Snap Shots: Composition can make for KO pictures

by Harry Flashman

Did you ever stop to consider that what makes a great shot has everything to do with composition, and practically nothing to do with the equipment? With all the latest cameras, the chances of a shot being underexposed or overexposed are virtually nil, and even camera shake is being overcome by tricky electronics. Colors? Almost totally at our discretion. With digital photography, you just wind in a bit more and save the image to disk.

Pascal’s food ‘framed’

So, it is my contention that understanding photographic composition is the key to getting great photographs. It is that alone which differentiates a “good” photo from a “bad” or “ordinary” one? Get the composition correct and you have a winner.
Here’s how. The photographer’s eye is something that you may or may not be blessed with, but these are some easy hints which will improve the composition and final visual effect of any of your photographs. Guaranteed!
The first rule of composition is to “Look for a different viewpoint”. While the standard, “Put the Subject in the Middle of the Viewfinder” idea will at least ensure that you do get a picture of the subject, it will also ensure that your photographs will be dull and boring! If nothing else, always take two shots, one in the “usual” horizontal format (called “landscape”) and the second one in a vertical (portrait) format. You will be amazed just how this simple trick can give you a better picture. Landscapes taken in the vertical format make the viewer look more deeply at what the photographer is trying to say in the picture.
In attempting to get that different viewpoint you should also try to take some shots from something which is not the standard eye-level position. Lie on the floor, climb a ladder - anything! Just don’t get stuck with standard eye-level views.
The next way to add interest to your photographs is to make sure the subject is one third in from either edge of the viewfinder. Just by placing your subject off-center immediately drags your shot out of the “ordinary” basket. The technocrats call this the “Rule of Thirds”, but just try putting the subjects off-center. While still on the Rule of Thirds, don’t have the horizon slap bang in the center of the picture either. Put it one third from the top or one third from the bottom. As a rough rule of thumb, if the sky is interesting put more of it in the picture, but if it is featureless blue or grey include less of it. Simple!
Now what else can you do? One good little trick is to include some details in the foreground of a shot to lead your eye towards the main subject. Look for lines, roads, telephone wires, fences, etc., with strong lines to include in the shot. Arrange the picture so that the lines “point” towards your main subject. A few foreground details also help add interest to any photograph.
One foreground detail to always look for is the possibility of producing a “frame” around the main subject. We call this the “Frame within a Frame” technique. It is a very successful way to convert an ordinary shot into one with a lot of visual appeal. And this is indeed a successful ploy. Any of you who have ever looked at all the entries in a photographic competition will perhaps recall that the winning photographs generally will have used that technique.
Perhaps the last tip in making your shots more interesting is to include people in them where possible. That shot of sweeping rolling hills always looks better if you can put some human interest into it as well. A girl on a horse, a couple on a seat or a jogger all help to elevate a landscape above the hum-drum. Always look to add the human element.
In summary, take any shot in portrait as well as landscape mode, try to avoid just simple eye-level shooting positions, place the subject off center, don’t place the horizon line bang in the middle of the picture, look for frames within a frame and stick people in your pictures to give some interest.

