One of the better-known theories of perception is Gestalt Psychology. It deals with the way we organize information (usually visuals, but not always) into wholes. While Gestalt Theory isn’t mentioned very often in discussions about composing good photos, I think that’s a mistake; these principles can clearly improve your compositions.
In this video, I dive into four of the most relevant components of Gestalt Theory for photographers: the Law of Closure, the Law of Similarity, the Law of Common Fate, and Figure-Ground Organization. Knowing how each one works can help you organize and structure your compositions to be as strong and effective as possible.
Here’s the video:
I do want to emphasize that Gestalt Theory is much broader than what I’ve covered here. I didn’t want to stretch any of the theory’s claims beyond recognition, so I only covered the topics that I think relate the most to photography. If you want to read more about Gestalt Theory, the Wikipedia page here has a very good overview.
If you found this video useful, you can subscribe to our channel to be notified when we post more like it. (Remember to click the bell icon under any video, or YouTube won’t send notifications properly.) We always appreciate likes and comments on YouTube as well, which help the algorithm know whether or not the video is interesting to potential viewers.
And, as always, if you have any questions or comments about anything I covered in the video, let me know, and I’ll get back as soon as possible!
Well Spencer,
Another exceptional and rewarding lesson, you definitely have a gift
Thank you
………….Gary
Thank you, Gary! That’s very kind, and I’m glad you enjoyed the video.
I personally found this to be a refreshing take on the process for composing images. Nicely explained.
Thank you! Happy to hear it.
I’d prefer to read and make my own instructional images. Is there a print version?
I’m afraid not, this time. My apologies.
Most of our videos are based on existing articles on Photography Life, so there’s usually a print version, but this one isn’t. I have no plans to write one for now because of time issues.
Very interesting video! I find it fascinating to learn how the mind (and eyes) process visual information, and how we can use this in our photography. This video has given me more to think about and a desire to dig deeper and learn more.
Really appreciate it and glad it gave you something to think about!
I am a psychologist and a photographer and use the Gestalt Theory in both my picture taking and sport psychology practice–using the Theory’s main insight–that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, e the “team” can always accomplish more that the individual players can…a car can drive forwards and backwards, but the individual parts can’t. Each part of a picture tells part of the story that the whole picture tells. Make sense?
That absolutely makes sense! I also think that point can be used as an argument against chasing pixels. A good photo – whether taken with an old crop-sensor camera vs the newest full-frame – remains a good photo. Its impact doesn’t lessen because the smaller parts (pixels, and pixel quality, in this case) have changed.
Is it not “different” than “more”?
Very interesting and very informative.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
Hi Spencer. I found the video very interesting and informative. I’m a novice photographer. I noticed that you used several different cameras; it seemed to be a mix of full and cropped frame models by Nikon. When would you use full and cropped frame cameras? I have a Nikon D7100 and am considering changing to a D750 to gain the benefit of full frame photography.
Thanks, Brian! I did use many different cameras for the sample photos here, but that’s mainly because these pictures span several different years of my photography. I went D7000 > D800E > Z7, and that accounts for most of the photos in this video. I also have reviewed and tried out other cameras along the way, like the Nikon D7500 and D3500, which accounts for the other images.
In practice, I don’t use crop-sensor cameras any more, since – all else equal – the only inherent benefit is lighter weight (aside from price). Individual crop-sensor cameras have other benefits, of course, but I’m happy with my current setup and don’t need to sacrifice sensor size to gain any of those benefits.
That doesn’t mean switching to the D750 is necessarily the right move for you, as the D7100 is already an excellent camera. If you need the shallower depth of field, better high ISO performance, or full field of view for certain full-frame lenses, though, it may be worth the switch.
Thanks Spencer, very interesting video with simple examples to clarify the concepts to be explained. I always find your photography composition lessons very useful.
Pino
Much appreciated, Pino! Glad that you enjoyed it.
Most useful video. This is a subtle subject, very difficult to explain. Thanks for doing this video.
Spencer, that is IMHO just too much rationalization. Here, photography has been given the guise of Gestalt theory. The big misunderstanding is that Gestalt theory expresses that the result is more than the sum of its parts. But that is not the essence of Gestalt theory. Let me
quote Max Wertheimer, a main founder of the Gestalt theory (from the German Wikipedia):
“There are contexts in which not what happens as a whole is derived from the way the individual pieces are and are composed, but the other way round, where – in a concise case – what happens to a part of the whole is determined by the inner structural laws of the whole. … Gestalt theory is this, nothing more and nothing less.”
