Photography: Art of Deception: The Photographerâ€™s Guide to Manipulating Subjects and Scenes Through

The ArT of DecepTion

Irakly shanIdze russian photographer of the Year

how to reveal the Truth by Deceiving the eye

phoTogrAphY

Copyright © 2016 by Irakly Shanidze.All rights reserved.All photographs by the author unless otherwise noted.

Published by:Amherst Media, Inc., PO Box 538, Buffalo, NY 14213www.AmherstMedia.com

Publisher: Craig AlesseSenior Editor/Production Manager: Michelle PerkinsEditors: Barbara A. Lynch-Johnt, Beth AlesseAcquisitions Editor: Harvey GoldsteinAssociate Publisher: Kate NeaverthEditorial Assistance from: Carey A. Miller, John S. Loder, Roy BakosBusiness Manager: Adam Richards

ISBN-13: 978-1-68203-092-9Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938269Printed in The United States of America.10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise, without prior written consent from the publisher.

Notice of Disclaimer: The information contained in this book is based on the author’s experience and opinions. The author and publisher will not be held liable for the use or misuse of the information in this book.

www.facebook.com/AmherstMediaIncwww.youtube.com/AmherstMediawww.twitter.com/AmherstMedia

dedicationi dedicate this book to my wonderful wife, irina, for she keeps supporting me in utter defiance of common sense.

Author A Book with Amherst mediA!Are you an accomplished photographer with devoted fans? Consider authoring a book with us and share your quality images and wisdom with your fans. It's a great way to build your business and brand through a high-quality, full-color printed book sold worldwide. Our experienced team makes it easy and rewarding for each book sold—no cost to you. E-mail [email protected] today!

conTenTs 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1. Fundamentals of Photographic deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5What Is a Good Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6What Makes a Photograph Happen?. . . . . . . .10What Makes a Photograph Visible? Part 1: The Properties of Light . . . . . . . . .15What Makes a Photograph Visible? Part 2: When the Sun Is Not Enough . . . .25What Holds a Photograph Together? . . . . . . .35What Puts the Third Dimension into a Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48What Is Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

2. Tools of Photographic deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Knowing Your Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56Bending the Truth: Why and How. . . . . . . . .61Withholding Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64Taking Things Out of Context. . . . . . . . . . . .68Smoke Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Getting Emotional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Telling the Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

3. The art of Photographic deception . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Black Belt in Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Face to Face. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Better than Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102Staged Photography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Through the Fly’s Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

4. Photographing the Inanimate . . . . .120Spontaneous Versus Meditative . . . . . . . . . .120Playing on the Heart Strings . . . . . . . . . . . .121Getting Close . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123Deception Is a Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

final Thoughts

ethical decption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Contents“i always tell the truth. even when i lie.”—Al pacino

4 phoTogrAphY: ArT of DecepTion

Photography is a lie. Just think about it: pho-tographers create two-dimensional images that sometimes even lack color and then expect ev-eryone to believe that this is how it was in real life. What is truly amazing is that people fall for it way too easily—almost like they want to be deceived. It gets better: people still believe that you can only photograph what is really there. I am certainly not going to deny that a lens (an optical system that focuses light inside a camera) sees only what is in front of it, but be-lieve me, it is not that simple. It just so happens a photographer and a camera standing between the viewer and reality inevitably distort the lat-ter, intentionally or not. The individual features of a photographer’s perception and the techni-cal limitations of his equipment make him do things that may eventually make a picture look

very different from how a viewer would see the same scene with their naked eye. Consequently, a photographer who is not aware of his inher-ent ability to distort reality can ruin a picture simply by taking it. Fortunately, there are some good photographers out there. Who are these people? They are the ones who understand the aforementioned constraints and use them de-liberately to adjust the level of truthfulness in their pictures.

Introduction

additional MaterialsAdditional materials to accompany this book are available for

download at www.AmherstMedia.com/downloads. password:

deception.

funDAMenTAls of phoTogrAphic DecepTion 5

Photography is an illusion. It all starts with a notion: if it is in a photo, then it must have ap-peared before the lens at some point. Howev-er, in a photo nothing is what it seems. Things may look closer or farther apart than they are

in real life. They can be invisible despite being there. Something that is not there we seem to notice—an object on a flat piece of paper some-times looks so real that we are compelled to look behind it. And the list goes on.

1Fundamentals of Photographic deception

“reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”—Albert einstein

figure 1.1


Once, I was sitting in a coffee shop and wait-ing for an art director who was late for our meeting. I had absolutely nothing to do but to eavesdrop on a conversation at the table next to mine. The dialogue unfolded as follows:

Person 1: Do you remember a picture that I showed to you last week?

Person 2: Vaguely. What was it?Person 1: Well, it was a blond woman—a real

babe. And some trees.Person 2: Nope, doesn’t ring a bell.Person 1: But . . . She looks you straight in the

eye and she’s got this dress. You know.Person 2: Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s right! Listen,

Stanley Cup is on tonight. Wanna come over to watch it on my 55-inch flat screen?

Person 1: Cool, I’m in! The girl’s hand is on her lap. It is just so beautiful, right?

Person 2: Yeah, it’s cool. Just wanted to ask you, who is she? Quite a looker! Hook me up, will you?

Person 1: She is just a coworker. Married and all.

Person 2: Why the hell did you take her pic-ture then?

Person 1: What do you mean “why”? It is just so beautiful!

Person 2: How often do you have to change the front tires on your RX7?

This surreal conversation carried on for anoth-er good twenty minutes or so, until they had paid up and left. Listening to them was quite a treat; one kept trying to talk about a photo, which he apparently had taken recently, while the other was desperately trying to steer the conversation in some other direction. It was

figure 1.2

What Is a Good Photograph?


really farcical and, at the same time, very seri-ous from a photographer’s point of view. Why didn’t the guy want to talk about the picture? I mentally placed myself in his shoes. Obviously, he wasn’t interested. That could be caused by two things: either photography just wasn’t his thing or this particular portrait of a blonde in a dress in front of trees did not tickle his fancy. I am inclined to accept the second version as the more plausible explanation. In my experi-ence, a good photo can touch anyone with eye-sight, no matter how well he or she can handle a camera.

What Is “Good”?So why do we all seem to agree that one photo is great while another one is a flop? What are the criteria that allow us make a clear distinction between the two—and why is this important at all? Essentially, all of these questions boil down to a fundamental one: “How can photographers succeed in achieving global recognition?” This perspective leaves no doubt about the relevance of the question, does it? Of course, when it comes to photography, not everyone sets out to conquer the world, but I have yet to meet a person who wouldn’t like his pictures to be seen with genuine interest rather than polite impatience. What is good? And how is it different from bad? There is no universal recipe for “quality” in art. Moreover, due to the subjectivity of human perception, it is impossible to create a master-piece that will be equally (or even just a little bit) liked by everyone. However, a knowledge of the basic criteria of visual harmony really helps you to consistently take pictures that will not make spectators drowsy.

artistic and Technical CriteriaBack in my high school, our compositions were graded with two marks on a scale from 1 to 5.

The first mark was for content, while the sec-ond one was for presentation. It always hurt so badly to get something like 5/2—or, even worse, the other way around! Well, it just so happens that the grading system in photogra-phy is practically the same: a combination of artistic and technical criteria. At this point, you may be thinking, “Shouldn’t we be talking about lies?” Well, yes! Essentially, a basic activity of almost any photographer is ma-nipulating the viewer’s consciousness for money or for personal enjoyment. In order to do that, there is a set of technical and creative means that must be used flawlessly to make the lies convinc-ing and thrilling (figure 1.2).

Technical excellenceThe fundamental criterion of technical excel-lence is whether the photo conforms to your intentions of how it should look. Besides that, particular criteria such as sharpness, exposure, composition, cleanness (absence of sensor dust, spots, scratches, etc.), and print quality (smoothness of color gradations, color fidelity) will help you determine objectively whether or not there is something wrong with the techni-cal quality of your picture. In most cases the image (or at least its se-mantically important part) must be sharp, ex-hibit a full tonal range, and present a balanced composition. On the other hand, motion blur can make the picture more dynamic and a pre-dominance of black or white tones will greatly affect its emotional content. A slight misbal-ance in the composition or clashing colors may change the perception of the image immense-ly. It is important that any “wrongness” lend a predictable contribution to the viewer’s per-ception of the picture. (It is useful to remem-ber, by the way, that statements like “this is my artistic vision” are just excuses that do not make the photograph even a bit finer. If you want to


use some unconventional approach, you better be sure that it is indeed going to improve your picture.) For a photographer, presenting a picture before an audience is not unlike an oral exam in which technical excellence is expected. It is there, before the audience, that it becomes clear that a good photo is something more than, say, a telephone directory that is beautifully laid out and printed without a single spelling mistake. If your picture causes responses like “great composition” or “wonderful lens choice,” you may safely consider it a failure. Techniques are just means of expressing an artistic vision in visual metaphors. In this sense, photography is amazingly similar to poetry; the ability to rhyme words is clearly not sufficient to be able to come up with something like this (from The First Kiss of Love by Lord Byron):

When age chills the blood, when our plea-sures are past—

For years fleet away with the wings of the dove—

The dearest remembrance will still be the last, Our sweetest memorial, the first kiss of love.

This example is rather straightforward, so al-low me to make a parallel with Pushkin’s Eu-gene Onegin. Despite radically different for-mats and styles, both pieces are similar in the sense that no one in their right mind would say that Byron was actually talking about the temperature-lowering effects of age—or that Pushkin’s story was about one good-for-noth-ing playboy shooting another because of a neighbor’s daughter. Good poetry is never lit-eral; neither is good photography.

figure 1.3


A good portrait is never about a sharp and well-exposed image of a face, beautifully turned into the light. A spectator will see not just an eye color and the shape of a nose, but also the character—wisdom, vanity, kindness, deceit, bravery, femininity, etc. A good land-scape is not about a sunset, or a waterfall, or a mossy stone. It is about freshness, heat, sol-itude, danger, tranquility, etc. A good report-age image goes beyond a picture of an airborne paratrooper shooting his machine gun left and right. It shows heroism, or perhaps the sense-lessness of violence.

subjective Perception You must have figured out by now that a work of art should operate by abstract, universal ideas. Why? Because your spectator is a lazy, self-centered egoist who is not going to spend a second on something that he or she does not find interesting and easy to comprehend. Peo-ple are interested in things that are significant to them, and it is universal ideas that have an ability to feel important on a personal level. It means that a viewer is more interested in what a picture conveys than what it shows. Some readers may object along these lines: “How can they not like this sunset? I took a picture of it eight years ago, and every time I see it, the memories take my breath away! How come they do not feel it? It’s probably because I’m so refined and sensitive and they are just pachydermatous ignoramuses!” Astonishingly, such an opinion may be completely legitimate. The photographer, indeed, feels more while looking at this picture than anyone else does. This is not, however, because the viewers are insensitive morons. The secret here lies in what is called sub-jective perception. The photographer feels passionate about this picture because it is an anchor to events that happened when it was

taken: the wash of waves, the smell of seaweed, a sense of freedom because it was the first day of a vacation, etc. The rest of humankind, how-ever, was not there when the photo was taken; for them, it is just a sunset. That is where an advantage of working with general concepts really shows. They are universally understood and cannot be argued. Therefore, anyone can identify with them. Looking at a picture that conveys a fun-damental concept—for instance, joy, sorrow, boredom, or suspense—the viewer feels an emotion caused by perceiving it, just like any-body else seeing the image would (figure 1.3). That, of course, includes the person who took the picture. As a result, the viewer ends up sharing an experience with the photographer. It is the sharing that makes them both feel like they have something in common. This is always a powerful and profoundly pleasant experience. You must have had it more than once—that moment when you suddenly felt a tide of sympathy for a total stranger who happened to share your musical preferences or who liked the same movie. When it comes to showing a photo to someone, this effect may be even more powerful because a viewer real-izes that only you and nobody else could give him this pleasure, since you took the picture. You, in turn, are grateful to the viewer for his sincere appreciation of your work of art. The emotion caused by such an experience is profound enough to become associated with the image, which makes it stick in the viewer’s memory for a long time. Emotions are easy to memorize, as they are registered directly; infor-mation is perceived only by association. “That’s easy for you to say!” you may just have thought. “All you have to do is shoot con-ceptual visual metaphors and you are fated for success. But how do I do it?” Just calm down—there is a book full of tricks ahead!


Attention! The next few sections touch on as-pects of photography extensively described by many authors, starting with Ansel Adams himself. Hence, they will be discussed only in terms of their relevance to the deceptive nature of photography. The remainder of the chapter (even though it also addresses topics extensive-ly covered elsewhere), is more detailed due to its importance to the subject.

exposureOne principle of the photographic process is simple: an image is projected through the lens onto an image-recording medium of some sort. For more than a century, photographers relied upon the light-sensitive properties of silver ha-lides to record images. These days, most camer-as are digital (i.e., instead of capturing images on film covered with tiny grains of silver bromide

figure 1.5

figure 1.4

What Makes a Photograph happen?


entrapped in gelatin emulsion, they employ a high-tech, light-sensitive device called a sensor). In order for all the colors and tones to look real, a precise quantity of light must reach the sensor. Now, what happens if the quantity of light reaching the sensor is less than is needed for things to look real? The picture looks darker, and the colors are more saturated (figures 1.5,

1.6). If more light gets to the sensor than was required, the picture will look brighter and the colors will lose their punch. So, things will not look the way they really are. (By the way, do you remember the definition of a lie?) Basic camera settings essentially determine how the resulting image looks. By altering the aperture and shutter speed, we can change real-ity and create the illusion of motion (figures 1.5,

1.6)—or the lack of it. Responding to changes in the exposure settings, unnecessary details in the background can disappear into a complete blur (figures 1.7, 1.8), or hide in a shadow, or blend with a highlight. Understanding how these changes in cam-era settings affect the image is what makes our results predictable—at least to a degree. For instance, the sinusoidal pattern in figure 1.5 is the result of a wavy camera movement com-bined with a 1/4 second shutter speed. The fair-ly well-defined silhouettes on a blurred back-

ground in figure 1.6 were created by panning the camera in sync with the figures’ motion at 1/10 second. Balancing a studio (or other) flash with ambient light is another way to create an illu-sion (figure 1.7). It is the fact that shutter speed has no effect on flash exposure that enables tricks of this nature. The flash duration is usual-ly shorter than 1/600 second, and its light output can be adjusted. Hence, its exposure depends only on the flash power output and camera lens aperture. The amount of ambient light, on

figure 1.6

figure 1.7


the other hand, is a function of aperture and shutter speed. So, setting the exposure for the ambient light first and then adjusting the flash

output as desired enables full control over how bright the foreground and background will come out.

figure 1.8


I can foresee a question here. If the flash is bright enough to expose the foreground per-fectly, how come it is not flooding the whole room? Well, this is because (excluding cases of some exotic light sources like lasers and par-abolic projectors) light always dissipates in a predictable fashion in accordance with the In-verse Square Law, which we will discuss in more detail in the next section of the book. Without digging into scary formulas, the prac-tical implications of the law are very simple: if the distance from the flash to a person in the foreground is 1.2–1.5m (4–5 feet), the light spill from the flash on the background, which is 4.5–6m (15–20 feet) away, will be negligible for all practical purposes.

depth of FieldUnderstanding how the depth of field can be influenced by aperture change opens up anoth-er possibility for getting predictable amounts of detail. Fast lenses can blur a background so much that it becomes practically indecipher-able—especially with long optics (figure 1.8). When shooting small objects, however, even

slower aperture values produce a similar effect. In fact, I set the aperture to f/8 to take a pic-ture of a hummingbird (figure 1.9) to prevent important details from falling out of focus. Wide-angle lenses, on the other hand, eas-ily register everything from just a few feet away to infinity once you stop down just a few clicks. Due to the inherently large depth of field, even

figure 1.10

figure 1.9


at full aperture, throwing the background out of focus is not possible. Figure 1.9 is an example of a photo shot with a Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 at full aperture. This is precisely the rea-son why 28mm and 35mm lenses are so popu-lar among street photographers and landscape shooters. Just set it to the hyperfocal distance and fire away (figure 1.11). Understanding how camera settings can transform reality is not enough to actually do it. To present the world the way you want peo-ple to see it, you need to be in control of your gear. Today’s cameras are marvels of artificial intelligence that is eager to take over. With a level of patience that only machines possess, to-day’s cameras wait for you to set them in a fully (or semi-) automatic mode and render yourself a prisoner of technology. Autofocus and auto-exposure are capable of producing excellent

results, but most of the time these are not the results that you want. Controlling your camera manually is no more difficult than throwing yourself into the deceptive embrace of automation—it just re-quires a different (and now mostly forgotten) set of skills that your grandparents used every time they took a picture of your mom or dad playing in a sandbox.

figure 1.11


It is not my intention to scare you with for-mulas describing what light does while passing through a medium or between two mediums with different refraction coefficients. You can scare yourself plenty by reading textbooks on the fundamentals of optics. Instead, with min-imal use of clever vocabulary, I will try to help you grasp the principles of how light works and learn how to control it so you can predict and reproduce the results that you want. directionFirst, let us try to figure out what light can do for you. Start by standing in a room lit just by one window and observing what the light does. It does not take much to notice that it comes in a particular direction, which is evident from the highlights on and shadows cast by the ob-jects standing in its way (figure 1.12). It is dra-

matically different from what happens outside on an overcast day when it is nearly impossi-ble to figure out where the light comes from, because there are no shadows. Since it is the shadows that make things visible in a photo (in a black & white one, anyway), understanding where the shadows come from is crucial to a photographer’s ability to create the illusion of depth. Now, imagine yourself outside under the overcast sky. Unlike on a cloudless day, when the sun acts like a point light source, the light on people’s faces is now soft and virtually shad-owless. This is because we have a gargantuan translucent screen shading the sun. This, along with softening the sunlight, also diffuses it in all directions. Hence, no shadows. In a studio, a similar kind of lighting can be created by put-ting a large diffusion screen between a studio

figure 1.12

What Makes a Photograph Visible?part 1: The properties of light


flash and an object. However, unless the screen is exceptionally large, the light will still be di-rectional since it will be coming from one side. Diffusion can also be achieved by reflecting light from a rough surface. On a macro level, light acts like a stream of particles. Therefore its angle of incidence equals the angle of reflec-tion—much like when a ball bounces off the edge of a pool table. On an uneven surface, the angle of incidence is different at every point. This causes light to reflect in many different di-rections, scattering the rays for a diffused look. If you use a mirror, on the other hand, the re-

flection will be predictable and can be precisely controlled. Photographers extensively use reflection from rough and mirrored surfaces to redirect and/or diminish the light to create an illusion of depth. The Quality of lightAnother interesting phenomenon you might notice is that different light sources produce different shad-ows from the same object. The small-er the light source is, the “harder” the shadows are (note the shadows cast by the saltshakers and a sugar bowl in figure 1.13) and vice versa (figure 1.14). The property of light that is respon-sible for the width of the shadow edge transfer is called the quality of light. Light that produces a wide transition (a gradual shadow edge) is called soft; light that produces a narrow transi-tion (a sharp shadow edge) is called hard. It is the relative size of the light source, not its actual dimensions, that determines this. For instance, the sun is larger than any other light source in the solar system, but direct sunlight produces notoriously hard shadows. A 3x4-foot window facing north, on the

other hand, looks like nothing compared to the sun—but it is large relative to a subject’s face, so the light from it is extremely soft. The Quantity of lightOne of the most frequent misconceptions per-petuated among beginning photographers is that “softness” is the same thing as “low con-trast,” while “hard” means “contrasty.” The only thing that can be farther from the truth is that hard physical labor makes you smarter. The problem stems from a lack of understand-

figure 1.14

figure 1.13


ing of the difference between the quality and the quantity of light. The difference is inde-cently simple. The quantity of light is a value that depends on the intensity of the light, its angle of incidence, and the distance from the light source to the subject. The quality of light, as we have just established, is simply the width

of its shadow edge. Contrast is essentially a dif-ference between the darkest and the brightest part of a scene; this pertains to the quantity of the light, rather than its quality. Even though light quality and light quan-tity are two different animals, there is some relationship between them. In the case of a

figure 1.15


single light source, the contrast does change with the distance between the subject and the light source. The shorter the distance is, the softer the shadows and the higher the contrast will be. This is easily explained by the Inverse Square Law, which I still remember from my high school physics course. According to this law, in the case of a point light source (an imaginary light source with a diameter equal to zero), the intensity of the incident light is inversely proportionate to a square of a distance between the source and an object of incidence. For a real light source, with finite dimensions, the relationship is not that simple—but for describing behavior of contrast, an approximation holds for distances five and more times larger than the diameter of the light source. Since the quantity of the light decreases as the square of a distance, it does not take a genius to realize that increasing the distance,

say twofold, will result in a fourfold (2 stop, in photographic parlance) drop in the quantity of the light. This phenomenon has a potential for deception that cannot be underestimated. By positioning our lights and subjects in the frame in a certain way, we can create an illusion of twilight or even complete darkness in bright daylight. All it takes is overpowering the sun, which is much easier than you might think (fig-

ure 1.15). Conversely, you can use daylight to overpower fairly bright indoor lighting, which is easier yet (figure 1.16). Now, if this is really the case, how come the results are so dramatically different from what the naked eye sees? This is because the eye is not a camera; it is a scanning device. A scene that we see is a composite created by our brain from several images of possibly very different brightness. While scanning through the scene, the iris in our eyes constantly oscillates, open-ing up for darker parts of the scene and con-

figure 1.16


stricting for brighter ones. The camera’s sensor does not behave this way, so it has a substan-tially lower dynamic range than the eye. This results in much higher contrast in our photos than what we see in real life. Modern cameras and computer software can imitate the behavior of the human eye by tak-ing several identical images at different expo-sure levels and then creating a composite with the highlights, midtones, and shadows derived from different images. This technique is called HDR (high dynamic range) photography; it is widely described elsewhere. Hence, thoughtful use of the Inverse Square Law opens up great possibilities for manipulat-ing reality: to hide or highlight certain details of the image, to balance composition, and even to create a certain mood. Now, let us get back to our experiment. Simultaneously with contrast rising, the light

source (provided it is not a point light source, which is always a point no matter how close it is) becomes larger compared to the face and, therefore, the light becomes softer—which is great for portraits (figure 1.14). If we reverse the situation, the contrast drops while the lighting becomes harder. Indeed, if you illuminate an el-ephant with a pocket flashlight from 6 meters (20 feet), he will cast a hard shadow; if you use the same flashlight on a pea from 5cm (2 inch-es), the shadow will be soft. Just try it tonight when it gets dark: one pea and one elephant is all you need if you already have the flashlight. Manipulating the tonal contrast of a scene is possible in two ways (I am not discussing how to do it in postproduction; this book is about how to lie with your camera, not with Adobe Photo-shop). The first way is one we have already dis-cussed: the contrast can be adjusted by changing the distance between the light source and the

figure 1.17


subject, according to Inverse Square Law. The problem with this approach is that it also alters the quality of the light, making it sometimes im-possible to attain the desired light quality at a given contrast (like try to change the distance between you and the sun). The second way is much more convenient, although it requires some additional equipment. The fundamental idea behind it is that you can have more than just one light source illuminat-ing your subject. In this instance, the contrast depends on not only the distance between the light source and the subject but also the light ratio (the power outputs) of the light sources. It sounds complicated until you realize that, now,

the distances between the lights and the subject can be kept constant. This method is discussed in-depth in numerous textbooks on studio pho-tography.

