Mental machinations as viewer vs photographer

[BrianShaw]

I just point my camera at pretty and interesting scenes… and click the shutter. Thinking too much is an impediment.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thinking too much is an impediment.

By definition. But just thinking is OK , isn’t it?

 

[Pieter12]

By definition. But just thinking is OK , isn’t it?

As long as you don't think about it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I see something that I want to photograph,

• I walk around to look for the best angle to shoot the composition,
• I will consider which focal length lens I should us
• think about shadow detail, if it is black & white,
• I will consider using contrast filters and how I will print it
• I will consider whether I should use a polarizing filter

Besides that, I do not think about much more.

 

[snusmumriken]

As long as you don't think about it.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have a question for those who claim not to think. Do these things never happen to you?

1. You go out with a camera but can’t find anything to photograph.
2. You see something that you could photograph but don't think anyone else would be interested, so you don’t waste the film.
3. You look at a photograph you have taken and wonder why you bothered to take it.
4. The photo is technically fine, and you still like the subject, but the photo nevertheless fails to satisfy you.
5. You do/don’t want to show it to others.
6. Someone asks you why you took it.

 

[Chuck1]

Yes, keepers are rare
I call them happy accidents

 

[BrianShaw]

1. More often than I’d like
2. Occasionally
3. More often than I’d like
4. More often than I’d like
5. More…
6. Occasionally

 

[VinceInMT]

One cannot have an experiment without a hypothesis...which is a preconception of the possible results of the experiment.

Perhaps, in a scientific scenario, but experimenting just to see what will happen, with no preconceived ideas, is something I do quite frequently, particularly in drawing Sometimes it’s a matter of grabbing a random mark-making tool and making a mark or a set of marks just to see where it takes me. In these cases the work reveals itself as I go.

Maybe photography, being so rooted in scientific processes and somewhat encumbered by hardware, lends itself to less of that but I find it possible when out with a camera to ignore what the subject matter is and abstract it, minimalize it, and, in some way, attempt to see it anew. Serendipity can play into this.

 

[Pieter12]

I have a question for those who claim not to think. Do these things never happen to you?

1. You go out with a camera but can’t find anything to photograph.
2. You see something that you could photograph but don't think anyone else would be interested, so you don’t waste the film.
3. You look at a photograph you have taken and wonder why you bothered to take it.
4. The photo is technically fine, and you still like the subject, but the photo nevertheless fails to satisfy you.
5. You do/don’t want to show it to others.
6. Someone asks you why you took it.

And how is this relevant?

However, I will bite. Never, to all of the above.

 

[awty]

I just stand back and look at the picture, it either has something to say or it doesn't. Technique is only interesting to the way it enhances the picture, other than that it is of no interest. I rarely read any captions, words arent going to make any difference to me, the picture should say it all.
I prefer pictures that have depth and emotion and something different to say.
I like amateur photography, because of the naivety, often demonstrating a real persons perspective. A lot of artists demonstrate a perspective that has no valance to me.
I hate a repeated theme, say something once why keep saying or at least find a different way.
Don't like tourist photography, prefer the perspective of the insider.
My nostalgia is different from others.

So I make pictures for my self, I'll try different techniques to see where I can go with it. I like to make the process complicated, difficult and full of failures. Some pictures are made in an instant with out much thought, others are meticulously planned. This keeps it interesting for me.

 

[Pieter12]

Wow, what a mix of thought tossed into the blender. Was that written with one of those magnetic poetry sets?

 

[Don_ih]

I really like @awty 's photos, so my opinion is whatever he thinks works for him - not that I even disagree with what he said.

 

[Pieter12]

I really like @awty 's photos, so my opinion is whatever he thinks works for him - not that I even disagree with what he said.

I just have trouble understanding what he means. Many nonsequitors.

 

[Vaughn]

Perhaps, in a scientific scenario, but experimenting just to see what will happen, with no preconceived ideas, is something I do quite frequently, particularly in drawing Sometimes it’s a matter of grabbing a random mark-making tool and making a mark or a set of marks just to see where it takes me. In these cases the work reveals itself as I go.

Maybe photography, being so rooted in scientific processes and somewhat encumbered by hardware, lends itself to less of that but I find it possible when out with a camera to ignore what the subject matter is and abstract it, minimalize it, and, in some way, attempt to see it anew. Serendipity can play into this.

Sounds more like free-association than experimenting, but I suppose free-association could loosely be called experimenting with thought. But I think we have few Zen Masters here operating thoughtlessly.

Serendipity is important. I wander and let light and place come together. For most of my work, the subject matter is the found light -- freed of the objects/landscape reflecting it. Then recognizing place, I use the forms created by the light to speak to my experience and connections to the place. Photographing my three boys in the landscape as they grew up was an interesting shift for me -- working with the light of a place and including strong visual subject matter.

8x10 pt/pd print

 

[snusmumriken]

And how is this relevant?

However, I will bite. Never, to all of the above.

Relevant because any of those experiences should make one think. I suspect they are very common, certainly are for me. The OP has evidently run into one or two of them.

