How to "see"....

[RalphLambrecht]

Switch to manual mode or start shooting film with no automatic focusing or exposure control. I find that when I shoot my film cameras, I slow down, I walk around the spot looking for the best angle. I think about the shot a lot even before opening up my tripod. Oh, that's another thing. Shoot with a tripod. That will also slow you down and force you to compose better.

+1!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OP is asking about technicalities. Meter, S16 have nothing to do with photographer vision.
I recommend to read Jane Bown books to realize what vision is.

 

[removed account4]

Are y’all referring to the 1948 book by Eugene Herrigel?

yes that is the book ( its not long) ... its good, and might help you get to where you might be going.

 

[radiant]

Switch to manual mode or start shooting film with no automatic focusing or exposure control. I find that when I shoot my film cameras, I slow down, I walk around the spot looking for the best angle. I think about the shot a lot even before opening up my tripod. Oh, that's another thing. Shoot with a tripod. That will also slow you down and force you to compose better.

I would advice the complete vice versa.

Use automatic camera so you don't need to waste your time with the settings. Good camera body measurements are better than 90% of humans anyways. Your photograph isn't ruined by exposure, it is more likely ruined by missing the moment or being "stiff".

Take photographs from multiple angles, play around. This way you learn faster.

Do not use tripod if there isn't need for that. Pump the ISO if you need a tripod.

Carry camera in your hands all the time. Not even in strap so you cannot let it out of your hands.

The more you shoot, the more you start to see.

 

[jvo]

"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." - Henri Cartier-Bresson.

 

[peter k.]

↑
"Are y’all referring to the 1948 book by Eugene Herrigel?
yes that is the book ( its not long) ... its good, and might help you get to where you might be going."

Own and have really liked "Tao of Photography" by Tom Ang, and so looked up this title on the web and found that one can download it at:
https://largepdf.com/zen-in-the-art-of-archery/

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Not so much with the seeing, but gear is used in the translation of seeing-to-image. Not only does one need to speak both languages to translate (seeing and image-making), but know how the different tools will affect the quality, effectiveness and accuracy of the translation.

I agree yet disagree. It may be difficult to transfer what one sees onto a medium and into final product, but how one sees is entirely disconnected from that process. In fact it is not only possible, but in some cases even preferable to work on developing own seeing without producing any image.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, in my work they are intimately connected...makes me blush, like get a room!

We each have our approach to seeing. The question is, if one uses a camera as a tool and method to learn how to better see, once one has learned to see, is it time to put the camera down?

 

[rick shaw]

This thread reminds me of a freshman course in creative writing; everyone wants to be a writer, but no one knows what they want to say.

 

[Vaughn]

Welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy it...it's what you get here. But what's with the negative vibes, man?

 

[rick shaw]

Welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy it...it's what you get here. But what's with the negative vibes, man?

Peace, out.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I agree yet disagree. It may be difficult to transfer what one sees onto a medium and into final product, but how one sees is entirely disconnected from that process. In fact it is not only possible, but in some cases even preferable to work on developing own seeing without producing any image.

I think you've missed the point.

In my particular case I used the acquisition and collecting of gear as a way to supplement the removal of alcohol from my life. In that particular respect, gear is and WAS a direct blockade to seeing, anything. It was a replacement for avoiding my personal feelings and emotions, thus creating the inability to "see", both life and images, for what they were.

 

[Vaughn]

Peace, out.

It's all cool! Right arm and farm out!!!

 

[glbeas]

This thread reminds me of a freshman course in creative writing; everyone wants to be a writer, but no one knows what they want to say.

You do need to have an idea what the story is visually before you decide how you want to interpret it. Visual storys often dont have a verbal equivalent, more an emotional or visceral reaction in some fashion.

 

[wyofilm]

You do need to have an idea what the story is visually before you decide how you want to interpret it. Visual storys often dont have a verbal equivalent, more an emotional or visceral reaction in some fashion.

Wait, I thought a picture was worth a thousand words.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

You do need to have an idea what the story is visually before you decide how you want to interpret it. Visual storys often dont have a verbal equivalent, more an emotional or visceral reaction in some fashion.

