Series' and Sequencing

[W.Y.Photo]

One of the only qualms I've found I have with this forum is that there is never any discussion on creating series' of images or on the sequencing of images in general. As this is a fundamental and important process for almost any photographer to know and understand I feel like a discussion on it is long overdue.

Who are some exceptional image sequencers who you know of? any great series you've noticed recently? What types of compositional elements or subject matter do you pay attention to the most when sequencing images for one of your series'? What else do you think about these things?

 

[weepete]

I'm not sure what you mean!

 

[Scatterbrained]

One of the only qualms I've found I have with this forum is that there is never any discussion on creating series' of images or on the sequencing of images in general. As this is a fundamental and important process for almost any photographer to know and understand I feel like a discussion on it is long overdue.

Who are some exceptional image sequencers who you know of? any great series you've noticed recently? What types of compositional elements or subject matter do you pay attention to the most when sequencing images for one of your series'? What else do you think about these things?

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. If you're documenting an event (or a change over time) then you'd typically show the images in chronological order. If you're creating a series of themed images then the order is entirely up to you. If you're doing a series of shots for an editorial then the images will likely be displayed in the order the AD or editor chooses.

 

[Designer]

I've got one in my head, and it will probably never be realized.

 

[Buckster]

I have a series I've been working on for years, and will likely continue to work on for many more before I get enough to make a show of it. It involves the chance meetings between me and a particular subject matter.

When I conceived of it, I thought they were all around me, easy to find, that I'd seen them hundreds, even thousands, of times, practically non-stop, and that I'd have an unlimited number in no time to pick and choose from. But as soon as I started actively watching for them, they suddenly vanished and became scarce, rarely encountered.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I'm not sure what you mean!

Sequencing as in photo sequencing.. Choosing the order in which to portray a series of images in the best manner.

One of the only qualms I've found I have with this forum is that there is never any discussion on creating series' of images or on the sequencing of images in general. As this is a fundamental and important process for almost any photographer to know and understand I feel like a discussion on it is long overdue.

Who are some exceptional image sequencers who you know of? any great series you've noticed recently? What types of compositional elements or subject matter do you pay attention to the most when sequencing images for one of your series'? What else do you think about these things?

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. If you're documenting an event (or a change over time) then you'd typically show the images in chronological order. If you're creating a series of themed images then the order is entirely up to you. If you're doing a series of shots for an editorial then the images will likely be displayed in the order the AD or editor chooses.

I'm not over-thinking it at all. Trust me. What I'm talking about is exactly what the editor is hired to do. Taking specific design elements or subject matter that are relateable in a collection of images and ordering those images based off of these elements in order to draw connections from image to image or point the viewer to specific things in each image.

Images you see in a collection directly impact the way you view the next image.. so sequencing of those images is very important to the way the viewer sees a collection of work. If you want a client or audience to appreciate specific things about a collection of images you've made the initial response they have will rely heavily on the sequence you choose to portray those images in. It's almost as important as the composition of a single photograph.. In essence it is the composition of the entire work.

Now obviously in certain situations the sequence must be chronological but its the times that it is up to you that I'm talking about.

Try taking prints of a series or collection of images that you have, placing them in a row on a table and changing there order based on what images seem to look good next to eachother. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Nathan Lyons wrote an entire textbook on this subject, I can't seem to find it right now but when I do I'll post a link here.

There isn't much information on this online but it's the big secret behind many famous photo books and their success. Sequencing can make or break a fine art series of images.

I did find one article that is portfolio specific. If covers the basic ideas but doesn't go into much detail about the intricacies of the process.

Here it is: Sequencing your portfolio slideshow images FG Blog

 

[limr]

You mean like the famous Fat Cat Capsizing?
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/1-fat-cat-capsizing-richard-watherwax.jpg

It seems like a trite example, and to be fair, it was actually the first one that I thought of because it is cute. But it's also true that it works better as a sequence of photos rather than an individual one.

I did a triptych once. I honestly can't remember if the order I arranged the photos in was the same order in which I took them, but I know I arranged them to look as if they were chronological in order to let them tell a story. Let me go find them...

 

[limr]

Ah, here they are. There was originally a fourth but I decided it didn't add to the story so I omitted it.


