How can I compose a photo when the off-frame subject can’t be included?
Asked 4/26/2015
3 views
2 answers
0
I photographed a father and child looking at a wall lizard, but the lizard was too far away and the room was too small to include it in the frame. I was using a 50mm prime, and even with a wider lens I think the lizard would have been tiny and surrounded by distracting background. When the thing people are reacting to can’t practically be shown, how should I compose the scene? Should I leave looking room in the direction of their gaze, change placement in the frame, or treat the photo as being about the people rather than the unseen subject?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
3
I hate to state the obvious: if you cannot include it, don't include it. Don't force it, here's why:
You compose for a subject. What is the subject? Father and child looking at a lizard.
As long as the lizard was included in the frame, that'd be true. But it's not. The lizard isn't part of the subject. I think the subject of your image is a father interacting with his child. The interaction is to look at something that is not seen in the frame. It's not of particular interest what they are looking at, but that they are looking at something.
Let me compare this to other images.
[Image from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20110825_OH_H1013410_0091.JPG_-Flickr-_NZ_Defence_Force.jpg ]
Is the destination of the cyclist included in the image? No. He might be miles away from the finish line, so it's naturally not included in this image. But not even the next part of the track is included. (Does it go further downhill? Is there a ramp maybe?)
I think most people would agree that it is ok when the destination of a cyclist is not included in an image. It's just an image of a cyclist cycling. But cycling clearly is a way of movement and as such it definitely has a destination.
On the other hand, some context isn't even visual. If you imagine an image of two people next to each other, is it clear if they are lovers or not? (Assuming obvious actions like kissing are not being portrayed)
Maybe they are just family members happy to see each other again, close friends, fans of the same football team that just scored...
You cannot tell what relationship they have to each other.
In conclusion I say that if for some reason something is not included in your image, you should not bother too much about it. People will pay more attention to what's in the frame. And you should do the same.
Sorry for the circular logic, but you kind of asked for it. I think your doubts stem from thinking "oh I really want this lizard to be in the image" yet you made it clear that it will not be part of the subject. The thought lingers on and does not allow you to enjoy a nice candid photograph of father and child.
Originally by user35348. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user35348
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If you can’t include the off-frame subject effectively, don’t force it. Compose around what is actually visible: here, the father and child interacting and looking at something outside the frame. The unseen subject can still be implied by their gaze.
A good approach is to leave some space in the direction they’re looking, so the frame feels intentional rather than cramped. Placing the faces or eyes near opposing rule-of-thirds points can help balance the composition and create room for that implied context.
In a tight space with a 50mm lens, you may simply not be able to make the original idea work, and that’s okay. Another possible option is to change viewpoint and shoot more from the looked-at subject’s direction (“lizard’s-eye view”), but that may alter expressions or interrupt the moment.
So the main answer is: make the photo about the people’s reaction, not the unseen lizard, and use framing/cropping to suggest what lies outside the image.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How should I position a subject in the frame when the face is turned away from the body?
Is there a specific term for a portrait where the subject looks out of frame?
How can I compose a photo of an adult and child so the adult doesn’t dominate the frame?
Will an 85mm prime give me more background blur than a 50mm f/1.8 on a Nikon D3100?
How can I photograph a room with a window without blowing out the sky or losing the interior?