I've seen you post some gorgeous photos on Photrio, suggesting a lot of care and very high standards. You don't strike me as someone who doesn't think. Did/do you work professionally?

 

[MattKing]

The approach one takes is often a consequence of one's history and circumstances.
I have a friend who is a fine photographer whether working with film - both large and small - or digital. He makes all sorts of prints using all sorts of processes - some with a fully film based workflow, and others involving digital capture and/or digital prints and/or digital negatives.
But in years gone by, he worked for a large institution as a photographer and photographic technician, and as part of his work responsibilities exposed a lot of film (and later digital images) and made large qualities of prints that were used for display and demonstration purposes. When he exposes his film and prints "silver gelatin" in the darkroom, you can clearly see how his choices and decisions are heavily influenced by those years of work related photography. It is a lot of fun discussing with him how our approaches differ, and it is fun seeing how are results compare - sometimes very different, sometimes quite similar.
The "mental machinations" we, as photographers, arrive at as a personal "approach" are usually the result of how our experiences evolved, and at how our experiments over the years turned out.
In many/most cases, it is hard to communicate how our personal "approach" works. I would gently suggest that it isn't a good idea to be too critical about how clear that communication is here in this thread.

 

[cliveh]

I don’t know if this helps the OP, but I have heard the expression he is a photographer’s photographer. Meaning I suppose that anyone working in the same artistic medium has a greater appreciation the effort involved to produce the final outcome. But I would also suggest that the aesthetic quality of any finished artwork, be it painting, drawing, whatever, has no relevance to the time it took to produce it.

 

[Pieter12]

Relevant because any of those experiences should make one think. I suspect they are very common, certainly are for me. The OP has evidently run into one or two of them.

I've seen you post some gorgeous photos on Photrio, suggesting a lot of care and very high standards. You don't strike me as someone who doesn't think. Did/do you work professionally?

I was an advertising art director and graphic designer for 40 years before retiring and going full-tilt with photography. Every image, every layout required thinking the crap out of it, plus anticipating how it would be received and interpreted. Now, I shoot only for myself and I prefer just to react to scenes, to try to bypass conscious thought, work by intuition. It works most of the time. I'm sure there is a lot of very careful and specific thought going on in the background--the thousands of images I have looked at and created all influence what I do in some way. Some call it "having an eye."

 

[snusmumriken]

I was an advertising art director and graphic designer for 40 years before retiring and going full-tilt with photography. Every image, every layout required thinking the crap out of it, plus anticipating how it would be received and interpreted. Now, I shoot only for myself and I prefer just to react to scenes, to try to bypass conscious thought, work by intuition. It works most of the time. I'm sure there is a lot of very careful and specific thought going on in the background--the thousands of images I have looked at and created all influence what I do in some way. Some call it "having an eye."

That all rings true. Of course there is a philosophical puzzler about whose "eye" you actually have after absorbing the work of so many others, but that seems insoluble.

 

[BrianShaw]

That all rings true. Of course there is a philosophical puzzler about whose "eye" you actually have after absorbing the work of so many others, but that seems insoluble.

To me that aspect of past experience is “irrelevant” unless one is a copycat artist.

Just yesterday I was walking and an image “jumped out at me”. Snapped it with a mobile phone and will return with either a Hasselblad or view camera. My only reservation is that when I do these things at least one neighbor approaches me to ask what and why am I doing what I’m doing.

I’m not sure why this stopped me in my tracks, though…

 

[Vaughn]

That all rings true. Of course there is a philosophical puzzler about whose "eye" you actually have after absorbing the work of so many others, but that seems insoluble.

I would toss that philosophical puzzle in with the flawed concept of the self-made person.

 

[snusmumriken]

I would toss that philosophical puzzle in with the flawed concept of the self-made person.

Also 'free will', perhaps?

 

[VinceInMT]

“Free will,” “self-made person,” “creativity influenced by others,” etc. is all quite interesting. What I’ve wondered about is why some people become passionate about something that falls flat on someone else. I’m guessing that there might be some genetic or environmental factors in play but there seems, to me, to be something else going on. For example, we, here on the forum, are passionate about photography yet others, aside from taking the occasional snapshot, are less interested, especially in its nuances (which we discuss here in long threads.)

As an educator I became interested in this topic as a way to understand and, maybe, increase student motivation to learn. A fellow educator in this did his doctoral dissertation in a related field so we spent lots of time looking into this and, even though we both retired a decade ago, still do. It seems that in many cases there is a “spark event” of some kind that creates a desire to learn more and/or become more involved in the activity. I’ve had this happen many times in my life and with photography, which I had no previous interest in, it occurred when I quite randomly accompanied a friend to a darkroom and saw the printing process. For my friend, it was the first time he saw something about mountain climbing, a passion that has since led him to Everest and many other peaks.

So, back to the previous comments, while we are influenced by others, there seems to be a pretty wide range of how and whether it influences the individual. One might see lots of photos by Adams, Weston, etc. and say “meh,” but be moved my Siskind or Man Ray.

 

[MattKing]

Who among us has not discovered the work of another photographer and not been inspired to see things differently and/or do things differently?
Not copying, but responding to inspiration.