I believe that truly seeing is that when you view something - close your eyes and you can feel what you just beheld.
Agreed.
One of the exercises that I recently did with some students, which worked quite well, was to have them compose a photo, and then turn away, and then while I looked at it, I asked them to tell me what they saw. I recompose based on what they tell me and irritate them iteratively by showing them what they told me.
I'll give an example. Suppose the student composes a landscape picture and it has a lot of sky and I say, what is the most important thing in the scene and he/she just says, the sky. So I tilt the camera up to the sky. They look at the ground glass and say, what did you do to my shot? I say, all you said was you liked the sky. And so forth. Eventually they get their whole scene back but they have to work for it
Another exercise which I impose on myself, and which is particularly painful but effective, is to leave the camera(s) at home and take the shots purely mentally. There can really be something therapeutic about saying to yourself, okay, I am going on this scenic hike, and I am not going to take any photos. A variant of this gear-deprivation exercise is to limit myself to one and only one shot... per day or per week... also quite effective. But painful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddym
But sometimes you see the most when you are not looking for anything.
Yes, absolutely, and I think the flip side of these exercises is that there is a real danger of excessively front-loading the composition. By that I mean, the shot can become overthought and contrived. I agree with you, Eddy, on the point that sometimes when you are totally liberated from needing to see something, that's when you can see best. When you're on-assignment, so to speak, there can be too much going on in your head to allow a scene to be itself. I am a compulsive front-loader, I cannot get a meaningful photograph unless it is more or less spontaneous. I overthink things to the point of comical absurdity, I tell you. The first shot on a roll is almost always my best. All the silly thought-bracketing is what costs me time and money. So I wrestle with that tendency to overthink and analyze and do wish I could let a scene be a scene... more often. with LF I have this issue most, and I try hard to build some spontaneity into it, but I have a ways to go.
The most important part of the question is: "Do we learn"
It is probably the case that a fair majority of us on APUG have learned to see, or can still learn to see more, or some combination of the foregoing, because we appreciate seeing - otherwise we wouldn't be interested in images (and therefore wouldn't be interested in photography.
I know that I learn to see just a little bit more, when I see a photo in a thread, or in the gallery, that strikes me as interesting!
Here's a segue: where is bjorke on this subject, and what does it take to convince him to become a subscriber?
P.S. IMHO bjorke posts photos that are as much about seeing as anyone here, although he is always in danger of being described as a dilletante as a result thereof.
P.P.S. I'm not usually interested in being troll-like, but I've been looking for an excuse to get more from bjorke for a loooong time .
I think it is both, perhaps more of one for some, and more of two for others.
Myself things with photographic appeal have always cought my eye, even if at the time I didn't always realize why I was drawn to them. But since I have become heavily involved with this as a hobby, the only thing I ever see is LIGHT. Light was always a way, as mentioned, to keep from running into things. Now if I see something nicely lit out of the corner of my eye it grabs my attention like nothing else. The most photographicly appealing subjects, if poorly lit, I often overlook. That is the part I need to train myself for; to see things and commit them to memory and plan to return with ideal light conditions, or design a way to light it myself.
When I am out with out my cameras (gasp) If I see what looks like a good photo shot, I like to put it in a "frame" (thumb 90 deg. to index or even 2 hands thumb to thumb ) extended @ arms length. It has worked for me on a number of applications. I especially notice
this as it applies to a zoom lens. Something might look good until you photograph it.
I'm not sure that the ability to see can be taught, per se, but I know from personal experience that it is a skill that needs to be practiced in order to accomplish the best that one can do.
When I go into an intense period of photography - say a vacation or workshop - I find that the quality of the images that I see and capture improves over time. The first images are pretty pedestrian - I can almost sense that they were forced and perhaps even contrived. But as time (hours to days) go by, I sense that my images become more relaxed and natural. I suspect that the phenomenon is really a matter of my own sensitivity to the environment - initially I am trying too hard, but as I become more relaxed, I tend to see better.
Also, I find that seeing other work, either in galleries or by sharing work with others, my sensitivity to potential images improves. That's not necessarily a matter of copying what others have done, but rather is that by seeing other work, I become more aware of the translation between a life scene and the final print, and that helps me see how I can use that translation in my own work.
I am gradually learning to get around on this wonderful site; as you can see from my ID, I've been here maybe two months, now.