False. Every image conveys some message - whether that message is intentional or not. Every image creates a conversation between the creator and the viewer. If you created an image - there was a reason you created, it - that reason is the story at the very minimum. As I said earlier - you cannot, not communicate – anyone that has studied Communications 101 knows that to be the most fundamental tenent. The story may be simple - it may be a simple image of a flower, but the story between you and the viewer can be as simple as "this was visually interesting to me" and choices you make about depth, perspective, composition, all add to the story. Or another simple image - a high contrast monochromatic image of a drainpipe on a stark concrete wall composed with mostly negative space with the pipe off to the far edge of wall - there's a message there for the viewer whether the message was created intentionally or not - the viewer will receive a message - which could be interpreted as say, "life can be hard and lonely" which may not be what the maker intended at all, but the viewer finished the conversation nevertheless. The idea of seeing is to be thoughtful and intentional about the message - no matter how simple or complex the resulting asynchronous, silent conversation with the viewer may be.

MFL

 

[glbeas]

False. Every image conveys some message - whether that message is intentional or not. Every image creates a conversation between the creator and the viewer. If you created an image - there was a reason you created, it - that reason is the story at the very minimum. As I said earlier - you cannot, not communicate – anyone that has studied Communications 101 knows that to be the most fundamental tenent. The story may be simple - it may be a simple image of a flower, but the story between you and the viewer can be as simple as "this was visually interesting to me" and choices you make about depth, perspective, composition, all add to the story. Or another simple image - a high contrast monochromatic image of a drainpipe on a stark concrete wall composed with mostly negative space with the pipe off to the far edge of wall - there's a message there for the viewer whether the message was created intentionally or not - the viewer will receive a message - which could be interpreted as say, "life can be hard and lonely" which may not be what the maker intended at all, but the viewer finished the conversation nevertheless. The idea of seeing is to be thoughtful and intentional about the message - no matter how simple or complex the resulting asynchronous, silent conversation with the viewer may be.

MFL

So who said messages always have to be verbal? Even an emotional or visceral reaction is a message in itself. The feeling evoked by the image may be the only message contained and still be a valid communication. So crying false just because it cant be contained in a tidy little paragraph is missing the point.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

So who said messages always have to be verbal? Even an emotional or visceral reaction is a message in itself. The feeling evoked by the image may be the only message contained and still be a valid communication. So crying false just because it cant be contained in a tidy little paragraph is missing the point.

You just proved my point - like I said, you cannot not communicate! Whether verbal or non-verbal you are still sending a message and a message is being received. The key question is - are you aware of the message you are sending, and how is that message being received, even if the message is just a feeling? Verbalizing it to oneself while creating an image, whether out loud or silently in one's own head, is an effective way to start 'seeing' better. Every picture tells a story - like it or not.

MFL

 

[George Mann]

Every image conveys some message - whether that message is intentional or not. Every image creates a conversation between the creator and the viewer.

The important part is what the image portrays to the viewer. Does it conveigh a message? Does it tell a tale? Or does create an emotional connection?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You just proved my point - like I said, you cannot not communicate! Whether verbal or non-verbal you are still sending a message and a message is being received. The key question is - are you aware of the message you are sending, and how is that message being received, even if the message is just a feeling? Verbalizing it to oneself while creating an image, whether out loud or silently in one's own head, is an effective way to start 'seeing' better. Every picture tells a story - like it or not.

MFL

it is possible to fail at communication - you can attempt to create something (a photograph, prose, poem, painting) that is such a word/idea salad that it at best does not communicate your intent, and at worst, is unintelligible. But just as communicating powerfully and clearly takes skill, failing to communicate requires great anti-skill. Certain politicians with a talent for word salad come to mind.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

.... word salad ......

*snort*. That's funny.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The problem I have with every book titled "The Tao of Photography" is that if it were true to its title and the philosophy it's supposed to be based on, most of the book would be about two things:

That learning photography is first and foremost about learning to accept failure and imperfection.

That there is no such thing as "unencumbered, free and effortless" vs "cumbersome, slow and inefficient" since every person must follow his/her own path.

Learning to see is a long process, Grasshopper.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

The important part is what the image portrays to the viewer. Does it conveigh a message? Does it tell a tale? Or does create an emotional connection?

No disputing any of that, but all are communication.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

it is possible to fail at communication - you can attempt to create something (a photograph, prose, poem, painting) that is such a word/idea salad that it at best does not communicate your intent, and at worst, is unintelligible. But just as communicating powerfully and clearly takes skill, failing to communicate requires great anti-skill. Certain politicians with a talent for word salad come to mind.

LOL, true. All communication is subject to failure or misinterpretation , but it remains communication - just failed communication.

 

[Horatio]

Just finished Zen in the Art of Archery. It's going to be a long journey to mastery.