light ColorColor is another property of light that makes our life more exciting, yet harder to manage with a camera. However, there is a bright side: colors can be manipulated. Since colors have their own semantic content and a great power over human emotions, altering the color con-tent and balance in an image can distort and even completely change the look, feel, and very meaning of a scene. For instance, the warm

figure 1.18


yellow-orange tint seen in figure 1.17 creates a false sensation of opulence, which (under closer examination) is not there. Figure 1.18 feels cold yet light—all because it is predominant-ly white. Figure 1.19, on the other hand, is “dark” in every sense of the word. We will discuss the deceptive properties of color in much greater detail in chapter 2. Color contrast is easy to com-prehend: it is said to be higher when the colors are farther apart on the spectrum scale (the one that normal people call a rainbow). Imagine an orange on a blue background, and you are instantly an expert in what high color contrast is. Tonal contrast is pretty much a no-brainer when you do not take colors into account. You should nev-er assume that a picture with high color contrast will be just as con-trasty when the colors are taken out. Just compare figures 1.20a and 1.20b.

Mixing the lightWe have not yet considered the importance of where light comes from. I took this liber-ty because everything discussed so far applied equally to both natural and artificial sources. In real life, however, we need to make decisions about whether to use natural or artificial light and about how these should be mixed. Studio lighting is easy in the sense that you have enough power to create any lighting pat-tern that comes to mind. Once you step out-side, things get complicated. What if you want to light the universe? Well, maybe not the whole universe, but a substantial part of it—for example, a city block? In that case, no matter how much lighting equipment you bring, the

scene will still require something more than electric light. Fortunately, it is always there, and it is always available; it is called ambient light. It is the lighting that is provided by all the light sources around you—windows, store-fronts, street lights, the moon and stars, and the city lights reflecting from the clouds. Usu-ally it is rather dim, but it is still substantial enough to be useful. All you have to do is mix it properly with flashes and it can look like you had a Hollywood-scale budget at your disposal. For example, figure 1.21 was shot on New Year’s night in 2008. It would have been pitch-dark, if it were not for the street lights and Christmas decorations. The lighting on the couple of crim-inals that killed Santa was provided by a porta-

figure 1.19

figure 1.20a figure 1.20b


ble flash generator (Broncolor Mobilite) with a 3x3-foot softbox. Clearly, this would not have been enough to illuminate the background and snowflakes 10 feet above people’s heads. The solution was simple: at ISO 800, the flash was set to f/4, but the exposure was mea-sured for the available light, which yielded a shutter speed of 1 second. The flash duration was approximately 1/600 second, which left the shutter open for almost 1 second after the flash did its thing. The models were instructed to stand still and it was dark enough for any slight movements not to be registered on their faces

and hands, which was critical. The slight ghost-ing next to the woman’s left leg is not a problem, as it adds a sense of movement and plays well with light streaks in the background that look like motion blur. In fact, if you underexpose the ambient light for more than 1 stop (which was the case here), ghosting is so inconsequential that you can shoot without a tripod at shutter speeds that usually require steady support. Underexposing the ambient light is a tech-nique that can also be used in bright sunlight. This is especially useful when you are shoot-ing indoors and still want some detail in the

figure 1.21


windows. Figure 1.22 is an example of this tech-nique. The flash was set to f/11. For this ap-erture, the window light required an exposure of 1/60 second—but the picture was shot at 1/200 second. That is why the windows look so blue. What you may mistake for window light on the dancers’ faces was, in fact, a softbox standing next to the window. Without the flash, the win-dows would be overexposed. Flash usually has a color temperature that is different from the ambient light; that can be used to your advantage. In figure 1.23, the differ-ence in the color of the flash and the incandes-cent lights on the building creates the illusion that the man is bathed in moonlight. A super important thing to remember is that cameras with focal plane shutters are lim-ited by their flash-sync speed. This can be a real problem when shooting in bright daylight with wide apertures. An attempt to use a faster shutter speed severely darkens the lower part of

a horizontal image in cameras with a vertical-ly traveling focal plane shutter. Older cameras with horizontal focal plane shutters (like film Leica M cameras) will darken the right side of the picture. This usually just ruins a photo. The problem is easy to tackle by using a polarizer or a neutral density filter. Figure 1.24 was lit with a flash head powered by a portable gen-erator. The trick here was that the flash over-powered the sun. It effectively made the flash the main light while the sun provided fill. To accomplish that at 2pm on a bright sunny day, I had to shield the model from the sun with a diffusion screen. Keeping the aperture at f/4 was important to prevent the background from being too sharp. Even at ISO 100, the ambient light was bright enough to command a shut-ter speed of 1/400 second. A polarizing filter re-duced amount of light passing through the lens by 2 stops, which was enough, as the flash-sync speed for the camera used was 1/90 second.

figure 1.22


figure 1.23

figure 1.24


To understand artificial light, let’s talk about something that you already know: natural light. Natural light photos (figure 1.25) look beau-tiful for many reasons. The one that I consider the most important is that natural light does not detract from the subject matter. We are accustomed to it, not even acknowledging its presence. As a result, it is the subject, not the lighting, that becomes the main feature of the photograph. A comment like, “My god—your lighting is so beautiful!” usually means that the lighting is better than everything else in the picture. Hence, the photographer failed to de-liver. When light is used correctly, the chance that it will compete with the story is next to none. With some skill, natural light is relatively easy to deal with. It does not annoy models with constant flashing or unbearable heat, and

it does not cost you anything. So, what’s the catch? There is always a catch, right? Of course there is. As beautiful and stunning as natural light is in photography, it has some major limitations. Availability is the first on the charts. When time is important, like in commercial photography, it is a great hindrance to rely exclusively on natural light. In such intense fields as fashion and advertising, photographers are always on a deadline. They just cannot afford to wait for suitable lighting conditions—or even for the sun to rise. Indeed, the problem is so serious that photographers have invented all kinds of devices to help them fake natural light one way or another. To a lesser (yet equally annoying) extent, natural light is often unpredictable. In the morning and evening, its color temperature

figure 1.25

What Makes a Photograph Visible?part 2: When the sun is not enough


changes dramatically within just an hour. Also, natural light is not easily controllable. You can-not really order the sky to become a couple of stops brighter, nor can you tilt the sky down just a few degrees. Not knowing when will be a good time to shoot, dealing with low light levels that make camera and subject motion problematic, ad-dressing color temperature changes, and fac-ing difficulties with adjusting, shaping, and di-recting the light—there are a whole myriad of frustrations that can make artificial light a more appealing choice.

Faking natureWhile shooting in a studio, most of our time and energy is spent on attempts to imitate nat-ural light. This is all because a truly great studio portrait looks like it was shot not in a studio but, rather, in the most natural and favorable con-ditions. Obviously, there are exceptions when a photographer is going for a strikingly unnat-ural look, but it is the understanding of how to make things look natural that gives you an

ability to twist light in any way you want—not the other way around. This being the case, the goal of this section is to demonstrate that you can create such natural looking and favorable conditions using any type of lighting. Here, we will focus on studio techniques, as the studio affords the ultimate control over pretty much everything, lighting included. Figure 1.25 is a natural light photo. It was shot with no light modifiers of any kind, not even a reflector, and sustained no retouching. This is an example of a rare instance of ideal lighting conditions. Note the large catchlights, very soft shadows, gentle contouring high-lights, and well-defined hair and fabric texture. Of course, to capitalize on the ideal conditions, you must first notice them. Learning in a stu-dio is one thing that helps make us aware of lighting in any situation. As discussed in a previous section, light can be described by its quality (the width of the shadow-edge transfer) and quantity (the tonal-ity and contrast). These properties of light de-termine how and where a certain type of light-ing can be used. Carefully studying natural light pictures and paying attention to subtle details helps us un-derstand what to demand from a picture taken with artificial light. The key is to set the lights in such a fashion that the result does not defy logic. For instance, when you are trying to im-itate window light, round catchlights will tell a viewer that either the window is round or you have no idea what you are doing. If something looks strange, or even is just a bit too notice-able, change it or downplay it.

Playing with QualityThe term “quality of light” is somewhat mis-leading; it may lead you to believe that light can be good or bad. In reality, it is a bit more complicated (or maybe just plain simple, de-

figure 1.26


pending on how you look at it). “Good” light-ing is the lighting that best suits your purpose. If it requires hard light, then hard is good and soft is bad. The opposite is also true. Hard lighting feels edgy, energetic, and even dangerous. Soft light is the opposite; an interior lit by soft light makes a soothing background for a portrait, for instance. Consequently, if you need a tender portrait of a child, hard light will probably be a really bad choice. For a photo of a femme fatale, soft light will not work well. Soft light is often difficult to imitate because it requires very large light sources or reflecting surfaces, and yet the benefits that it provides are impossible to discount. If you need to make a subject look younger, a piece of jewelry look more expensive—or, for that matter, if you want anything or anybody to look more rich and delicate—this is your solution (look back to figure 1.14). In other words, soft light is a great tool of deception. However, as great as soft light is for this purpose, it cannot be used indiscriminately. Like everything in photography, softness has its price; for the tender subtlety of tonal grada-tions, you have to shell out. Soft lighting dulls out colors, smooths textures, and makes hair look flatter. However, even though soft light is not always suitable, a common trend in main-stream studio portraiture is to use it anyway. Photographers tend to shy away from hard light because it is much more difficult to use. In fact, the frequent improper use of hard light is what has led to a widespread (yet erroneous) opinion that hard light is bad for portraiture—especially for female subjects. Indeed, hard light mercilessly emphasizes every blemish and results in nose and cheek highlights that remind us why skin powder was invented. Soft light, on the other hand, is much more forgiving. The highlights are translucent and make the skin seem to glow from within.

Dealing with soft light is simpler, mainly be-cause it does not restrict the subject to a single pose. Also, soft light often makes retouching unnecessary—even if the skin is far from per-fect. Smaller skin imperfections just disappear as the colors become less saturated and the gradations grow more subtle. For instance, it can make freckles almost invisible (figure 1.26). Even larger wrinkles and scars become subdued in soft light. This is invaluable in commercial portraiture, especially in actor and model head-shots where makeup is not allowed. This is how it works: our ability to perceive depth on a flat medium depends entirely on translating the shadows and highlights into contours and textures. A wrinkle or pore will cast a much harder shadow when lit by a hard light source than by a soft one. Hard shadows, with their sharply recognizable shapes, more readily emphasize the subject’s textures and contours—and the longer, deeper shadows cast by oblique hard light makes them appear even more exaggerated. Is it “bad,” though? It all depends upon your interpretation of how flaws contribute to the personality of the portrayal. A pimple is always offensive; it is unpleasant to look at. However, wrinkles, scars, and skin pores are not always that bad; they may suit the mood of a photo-graph, convey personality, emphasize a facial expression, etc. Under different circumstances, however, the same wrinkles may ruin the pic-ture. It is all a matter of how it fits your vision. Your choice of lighting should be based on suitability, not on what is easy to use. Hard light is not always bad and it doesn’t have to be avoid-ed. It works very well in pictures where darker tones are predominant. It is ideal for dramatic effects and vintage looks (figure 1.27). It can emphasize the texture of the fabric in a model’s dress, give hair more volume, and (when used skillfully) even change the shape of a face.


figure 1.27


In full-length portraits (and especially envi-ronmental portraits) you often have the free-dom to combine soft and hard light in one image. For instance, in fashion photography, a model’s face can be lit by a softbox while her dress is lit by a bare bulb or snoot to reveal its texture. Figure 1.27 shows exactly the opposite technique. The subject’s face and upraised arm were lit by a collimator unit, which is a very hard light source. Her lower arm was lit by a softbox.

Another way to combine light sources is to use different light qualities on a person and on an interior. Figure 1.28 shows just that. The fac-es of the female models were lit by flashes with honeycombs (modifiers that produce a light spot with soft edges). Another flash in a large softbox was used on their bodies. An incandes-cent wall light fixture provided hard light. This intentional combination of flash and continu-ous light sources resulted in an effect that is quite puzzling for the uninitiated.

figure 1.28


The role of ContrastControlling the contrast is just as important as precision placement when using hard light on a person’s face. High contrast means drama, but too much of it means blown-out highlights or blocked shadows—or even both. For a dramat-ic effect, you need to make sure that the shad-ows have some detail and, at the same time, that the highlights are controlled. The most straightforward solution is to use a fill light. In portraiture, active fill is more con-venient than a simple reflector. With an active light source all you have to do is adjust its pow-er to attain the desired result. So, how much contrast do you need? My general advice, in 99 percent of situations, is not to set the contrast too low because:

low contrast = dullness = low impact

The main secret to photographs that possess a “painterly” quality is easy to figure out by studying Renaissance portraits and still life im-

ages. Those old school masters knew what they were doing: a high-impact image not only gets viewers’ attention, it also downplays the fact that it is only a two-dimensional representation of reality. The technique is simple: all you have to do is to ramp up the contrast while keeping the light soft for a less aggressive feel.

CatchlightsWhat is the big deal about something as puny as catchlights? Why do they deserve to be talk-ed about? Every con artist on the planet knows that the chances of a victim falling for a big lie are much stronger if the small details surround-ing it are realistic. Hence, the catchlights can be imperative for the success of a portrait. The first thing that we look at to learn more about a per-son is the face—and the first thing we look for on the face is the eyes. So, no matter how small the catchlights are, this is the first thing that we see. Their shape is a reflection of the light sources that the model saw at the moment the picture was taken. When they are in place and

look natural, we do not even notice them. However, eyes look dull, even dead, when the catchlights are not there. You can use this on purpose to create a certain mood, but in most cases it looks like a technical error. You may be tempted to think that since the fill light does not cast its own shadow (at least in a correct lighting setup), its size, shape, and hardness/softness do not matter. However, the fact that it does not cast shad-ows does not mean that it is invisible. Instead of casting a shadow, the fill light pro-

figure 1.29


figure 1.30


duces a pair of catchlights in the model’s eyes. Hence, their desired shape and size determine the choice of a suitable light modifier. If the key light is large but the fill is too small, the typical result is two pairs of catchlights with the larger ones on the irises and the smaller ones closer to the pupils. In most cases, this is not desirable. Look at figure 1.29. The reflection of a mod-erately hard light source (a beauty dish) cre-ates a bright circle in the eyes. Its positioning is critical. When round catchlights appear at about the 10 o’clock position, the face has a tendency to look naive and gullible; at the 12 o’clock position, the face becomes silly (that’s why clowns often paint solid white circles above their eyes). At the 4 o’clock position, the ex-pression becomes evasive; at the 6 o’clock po-sition, it is sad or surreal. And God forbid you get the catchlight in the middle of a pupil! A large, round catchlight in the center of the pu-

pil makes the subject look walleyed. Small, cen-tered catchlights are no better; even if the facial expression is not aggressive, the overall result is rather disturbing and the subject looks like a psychopath. If this is what you want, knock yourself out. Most of the time, photographers have different intentions. Catchlights are a very subtle tool, which you can use to create the illusion of a certain mood or introduce a character trait that has nothing to do with reality. Catchlights of un-usual shapes can even become a determining factor of an expression on a face. For example, in figure 1.30 claw-shaped catchlights were cre-ated by using a strip light as the main light.

a Background storyWhy do we need to consider the background at this point? Because, while the background is a part of the image itself, it is also a part of

the lighting setup. The background can reflect and absorb light and help isolate a subject. There are three general types of backgrounds: envi-ronmental, natural, and studio. Stu-dio backgrounds are no fun. When I absolutely have to use a plain back-drop, I prefer an 18 percent neutral gray paper background, because it can be turned into anything. It can be made white by setting the back-ground light 2 stops brighter than the key light, or turned black by making the key light 2 stops weaker. Special filters, historically called gels, can also be fitted onto the back-ground lights to transform the gray background into any color. In my opinion, studio backgrounds other than gray are good only for practice or some specific applications, like fulfilling the requirements of a figure 1.31


technical brief (figure 1.31). The artificial setting created by the studio background helps a view-er concentrate on the subject. However, it also makes the photo look anything but realistic. If you want the viewer to see your photo as a part of reality, this is probably not the best means of persuasion. Despite the simplicity of working with stu-dio backdrops, I find using natural and envi-ronmental settings much more rewarding and well worth the trouble. A real-looking interior can accommodate, and make believable, even the most bizarre scene. We will talk about it in greater detail later in the book, but for now let me refer you to figure 1.32—just to illustrate the point. The same goes with shooting outdoors. The very fact that something is a part of a natural

setting makes a viewer regard it as a part of re-ality—even when it does not agree with com-mon sense. This “method” that was revered by surrealists of the past still has not lost its fresh-ness (figure 1.33) and can make a viewer walk away with a pensive air. When shooting a portrait in a highly de-tailed environment, use your composition or lighting to make sure that the background ele-ments do not overpower the main subject. An environmental background does not have to be elaborate and detailed like the set in figure 1.32. Often, the understated simplicity of, say, a sim-ple concrete wall and a flight of stairs creates an expanse for a wondering mind. It can lead to scenarios that the photographer could not possibly have imagined while taking the picture (figure 1.34).

figure 1.32


figure 1.33

figure 1.34


We have all seen images (not necessarily photo-graphic) that attract the eye regardless of their semantic content. The most interesting are those photos that can be turned upside down, mirrored, or even stripped of color without any effect on the visual balance (figure 1.35). Don’t you want to know the reason for such incredi-ble stability? Photos showing such properties are said to possess visual harmony. Much like the musical harmony that is attained by placing musical notes in a certain order, visual harmony is the result of a special arrangement of structural el-ements in the image. Arranging these elements is called composition. Good composition makes an image visu-ally appealing, regardless of its content. It is this magical property that makes composi-tion a great tool of deception. We, as humans,

are more prone to believe something that we like—especially when it is hard to explain why. We do not make a decision to like something. When the only explanation that we can come up with is “I just like it,” the effect is the most powerful. A good composition is one of those things that incites us to act irrationally. Yes, we are all suckers for beauty.

