T once was a ime in phoography when i was easy o separae good phoographers from average phoographers. Tha disincion largely had o do wih echnical sills. Was he image sharp, was i well exposed, denis ec? For he mos par, ascariasis phoographers had o deermine echnical consideraions for he camera and no many phoographers had heir own darrooms w possible correcions / improvemens laer could be made.

Today, hans o amazing echnology, he camera has become he “brains” behind he phoograph. Now he camera can do he focusing, deermine he exposure, and on and on. All he “phoographer” has o do is press he shuer. As a resul, are lierally millions of echnically correc picures aen daily. How can we disinguish he good from he no as good? Is more o a good phoograph han echnical correcness?

In my , i all boils down o he subleies of how he picure space is used. Some call i visual design, some call i composiion, I call i visual communicaion. To me ha means an undersanding and an appreciaion of he pars of visual speech. How do hey wor ogeher wihin he picure space o produce a pleasing visual essay? Wha mae visual communicaion such a challenge is ha minor changes wihin he picure space can resul in major differences in how he image is perceived by he er, ofen wihou he er nowing why.

I is beyond he scope of his shor essay o analyze he impac of he pars of visual speech, bu caring phoographers always should be aware of he elemens of visual design, or composiion, or visual communicaion, and how hey influence he picure space. Wonderful hough i is, echnology is no enough. Technology is blind; i canno .

Joseph Miller
furnfoo “a” aol.com