Are leading lines and visual paths real?

[bleirer]

A lot is made of visual paths. The general idea that you want the viewer to land on the area of emphasis/focal point, but you want their eye to take a journey through your image to be guided to the focal point. The classic paths I've seen in reading about it are identified as triangular, S or reverse S/serpentine, C or reverse C, U or upside down U, spiral, converging, L shaped, or paths formed by gradation.

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast? Or simply seeking things we are familiar with, like where's Waldo.

 

[DRwyoming]

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast?

I don't think of it as one or the other. Sure the eye tends towards bright areas and areas of high contrast. But leading lines still direct the viewer's gaze in artwork and photos. Sometimes those leading lines lead towards areas of high contrast or brighter areas or areas of more saturated color but sometimes the work is more subtle and the leading lines still draw the eye towards some primary subject matter.

IMO, other lines like implied motion or sight lines can also draw the viewer's gaze and in those cases it's often drawing them away from areas of high contrast, brightness or high color saturation. IOW, a bird flying left to right across the frame but positioned to look right out of the right side of the frame can still draw the viewer's eyes but not towards anything else of high interest as much as towards negative space and out of the frame entirely.

I'd say many compositional concepts play with or against one another and it's not really one or the other as much as the combination of different techniques that can make or break the composition of an image. And like all artwork rules, compositional guidelines can be broken with great impact when something in the image overrides the basic guidelines.

 

[Dave Stargazer]

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast? Or simply seeking things we are familiar with, like where's Waldo.

Entire fields of psychological study exist for human perception The bottom line is that different people see/perceive things differently - sometimes/often radically.

E.g. it's often stated that "a person's eye immediately goes to the brightest part of the image" - which is often true, but not always. Blake Rudis had a vid where he was analyzing a "great work" and said his eye went to the brightest part of the painting (the clouds in the sky), but mine didn't - it went right to the subject figures in the lower part of the painting - with the greatest *color* contrast. I'd surprised if the painter wanted you to look at the clouds first rather than the subject figures.

@bleirer - can you point me to a source for these various "classic paths"? I'd like to see them - TIA!

 

[bleirer]

Entire fields of psychological study exist for human perception The bottom line is that different people see/perceive things differently - sometimes/often radically.

E.g. it's often stated that "a person's eye immediately goes to the brightest part of the image" - which is often true, but not always. Blake Rudis had a vid where he was analyzing a "great work" and said his eye went to the brightest part of the painting (the clouds in the sky), but mine didn't - it went right to the subject figures in the lower part of the painting - with the greatest *color* contrast. I'd surprised if the painter wanted you to look at the clouds first rather than the subject figures.

@bleirer - can you point me to a source for these various "classic paths"? I'd like to see them - TIA!

I think they are often a standard part of art education curriculum. So just googling visual paths in art or visual movement in art will get a lot of links where they might use different terms for the various paths, but the same general idea.

Here's one site I like to read https://emptyeasel.com/2008/10/21/6...e-visual-paths-of-interest-in-your-paintings/

 

[bleirer]

I don't think of it as one or the other. Sure the eye tends towards bright areas and areas of high contrast. But leading lines still direct the viewer's gaze in artwork and photos. Sometimes those leading lines lead towards areas of high contrast or brighter areas or areas of more saturated color but sometimes the work is more subtle and the leading lines still draw the eye towards some primary subject matter.

IMO, other lines like implied motion or sight lines can also draw the viewer's gaze and in those cases it's often drawing them away from areas of high contrast, brightness or high color saturation. IOW, a flying bird flying left to right across the frame but positioned to look right out of the right side of the frame can still draw the viewer's eyes but not towards anything else of high interest as much as towards negative space and out of the frame entirely.

I'd say many compositional concepts play with or against one another and it's not really one or the other as much as the combination of different techniques that can make or break the composition of an image. And like all artwork rules, compositional guidelines can be broken with great impact when something in the image overrides the basic guidelines.