Hillary,
Your column is amazing and my story is not all roses, but I have been in love with Thailand ever since my first visit at Halloween in the year 2000. It was then and in Bangkok that I met the love of my life. We have been married for 5 years now, I’m 49 and she is 29. At the time, I was working in Singapore and needed a break. Little did I know, but while on holiday “Fate” would play its hand and a right turn instead of left brought me face to face with the most beautiful woman on Earth. I will admit I had heard the stories of Thai women and had to find out for myself, but of all of the women I met, she touched my heart. In my eyes she was perfect and in her eyes I was perfect. I wanted a beautiful, loving, caring wife and she wanted someone to love as well as take care of her and her son. I am not the most handsome man and it took me quite a while to realize that I was being shallow by just looking for beauty first and then love.
We got married in Bangkok in a traditional Thai ceremony and we also got married in Singapore in a civil ceremony. It was much easier to bring her and her son to Singapore where we could visit the US Embassy together while progressing the “Spouse Visa”. The whole process took about 2 months and in December 2001, I brought my new bride and son home. It was not easy for her, she was stuck at home all day caring for her son while waiting for me to come home from work. A few things I did not realize were, she was not mobile anymore, no friends and no family other than visits via telephone and now she had to take care of her son 24/7. She was used to working, helping to support the family and an aunt would take care of her son. She started to get very depressed and I suggested that she go back to visit her family for a month or two and I would come as soon as I could, then we could travel back to the USA together. While away from me, her family talked her into not coming back to the USA, but to stay in Thailand. They told her that I would not care and would just visit her when I could. My wife told me that she was not happy in the USA and would remain my wife, but wanted to stay in Thailand. I let this go on for a while and visited when I could, my phone bills were tremendous, but I finally had to give her an ultimatum. I told her that I wanted her with me and that if she could not come back to the USA, I would have to end our marriage. After staying in Thailand for six months she came back home to me.
While apart from her I did a lot of thinking about what she needed to be happy in the USA. Although she would always say that nothing was wrong and everything is “up to you”, she really did not mean it. I bought a car and taught her to drive, brought her to Thai restaurants and introduce her to the Thai and Lao people that worked there, placed her son in day care to get him some education and to give her a break and we also moved to the city, so that she would be closer to shopping and her new friends.
A lot has happened since then. She visits once a year and no longer wants to live in Thailand, but I do. Being on a 4 week on and 4 week off rotation in my current job would allow me to do that. She has a great group of friends that support her. Her family no longer bothers her for money (or at least I do not hear about it) because they have accepted what we are able to give, although sometimes we have to help out in emergencies. Our son is now in the second grade and doing well. I’m the only “Dad” he will ever know. Coming home after 4 weeks away is like another honeymoon. She cares greatly for my children and grandchildren and they care for her.
I know that not many of your submissions turn out as happy as mine, but my story can provide hope for those that still looking. Take care.
Devis from Dixie
Dear Devis from Dixie,
Congratulations! You have discovered that marriage is a partnership, not subjugation! When things were not working out the way you wanted, you had the nous to sit down and listen to your wife’s needs as well as expressing your own. Her depression came from being unable to do the things she was used to, not that America was a strange country. You met these problems head on and worked out the way to find a compromise, by supplying the ingredients to fulfill the needs, and remain as a family in the US. The message you are giving to those in a quandary with their Thai ladies is to learn to look at both sides, and work towards resolution. Well done!

A Female Perspective: Raffles

with Sharona Watson

Raffles: the ultimate luxury.

