How do you capture emotions?

[limr]

So, to be more precise, you don't want to capture emotion, you want to elicit emotion from the person viewing the photo. Is that what you mean? You want them to feel something when they see the picture.

This is correct. You don't capture emotion, you elicit.

The problem with that is that everyone that looks at any given piece of art has a different response. The emotion you're looking for you're never going to find as it's in the viewer, not in the picture.

Why is this a "problem"? You're never going to get the same emotional response out of everyone. Why would you even want to? You might feel one emotion when taking a shot and your viewer feels something different, but that doesn't mean the picture has "failed" or that something is wrong.

Think about any pictures that you have seen that have caused a response, good, bad, sad, happy, in you. Dorothea Lange's pictures from the Dust Bowl era might not necessarily be technically great but they strike emotion. Most any pictures from the Holocaust aren't technically great but those sure as hell bring forth emotion. Some of those I can look at even for a minute and tear up. That's not emotion in the picture, it's emotion in me.

What does have to do with you is being able to see it and realize that this particular moment will, in fact, result in an emotional response in many viewers.

When my best friend's daughter got married someone at the wedding just happened to catch a moment when the bride and her dad hugged after the ceremony. There is a look on her face of just absolute bliss that will choke you up in minute. All because someone was there at just the right moment.

These examples you mention all have people in them. Does that mean you're saying emotion needs to be portrayed in the photo to elicit emotion as well? Emotion in the subject or emotion from the photographer?

Not everyone is going to have the same emotional response even if it's clear from the context and facial expression what emotion we are "supposed" to feel. Someone might be choked up, thinking of the bride's happiness. Some might feel bitterness or sadness or envy because they never got to experience that moment for whatever reason. Others might roll their eyes or feel anger. Others might feel nervous or excited because their wedding or child's wedding is coming up. And all this time, despite acknowledging that the moment is worth capturing for its emotional impact, maybe the photographer feels absolutely nothing. So where does the emotion come from? The people in the photo.

But your picture in the OP is a landscape and you cite Adams' landscapes as an example of what you'd like to achieve. Obviously, emotion is not going to be portrayed by people, so it has to be elicited in another way. You already know that technical precision alone isn't the answer. So what is? If you are not relying on people to portray emotion, then where does the emotion come from? I say the photographer. How can you convey an emotion in a landscape that you don't feel yourself? And does it matter if the viewer doesn't feel the same thing that you do?

Perhaps you already answered your own question. You spoke of capturing a moment when you gave the examples of pictures with people in them. Facial expressions, body movements, interactions...these all happen pretty fast and you have to have good timing. Mountains, trees, rivers...yeah, they don't move around a lot, so what moment is being captured? It becomes all about the light at that point. It's the light and how you capture it that can create a mood in a landscape image. That particular quality of light at that moment might not happen again any time soon, so you have to move - sometimes really fast - to capture that moment of light on that particular scene. You have to be in the right place at the right time, which could mean getting up early, hiking a long way to get to the right scene/composition, waiting a long time for the light and maybe having to come back another day.

So there's your common thread: the moment that you have capture, whether it be on a person's face/body language/setting, or in the light that falls on the land.

 

[chuasam]

There are NO emotions in landscapes or cityscapes. PEOPLE exhibit emotions.

Yeah, probably poor phrasing from my part, but you get what I was meaning, yes?

I find it hardest to capture emotions as it is something I don't feel.
I asked a good friend how she did it.
She said photograph things that frighten you the most. Capture in images that which you long the most. Put aside cliche and things you've seen before. Face your fears and desires - capture those.

 

[AlanKlein]

Shooting in the middle of the day often gives you flat pictures. The lighting is very poor because the landscape is getting the same amount of light. If you want "oohs" and "aahs" shoot during magic hour. That's during one-hour after sunrise and during one-hour before sunset. A low sun creates dramatic side-lighting, shadows, heightened contrast, and warm colors which will stimulate these kinds of reactions.

 

[AlanKlein]

Here's a desert scene taken by another photographer. Notice how the low sun creates shadows on the mountain and beside the plants. That contrast is enjoyed by the eye. This shot also used a polarizer filter that darkened the sky making it more dramatic. This filter reduces reflections on things which brings out the colors more profoundly. Of course we all find that most of the time is during the day and we can't wait around for late afternoon or early evening. During the daytime you may be able to get interesting shots of closeups, flowers, etc. Good luck.
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Nevada Flickr - Photo Sharing

 

[JoeW]

Okay, I have multiple thoughts that I hope will provide some insight for you.

1. It's not about "shooting emotions." You may want to elicit an emotion from a viewer. But more importantly, it's about "telling a story." Which means you need to do more than take photos or "captures" (lord how I hate that word). Instead, you need to compose/create a picture. This is not about semantics. It's about looking at a scene you find notable and rather than saying "okay, I'm going to document this!" instead you look at a scene and ask "how can I use the tools at my disposal to manipulate this scene in order to express a feel or mood in the picture or tell a story or create a common/shared reaction from viewers?"