On ancient Greek heritageRules of composition were invented in ancient Greece and have not changed since then. They are so fundamental and universal that a viewer of any age, race, sex, or religious beliefs “feels” if the image is composed well. There is one important exception, however; we will discuss that later in this text. The key to understanding composition is the so-called Golden Ratio (or Golden Sec-

figure 1.35

What holds a Photograph Together?

tion) and its simplified version known as the Rule of Thirds. It was invented by the ancient Greeks and used heavily in every single field related to the visual arts (architecture, interior design, sculpture, painting, etc.). Without get-ting into tricks of geometry and calculus, the Golden Section is a way of dividing a rectangle (or a square; a special kind of rectangle) with two lines. Look at the rectangle ABCD (figure

1.36). A fundamental property of the Golden Section in a mathematical form is:

AD : AF = AF : DF

At this point, you are probably impatient to learn why am I telling you all this. Well, it just so happens that if structural elements of the image are located within triangles ABD, BCE, and CDE, and diagonal lines are roughly par-allel to BD and CE, the resulting picture will be appealing to the eye without much regard to what actually fills the triangles. A curve in-side the rectangle ABCD is also of great signif-icance. It is called the Golden Spiral and is an even finer compositional aid than the lines of the Golden Section. The Golden Section can be turned in 90-degree increments, or even flipped for a successful com-position. You have to remember, however, that in most cultures (those where the writing direction

is left-to-right) people use the upper left corner as an entry point when they look at an image.

The Rule of Thirds is easy to understand once you build all the possible Golden Sections of the rectangle. Although approximate, the Rule of Thirds is convenient; it is very easy to apply and, in most cases, it is just as effective as the Golden Section. According to the Rule of Thirds, visual harmony can be achieved by placing important elements of the image at or near one (or more) of the intersections of the lines dividing the rectangle into nine smaller pieces (figure 1.37). Again, it does not really matter what is sitting in these nine little rectan-gles. Have you ever wondered why the Union Jack is so visually appealing?

Tunnel VisionIsn’t it amazing how the majority of amateur photos are remarkably similar in the way they are composed? Indeed, the object of interest is exactly in the middle of the frame where it occupies approximately 1/10 of the total image area, and the rest of the picture is filled with clutter of some sort. It is all rather sad, but explainable. Our brain suppresses most of the visual information coming through our eyes, helping us concentrate on what is important. Incidentally, the same happens to background noise of any nature (not necessarily visual);

figure 1.36 figure 1.37


otherwise we all would go insane from an over-whelming tide of useless information. Unfortunately, what is useful for normal people does not play well for those who choose to look at reality through a tiny hole in the back of a camera. This is how it works: a painter draws what he notices or what he thinks is important. Therefore, whatever he fails to notice, what he ignores, never makes it onto his canvas. Photog-raphers get no breaks of this kind. Regardless of our ability (or inability) to notice, the lens re-cords everything in its field of view. Hence, we get trees growing out of heads, cluttered back-grounds, and photographers’ shadows in the foregrounds of our images. As we tend to notice things right in front of us the most, and our abil-ity to see details diminishes uniformly towards the periphery, it is natural to position the main element of the image in the center. The problem presents itself a little later, af-ter the picture had already been taken. When the most important element is in the dead cen-ter of the frame, the picture looks unpleasant to

the eye; it is tense and, at the same time, static. This is somewhat uncomfortable to see. Some people perceive images so acutely that composi-tional flaws make them feel physical discomfort, sometimes with very specific somatic symptoms. Why, then, do some details of a live scene elude even the trained eye? Looking through a viewfinder, we see a scene not a picture. So, the brain treats it accordingly and makes us look for the most informative part while ignoring the rest. Later, when we look at the picture, how-ever, the whole image is perceived as the object

figure 1.38

figure 1.39


of interest and—to our surprise—we notice de-tails of which we were completely unaware while looking through the viewfinder. That’s why it is very important to remember how differently our eye and the lens perceive the live scene. Here’s good way to exercise your attention. First, center your subject in the viewfinder the way you want to do it naturally and take a pic-ture. Then start walking towards the subject, or zoom in, while looking through the viewfinder. Walk until only details related to the subject re-main in the frame. Then, recompose the image so that the main subject conforms to the lines of the Golden Section (or the Rule of Thirds). Take a second picture and compare it to your first shot. I guarantee that you will find the dif-ference astonishing.

Composition and PerspectivePerspective is a representation, on a flat surface, of how a real scene is visible to a human eye. Perspective helps us perceive the world in its three dimensions. Photographic perspective, however, fools us into seeing a scene on a flat picture in 3-D. Even if you look at a scene with one eye, you can still understand which object is closer and which is further away from you. Your eyes instantly compare different objects of the scene to each other and, in most cases, give you a correct approximation of their relative distances (figure 1.40).

As we discussed previously, all photographic optics falls into three general categories: short focus (wide-angle), long focus (telephoto), and normal lenses. These differ in how they distort perspective. The distortions they yield also de-pend on the position of the vanishing point. The vanishing point, and how it is influenced by different focal lengths, is easy to understand if you imagine a row of light poles standing on a straight line connecting the first pole (close to you) with the distant horizon. The first pole will be the largest, the second will be somewhat smaller, and the third will be still smaller—and so forth. If you connect the tips of the light poles with an imaginary line and the founda-tions with another, the distant point where these two lines intersect is called the vanishing point. If there is a light pole at the vanishing point, it will be invisible to us because it does not have linear dimensions. Wide angle lenses push the vanishing point away, which exaggerates the sizes of objects close to the camera while making distant ob-jects look smaller (just compare the sizes of the foreground pillows and the head of the person in the background in figure 1.41). Such distor-tion makes images look dynamic, regardless of the subject matter. Telephoto lenses, on the other hand, bring the vanishing point closer, which makes objects positioned on a line non-parallel to the image plane seem closer to each other (figure 1.42). Therefore, by distorting perspective, long and short lenses trick a viewer into perceiving the interaction between image elements differently from how it is in reality. Normal lenses, unlike telephotos and wide-angles, do not visually distort perspective. Rather, they render it very similarly to how the human eye sees it (figure 1.40). When com-posed well, an image with normal perspective looks natural and does not compete for atten-tion with the subject. Distorted perspective, figure 1.40

figure 1.41

figure 1.42


on the other hand (especially when done with super telephoto or ultra-wide lenses) becomes overpowering and renders the subject matter less significant than its visual presentation. Understanding these phenomena makes it possible to build complex images with so-called multi-plane compositions using a lens of any focal length. The simplest case is obviously a one-plane image, which is familiar to anyone

who possesses a government is-sued photo ID. However, stan-dards accepted in the industry of passport photography are not welcome in fine art—unless it is the only way possibility to implement an artist’s creative concept. More often than not, a one-plane composition is a tes-tament to a lack of photograph-ic experience and skills. Even if a portrait is compositionally simple, it usually features two

planes: the face and the background, which is “lit for depth” (figure 1.43). In a multi-plane image, objects are organized in layers, much like cartoons used to be made. If each layer contains its own little story, and these stories somehow interact, the picture is usually interesting. Its appeal can be further en-hanced by placing important elements in such a fashion that the viewer’s eye has no choice but to follow them in a circle (or, even better, an

figure 1.43

figure 1.44


inward spiral—yes, the very Golden Spi-ral that we just discussed!). In this case, the viewer will spend more time looking at the picture than he would if the image elements were simply placed on a diago-nal descending from the upper left corner of the image. To understand how multi-plane com-position works, let’s analyze figure 1.44. There are three different groups of peo-ple that are almost equally interesting for their behavior. A viewer’s gaze, entering from the left, may or may not miss the group socializing in the second plane and go straight to the grand couple in the first plane—or, to be more precise, catch the man first then bounce off the woman’s face. From there, however, the gaze trav-els in the direction of the woman’s eyes to the group on the left. Then, the view-er is redirected to a gazebo in the third plane by an invisible line connecting eyes of the Asian woman with the two love birds entering a decisive moment of their relationship. Then, the viewer comes back to the front plane, mak-ing a circle that can (theoretically) be repeated ad infinitum. A multi-plane photo does not have to be staged. Photojournalists often use this tech-nique to make their pictures more informative. The visual perception of volume has some important limitations that can be exploited to play with the heads of the unsuspecting public. The key vulnerability is in how we use the siz-es of known objects to figure out distances in a scene. Imagine what happens if one of the ob-jects that seems to be of a normal size is, in fact, much large or smaller than we expect. You can see such examples on the following two photos. A street vendor surrounded by Catholic par-aphernalia would have looked just fine if it was not for an old man who intruded and became

part of the group. His seemingly miniature size makes the vendor look like a giant (figure 1.45). This photo was not staged; the old man just hap-pened to stand at an ideal distance from the cam-era for a 35mm lens to make him small enough for this puzzling effect. This forced perspective is a powerful technique that has been mercilessly abused by low-end wedding photographers who apparently consider it their duty to pose a bride on the palm of a groom’s hand. While a picture like this may seem amusing the first time you see it, the effect gets tired very quickly—unless you find a way to incorporate the effect in a more subverted fashion. A satyr seducing a mermaid with a fish under the light of the unnaturally large moon makes it impossible to figure out the size of the astronaut who is eavesdropping on the couple (figure 1.46). This effect was created using a super-telephoto (600mm) lens, which compressed the perspec-tive so significantly that the moon became larger than the couple’s heads. Adding a 1.5-foot tall

figure 1.45

astronaut doll to the picture made the situation even more visually convoluted.

Yet another vulnerability in the process of in-terpreting perspective is our habit of looking at

everything from eye level. Once you raise a camera way above your head, or lower it down to the ground, amazing things be-gin to happen. Shooting from a high vantage point gives you flexibility in dividing the image with a horizon line. Placing it relatively high opens up all compositional planes, which makes it easier to show relations between visual elements (figure 1.40). Tilting the camera down from a higher vantage point works very well in female portraiture, provided you manage not to hide the neck (figure 1.47). Tilting the lens down all the way to 90 degrees, provides for a truly striking effect (figure 1.35)—but if you are planning to resort to something like this, make sure that such a vantage point fits the subject matter. Shooting from a low perspective opens up a splendid view that is long forgotten because we have not habitually enjoyed it since about the age of three. From below, things look grand and imposing, regard-less of what those things are (figure 1.38). They can overpower massive backgrounds and even create the illusion of an impossi-bly high jump (figure 1.48).

Composition and emotionsAlong with telling you a story, some pho-tos also make you feel something. More-over, there are some images that can make you experience rather strong emotions without having any meaningful content whatsoever. The secret of these photos is in the fact that emotions can be caused not only by the semantics contained in the image but also by the interaction of visual elements due to their arrangement

figure 1.46

figure 1.47


in the picture. When compositionally important elements are arranged in such a manner that our gaze follows a smooth curve, especially an S-curve, they tend to put the viewer at ease. Fig-

ure 1.49 incorporates both S-curves and inter-secting diagonals; despite its square dimensions, this makes the image extremely dynamic without causing any anxiety. By carefully combining the various compositional techniques it is possible to build images that yield a predictable, powerful, and positive emotional response. Parallel steep diagonals also contribute to the dynamic composition. Incorporating steep diag-onals in the background is a great technique for sports photography, especially when combined with the perspective compression of a super telephoto lens (figure 1.8). Compositional tricks are not easily recognized by most viewers and can, therefore, inconspicuously invoke a desired emotional response Calming the viewer with soothing S-curves and slopes does not always have to be your goal. The image can be intentionally composed for an unsettling effect. One effective way to do this is to place two equally important centers of in-terest in opposite quadrants of the image (figure

1.50). Such a composition makes the eye jump from one part of the image to another, abruptly changing direction. It causes tension and anxi-ety, which can be further enhanced by disrupting the compositional balance. Again, without get-ting into mathematical formulas, compositional balance is easy to understand just by analyzing figure 1.50 using what you remember from high school science class about the lever rule. The whole image (not just this one—any image) can be interpreted as a lever scale that is in balance only when the left side has the same total weight as the right. In an image, this “weight” consists of the cumulative visual impact of the of differ-ent elements. This is influenced by three factors: the size of the element, its tonal value relative to

the overall tonality of the image, and its proxim-ity to the vertical median. Note that the statue, even though large and dark, balances well with the head in the lower right corner. This is because the head is further away from the median. However, along with dry geometry, there is also a psychological reason for it: looking in the lower right corner we see not just the head, but a young woman whose per-ceived size is greater than of the statue. Another contributing factor to the balance is the fact that the overall tonality and contrast of the right side is lower than on the left side. Why, then, does this photo produce such an uneasy feeling—even if you ignore the subject matter? There are several reasons to that. First, the thick black pole in the middle of the picture is slightly tilted and shifted to the left, in visual conflict with the perfectly vertical statue. A subconscious desire to fix the tilt (some people tilt their head to the left to do it) causes the statue to leave its stable position, creating even greater tension in the image. Sec-

figure 1.48

ond, the horizon is tilted to the left and is per-fectly perpendicular to the pole and several trees on the right. The statue and some trees close to the right side of the frame are perfectly vertical, balancing the composition but conflicting with the horizon. There is no way to ease the ten-sion by tilting the picture. Third, the black pole creates a visual border between the two sides of the picture and makes your gaze jump from the statue to the face and back instead of moving smoothly. The last and least obvious reason is the tonal inversion. On the left side, the dark shape is set against white background; on the right it is vice versa.

Composition and attentionIf you have not already heard that the main sub-ject must occupy at least 60 percent of the frame while the other 40 percent should be subtle enough not to detract from it, you will. Some people are adamant in their support of this as the one and only truth. In reality, this is just another example of dogmatic narrow-mindedness. It is entirely possible to attract the viewer’s attention to one face in a huge crowd, or to several objects in different parts of the frame, when you are cor-rectly employing the laws of composition. Our first concern is how to keep the viewer’s attention on a picture. As you look at an image

figure 1.49



from the upper left, your gaze slides diagonally across the picture like a Pullman car on rail-road tracks. If nothing stops it, the picture is instantly forgotten. Placing elements inside the Golden Spiral is a sure way to make the viewer’s gaze circle around the picture until it lands at the sweet spot. There are several other ways to do this with-out the spiral. The simplest one is to use lead-ing lines. Or, the subject can be emphasized with color, or tone, or put in a frame within the image frame. Figure 1.51 is an example of how all these techniques can be incorporated simultaneously. Notice how strongly attention is directed to the child’s head—despite its “in-correct” position in the center of the frame. This is because the described techniques have a cumulative effect. They amplify each other and the aggregate gain is stronger than might have been expected. This phenomenon is known as synergy, which you will encounter more than once while learning about visual perception. It is also important that synergy can take place be-

tween effects of different natures. For instance, the aggregate compositional effect here is fur-ther amplified by semantics (the scene on the TV) and by the difference in informational val-ue between different parts of the image. Another property of figure 1.51 that is worth mentioning is the rhythm formed around the head by the series of converging lines. Rhyth-mical structures, like other compositional el-ements, influence the emotional background against which we perceive visual information. While getting into too much detail about the psychology of rhythms and other compo-sitional structures is outside the scope of this text, let’s discuss a special case where just a few elements of a similar shape are present. The number three possesses particular semantic properties; we make constant use of it with-out a thought. A dramatic story of three little pigs, the adventures of three musketeers in the French Court, and three amigos in a Mexican village are, almost literally, engraved into the convolutions of our brains. Even those who are

figure 1.50


not acquainted with Neptune can guess how many prongs are in a trident. The psychological significance of the number three rests in its reas-suring capacity. The number three dramatically reduces the probability of an accidental event. For instance, it is not at all remarkable when two friends casually bump into each other, even in a strange place. However, an unintentional meeting of three people can cause sheer amaze-ment—or suspicion, depending upon the cir-cumstances. A similar effect is caused by several groups of two. Imagine two pairs of twins get-ting into the same compartment on a railroad car. The very same logic works in photography; when there are two objects with some degree of similarity in a picture, it may look uninten-tional, but if the same shape repeats itself three times it becomes almost impossible to ignore. The shapes only need to be loosely similar for the brain to pick up on them. Look at figure

1.52. The first quick look reveals only the se-quence of repeating objects: the baseball caps. Soon after, however, you see another rhythmi-cal sequence: a bamboo fence. Then, there’s

another: the pillars of the embankment. By the way, did you notice that the slate on the roof repeats the shapes of the baseball caps? In the introduction, I mentioned that not all laws of composition are universal; their applica-tion depends upon differences in visual percep-tion among people of different ethnic groups. It is known, for instance, that most Europe-ans first glance over the whole image and only then go deeper into detail. Conversely, people of Asian descent tend to do it in a completely opposite way. They start with a small detail and then move on to take in the whole image. Another important distinction, as we men-tioned in the beginning of the chapter, stems from the writing directions in languages of different cultures. Basically, people look at an image in the same direction in which they write. It is the case both for pictures and for live imagery: entering a room, an Englishman will check it out from left to right while a Syrian will do it in the opposite direction. That’s why, in Europe and America, compositions that fa-cilitate left-to-right perception are perceived as

figure 1.51

harmonic. In the eastern world, where people write from right to left, right-to-left composi-tions are more common. Figure 1.53 is an ex-ample of a portrait commissioned by a Chinese client. Look at the horizontally flipped version to see this for yourself (figure 1.54).

People blessed with perfect pitch do not need a score to know that somebody is playing out of tune. The same is true in the visual arts—photography included. When you look in a viewfinder and feel something, along with seeing it, press that button. You can analyze the image later.

figure 1.52


At this point, I would like to remind you that even the most honest photographer in the world is a dirty rotten liar. The world around us is three-dimensional but we pass off flat de-pictions as faithful representations of reality. The only consolation is that painters started mutilat-ing common sense many centuries before pho-tography was invented. Leaving behind the moral questions for now, however, let’s think about what makes a viewer perceive depth in an image, despite all evidence to the contrary. This is even more fascinating if you consider that all two-eyed creatures see objects in 3-D by looking at them from two slightly different vantage points simultaneously. Physicists call this phenomenon parallax. A camera renders an image with just one “eye,” yet the picture seems to present a 3-D perspective. Why? There are several reasons. In figure 1.55, did you notice that the legs and face

look especially sculptural? Look how the well-lit areas change into darker spots and then zones of complete darkness. You are seeing light shaping the subject. We are used to seeing this in real life, so it is easy for us to identify certain shad-ow/highlight patterns with a known shape. This is why her body looks three-dimensional. Now, let’s see why the body pops out from a background. The tonal spectrum of the sky and the grass is brighter than that of the girl, and there is a gradual increase in brightness from the front plane to the background. Such an ar-rangement of tones is called tonal perspective and it is widely used by painters and photogra-phers to create the illusion of depth.

light and Volume Despite widespread opinion, and even com-mon sense, light is invisible. In order for light to show up, an opaque obstacle of some kind

figure 1.55


What Puts the Third dimension into a Photograph?


has to block its way. Imagine you are sitting in a dark room near a door that is slightly ajar. The only clue of the presence of light is a nar-row bright patch on the floor. However, the moment you blow cigarette smoke toward the door opening, rays of light will fill the whole room. In reality, it is not the light that you are seeing but the opaque poisons and carcino-gens that smokers prefer not to think about. The light falling on the surfaces of the particles (yes, particles have surfaces) excites the elec-trons. When these electrons jump back to their non-excited states, they produce electromag-netic waves in the visible spectrum. In plain English, this means that when light falls on a surface it causes the surface to emit light. Most people firmly believe that light simply reflects, but you and I understand how wrong they are. Just to keep a low profile and blend in, though, let’s refer to this process as reflection. Naturally, reflection cannot take place without a loss of energy. That is why the intensity of reflected light is less than that of the incident light. Moreover, the energy in a reflected stream of light is a function of the distance between the source and the surface, and the angle of inci-

dence of the light to this surface. If the previous sentence reminded you of something from ear-lier in this chapter—bingo! This is the Inverse Square Law! The exact formula for this law is quite a bit more complex than a simple inverse square proportion, so I will stop short of tortur-ing you with it. I take this liberty because getting a physical sense of the law is rather straightfor-ward. Look at it this way: a bullet, which easily pierces through a wall at a right angle, ricochets when it hits the wall at a sharp angle.

