|
|
|
Breaking the Rules By Robert Winkler
Consciously or unconsciously, most photographers take these two rules for granted and will slavishly follow them before the more artistic qualities of a photograph—composition, subject matter and meaning—are even considered. It's true that a proper range of exposure values is most often a worthy goal, and there are comparatively few times when a sharply focused picture is not better, but the serious photographer must recognize when the rules can be broken; in other words, when creativity takes precedence over accepted standards of technique. A photographer can legitimately stray from the norm by manipulating exposure and sharpness to achieve a desired effect in any number of ways—the most obvious being to deliberately underexpose or overexpose a photograph in order to heighten a mood, or permitting deliberate blur in action photographs to impart a feeling of movement. Exposure is considered to be ''correct'' when the negative (or transparency) exhibits a full range of tonal gradation from light to dark. In black-and-white photography, this would mean having pure whites, solid blacks and fine variations of gray in between. In color photography it would mean showing accurate renditions of all colors and clear details in the shadows. In practice, however, photographers will sometimes find that a ''correct'' exposure does not suit their purposes. In addition, there will be instances when they have no control over the situation—for example, a crow photographed against the sky would, of necessity, produce a print of high contrast with only very light or very dark tones evident. On the other hand, some scenes will have such a broad range of contrast that all of the gradations simply cannot be captured on the film being used. On many occasions, however, photographers do have a choice, and then they have to decide such questions as: Will it be a literal representation of the subject matter, or one that conveys the photographer's own outlook? Will it be a ''straight'' print (one made without manipulation) or will the photographer try to enhance certain aspects of it in the darkroom? As a photographer creates more and more pictures, it is likely that questions like these will occur with increasing frequency. This doesn't necessarily foreshadow a drastic change in technique; it is merely part of the process by which a photographer evolves. For most, breaking the rules does not mean wild departures from reality (at least not at first). Instead it involves subtle changes—minor infractions of the rules—that can, nonetheless, make an average shot into an exceptional one. Every photographer who has ever taken two shots of the same photogenic subject at different exposures knows that small changes can make a considerable difference in the final effect. One exposure may seem to be perfect—the effect is everything the photographer could have hoped for—but the other exposure, although it has the identical compositional elements—is practically a failure because it is off by just one f/stop. Taking a hint from such evidence, one can explore new photographic avenues simply by varying exposure. An area of photography that is especially appropriate for this kind of experimentation is portraiture. Subjects are easy to come by, and portraiture holds many possibilities, but most of us have always been content merely to ''correctly'' expose portraits, so that we show all the subject's familiar features accurately and, photographically speaking, in a good light. Yet it may be more revealing sometimes—the photographer, to the subject and to anyone who might view the picture—if the portrait were a little darker or lighter. For example, to portray a certain subject's pensive nature, you could choose to shoot a darker, or low-key, portrait. And if you wanted to draw attention to the subject's eyes, a lighter, or high-key portrait could be made since it tends to accentuate the eyes. In another situation, strong directional lighting might be appropriate, with one side of the face in the light, the other side in the shadows. Even with inanimate subjects, occasional departures from the exposure norm can make for stronger images. A silhouette of a tree would, in certain instances, transmit more of a feeling of power than the same tree correctly exposed. Or, a barren landscape could be purposely underexposed so its more somber tones suggest isolation or loneliness. And, with increasing degrees of overexposure, a pastoral scene could go from having an old-time quality to being ethereal and unreal looking. Overexposure can also make a dark and gloomy scene appear bright and cheerful, while underexposing in daylight by two or three stops can simulate the effect of moonlight. (This is what filmmakers do when they use the technique known as ''day for night.'') In color photography, manipulating exposure has the additional effect of altering colors as they appeared in the scene. Slight underexposure will make colors look more ''saturated'' or intense—that is, more red, yellow, blue, etc., so they will look more striking than they actually were. On the other hand, a little overexposure will bring out a color's softer pastel hues, but excessive overexposure will make colors appear faded and old—yet there are times when even this could be the exact effect desired.
Violating the sharp-focus rule is even more difficult for most photographers, since one of the great virtues of photography is its ability to show something in incredible detail. Unfortunately, a photographer can very easily become obsessed with sharpness, making clarity of detail a consuming passion by always searching for the sharpest lenses and erroneously keeping this one pictorial consideration supreme above all others. This is dangerous because, in so doing, the photographer may lose a significant means of expression, and one razor-sharp picture after another can actually get boring. Artists offer the best proof that lack of sharpness can be a virtue. Go to an art museum and you’ll find many paintings and drawings in which the artist has chosen to put clarity aside. In a portrait, the artist might have painted what a photographer would describe as a soft-focus effect. Or a drawing of a galloping horse might be deliberately indistinct around the edges in much the same way that a photograph would show blur if taken at a slow shutter speed. Now move on to the great photographers and you will see many photographs that a casual observer also might describe as ''not clear enough.'' There's no denying that many such photographs were taken at a time when films and lenses were so slow so that some movement and its resulting blur was probably unavoidable. But this doesn't seem to detract from the power of the image. And there are probably an equal number of cases in which such an effect was intentional. To see how varying degrees of blur or a slight lack of sharpness can be effective in action photography, turn to the sports pages of newspapers and magazines. Also, look at the pictures that are published in the horse magazines; they contain particularly creative motion studies. To pursue this idea further, you can practice with any moving
subject—people, animals, traffic, water—by photographing it with a
slower-than-normal shutter speed, preferably with the camera on a tripod (to
eliminate unwanted camera movement). For portraits, try throwing the lens
slightly out of focus for a softer, less harsh effect, or use one of the
special soft-focus filters that are made for that purpose.
"Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" by Henri
Cartier-Bresson (1932) |
ike
every discipline, photography has rules that include a long list of dos and
don'ts, and right at the top are two rules that most photographers will obey
without question: One is the rule stating that a picture must be properly
exposed; the other is the rule that a picture must be sharp or accurately
focused.
By itself, manipulating exposure will not guarantee better pictures. The
photographer must still consider other factors, such as when to release the
shutter, what background to use and how to position both camera and subject.
And no intelligent decisions about exposure can be made without also
considering the lighting, the subject contrast and the exposure latitude of
the film. In the end, you might very well have an exposure that is not
''correct,'' but if the result is as you intended, your photograph is a
success.