seeing

[removed account4]

my wording is a bit vague it seems ...

i'm not sure if this makes any more sense ...

often times people are honed into one format.
they see in a square or in a rectangle or in black and white or in vivid colors...

maybe it is a "pre-visualization" thing ...

but shooting often, no matter what the format / medium makes us see better ...
we kind of know what things might look like afterwards ... no matter the medium / format ...

 

[keithwms]

I'd say true... seeing is independent of format and medium.

But photography is not equal to seeing.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Gotcha, John. I agree in that seing is in mental preparation and repetition of action. The more you do it, the better you get. And doing so in multiple formats might enable one to incorporate format into their vision.

 

[Vaughn]

Photography is how I practice seeing for when I do not have a camera.

 

[phaedrus]

Voted "false" because while it is true that you start to see in a format that you use exclusively, this is also a rut that one should try to get out of. If only because paper sizes are sometimes in a more harmonious relation than the negative. I prefer the 4/5 ratio. Don't even like the ugly towel-like ratio of 24/36, though that is what I photograph most with. I just visualize something off of the sides.

 

[Wade D]

I voted true. Seeing is independent of the format used. I shoot 35mm, 2 1/4 & 4x5 and can see the same with all 3.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Photography is how I practice seeing for when I do not have a camera.

"Photography helps people to see" -- Bernice Abbot

"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." -- Dorothea Lange

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I don't know about this one. My intuition says seeing should be independent of media, but in reality I purposely seek out vivid colors to shoot when I am shooting Provia or Kodachrome when I normally wouldn't if I had any other film.

And what about subjects that are infinitely more suited to shooting B&W than color, and our ability to recognize this and adjust our "seeing" and shooting accordingly?

 

[per volquartz]

Seeing is only half the equation in photography.
You have to understand what you see (intuitively or through analysis of the subject) so you can reveal what is seen and felt.
That is the hard part.
Seeing and revealing has nothing to do with format. Analog or digital.

 

[keithwms]

I agree with Per (surprise, surprise), and there are many phases in the art of making a photograph. I consider seeing (=visualization) and previsualization to be quite independent of gear.

Offhand I think there are typically five or six steps in my own path, like this:

-previsualization (sometimes, not always)
-visualization / seeing of the actual candidate subject (and at this stage, ~75% of the time I decide *not* to take a photograph, i.e., no camera is deployed)
-composition (this is where the equipment and format enters the picture, for me)
-execution of the photograph (obviously gear and format plays a large role from here on)
-imagination of the print
-execution of the print
-posting to APUG

So if the question had been regarding composition, well then I would say that is a lot more related to the equipment at hand and format. I find it a bit hard to compose, mentally, without invoking a specific aspect ratio, etc. The viewfinder affects my composition.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I agree with Wade D on this one!

Jeff