Day 299 - Girl and cat 1 by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Day 299 - Girl and cat 2 by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Day 299 - Girl and Cat 3 by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[W.Y.Photo]

You mean like the famous Fat Cat Capsizing?
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/1-fat-cat-capsizing-richard-watherwax.jpg

It seems like a trite example, and to be fair, it was actually the first one that I thought of because it is cute. But it's also true that it works better as a sequence of photos rather than an individual one.

I did a triptych once. I honestly can't remember if the order I arranged the photos in was the same order in which I took them, but I know I arranged them to look as if they were chronological in order to let them tell a story. Let me go find them...

Exactly Limr. A simple example but that's the basic idea. One image doesn't tell the story but 3 tell it perfectly. Its not always about literal storytelling either, you can sequence concepts or compositional elements to make a selection of images stronger than they were originally as well.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Heres a good example of other types of photo sequencing:
Christian Patterson is an excellent photographer who I find to be an exceptional image sequencer

His book Redheaded Peckerwood documents locations and items involved in a Bonnie and Clyde style killing spree which occurred across Nebraska. The sequencing is based heavily on repetition of compositional elements and color and is a good example of how sequencing can strengthen a body of work by using compositional elements and by hinting at an underlying narrative.

 

[Dave442]

I think any photographer has done some sort of sequencing. I think of what I don't want to see, such as the friend back from vacation and they just start going through every single picture just as they took it.
I find when putting together a group of images I may have one that I like better by itself, but have to go with another image to make the overall sequence work. It may be the colors, the position of the subject or direction the subject is making the viewer look, the type of lighting.

 

[limr]

That's an interesting set of pictures.

There was a member here who isn't around anymore who was a big proponent of the use of portfolio. He felt - if I remember and am interpreting correctly - this kind of purpose-driven shooting and arranging of images was more meaningful than stand-alone images.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm not sure what you mean!

Sequencing as in photo sequencing.. Choosing the order in which to portray a series of images in the best manner.

One of the only qualms I've found I have with this forum is that there is never any discussion on creating series' of images or on the sequencing of images in general. As this is a fundamental and important process for almost any photographer to know and understand I feel like a discussion on it is long overdue.

Who are some exceptional image sequencers who you know of? any great series you've noticed recently? What types of compositional elements or subject matter do you pay attention to the most when sequencing images for one of your series'? What else do you think about these things?

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. If you're documenting an event (or a change over time) then you'd typically show the images in chronological order. If you're creating a series of themed images then the order is entirely up to you. If you're doing a series of shots for an editorial then the images will likely be displayed in the order the AD or editor chooses.

I'm not over-thinking it at all. Trust me. What I'm talking about is exactly what the editor is hired to do. Taking specific design elements or subject matter that are relateable in a collection of images and ordering those images based off of these elements in order to draw connections from image to image or point the viewer to specific things in each image.

Images you see in a collection directly impact the way you view the next image.. so sequencing of those images is very important to the way the viewer sees a collection of work. If you want a client or audience to appreciate specific things about a collection of images you've made the initial response they have will rely heavily on the sequence you choose to portray those images in. It's almost as important as the composition of a single photograph.. In essence it is the composition of the entire work.

Now obviously in certain situations the sequence must be chronological but its the times that it is up to you that I'm talking about.

Try taking prints of a series or collection of images that you have, placing them in a row on a table and changing there order based on what images seem to look good next to eachother. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Nathan Lyons wrote an entire textbook on this subject, I can't seem to find it right now but when I do I'll post a link here.

There isn't much information on this online but it's the big secret behind many famous photo books and their success. Sequencing can make or break a fine art series of images.

I did find one article that is portfolio specific. If covers the basic ideas but doesn't go into much detail about the intricacies of the process.

Here it is: Sequencing your portfolio slideshow images FG Blog

There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking in that link. Maybe I'm just used to this sort of presentation logic because it gets beaten to death in discussions of business presentations, but i don't see anything special there. Whether it's a powerpoint presentation or a porfolio, the presentation logic is very similar.

 

[Derrel]

That's an interesting set of pictures.

There was a member here who isn't around anymore who was a big proponent of the use of portfolio. He felt - if I remember and am interpreting correctly - this kind of purpose-driven shooting and arranging of images was more meaningful than stand-alone images.