One thing I hadn’t dreamed about was the possibility of another trip abroad. I told you; my husband likes to surprise me. Sometimes, if not usually, it seems like I’m the last to know. So you can imagine my surprise when one morning I was informed that I should pack my bags. “Where to this time?” was my immediate response. Actually, I was slightly irritated. After all, maybe I had plans? “Singapore” came the response. I greeted the news with something of a sigh, to be honest. I don’t want to appear ungrateful, but I love living where we do. It’s so wonderfully peaceful. Then there’s the business of getting everything ready, the two girls packed and organised; even for a short journey, it seems to take ages.
I’ve been to Singapore before. There are definitely some special areas and great things to do and remembering this seemed to put me in a better mood. Suvarnabhumi airport is much closer than Don Muang for us as well, so maybe it wasn’t going to be so bad after all. It was the children’s half term holiday, so I suppose I should have known that we would probably be going somewhere. It’s not like Andy to let an opportunity to give the kids a break slip by.
It’s the second time we’ve been to the new airport and I have to say I haven’t quite worked out whether I like it yet. For some reason the officials there are very officious, frankly verging on rude sometimes, which shocked me a bit. Then there’s the endless miles to walk and some obvious things like notice boards which are too low, hung in places like the centre of a thoroughfare where a crowd just gathers around, straining to see the information which is in a font so small that you need either binoculars or a magnifying glass to read it, depending on how close or far away you are. I suppose it’s just teething trouble, but in the meantime, there are a lot of passengers whom once they have had enough of admiring the building (which is definitely impressive) will become a little bit irritated by the things which don’t work. I’ve read in the Pattaya Mail and other newspapers of criticism of the toilets (dirty and flooded) and the temperature (which fluctuates terribly) - I just hope they get it right in the end. The sooner the better.
The first thing I always notice about Singapore is the organisation. Everything is in place and functions like clockwork. And the airport? You’d be hard pushed to find anywhere in the world to compare with Changi. Free internet, it’s easy to move around in and actually, you don’t even feel like you’re in a hurry.
The other thing about Singapore is how clean it is. Of course everybody obeys the rules; so much so that I cannot remember seeing any police in the three days we spent there. Maybe they’re all under cover?!
The Indian quarter was a brilliant sight of shining lights of every colour. It was the Hindu festival of Deepavali, the ‘festival of lights’ where people from all ages give expression to their happiness by lighting earthen ‘diyas’ (lamps), decorating the houses, bursting firecrackers and inviting near and dear ones to their households to share in a sumptuous feast. The lighting of lamps is a way of paying obeisance to god for attainment of health, wealth, knowledge, peace, valour and fame.
I had thought that Singapore seemed busier than usual and I was right. Deepavali had coincided this year with Hari Raya Puasa (Day of Celebration), when Muslims celebrate the festival of Aidilfitri to mark the culmination of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting. That’s the thing about Singapore; it’s such a brilliant cultural mix that there’s always something of cultural interest going on; Indians, Malays, Chinese and amongst many others a group called “Eurasians”. It’s brilliant. That also means the food is going to be wonderful and the choice is endless. Of course, it’s much more expensive than Thailand but on holiday, you tend to push the boat out a bit more, don’t you? Especially in the Indian quarter and especially in just about the best shop I’ve been too; five floors of shopping paradise, twenty four hours a day; Mustafa’s.
The best thing came last. I had wondered where we were going to stay. Andy was staying suspiciously quiet on the subject. He’s bad enough to take shopping at the best of times but he seemed unusually keen to get out of Mustafa’s; he claims it’s the only shop he likes going to. Back in a cab (they are great, the Singapore cabbies) and we started driving past some older buildings. We’d taken ‘Tiffin’ in Raffles last time we were in Singapore so I recognised it but when we turned in to the gravel driveway, I was taken completely by surprise. Naturally I was immediately alarmed by the potential cost, but Andy just uttered one of his ridiculous sentences, “Raffles, my dear. Very expensive to those who can afford it, free to those who can’t.” It’s also clearly a place where those who can’t, leave and those who can, stay.
Usually, I’m not one to bask in the reflected glory of the British Empire; where I come from there’s not much glory reflecting from it anyway, but Raffles is an amazing place. With the suite came a (wait for it…) valet, called Terence, whose task it was to attend to our every need, which he did. No detail is overlooked. There’s period furniture alongside every imaginable modern convenience and quite a few things that I hadn’t even imagined; summed up by the Tiffin room, where surely the finest food available anywhere in the world is laid out in front of you as far as the eye can see. The service is so personal and genuine that you feel like you never want to leave. Unfortunately, staying forever wasn’t an option, but it was an unforgettable experience. That’s it; Raffles is less a hotel, more an experience.
Next week: Contortions
[email protected]

