(This is an extreme example to illustrate the effect of active space with the girl bleeds out of the front of the frame and the boy out of the rear, leaving a large expanse between them which can be considered an active space. The dynamism is shown by the blurry motion of the girl and the active space into which the boy is moving. Cover the boy and the active space becomes dead. Note the the diagonal plays a part in leading the gaze of the viewers to and fro the two subjects)
A tinge of dynamics will add an extra dimension to an image, which I prefer to stationary ones. For one thing, the dynamics highlight the immediacy of the scene; for another, dynamic movements (especially blurry motions) challenge our visual perceptions more effectively. The image turns more engrossing and somehow puzzling, and draws a longer attention from the viewers. Contrary to what you may have in mind, the dynamism in an image can come from both real motions and suggestions of them as my experience goes.
So how can dynamism be created in an image?
Active Space for Moving Subjects
The answer should not be required making: By taking photos of moving subjects of course! This is where "active space" falls into for a good reason. When shooting moving subjects, a photographer will come up with better dynamic shots if some space is left in the image for the subjects to "move into", a.k.a. active space. This idea is contrary to the dead space tailing a moving subject. While an active space adds dynamism to an image, a dead space waters it down which should be avoided to some extent (meaning a large expanse of dead space is a big no but some dead space is harmless or even practically needed depending on the scene).
(The repetitive and progressive patterns start from the old man as the main subject for he is the one shows most of his face in the image. What is he peeking at? The patters and his gaze direct the viewers to find the answers. The Chinese characters are names of drinks and foods)
Active Space for Non-Moving Subjects
Usually, for non-moving subjects, a photographer can heighten the sense of dynamism with repetitive patterns and the direction of gaze. This has to be complemented with the use of active space which is the area the patterns or the gazes 'move towards' in the image. A proportionally larger area of active space can exaggerate the element of dynamism in the image.
Take the above photo for example, the most important/obvious subject is the old man with most of his face showing in the image. He is looking from the right to the left. The active space is the area ahead of him. If the first woman is left out and replaced by some dead space behind the old man, the corollary is that the sense of dynamism falls flat and the photo turns bland. Besides active space, the idea repetitive patterns is also at work in the image to suggest a sense of dynamism. The somewhat repetitive, progressive bodily movements of people in the queue direct the viewers' attention from the main subject (the old man) forward to the first woman to find out what keeps the man stealing a peek of (the answer is written on the plastic signboard above the woman: bites and drinks for growling stomachs).
(This PP image is shown to show those who are concerned about the soft character of images taken with the GX200. The original photo was taken with a G10. Even at the Normal image setting, the photo looks too saturated in colours to my eye. However, this image character is loved by most consumers. Compare the original saturated image and this softer PP image. A more saturated image is destined to forsake some details here and there whereas a softer one lacks the vividness of colours. It is a matter of choice and taste after all)
My impression is that most shutterbugs go for stationary subjects, save for professional photographers. Dynamic images are less common. Could it be because they are technically a bit more difficult? This should open up other topics like motions with flash and shutter speed versus motions, which I should jot down on my list of topics.
Comments