That said, it is actually exactly the opposite of how you represent it. At least that is how I understood your video.
Hi Jan,
Gestalt theory certainly is more complex than its famous distillation – that the whole of something transcends its individual elements – but if you’re trying to say it’s the other way around, I think you are mistaken. Even Kurt Koffka, who helped develop Gestalt theory alongside Wertheimer, said word for word, “the whole is other than the sum of its parts.” Our famous saying that the whole is more than the sum of its parts directly comes from Gestalt theory. (Although it’s enough of a simplification that I deliberately didn’t say or write it in the video; “the whole is greater – in importance – than its individual elements” is closer to the meaning Gestalt theorists intend, as I understand it.)
In fact, your quote backs this up. It doesn’t say that the nature of the parts is what matters and influences the whole, but rather that the nature of the whole is what matters, and, in fact, influences its parts. This is precisely how I covered it in the video.
For example, take the case of the Law of Closure. The broken circle is the whole in this case (and we perceive it as such because of how we unconsciously group objects). That is what makes us consider the individual elements – the curved segments – as “part of a circle.”
I hope that makes sense. The fact that we consider “of a circle” to be innate to the nature of those segments is evidence of the quote you added, and of what I talked about in the video. Rather than the nature of the parts determining the nature of the whole, the nature of the whole is what matters, to the degree that it even determines the nature of the parts. (This is also what the melody example I gave at the beginning of the video discusses.)
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the quote you mentioned in English. I’m curious what is written in place of the ellipsis. The closest translated quote I could find is this, which also backs up what I’m saying here and in the video. From Max Wertheimer:
“The fundamental ‘formula’ of Gestalt theory might be expressed in this way: There are wholes, the behavior of which is not determined by that of their individual elements, but where the part-processes are themselves determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole.”
I recognize that writing about psychology outside of its usual context is very often done for sensationalist, clickbait, “pop sci” reasons. As someone who studied psychology, I find this kind of thing very frustrating, and I took care not to misrepresent or distort anything to the best of my abilities.
Granted, I spend more time on what Gestalt theory says about the process of grouping, rather than the way in which the whole influences the nature of the parts, but both are components of the theory.
Spencer, your video is good and inspiring. You certainly deliver the message.
Some long time ago, I thought it was a saying from Heisenberg: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Later I learned, that this is a misunderstanding and I think a bad one. Because it hides the real meaning of Gestalt Theory. There is another citation, from Wolfgang Metzger which should clarify it better:
“It is … not correct to say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, it must be said: The whole is something else than the sum of its parts. There are not only qualities of form added to the – unchanged – parts, but everything that becomes a part of a whole takes on new qualities itself.”
That is “the other way around”, just like in the statement of Wertheimer above.
That said: It is the composition of the objects that might give them a new quality. You said: “but rather that the nature of the whole is what matters, and, in fact, influences its parts. This is precisely how I covered it in the video.” And of course you are right! I meant with the other way round: Gestalt Theory is about perception and it established it around categories. It tries to explain “top down” what happens and how so. If one uses “bottom up” those categories to compose it does not necessarily mean the result, the whole will be “something else”.
Nevertheless it is very helpful to understand (and then train) these concepts. And that you showed well in your video. Thanks.
It is all a matter of replacing the judgmental words of “more” and “better” with the more accurate description of “different.” Nevertheless, talent wins games, but teamwork wins championships.
It is not about replacing a word. It is all about the understanding. Why otherwise would Wertheimer and Metzger explicitly stress this correction? Your example of talent and teamwork is the opposite of what they meant. There is not necessarily a relation between objects, in fact most of the time there is none at all. The only “connection” is the one which our perception produces. But this is within us and has nothing to do with the objects on an image.
Being more of a practical psychologist than theoretical one, I use the Gestalt Theory to keep myself from missing the trees from the forest…and what is even more interesting is that children are born with the fantastic ability of simultaneous reversability thinking–seeing steps going up and down at the same time–necessary to avoid getting caught up in figure-ground illusions as adults…but language takes this ability away at around age 3-4
For a professional photographer, you certainly know a lot about psychology. And the relationship of photography parts and parts of psychology certainly fit well into Gestalt Theory. At the end of the day if you believe in what you are doing and expect to get the right results, you most likely will and if you don’t you will always have the clues as to how to get it right the next time.
The tenants of Gestalt Theory are established principles that are applicable to most if not all situations. To disassemble them and claim the results to be true, you must revisit the scientific method first used to establish the principles to prove your “theory.” In that sense truth is just a theory until proven otherwise.