Learn to Live to Learn: Trucking with Drucker

by Andrew Watson

If Abraham Maslow is a genius, then in the same category of ‘greatness’ I have to put Austrian-born American management guru, educator, and author Peter Drucker, who specialized in strategy and policy for businesses and social sector organizations. In the field of education management, he’s a top man.
It’s always refreshing to have your beliefs challenged; it gives you the opportunity to justify your belief system, to upgrade where appropriate and to re-evaluate and change where necessary. At a simple level, it’s like asking someone to justify why they support a particular soccer team. In my experience, a typical (English) response would be ‘because you’re supposed to support your local team’. But how many of us carry this logic into other realms? Does the same person who supports their local soccer team, support their local band, or indeed their local art gallery? Do they forego the pleasures of the supermarket to support their local grocer or milkman? Surely it depends on your criteria?
You can imagine the difficulty in trying to convince a football aficionado that there might be different criteria for supporting a soccer team, such as ‘the way they play the game’. For example, my criteria are undoubtedly based on the aesthetic, both at national and international level. The alternative involves a peculiar illogical allegiance tied up in an emotional attachment, which perhaps defies debate; a bogus sense of shared values with people whom you might otherwise cross the road to avoid. Let’s face it; you don’t seriously believe that the club, the players and the management, actually care about you, do you?
Then there’s the involuntary but nonetheless blind hypocrisy of it all. I knew people who used to travel fifty miles to see Arsenal, yet persisted in the delusional, referring to them as their ‘local team’, whilst they would chastise someone for ‘supporting’ Manchester United on identical grounds of ‘distance from the city.’ It’s clearly an unsustainable position. As Paul Merton used to joke, “People ask me, do you live locally? No, I don’t,” he would respond, “I live five miles away from my house in a tent!”
Resistance to redefining a personal paradigm is behind a great deal of inefficiency, injustice and ignorance and these are the kinds of issues that Peter Drucker sought to address. He was interested in the growing importance of people who ‘worked with their minds’ and was intrigued by employees who know more about certain subjects than their bosses or colleagues and yet had to cooperate with others in a large organization. Rather than simply glorify the phenomenon as the epitome of human progress, Drucker analyzed it and explained how it challenged the common thinking about how organizations should be run. Personally, he undid a long standing allegiance to Karl Marx’s world-view of the political-economic landscape.
It was Drucker’s treatise on politics and society that gave him the opportunity to investigate the internal machinations (pun intended) of General Motors. He was fascinated with the “problem of authority” and promoted the “need for dissent and alternatives,” rightly (in my view) pointing out that “unless one has considered alternatives, one has a closed minds”. Following meekly with sycophancy is nothing short of an abdication of responsibility.
The following is a tremendous anecdote (from Drucker, 1974) about the fundamental importance of generating disagreement: At a General Motors meeting, the chairperson is reported to have said; “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here?” Everyone nodded their assent. “Then,” he continued, “I propose that we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”
Surely it is a nonsense to start with a conclusion and look for the facts to support it. Right decisions require “adequate disagreement”; indeed “disagreement” continues Drucker, is “needed to stimulate the imagination”. Moreover, he stresses that what is required above all, is ‘understanding’. The effective manager must ask of another, “What does this person see that would make so different a position seem to him rational?” Unfortunately, the capacity to really see another person’s point of view, which necessarily involves considering the possibility that you are wrong, is often limited by myopia and can be compounded by a genuine lack of interest in considering the possibility of being wrong.
Drucker was a courageous writer. Whilst willing to engage in fierce debate, he wasn’t going to be bullied into submission. Of those appointed to management positions, he speaks of the need to place “uncompromising emphasis on the integrity of character”. For it is character through which leadership is exercised. It is character that sets the example and is imitated in turn. “Character is not something a man (or woman) can acquire,” writes Drucker. “If he does not bring it to the job, he will never have it. It is not something one can fool people about. The people with whom he/she works, especially his/her subordinates, will know in a few weeks whether he or she has integrity or not. They forgive a manager a great deal: (indeed they do; incompetence, ignorance, insecurity or bad manners to name but a few) But they will not forgive lack of integrity. Nor will they forgive higher management for choosing him.”
It’s strong porridge, is Drucker. He goes on, “A man (or woman) should never be appointed to a managerial position if his vision focuses on people’s weaknesses rather than on their strengths. The man (or woman) who always knows exactly what people cannot do, but never sees anything they can do, will undermine the spirit of the organisation.”
Drucker’s words serve as resounding reminders that the practice of good management is an essentially human thing requiring allegiance to eternal, enduring, powerful and positive human values such as faith, honesty and love. Yet how often, in organisations from local to global level, are such virtues seemingly so glaringly absent? Too many.
Next week: A Principal of principle.
[email protected]