If your attention momentarily slipped at the end of the previous paragraph, please re-read it. These concepts are critical for understanding how shad-ow/highlight patterns form.

figure 1.56

figure 1.57


Imagine that light falls on a surface at a sharp angle. In fact, let us simplify this by pre-tending that the light is parallel to the sur-face, which is feasible. If the surface is small and even, we can assume that it is lit uniform-ly, but not as brightly as if the light were per-pendicular to it. Now, imagine that the sur-face is a little wavy. In this case, some areas of the surface will enjoy light that is more di-rect than others—and, for some surfaces, the light will be completely obscured. This is the phenomenon described by Lambert’s Law.

figure 1.58 (left)figure 1.59 (below)


If you light a ball, the brightest point on its surface will be the one where the light falls at a right angle. At any other point on the ball’s sur-face, the angle of incidence will be less than 90 degrees and it will receive less light. If the dis-tance between the subject and the light source is small, the fact that the most illuminated point is also the closest to the light source will play a role; at a distance of more than five times the diameter of the ball, the angle of incidence will prevail. This is in perfect accordance with how we expect to see an egg lit by a hard light source (figure 1.56). I swear that the preceding paragraph was not an attempt to make you hate what you have been reading. As evidence of its validity, I pres-ent a photo of cedar trees lit by evening sun (figure 1.57). This picture, along with being a compelling illustration of Lambert’s Law in ac-tion, shows that it is not only in a studio portrait that one can create the illusion of depth and

volume in a flat image. When you learn how to “feel” the light (i.e., understand its quantity, quality, and direction without a light meter), your candid street photos will look much better than those shot by someone who is unaware of light behavior (figure 1.58). Here’s a tip: side lighting or contre-jour (backlighting) is always better than direct lighting for revealing shapes and textures. Now, I want you to compare figures 1.58

and 1.59. Isn’t it fascinating that the lack of col-or in the second image does not interfere with the illusion of depth? In fact, it does exactly the opposite. The black & white medium is so effective in conveying depth because the dark-er tones tend to visually move away (recede) and the brighter tones seem to come closer (advance). Furthermore, the greater the differ-ence between the light and dark tones (i.e., the higher the contrast), the stronger the illusion of depth becomes.

figure 1.60


Note how the floor in figure 1.59 pops out, while the wall looks dished (concave). Soft gradients tend to make surfaces look concave or convex, which is the basis for conveying the curvature of complex surfaces—the human body, for example. Abrupt tonal changes, on the other hand, are perceived as edges. So, let me sum up: if we light an object from the side or from behind, it is going to look more three-dimensional than when lit frontally. I suddenly feel awkward because of the several pages that I needed to express a notion that is so simple!

Volume and PerspectiveSo, problem solved—right? Blast your picture with light from the side and everything magi-cally pops out from a flat piece of paper. Not so fast. Yes, you can create some sense of volume by setting the main light to the side, but we can do better. To attain the maximum effect, three-dimensional lighting should be combined with some tricks that you learned in our discus-sion of composition. Previously, we spoke about multi-plane com-position only as a means to stuff more informa-tion into a photo. Well, its additional value is an ability to confuse people. A higher vantage point facilitates order and helps distribute elements among multiple planes. Naturally, whatever hap-pens in closer planes looks larger and what ap-pears on more distant planes look smaller (figure

1.61). Even when shooting with a normal lens, perspective distortion greatly contributes to the illusion. Shorter and longer lenses make this ef-fect even more pronounced (figure 1.60). Another way to employ fast lenses to make an object more prominent in the picture is to use selective focus. We already discussed how throwing the background out of focus helps to eliminate clutter and direct attention to a sub-ject of interest. When this technique is accom-

figure 1.61

figure 1.62


panied by appropriate lighting, the combina-tion is effective in making the object of interest seem to jump right out from the picture (figure

1.61). This technique, however, is limited to sports, wildlife, and to some degree portrai-ture. It is indeed visually appealing when back-ground is blurred beyond recognition, but most of the time you end up with a better photo if you stop down a bit and manage to introduce a few more meaningful elements into the pic-ture—while still preserving the sense of volume (figure 1.62).

Volume and ColorColors play an important role in creating the illusion of volume. Warm colors (red, orange, and yellow) tend to advance visually, while cool colors (blue, green, and purple) seem to recede. In figure 1.63, the yellow petals almost seem to float above the surface of the picture, yet the green leaves and stem are clearly within it. A bluish cast on the lower part of the larger leaf makes the shadowed patch recede even more. Also, note how the yellow spots in the out-of-focus area seem closer to the surface than the rest of the background. A photo with alternat-ing prominent areas of advancing and receding colors will look three-dimensional, even when frontally lit. Light direction, contrast, depth of field, colors, geometric and tonal perspective—all of these visual elements are, to some extent, ca-pable of creating the illusion of depth. Com-bining them results in synergy and pictures with even more of a three-dimensional look. You can see combinations of at least two of the techniques in almost all the photos discussed in this chapter. Figure 1.64 tops them all as it presents the use of 1) the linear distortions of a moderate wide-angle lens, 2) tonal perspective, 3) advancing and receding colors, 4) multiple

planes, and 5) side lighting for an incredibly believable illusion of depth. The principles discussed in this section are general and, therefore, applicable to any kind of visual art—or any type of photography. Understanding them requires no deep knowl-edge of physics (remember, I managed not to divulge the full formula of the Inverse Square Law!). However, if you want to apply every-thing described in this section successfully, you need to be able to evaluate the tonal contrast and the direction of light. You should understand the role of colors, and how changes in focal length affect linear distortions and the depth of field, and—no less important—you have to feel the interdepen-dence of light and composition.

What Is next?If you thought that reading through the first part of the book would be enough to make your pictures irresistibly appealing to everyone, I hate to disillusion you. That was just the be-ginning. You have learned the basic tools and you have seen what can be done, but I did not tell you how—yet . . .

figure 1.63


figure 1.64

Tools of phoTogrAphic DecepTion 55

Any photographic technique can be regarded as a tool of deception. However, it is a double- edged sword: it can lie to deceive or it can lie to make things look like they really were. Be-lieve it or not, it is often impossible to show the

truth without doctoring reality, and you need tools for that. If the truth is not your goal, you need tools for that, too. So, welcome to the tool shop!

2Tools of Photographic deception

“All photographs are accurate. none of them is the truth.”—richard Avedon

figure 2.1


A successful con artist never makes a move with-out ensuring its effectiveness; usually, he is well aware that he will be afforded no second chance. Knowing which pocket is worth targeting makes a pickpocket’s job almost a cakewalk. However, this is only possible when he knows his mark. This wisdom is just as applicable to photog-raphy as to a game of confidence. It is, by all accounts, the only way to answer a question that has tantalized generations of artists since the first works of art were created:

What does the public want?

When you know someone, you can predict their behavior in certain situations; after all, every-body acts in patterns. Knowing your audience helps immensely with questions like: “Why do I find my picture outstanding but nobody else seems to share this opinion?” or “Why do

I mean one thing, yet people see it completely differently?” and even “Why did I put my heart and soul into this when they couldn’t care less?” To prevent further torture, I will uncov-er this dark secret right now. There is just one answer to all of these questions: a bad photog-rapher sees differently from his viewer; a good one is the viewer himself. It sounds so trivial that you might just have felt a pinch of remorse for wasting so much time paying attention to me. In reality, everything is quite a bit more com-plex than it seems. The simplicity of this con-cept conceals an intricate mechanism that can be used to peek inside human minds.

Visual PerceptionBefore learning how to predict viewers’ respons-es to images, we have to ask: what is seeing? Seeing, or visual perception, is a complex process that results in a behavioral reaction

figure 2.2

knowing your Mark


caused by the intake, interpretation, and com-prehension of visual information. Visual per-ception is neither uniform nor instantaneous. It consists of emotional and intellectual compo-nents working sequentially. Emotional perception starts working as soon as we lay our eyes on an image. We do not even need to understand what the picture is about to feel its mood. Emotional perception is based on our ability to react to signals that are encrypted in the elements of design. We will dis-cuss this exciting phenomenon in an upcoming section about getting emotional. Semantic perception is the intellectual pro-cess of actually comprehending a narrative. This, in turn, requires assessing the relationships be-tween elements. It takes a relatively significant amount of time. Subjective perception, mentioned in the first chapter, is another intellectual component that puts the emotional and semantic content of the photo in the context of the viewer’s expe-riences and knowledge. Even though the emo-tional and semantic components are predictable to a high degree, seeing the picture through a prism of subjective experiences makes it impossi-ble to predict viewers’ exact reactions. The same semantic anchor can cause radically different emotions in different people—just because one of them may associate it with a certain life experi-ence while the other simply has not had such an experience yet. On the other hand, large groups tend to have similar cultural knowledge and life experiences (for instance, people tend to watch the same domestic films, listen to the same local radio stations, etc.). This can be used to your advantage. For example, you can introduce a vi-sual pun based on an important national historic event, knowing that your domestic audience will get it. Knowing instead of assuming. Now, back to how a bad photographer sees. Hedonists believe, not without ground, that all

subconscious actions of humans are aimed at maximizing psychological comfort while avoid-ing any unpleasant feelings. This leads us to the obvious conclusion that photographers take pic-tures because it is a pleasurable experience. What sets bad photographers apart, though, is a firm and sincere conviction that the results of their artistic endeavors should evoke in viewers the same reactions as they themselves experienced. This stems from a presumption that people are no different from them—and if something tick-led their fancy, others must feel the same. Well, not quite. First, while taking the pic-ture, the photographer was driven by a desire to take pleasure (by definition, he enjoys photogra-phy). Second, the shoot was likely accompanied by events that were subjectively pleasurable for the photographer (for instance, he took the pic-ture on a dream vacation in Lisbon, or the girl he photographed fell in love with him). Hence, for the photographer, the image is a memory anchor. In this situation, the bad photographer fails to recognize that his subjective perception has inflated the informational and emotional val-ue of the photo. So, what is happening in a spectator’s brain when he is looking at the photo taken by the bad photographer in Lisbon? The perception of an image generally pursues objectives that are just as sordid as those involved in taking it (i.e., the viewer is aimed at gaining the maximum amount of pleasure). Moreover, if the specta-tor does not enjoy the show, his subconscious switches into a protective mode and strives at all cost to avoid unpleasant emotions—such as the boredom caused by flipping through unin-teresting photos. In other words, the spectator’s attention drifts not because he is being mean to you, but because his subconscious is trying to block an unpleasant experience from damaging his tender gray matter. You would be doing ex-actly the same thing if trapped—believe me.


Why might the viewer’s attention drift? The things viewers notice are prioritized accord-ing to their personal scale of importance. For example, when you show a photo of a vintage race car to someone, you can be sure that he sees what you see only when you know that he shares your passion and possesses a similar level of relevant knowledge. Otherwise, the subject matter will seem boring to him. It gets worse: even if a naturally curious person takes interest in the photo, despite his ignorance, the import-ant details of the picture will likely escape him. You might have taken this shot because you know it shows the only surviving sample of a particular model, but he will only see it as an old, beat-up car. Likewise, the image may be emotionally un-attractive. It may be unpleasant to look at due to bad composition or a degree of visual com-plexity that, despite its potential interest, makes it feel too daunting to decipher.

Visual ModelThe spectator creates a visual model, generally rather different from what has been offered, as he refashions the visual information to his per-sonal needs and cognitive abilities. It has been proven that viewers often group even random parts of an image into simple geometrical shapes, structurally linking these elements. Looking back to figure 1.18, you can see that this is an example of how unlike elements be-come linked into one structure. The girl clearly does not belong there, yet her legs fall into a se-quence of vertical lines and a paper propeller in her hand “clicks” along with the wind turbines. These links validate the girl’s presence in a seem-ingly unsuitable environment and contribute to the viewer’s state of cognitive dissonance. Another important thing about a visual mod-el is that it first appears as a rough draft, then becomes increasingly detailed through several

iterations. This happens before all the details are revealed, as the mind is trying to guess what is in front of the eyes. In most cases, it succeeds and we recognize things around us way before the image is clear—especially when a scene is poorly lit or far away. Now, here’s the best part: we cannot guess what we do not know. That is where subjective perception can really mess things up. We inter-pret things around us based on our experiences and we base our guesswork on the plausibility of the answers. So, when we see something unfa-miliar, we tend to substitute a version that is, in our subjective opinion, more logical or expect-ed. This is why we can mistake one person for another every now and then. This is why we fall victim to optical illusions and pay big bucks to see famous magicians. This is why photography is what it is! This phenomenon is not limited to visual perception. It was described by Sylvia Wright in her essay “The Death of Lady Mondegreen” (Harper’s Magazine; November 1954) as a basis for our common tendency to misinterpret po-ems and song lyrics. The fact that we are trying to find the “familiar” in everything that we per-ceive—visually or otherwise—opens unlimited possibilities for deception . . . as long as we know what people expect to see. This is a delicate and often unconscious process, which has to seem effortless. When something stands in their way, perceiving the image becomes more difficult and viewers lose interest. Certainly, talking about the subconscious is exciting, but how is it possible to keep all this psychology in mind while shooting? How, by looking into a viewfinder, can you tell that the picture you are about to take will play on the viewer’s heart strings? It’s very simple: you have to imagine that you are looking at somebody else’s photo (not your own) in the viewfinder. Doing this will help you understand what is


missing or what needs to be taken out in order for this picture to have the desired impact. In my experience, the best way to achieve this is not to think while shooting. Intensely analyz-ing a scene tends to detract from the psychoso-matic experiences you should be feeling in order to communicate them to your potential audi-ence. Goosebumps, butterflies in your stomach, an unexplainable desire to tilt your head or a body—these are all perfectly real feelings caused by visual perception. To dissociate yourself from the picture even more, it may be useful to set the photo aside for a few days or even weeks. This will dull out the memories of emotions you experienced during the shoot. Most likely, you will find details that should not be there, or realize that the shot is missing something. Sometimes, things as simple as cropping, rotating, dodging, or burning are enough to transform a so-so picture into an out-standing photograph. Turning yourself into an objective viewer of your own photo is half the job. The other half is maximizing the probability that your picture will be liked. Unless you are shooting it for just one person, there is no way you can know everyone’s needs and preferences—so don’t even think of trying to satisfy everybody. However, what you can do is draw upon similarities in your target audience, which (in most cases) will consist of an age or a social group. To do it, first think of who you are shooting for. Adults? Children? Teenagers? Travelers? Art connoisseurs? Political activists? Retirees? War veterans? I can go on and on with the list, but you got the idea. Despite great differences between the men-tioned groups, there are basic qualities of an im-age that will likely be appreciated across many age, social, cultural, and ethnic groups. They go back to the fundamentals of visual perception and our hedonistic tendencies. Keeping them in mind will ensure that your pictures are visually

appealing to most people, regardless of their age and/or background. simplicityLooking through the viewfinder, you should eliminate elements that have nothing to do with what you are trying to present to your audience. An image starts working when it is impossible to get rid of anything without ruining it. However, there is no need to shoot every picture in a style of understated minimalism. What I mean is that every single detail in the image must be justi-fied logically and compositionally. Simplicity, in an artistic sense, is easiness of perception in a semantically complex image. For an illustration of this idea I will again refer you to figure 1.18. To achieve maximum simplicity, the follow-ing is necessary:

• A simple stimulus at the foundation of a visual model;

• A simple meaning conveyed by a perceived object;

• Interdependence of the meaning and the result;

• The psychological state of a viewer.

Also, you should understand the difference be-tween how the viewer sees and interprets the model of reality. Unlike a bad photographer, the viewer does not have tunnel vision. He sees the whole image, not just the detail that inspired the photographer to release the shutter. Clutter and compositional imbalance interfere with the viewer’s subconscious desire to simplify the vi-sual and can cause psychological discomfort that is strong enough to be accompanied by psycho-somatic symptoms. Relief comes immediately upon looking away. Obviously, causing viewers look away from a photo with a sense of relief is not exactly what the photographer wants.


emotions, logic, and CompositionLike a bad storyteller, an inexperienced photog-rapher mistakenly assumes that his thoughts are evident to viewers. In his magical world, it is ut-terly impossible to be ignorant about the things that make his photo logically sound. As a result, viewers who lack the necessary knowledge miss the connections and subconsciously treat the image as a puzzle without a solution. Such a photo causes a feeling of unsubstantiated, unfin-ished uncertainty. It can be prevented by making sure that every element of the image serves some purpose— or that it, at the very least, does not interfere with the viewer’s perception. Think about ways to integrate clues that will help even a layperson become part of the “in crowd.” Compositional imbalance can be just as un-pleasant to viewers as uncertainty; it causes a feeling of loss of stability. This unaccountable feeling makes the viewer feel ill at ease, but often the symptoms are so vague that they cannot be described. Naturally, the brain tries to avoid this sort of experience and makes its owner switch attention to something less unpleasant. However, a balanced composition is not al-ways suitable. Sometimes you might want to dis-rupt it on purpose. Looking back at figure 1.18, notice that there is compositional strain, but no obvious mistake is visible. The girl conforms to one of verticals described by the Rule of Thirds. The background, considered without the girl, looks fine too. The secret is in the position of the paper propeller. Had the girl stretched her left arm up, the composition would have bal-anced out. The strain is caused by a subcon-scious urge to reposition the propeller. It makes the propeller much more noticeable, almost of-fensive, which increases its apparent importance. It is extremely rare that you cannot get rid of something objectionable in a frame by cropping or changing your vantage point (or some com-bination of the two).

expressivenessSo how can we use compositional strain, seman-tic conflict, and other contradictions and disso-nances? One of the most valuable attributes in an artistic image is expressiveness. Usually we use this word to describe a person, but anything can be expressive. A rope can just lie on a floor or be thrown there carelessly, but its position in the frame and the way it is folded/unfolded will tell us what was done to it. Open scissors or a reflection on the pristine surface of a lake could be just as expressive as a picture of a madman with a blade in his hand or a girl meditating in lotus pose on a beach. We will talk more about expressiveness in a later discussion about the el-ements of design. For now, I will just mention that the expressiveness we attribute to inanimate objects is a result of our perception of visual ten-sion. Open scissor blades suggest danger; the turned-down corner of a comforter on a king-size bed makes you think of softness and com-fort. The semantics certainly depend on context, but expressiveness is what causes viewers to feel.

ConclusionsA photographer and his audience can see the same picture differently. Understanding this fundamental fact is critical to creating images that are of interest to viewers. An author per-ceives his work in the context of his own emo-tions and memories, but the audience has not necessarily been subjected to the same events and will look at the picture through a prism of their own unique life experiences. To get rid of your own bias, you should learn to ignore your personal emotional experiences. Understanding visual perception and using changes in visual tension as a tool gives you the power to predict the impact of your images and manage viewers’ emotions. The following sec-tions of this chapter will teach you how to do it.


The limitations of photographic processes and equipment often prevent us from faithfully representing reality by just pressing a button. The reasons are plenty: neither film nor dig-ital sensors can match the dynamic range of the human eye; by nature, photography can-not show motion; and lenses distort (and, to some degree, degrade) the image. Moreover, our visual perception of an image is different from our perception of a real scene because our minds have to compensate for the optical shortcomings of the camera’s one-lens system. As a result, photographers resort to a number of tricks to create an image that actually looks believable. Bending the truth to show the truth is simply a paradox of photography. The first thing to decide before taking a pic-ture is whether you want it to look “real” or not.

By “real” I mean that you intend to show what you see the way you see it. Second, how real? To understand the degree of reality you might let into a picture, look at figure 2.4. Does it look real? Stop for a moment before you say yes. The girl looks believable—just as you would expect to see a child on a swing. She is sharp in focus, the pose does not raise any doubts, and even her backlit hair is within the realm of re-ality. But how about the background? Do you ever see it that much out of focus—unless you are very shortsighted? Even if you were, though, the girl would also be out of focus. Why did I have to do this? Imagine what those trees in the background looked like. Those are juniper trees. If I had them in focus, they would create a so-called ag-gressive background—so unpleasant to look at

figure 2.3

Bending the Truth: Why and how


that you would not even want to lay your eyes on this photo. Oh, wait, one more thing. Do you see those cool, backlit red leaves? They were about 15 feet from the swings. Shooting this picture with a normal 50mm lens would have rendered them so tiny that they would have looked more like clutter. In order to bring them forward I need-ed to compress the perspective. Remember how this is done? Of course, it is a telephoto effect! I shot with a 300mm telephoto lens, to be ex-act. So, if you thought that I was standing 6 feet away with the camera in my hands and autofo-cusing on the girl, you were absolutely, totally wrong. This picture was shot from about 25 feet away with my camera snugly sitting on a tripod. Why a tripod? Because even at 1/600 second, handholding a 300mm lens is not an easy task. Even if I had managed to hold it still enough to prevent motion blur, another problem would most likely have destroyed the shot: at f/4 depth of field was so narrow that getting the girl in focus by chance would have been almost impossible. For this shot, I switched off the autofocus and manually pre-focused the lens to the correct distance (a little bit behind the front chain). Right before the girl reached her compositionally sound position in the frame, I pressed the shutter.

