Why Do We Look At Photos From Bottom Up?

L

Lawsyd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
67
Edit My Images
Yes
There are probably very good biological & psychological reasons ( human biologists, etc, please help me here) but why when, in the Western world, we read from top of the page to the bottom of the page do we look at photographs & other pictures from bottom up? The reason that I ask is that I was about to critique a sequence of three photos (the identical shot with three different edits) on another site. I felt that (from the sequence as described by the photographer) the bottom photo (in his mind the first) should be at the top. Then I realised that he was correct, by convention. I have no problem at all with that and held off on my critique. But why is it different with pictures than words?
 
I'd say it's because if you think that the scene is really in front of you that you'd want to walk into it, towards it, ito the picture. That would be from the bottom up. That's why a path make a good lead in line.
Just my theory.
 
•

It is well know that the eyes are searching for the sharper
elements in a scene, than the compositional features and
the artistic intent (the later two not necessarily in that order).

Everyone will approach every single picture differently. As
the brain is trying to make sense of the new perceived info,
colours, contrast, layout etc will be "scanned" in sequence
to help grasp the communication values conveyed by the
image: humour, atmosphere, charm, drama, etc.

So "why we look at photographs from bottom up?" is not an
observed universal approach but may be a very personal way
to access any new information within a frame.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure we do look from bottom to top. We use a leading line to direct viewers to what the we have picked as the subject. This leading line doesn't have to come from the bottom IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I don't look at photos from the bottom up, I wasn't aware that was seen as the norm? I look at it centrally.
 
It depends on the composition; you can use it to lead the viewer's eye around - or out of - the frame in any direction you choose. In the West we have a tendency to read an image from left to right and bottom to top and any compositional elements which work against that create a slightly different mood.

You could research the baroque and sinister diagonals for more on this.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I read somewhere that the eye is more attracted initially to contrast in a scene than any compositional elements. Can't recall where I'd read that though.
Click to expand...

I've read it a few places. The eye is attracted to the region of highest contrast - not just the brightest spot - especially if that region is at the edge of the frame. I'd argue that a region of high contrast is a compositional element, though.
 
Isn't it more we start by looking at the foreground (or perhaps more the fore-middle distance) and then scan backwards? The foreground is (typically) at the bottom of the photograph.
 
I think it depends on the image and the way it is presented.

For a portrait I think we'd normally go to the eyes first.
For landscapes and street scenes we search for a point of interest to "settle" upon, and for that we look for leading lines, "rule of thirds" or something that leads us to the subject.
If we can't find a point of interest our eyes will just wander aimlessly
 
Brian G said:
I think it depends on the image and the way it is presented.

For a portrait I think we'd normally go to the eyes first.
For landscapes and street scenes we search for a point of interest to "settle" upon, and for that we look for leading lines, "rule of thirds" or something that leads us to the subject.
If we can't find a point of interest our eyes will just wander aimlessly
Click to expand...

Exactly this, we don't look at bottom up but are drawn to points on the image, that then find paths through the image, hence leading lines etc.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand, those of us in the west tend to view from left to right, because we write that way...
I'm not so sure we necessarily look at a lower point before a higher one though.
As I said, I would have thought it was more dependent on the subject and composition of an individual image

Presumably, people from the orient, some of whom write vertically or even right to left, view images differently?

I think writing a book about the subject is unnecessarily over-complicating the matter.
I'm sure it's an interesting read, but I wouldn't spend over 20 pounds to find out.
 
I haven't been aware in my own looking that we read images generally to any particular scheme.
Byker28i said:
... we don't look at bottom up but are drawn to points on the image, that then find paths through the image, hence leading lines etc.
Click to expand...
sounds good.

I can only suggest that it's always a good exercise for us all to analyse how we 'see' (engage with) any image. My feeling is that a good image will be coherent in some way, no matter how the eye (brain) travels around it. But nothing is the whole story. A good image must also stimulate (have an original life in it).

But then many images may profess technical excellence, whilst lacking heart. Think of advertising, for instance. So there are many aspects to looking.
 
Looking at a series of three images, arranged vertically on a website, I would look at the top one first, because it's, ummm, the first one.

Some people may set forum threads to have most recent posts at the top though (completely backwards to my mind) so that may affect it a bit, though the post would still have the top image appear first as you scroll down.

Some people have their trackpads set to scroll upside down - it's a strange world out there. [emoji6]
 
Byker28i said:
Exactly this, we don't look at bottom up but are drawn to points on the image, that then find paths through the image, hence leading lines etc.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that bottom up is used in the way an engineer would use it rather than literally, from component level to full design i.e. luminance and chrominance contrasts - textures - objects - scene.

Personally, I quite like the gestalt principles as a starting point for visual comprehension.
 
Could it be that we observe things by looking first at what's closest to us ?

In most 'scenes' the foreground is at the foot of the image.

Perhaps if we photograph the ceiling where the foreground is at the top of the image we do the opposite.
 
st599 said:
I'm assuming that bottom up is used in the way an engineer would use it rather than literally, from component level to full design i.e. luminance and chrominance contrasts - textures - objects - scene.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the latter (component level to full design) be how an engineer would use it?

But I agree with @dinners (who has a cute dog) ... that I think we quickly assess a picture for what is the "closest" point, and start with that - typically that is at the bottom of the image. Thats if you're talking about a landscape of course, a portrait generally has less foreground. Personally I find it hard to look at a photo on somewhere like TalkPhotography where you have to scroll to view the whole picture, though its easier when scrolling back up a page.
 
I used to work on Simulators. One of the interesting developments of the time was detecting where the eye was looking and only providing real focus in that area, as the processing of the time couldn't project a whole sharp image over the entire area. Our eyes take in a lot more visual information than our brain can consciously process and we want to focus on the most compelling information so we selectively look at what we think most important, I think it was called selective attention.

As such with an image you can direct the eye, through movement, colour, light, or in the case of people features such as eyes, or for blokes, probably boobs :D
 
Thanks for all of the responses. This hasn't been a 'light the blue touch paper & retreat' thread. I haven't been able to respond because shortly after starting the thread I had a stupid-o'clock flight to Spain. Now that I'm back home (despite the best efforts of French ATC) I'll try & reply to some of the comments.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
Wouldn't the latter (component level to full design) be how an engineer would use it?

But I agree with @dinners (who has a cute dog) ... that I think we quickly assess a picture for what is the "closest" point, and start with that - typically that is at the bottom of the image. Thats if you're talking about a landscape of course, a portrait generally has less foreground. Personally I find it hard to look at a photo on somewhere like TalkPhotography where you have to scroll to view the whole picture, though its easier when scrolling back up a page.
Click to expand...
We don't look at a photo from the closest or bottom point of an image. We look for texture and detail. This is why shallow depth of field and chiaroscuro work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top