Leading the eye

[Barney]

Morning gents and ladies,

The other day in a chat about dodging and burning, Graham @myotis, came out with a statement which has been intriguing and perplexing me ever since. So hear I am.

I am familiar with the basics of leading lines in an image and try to incorporate it to a greater or lesser extent in some Images, but the comment seemed to take it to another level, implying that the eye can be led around the photo by feel and tonality.

"where you think of dodging and burning in terms of how you want the print to "feel" and how you want the viewers eye to move around the print."

How is this possible and what is the process?

 

[Cluster]

The use of vignetting might be a case of this.

 

[Barney]

The use of vignetting might be a case of this.

Ah, I see! Thanks Dave

 

[Tavitonian]

When we look at the real world with our bare eyes the things that are closest to us are more colourful and contrasty. The further away things are, the weaker their apparent colour and contrast seem. It's one of the ways that we perceive depth in the world around us.

Making local adjustments to contrast and/or saturation can have a huge impact on the overall sense of depth in a photo.

 

[myotis]

Morning gents and ladies,

The other day in a chat about dodging and burning, Graham @myotis, came out with a statement which has been intriguing and perplexing me ever since. So hear I am.

I am familiar with the basics of leading lines in an image and try to incorporate it to a greater or lesser extent in some Images, but the comment seemed to take it to another level, implying that the eye can be led around the photo by feel and tonality.

"where you think of dodging and burning in terms of how you want the print to "feel" and how you want the viewers eye to move around the print."

How is this possible and what is the process?

The eye is drawn to the brightest areas and areas of highest contrast in the image.

In very general terms you need to decide what your key areas of interest are, and what you want the viewer to look at.

This might start by darkening (burning) areas that are bright and you don't want the viewer to be distracted by.

You then might consider the leading lines you mention, let's say it's a river running through a valley towards a sunlit mountain top. You might slightly burn (darken) the valley sides slightly, but brighten the water (dodge) the water of the river slightly to emphasise the path through the photo to the mountain.

The river is a rather obvious leading line, but assume a woodland in the foreground leading up to the mountain. There will some variation in how the trees are lit, so you decide on a "pathway" through the treetops that will lead the eye to the mountain top and carefully dodge and burn the treetops to create an almost imperceptible path for the viewer to follow.

You need to work with the existing lighting, and just slightly darken the bright areas (to reduce contrast) on the treetops that you don't want the viewer to look at, and slightly brighten the bright areas of the treetops (increase contrast) that you do want the viewer to look at. With colour you can control brightness and saturation and maybe even hue to have the same effect. Just as with tonal contrasts, you also get colour contrasts, and the eye is drawn to warm colours over cool colours.

Overall, you are trying to lead the eye through the picture to the main subject. But it needs care to avoid overdoing it, and you need to combine it with other principles i.e. with landscapes, distant scenes tend to get cooler and hazier, which gives an impression of back to front depth, so you need to keep this in mind while also juggling the distant mountain contrast to draw the eye.

The key with all these things is subtlety.

When you read about composition in photography, there seems to be an emphasis on deciding on a single "focal point" that you direct the viewer to. But, when reading about composition in painting or drawing the emphasis seems to be more on leading the viewer "around" the picture with several "focal points" which the eye can rest on during its journey around the picture.

edit: I haven't mentioned the feel of the print through dodging and burning, but how the eye moves around the picture is part of it, along with how you decide to "fix" the tonal and colour relationships which will affect the mood of the picture. Soft, low contrast pictures feel very different from harsher high contrast picture.

 

[Plain Nev]

We all head towards the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Barney]

The eye is drawn to the brightest areas and areas of highest contrast in the image.

In very general terms you need to decide what your key areas of interest are, and what you want the viewer to look at.

This might start by darkening (burning) areas that are bright and you don't want the viewer to be distracted by.

You then might consider the leading lines you mention, let's say it's a river running through a valley towards a sunlit mountain top. You might slightly burn (darken) the valley sides slightly, but brighten the water (dodge) the water of the river slightly to emphasise the path through the photo to the mountain.

The river is a rather obvious leading line, but assume a woodland in the foreground leading up to the mountain. There will some variation in how the trees are lit, so you decide on a "pathway" through the treetops that will lead the eye to the mountain top and carefully dodge and burn the treetops to create an almost imperceptible path for the viewer to follow.

You need to work with the existing lighting, and just slightly darken the bright areas (to reduce contrast) on the treetops that you don't want the viewer to look at, and slightly brighten the bright areas of the treetops (increase contrast) that you do want the viewer to look at. With colour you can control brightness and saturation and maybe even hue to have the same effect. Just as with tonal contrasts, you also get colour contrasts, and the eye is drawn to warm colours over cool colours.

Overall, you are trying to lead the eye through the picture to the main subject. But it needs care to avoid overdoing it, and you need to combine it with other principles i.e. with landscapes, distant scenes tend to get cooler and hazier, which gives an impression of back to front depth, so you need to keep this in mind while also juggling the distant mountain contrast to draw the eye.