Why before? Because if you see something happening in the frame, you cannot take a pic-ture of it—it has already happened. Even the quickest hands in the world need about 1/20 second to react, so you have to anticipate the moment before it happens. This is not as diffi-cult as you might think. All you have to do is to imagine what is going to happen just before the moment you want to photograph. Then, try to take your picture about 1/2 second before that peak moment and most likely you will nail it. If your reaction time is better than ordinary, you may need to do it a little bit later. Just one more little detail. See how high the girl is swinging? Well, it was kind of high, but the image makes it look even higher. To make this happen, I set the tripod just 2 feet from the ground. Remember what happens when you use a low vantage point? Now, suppose you want a picture to look real. I mean, real real—just the way you saw it while walking by. No depth of field tricks, no tripods. Just like figure 2.5. This looks as close to reality as it gets. I shot it using a 50mm lens. A shorter lens would have made the trees too small and the foreground too overpowering. A longer lens would have made the horses’ bodies visibly shorter and the trees would have seemed closer than they were. For this picture to look real, I had to dial down from my favorite ISO1000 to 160 for two reasons. First, I did not want to go below f/8 because this is the “sweet spot” for this lens. At f/8, it is critically sharp yet still has nice plastici-ty. Second, I wanted the water to look alive. A shorter shutter speed would have frozen the wa-ter too much; it would not look real. An added bonus of the chosen shutter speed (1/1000 sec-ond) was how the tail of the horse second from the right was rendered; it also looks alive. Camera settings, however, are not the only thing you have to think about. I had to

figure 2.4


stand on a boulder 2 feet into the stream to let enough water into the picture without getting down too low. Water plays an important role in this photo; it explains what horses are doing and makes it easy for viewers to “read” the sto-ry. Crop the water and see what happens. Here’s the most interesting part. The scene looks genuine and makes you think about wild-life roaming free across the plains of Kazakhstan, where the picture was taken. For you to believe that, I had to make sure that the unpleasant looking gate at the shabby resort did not get into the frame on the left. At the right, I had to crop out a makeshift parking lot full of dusty cars. I wanted to remember this scene the way you see it now, and I made myself ignore the nuisances—just the same way you would. So, does it look the way it really was? Not quite. We have selective memory, and that is a blessing. We tend to remember nice things

about our experiences and forget whatever made them less than perfect. This is anoth-er defense mechanism that keeps our heads from exploding or turning us into depressed, not-liking-anything whiners. We tend to lie to ourselves and let others lie to us to make reality look better than it is. Again, looking at figure

2.5 you are not thinking about the 94F tem-perature, because the scene does not look hot and I didn’t tell you about it. In fact, the water in the picture makes it look rather cool. Summing up, to take this photo I had to make you think of beautiful horses and how great they must feel having fun together. I also had to make sure that you did not think of the heat or how people have mutilated nature near-by. I did not really lie . . . did I? Now, what if you do want to deceive? Like, for real?

figure 2.5


The most straightforward way to deceive is to tell lies, which requires a good memory and a vivid imagination for reliable results. People who cannot rely on either of those resort to a more fail-safe technique of simply not telling the truth.

Withholding the necessaryEven if you have vivid imagination, sometimes not saying anything is more practical than com-ing up with an outrageous story. In photogra-phy, this method is also widespread. It is some-what different from the approach discussed in previous sections. Before, we discussed how unnecessary details can be completely blurred out or simply chopped off. That conforms to what withholding information means. Howev-er, the intent in those pictures was to prevent

a viewer from thinking about something and, thereby, forcing him to see the scene the way you want him to. Now, we will talk about using this technique to make the viewer think about something that is not in the picture. For this to work, you need to put the viewer in a mindset that inevitably leads to the conclusion of your choice. Figure 2.6 is an example of such a technique. You do not see the girl’s face or upper body, but everything in the picture makes you think of foul play. It is your imagination, not me, that makes you regard her as a victim. It works this way because most of us are attracted to the dis-turbing and unexplained—hence our fascina-tion with murder, aliens, accidents, and natural catastrophes. Filmmakers exploit this phenom-enon and you can capitalize on it, too.

Withholding Information

figure 2.6

Withholding The desirableLying by omission is a powerful way to make a viewer believe what he wants to believe—and if you know what it is that he wants, all you have to do is prompt him ever so slightly. That’s es-pecially true when it comes to sex. You have no way of knowing what size bra the girl in figure

2.7 wears, but you firmly believe that there is no bra—and that its size, were it there, would perfectly fit your preference. The same thing happens with the legs. In this case, they happen to be proportionate—but your mind still tries to make them at least 10 inches longer. If the girl were to stand out in the open, complete-ly naked, you would simply enjoy the beauty; you would not imagine her appearance as being something different than it is.

Our hedonistic nature makes our imagi-nations lie to us so we can enjoy reality more than it often deserves. If you see something in a viewfinder and think of something else—or maybe just slightly feel it—you can be 100 per-cent sure that there are other people who will feel it, too. This time around, however, you can amplify the effect. Now you know where the button is and how to push it.

Withholding the ObviousThe previous examples were about things that were somehow hidden or obscured. Figure 2.8 shows how to make a missing element so im-portant to the story told by a photo that it is almost visible or, to be more exact, the fact of its absence is dismissed.

figure 2.7


I once taught a workshop on using innuen-dos and omissions in photography. When this picture popped up on a projector screen, one person shouted, “Where is the noose?” I re-plied that if he was asking about the noose, he had already thought of it. The student argued that there was no rope in the picture; his mor-bid imagination had just made him speak up. Surely the other students had not thought the same thing. I asked the audience to raise their hands if a hanging had crossed their minds—and every hand went up. The student who asked about the noose wasn’t as special as he

thought; everyone else was just as morbid. Per-haps you were, too? Apparently, there are a few details that scream of a suicide attempt; the open alcohol container, the black cat, the state of disrepair, the dangling hands, and the expression on the girl’s face all contribute to the theme set by her standing on a chair in the middle of the room. All these clues are convincing enough to make you ignore a roller she’s using to paint the ceil-ing, because the roller does not seem to fit the narrative suggested by the other clues.

figure 2.8


Being helpfulBeing helpful is a common practice among con artists who act sincere and unselfish to lead a victim into a trap. The success of this technique rests on people’s tendency to like being helped, even in situations where they can manage per-fectly well on their own. The recipe is very simple. First, you make the situation seem more convoluted than it is; then, you offer help in resolving it. Naturally, omission is a great way to complicate things. An information deficit makes the viewer search for clues—any clues. That’s your chance to feed him visual anchors. This technique is es-pecially effective when the victim is given an opportunity to choose between several solu-tions. It creates an illusion of being in charge, which builds up confidence and therefore trust. Photography provides ample opportunities to help the viewer come to the conclusion of your choice—just as you saw in figure 2.8.

Figure 2.9 is an extreme case of helpful de-ception. Even though nothing really suggests any foul play, the viewer invariably jumps to a transient “OMG” mode. This is because the clues offered look entirely believable and are easy to grasp. Using suggestive clues is a basic technique of deception.

ConclusionYou can say a lot by not saying it. What is even better is that you can always pretend that you didn’t even mean it—and nobody will be able to prove otherwise. It is not in the picture, so what they see is in their heads, not in yours. The beauty of omission is that there are at least two ways to interpret your message: a literal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) way and an associative way that is based on conclu-sions formed from the clues found in the scene.

figure 2.9


Any decent politician knows that he can effec-tively slander an opponent with just a couple incomplete quotes from the victim’s speeches. Nothing even has to be altered—just excerpt the part of the quote that serves your purpose and ignore the rest. Legally, you have done nothing wrong; he did really say that, after all. This simple yet damaging technique is based upon the inherent ambiguity of verbal commu-nication. The meaning of a sentence, or even a word, can change dramatically depending on the context. Skillfully implementing this insid-ious technique in photography is a way to pro-duce truly spectacular results.

Figure 2.10 is an example of this. Despite its obvious staged look, most viewers still consider the image sinister; in their minds, the stand-ing figures are automatically cast as villains. You cannot help but presume that the man is performing some sort of sacrificial ritual, and the young woman seems to be holding a spear. Obviously, the clues play a very important role here (the towering figures, the red shirt with hieroglyphs, the assistant’s pose that is reminis-cent of an Egyptian cat, the gloomy lighting, etc.). None of these would have the same effect if it were absolutely evident that this is a barber giving his client a short haircut—and that the

Taking Things Out of Contextfigure 2.10


girl is holding a mirror. By obscuring what was actually going on, it was possible to create a momentary illusion. There are two ways to take things out of context. The first one is usually malignant and goes against the rules of professional ethics. It comes down to using a picture for a purpose for which it was not intended (for instance, passing off a staged fashion story for a documentary image). Sometimes it happens unintentionally. That happened with figure 2.11, which I once submitted to a contest at LFI (Leica Fotografie International magazine). It was nominated by the editor for the first prize in candid photogra-phy. I promptly contacted the magazine to in-form them that the picture was staged and shot as a poster announcing a gallery show about

street fashion. Luckily, I still kept the prize—but in a different category. If something like this happens intentionally and is found out, the photographer can say goodbye to his career in photojournalism. The second way is to give an intentional-ly “documentary” look to an obviously staged shot, providing no visual explanation of what is happening (figure 2.12). This is still a lie—and you probably are better off staying away from newspapers with pictures like that. To make your deceit more effective, you have to make the viewer’s job of falling for it as easy as possible. The best lies do not attract too much attention; they are fed in a matter-of-fact fashion and/or presented as common knowl-edge. They feel genuine (figure 2.13).

figure 2.11


Luis Buñuel, the greatest surrealist of all time, purposefully shied away from special ef-fects, radical vantage points, and extreme focal lengths. When music played in his films, it was coming from a radio or from musicians who were in the scene. Characters were talking and doing nonsense with dignity, conviction, and reserve. Watching Buñuel’s movies is truly like being there, and the mundane presentation smoothly conditions the viewer to accept ev-erything on the screen as something common-place. That is, until the victim realizes that he is living in a dream within a dream of a person who is also a part of someone else’s dream—or finds himself in a dining room scene with toilets instead of chairs. Buñuel’s seven Cannes Film Festival recognitions (not to mention his Oscars, Golden Globes, and other awards from all over the world) convincingly show the effec-tiveness of his approach. I do not see a reason why photographers cannot learn from it.

Taking things out of context is a power-ful multipurpose technique. It really shines in candid photography, though, because every-thing looks genuine and the pretense is that the camera simply records what it sees without disturbing reality. The viewer is given a limited set of clues and he tends to use them to explain what is going on. Even if he manages to put the puzzle together, the explanation is usually very logical and completely wrong. In figure 2.14, the visual clues suggest a sto-ry that is much less tragic than a fire, turning everything into farce. Instead of admiring the two heroic firefighters you have to struggle not to see two guys engaging in a pissing contest. A crucial element, which reinforces this line of thought, is the left gentleman’s head turned to the right in an apparent attempt to see how his performance measures up.

figure 2.12

figure 2.13 (above)figure 2.14 (right)


Manipulating attention—that sounds cool, doesn’t it? You can readily envision a giant mind-control machine with parabolic anten-nae and electrodes neatly affixed to the shaved heads of spellbound people, staring at a shiny metal pendant as it rocks back and forth in a hand of a hypnotist. Of course, those images are just tired clichés—the real manipulators of attention (I will not talk about conscious-ness here, so you should try to finish this book quickly and buy my exciting consciousness-ma-nipulation guide, which will teach you those techniques) are not like that. Oh—and, by the way, the fact that you probably couldn’t con-centrate on that previous sentence was not at all random. Instead of thinking of ways to con-trol attention, your mind was busy rebelling against a cheap marketing move. I did this on

purpose so you could see for yourself how eas-ily just a few words can distract an intelligent human being. I am sure you have encountered your fair share of incoherent writing that required a tre-mendous effort to comprehend. Do not hold it against writers; most likely, they did not mean it. However, when you listen to a politician an-swering a simple question with three thousand words, you can be sure that he’s doing exactly what we are discussing here: smoke screening. Speaking of which, have you ever see a pho-to like that? One that, no matter how hard you try to make sense of it, refuses to engage your eyes? Do not hold it against the photographer; most likely he didn’t know how to direct your gaze immediately (or almost immediately) to exactly where the money is.

figure 2.15

smoke screening


So, what is this smoke screen business? Brief-ly, it means gently and inconspicuously push-ing a viewer in the direction that will make him see what you want him to see and prevent him from seeing the rest. In figure 2.15, your eyes are drawn to a baby in a doorway, which makes it easier to see the dangling feet. Note my Visatec flash generator resting on a carpet. Even though you probably saw it before the feet, your atten-tion jumped to the baby and then to the feet and you did not remember the completely out-of-tune piece of equipment until I mentioned it. Before taking a viewer to task, you have to figure out where to direct your own attention. Remember tunnel vision? It is when you stare at the center of a viewfinder, completely oblivious to what is on the sides. When that happens, a whole frame-load of extraneous elements ends up in a picture and they act like useless paren-theses in a sentence. When framing an image, you have to see everything in the viewfinder to make sure that whatever ends up in the picture is compositionally expedient.

When discussing composition, we were mainly concerned with retaining the viewer’s eyes inside the frame for as long as possible. But how to make him look at what you consider im-portant? I know of five ways to do it:

1. Structural separation 2. Perspective3. Separation with light 4. Counterpointing with color5. Dynamic separation

A successful photo usually sports more than one technique from this list. To figure out how they work, let’s take them one by one.

structural separationIn figure 2.16, you most certainly notice that the kissing couple jumps out at you despite their po-sition opposite the entry point at the upper left. What makes your eyes slide across the image so quickly and stop right at the intended subjects? The answer lies in how the vertical and hor-

figure 2.16


izontal lines cross the image. The action takes place at the intersection of the only vertical and two diagonals (one formed by the heads of the Three Stooges, the other by their fists). Anoth-er important structure is the triangle formed by the right eye of the tallest Stooge, his right fist, and the right fist of a the Stooge closest to the couple. This triangle pulls your gaze toward the couple’s heads. It is important that you do not consciously think about these things when looking at the picture. Your eyes end up at the kiss point “by themselves,” so to speak, so you do not feel like you’re being played. Everything seems to be under your control. Imagine if, in-stead of the Stooges, there was a huge arrow sign with words “Over There!” pointing at the lovers. You would still look where it pointed, but you would have felt pressured to do it. That is where power of compositional lines hides; they serve as tracks and it is more comfortable to follow them than to look at other areas in the picture. Our lazy, hedonistic minds tend to choose the path of least resistance.

Perspective effectEven Captain Obvious knows that if you put something large next to something small, the larger subject will be more visible than the small one. The linear distortion inherent in any opti-cal system makes it easy to play with the relative sizes of objects and, therefore, with the heads of people looking at your pictures. If you want to make something seem smaller than it is, all you have to do is place it further away from the camera compared to whatever you want to look larger. You can make your job easier by using an appropriate focal length. To make a distant object seem smaller than it is, use a short lens; to make it larger, pick up a telephoto. If neces-sary, you can distort the relative sizes of objects so dramatically that reality changes beyond rec-ognition. For example, a 35mm lens and a low vantage point made the medium-height girl in figure 2.17 tower over the 2000-foot mountain in the background. This technique can also be used to conceal elements that you cannot phys-ically remove from the scene or compose out-

side of the viewfinder.

Tonal separationPerspective was not the only factor responsible for the girl being such a star in figure 2.17. She happens to be the brightest element of the image. Our eyes subconsciously follow the light because our brains interpret darkness as a hostile environment and prefer something less scary. Tonal separation is so effective that it makes it possible to direct us to something that is not only small, but also located in a compositional-ly unfavorable part of a picture, like the smaller anchor in figure 2.18.

figure 2.17

figure 2.18


Color CounterpointJust as tonal contrast is used in black & white photography for separation and emphasis, col-or contrast can be extremely effective in color images. When a certain color prevails in a pho-to, an object of a complementary color (at the opposite side of the color wheel) is bound to be noticed. This technique, called color coun-terpoint, it is so simple and effective that it has become overused beyond hope. When Sergei Eisenstein hand-painted a flag on the mutinous battleship Potyomkin with red color, his black & white film classic opened up a Pandora’s box. First, everybody went on a photo-coloring rampage. Later, when com-puters made digital manipulation simple, every

photographer tried to selectively desaturate a picture (at least once). Today, a monochrome portrait of a girl holding a red rose has firmly become the gold standard of bad taste in pho-tography. That being said, separation with col-or is still a legitimate tool— when used sparing-ly and tastefully. The red nail polish and lipstick in figure 2.19 are the first things that draw attention, despite not being compositionally favorable. If not for the red color, all the attention would be on the tiger (it’s the area of highest contrast and his head lies on an intersection of leading lines). The face, hair, and kimono are separated struc-turally and by tonal contrast; an accent at the site of the action is made by the red color. A katana

figure 2.19

sword serves as the side of a triangle with points at the lips, the tiger’s head, and the tip of the sword. The viewer is caught in the triangle as in an infinite loop. This is a powerful way to keep the viewer’s attention within the frame.

dynamic separationDynamic separation, a somewhat more sophis-ticated technique, is based on our subconscious tendency to search for the part of the image that is the most comfortable to look at. In figure

2.20, the visually preferable part of the image is the face—for several reasons. First, a reflec-tion is hard to comprehend immediately, which makes your eyes slide away from it, further into the image, searching for more sensible infor-mation. Second, a dagger blade and the bright highlight next to it create a vague sense of dan-ger; this is amplified by a series of converging dark and bright curves in the mirror. Third, the angled wall adds to the sense of unrest, pushing down on the negative space and, in turn on the

figure 2.20


model’s body. The dagger acts as an arrow and sends your eyes along a leading line toward the model. Your eyes stop at her right breast, but then follow the arrow-like shape of her armpit up to the face. There, your gaze is confined in a rectangle of the face, elbows, and her left hand. However, there is another possibility; your eyes could follow the leading line from the model’s eyes to the corset on the floor. When you look at the corset, your gaze bounces back to the mirror (the highlight there is brighter than the corset) and then follows the lines back to the face. Thus, two closed loops emerge and com-pete with each other for attention. This further increases the tension within the frame. Figure 2.21 shows another example of dynam-ic separation, this time by intentional composi-tional imbalance. When a composition is per-fectly balanced, your gaze tends to linger at the intersections of the compositional power lines (points of the Rule of Thirds, for instance). By

slightly disrupting the perfect arrangement of elements, you can create a subconscious desire to push it back into harmony. This, in turn, makes your eyes shift to a “lighter” part of the image. That is exactly what happens here. The man on the left obviously outweighs the rest of the image, which make you shift your attention to the wounded pilot. The secret here is that the imbalance should be very minor and/or compensated for compositionally. Otherwise, the effect will be too strong. Figure 2.22 is an example of how misdirec-tion can be used to deflect attention from an element that is traditionally given preferential treatment by a viewer. Most people do not no-tice the nudity when they look at this image for the first time. This is because two groups of elements are competing for attention: the painting and the face in the upper part of the image, and the guitar down below. Your eyes keep jumping between these centers of atten-

figure 2.21



tion, missing the nipple. This technique can be useful for eliminating a cluttering detail or even an unnecessary visual conflict. synergyMost likely, you are familiar with situations where two plus two equals more than four. This may be the case due to a phenomenon of mu-tual amplification usually referred to as synergy. Even though we spoke about synergy before, it is relevant to our discussion here. Correctly implementing several techniques in one image results in a more powerful effect than the sim-ple sum of the individual effects.

