Why Doesn't It Work?

This is the companion post to, “Why does it work?”  Unfortunately, it’s the other way around.  In my reviewing of previous work from southern Utah in preparation for our trip this fall, I came across an image that has plenty of elements that should make it compelling.  But somehow it falls flat on its face.  The question is why?  One can learn from this type of failure so, as I said in the companion piece, “that has the makings of a great blog post!”

The image comes from our trip last year, where we spent a couple of days around Devil’s Garden in the Grand Staircase Escalante.  It’s a location we’re planning on hitting again before a certain administration does its best to ruin the place, so it’s worth revisiting those images to gain ideas about where I want to explore.

When I said there are lots of elements that should make this image compelling, I really meant it.  Let’s start at the bottom of the image.  There’s an interesting tree (bush?) with exposed roots that has a lot of character.  Its darker leaves helps ground the image, giving some visual mass on the bottom  of the frame so that the more dynamic parts of the upper image don’t make things seem top heavy.  Then off to the left is the textured wall, which adds a bit of diversity to an otherwise fairly consistent layer of slick rock and weighs down the left lower side of the image to balance off the fairly dark tree.  So far so good.

Then we come to what actually caught my eye, which is the triangle of light that is formed in the midsection of the frame and that creates a separation between the two sets of rock, both of which present a face that is largely in shadow to the viewer.  That splash of light helps give the image a sense of depth and also, because of the sun raking across its face to reveal the texture of the slick rock, lets you know that it is not as planar as one may think.  Again, this is something that should help the image.  Even more so because it is bounded on the top by a clearly darker layer that is much more textural than the slick rock.

Even that darker layer provides a sense of depth because of the gap between that same layer on the front rock and the rear rock.  While it was that bright splash of light that first caught my eye, much of my positioning was to emphasize that separation between the rocks.  That, in part determined my positioning on the ground; the bush at the bottom  (and that tuft of grass to the left) determined my framing for the bottom edge.  

That placement of the camera was larger dictated by the protrusion of the top layer of the rear rock and to create a sense of visual tension between it (even brighter because it was side lit) and the front rock which is in shadow.  I’ll have to talk about the concept of “ma” that is almost always on my mind when photographing - but that’s another blog post.  For now, that visual space between the front and rear rocks, with the background clouds filling the gap, was critical in my mind when I made this image.  

And on that upper layer of the rear rock, there was an element that told me where the right side of the frame should be - the hole.  It too adds to the sense of depth, and the contrast in light between the hole and the rock around it creates a visual mass that helps balance the tension on the far left side of the frame created by the space between the two rocks.

And to cap it off, the skies cooperated.  Often Utah has cloudless blue skies which are, in a word, boring.  Here, not only do we have textured clouds, it has even allowed blue to break through in the upper left corner to emphasize the top curve of the rock on the left.  

What could possibly not work with this image?  I’m still not totally sure what is the problem, but I look at it and I feel something is lacking.  Which means there is a problem.  It’s like cooking a meal where you like every single ingredient you’ve used, but for some reason the taste is not incredible.  It should be, but it isn’t.  That’s this image.

The best I can come up with so far is that it simply has too much going on.  Not the type of image where there are too many distracting elements as a result of the chaos of nature; simply too many things going on.  Too much of a good thing.  Too much candy.  Too many flavors.  To return to the cooking analogy, I should have used fewer ingredients.  Forget the farmer’s omelette, how about an omelette with gruyere and sautéed shallots?

I don’t know if I realized it at the time that the above image wouldn’t quite work out, but I simplified things greatly on my very next image that day.  I decided to concentrate on something that I became aware of only while I was composing the first image on the camera screen - the bush on the bottom of the frame.

This image is much simpler.  While in many ways there is a lot to explore in this image, there is a strong subject (the bush) that the eye always returns to.  Your eye may wander and explore the rock forms, but it always returns to the bush and its roots. 

And in some ways, the image is even stronger in black and white.  It speaks a lot about the strength of the forms and composition that it works in both.

Perhaps the failings of the first image is simply that - too much of a good thing.  

Then again, maybe it’s just how the pieces are put together, or that the image needed more context to make it all work out.  I guess I’ll just have to keep at it; that or I’ll never figure it out!