I'd agree. I think context is really important, in the sense that we humans relate everything to ourselves. So in a picture we notice other people, other living things especially animals, paths we might walk on or indications of something leading to an opening, and shapes that seem similar to human abstract concepts or human made objects like triangle, square, circle, etc.

 

[bleirer]

This is a series of articles about eye tracking and using tech to follow the movement of our eyes when we look at pictures.

Eye Tracking and Composition, Part 1

When a viewer looks at a painting, how does the eye travel? Does it move in a circular pathway? Does it follow contours? Does it go to the g...

gurneyjourney.blogspot.com

 

[JAS]

There is much info, as cited above, that evaluates how people tend to look at images/paintings/etc. These are generalized and will differ from person to the next based on many factors - your own visual acuity, how you see colors, your own training and any specific training you m,ay have had. I, for instance, have less than ideal color vision, so that is seldom my primary draw. Light to dark; in focus to out of focus; presence of people or other figures, etc., are the paths my eyes tend to follow.

I know from experience that my other half, with her greater color sensitivity and better visual acuity, sees things differently from how I see them. How do your own eyes work?

 

[bleirer]

It's a little bit of a cliche, but squinting really does reveal the major blocks of color and brightness. Even in the real world if I'm trying to see what is the brightest and the darkest thing in the scene is. But squinting at a photo or painting tells me something about the path the eyes might want to follow.

 

[txstone]

I looked for a few references on ‘visual pathways’ and found what I thought was a good description in ART FUNDAMENTALS, Theory and Practice. See the definition of the elements of Movement, ‘eye travel as directed by visual pathways’, pg 46 and pg 83, for a more detailed description.

“Movement: Eye travel directed by visual pathways in a work of art; one of the principles of organization. Movement is guided by harmonious connections, areas of variety, the placement of visual weights, areas of dominance, choices in proportions, spatial devices, and so on.”

My impression is that visual pathways in art are much more complex than leading lines, as we are used to in photography. As the discussion here points out, there are more elements, more scheming involved in how you attempt to capture eye travel, even what techniques you can use to lead the viewer to elements of interest. As photographers, we don’t have as many preplanning options, but we may be able to recognize features to help lead our viewers through the scene.

 

[bleirer]

I think you are right that photography doesn't offer as many options as painting where you can place objects anywhere. But in composing in photography one has positioning and subject distance, cropping in post and the ability to remove or reposition elements. Plus the ability to control and gradate not only value/luminosity but also saturation and hue. So I think a lot could be done if someone saw the possibilities in their minds eye. For example a serpentine pathway in a landscape or triangular positioning of 3 birds, etc.

 

[txstone]

Good point - so I took it down.

Looking forward to your examples, esp. a serpentine pathway..

 

[bleirer]

Good point - so I took it down.

Looking forward to your examples, esp. a serpentine pathway..

Me and a million others each year have a shot of the snake river overlook or oxbow bend in GTNP.

Snake River Overlook (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[Calson]

A lot is made of visual paths. The general idea that you want the viewer to land on the area of emphasis/focal point, but you want their eye to take a journey through your image to be guided to the focal point. The classic paths I've seen in reading about it are identified as triangular, S or reverse S/serpentine, C or reverse C, U or upside down U, spiral, converging, L shaped, or paths formed by gradation.

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast? Or simply seeking things we are familiar with, like where's Waldo.

The more interesting and involved the scene the more that a leading line or S arrangement will engage the viewer and compel them to look longer at the overall image.

 

[bleirer]

I think for me it would be a reason to leave just a little room for cropping rather than shooting super tight all the time. An opportunity for a visual path might not always be noticed in the field.

 

[bleirer]

I think leading lines are one of the things that can cause visual movement, but only one of many. So it keeps things interesting with all the possibilities. Contrast in light vs. dark no matter the color, how sharp or not sharp the edges are, color or saturation contrast, anything that has a pattern with a direction, even a texture contrast, variation in size such as big bird in foreground and smaller birds as things get more distant.

