Wikipedia defines a pattern as follows: “A pattern is a regularity in the world, in human-made design, or in abstract ideas. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner.” Many people like regularities and so do many photographers. And so do we. We are always looking for patterns in the world around us. However, regularity can be utterly boring, in life as well as in photographs.
Let’s see what Andreas Feiniger says about “pattern shots”
A popular pastime of many amateurs is the hunt for motifs that produce good “pattern shots” [ … ] In my opinion, making pattern shots is a photographic waste of time – unless the pattern results in an exciting abstract composition or represents an important feature of an interesting subject.
Andreas Feininger, translated from German
Photographic waste of time … Phew. That’s a clear message. But I think I know what he is talking about. Something like this, perhaps:
The image certainly is a pattern shot. The blue seats are a man-made design that repeats in a predictable manner (see the definition above). But that’s it. Predictable, regular, boring. But how about this?
The windows of this building in Calgary, Canada, form a very regular pattern. However, this pattern is interrupted by the vertical bay windows that extend upwards into the roof, which itself has a distinct pattern. And the reflections in the windows change from dark, bluish to yellowish which makes the pattern of the windows more interesting.
The next example follows a similar pattern (pun intended):
The meshes of the fishing net form the regular pattern here, but this is interrupted again. The grey rope and the yellow parts of the net make the picture interesting.
In my personal opinion pattern shots can be quite interesting if there is more to them but just patterns. There should be some element that breaks the regularity and predictability of the pattern. Otherwise, I think, Feininger is correct when he says that pattern shots are a waste of time.
Leave A Comment