A good pickpocket never makes a move without setting up a smoke screen. In photography, divert-ing the viewer’s attention from something that he or she is not supposed to see, or making it conve-nient to notice something that usually eludes him, is just as important. However, be careful when using smoke-screening techniques; otherwise, the viewer will feel manipulated. Imagine yourself in these shoes. You would not like to be manipu-lated, would you? The more discreet and gentle your smoke screens, the more effective they are.

figure 2.22


Your elementary school teachers spent many hours teaching you to control your emotions—and, most likely, that meant keeping your tem-per down. That’s useful, but somewhat limited. You had already learned that throwing tantrums might result in more ice cream or a toy (which, according to your parents, you did not deserve). Getting these mixed messages most likely result-ed in a state of cognitive dissonance; you have a skill that you are ashamed to use. However, this technique is extremely ef-fective in many situations. Breaking into tears, fainting, or acting like you are going to blow everything up—it surprises people and makes your mark forget about everything else. In pho-tography, causing emotions with no substance at all is just as easy and can be very handy. It is not entirely immoral and you can even do it in style.

emotions and elements of designImagine a child having a tantrum in a toy store. He throws himself on the floor, crying and screaming incoherently. However, if you listen carefully, it becomes clear what he wants. From time to time he slips in words of high relevance to his goal: “Mommy,” “Please,” and “Batman suit.” So why is just saying those words not enough? Why bother rolling on a filthy floor? The success of the tantrum depends on two components: semantics (for delivering a mes-sage) and emotions (to make this message more profound). Words just tell the poor mother what the child wants; the rest of the performance is designed to show how badly he wants it. An-other function of the emotional part of this one-man-show is to make the mother more inclined to acquiesce his request. The simultaneous de-

figure 2.23

Getting emotional


livery of semantic and emotional content can be very effective. As you know by now, we can perceive emo-tions visually. One glance at an image gives us enough information to know whether it is joy-ful, or sad, or calm, or spooky. We do not even need to figure out what the image is about; we can clearly feel its mood (figure 2.23). Visual design elements play a major role in establishing the emotional tone of an image. Most of this section is about these elements of design—but, before we continue, let’s digress into the wonderful world of music. The power of music on our brains is well-known. Military marches and church chorals are great examples of how music can make huge groups of people simultaneously experience the same emotions. This has been used for achiev-ing global and often unseemly goals. The most interesting property of music, in this respect, is a high degree of predictability as to the emotional

impact of certain note sequences. With enough knowledge of music theory, it is fairly easy to write a tune that will cause joy, or fear, or af-fection, or an overwhelming desire to destroy thousands of people. Is something like that pos-sible in the visual arts? Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), images do not have as much power as music. However, it is still possible for a paint-ing or photo to change someone’s emotional state. Look at figure 2.24. The emotions that it causes are far from what one might expect from an architectural photo. Most viewers have an uneasy feeling looking at this photo, despite its absolutely harmless semantic content. It is the elements of design that are responsible for this. There are five structural elements of design: lines, contours, shapes, textures, and rhythm. Additionally, composition, tone (key), and color are also considered elements of design. The to-nality of an image is the most powerful factor in setting the mood, so it will be discussed first.

figure 2.24


light and emotionsLook again at figures 2.23 and 2.24. They have something in common: they both seem con-fined, dark, and scary—even before you notice any intimidating details. The overall dark tonal-ity of these two pictures is called low-key. Al-most any image shot in low-key will look mys-terious and intimidating. Conversely, figure 2.25 feels light and free, just like figures 1.14 and 1.18. These are all high-key images. High-key has the opposite effect; it looks soft, kind, tender, light, etc. A secret in dealing with tonality lies in un-derstanding the predominant tone, the tone that dominates the picture. Tones lighter than

18 percent gray (with a bias toward pure white) are characteristic of high-key; low-key images are dominated by tones darker than 18 percent gray (shifted toward pure black). When the pre-dominant tone is neutral gray, pictures come out full of melancholy and sadness (figure 2.26). Whether high-key or low-key, the picture should contain a full range of tones from black to white. Without a black reference point, a high-key image will look overexposed. With-out a white reference point, low-key images will look underexposed. The tonality does not have to be uniform to set a mood. Having two large areas of different tonality can carry a powerful emotional message

(figure 2.27). The effect can be un-settling or hopeful (in the manner of light at the end of a tunnel). Our emotional perception of this image changes as our eyes shift between the low-key and high-key areas. Here, the composition makes our eyes circle the picture, producing an unsettling feeling. In a linear composition, where our eyes just went from dark to bright, following our natural tendency to avoid uninformative darkness, the effect would more hopeful. Primary elements of designLines and colors are considered primary elements of design, as it is impossible to imagine an image without the two. The other ele-ments are secondary; they can be characterized in terms of the color and lines they are made of. Lines are especially useful be-cause of their symbolic nature. Lines are smooth, broken, slop-ing, steep, horizontal, or vertical.

figure 2.25

figure 2.26


Sloping, smooth lines convey calmness, laziness, and stability but can also be boring or monot-onous. Lines close to vertical exude challenge, fight, or hope. Thick lines are dependable, but can be coarse. Thin lines are disquieting, yet they can convey a hint of finesse or class. Our brains recognize these elements in a pic-ture and subconsciously link them with signals carried in the narrative. A cohesive combination of these design and semantic elements results in a predictable and powerful response (as in figure

2.23, which is just plain scary, if you ask me). When the elements conflict, the picture may be very unnerving (figure 2.24). This series of lines tilted at different angles feels disorienting; the eye does not know where to rest in this image. An intentional dissonance between the se-mantic and design elements can be very effective (figure 2.28). Sharp objects (broken lines with sharp angles) sticking out of the sand (a stable horizontal line) are guaranteed to cause anxiety

in almost anyone. Likewise, well-composed im-ages with bold, expressive linear elements are ex-tremely effective. Note the tension in figure 2.29. Most of it is due to Pinocchio’s nose confront-ing the Blue Fairy. Colors are also symbolic. They can be warm or cold. Purple, blue, and green are cold colors (hence the sense of the cold, dank evening in figure 2.29). Red, orange, and yellow are warm (figure 2.30). Additionally, colors can be either calm or aggressive. They can convey grief, passion, sta-tus, and wealth. These symbols, with some ex-clusions, are universally understood by entire civilizations. For instance, crimson (especially in combination with golden yellow) serves as a symbol of royal power in the western hemi-sphere. Bright red is associated with danger, vi-olence, contempt, and sex. Black conveys grief, destruction, or death (however, for the Japa-nese, pure white symbolizes death). Yellow, al-



most everywhere, means wealth—yet in some Eastern-European cultures, it symbolizes part-ing with a beloved. Figure 2.29 illustrates how powerful colors can be in setting up a genuinely sad mood—de-spite the fact that the image is blatant farce. This is an example of colors and semantics being in counterpoint to each other. It does not necessar-ily have to be that way to create a powerful visual effect. The predominant colors in figure 2.30 are red and crimson with prominent gold and black accents. Everything said about the connotations of these colors holds true here. This image also features a limited color palette. Restricting the number of colors in a picture makes their emo-tional content more powerful. Simpler visuals give us a “cleaner” message. An analysis of Renaissance paintings shows that the old masters knew about this phenome-non and used it extensively in their work. Limit-ing the number of colors in photography is just

as effective. Consider the powerful emotional response we have to black & white images, in which the palette is restricted to different tones of just one color.

secondary elements of designContours, shapes, textures, and rhythm are combinations of lines, colors, and tones, so they can be considered derivatives of the pri-mary design elements. There is no contour without a line, just as there is no shape without a contour and a color filling it. Shapes, in turn, give life to textures—and repeating textures and lines result in rhythm. Contour, and often its resulting shape, has a unique property: it carries a general message without overloading it with detail. Remem-ber the section on withholding information? Contours and shapes are your best friends if you want to follow that route. Figure 2.27 shows how a shadow can be more emotional-

figure 2.29

ly charged than a clear depiction of its caster. With this kind of shadow, the harder its con-tour, the less disturbing it is. This is because the defined contour makes the shadow more recognizable—sometimes to the point that the person can be clearly identified. This success-ful identification of an owner of the shadow creates a comforting illusion of control in the viewer’s head. On the other hand, when the shadow is soft, it is harder to figure out who is there. Failing to recognize the person prevents

the viewer from making a correct conclusion, which is disquieting and even frightening. Large, dark shapes (shadows or not) are unsettling—especially when compositionally unbalanced (figure 2.24). Note how powerfully the right-hand wall presses against the rest of the picture, creating a sense of danger. Textures are known to be extremely emo-tionally charged. We can almost feel the texture just by looking. If you ever fell from a bicycle, recalling the asphalt surface will send shivers

figure 2.30



down your spine. Now, think of grabbing a tree trunk or touching shards of broken glass. See what I mean? Soft textures (figure 2.33) are also effective in stimulating tactile memory, but with more positive associations. Revealing fine textures usually requires extreme side lighting

(figure 2.32). With coarse textures like bark or heavily pitted surfaces, however, this is not nec-essary (figure 2.31). A series of repeating similar shapes results in rhythm, which is instrumental in creating emo-tionally charged images. Figure 2.24 shows how

unsettling several clashing rhythms can be. Rhythm can be eye-pleasing, too. When it is fairly regular, but not ideal (several rhythmical structures “click” with one another), it can be a real eye candy (figure 2.34). Composition can also be thought of as an element of design; its abili-ty to influence emotions has already been discussed. The calculated use of design ele-ments is inferior to composing a pic-ture by feel. Emotional perception is instantaneous, yet very fragile. Once you start analyzing a scene instead of relying on your senses, the emotional effect dulls out and it is not possible to adequately assess what the picture is capable of doing to your mood and, consequently, your viewers’ moods. Of course, knowing how the elements of design work will help immensely in planning and setting up an image—but shooting should be done without dwelling on the minute effects of each design element.

Modulation of Visual PerceptionDue to the major role of subjective perception, an image influences each person uniquely. Furthermore, the same photo may have a completely different emotional effect or reveal an opposite meaning under a changed set of circumstances. This is the com-bined effect of two factors: the emo-

figure 2.31

figure 2.32


tional “charge” carried by the image and the susceptibility of the viewer (his or her emotional vulnerability). The viewer’s susceptibility to an emotional signal depends on his character, in-tellect, and personal memories related to the semantics of the image—as well as how much attention he is paying. Once the emotional message reaches its tar-get, it creates a mood that either supports the semantic content (making it perceived as more “valid”) or distorts the intellectual perception by working against it. Fortunately, the viewer can be deliberately put in a certain emotion-al state to be more in tune with the semantics. Much like in an FM radio transmission, where the information of a modulating wave is super-imposed on a carrier wave, semantics is a carrier enriched by emotional information that acts as a modulator. For example, imagine you purchase

a ticket to a stand-up comedy show, enter the venue and go to the bar for a drink—only to find that your wallet has been stolen. You may still watch the show, but you probably won’t find the jokes very entertaining. Likewise, the

figure 2.33

figure 2.34


sound of thunder may greatly enhance an expe-rience of watching a horror movie. Cinematographers make great use of this duality of visual perception. Ever notice how a tune that could make a corpse shiver suddenly breaks out at the scariest moment of a scene—or a heart-wrenching melody fades in right before a fateful kiss? These have become tired clichés, but they still work! Here’s another little detail: have you noticed that such tricks work better toward the end of the movie than in the beginning? This is be-cause a series of discreet irritants (instrumental music, noises) have conditioned you to a point of emotional vulnerability; you are primed to be fed a narrative that is executed in a suitable emotional key. Imagine that you are standing in a hidden library in the secret basement of an abandoned mansion. Candles in a heavy bronze chandelier, draped in spider webs, cast flickering light on

the cover of an antique leather-bound book. You open the book and flip through the ancient pages of what happens to be the first edition of Malleus Maleficarum. Suddenly, you hear footsteps behind you—yet you could swear that there was nobody in the house . . . Congratulations! You have just become the victim of a cheap but extremely effective trick. Here’s how it works. First, pressure builds. Then, something unexpected shakes you up. Another example of the same technique is a television show with background laughter. Faith healers prep their audience in the same way. They begin by reading letters from grateful patients they helped rid of illnesses, then they stage a couple of model acts of healing followed by a group session. People in need of psycho-therapy often benefit from the divine healing powers of these medicine men, by the way. A good therapist, a skilled swindler, and a talented movie-maker each have different goals.

figure 2.35


However, they reach them in a very similar two-stage fashion: they manipulate the emotional state of the viewer (a patient, a victim) to put him in a vulnerable, hypersensitive state and then feed him the bait. In photography, things are not much differ-ent. Photographers do not have the luxury of hours, or even minutes, to get the viewer into a hypersensitive state, but the time gap between perceiving the emotional and the semantic con-tent of an image makes it possible to affect the latter with the former. To see this in action, let’s analyze figure 2.35. It takes just an instant to feel the disquieting mood. Before you even realize what is depict-ed, you have a conditioned anxiety response to the low-key tones, high contrast, and disturbing shapes. Amazingly, this mundane subway scene takes on unpleasant associations: the faceless fig-ure Death seems to be waiting, sickle in hand, for the victim to finish her last phone conversa-tion. Note, too, the sinister look of the woman in the background poster. It is only in the con-text of this photo that she looks so sinister, and only because her face is partially obscured. In combination, the elements of design are capable of fine-tuning the emotional impact of a photograph. This can be powerful enough to make a viewer depart from a literal meaning and see something that is not pictured. Figure 2.35 shows a rad-ical example of semantic distortion of reality. What causes a viewer to see some-thing that is not there? This distortion of semantic perception is caused by the subversive actions of the elements of design. The viewer can identify modulating factors and comprehend their role in setting up a mood, but

cannot explain why is this happening. Once in the mood, he is much more prone to misinter-preting even obvious semantic clues that are carefully planted by a photographer. More often, however, emotions act as a sup-porting factor in a process of understanding a narrative. In figure 2.36, the cold color palette, slightly slanted verticals, and skin texture remi-niscent of decay are all elements of design. The facial expression, eye direction, and tense pose are semantic elements. This fuzzy shadow is a perceptual modulator (it adds to the overall feeling of discomfort) and as a semantic ele-ment (the girl’s behavior would seem ground-less without it). The elements of design are extremely effec-tive in manipulating visual perception. Howev-er, playing with a viewer’s head is not an end in itself; the ultimate goal is to have people deeply impressed with your photograph, not just to leave them with a sense of having been taken for a ride. After all, you want your audience to come back, don’t you?

figure 2.36


The most elegant way to lie is to tell the truth in such a way that it seems unbelievable. Con-ceptually, photography, like a spoken language, is just a means of sharing or withholding in-formation. In this approach, nothing is held back—or so it seems. Still, the spectator will experience cognitive dissonance if whatever is in the picture seems unlikely to occur or impos-sible to photograph. Lying by telling the truth is simple; just take a picture that seems impossible. This usually happens when the photographic evidence fails to support the fundamental public misconcep-tion that “seeing is believing.” Why would you want to have people dis-trust you, even though you are telling the truth? Revealing the proof is a nice way to send those who doubted you on a lengthy guilt trip.

From that moment on, you will have their trust forever. Telling the truth is especially effective in candid photography because the illusion is reinforced by a conviction that the picture was not staged (figure 2.37). This type of photography is not limited to taking pictures of exotic creatures in rustic locations. People on the streets of a big city present ample opportunities for seemingly im-possible captures. Figure 2.38 is very effective because the mundane scene offers a striking contrast with the improbable juxtaposition. Candid photography is exciting for many reasons. It is a nonstop exercise in turning ordinary scenes into something entertaining, puzzling or disturbing. However, it would be a mistake to assume that only true street candids can lie by telling the truth. Arrangements that

Telling the Truth

figure 2.37


figure 2.38 (right)figure 2.39 (below)


are much simpler to shoot can mess with view-ers’ heads just as effectively (figure 2.39). The correct identification and use of visual clichés can make a mundane scene look like a thriller, a spy movie, or pretty much anything else you can imagine. Irony is very important here; you need to somehow communicate your awareness of the platitude employed. If you fail to do so clearly, the audience may take the pic-ture seriously and think that you are either un-original or a plagiarist. Gallery 2.1, a small collection of pictures shot in the Moscow subway, presents a fictional look

at the life of the Russian Intelligence Commu-nity. Every photo depicts a scene that, in reality, had nothing to do with violence, deceit, or any-thing else characteristic of espionage. Yet, those themes are evident. Why? I used the appropri-ate visual clichés. Due to a secretive nature of spy life, most people are only familiar with the topic through movies. The pictures in this col-lection are as far from spy reality as the movies are, but they look like something that we are accustomed to perceiving as spy life. While we do not accept the movies as a truthful source of information, candid photos seem much more

gallery 2.1


believable. There are no paid actors here—no film crew, or lighting equipment. Most of the “characters” are not even aware of a camera pointed at them. What’s not to believe? This is the reason why street candids have such high level of credibility, regardless of content. Another great way of lying by telling the truth is to make it look absurd. Most people do not like being in a situation that defies nor-mal logic; its outcome cannot be foreseen and proven algorithms are useless in dealing with it. Consequently, it is seen as a threat. Facing the absurd puts most people in a state of denial, which helps them regain psychological com-fort. Seeing an illogical picture is like a light version of facing the absurd in real life. View-ers realize that this sort of absurdity poses no

threat; it may be disturbing but it’s also harm-less—and that makes it entertaining. You might think that taking “truthful” staged pictures is simpler than true street can-dids. That may be the case for someone who is willing to accept a mediocre result, but creat-ing something truly unforgettable takes some serious dedication. The integrity of figure 2.40 is consistently questioned—especially by those who know where Khabarovsk is located. That is, until I offer to show them the RAW file! Regardless of how unbelievable or absurd it looks, a good staged photo should incite doubt as to whether it is a setup or a genuine candid. This doubt is often the most entertaining as-pect (figure 2.41). To achieve such an effect, the behavior of the people in the scene needs to be

figure 2.40


flawless. When they overact even a tiny bit, the picture loses its flavor of reality and just looks phony. For people who are not professional actors, politicians, or models, the best role they can play is themselves. When you are casting the stars of your next staged masterpiece, try to notice their most expressive individual features and consider their possible use. When you have people act genuinely in an absurd situation and present it like it is no big deal, the result will be impressive. This is especially true with portraits—or hoaxes disguised as portraits. When the por-trayed person’s behavior (their expression, pose, and demeanor) is convincing, it’s an ir-resistible invitation to a mental dialogue. The viewer’s attention locks in on the parts of the

image that are the best sources of information for such conversation, which initially prevents him from noticing the absurd details. They will be spotted later (figure 2.42).

ImplyingExperienced politicians never go out on a limb without the safety line of plausible deniabili-ty. In photography, we can do the same thing by implying something instead of directly re-ferring to it. Just look at figure 2.43, in which a harmless hair stylist suddenly turns into a psychopathic monster—even though there is nothing in the picture that affirmatively states that. The fact that the viewer is fooled into thinking something terrible is about to happen is not a coincidence; I purposefully planted a few details that may have a dual meaning when

figure 2.41


they are seen together. The open scissors and the feet cut out by a violent crop lead you to in-terpret the characters as a predator and victim. Being subtle and vague is your safety line here; it lets you look the viewer straight in the eye and ask, “What maniac?” ostensibly outraged by such a preposterous interpretation of this utterly benign photo. Figure 2.44 is even trickier than the scene in the barber shot. While there is no weapon shown, the scene still looks sinister. The face in the mirror leads you to believe that the main character’s evening will unfold in a drastically different fashion from what she had planned. The faces make you consider the neck tie as a possible weapon rather than simply an accesso-ry about to be worn by the man coming out of the powder room. The first two examples suggested one char-acter acting against another. Figure 2.45 shows

figure 2.42figure 2.43


figure 2.44

figure 2.45


how a single person’s behavior can suggest sev-eral possible scenarios. Is the girl hiding behind the curtain? Does she need to be close to the window? Is she trying to avoid a contact with something on the floor? And what is she going to do next? The viewer, looking for possible clues, drowns in an absurd mix of fake opu-lence, an odd scene on the TV screen, and the girl’s facial expression. To sum up, this technique requires creating a story with several possible outcomes of nearly equal probability. The conflicting clues ensure that viewers will notice only those that support their own interpretation and disregard the rest. Pictures like this often cause heated debates be-tween people with differing opinions.

