Monocular Vision and its impact on Composition

[Jacob Iverson]

Hi all,

First time poster, long time (accountless) lurker.

While I've seen a few vision-related threads here, I was curious if there are members who only have central vision in one eye (like myself – in my right) and how they feel that impacts their work.

Personally, I was born this way, so I have no conception of what normal depth perception is. Retinal scar via sickness during pregnancy.

I am familiar with a few totally blind photographers, like Kurt Weston – Does anyone know any who work (or spent awhile working) with monocular vision?

I vastly prefer SLR viewing for my work, and consider the viewfinder as just a reduction of my normal vision. Perhaps, for me, that's the satisfying element. Does anyone relate?

 

[Chan Tran]

Actually that would make what you see more like what the camera captures.

 

[cowanw]

I can totally relate. Worse as one ages and gets floaters in the seeing eye there can be a wait for vision to clear and what one looks at to register. But I never really found this a problem with any of my cameras as the view itself is monocular and the sense of 3D must come from other clues that become second nature. So you are not alone!

 

[snusmumriken]

I have normally binocular vision, but I find it hugely beneficial to close my non-dominant eye when I'm sizing up a scene and considering its photo opportunities.

 

[cliveh]

I don't understand your question. Unless you are talking about stereo photography, most cameras have one lens and viewed through one eye.

 

[Pieter12]

Albert Watson famously has vision only in one eye. Hence his book, "Cyclops,"

 

[MattKing]

I expect your eyesight has an effect on how you view the world.
Which I don't intend as a pun, even if it may seem like it.
And how you see and experience the world around you does impact your photography, even if the impact is subtle.
I wonder, for instance, how you might experience the entries in this month's Monthly Shooting Assignment: "Wide Angle Perspective".

 

[wiltw]

Stereo photography was developed because the usual camera (one lens) 'flattened' the scene...same as monocular vision.
So nowadays, most photographers (viewing thru a camera viewfinder or looking at the LCD display of a point-and-shoot) merely see things the way you do...no inherent perception of how far Y is behind X, same as what is displayed in a photographic print.

 

[Pieter12]

An individual with vision in just one eye would see the world as a camera does, possibly noticing compositions that a stereo vision photographer might not.

 

[Jacob Iverson]

I don't understand your question. Unless you are talking about stereo photography, most cameras have one lens and viewed through one eye.

I suppose my question is aimed at whether other photographers feel that the circumstances of their own (impaired) vision impact their work, eg their gravitation towards certain compositions... potential challenges with the camera work itself (focusing, DOF)... or otherwise, if they ever consider their vision as being meaningful towards the act.

I agree, most viewfinders work that way – haven't looked into stereo photography – but for instance, when composing with a 4x5, I have to close my bad eye, otherwise I run into challenges with focusing my own vision.

To me, it's interesting whether the translation of the 3D to the 2D relates to the depth (or lack thereof) one perceives in the world.

 

[Jacob Iverson]

Albert Watson famously has vision only in one eye. Hence his book, "Cyclops,"

I was not familiar with his work. I'll check out that book!

It seems I have nonetheless seen his work. That Steve Jobs portrait is absolutely iconic.

 

[Pieter12]

I suppose my question is aimed at whether other photographers feel that the circumstances of their own (impaired) vision impact their work, eg their gravitation towards certain compositions... potential challenges with the camera work itself (focusing, DOF)... or otherwise, if they ever consider their vision as being meaningful towards the act.

I agree, most viewfinders work that way – haven't looked into stereo photography – but for instance, when composing with a 4x5, I have to close my bad eye, otherwise I run into challenges with focusing my own vision.

To me, it's interesting whether the translation of the 3D to the 2D relates to the depth (or lack thereof) one perceives in the world.

I often close one eye to preview a scene before lifting the camera.

