Levels of awareness to images

[The_Traveler]

I posted a version of this text below in a thread about a specific issue but thought it might be an interesting discussion issue.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

There are three levels of understanding in a picture.

The most obvious level is the documentary level - the picture contains stuff that you recognize

The next level down, also sort-of-obvious is that allusive level. The picture brings up ideas, emotions, reactions that come from the mind or memory of the viewer. An example of these are baby pictures, puppy, photojournalism pictures, etc. Clearly the viewer's experience and emotions contributes a lot to the enjoyment.

The lowest level - which is not obvious at all - is the responsive level. This is when the viewer perceives, often without conscious involvement, that the elements of the picture as they are do not conform with our rules of the accustomed reality and the viewer responds to that. This response can be positive or negative and is often completely without conscious awareness of it except in the viewer's general response. This deviation may be subtle, where it only engages the unconscious, or blatant where the viewer must consciously try to interpret what and how he/she is seeing and how to feel.

This is most easily demonstrated by the tilted horizon issue. If, in a standard ordinary landscape, the horizon is tilted, even a tiny bit, the image is somehow less comfortable to look at compared to to one where the horizon is horizontal as we are accustomed to see it.

On the other hand, if we see an image where the buildings exhibit extreme perspective distortion, as if we were looking up at them, there is a positive response that enhances the feeling of height.

The subtle, unconscious influences of this lowest responsive level are not easily understood or managed directly yet is the source of the 'Rules' or guidelines of composition. We are told to follow the guidelines - to keep our viewers' perception at its most comfortable- until we know enough to break them. That is, until we know enough about how people see to use these unconscious reactions to manage and increase the viewers' response to the image.

 

[pjwarneka]

Lew,
Good post. I think the above completely enforces why technical basics are needed and at the same time I think it also shows why the technical side of photography can be negated.
somewhere in your list I think an interesting sub section would be 'life's experiences' of some sort. People view everything through a filter, that filter is built from what they are currently thinking and what they have thought of in the past.

 

[The_Traveler]

Lew,
I think an interesting sub section would be 'life's experiences' of some sort. People view everything through a filter, that filter is built from what they are currently thinking and what they have thought of in the past.

Agreed.
I remembering querying someone about why she was so gaga over a mediocre picture of some dog and she replied that she loved dogs and loved any picture of dogs. That kind of subjective response (loving dogs/babies/guns/etc; loving my baby, dog, gun etc.) derives from individual experiences and thoughts and should be the first thing that photographers attempt to suppress in themselves.

 

[jake337]

Lew,
I think an interesting sub section would be 'life's experiences' of some sort. People view everything through a filter, that filter is built from what they are currently thinking and what they have thought of in the past.

Agreed.
I remembering querying someone about why she was so gaga over a mediocre picture of some dog and she replied that she loved dogs and loved any picture of dogs. That kind of subjective response (loving dogs/babies/guns/etc; loving my baby, dog, gun etc.) derives from individual experiences and thoughts and should be the first thing that photographers attempt to suppress in themselves.

Suppress???

NO!!!!


I wouldn't say suppress.

I would say they should embrace and use that love to take their images, in that certain field, to the next level.


So what if someone loves dogs and all pictures of dogs! They should use that love to focus on creating the best images of dogs they can.

 

[The_Traveler]

I would say they should embrace and use that love to take their images, in that certain field, to the next level.
So what if someone loves dogs and all pictures of dogs! They should use that love to focus on creating the best images of dogs they can.

The photographer must suppress his loves/hates to be objective about specific images.
Loves can drive what you take but should be ignored when you wield your delete key.

 

[pjwarneka]

I think photographers need to shoot what they love, then find a market. when they edit, that is where they might need to suppress a bit. Many photographers fail by shooting what the latest " be like me" seminar tells them to shoot.

Also I feel the language of photography is lacking and very inaccurate. If someone likes a photo, is it mediocre? maybe not to them. ( not pointed at you Lew)

 

[pjwarneka]

I liken this to the fact that some cultures feel food made with love and care tastes different than food that is just thrown together.
if you do not love your subject, I think it can come through and be picked up by the viewer.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think photographers need to shoot what they love, then find a market. when they edit, that is where they might need to suppress a bit. Many photographers fail by shooting what the latest " be like me" seminar tells them to shoot.

Also I feel the language of photography is lacking and very inaccurate. If someone likes a photo, is it mediocre? maybe not to them. ( not pointed at you Lew)

My intent with this is not to describe what is 'good' or 'bad' but only to describe that lowest level of awareness that responds to images.
There are reasons why some images are more 'comfortable' when nominally indiscernible edits are made.

 

[Compaq]

These kinds of reflections are important.

 

[The_Traveler]

I liken this to the fact that some cultures feel food made with love and care tastes different than food that is just thrown together.
if you do not love your subject, I think it can come through and be picked up by the viewer.

This may be true, although I think not, but that has nothing to do with what I am trying to say.

 

[pjwarneka]

well said. I still find it hard to delete some images


The photographer must suppress his loves/hates to be objective about specific images.
Loves can drive what you take but should be ignored when you wield your delete key.

 

[pjwarneka]

But it does have to do with what I am saying.

I liken this to the fact that some cultures feel food made with love and care tastes different than food that is just thrown together.
if you do not love your subject, I think it can come through and be picked up by the viewer.

This may be true, although I think not, but that has nothing to do with what I am trying to say.

 

[pjwarneka]

And again, by no means was I pointing it at you with wording choice.
Now I really like " level of awareness" That is very interesting to apply towards photography. It is amazing how some photos are loved by some and hated by others, sometimes for the same reasons other times for completely different reasons.

I think photographers need to shoot what they love, then find a market. when they edit, that is where they might need to suppress a bit. Many photographers fail by shooting what the latest " be like me" seminar tells them to shoot.

Also I feel the language of photography is lacking and very inaccurate. If someone likes a photo, is it mediocre? maybe not to them. ( not pointed at you Lew)

My intent with this is not to describe what is 'good' or 'bad' but only to describe that lowest level of awareness that responds to images.
There are reasons why some images are more 'comfortable' when nominally indiscernible edits are made.

 

[pjwarneka]

Love it!
you posted "responsive level" I read as a passive trait and add awareness level as an active trait. I think both are always there.