To See...

[SuzanneR]

The thread about whether we learn to see, and a question that Bethe asked... "how do I learn to see at 40?" got me thinking. Perhaps a thread detailing exercises or assignments designed to hone your observational skills. I have two that were assigned to me by an excellent photography teacher... no cameras of film involved to start...

1. Go to a museum of gallery, and find a photograph to look at. Look at it for five minutes. Just look. Don't analyze it, don't assign meaning or metaphor to it, just look. For five minutes. Look at the tones, the shapes, the textures. See at how things LOOK in the photograph.

2. Spend a late afternoon in your room from about 4pm until it's dark. Watch how the light changes on the walls during the course of the afternoon, and into early evening. Again... just look at the changing light.

I'll confess... they sounded like torture when they were assigned, but once completed, I found some real value in having taken the time to slow down... and really look... without a camera or pencil or paintbrush. It's the hardest damn thing... but so worth the effort!

Anyone else have some exercises they'd like to share?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

This comes easier for imaginative people. And let's face it, we photographers can be an imaginative lot. I have taught myself over the years to try and block out the third dimension when looking at a subject. I think it was Dewitt Jones in an OP article once discussing how the mind works. You see the grandeur in a scenic landscape and compose and make a photograph. You get to the print and you're like 'Hell, this is nothing like what I envisioned'.

Vision I think comes naturally to most folks. It's the translating that vision of a three dimensional world onto a two dimensional medium, such as a photograph. We see the clouds and the trees and the brook and the ridge in the distance and we picture this beautiful smarmy scene in our minds and that is what we want to capture. If we stop and think about how the brook is at our feet and the ridge is WAY off in the distance and, well, you get it. Sometimes the things that our mind puts together is with its mental vision, not our visual vision. This is what we need to train ourselves to see, ONLY WHAT WE WILL SEE.

Try blocking everything out except for what you see before you. Of course if you can change the camera position to get a better composition then so be it and all the better. But without patience, I have forced more than a few exposures over the years of stunning mental composition when the relation of shape and form in the viewing area just doesn't carry it off. We need to, and I think this is where Suzanne's great suggestion comes in, look at paintings and photographs, anything two dimensional. Learn to seperate the dimensions in your mind. By doing this, in time (Oh crap, another dimension) you can learn to 'see' photographically, not just visually.

 

[snallan]

2. Spend a late afternoon in your room from about 4pm until it's dark. Watch how the light changes on the walls during the course of the afternoon, and into early evening. Again... just look at the changing light.

This is a great exercise, and one that can be carried out just about anywhere, at anytime.

On the few occasions I have been asked by relatively new photographers, about how they can improve their photography, my advice has been to look at the light. Ignore the actual objects they can see, but observe how the light falls on them, where the shadows fall, and what type of shadow is being cast under the prevailing lighting conditions. Also how the colour of the light changes in the early morning, or late evening.

 

[jp80874]

I took a History of Photography course last fall. The students were reluctant to talk about the work. The Professor was frustrated at first but then would put an important picture on the screen and ask each student in order around the room to describe something they saw in the image. By the 23rd student they were really grasping to find something that had not already been said. The exercise produced some very interesting results and had to have taught quite a few of us to stretch.

John Powers

 

[arigram]

My apologies to William and to all the literate world...

To see, or not to see: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by inviting make them? To live: to wake up;
More; and by a wake up to say we begin
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To live, to wake up;
To wake up: perchance to dream...

 

[smieglitz]

I've pretty much convinced myself that any sense of photographic composition came from this exercise assigned in the university color photography class I took back in the early '70s. The task was to draw a set of lines on paper so that the end result would look balanced as far as visual weight was concerned. If you can imagine a Piet Mondrian (monochromatic) geometrical painting, you've pretty much got it nailed.

Start with a line that spans the paper either horizontally or vertically and then add to the composition with lines of varying width and length (which thus includes rectangles) until the composition becomes balanced. Do this as if you were the Eveready Bunny.

Another very worthwhile Gestalt exercise involves taking identical cut-outs of simple geometric shapes and arranging them on a surface to show concepts of balance, implied motion, grouping, contrast, etc.

Richard Zakia of RIT and The New Zone System Manual fame has authored several excellent books on Perception and Imaging (among other topics) which are very worthwhile if enhancing your visual skills is important.

James Elkins is another author you may wish to investigate.

Harald Mante was also a very early influence on my understanding of color theory and photographic composition. His short book "Color Design in Photography" was the text used in the afore-mentioned class and is based in large part on color theory as developed by Goethe and later enlarged upon by Johannes Itten at the Bahaus.

I see Mante has a new book out which has just gone to the top of my wishlist on Amazon.

Joe

 

[Frank Szabo]

Anyone else have some exercises they'd like to share?

This is only an opinion, so let's not take it too seriously.