Just lyingPresenting something untrue is not as easy as it seems. It takes guts, eloquence, and a good

memory. Even then, you can get caught. Why take the risk? When it is done properly, there is nothing more effective. The strategy here is to come up with a lie so obvious, and yet entertain-ing, that victims fall for it and find it amusing. Figure 2.46 is a family portrait of two kind, loving people and their ballerina friend. The situation unequivocally points toward attempt-ed adultery. Yet, it looks comical. To make it so, everything in this photo is over-the-top: the facial expressions, poses, clothing, interior de-sign, and, of course, the situation itself. This kind of lie is not met with hostility; it is obvious and, hence, benign. Viewers see the photo as an attempt to entertain rather than deceive. Variations of this approach are widely used in advertising and fashion photography. Figure

2.47 was shot for a Japan Tobacco Internation-al ad campaign. It looks nothing like Detroit’s real Motor City Casino; the reality was com-

figure 2.46


pletely changed by combining a long exposure with reflections and light drawing. Since the image was never meant to represent a real ob-ject, there is no resentment felt by viewers. The food industry is no stranger to brazen beautification. Even though shooting fake food is not as widespread as it was in the last century, in most cases the food to be photographed has to be cooked especially for the occasion by a

trained food stylist. This has long become ac-ceptable because everybody understands that a hamburger on a billboard looks like a real one . . . just a little bit better. A real chef can also make food look appealing, but for photograph-ic purposes the food has to stay looking that way quite a bit longer. Hence, stylists use spe-cial techniques that make the food look appe-tizing for hours (even if rendering it inedible).

figure 2.47

figure 2.48


What if you need to shoot not just food but how it is made? Everybody knows that cooking is messy, especially when it comes to feeding large numbers of people. Therefore, making a restaurant kitchen look pristine is not a good idea. The photographer must walk a fine line between neat and real (figure 2.48), which is not exactly the most honest activity in the world. Our last example of a blatant photographic lie capitalizes on the human propensity to make assumptions that conveniently fit our expec-

tations or deny things that don’t conform to what we want to see (figure 2.49). In a blend of real and fake objects, it is fairly easy to deny an obvious fact in favor of completing a visual model in the most pleasurable fashion. Any other way of lying directly can be dan-gerous. I do not recommend using deceit in a picture claiming to show real events. That can put a person in the position of having some ex-plaining to do.

figure 2.49


The list of deceptive practices discussed in the remainder of this book is certainly not all-in-clusive. Discussing every single way to pull someone’s leg would be just as impractical as attempting to analyze every possible variant in a game of chess. Happily, just as in the game of chess, once you get a handle on the basic prin-ciples and learn a sufficient number of standard combinations, it takes only practice to become the next Bobby Fischer. Right? Wrong. You can

modestly call yourself Bobby Fischer when you come up with at least one combination of your own. Practicing the basics is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. It’s the ability to improvise that makes a real difference between a skilled tech-nician and a true artist. If the art of deception is something that interests you, reading the last part of the book will bring you one step closer to it.

figure 2.50

The road ahead

The ArT of phoTogrAphic DecepTion 101

Black Belt in PhotographyKarate is an exceedingly complex art of mak-ing opponents uncomfortable, and masters say that real learning begins only after reaching the black-belt level. Photography is very similar to karate in this respect: only after mastering the techniques of visual interaction (i.e., how to create pictures that influence people in a predictable way) do you become ready for em-barking on a much more sophisticated journey of learning how to create pictures by letting someone else have it your way.

Face to FacePortraiture is one of the most common photo-graphic activities. For practically everyone on this planet, other humans firmly occupy second place in the hit parade of interesting subjects (after themselves, of course). Millions of por-traits are taken every minute. In most cases, a portrait is a photo of just one person, prominently featuring his or her face. However, portraits are far more than just a representation of someone’s unique facial fea-tures. Each portrait is a window into the sub-

3The art of Photographic deception

“Art is the most beautiful deception of all.”—claude Debussy

figure 3.1


ject’s mind—a psychological dialogue between the artist and the sitter. This dialogue opens up the sitter’s personality and turns it into a summa-ry of general terms, yielding a work of art that is relevant to more than just family and friends. A good portrait is a story told through the personality of the sitter, and painters of the past used to tell this story amazingly well. Society highly regarded portrait painters as master of the most difficult art form. For better or worse, photography changed it all.

Better than lifeOnly once have I had a client request to look worse in a portrait than in real life. It was a spe-cial circumstance and the context substantiated it. In all other cases, my clients’ requests to look their best could not be more unambiguous. Be-ing able to take a picture that doesn’t require any postproduction is absolutely invaluable. It gives your client the right to tell everyone that no retouching was done; she looks exactly the way she did that day. Sitters can undergo amazing transformations through the efforts of photographer, makeup artists, and stylists. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 are photos of the same person. Figure 3.2 is the result of a six-hour endeavor with makeup and several styl-ing changes. Figure 3.3, practically a snapshot,

was taken when the client first visited the studio a few days before the shoot. This kind of portrait shows a client how won-derful she or he can look; for many, this remind-er of what is possible triggers a real change in self-image. It is in our nature to overemphasize our own achievements and discount the roles of others, so in the client’s mind the portrait be-comes an indisputable depiction of her true self. It is this persuasive nature that makes the photo-graphic portrait superior to a painted one. Speaking of painting, the early photographic portraits (by so-called pictorialists; figure 3.4) are reminiscent of pieces painted by Renaissance-era artists. Yet, they are true and original work, not examples of reproduction, kitsch, or plagiarism. These early portrait photographers did not copy classical painters—most of them were success-ful painters (Nadar, David Octavius Hill, Os-car Rejlander), had formal training in painting (Henri Peach Robinson), or were decent ama-teur painters (Julia Margaret Cameron). Some went to photography to explore an exciting art form; others saw a new income opportunity. They all brought along their artistic vision and fine technical skills. In fact, after adopting Henri Fox Talbot’s callotype process, pictorialists in-vented a number of postproduction methods, such as combination printing, montage, and the



gum-bichromate texturized process. They also devised some in-camera, soft-focus effects by shooting through fabrics, cellophane, petroleum jelly, etc. Therefore, their work should on not be seen as an imitation of painting. It is painting, but employing different technical means. These early portrait photographers also real-ized that, despite the obvious visual similarities and inherited traditions, painting and photog-raphy are separate art forms. This is especially evident in portraiture. It all stems from the fact that taking a picture includes a moment that is beyond the photographer’s control—no mat-ter how ready he or she is. Even with an elab-orate lighting setup, an amazing composition, and the best clothes and makeup, things happen during the minuscule duration of the exposure that cannot be influenced by the photographer. When the shutter speeds are high (less than half a second), everything happens so quickly that the nuances of a pictured event are impossible to notice let alone change. Unlike a painting,

where every brush stroke is controlled, a photo can only be seen after the fact. What is so im-portant about this moment? What happens in that moment? It is spontaneity—something that is impossible in painting. Figure 3.5 shows how “real” a portrait mak-ing use of spontaneity can feel, despite its ob-viously staged nature. The girl has a tender, almost vulnerable look, much like she is in a

figure 3.4. photograph

by sherril schell, c.

1911. public domain.

figure 3.5


moment of realizing that you can see more than she intended to show. Like she has no mask on . . . that’s it—the mask. You can safely assume that everyone, except for newborn babies, wears a mask. At first, it is fragile and nearly transparent; as we get older, it grows thicker and stronger. This mask con-sists of social norms, prejudices, and ideas that we accumulate in the course of our lives. The thickest part represents how we want the world to see us. Portrait photographers routinely face the challenge of getting past this mask. Accord-ing to Philippe Halsman, one of the 20th centu-ry’s most well-regarded portrait photographers, most people are camera-shy due to diffidence. The best equipment and lighting will not help if the photographer fails to make them shed that mask and reveal their unguarded character. Halsman meant “ordinary” people when he said that; it’s even harder when you are working with actors and politicians who know exactly how to present a refined stage character that is just as far from reality as the petrified face and awkward pose of someone standing in front of the camera for the first time. In light of this, it is clear why a machine- gun style of portrait photography is rarely pro-ductive. The sitter may drop their mask for just a spit second during a one- or two-hour por-trait session. If the photographer is busy taking a million shots, that moment may not be noticed (especially when using a camera with a viewfind-er that blacks out during each exposure). It gets even worse with studio strobes; these powerful flashes are blinding and their popping can be very distracting. It makes more sense to lead the sitter to the point of removing their mask and then take a few shots at the right moment. There are a few methods for doing this, and none of them is universal—or capable of remov-ing it for more than just a few seconds. And usu-ally there is no second chance, so you should be

very attentive and start shooting at the first signs of a change in attention.

Compromise Their self ControlSqueezing out the candor was a technique fa-vored by photographers of the past. They would make sitter remain motionless for the 20- to 30-second shutter speed needed to capture an image on early photography’s slow emulsions. At first, the sitter maintained their mask auto-matically. This lasted until the need to blink or scratch their nose was strong enough to make them concentrate only on siting still. Compro-mising the sitter’s self control made the mask unstable and greatly increased the chance of getting a genuine facial expression. This tech-nique is now rare but by no means obsolete. The girl in figure 3.6 had a patience limit of about 2 seconds, which was a quarter of the total 8-second exposure. The image rendered during these 2 seconds is transparent (com-pared to a result of the remaining 6 seconds of exposure), hence it is not visible. Instead, we see the expression of a diligent girl trying not to screw up her portrait.

halsman’s approach Philippe Halsman brought his great sense of humor and technical proficiency to Dali Atom-icus (figure 3.7), but even outside of the world of surrealism he was recognized as one of the world’s best portraitists. In 1950, Halsman was shooting a group of NBC comedians. Some of them were jumping during the shoot and Hals-man noticed the unusual sincerity of their hap-piness. He decided to ask some normal people to jump before his camera and the results were very encouraging. In no time, everybody was eagerly jumping at his command. Being a first-rate prankster, Halsman gave some legitimacy to his unconventional approach by calling it Jumpology, but the outstanding portraits he


created using this technique are the real proof of his theory. Of course, Halsman realized that jumping was not the only way. The true self can also be extracted from people by engaging them in a burst of physical ac-tivity or taking them by surprise. There is absolutely no reason for you not to use your own version of Halsman’s tech-nique, maybe a little bit more subtle.

avedon’s MoveRichard Avedon was an advertising photographer who made an unforget-table entry into fine art as a portraitist. Most of his portraits are simple: a white background and minimal props. Despite their minimalist appearance, however, they are very sophisticated. They make you want to study them. How did he do it? I did not have an answer until I saw a documentary on Henri Cartier-Bresson. Richard Avedon introduced the film and was such an engaging speaker that it seemed like we had a dialogue—even though he was the only one talking. I felt like he was capable of having a meaning-ful conversation even with a corpse or a statue. From the screen, he managed to act like he was interested in me! Now, imagine yourself in the shoes of a person lucky enough to be photo-graphed by Avedon. You are shown into a huge empty room with white walls and lighting equipment of gargantuan proportions. You feel uncomfortable and perhaps even a little bit scared. (Avedon usually let the sitter cook like that for twenty minutes or so.) Then, just as you are starting to feel a little desper-ate to talk with someone alive and kind, the disheveled owner of the establishment rushes in and begins to engage in an intense act of

friendship with you. How could you fail to re-ciprocate? In a matter of a moments, you have no recollection of the white walls and gigantic softboxes and pay no attention to the camera. You are profusely grateful to the photographer for his friendly attitude and genuine interest in your persona. Subconsciously you want to do something for him—and you do it. The result? A museum-quality portrait.

figure 3.7. photograph by philippe halsman, 1948. public domain.

figure 3.6


Play on the heart stringsOrdinary people cannot concentrate on sever-al tasks simultaneously. If you manage to get your sitter interested in something, everything else (including the mask) becomes less import-ant—at least at that moment. This method of dropping the mask is quite reliable, especially when the shoot takes place somewhere the sit-ter feels confident and safe. It can be done in a conversation or nonverbally. Give a musician an instrument and soon her fingers will be run-ning over the strings (figure 3.8). Ask a young mother about her child and she will forget ev-erything else. Everyone has something that will make their eyes sparkle; you just have to find

the right topic and express genuine interest in what the person tells you. Your inspired sitter will completely ignore the camera and, depend-ing on the topic, may get quite emotional. This reflects the sitter’s personality—exactly what you should be after as a portrait photographer. ImproviseDon’t limit your mask-dropping techniques to those described here. Every photographer in-vents methods that suit his or her own style, and you will have to find the one that makes best use of your personal strengths. Remem-ber: your actions should downplay the fact of a photoshoot taking place and encourage the

figure 3.8


sitter to reveal his or her real face. This works even with experienced sitters like professional musicians and dancers (figures 3.9 and 3.10). People wear their masks differently. Some are relaxed in front of the camera and relatively easy to work with. Others are more private—afraid that the camera may show something that they would rather keep hidden. These people tend to act out or shut down to avoid any interaction. Either way, it does not make the photographer’s life easier. Taking a good portrait requires knowing whom you are dealing with. Fortunately, by carefully observing someone’s behavior in so-cial interactions, it is fairly easy to predict how they will act before your lens and choose the right method of removing the mask. Is also worth mentioning that photogra-phers often fall victim to deception when they go after who the person is instead of figuring out what he or she is like. Assumptions based on the sitter’s job, ethnicity, socio-economic status,

and even age lead to the use of visual and be-havioral clichés. It is easy to fall into this trap; people themselves often assume these clichés to reflect behavioral patterns characteristic of their status. For instance, an army officer has a “military” look. However, showing just his discipline and tidiness will not tell whether he is honest, or greedy, or brave. Assuming that he is brave, just because that is the ideal, tempts the photographer to use visual descriptors of brav-ery: a pose, a facial expression, a vantage point, even lighting. However, what if he is not brave? Breaking stereotypes helps reveal people’s real natures—and spontaneity is the photog-rapher’s secret weapon in doing so. All of the “removing the mask” methods have one thing in common: they force the sitter into a spon-taneous act. Spontaneity is the very reason an image seems so “alive.” It draws in viewers and encourages them to fill the semantic gaps. For example, the man in figure 3.11 might seem like someone intelligent, mysterious, contempla-



tive, and not without a degree of healthy skep-ticism. We perceive all this even though almost nothing is visible. The fog over his face adds that sense of mystery. (The “fog” is always mis-taken for cigarette smoke; in reality, the lens was intentionally covered by a wine glass.)

What escapes the eyeEven the best actor or politician cannot usually conceal their emotions completely. Most of the time, however, these vulnerabilities are invisible

to the naked eye. A time lag in human vision (which, by the way, makes it possible for us to enjoy cinema) does not let us see events that last less than 1/25 second. But while we can’t see these slight momentary changes in facial ex-pression, we can predict the expected emotional response to certain words and press the shutter button intuitively. With practice, your intuition becomes sharper and photography becomes a far more spontaneous process. Portraits taken spontaneously are often more revealing and interesting than those taken un-der the photographer’s tight control. Control should still be present, of course, but here the meaning is different. It should not be aimed at preventing something or forcing an outcome. Rather than wasting your energy trying to fight an ocean tide, it is more effective to create a sit-uation that will develop the way you want. This is simpler than it may seem. In real life, getting someone to act naturally in a contrived situation (for a measurable period of time) is nearly im-

figure 3.11

figure 3.12


possible. The fact that you do not have to keep a sitter in a certain emotional state for a long time makes it much easier when you are taking a picture; an instant is quite sufficient. All you have to do is catch it (figure 3.12). staged PhotographyUnderstanding the ability of photography to create an illusion of reality is critical in portrai-ture. It is what establishes masters of portrai-ture. Manipulating reality allows you to free yourself from traditional conceptual approach-es. The image seems possible because viewers tend to accept questionable elements of an im-age when they are intertwined with those that are undoubtedly real. Most pictures, excluding real photojournal-ism, so-called candid street photography, and to some extent travel diaries, are staged. Nat-urally, when you stage a picture, its relation-ship with reality is contentious at best. In most cases, the photographer’s intent is to make the

staged photo represent reality, at least to a de-gree. However, making a picture “real” does not mean leading your audience to believe that the situation in the photo happened naturally. What a viewer is really assessing, at least in peo-ple photography, is whether the situation might have happened—and, if it had, whether the characters’ behavior seems genuine or forced. To make a staged picture a success, the per-son (or people) in the photo have to put your agenda before their own. Even in the most con-trived setting, the photo has a better chance of being believed if the people act naturally.

Conductors and ProvocateursThere are a number of ways to stage a photo. I have two favorite approaches. One strategy is to act like the conductor of an orchestra. A photographer has to pay atten-tion to everything on a set, give clear instruc-tions to everybody, and time their actions per-fectly. Figure 3.13, which is a mockery of what

figure 3.13


we usually see in fashion magazines, is an exam-ple of this approach. It is obviously staged, yet everything from the main character’s demeanor to the dog’s reaction seems spontaneous and genuine. This was not easy. All the participants (except for the dog, of course) knew exact-ly what they should be doing on the set. The “flasher” had to click her fingers every time she opened her trench coat to attract the dog’s at-tention. The dog was nervous and did not want to comply, but that was not the real problem. It was much harder to get the model to act like a true pervert would. Realizing how ridiculous the situation was, she could not stop laughing. To throw her off, I said in a nasty tone of voice, “You are doing everything wrong!” right when she started opening her coat. Then I immedi-ately released the shutter. Her first reaction was

contempt, which resulted in the right facial ex-pression and body language for this photo. People happen to fall into two general cate-gories based on how they take directions. Left-brained people tend to be quite comfortable with instructions like, “Please stand upright with your chin slightly up and on my count open the right side of your coat, simultaneously clicking your fingers.” Right-brained people tend to pro-cess instructions differently and would be bored just halfway through that speech. They would likely respond much better to something like, “You are really flashing this little dog—but also imagine that he is a man you do not particularly like. If you click your fingers, he’ll look at you. Now, on my count . . .” The model was distinctly right-brained, so appealing to her emotional nature was the most

figure 3.14


effective and efficient way to change her behav-ior. It was clear to me that she was extreme-ly sensitive to any kind of injustice, especially aimed at her, and I suspected she would invol-untarily reveal her contempt. That is exactly what happened. The second strategy is different; instead of engineering a situation, you try to provoke it. This can be done by creating conditions in which a certain action is bound to occur. For instance, you can deliberately give the wrong in-structions or set a trap of some sort. After that, sit and wait for the inevitable to happen. Figure 3.14 shows two real members of the Detroit Fire Department. They each had a great sense of humor, so I knew that they would ap-preciate the joke. When we were setting up for a portrait, I asked the woman to pick up a flute, assume a rigid pose, and cast a sidelong glance. The idea was to prevent her from seeing what her partner was doing. Without saying the word “ax,” I told him, “Hold that thing, so I can set

the white balance.” Neither of them realized that I was going to release the shutter until the studio flashes gave me away. By that time, how-ever, it was too late. An emotion is transient, but the picture is forever. (Of course, we picked an alternative take for the Fire Department Hall of Fame. It featured more conventional facial ex-pressions and no deadly weapons.) I could cer-tainly have explained to the firefighters what I wanted—they would have been game. Howev-er, they would have tried too hard to help and that would probably have ruined the shot. This technique has much wider use than playing pranks on friends. When you need a genuine emotion, the most reliable way to get it is to have the model experience it. Figure 3.15 was taken as an editorial for an article on pro-moting sailboat racing. Using a winch handle would have been more effective—but also less physically taxing. That would have resulted in a much less dynamic facial expression. So, we hid the handle.

figure 3.15


figure 3.17

figure 3.16


Figure 3.16 is an example of an approach com-bining both strategies. Since riding a bicycle on a busy promenade would be a really bad idea, I decided to fake it. An assistant held the bicy-cle at a slight angle, and the model had her feet on the pedals. The assistant released the bicycle on my command and the girl was instructed to keep her left foot on the pedal until the very last moment. People on the street were not aware of their participation in the shoot, although I knew that our activity would inevitably attract attention. We did half a dozen takes with dif-ferent passersby entering the picture. We got a genuine mix of fear and excitement from our model, a priceless example of mom–son inter-action, and a color-coordinated story about the harmful effects of sweet, carbonated beverages.