The key with all these things is subtlety.

When you read about composition in photography, there seems to be an emphasis on deciding on a single "focal point" that you direct the viewer to. But, when reading about composition in painting or drawing the emphasis seems to be more on leading the viewer "around" the picture with several "focal points" which the eye can rest on during its journey around the picture.

edit: I haven't mentioned the feel of the print through dodging and burning, but how the eye moves around the picture is part of it, along with how you decide to "fix" the tonal and colour relationships which will affect the mood of the picture. Soft, low contrast pictures feel very different from harsher high contrast picture.

Thanks for that Graham,

It is starting to make more sense, you have such an easy, readable, way of getting across complex issues.

I think I am going to have to rid myself of my aversion to PP if I want the best from my photos.

I have just got Photoshop and Lightroom to compliment my Capture One so I will see how I go on. I have also found one of my old CS6 manuals so will start there I think, basics should still be the same.

 

[myotis]

Thanks for that Graham,

It is starting to make more sense, you have such an easy, readable, way of getting across complex issues.

Thanks. Good to see my years as a university lecturer haven't been wasted, even if I would be spending much longer preparing things for a class than I spend typing a reply here.

I think I am going to have to rid myself of my aversion to PP if I want the best from my photos.

While there is an argument that you need a pixel editor (e.g Photoshop or Affinity Photo) to get the "very best" out of a photograph, many many people do just fine with either Lightroom or Capture One (or even DXO, but I don't think DXO is as complete a solution as either Lightroom or Capture One)

I have just got Photoshop and Lightroom to compliment my Capture One so I will see how I go on. I have also found one of my old CS6 manuals so will start there I think, basics should still be the same.

This is my working combination (C1 and Photoshop), but there is a large grey area where C1 is good enough, even though Photoshop would probably be better. There are two main schools of thought about how you work this pairing.

One is that you keep your work in C1 as much as possible, so you are always working with all the raw data available. The second is that you only use C1 to maximise the available data before sending it to Photoshop for detailed processing. I normally spend too long in C1, and then when I switch to Photoshop, I regret not switching sooner. But nearly everything I "need" to do could probably be done in C1.

Common practice with high end retouchers is to do basic processing in C1 but move to PS for complex retouching and then return to C1 for colour grading.

Personally, I would try to master C1, while "learning" Photoshop, and then slowly add PS into a C1 centric workflow.

As well as the C1 youtube channel, have you found Paul Reiffer?

Paul Reiffer

Paul Reiffer - Landscape, cityscape and commercial photographer. Exploring the world around us, with fine art limited edition prints, photography workshops and commercial photo shoots. Subscribe for live editing sessions and in-depth Pro Tips guides to Capture One. https://www.paulreiffer.com/

www.youtube.com

These are by far the best C1 tutorials going; once you get beyond the basics

 

[Barney]

Thanks. Good to see my years as a university lecturer haven't been wasted, even if I would be spending much longer preparing things for a class than I spend typing a reply here.

While there is an argument that you need a pixel editor (e.g Photoshop or Affinity Photo) to get the "very best" out of a photograph, many many people do just fine with either Lightroom or Capture One (or even DXO, but I don't think DXO is as complete a solution as either Lightroom or Capture One)

This is my working combination (C1 and Photoshop), but there is a large grey area where C1 is good enough, even though Photoshop would probably be better. There are two main schools of thought about how you work this pairing.

One is that you keep your work in C1 as much as possible, so you are always working with all the raw data available. The second is that you only use C1 to maximise the available data before sending it to Photoshop for detailed processing. I normally spend too long in C1, and then when I switch to Photoshop, I regret not switching sooner. But nearly everything I "need" to do could probably be done in C1.

Common practice with high end retouchers is to do basic processing in C1 but move to PS for complex retouching and then return to C1 for colour grading.

Personally, I would try to master C1, while "learning" Photoshop, and then slowly add PS into a C1 centric workflow.

As well as the C1 youtube channel, have you found Paul Reiffer?

Paul Reiffer

Paul Reiffer - Landscape, cityscape and commercial photographer. Exploring the world around us, with fine art limited edition prints, photography workshops and commercial photo shoots. Subscribe for live editing sessions and in-depth Pro Tips guides to Capture One. https://www.paulreiffer.com/

www.youtube.com

These are by far the best C1 tutorials going; once you get beyond the basics

Your a star man Graham, you can count me as one of your grateful, if only for brief typed replies, , students/

I have not noted Reiffer previously, will add him to watch list. I will maintain C1 as my core program and slowly, more than likely very slowly, get accustomed to the others

 

[ChrisR]

I will maintain C1 as my core program and slowly, more than likely very slowly, get accustomed to the others

This was roughly my plan when I switched from Aperture to C1Pro in around 2019. I'm still doing 99% of my PP in C1Pro, and still learning new things. I haven't upgraded C1Pro for 3 years either, but at least any "new" cameras don't come with incompatible raw files!! But, I am (definitely) not a Pro!