Visit without a camera first

[MattKing]

There are many situations where photographic considerations could very well get in the way of fully appreciating a place or event. For those, it's best not to be tempted by a camera immediately at hand.

Sometimes it is just best not to make a visual record.

[keithwms]

There are many situations where photographic considerations could very well get in the way of fully appreciating a place or event. For those, it's best not to be tempted by a camera immediately at hand.

You mean, when you're in bed with a loved one? That's about the only situation I can think of, offhand.

[MattKing]

You mean, when you're in bed with a loved one? That's about the only situation I can think of, offhand.

To give a personal example - how about the first time I saw in person Michelangelo's David?

The setting was photographically stunning, and I did take photographs eventually, but I was glad I waited.

[keithwms]

Oh I was just giving you a hard time. I agree that we simply need to see first.

[guitstik]

Being able to see and also take photographs are NOT mutually exclusive. You need to be able to SEE to decide if something strikes you as photographic or not. I have a ton of places that I have seen and thought were photographic but wasn't been able to shoot due to circumstances but I still had a camera with me non the less. Just because I have taken a picture of a scene does not mean that I haven't seen it, it means that I saw it and was able to record it on film and still appreciated it.

[Q.G.]

But looking to see if something strikes you as photographic or not is already a particular 'focus', an approach of a situation with a definite intention.
A focus that can (but by no means must) make you blind to other aspects of the situation, which could change your understanding of where you are, which will then find its way into how you would represent it in a photo.

You need to embrace fully and understand to decide if something strikes you as something that is worth capturing and sharing, and to decide why and what it is that makes a place, a situation etc. worth that. And that's not just about visual impressions.

But you're right that these things do not need to be mutually exclusive. But it can help to go somewhere with photography not even at the back of your mind.

[guitstik]

What if Henri Cartier-Bresson had not had a camera with him at the moment the "man jumped over the puddle", would we have that photograph now?

[Q.G.]

To quote a tennis ace from an already not so recent past: "Are you serious?!"

[clayne]

There's another aspect though: sometimes we have to just put the camera down and enjoying seeing without it.

[Sirius Glass]

There are many situations where photographic considerations could very well get in the way of fully appreciating a place or event. For those, it's best not to be tempted by a camera immediately at hand.

Sometimes it is just best not to make a visual record.

I find that my photographs are better if I open my eyes and look before I photograph!

I can usually have a camera with me and not have a problem finding the "best" compositions the first time I see a scene. I will some times not shoot the photograph and come back with a different format or film to achieve what I want.

Carrying a camera, does not change what I see.

Steve