Posted by David Bostock on January 18, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Great Blue Heron, Canon 7D, 300mm f/2.8L + 1.4 TC, 1/500 sec @ f/4.5, ISO 400
Wade’s fine image of a GBH got me thinking about the design concept of closure. I’ve spent a number of years trying to better understand design concepts in photography—subject placement, selective focus, proximity, similarity, continuity, closure...I’ve internalized these concepts and they come pretty naturally for me now. For better or worse, I find myself applying the concepts when I frame in the field or when I crop after the fact. I also tend to apply them when I critique images.
Closure is a principle of gestalt theory, which is defined as the psychology that “interprets phenomena as organized wholes rather than as aggregates of distinct parts, maintaining that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (http://www.answers.com/topic/gestalt-psychology). According to Richard D. Zakia closure can be described as “nearly complete familiar lines and shapes are more readily seen as complete (closed) than incomplete lines and shapes. We see shapes and lines that are familiar as complete—even though the frame inhibits visual closure, our minds can complete the image.
Closure is why many close-up portraits work so well. We can cut off the hair, top of the head, or side and still have an engaging, successful image. The same thing is often achieved in wildlife…close-ups of animals and birds often cut off portions of their heads to great effect.
But what makes closure successful in one image and not in another? When does cutting off a portion of the subject contribute to the esthetic or psychological success and when does it detract? I think it boils down to how easily the mind can make the closure/continuation connection. If the subject is familiar and the viewer doesn’t have to work too hard to make that closure, then it’s successful. If there’s not too much outside the frame that the mind has to imagine, then it can make the connection. Similarly, if too little is cut off, then it may seem like a mistake rather than intentional employment of closure. Like everything in design, whether it’s photography, architecture, sculpture, or painting, the esthetics can be very subjective. Closure is no exception.
So after that long winded and probably boring discussion, I get to the picture at the top. First, this is a full frame shot of the heron. He was about 10 feet from me when I took the shot. I purposely decided to go ahead and take it to see if it would turn out. I thought it would, and I personally like it, but am interested in what others think. Does the cut off beak bother you? Does it work for you because of the concept of closure? My own critique is that I wish it had just a bit more of the neck on the right, it feels too thin. I look forward to your thoughts.
Posted by David Bostock on January 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM
I'd vote for more neck, too, David. Bet you could by extending the canvas and painting if you wanted to go to the effort. I think it would be worth it.
Appreciate your discussion of the concept of closure. Nice to have a concept known intuitively (i.e. pretty natural to do with macro and close-ups) brought to clear reason. Trying it with a subject like this is kudos to you!
Posted by Cliff Dodge on January 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Very nice. I see the view you are mentioning, and i like it.
Posted by Dave Renwald on January 20, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I think the viewer's eye moves around much more with this composition because it is not a "complete" picture and neat and tidy. The eye is much more dominant, pulling me in more into the nature of the bird. These dont always work for me, but this certainly does.
Posted by John Williams on January 23, 2010 at 11:56 AM
I love it, especially with a subject like GBH. They are so large and stand so still that they are probably the most common bird photographed around here; you really have to do something different to get them to "stand out." This does the job well!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM
David,
BANG! <-- sound of the nail gun going off, because you nailed it! To me that beak and eye are the focus of this image, and it all sits so comfortably in your composition. Look at the eye, placed perfectly in the top-right third intersect, and he seems to be looking at something down in the LLC, so the image just feels complete. This is great timing this post, I really absorbed what you wrote, especially when you said "I think it boils down to how easily the mind can make the closure/continuation connection.". That's the part I've been forcing myself to change, to not be afraid to shoot a PART of a subject and let the mind fill in the rest. As long as the section you pick out for your comp is comfortable to view (my uneducated way of saying "follow proper rules of design"), the image will work. Your shot is a stellar example. This post definitely gets printed off and put in my binder of learning.
Discussion
8 repliesWade’s fine image of a GBH got me thinking about the design concept of closure. I’ve spent a number of years trying to better understand design concepts in photography—subject placement, selective focus, proximity, similarity, continuity, closure...I’ve internalized these concepts and they come pretty naturally for me now. For better or worse, I find myself applying the concepts when I frame in the field or when I crop after the fact. I also tend to apply them when I critique images.
Closure is a principle of gestalt theory, which is defined as the psychology that “interprets phenomena as organized wholes rather than as aggregates of distinct parts, maintaining that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (http://www.answers.com/topic/gestalt-psychology). According to Richard D. Zakia closure can be described as “nearly complete familiar lines and shapes are more readily seen as complete (closed) than incomplete lines and shapes. We see shapes and lines that are familiar as complete—even though the frame inhibits visual closure, our minds can complete the image.
Closure is why many close-up portraits work so well. We can cut off the hair, top of the head, or side and still have an engaging, successful image. The same thing is often achieved in wildlife…close-ups of animals and birds often cut off portions of their heads to great effect.
But what makes closure successful in one image and not in another? When does cutting off a portion of the subject contribute to the esthetic or psychological success and when does it detract? I think it boils down to how easily the mind can make the closure/continuation connection. If the subject is familiar and the viewer doesn’t have to work too hard to make that closure, then it’s successful. If there’s not too much outside the frame that the mind has to imagine, then it can make the connection. Similarly, if too little is cut off, then it may seem like a mistake rather than intentional employment of closure. Like everything in design, whether it’s photography, architecture, sculpture, or painting, the esthetics can be very subjective. Closure is no exception.
So after that long winded and probably boring discussion, I get to the picture at the top. First, this is a full frame shot of the heron. He was about 10 feet from me when I took the shot. I purposely decided to go ahead and take it to see if it would turn out. I thought it would, and I personally like it, but am interested in what others think. Does the cut off beak bother you? Does it work for you because of the concept of closure? My own critique is that I wish it had just a bit more of the neck on the right, it feels too thin. I look forward to your thoughts.
Appreciate your discussion of the concept of closure. Nice to have a concept known intuitively (i.e. pretty natural to do with macro and close-ups) brought to clear reason. Trying it with a subject like this is kudos to you!
BANG! <-- sound of the nail gun going off, because you nailed it! To me that beak and eye are the focus of this image, and it all sits so comfortably in your composition. Look at the eye, placed perfectly in the top-right third intersect, and he seems to be looking at something down in the LLC, so the image just feels complete. This is great timing this post, I really absorbed what you wrote, especially when you said "I think it boils down to how easily the mind can make the closure/continuation connection.". That's the part I've been forcing myself to change, to not be afraid to shoot a PART of a subject and let the mind fill in the rest. As long as the section you pick out for your comp is comfortable to view (my uneducated way of saying "follow proper rules of design"), the image will work. Your shot is a stellar example. This post definitely gets printed off and put in my binder of learning.