composition comparison, news photos

[Ernest Burden]

Today I was looking at news sites, and noticed that there were two identical yet completely different photos used at the top of the CNN and MSNBC sites to illustrate articles about the Pope's Easter message. They show the same thing, but by using different angles and arrangements tell very different stories. I think there is something to be learned by comparing them:



Both photos show the Pope at his Easter address in Saint Peter's Square (but its not square!). They have the Pope, his crucifix scepter, the worshipers and details of the architecture. And yet they are so different.

The left photo shows the more direct connection of the Pope to the people in the Square, and more detail in the building. But I find it a confused image. The Pope is near the people, but not facing them. His scepter is aligned with the statuary beyond, confusing their hierarchy of importance as symbols. You don't know where the Pope is looking. His face is showing, so you want to look at it, but it's cut by his staff. The distinctive shape of his hat is lost in a meaningless piece of architecture--what is that, anyway? Everything in the image is of about the same contrast. Overall, the image is not 'grand'. Yet it does make the point of the Pope going down to be with the people, which is important to the story of what happened.

The picture on the right presents a regal scene with strong hierarchy of people, architecture and symbols. The cross rises above the crowd, there is no confusion about which statue is the most important one. The architecture we see shows its role in defining the square but also its own grandeur. The bit sticking up does not compete with the Pope but instead supports his shape and color. The hat looks like a Pope hat should, beautifully lit and its shape nicely revealed, along with the two 'tails' which connect down to the rest of the robe. The Pope is addressing the people, and there are many, many people. His shape is strong, their shape is unified almost to being a single entity. The foreground has strong contrast and the background fades predictably to softer tones. This is a sweeping canvas (cropped from a nicer wide landscape so I could fit them here better) showing a structure of message from prominent to common, leader to follower, high to low, ornate to plain. You could argue that it loses the connection between the Pope and his followers, which the other image demonstrates. But for me, the right image is the winner.

So when you have a project to show, try different angles, not just the obvious ones. Think about the story you want to tell about the space, what is important to show and whether some parts should be shown dominant, or as equals having a 'communication'. As we see with the news photos, the same exact architecture and entourage can be presented in very different ways. Our job as illustrators is to find the best ways to present our projects, and there is no 'right' way.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

i almost popped open both msnbc, and cnn to see which site has which photo, but then i changed my mind. i am guessing the photo on the right is the msnbc photo for a couple of reasons, but mainly they simply show more appreciation for the art of photography than cnn ever has.

also, from the a digital standpoint cnn continually posts low quality, highly compressed images. the images are small, and don't show a lot of detail, and often they lack saturation and visual punch.

when you compare them with what msnbc does, it is not contest. look no further than msnbc's picture story section, and you will see what i mean. always beautiful images.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3842331/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5114929/



.

[AJLynn]

I just found this recently and it's surely one of the greatest things on the Internet:

Go to http://creative.gettyimages.com and download their Live browser (it's free). Run it and you'll see feeds of scrolling images from their server. If you see something interesting, click it and it brings up a web page of photos from whatever event it was, and you can click them to see larger versions with captions.

BTW, it's Piazza San Pietro (no square shape necessarily implied in Italian) and they're different looking pictures because they are different. On the right he's on his balcony overlooking the crowd, but on the left you can see that he's standing in the piazza.

Also, the left-to-right relationship is important - I've seen studies where the same pictures have been shown to American, European and Japanese subjects, and the Americans and Europeans usually interpret the photo as the person/people on the left doing something to/involving the person/people on the right, while with the Japanese it was the reverse when they first did the studies, but it's switched. The theory is that it has to do with the way our eyes have been trained to go left to right by reading - in Japanese you used to write right to left but for the last several decades they've been using much more left to right. (News photographers know this and I'd swear it seems like sometimes they're using it to cause a certain interpretation.) So in the left picture, the crowd is observing the pope as he moves through the square, while in the right picture the pope is addressing the crowd.

And, notice the shape of the Pope's hat. It doesn't make any sense... UNLESS IT WAS DESIGNED FOR A RABBIT!

[Ernest Burden]

they're different looking pictures because they are different. On the right he's on his balcony overlooking the crowd, but on the left you can see that he's standing in the piazza.

Noted

it does make the point of the Pope going down to be with the people, which is important to the story of what happened.

But both use the same mix of elements. In arch-vis we cannot easily move a major element to another part of the scene, but we can move entourage around, and use camera angles carefully to 'bias' the scene in the same way that these two photos bias the same story.

I like your point about reading right to left versus left to right. That is something we can use to our advantage, as well. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Dibbers]

Also, the left image is taken by an amateur (a quick snap in the excitement), and the right, obviously by a professional.

[nasu]

Sorry, for some reason, the pics can't be displayed in this page.

[Ernest Burden]

Sorry, for some reason, the pics can't be displayed in this page.

Can you open my website www.oreally.com ? The image is linked from that site. Perhaps you have some sort of IP blocking in place? I've heard that China has some national-level restriction to where its people can go on the Internet. If that's true, maybe this is an example?

Anyway, I've uploaded the image to this post. You obviously can access this site.

[Ernest Burden]

Also, the left image is taken by an amateur (a quick snap in the excitement), and the right, obviously by a professional.

The left image still bears the 'Getty Images' tag. That's the work of a paid pro, my friend. (Unless Getty buys man-on-the-street pictures). However, the right image was taken by someone with access to the very balcony from which the address was made, so probably a pool reporter, or an official Vatican photographer.

A lot of news images are literally made on the run and under fire, so you understand that the photographers don't have time to carefully compose their images. But we do, and should.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

to harp on the CNN vs MSNBC quality thing some more, MSNBC gives credit to the photographer as well as the source directly next to the image on the main page. CNN only credits the source. small detail that is not relevant to the composition.

[Ernest Burden]

To be fair, I should have looked for and posted the photog credit on MSNBC, which I didn't. The CNN image bears the Getty stamp, so its obvious.