 

[MattKing]

I suppose my question is aimed at whether other photographers feel that the circumstances of their own (impaired) vision impact their work, eg their gravitation towards certain compositions... potential challenges with the camera work itself (focusing, DOF)... or otherwise, if they ever consider their vision as being meaningful towards the act.

I agree, most viewfinders work that way – haven't looked into stereo photography – but for instance, when composing with a 4x5, I have to close my bad eye, otherwise I run into challenges with focusing my own vision.

To me, it's interesting whether the translation of the 3D to the 2D relates to the depth (or lack thereof) one perceives in the world.

I have a friend who is definitely "colour blind". I have no doubt that has an effect on how he perceives the world, and consequently what he photographs in the world, and how he photographs it.
It certainly had an effect on his experience when he tried to learn how to print colour in the darkroom!
Our photography tends to reflect our experience.

 

[Jacob Iverson]

I can totally relate. Worse as one ages and gets floaters in the seeing eye there can be a wait for vision to clear and what one looks at to register. But I never really found this a problem with any of my cameras as the view itself is monocular and the sense of 3D must come from other clues that become second nature. So you are not alone!

Thanks for your reply. I definitely agree that sensing the "3D" comes from other clues, or senses, inevitably. That in itself may be an interesting concept for a photo project!

As others pointed out in the thread, the camera itself is a model of monocular seeing. Whether depth muddies or enhances one's ability to compose may just come down to how we all develop a seeing of the world. I like to think those factors of development aren't always physiological too. After all, it's a game of noticing that we play to get the shot we want.

An excerpt from Contacts (1989) featuring a narration of writing by Henri Cartier-Bresson regarding his own work, and approach to finding shots:

"Don't go after something. Let it come to you. Be open. Receptive. That's why you mustn't think."

His comments then onward are fascinating. The link to the series on youtube (which opens with his segment)

 

[Jacob Iverson]

I have a friend who is definitely "colour blind". I have no doubt that has an effect on how he perceives the world, and consequently what he photographs in the world, and how he photographs it.
It certainly had an effect on his experience when he tried to learn how to print colour in the darkroom!
Our photography tends to reflect our experience.

I totally agree. Well put!

The factors of that experience within vision alone can vary greatly – while TAing once I had a student who shot digital and was colorblind. We had a great discussion about how that impacted his work, and he went on to dedicate his a quarterly project to the subject. Technicality doesn't always appear subjective... we often forget the glass of the lens can be close to perfect, the sensors color tech too, but it all comes down to our own tools of perception. The differences that causes can be meaningful.

I've only ever printed B/W in the darkroom, but I can imagine some of his prints had an unintentional charm!

Overall I am fascinated with how photography permits us to share ourselves via something objective (or, initial objective terms?) I think that conundrum is a key piece of the beautiful puzzle.

I expect your eyesight has an effect on how you view the world.
Which I don't intend as a pun, even if it may seem like it.
And how you see and experience the world around you does impact your photography, even if the impact is subtle.
I wonder, for instance, how you might experience the entries in this month's Monthly Shooting Assignment: "Wide Angle Perspective".

I'll check out the shooting assignment. I wasn't familiar. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[Vaughn]

I am very near-sighted. Between the ages of 10 to 18 my eyesight got significantly worse, then stopped any significant changes in far distances for the last five decades. Correctable with glasses back to 'normal except for the classic age-related reduced ability to focus as close with glasses as I use too. For view camera use, being near-sighted is handy. No need for a loupe for the ground glass (GG) since I can focus my eyes 4" from the GG (I use to be able to get another inch or so closer).

The GG also reveals the world as 2D, so taking a little time to compose on the GG effectively is looking at the world with one eye. While deciding if I want to set the camera up for a scene, closing one eye helps to avoid being fooled by the changes that happen when going from 3D to 2D. This is important to me because I need to know how the light will be creating forms in the image, and not be fooled by the 3D forms stereoscopically created by my brain.

Edited for clarity) and to add: I occasionally squint my eyes (w/ and/or w/o glasses) until detail drops away and just the forms of the light become dominate.

