How to "see"....

[cliveh]

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

But thoughtless shots can yield some interesting imagery.

 

[Horatio]

But thoughtless shots can yield some interesting imagery.

If the principles apply to flower arrangement and painting, then why not photography...

A lot of what interferes with my “seeing” are not technical intrusions so much as preoccupation with things waiting to be done, or other places to be. It seems the zen way of perception expands ones awareness of the moment.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Heresy: Not every photograph has a "story", that is a crutch to help people learn how to compose.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

But thoughtless shots can yield some interesting imagery.

Then you're relying on serendipity to make a good image, which, when it happens, is wonderful, but it isn't repeatable. Unless by "thoughtless" you mean in the Zen sense of having developed your process of image-making to the point that you create them without conscious activity.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I'm reading this book titled "Tao of Photography" by Tom Ang, and I was just struck by one of the first paragraphs in the beginning chapter. Steve states that photographers learn to see in two different ways. One way is "unencumbered, free and effortless," and the other is "cumbersome, slow and inefficient." He goes on to state that photographers often suffer great frustration from getting stuck between the two ways of seeing.

And after contemplating that a minute, I realize this is true for me. For instance, if I'm out for a walk and I see - lets say a flower - I can compose a shot in my head that looks nice. However, instead of relying on my knowledge to compose the shot, I rely on the technology. I use the cameras light meter, or rely on an exposure mode to make the photograph. Usually, about the only thing that I have any say so in, is whether I'm going to have a shallow, or deep depth of field. I never tell the camera that I want this shot slightly overexposed, or slightly underexposed. I just rely on the camera to meter the shot from one side of the viewfinder to the other, and do what it does.

And as it often happens, I always end up frustrated because the bright flower that I envisioned, ends up being slightly dimmer than I wanted, or blown out because I was too concerned with the background, or making sure other areas of the image were exposed properly. Whether in the darkroom, or in the editing software, I usually end up becoming further defeated because I have to spend so much time "fixing" things that didn't turn out like I wanted, simply because I broke them to begin with. So it's a non-stop cycle that, over time, becomes extremely exhausting.

I've got an unofficial NY's resolution to take elevate my photography this year, and I think I'm going to start by devising some "seeing" exercises.

ETA: After a few responses, I see that my original intent is less about "seeing" and more about realizing and image that has been "seen."

I read that book too - still have it in my bookcase somewhere. Excellent

I took that paragraph to mean deliberate composition vs. instinctual composition... but it could just as well mean right-brain/left-brain or analytical/emotional... or any other reasonable dichotomy. I lean toward the instinctual, tempered by decades of instinctual mistakes informing current instinctual shooting. If you know what I mean.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The solutions are:
1) play;
2) practice;
3) study; and
4) have fun.
Not necessarily in that order.
And sometimes you will get lucky:

Hold on Matt. I can't think about ANYTHING else until we decide whether the chair is more of a battery or more of a propane bottle. It clearly isn't scrap metal.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

My wife gets frustrated with me some times, when I stop, move around, look at something several ways, and then decide there isn't a photo there that I want, so no shutter ends up being released.
When that happens, I don't even think about settings, and often don't think about lens choice. Some times the camera doesn't even come to my eye.

Spoken like a true 8x10 man. Matt, I forget. What's your favorite format?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

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

Yes!!
I am on like photograph 9,998. I should be making good photographs in about April. Yeah, with Covid, I am stuck in the house. Taking pictures of the lamp next to my desk doesn't count as photography and certainly not towards Cartier-Bresson's mystical 10,000.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Peace, out.

Dude! Vaughn's reply was so gentle. You've already got your underpants in a bind?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

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.

I totally agree. If you want to interpret something, you better darn well see/know what message you are interpreting. That message can easily be your own instinctual reaction to the scene and the interpretation is your attempt to capture that reaction in a composition.

 

[MattKing]

Spoken like a true 8x10 man. Matt, I forget. What's your favorite format?

The camera at hand, John.
That recycling themed one is 35mm - which I have a plethora of.
6x6 and 6x4.5 I really like.
I regretfully sold my 6x7.
My 6x6/6x9/6x12 pinhole gives me fits.
And my 6x9 camera is temperamental, but beguiling.
No sheet film for me.
But the micro 4/3 digital works really well with my 6x4.5 - same aspect ratio.
Probably should add a 110 camera, to go with those other 4/3 options.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The camera at hand, John.
That recycling themed one is 35mm - which I have a plethora of.
6x6 and 6x4.5 I really like.
I regretfully sold my 6x7.
My 6x6/6x9/6x12 pinhole gives me fits.
And my 6x9 camera is temperamental, but beguiling.
No sheet film for me.
But the micro 4/3 digital works really well with my 6x4.5 - same aspect ratio.
Probably should add a 110 camera, to go with those other 4/3 options.

