Great post. I’ve principally worked in academic science during my adult life, doing a bunch of scientific imaging there, but have also trained in graphic design. I follow along here because of the strong sense of understanding communicated herein. Great example of that here.
I’ll say this though, not that it contrasts anything said here, just that it’s a trap I’ve seen many fall into. Theory is just a conjecture we use to explain things that are empirically so. It’s not doctrine. Something isn’t good because it conforms to some theory. There’s no causation there. Any theory we have about why we think of something as being good is really just a guess that’s somewhat robust to critique, but it’s not like we have great, mechanistic theories in Gestalt psychology. So, I suggest people trust their judgement first, however they get to a given layout (and sure, use these theories as guides). The real key is to be critical. In this domain, it’s always comparative. There’s no right and wrong.
Absolutely, I hope I did not come off as giving some formula or recipe as that is the antithesis of what I was attempting to articulate. I merely was attempting to convey a sense of paying attention to thoughts of design and within that the breaking of pattern but in a meaningful way and beyond that how the content and design are always playing against one another and informing one another rather than some sort of recipe or standard.
You didn’t. I was just trying to head off a problem I’ve seen often, and was maybe hinted at in a comment. The pattern breaking thing is a particularly good insight. It was taught to my design class in a very direct and obvious sense, but patterns are so much more extensive. They span literally every sensory input we receive when scaled, are nested, and occur in ideas and other aspects of our cognition. They essentially define how we perceive the world around us and are fertile ground to find ways to make things stick out. The trick is, have them stick out just right.
So hard to put my thoughts into words and worse, trying so hard to make those thoughts work with other people's work constrained in a three day workshop attempting to accomplishing so much.
No doubt! In a research lab I'm typically mentoring people for 4 months out to a handful of years. Poor souls, haha. I expect you meet with a great deal of success. Ambition is a wonderful thing.
Design is important because the human brain seeks order, balance, and visual appeal; well-crafted images are more engaging, memorable, and emotionally impactful. These timeless principles, borrowed from art and graphic design, apply across all genres — from landscapes and portraits to street and abstract photography.
Yes! The interesting thing is the more attention you pay to design "after the fact" the more you pay attention to it when making photographs as well. That feedback I talked about today goes deeper. A topic for another day!
Salvador Dalí, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and many National Geographic images subtly use it.
Landscape masters like Ansel Adams and modern photographers often crop to phi proportions.
It’s not “better” in every situation — sometimes Rule of Thirds is cleaner and more direct — but when it fits, the Golden Ratio produces images that feel timeless and profoundly satisfying.
Great post. I’ve principally worked in academic science during my adult life, doing a bunch of scientific imaging there, but have also trained in graphic design. I follow along here because of the strong sense of understanding communicated herein. Great example of that here.
I’ll say this though, not that it contrasts anything said here, just that it’s a trap I’ve seen many fall into. Theory is just a conjecture we use to explain things that are empirically so. It’s not doctrine. Something isn’t good because it conforms to some theory. There’s no causation there. Any theory we have about why we think of something as being good is really just a guess that’s somewhat robust to critique, but it’s not like we have great, mechanistic theories in Gestalt psychology. So, I suggest people trust their judgement first, however they get to a given layout (and sure, use these theories as guides). The real key is to be critical. In this domain, it’s always comparative. There’s no right and wrong.
Absolutely, I hope I did not come off as giving some formula or recipe as that is the antithesis of what I was attempting to articulate. I merely was attempting to convey a sense of paying attention to thoughts of design and within that the breaking of pattern but in a meaningful way and beyond that how the content and design are always playing against one another and informing one another rather than some sort of recipe or standard.
You didn’t. I was just trying to head off a problem I’ve seen often, and was maybe hinted at in a comment. The pattern breaking thing is a particularly good insight. It was taught to my design class in a very direct and obvious sense, but patterns are so much more extensive. They span literally every sensory input we receive when scaled, are nested, and occur in ideas and other aspects of our cognition. They essentially define how we perceive the world around us and are fertile ground to find ways to make things stick out. The trick is, have them stick out just right.
So hard to put my thoughts into words and worse, trying so hard to make those thoughts work with other people's work constrained in a three day workshop attempting to accomplishing so much.
No doubt! In a research lab I'm typically mentoring people for 4 months out to a handful of years. Poor souls, haha. I expect you meet with a great deal of success. Ambition is a wonderful thing.
Design is important because the human brain seeks order, balance, and visual appeal; well-crafted images are more engaging, memorable, and emotionally impactful. These timeless principles, borrowed from art and graphic design, apply across all genres — from landscapes and portraits to street and abstract photography.
Yes! The interesting thing is the more attention you pay to design "after the fact" the more you pay attention to it when making photographs as well. That feedback I talked about today goes deeper. A topic for another day!
Yes, Rule of Thirds is great for visual examples.
Salvador Dalí, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and many National Geographic images subtly use it.
Landscape masters like Ansel Adams and modern photographers often crop to phi proportions.
It’s not “better” in every situation — sometimes Rule of Thirds is cleaner and more direct — but when it fits, the Golden Ratio produces images that feel timeless and profoundly satisfying.