 

[Roy]

A lot is made of visual paths. The general idea that you want the viewer to land on the area of emphasis/focal point, but you want their eye to take a journey through your image to be guided to the focal point. The classic paths I've seen in reading about it are identified as triangular, S or reverse S/serpentine, C or reverse C, U or upside down U, spiral, converging, L shaped, or paths formed by gradation.

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast? Or simply seeking things we are familiar with, like where's Waldo.

Yes leading lines work, even subconsciously.
But all rules are meant to be broken and the rule of thirds rule is massivly over used ...

 

[O]

A lot is made of visual paths. The general idea that you want the viewer to land on the area of emphasis/focal point, but you want their eye to take a journey through your image to be guided to the focal point. The classic paths I've seen in reading about it are identified as triangular, S or reverse S/serpentine, C or reverse C, U or upside down U, spiral, converging, L shaped, or paths formed by gradation.

What I'm wondering is can the eye really be guided in such a way, or is it much simpler, such as simply seeking the areas of greatest contrast? Or simply seeking things we are familiar with, like where's Waldo.

There are endless scenarios, options methods and most of them work.
The use of light and dark creates contrast = dimension.
Our brains generally see things in 3D or thirds, hence the rule of thirds.
The use of curves and triangle etc are powerful in an image, i use angles with model shoots, as well as the shape of the torso legs arms with elbows bent, the bending of an arm, angles are a powerful tool.

Some countries we read left to to right others right to left, top to bottom, etc etc
Our eye is only the extension of our brain.
As mentioned above we generally gravitate to the brightest part of the image be it by purpose of the author to attract the viewer to a point or trail, or a mistake and therefore its a distraction.

Usually we like to take the journey from a foreground being the anchor for the image then move to a mid frame subject of interest and finally the horizon area, again generally but not always in thirds. if we can build in a s bend the better.


Having a image look natural is welcoming, if its needle sharp from your toes to the branches on the trees 5 kilometers away and everywhere in between looks great to some, clinical and unrealistic to others and often doesn't lead or guide the viewer in cases.

Leading lines are important and work well if available and you capitalize on using them.

Composition is the single most powerful tool that can even overrule super sharpness and some other technical aspects of an image.

FWIW Only an opinion

Some samples of snaps taken by my girlfriend, mostly out of camera as JPEG

1st and 3rd image with the Canon G10 compact = right to left, then left to right with leading lines and triangles

Second is the D3X with 35mm D F2 (highly underrated lens) foreground mid ground horizon, the event was Christmas day how most of us spend it in OZ.

4th image is 24-70 2.8 G and D3X, right hand lower corner, to foreground cascading water, then to leading line of wave to bridge, crossing the sunrise in the distance.

I mean you could edit your heart out with the images but the examples are there.

1st image, do the black rocks add or distract, is it a case where the solid dark point of the rocks on the lower right attracts the eye then leads from the taller to the shorter person all at an angle and another leading line, then with the Tyre tracks at an angle left to right directing the eye to the walkers etc makes another triangle. The girl on the foreshore with her back towards the people directs the viewer even further and makes you wonder what she is looking at.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

Agree Roy, rule of thirds is over used...........

 

[leoparker]

Yes, leading lines and visual paths are real. They are both compositional techniques that use lines to guide the viewer's eye through an image. Leading lines are typically physical objects, such as roads, rivers, or trees, while visual paths can be more abstract, such as the direction of light or the flow of a crowd.

 

[bleirer]

It's interesting for example in painting

Yes, leading lines and visual paths are real. They are both compositional techniques that use lines to guide the viewer's eye through an image. Leading lines are typically physical objects, such as roads, rivers, or trees, while visual paths can be more abstract, such as the direction of light or the flow of a crowd.

It interesting to read about the classic visual pathways as listed earlier. There are not necessarily actual lines, but more implied pathways that guide the eye to work its way through the picture.