I really miss him. And his hat!!!

Yes, Andrew really did believe in shooting for the portfolio. And it's true what he said; that in essence, a collection of images strengthens each image within that collection. I personally believe that it is because the human brain tries desperately,or is it automatically?, to categorize and make sense of EVERY SINGLE THING it encounters, based on schema, or archetype, or category, however one wants to frame this process.

Take a series of photographs of anything, and then group them together in a web gallery, or wall display, or a printed book, or whatever form one wishes, and BOOM! the whole is viewed as being somehow, greater than the sum of its parts. As in the Redheaded Peckerwood collection, about the crime spree...as I go through those images, my mind tries to make some sense of them...I find myself viewing the images through my own brain's inner narrative...I view the images within some context, and each images acts as a piece in a puzzle. Weak images are tremendously strengthened, as the brain says, "Well, this is a part of a bigger puzzle! This is worth something--within the context in which is belongs!"

 

[W.Y.Photo]

That's an interesting set of pictures.

There was a member here who isn't around anymore who was a big proponent of the use of portfolio. He felt - if I remember and am interpreting correctly - this kind of purpose-driven shooting and arranging of images was more meaningful than stand-alone images.

I'm like that as well. Those who take interest in photography primarily as a form of Fine Art are usually huge proponents of this style of photographing as you can offer up a much more cohesive concept or idea through a series of photographs than you can with just one single image.

I'm not sure what you mean!

Sequencing as in photo sequencing.. Choosing the order in which to portray a series of images in the best manner.

One of the only qualms I've found I have with this forum is that there is never any discussion on creating series' of images or on the sequencing of images in general. As this is a fundamental and important process for almost any photographer to know and understand I feel like a discussion on it is long overdue.

Who are some exceptional image sequencers who you know of? any great series you've noticed recently? What types of compositional elements or subject matter do you pay attention to the most when sequencing images for one of your series'? What else do you think about these things?

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. If you're documenting an event (or a change over time) then you'd typically show the images in chronological order. If you're creating a series of themed images then the order is entirely up to you. If you're doing a series of shots for an editorial then the images will likely be displayed in the order the AD or editor chooses.

I'm not over-thinking it at all. Trust me. What I'm talking about is exactly what the editor is hired to do. Taking specific design elements or subject matter that are relateable in a collection of images and ordering those images based off of these elements in order to draw connections from image to image or point the viewer to specific things in each image.

Images you see in a collection directly impact the way you view the next image.. so sequencing of those images is very important to the way the viewer sees a collection of work. If you want a client or audience to appreciate specific things about a collection of images you've made the initial response they have will rely heavily on the sequence you choose to portray those images in. It's almost as important as the composition of a single photograph.. In essence it is the composition of the entire work.

Now obviously in certain situations the sequence must be chronological but its the times that it is up to you that I'm talking about.

Try taking prints of a series or collection of images that you have, placing them in a row on a table and changing there order based on what images seem to look good next to eachother. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Nathan Lyons wrote an entire textbook on this subject, I can't seem to find it right now but when I do I'll post a link here.

There isn't much information on this online but it's the big secret behind many famous photo books and their success. Sequencing can make or break a fine art series of images.

I did find one article that is portfolio specific. If covers the basic ideas but doesn't go into much detail about the intricacies of the process.

Here it is: Sequencing your portfolio slideshow images FG Blog

There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking in that link. Maybe I'm just used to this sort of presentation logic because it gets beaten to death in discussions of business presentations, but i don't see anything special there. Whether it's a powerpoint presentation or a porfolio, the presentation logic is very similar.

Its not meant to be groundbraking its meant to explain sequencing to someone who isn't familiar with it. Like the rule of thirds and the rule of odds. The really groundbreaking stuff comes in the use of sequencing as you would use composition in a single image. You can begin to say things you never could with a single image and make your body of work stronger while doing so. Its like the photographs are words and the method of sequencing is punctuation and sentence structure. You can use these "words" and "structure" to form a paragraph, poem, or story. Or you can leave them scrambled and suddenly they are confusing unreadable anagrams. Just like with composition people don't like sequencing to be too confusing so that's why its so important.