Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Here are two identical images, but in the left hand one the coping stones on the bridge seem to be more vertical than the right hand one.
I have seen this effect with other pics that have converging lines in the image.
It is most noticeable if there is no space between the two pics.
Quote: (and, for some reason, that kind of logo always seems to be on the right). 
Should that read "on the left" Dave?
Although you're quite right, erm correct.
Good.
Its a cool principle to follow as an artist / photographer develops. Leads a whole new way of composing with light.
Now that the conversations over , could you start a topic on the need for exif data in critical review.
I personally think its of limited value , but you crit bods seem to want it as a pre-requisite.
.....
Quote: People often claim that, because we Westerners read left-to-right, photos should be arranged the same way, for example with the subject to the left, looking to the right. Is anyone aware of any studies that back this up? (And I mean proper studies, with eye tracking and all that jazz, not the opinion of some art critic.)
This may sound silly but surely the only reason we in the West read in the direction we do is because slightly before the first person read L to R, someone wrote something L to R. So, if there is anything in the OP's original question then the answer may lie in why we write in the direction we do rather than why we read the way we do. However, to complicate matters examples exist all over the world of writing (and hence reading) in all directions. In the west we write/read L to R. Arabic is R to L. Traditional Japanese is top-to-bottom and some forms of Ancient Greek were bottom-to-top. There are even examples of ancient texts where the flow of writing alternated between L to R and R to L.
Sorry to complicate matters. An interesting debate though.
Quote: Flipped. The mirror-writing on his shirt gives it away (and, for some reason, that kind of logo always seems to be on the right). Tongue
Ok you got me.Maybe the shirt/text was a giveaway, but you get the idea. Looking at this further does the lighting direction have a preference ? I almost always put my key light to the left and fill or rim to the right. This would also influence the composition.
I don't think the pic proves anything as the subject is facing the camera square on. True or reversed is immaterial to anyone except the subject (barring elements that are obviously wrong such writing). What is true, is that portrait sitters generally prefer to see a reversed image of themselves, as that is how they see themselves in a mirror, and how they experience themselves on a day-to-day basis.
A better example might be someone looking sideways in the frame.
The question of "reading" an image is more to do with the way we scan something that has no obvious outstanding elements. A picture without a main subject will cause us to scan it looking for something, and the brain uses conventions subconsciously. The easiest way is one we already use for other things such as reading, where we also look at a block of text the same way. A long block paragraph is harder to read than one with breaks and indentations. For the same reason, magazines break up text with pictures. Because images are more visually interesting, these are usually the first thing we look at on a page, and the positioning will also depend on where the picture gains the most impact. In the case of a double page spread, top right is the first area visible as we open it out.
A photo has the same qualities. We try to use (consciously or unconsciously) devices such as lines, geometric shapes, frames, contrasts, thirds, associations etc to guide our eyes round the frame, otherwise we find it visually boring. What we are trying to do is provide the viewer an easy "walk round" so they can enjoy the picture without effort. Pictures with unusual forms, odd juxtapositions and deliberate rule-breaking are, more often than not, uncomfortable to look at, what we might just consider "poor", or dismissed with little thought. What we often need to differentiate is whether the photographer is trying to deliberately "break the rules", or has just taken a poor photograph. Some photos just "work", even if the rules are broken, most do not.
I'm not sure if it was conscious on the part of old film makers or not, but where there are "goodies" and "baddies", the goodies usually move from left to right, the baddies the other way (unless they were chasing one another!). Old cowboy films are a particular place where you see this (my film studies 'o' level wasn't wasted after all!).
Interestingly, child developmental studies show that an infant will scan randomly around, looking for a face. Showing a baby a series of images, and images with all facial features rearranged, their eyes always go to the face rather than anything else, and always to the face with the elements in the right place. They look but don't fixate on anything else. As we start to learn to read, the conventions we inherit try to impose structure, and thus a logical scan begins to be used.
Nick
Sooty_1 wrote:
Quote: I don't think the pic proves anything as the subject is facing the camera square on. [...] A better example might be someone looking sideways in the frame.
Indeed. And, even then, the point is not so much whether we can tell that the image has been reversed because, in the absence of any writing or similar cues, we won't know. Rather, the point is whether we interpret two otherwise identical photographs differently on the basis of whether the subject is looking left or right.
Quote: The question of "reading" an image is more to do with the way we scan something that has no obvious outstanding elements.
Agreed, though one might argue that a photograph with no obvious outstanding elements is a bad one!
Quote: A picture without a main subject will cause us to scan it looking for something, and the brain uses conventions subconsciously. The easiest way is one we already use for other things such as reading [...]
This is exactly the left-to-right premise that I don't buy, though you're only applying it to images with no stand-out subject. I don't believe that the brain says, consciously or subconsciously, "Oh, there's nothing much to see here, so I'll act like I'm reading." Indeed, I propose quite the opposite: what your brain actually says is, "Oh, there's nothing much to read here, so I'll act like I'm looking at an image." Images are fundamental; reading is a learned skill. If I showed you a page of Romanian, I bet you'd instinctively look at the top-left corner, see that there was nothing you could read and then scan about randomly. If I showed you a page of Tamil or Chinese, I'm not sure you'd even go to the top left.