All the exercises in the world will not open a person's eyes to that world. Granted, one can learn to see and produce what others consider acceptable but, as I told a friend one time, "I really don't care what you see - I'm more interested in what I see. If you happen to like what I see, that's great. I'll let you call it art if you wish". I was trying to go overboard with that comment.

Whether or not one is religious or keeps a faith (let's not confuse religion with faith), when it come to art, the words "to enter the Kingdom, one must become as a child" makes a lot of sense. As another person said in another thread, the wonder of a kid looking at the pebbles as compared to what an adult might see makes all the difference.

As adults, we've learned over time to discount little "unimportant" things like small sparkles in a pebble. We've learned to concentrate on the big stuff leaving the little stuff to fade out and become obscure. That little stuff is what the child sees and it's not immaterial - it's the entire substance of what we're doing with the cameras. Exercises make that type of sight mechanical.

Sorry for the overboard rant

 

[dpurdy]

Everyone who is not blind can see. I think the question needs to be changed to how can I learn to respond to what I see. What will make you have an emotional response to what you see is different for different people.

Looking at other photography just overloads my brain and makes it more difficult to see for myself. What got me out of cliche' postcard/commercial photography type vision was studying painting and especially Kandinsky which one day popped several brain cells in my head. Another thing that affected my response to what I see was working in ceramics. I think it is very helpful whether you are talented or not to work in different mediums to exercise your aesthetic desire from different angles.

Recently I have gone into a collaboration with another artist who is not a photographer. We are going to do a project where it is part photography and part what he is going to do. The project concept evokes images in my mind that I want to make at the same time as evoking creative response in my collaborators mind as well. That has me looking at things in a whole different way and responding to a completely different aesthetic desire.

 

[Whiteymorange]

One of the photography exercises suggested by a very talented and accomplished photographer, Tom Magno, as my students were starting to shoot color 35mm transparencies (E100VS) was to face the camera, on a tripod, toward the east or perhaps the north at about 90 minutes before sunset. Shoot the same scene every 5 minutes until you run through the roll. The kids thought it was a lame idea until they did it. The slide shows they put on elicited comments about the color of the light that would have been impossible for me to predict. It ain't cheap, but it was deemed worthwhile by every one of them.

 

[winger]

Suzanne, thanks for picking up on that comment and posting this. There have been some good suggestions so far and I look forward to what else comes. I'll be trying your 2nd suggestion today. I've been meaning to get into Pittsburgh to go to the Carnegie museum, so hopefully I'll do that soon, too. In the other thread, someone mentioned a study of eggs. I may try that, too. I think learning to see how light falls on something is a big part of it all. Only problem with eggs here is that they're all brown.
The way we mean "learn to see" does include the emotional side of taking an image from recognizing it all the way to the final print. I think there are things we can do to make that process succeed more often than fail. I don't really agree that exercising makes it mechanical. Ask an athlete about having a great moment in a game and I bet it's due to having practiced a lot and gotten in shape for that moment. And that moment will feel like something's been released and set free and all the muscles just work right. I think that's what we're going for when we talk about exercising our ability to see.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

One of the photography exercises suggested by a very talented and accomplished photographer, Tom Magno, ...was to face the camera, on a tripod, toward the east or perhaps the north at about 90 minutes before sunset.

Works at the other end of the day as well. Frankly, when in a 'clicking mood,' I wish all days consisted of nothing but 60-90 min. sunrises followed by 60-90min. sunsets, best times of the day for shooting as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Allen Friday]

When I started photography, a mentor recommended shooting a still life or a scene that was repeatable day after day. For example, an interior room with no windows so the light is the same day after day. Once you have made a print, go compare the print to the scene. This exercise helped me become more aware of minor differences of light on a subject which the brain evens out, but which film does not.

I'm not sure this fits under "seeing" as in recognizing things to photograph, or how to compose an image, but light is a subject in all photographs.

 

[jp80874]

In 1984 Kodak published “The Art of Seeing, the Kodak Workshop Series”,
always available on eBay.

The chapter headings read:
Preconceptions
Awareness
The Glory of Light and Shadow
Elements of the Scene
Looking
Treating the Subject
(And then of course the commercial) Camera, Lenses, Film

 

[Shmoo]

I remember an instructor once suggested we look at our photos upside down...and sideways...both sides. It forces you to abandon what your brain knows to be true and really look critically at your own work. It also made using a LF camera much easier.

 

[Ole]

A friend of mine "bullied" his way into being tutored by one of the best portrait photographers on the country.
His first "assignment" was that he could go to any art gallery he wanted, and look at the paintings. He was explicitly forbidden to look at photographs.

My personal take on this is that the problem is not in seeing as such, but in seeing what is really there, instead of what you know is there. We all carry a pre-conceived idea of what the world is like, and getting rid of our preconceptions is the difficult part. My way of doing this is to attempt to capture the light, and not really pay any attention to what is illuminated by that light. If I ever feel I've mastered this, I'll start photographing objects.