2. Understanding the rules of composition are critical here. Someone may chip in at this point by saying "there are no rules" or "rules are made to be broken" and those cliches absolutely don't apply here. There are thousands of composition rules in photography/visual art....and they're contradictory. Let me phrase that another way: you cannot mutually follow all (or even 10%) of the rules on visual art and composition. So you have to pick and choose which ones to use...much like you pick and choose which lens to use or if you're going to put a filter or gel on the end of your lens. What makes a great photographer is the ability to chose the rules that are going to tell the story/generate the emotion you want to create and then use them effectively to create that mood or tell that story or elicit that emotion. For instance, white balance can be a very effective way to help tell a story or create a mood....shoot with a fluorescent setting and get a blue tint that implies coldness, distance, not friendly. Or set the WB so you get a extreme contrasty tint that creates a noir feel to it.

3. Take the picture you posted. You may like it b/c it provides memories and an accurate depiction of a magnificent scene you saw. Fine--you got that. Don't expect anyone else to "aw" or "ohhh" over it b/c it's your memory, not there's. No insult intended, but that is why the vast majority of family members groan when Uncle Jed says "does anyone want to see my photos of the family trip to Yellowstone?" Instead, when confronted with that scene (in your picture), you should be asking yourself..."what's the story I want to tell?" Is it about distance--that in this part of the world stuff just goes on and on and on and on? Then you look for a leading line or something to provide perspective. Is it starkness (the dry and brutal climate)? Than maybe you look for a prop in the foreground (like a skeleton or dead tree). Is it about the heat? Than you shoot when the sun is low and you see gigantically long shadows extending for distances. And no, those are not the only ways to tell those stories or capture those emotions, they're just examples. But the point is, by understanding composition you learn to shape the reaction you get from your photos...they become more than just a "capture" of something you saw, instead you have "created" art by shaping and manipulating the scene through our tools (the camera, the lens, post-production, but mostly our vision and knowledge of composition).

 

[vintagesnaps]

What I noticed right away is that the composition and angle or vantage point could have been different (and yes, different light at a different time of day could have helped, but you have to work with what you've got if you won't be back). The foreground seems a little cut off and the mountain to the left seems chopped at an odd place too, the balance in the composition seems off.

What I think you're trying to do is capture what you feel when you see what you photograph. If you develop skills in composition and framing etc. then you can learn how to best show an image the way you want. If you don't have a background in art you could try searching 'elements of composition in art' instead of in photography and that should give you some sites to look at.

I have a photo that's been on display that was literally taken pulled over to the side of the road. I've done that sort of thing often enough; it was a moment in the evening that I had to get quickly before the light changed and was gone.

I had another accepted into a juried exhibit that was of an abandoned looking building I saw from the parking lot of the big boy! really. I'd used up all my film that day and grabbed my digital camera and took pictures thru the windshield when my friend pulled over to check our order. lol There was tall grass in front with sunlight hitting it and I found myself scrunching down to emphasize what I saw and felt, to make the grass seem taller and the building more empty and isolated. I don't think I thought all that thru at the time, it seems more like instinct, but I think the more you practice and the more you take pictures the more that becomes second nature.

With your photo I'm not sure that it shows any one thing. There could certainly be more than one photo there. I find the cacti and the road winding off in the distance interesting - if you'd moved around and changed your vantage point you may have been able to put the cacti in relation to the road in a different way, change the positions, and you might have had an 'a-ha' moment and been able to get a photo that shows the scene the way you saw it and how it made you feel. I often turn and see something and it's like a little light bulb goes on and that's it - that's a picture.

I think photos need to be able to stand alone. Maybe that's partly due to having photos exhibited (the most usually that will be there along with the photo would be the photographer's name and maybe a brief blurb) but I think that's always how I've taken photos. A caption can help identify what's happening or the process used etc. and a description can enhance a photo or expand on the meaning, but if it needs a lengthy explanation then it doesn't seem like it completely works.

I don't think you quite nailed this one, although you could try making some copies and doing some cropping and see if you can get a different/better picture. But you may want to work on composition so you can better express what you want in your photos.

 

[kathyt]

I thing composition can be a key factor in creating emotion.

 

[Derrel]

I see your question was blogged about today...

Photos and Stuff How do you capture emotions

 

[floatingby]

Thanks to the post here I've managed to pinpoint the major problem I have with landscape. When I'm front of a vista I instinctively want to capture as much of it as possible, forgetting everything I ever learned about photography in the doing, so I always go to a wide lens to get as much of it as possible. And if that doesn't work? I'd go wider still.
Might sound stupid to some, and it possibly is, but without analyzing my last 10 years worth of picture taking, helped with example, tip and guidance provided here and elsewhere, I'm not sure I would ever have come to that realization, or it might have taken years still.

 

[KmH]

When the light is less than ideal, no doubt - take a photo to document your travels.
But, don't expect a landscape photo to be top notch and able to evoke emotion in a viewer if the light direction and quality sucks.

Ansel Adams was very, very, very good at making prints in a wet lab.
He made many different prints of many of his best images over the years as new materials and techniques became available to him.

IMO. Electronic online display cannot come anywhere close to the image quality a well made print can achieve.