 

[Mr Bill]

I have normally binocular vision, but I find it hugely beneficial to close my non-dominant eye when I'm sizing up a scene and considering its photo opportunities.

Likewise with me, at least sometimes.

When I was fairly young I noticed something odd about shooting scenes with some sort of plants in the near foreground. In the real world the scene is tremendously interesting, with a great sense of "depth," a 3-d sort of thing. But in an actual print, it would often become a flat, dull looking sort of thing. At least with respect to the original scene.

I came to the realization that my two eyes were helping to create the sense of depth, which the single-eyed camera could not. After that I always made it a point, under certain conditions, to view the potential scene through only one eye. Since this more closely represents how the final image COULD appear.

Something else I would often do with outdoor scenes is to use my hands to restrict, or "frame," the field of view for a more realistic sense of how the camera would see things.

Note that these things are prior to actually using the camera. Which would automatically take care of these things.

 

[snusmumriken]

Josef Sudek had only one eye (and only one arm) as a result of war injury.

 

[Vaughn]

A question; how does any worker in any form of 2D art-making create the feeling of depth, a feeling of 3D, in their work. And how can that be done by someone with vision in only one eye without the experience of 3D vision?

Part of the answer is that 3D awareness does not rely wholly on stereoscopic vision. Not having stereoscopic vision might give some people a leg-up as they could be naturally clued into those non-stereoscopic clues. Classic example is someone darkening the distance mountains, not realizing how they have reduced the atmospheric distance and the image now looks as flat as the paper it is on. The mountains are not majesticly rising in the distance -- they jump forward into your face, leaning above the foreground.

Plus none of us have stereoscopic vision beyond around 60 feet/20 meters.

 

[wiltw]

A question; how does any worker in any form of 2D art-making create the feeling of depth, a feeling of 3D, in their work. And how can that be done by someone with vision in only one eye without the experience of 3D vision?

What painters realized, and incorporated into their paintings....relative size, loss of contrast in distant objects, vanishing point perspective are all visual cues.

 

[Vaughn]

What painters realized, and incorporated into their paintings....relative size, loss of contrast in distant objects, vanishing point perspective are all visual cues.

Exactly -- skills that photographers (with or without stereoscopic vision) could improve by making sketches...or might already have, coming from a painting background. Or hopefully learned by looking at the light, and at paintings and photos by others, since my drawing skills are poor.

 

[chuckroast]

What painters realized, and incorporated into their paintings....relative size, loss of contrast in distant objects, vanishing point perspective are all visual cues.

If memory serves, this transition happened in the transition from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. Prior to this, painters tended to paint things from God's POV looking down on His creation. After that, painters increasingly began to paint things from the human POV (at human height) and we begin to see converging lines and the effect that moving relative to the subject has on perspective.

For a very fine read on this and many other wonderful tidbits, see Van Doren's "A History Of Human Knowledge". He was the guy that was the center of the game show scandal in the 1950s. Although that ended rather ignominiously, he was a really bright guy who went on to have a fine career at Encyclopaedia Britannica. The book is an absolutely terrific read.

 

[koraks]

Actually that would make what you see more like what the camera captures.

Indeed, in my mind, it would probably be helpful. In a sense, the challenge of composition in regular photography is to flatten a 3-dimensional reality into an arrangement of visual elements. I can see how it helps if at least one choice in that process is made automatically - the reduction of 3 dimensions into 2. Having said that, the question is if it really works that way. I can see how people with monocular vision still have a (visual) perception of depth, and if that's the case, there's no real benefit.

 

[gary mulder]

I almost always close one eye when looking for a composition to photograph. Is there a different way ????

 

[loccdor]

I suspect that I use my foveal vision more than average and that this is why lenses in the 100-135mm range feel the most natural to compose with.

I had poor vision as a child (after many years fixed by glasses, contacts, and then lasik), the main effect from this seems to be a heightened sense of hearing as compensation.