to photos with people in them.
For the record, pics with grandkids, kids and dogs are usually pretty awful and the dogs are usually cuter than the kids!!!
I'm not saying do it but just getting the old wheels turning and bringing awareness to that possibility!
SS
Feb 2, 2017 22:42:12 #
Feb 2, 2017 22:53:54 #
SharpShooter wrote:
. . . The percentages weren't as important as that humans probably relate to and react to photos with people in them . . .
Feb 3, 2017 01:55:47 #
Silke
Loc: Germany
I take a lot of pictures with no people in it.
I often go out of my way to have no people in it.
As a result, I ended up with few pictures that have my partner, Paul, in it.
Guess what -- when he passed away, I was practically begging people to send me the pictures they have of him.
Take photos with people in it. Particularly take photos with your loved ones in them.
One of my most precious possessions is a landscape I took, with Paul standing there. And another of him and my horse (the only one I have of the two of them together)
I take pictures of people now.
And a friend of mine, goes one further - when he's out with friends, he will have someone take a picture of them, with him in it. One picture, per outing. I think it's a phantastic idea.
Strangers...that's a different matter. It depends on the place I'm trying to photograph, or the mood I want to capture. There are places, like Stonehenge for example, where I don't like people in it.
Others, where there is something going on, need people.
I often go out of my way to have no people in it.
As a result, I ended up with few pictures that have my partner, Paul, in it.
Guess what -- when he passed away, I was practically begging people to send me the pictures they have of him.
Take photos with people in it. Particularly take photos with your loved ones in them.
One of my most precious possessions is a landscape I took, with Paul standing there. And another of him and my horse (the only one I have of the two of them together)
I take pictures of people now.
And a friend of mine, goes one further - when he's out with friends, he will have someone take a picture of them, with him in it. One picture, per outing. I think it's a phantastic idea.
Strangers...that's a different matter. It depends on the place I'm trying to photograph, or the mood I want to capture. There are places, like Stonehenge for example, where I don't like people in it.
Others, where there is something going on, need people.
Feb 3, 2017 04:43:19 #
Architect1776 wrote:
In this photo the person is a definite detraction. Compare it to the excellent photos of the OP and you can see the difference.
Yes - in SS's pics the people do not intrude but are still there as part of the pic - and belong there. In Minnie's lighthouse pic I am not so sure - I feel that lighthouses are uniquely lonely structures, and are perhaps best portrayed as such, rather than as touristy attractions. Depends on purpose - I suspect that Minnie was actually making a delightful (and successful) pic of the fun-loving young tourist. Most other buildings are designed with people in mind, and therefore I, personally, am comfortable with pics of buildings that include people. Really my point is - we must decide what it is that the photographer wished to depict - perhaps Minnie's lone (and lonely) canoeist, in a vast and empty wilderness (albeit beautiful) was the subject?
Feb 3, 2017 10:19:08 #
Delderby wrote:
Yes - in SS's pics the people do not intrude but a... (show quote)
At the lighthouse, I was actually whiling away the time till she moved
(which took quite a while!). I got plenty of shots there with the Peggys Cove light starkly alone, but ended up preferring this quirky one, possibly because there was no good light to work with. Selfie Girl's who taught me to pay attention to the Little People. For me, lighthouses are both people-oriented and not. People lived and worked in and relied on these structures, so they have a Peopled history. But they are also highly symbolic and when the shot is taken with that purpose in mind, they work best alone. It all goes back to intent.Sort of the same for the Maligne Lake canoe - I have lots of shots of that island that I love with nothing but beautiful scenery. It's one of those places that is almost impossible NOT to get nice images of. But the canoe shot is the best one I have from this angle and viewpoint, where he "fits" and gives us that nice little red spot of interest for focus. He is not the subject but he fulfills a compositional function.
Feb 3, 2017 11:01:53 #
Great examples. This is a nit, but your statistics indicate people pictures have a 566% better chance (85/15). I think you point is spot on.
Feb 3, 2017 11:07:36 #
Since others are posting examples, I will include this one from Blue Rocks, Nova Scotia. I remember thinking "I wish the kayaker would hurry up and paddle out of my viewfinder". Thankfully, I shot a few with him in the view. He gives character to the view.
Feb 3, 2017 13:34:30 #
Feb 3, 2017 16:12:59 #
minniev wrote:
When I first started photography, I was insistent ... (show quote)
Minnie, what's interesting about the canoe shot is that as SMALL as the canoeist is, it completely changes the image. If this image was put into stock, both with and without the canoe, I'm willing to bet that the canoe shot would sell, ten to one, over the shot w/o the canoe. That tiny speck of human connection resonates with the grandeur of the scene. Without the canoe it's just another grand, pretty vista(to me)!
Someone else mentioned that with a lack of good light, people in the scene would add interest that would be lacking in bad light. That's not only interesting but I think very true.
Lots of reasons to put people in or not, but for sure, done right and we identify at a personal level!
SS
Feb 4, 2017 02:53:47 #
One of the happy accidents of the photo is the red vest and kayak that bounce off the red barn and the small red/orange container in the boat complete a triangle of red in the mostly cool or neutral scene. Were the kayaker wearing a neon green or yellow vest the effect would have been less pleasing. The man adds scale to the photo while echoes of red brings prevent him from overwhelming it. Nice shot.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.