If there's no stand-out subject, I propose that you actually scan around randomly until either you find something interesting or you get bored and move on to the next photo. If you're walking down the street and nothing much is happening, I propose that, when you're not looking ahead to avoid tripping or bumping into things, you're scanning around randomly until you find something interesting to look at.
Quote: A photo has the same qualities. We try to use (consciously or unconsciously) devices such as lines, geometric shapes, frames, contrasts, thirds, associations etc to guide our eyes round the frame, otherwise we find it visually boring. What we are trying to do is provide the viewer an easy "walk round" so they can enjoy the picture without effort. Pictures with unusual forms, odd juxtapositions and deliberate rule-breaking are, more often than not, uncomfortable to look at, what we might just consider "poor", or dismissed with little thought. What we often need to differentiate is whether the photographer is trying to deliberately "break the rules", or has just taken a poor photograph. Some photos just "work", even if the rules are broken, most do not.
I agree, because everything in that paragraph says that we don't scan left-to-right!
Quote: I'm not sure if it was conscious on the part of old film makers or not, but where there are "goodies" and "baddies", the goodies usually move from left to right, the baddies the other way (unless they were chasing one another!). Old cowboy films are a particular place where you see this (my film studies 'o' level wasn't wasted after all!).
I have to ask: is that really true? (I know you've reported it in good faith and I'm sure you were told it in good faith.) It seems very unlikely that a large number of directors would all have sets built and arrange shots and so on so that it made sense for the good guys and the bad guys to be mostly moving in opposite directions. If the bad guy walks right-to-left to get to the saloon, he's going to walk right-to-left to get home again or people will be confused. This sounds just like the earlier assertion that classical art usually has subjects facing the right and it sounds like an example of confirmation bias, to me. Somebody notices that, in a couple of films he likes, the good guys move to the right and the bad guys to the left, and comes up with the hypothesis that this is true in general. When he next watches a film and sees a bad guy moving to the left, he says, "Aha! I knew it!" When he sees a bad guy moving to the right, he doesn't react. At the end of the end of the film, he remembers the occasions on which his hypothesis was "proven", even if there were more cases when it wasn't. But I don't have the time to watch three or four cowboy movies, noting down how many times good guys and bad guys move to the left and right.
[/quote]Interestingly, child developmental studies show that an infant will scan randomly around, looking for a face. Showing a baby a series of images, and images with all facial features rearranged, their eyes always go to the face rather than anything else, and always to the face with the elements in the right place. They look but don't fixate on anything else. As we start to learn to read, the conventions we inherit try to impose structure, and thus a logical scan begins to be used.
[/quote]
The studies show that we start to scan logically? If so, what does "logically" mean?
Dave.
Quote: It seems very unlikely that a large number of directors would all have sets built and arrange shots and so on so that it made sense for the good guys and the bad guys to be mostly moving in opposite directions. If the bad guy walks right-to-left to get to the saloon, he's going to walk right-to-left to get home again or people will be confused.
Not so much for constructed sets, but the way things are shot, eg on location (such as riding across the desert). Also, not for every shot, but for moments when the audience has to identify who is who - such as a gunfight scene. The baddie tends to be on the right, the goodie on the left. It wasn't just told to me, but demonstrated in several films (Gunfight at the OK Corral, High Noon, My Darling Clementine, the Clint Eastwood 'Dollars' films and several other spaghetti westerns which are all quite stylised).
Quote: I agree, because everything in that paragraph says that we don't scan left-to-right!
Quote: If there's no stand-out subject, I propose that you actually scan around randomly until either you find something interesting or you get bored and move on to the next photo. If you're walking down the street and nothing much is happening, I propose that, when you're not looking ahead to avoid tripping or bumping into things, you're scanning around randomly until you find something interesting to look at.
Not quite. The initial response to a bland subject is to look for something that stands out. If we don't find a device to attract us, we scan instantaneously, then look at variations in pattern, texture etc to find something else. It isn't that we always scan the same way, just that when there is nothing else, the brain responds subconscously. The water will always go down the plughole the same way (Coriolis effect) unless something else influences it - the same with the brain and imprinted behaviours.
Quote: The studies show that we start to scan logically? If so, what does "logically" mean?
It is inefficient to look randomly around: we cover better and miss less if we scan in a pattern, be it left to right and down, or vice versa. Our brain learns this early on in life, and it may even be a response to noticing danger as animals - what you don't see might kill you!
Out of interest, I'm pretty sure TVs used to scan left to right, top to bottom.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
Olympus 'Portraiture' Competition - Win £1000 Worth Of Gear!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
This month, to celebrate the launch of Olympus' new micro site Olympus Image Space, Olympus are giving you the chance to win £1000 worth of Olympus gear!...
Featured e2 Photo
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