Big BandTaking a picture of more than one person is a bit like herding cats. The only way to get cats to abandon their own agenda (and, believe me, every cat has an agenda) is by offering some-thing interesting to them in a way that suits

your needs. Upon taking care of this, you have to make sure that your subjects act on that new agenda without interfering with each other. It takes a bit more than just making sure everyone has their eyes open (figure 3.17). You have to position all the people so that each one gets exactly as much attention from the viewer as is necessary to keep the image in a perfect balance between informative and boring. The viewer should be enticed to spend some time and distribute their attention appropriately across the image. The things that you learned about lines and composition will help you im-mensely in doing that. All you have to do is cre-ate a web of power lines, both real and imaginary, that will lead the viewer’s eyes through every turn in the maze of the image (figure 3.18). This requires that every person in the photo assume a certain pose and look in a specific direction with a particular expression and body language. It sounds overwhelming and impractical to try to explain all your intentions to everybody when setting up such a shot. The good news is, you do not have to. Again, there are several rules to

figure 3.18


observe, and they can be combined for the best possible outcome (figure 3.19). A Need-to-Know Basis. Russian military leader Count Alexander Suvorov used to say that each soldier has to know his own move and nobody else’s. The same thing is true here: tell each participant what he or she personally has to do, but don’t give too much information. Unnecessary details will confuse everybody and make your job harder, especially if someone wants to “help” you with suggestions. Instead, try to create something that will unite the group. Together We Stand, Divided We Fall. That’s what Roger Waters sings. Whether in-structed individually or collectively, the models should be united by a common purpose. One easily accomplished emotion is mischief. Most people don’t mind doing something bad if they can get away with it and nobody gets hurt. You

have the power to give them this opportunity. Goofing Around for the Greater Good. Or-chestrate a situation, analogous to a child’s play in which the participants are engaged in shared, fictitious mischief. Make strangers your allies and then turn them into accomplices. You will be giving people an excuse to act like first-grad-ers: it was necessary for the picture! They had to help you. (Don’t say that, of course, or they will feel manipulated.) Just have fun with them and everything will happen by itself. Playing in Concert. What if you really need to have a group of people smiling with their eyes open? Occasionally, such a picture is need-ed to win the love and respect of your distant relatives who came to a family reunion, or even to pay the bills when photography is how you earn your living. So, when you absolutely need to do something like this, do not ask people to

figure 3.19


smile. They will oblige if you do—but, believe me, you do not want those smiles. Instead, just make them smile by doing something like ask-ing them to keep a straight face because this is a very serious business and there is absolutely nothing to laugh about. Some people will still fake it, but the majority will smile sincerely and it will create a pleasant mood. I probably should not even mention that all faces must be visible and the slimmest people should be placed on the sides, especially if you use a wide-angle lens. Additionally, all the eyes must have catchlights. The easiest way to en-sure this is to have all the people on one plane. Make it clear that if someone cannot see the camera, it cannot see that respective someone—and that everybody should see your fill light, or a reflector somewhere near you. (You do not

have to explain that this is for the catchlights; people will think that you are pulling their leg or suffering from obsessive-compulsive disor-der.) If you get everyone to understand and follow these simple requirements, they all will be visible even in the most complex multi-plane compositional solutions (figure 3.20). Staged photography is challenging and ex-citing on its own—yet, as strange as it sounds, I also see it as a way to learn how to take can-did photos. Staged photography gives you an opportunity to learn the best ways to compose, to see connections between semantic elements, to plant anchors, and to incorporate symbols. It will liberate you from everything that gets in the way of nailing the decisive moment so revered by Henri Cartier-Bresson, the guru of candid photography.

figure 3.20


A good candid photograph is the highest level of deception. It makes viewers see something that isn’t there, or even not believe their eyes while still believing you (figure 3.21). It is sometimes surreal, absurd, or ironic, but never literal. (Doc-umenting reality is a completely different activi-ty; leave it to the photojournalists and forensic scientists.) Even though a good street candid is as far from reality as a fairy tale, the fact that a candid photo is not set up is what leaves viewers no choice but to believe you. No staging or di-rection is allowed; instead, you’ll use all the tools of deception discussed in the previous chapters to distort reality without intruding on it. If you have not shot a real street candid pho-to yet and want to know what it is like, try pho-tographing a school of aquarium fish without attracting their attention. It seems easy at first,

but very soon you will realize that it’s not simple to take a picture that goes beyond a mere record of the number of fish. Even if they stay in place, it is not usually the place you want. Still, it is not impossible. Candid photography is a game with rules that help you understand what to look for, what to avoid, and what skills to acquire.

Blending InThe first rule of candid photography is mak-ing sure that whatever your are photographing is actually real life and not its reaction to your presence. Asking a permission to take a candid photo defeats the purpose; your presence will be acknowledged and become part of what you are photographing. Instead, you want to disappear from the scene—to become a fly on the wall. Does this seem easier said than done? No sweat.

figure 3.21

Through the Fly’s eyes


According to Edgar Allan Poe, something hidden in plain sight is the hardest thing to no-tice. When you get out on a street with a cam-era, it is natural to think that everybody is out to bust you. It’s not true. People dress up and leave their homes to mind their own business, not to bother you (unless there is a hefty bounty on your head). If you do not do anything specifical-ly to get their attention, you will not get it. Even if you put on a crazy outfit, scream, and wave your arms, chances are only a handful of people will take notice—and they will not make bust-ing you their life’s mission. However, making an effort to blend in will significantly increase your chances of getting good pictures. Clothes. Dressing like everybody around helps; yet dressing in multiple layers of unbut-toned, worn-out clothes will make it uncom-fortable for people to look at you. If you are in a crowded place, passersby will seek easier alterna-tives for their gaze. Wear comfortable shoes that won’t give you blisters, or make you hot or cold. Equipment. The best candids are taken with normal or moderate wide-angle (up to 28mm) lenses. Long lenses do not work well because the pictures lack a sense of “being there” and have a distinct “paparazzi” look. The best choice is a

fast 35mm prime lens. Resist the temptation to carry a zoom; the good ones are large and heavy, while the cheap ones are dark and noisy. A small, relatively light rangefinder camera like the Leica M is a great choice. To the unini-tiated, it looks nothing like a serious camera, so people are much less suspicious. I find its tradi-tional controls very convenient. All you need is a shutter button, an aperture ring, and a shutter speed knob—no “creative” modes, mysterious buttons, or wheels. Another advantage of the Leica M is that the viewfinder never blacks out; you can see what is going on even at the moment you are releas-ing the shutter (unlike most SLR designs). The Leica M’s viewfinder covers the area of a 28mm lens; if you are shooting with anything longer, lines on the viewfinder show the correct fram-ing. That lets you see what is outside of the frame and predict when it will get in there. If you cannot justify buying a rangefinder camera, or don’t like its ergonomics, the next best choice is one of the new mirrorless camer-as. You can even shoot with a professional SLR (figure 3.22), but there are much more conve-nient ways to do it. The more time you spend attending to your gear, the less time you will

figure 3.22


have for shooting and the more likely you are to be noticed. Choose a bag that does not look like a cam-era bag. Preferably, it should be something as worn as your clothes and of matching colors. Avoid backpacks. They are hard for you to get to, but easy for a street thief to access (believe me, they still exist in considerable numbers). Behavior. Try to keep your movements calm and smooth. Do not run or turn sharply when

you see something interesting. Control your emotions and expressions; do not look like a private eye from a bad movie. Do not constant-ly lift the camera from your waist to eye level. Rather, hold it near your face and, when needed, lower your head to look in the viewfinder. Try to stay below everybody’s eye level; rest your body against a wall, sit down, or simply bend your knees. People have a tendency not to see anything below their eye level. Do not chimp

figure 3.23

figure 3.24


(look at the LCD screen after taking each shot). I cannot stress it more: do not chimp! Damage Control. What if a person you just photographed notices and is not happy about it? In my experience, a sincere smile and a thank-you will do wonders. You can even offer a picture. Your actions will defy a stereotype.

Forecasting and ForestallingOnce you see something in your viewfinder, it has already happened and you cannot take a picture of it. You have to get ahead of the situation. Al-most everything that happens is a consequence of something else. Like a seasoned sailor gets anxious upon observing a dark spot on the horizon, a photographer has to notice signs of events and interpret them quickly. That is, as mentioned, where the Leica M viewfinder comes in handy. It lets you see what is going on outside the frame when working with lens-es 35mm and longer, making it much easier to anticipate the right moment. The street scene in figure 3.23 developed in just a few seconds, and it was so intense that I did not have to worry about being noticed. When I saw a someone waving an ice cream about, I sat down on the pavement, composed the picture, and waited for the ice cream to fall. Figure 3.24 shows a different situation. I found a perfect setting but it was empty. I needed a person clashing with it to complete the picture. A five-minute wait was enough to get a man ideally unfitting for the scene. The last example, figure 3.25 represent yet another common situation: a scene that was al-most ideal, but too self-explanatory. The girl on the left was listening to a friend who was

standing on the opposite side of the painting. I did two things to complete the shot: I left the other girl outside of the frame and I waited for a suitable facial expression.

Getting Into the MoodCandid photography is an exercise in sponta-neity, awareness, and the power of observation. It is impossible to perform on a top level all the time. If you are tired or worried about some-thing, your attention is dulled out. When going shooting, you have to put your mind at ease, forget about everything, and fully concentrate on what is going on around you. If you want to shoot a themed series of pic-tures rather than a collection of random photos, imagine yourself inside the theme. In just a few minutes you will start seeing things through a prism of that theme. This is how a series about the spies of the Moscow underground was shot; I imagined being in a spy movie (refer back to page 92). Here’s the most important thing: do not be a bad sport. Cheating by setting up a shot or doctoring it during the post-production stage deprives you of the real fun of the game.

figure 3.25


Most of the examples in this book feature peo-ple, so you might imagine that the deceptive nature of photography is due to us humans. This scary thought compelled me to conclude this epic journey with some secrets for taking pictures of inanimate subjects. Photographing a landscape or a still life does not require people skills. However, it does not free you from concerns about what you want viewers to see. No object has a right to be in a picture just because it is awesome. It can only earn this right by playing a role of a story that you are telling—and it is you who must give it this role. Then you have to make the story worth paying attention to.

Working with inanimate subjects presents a whole new set of problems stemming from the limitations of photographic technology, which restrict your ability to make things look real. Naturally, the use of special techniques in this kind of photography is much more common than in anything we discussed before, and be-lievability is not necessarily critical (figure 4.1).

spontaneous Versus MeditativeWorking with inanimate objects requires a state of mind close to that of a painter. It helps to be acutely aware of the ever-so-tiny fluctua-tions in your own emotional state. It is just as important as keeping your eyes open.

4Photographing the Inanimate

figure 4.1

phoTogrAphing The inAniMATe 121

Playing on the heart stringsGood landscape pictures are usually manipula-tive; to succeed, they must put viewers in a cer-tain mood. In people photography, the human subjects contribute to the story’s emotional content; in landscapes and still lives, the ele-ments of design are the king. The colors, tones,

structural elements, and composition are solely responsible for the emotional impact. While the design elements sometimes play a more important role than the narrative, other times the narrative is equally influential. Com-pare figures 4.2 and 4.3. The photos look similar but use different means of engaging viewers.

figure 4.2

figure 4.3


In figure 4.2, the emotional content prevails. Figure 4.3 takes greater advantage of the nar-rative capacity. Unlike a moored sailboat, a tall ship leaving the harbor suggests long journeys, ocean adventures, or parting with loved ones. The emotional impact of landscape photos depends greatly on the lighting. The best light happens during dramatic weather changes and when the sun is low above the horizon, espe-cially near large reflecting bodies of water. A

short stretch just after the sunset (the so-called Golden Hour) is also quite photogenic. The night is full of opportunities for spectacular photography, too. There are, of course, cases that defy gen-eral rules, and they usually present interest-ing options. Figure 4.4, which launched my professional career in photography, was taken in bright sunlight, around noon. This is usu-ally the worst time for landscapes photogra-

figure 4.4

phoTogrAphing The inAniMATe 123

phy. However, the flames were so bright that they overpowered the sun and commanded the ex-posure. That rendered the sky dark blue and created a Golden Hour illusion. The grass in the foreground is backlit because the flames were brighter than the sun-light and acted as the main light, while the sun was providing fill.

Getting CloseClose-up photography is rele-vant to the main theme of this book because it has the potential to deceive viewers by providing a stunningly intimate way of seeing familiar things. The highly techni-cal nature of close-up and macro photography makes it impossible to discuss it in detail in this text. Hence, we will talk only about its deceptive properties. Showing small objects, like jew-elry and watches, larger than their real size makes them even more appealing and desirable. This has been a boon to the advertising in-dustry (figures 4.5 and 4.6). It also encourages viewers to make visual mistakes. The ring in figure 4.5 is resting on a small plastic ball, but the scale and vantage point make it appear larger than life. It looks more like a tiara on a bald head. The visual similarity between the stingray skin of a watch band and black caviar, and their shared theme of luxury, made it possi-ble to create the illusion in figure 4.6. I made no attempt to make the beads look like caviar; viewers want it to be caviar and willingly accept

that preposterous version. They see what they want to see and turn a blind eye to all contrary evidence.

figure 4.5

figure 4.6


Figure 4.7 is an even more striking example of how an extreme close-up view, combined with an inverted object-size ratio, can mess with the viewers’ perceptions. This is a true macro pho-tograph, done at 2:1 magnification on medium format film. The textural similarity of the real skin and the surfaces of the figurines was not noticeable without magnification, but it makes the piglets look like they belong there. Initially, the juxtaposition seems to defy logical explana-tion, and the similarity of textures conveniently suggests that everything is made from the same material. Only later, when reality eventually overcomes the denial, does the symbolic mean-ing reveal itself.

deception Is a ConstantPhotography is constantly evolving. Unlike most other visual art forms, it relies heavily on technology—and every technological advance in optics, digital imaging, and image delivery makes photography more user-friendly, more available, more ubiquitous. What does not change, however, is its deceptive nature. No matter what you take pictures of, it is not pos-sible to avoid deception, one way or another. Knowing this and understanding the multiple roles that deception plays at every stage of cre-ating an image puts you in control of your pho-tography. That is why there always will be some people who take better pictures than others: they recognize the importance of deception in photography, master it, and put it to good use.

figure 4.7

soMe finAl ThoughTs 125

Photography is a lie and we, as photographers, get paid for lying. No matter what we accept as a payment (money, admiration, respect, ac-knowledgment, or simply attention), you have to admit it: we are rewarded for being good liars. This can be dangerous because we are en-couraged to lie better; we not only refine our skills but also face constant temptation to use them . . . let’s say “recreationally.” This pow-er makes some of us arrogant, condescending,

and morbidly egocentric. Those are just occu-pational hazards of photography. Fight it or leave it. Certainly, you can do as you please with the knowledge you have garnered from this book—but, believe me, taking it outside of the viewfinder is bad for your karma. We are in the business of making people’s lives more enjoy-able, not hurting them, or taking advantage of them. Let’s keep it this way!

final Thoughts

ethical deception“Always be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.”—garry Truman


aAbsurdity, 93Ambient light, 11–13, 21–24, 25–26Angle of incidence, 51Aperture, 11, 12, 13–14, 23, 52–53Attention to detail, 36–38Avendon, Richard, 105 BBackground, blurring, 13–14, 52–53Background selection, 32–34Backlighting, 51–52Balance, compositional, 43, 60Beauty dish, 32Believability vs. truth, 61–63Black & white images, 51Buñuel, Luis, 70Byron, Lord, 8 CCamera height, 42, 43Camera selection, 117–18Cameron, Julia Margaret, 102Candid photography, 9, 41, 69, 116–19Catchlights, 26, 30–32Clichés, 92Close-up photos, 123–24Collimator, 29Color contrast, 21, 45, 76–77, 81, 83–84

Color fidelity, 7, 20–21Color temperature, 23Colors, warm/cool, 53, 76–77, 81, 83–84, 121Composition, 7, 19, 33, 35–47, 52–53, 60, 72–79, 80–89, 121–24Context, manipulating, 68–71, 87–89Contours, 81, 84–85Contrast, 17–20, 21, 26, 30, 89Contre-jour lighting, 51–52 dDepth, enhancing appearance of, 38–42, 48–54Depth of field, 13–14Diagonals, steep, 43Directing subjects, 93–94, 109–15Direction, lighting, 15–16, 51Dissonance, compositional, 83Distance of light, 13, 17–20Dynamic range, 19Dynamic separation, 77–79 eEmotional perception, 57, 60, 80–89Exposure, 7, 10–13Expression, subject’s, 93–94, 104–15Expressiveness, 60

FFill light, 30Film photography, 10–11Flash, 11–13, 21–23, 27–29Flash-sync speed, 23Focal length, 13–14, 38–42, 52–53, 74, 117Focal plane shutters, 23Focus, 7, 52–53Forced perspective, 41–42Framing, compositional, 45, 76–77 GGels, 32Golden Ratio, 35–36Golden Section, 35–36Golden Spiral, 36, 41, 45 hHalsmann, Philippe, 104–5HDR photography, 19Helpful, being, 67Hill, David Octavius, 102Honeycombs, 29Hyperfocal distance, 14 IImbalance, compositional, 43–44, 60, 78Implication, 94–97Inanimate subjects, 120–24Inverse Square Law, 13, 18–20, 49, 53ISO setting, 22, 23

Index

inDex 127

kKey, 81, 82, 89 lLambert’s Law, 50–51Landscape photos, 122–23Lens selection, 13–14, 38–42, 52–53, 74, 117Lighting, 11–34Light ratio, 20. See also ContrastLines, 43, 81, 82–83Logic, 60Lying, 97–99 MMakeup, 102Misdirection, 78–79Mixed lighting, 21–24Models, working with, 93–94, 109–15Motion blur, 7, 11–12, 22Multi-plane compositions, 40–42, 52–53 nNadar, 102Neutral density filters, 23 PPainting, impact on early photography, 102–3Panning, 11–12Parallax, 48Perspective, 38–42, 52–53, 74Pictorialists, 102–3Plausible deniability, 94–97Point source light, 18, 19Portraiture, 9, 26–27, 94, 101–9Posing, 104–15

Print quality, 7Pushkin, Alexander, 8 QQuality of light, 16–18, 20, 26–29, 51Quality of photos, 6–7, 36–38Quantity of light, 17–20, 26, 51 rReading direction, 46–47Rejlander, Oscar, 102Repetition, in compositions, 46Reportage, 9, 41, 69. See also Candid photographyRetouching, 27Rhythm, compositional, 45, 81, 86Robinson, Henri Peach, 102Rule of Thirds, 36–38, 78 sSchell, Sherril, 103S-curves, 43Selective focus, 13–14, 52–53Semantic perception, 57, 83Separation, dynamic, 77–79Shapes, 81, 84–85, 86, 89Sharpness, 7Shutter speed, 11, 12Side lighting, 51–52Simplicity, 59Smoke screening, 72–79Softboxes, 22, 23Staged photography, 109–15Storytelling, 120Street photography. See Candid photographyStrip light, 32

Structural separation, 73–74Studio photography, 26, 32–33Subjective perception, 9, 57–58Synergy, 45, 79 TTalbot, Henry Fox, 102–3Technical quality, 7–9Tension, compositional, 43–44, 60, 78Textures, 27, 29, 81, 85–86Three dimensions. See Depth, enhancing appearance ofThree, groupings of, 45–46Timing, 118Tonal contrast, 17–20, 21, 26, 45, 74Tonal perspective, 48–49, 74Traps, 67Truth, telling the, 90–94Truth vs. believability, 61–63Tunnel vision, 36–38 VVantage point, 42, 43Viewer, understanding, 46–47, 56Visual harmony, 35Visual mode, 58–59Visual perception, 56–60, 61–63, 86–89 WWithholding information, 64–66WYSIWYG, 67

#2106

Amherst Media®

publisher of photogrAphy books

po box 538, buffalo, Ny 14213

www.AmherstMedia.com

Learn to finesse reality and design attention-getting photographs of any subject

“The democratic digital age has ushered in a cacophony of imagery that threatens the very individuality it exists to reveal. At no other time that I can recall has photography been more in need of disrupters willing to share their unique cache of creativity and techniques in a book like this. Photography needs more sorcerers and alchemists like Irakly Shanidze.”

—Marc Andrew Williams (Advertising Executive, Creative Director of Y&R; Visiting Professor at Center for Creative Studies; Photographer/Owner of Fotografz, LLC; Fine Art Painter)

Photography inevitably distorts reality. The

photographer’s perception and the limitations of

technology mean that an image can never exactly

match reality as seen by the naked eye. As Irakly

Shanidze shows in this book, the best photogra-

phers understand these constraints and use them

deliberately to design “deceptions” that flatter

their subjects, tell powerful stories, bend reality

to their will, and instantly entice viewers.

The psychology of human visual and emotional perception

Strategies for bending the truth in your images

How lighting, composition, color, and posing all control the story you’re telling

$37.95 USA$48.95 Canada

Documents

Photography: Art of Deception: The Photographerâ€™s Guide to Manipulating Subjects and Scenes Through