Filling the frame

A good rule for creating simple and impactful photographs is to think of pictures as short stories. This means only including what is relevant - no more, no less. As we've said before: anything that doesn't add to to a picture, detracts from it. Hoewver, this article is not so much concerned with background clutter which weakens backgrounds and distracts the eye, but more with the use of space, and the relative sizes of objects to one another, and within the frame.
My background is in regional newspapers; they require that pictures be 'to the point', summing up the story in one image. Space is limited, and as such the more of it there is, the more the relative size of key elements in the photograph is reduced. 'Dead space' is empty or unused space which does nothing for the picture. And so, the 'technique' discussed in this article relates directly to the general principle behind it. The article could equally be titled: "What are you taking a picture of?"

Let's look at an example. I persuaded the smiling couple below to pose for a few images. Their proximity to each other determines how we can fill the frame:

The first picture (top left) contains a lot of wasted space. Cropping (right) goes some way to improving the image; their relative size within the frame has increased. Cropping much more would be impossible without losing one of our happy models.

So I asked them to stand nearer to each other, and the picture is tighter - instantly improved (above left). By getting closer myself, zooming in, or cropping, we can get an even better shot (right).

Finally, they stand next to each other (left), and with a bit of a crop, we remove most of the remaining dead space. Note that it's now an upright picture, which more closely approximates their shape as a pair.

If you stand several feet away from your screen you should still be able to see what this picture is, whereas for the first picture, you can't.

I should point out that having everything closer and larger in the frame is not necessarily always the 'answer' in every situation (nor it is even possible). Also, I suspect that in always aiming to reduce an image to it's lowest common denomintors every time, I feel we risk sacrificing any artistic licence for the sake of simplicity. We get everything so close there's no room to breathe. Tight crops, bare essentials. We end up not with haikus, nor short stories, but with children's stories. Easy to read. Shallow. Forgettable. At best, tabloid images*.

What I would say is this: start with this approach (what is the picture about?), and keep in mind the thinking behind it (aiming for simplicity, impact). Practise, practise, practise, learning how it works and can be acheived in different situations (it's an aspect of of working around the subject, as well as properties of objects). Then start to 'loosen up' (breaking the rules). It's perhaps best considered a style or mindset, rather than a goal, although the principle holds firm in varying ways - even for the most broadsheet-style of shooting.

So, you contain the relevant information in the simplest way. You give greater prominence to what is important, and less (or none) to everything else. In a nutshell.

How do you do it?

First we have are simplifying techniques which, here, amount to the same thing: get closer to your subject, or zoom in.

With these two, things towards the edge of the frame will be lost. Your subject will become larger within the frame as you give more prominence to what is important.**

I'm often surprised at how close I can get. Or rather - and I especially find this with people - I get closer and it starts to look wrong, and when I continue getting closer it starts to look better again. Peaks and troughs of how good the frame is, based on proximity to the subject. It's as if it becomes a new photo entirely (with a changed internal composition) which I'm taking with each few steps forward - or turn of the zoom lens.***

On this last point, extreme closeness can be very effective. Showing 'part for whole', and filling the frame entirely with one aspect of your subject ensures there's no dead space. I've never been particularly brave in this respect (!) but (right) here is a photo I took of a (much larger) statue which illustrates the point.

Cropping is next. The crop tool is one of the most powerful editing tools at your disposal. Not only does it allow for getting rid of the edges, but it allows you to change the shape of your image. Many (most?) things we photograph don't fit a pleasing 3:2 ratio which fits neatly in the viewfinder. They are square, round (which might result in a square crop too) or letterbox-shaped. No matter how good you are, it's impossible to fill a frame with a photograph of an entire football (try it). You'd either crop a square later, or perhaps opt to crop in closer (cutting out the edges) if you did need to fit to shape. Also, the crop tool forgives the peripheral clutter you may have missed at the time, by getting rid of it.

Here's a picture of our friends outside their house (below left). The house is slightly square, and only a crop would fill the frame. Yes, I could move around to the side, although this would leave space above at the far end of the house. So I asked them to come forward, and went in closer myself (below right). Being larger in the frame, they're not blocking important information (it's quite obviously a house), but as key parts of the picture they do fill the frame better. It's part for whole. And the emphasis has changed. The first picture is more about the house, the second is more about the owners.

Let's look at other ways to fill the frame. Changing your perspective is a good option. As we've just said, bear in mind the shape, or possible shape(s), and relative sizes of your subjects.

So, photographing something letterbox-shaped will, by definition, result in dead space. But taken from the side, the shape changes dramatically. It's the same idea as for the picture on the left, which here exaggerates the size of the fist by getting close to it. By moving directly backwards, the relative sizes of head and hand regain more usual proportions, but there would be dead space above and below the fist.

Related to this is the more general principle of having things closer together within the frame. We talked about this with the five toy photographs at the beginning of this article. We got the couple close together, though it's worth noting that they could be put 'cheek to cheek', or at least one could be standing partly behind the other to get rid of the 'dead space' of their clothing. The closest it's possible to get (I think) is to have one object behind another - a kind of frame - as in this picture of a girl and a jar of honey (left).

Apart from other more obvious framing possibilities, sometimes there is an opportunity to fill up the space by 'breaking up' the dead space (above right). The trees help to fill the frame; imagine the picture without them, and there would be no justification for such a loose composition. The picture of the blue man (right) uses a similar idea.

It reminds me of one more common technique; a kind of framing which justifies a looser composition by giving the impression that the surroundings continue forever (below). The frame is filled in a very literal sense.

Having said all this, with such emphasis on tightness, you do often need some space for the subject to 'breathe', as in the image of the field worker. As we mentioned, too many pictures too close, and pictures become cramped. So for a portrait of someone at home, a little extra in the frame can help to locate your subject, without necessarily resulting in dead space. As you move back, you can give information as to the clothes they're wearing, then their pose, then how they 'sit' in their space, their body language. Further back and you include perhaps their furniture, even the type of books they like to read. The picture is looser every time, but there is enough useful information to justify the space. The picture is different with each shot, the message, point or emphasis of the picture changes with each choice you make.

I should just add that we talked elsewhere about composition. No matter how far backwards you go (as in the case just mentioned), or close in, your composition remains important, and you usually have some control over this. So for a portrait, a close-up of a face typically has the eyes as the subject (within the overall subject of the portrait). Further back, it's the head, then the upper torso, then the whole body in relation to the location. And by moving the subject within the frame, you can fill it in different ways.

I should stress again that this article is a simplification of the idea of filling the frame. I have touched upon a few different techniques to achieve it, but the principle is more important than these methods. It all comes back to what you want to show, and what story you are telling. What is important, and what isn't. Ultimately, what are you taking a picture of? And how can you make the best of it in the situation?

* At the extreme, we see this type of 'tight and bright' photography in the tabloids. I don't mean this negatively, it's highly skilled work and tells the story very directly. At the other end of the scale, broadsheet newspapers, quality magazines, Sunday supplements, what many of us think of as 'photojournalism' etc. often have a looser style - more like a novel than a short story. While no picture space is 'wasted' as such, the extra space ensures the viewer dwells on the image, thinks a little. The meaning of the picture is not so obvious at a glance - rather a mood is created, and any small details or other elements all add up to help tell the story.

**"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa

***Certainly with people this can be explained partly with the idea that there are certain points which 'work' cropped at the edges, and others which don't. Cropping at joints e.g. at the elbow or knee doesn't usually feel right. Nor just on the edges of a person's extremities e.g. fingertips, ears, shoes. Whereas waists (just above or below), thighs, and ankles usually work at the edge of the frame.