A few years back, I taught an online course that was supposed to be about digital imaging (I'll never teach online again!) but I quickly learned that my students couldn't see. What is the point in a course dealing with imaging if the students aren't prepared? I've had considerable training in seeing, and have thought a lot about it. I decided to really go for it, to explore the idea of "seeing" in a great deal of depth. So here are some references:
This text is basic to a lot of western philosophy, but not that far from the eastern, either. Here's where I have a problem with "social brainwashing" - not in its presence, but in its place in the picture. While our inability to see results from such brainwashing, that brainwashing itself derives from the human condition (as I see it). It can't be avoided.
This story reports a very memorable experience that I was fortunate to have while observing groups of people traveling through a pitch-dark lava tube. It has to do with how we perceive "reality", and how that perception determines what and how we see.
I think a lot of people may have read this. If not, it is an easy read, and lots of fun. Women readers: Abbott's characters are 2 dimensional geometric shapes that correspond with their class, but women are simply straight lines. Lots of women get quite incensed at this. What I know about this is that Abbott was an early feminist. He was using this to chide Victorian society about its hypocrisy. Just how this would have that result, I don't know. I think it must be hard for us in our time to understand the Victorian mind.
This, of course, is very controversial, but I thought it would challenge the mind (certainly did mine!) concerning just what it is to be human, and how our perceptions are conditioned by the circumstances of our origin. There were some arguments! One man argued against the existence of feral children even as he described his experience with a girl who had been confined in a cage with dogs for the first few years of her life. Emotions get pretty hot on this topic.
5. Background, not part of the material, but an acquaintance with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract would be helpful.
I've posted an article under "photographers" regarding Minor White's methods of teaching "seeing".
I don't think that teaching art is possible, really, and neither is it really possible to teach "seeing" but it is possible to learn to see. In order for that to happen, it can be helpful for one to be in an environment that supports it.
As a result of my involvement here, I have been reconsidering "What I Do" in photography.
First, my "mission", target? - goal?"
To discover, capture - and enjoy - bright, sparkly, pebble/ photographs ... with pretty swirls ...
I previously wrote about a "correlation" between lens design and the success of the photographs made with them - expressing my opinion that, "That correlation can't be great".
If so ... the question arises, "What correlation DOES exist between the photographs that I produce that are "successful" and those that are not, or are less successful"?
Porig over some of my previous work, I realized how difficult it is to describe the parameters of "success". To me, the most overwhelmingly important characteristic is the amount of "life" - the emotional "message" that the photograph radiates and infuses in me. "Seeing", in its usual sense - visual stimulation - falls short, far short, of describing that activity. Possibly "sensing" or "experiencing" would be better ....
What really seems to be the deciding factor ... I think .. Is "What was happening at the time, and how I was responding - my emotional state - at the time."
I have produced photographs where I have expended tremendous energy in "getting EVERYTHING RIGHT!"; others that were spontaneous captures of scenes that flashed before my eyes with very little conscious thought; and others, from a decidedly "pre-conscious level" - as far as I can determine - NO "conscoius" involvement (ofher than basic preparation) whatever.
There seems to be a strong correlation between my emotional sate - my BEST work occurs when I am "Up" - excited, energized, .... call it euphoric... and degrades closely as that state descends toward boredom, drudgery, doing what I HAVE to do.
One case in point ... Many years ago I was approached by someone who I considered to be a friend; there was a Chamber Music Ensemble (hint: when you hear the word "ensemble" - RUN like hell!!) who wanted PR and News photography. They were to perform at a local library. I suggested doing the photography separate from the perfomance - before? - not possible - they would be arriving at the last minute. After? No, that would interfere with the following reception. They would leave for Montreal early the next morning.
After all this discussion with their manager, It was understood that I would have to work WHILE they were performing.
We started ... shortly, the performance stopped ... they simply could NOT play with that flashgun going off, a fact they did not hesitate to communicate to me, and everyone else present.
Fine, load high speed black and white film, shut off the flash, and continue. Ten minutes later - stop again - they could not perform with the noise of the Hasselblad shutter going off!
During all this, my emotional state deteriorated from initial enthusiasm/ excitement to a sense of "being out of place" and the embarassment of beng someone "interfering."
What is interesting here is the quality of the work I produced. I can easily see where, as the time went by and the relation between me and the "ensemble" broke down, my satisfaction with the "success" of the work dropped accordingly.
So - emotion and success - linked. Just how to use this information - I'm not sure... Possibly excercises in medatation and relaxation... At any rate, recognizing the effect of "mood" ... and taking apprprialte measures ...???
.
Linear Mode