Pah! your average roll of medium format film is so inexpensive, it cries out for use as a tool of free-flown creative experimentation. I say, let your instincts run free. Take that photograph from all angles, regardless of the delectability (or lack thereof) of the view from the camera viewfinder!

Let it fly, man! Depress that shutter button on a whim.

 

[cliveh]

Unless by "thoughtless" you mean in the Zen sense of having developed your process of image-making to the point that you create them without conscious activity.

Correct, although I can't do it all the time. If you want a good example of Zen, just watch Messi play football, he doesn't even look at the goal when he shoots.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Hold on Matt. I can't think about ANYTHING else until we decide whether the chair is more of a battery or more of a propane bottle. It clearly isn't scrap metal.

Spoken like a true 8x10 man. Matt, I forget. What's your favorite format?

Yes!!
I am on like photograph 9,998. I should be making good photographs in about April. Yeah, with Covid, I am stuck in the house. Taking pictures of the lamp next to my desk doesn't count as photography and certainly not towards Cartier-Bresson's mystical 10,000.

Dude! Vaughn's reply was so gentle. You've already got your underpants in a bind?

I'm pretty sure I like you. You might be my new favorite best friend.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

...and now printing on NOS Kodak or whatever Kodak I still have in my LOCKED AND GUARDED BY A FANCY-PANTS DOBERMAN GUARD DOG film/paper cabinet.

Yeah, its settled. You're my new best friend. Call me every 5 minutes.

 

[removed account4]

Heresy: Not every photograph has a "story", that is a crutch to help people learn how to compose.

I am not so sure about that, every photograph has. a story, whether it is what the photograph is over or how it came to be or what it is of..

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I am not so sure about that, every photograph has. a story, whether it is what the photograph is over or how it came to be or what it is of..

If a photograph doesn't have a story, wouldn't it be the fault of the viewer and not the photographer?

 

[removed account4]

If a photograph doesn't have a story, wouldn't it be the fault of the viewer and not the photographer?

not sure ..
photography is a dance between so many different things, the camera and its operator, the camera and the subject the subject and the operator the viewer and the camera, the viewer and the subject and the viewer and the operator... its a different story for every viewer and that doesn't mean its the same as the story as the person who made the photograph. Not sure exactly how people who suggest there is no story behind some photographs can say that. even a blank sheet of photo paper has a story.. it might not be a story you want to hear or see but its a story.

 

[wyofilm]

When in doubt refer to Lomography's 10 golden rules

https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules

Bonus: it leads to using a lot of film

 

[ChristopherCoy]

When in doubt refer to Lomography's 10 golden rules

https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules

Bonus: it leads to using a lot of film

essentially lomo is saying get drunk, drive naked, and pray....

 

[perkeleellinen]

Years ago I used to make these portraits of a girlfriend I had, it used to take ages to set up, compose and fine tune the focus. The results were so constrained and rigid. The girlfriend used to mock my photography - spending hundreds on equipment - when she produced such natural portraits of her friends using a disposable camera. Her photos were full of life and spontaneous energy, mine were technically perfect and ... dead.

Even further back in time I read an article in a skateboard magazine were the editor said he preferred reliable but boring photographers over unreliable artists.

What am I saying here? Maybe that the 'seeing' is a context thing.

 

[wyofilm]

essentially lomo is saying get drunk, drive naked, and pray....

Pretty much! "Shoot a lot of film at all costs and hey buy your film from us!"

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you're photographing something that moves you, it's easier to "see". But you're technique and craft must be up to snuff to carry what you saw onto a piece of photo paper first. That comes with practice. Eventually, it all just happens. I know I can see and express that fairly well visually, but when it comes to doing it with words, no. Sorry.

 

[Vaughn]

Years ago I used to make these portraits of a girlfriend I had, it used to take ages to set up, compose and fine tune the focus. The results were so constrained and rigid. The girlfriend used to mock my photography - spending hundreds on equipment - when she produced such natural portraits of her friends using a disposable camera. Her photos were full of life and spontaneous energy, mine were technically perfect and ... dead.

Even further back in time I read an article in a skateboard magazine were the editor said he preferred reliable but boring photographers over unreliable artists.

What am I saying here? Maybe that the 'seeing' is a context thing.

Seeing is seeing. Editors -- they prefer people who turn assignments in on time. Galleries prefer people who can have a quick turn-around time providing work. Most interesting in selling, of course.

PS -- you were photographing a person who mocked your photography -- and thus the images probably looked that way, unfortunately. She was taking portraits of people who were having fun.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

PS -- you were photographing a person who mocked your photography -- and thus the images probably looked that way, unfortunately. She was taking portraits of people who were having fun.

hunh... what an interesting observation.