Avedon and Dijkstra clearly simplify the frame before anyone steps in front of the camera. This allows them to focus much more on the person while making the photograph. They know where their edges are, so I image that they would be concentrating on the person much more at the time they are clicking the shutter.

I understand that people can make a photograph where the aesthetics all seem to fall into place nicely and they didn’t really consider it too much. I feel like this happens for one of two reasons. One, the have made enough photographs to just know it looks good, and they don’t question it, so they move on without much more thought than that. Two, the light, color and everything is prefect and the photographer does not know it, but they get lucky.

I think many photographers first learn that something works, either symbolism or aesthetics, before they learn why it works. So it makes sense that it is there, but you didn’t “see” it.

It’s a hard one to think about, especially because I know I’ve seen some images that revolve around the photographer’s distance (lack of connection) with the subject.

I’m definitely guilty, at times, of shooting pictures of people and not thinking about the framing, color, anything but the person in the frame, then putting the image up for critique and listening to someone go on about how well I balanced them against so and so background element and what so and so color signifies, etc. Are they reading into something that wasn’t there when I created the image, or is that symbolism and design there in my mind, but just on a more instinctual level, because I shoot so much?

I’m tempted to say both, myself, though that sounds a bit like a cop out.