 

[panastasia]

Minor White published a little paperback manual on the Zone System (I think that was the title;The Zone System Manual). The main theme was an exercise in "previsualization", as he called it (he invented the word). The instruction was about how to look at the world around you and previsualize a monochrome image by mentally seeing the tones in the finished print while looking the colored scene or subject. AA did something similar.

I also find that the upside-down image on the ground glass helps to balance a composition.

 

[RobC]

Some reading for you:

http://www.photosecrets.com/books.vision.html

 

[phaedrus]

Anyone else have some exercises they'd like to share?

When out photographing and waiting for your buddy to finish, turn around 180 degrees and try to make an interesting photo of what you then can see.

 

[keithwms]

I think we need to put Bethe on the therapist's couch and find out what he feels he isn't seeing

For starters, and at least in my case, I can report that a healthy diversity of gear is the key. I get in moods for which only RFs work for me, and then I spend some time in LF and then speedy 35mm SLR, and so on. In my own experience, nothing stirs the pot for me as much as taking up a different camera system, different lens, different film.... anything that forces me to think different thoughts along the way.

I heard about a fellow who at first came across as a complete nutjob; he makes cameras that have all kinds of weird items attached. I honestly thought he was completey insane when I first read about it, see for yourself.... (warning, some of it is not for the faint of heart!)

http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html

But after my initial recoil, I think I started to understand what he is attempting to do... he is attempting to make cameras that will put him in a totally different frame of mind while shooting with them. In other words use the gear to affect how the shot is taken. That is an important idea, I think... and one that can be lost in today's cookie-cutter DSLR-dominated photography.

 

[Whiteymorange]

My personal take on this is that the problem is not in seeing as such, but in seeing what is really there, instead of what you know is there. We all carry a pre-conceived idea of what the world is like, and getting rid of our preconceptions is the difficult part.

In my class of 12 year old boys, I practice drawing things quickly - 10 second sketches, that sort of thing. In the middle of a series of these I will place a tall stool on a table, with the seat way above their eye level. After the drawing is done, I ask how many drew the seat part of the stool - most do. Why? Because they "know the seat is there, or else it wouldn't be a stool." They aren't looking at the real stool at all, but at the stool image they have in their heads. Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.

 

[Larry Bullis]

In the other thread, someone mentioned a study of eggs. I may try that, too. I think learning to see how light falls on something is a big part of it all. Only problem with eggs here is that they're all brown.

No problem! Instead of using a scoop made of white paper, use brown Kraft paper. Don't rip up bags, though, the wrinkles will intrude.

Larry

 

[Larry Bullis]

I heard about a fellow who at first came across as a complete nutjob; he makes cameras that have all kinds of weird items attached. I honestly thought he was completey insane when I first read about it, see for yourself.... (warning, some of it is not for the faint of heart!)

http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html

But after my initial recoil, I think I started to understand what he is attempting to do... he is attempting to make cameras that will put him in a totally different frame of mind while shooting with them.

I build pinhole cameras that use an eccentric pinhole and produce a very wide angle. In the vertical dimension, they get from just below the horizon to near or sometimes even beyond the zenith (if using curved film). There is no possible means of seeing what the image is going to do. How I do it is draw what I believe the image will be, sometimes even adding a part that will be made later on the same film using a matte box. The I compare it with the result. Another way is to observe the scene, moving my arms and legs, essentially "dancing" the frame in space, projecting the hands out to the corners and edges.

Nutjob? You say? And I'm not boyofblue, either. I was doing this for awhile in downtown Manhattan. You should have seen how people were looking at me. Some of them even asked. I explained it straight. A lot of people seemed to understand it very well, including the Chief Ranger of the Manhattan National Park District (who was wearing the most incredible smoky the bear outfit you ever saw, an admiral in the park service for sure).

 

[SuzanneR]

In my class of 12 year old boys, I practice drawing things quickly - 10 second sketches, that sort of thing. In the middle of a series of these I will place a tall stool on a table, with the seat way above their eye level. After the drawing is done, I ask how many drew the seat part of the stool - most do. Why? Because they "know the seat is there, or else it wouldn't be a stool." They aren't looking at the real stool at all, but at the stool image they have in their heads. Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.

Well said, Whitey! I like the "slide show in our heads" idea. It's hard to get past that.

I will say that the assignments I described in the OP were in an advanced class. I had a number of drawing classes under my belt at that point, and I have to agree... drawing is the best way to improve one's observational skills.

Once you learn to draw... look at what you are drawing, then the assignments or exercises I described at the start become that much more meaningful.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Getting past the slide show in our heads that "knows" what things look like is the hardest part of learning to draw -- which, by the way, is the best way to learn to see there is. Until the last century (long after the advent of photography,) scientists were trained as artists - so that they could sharpen their observational skills and record what they saw.

You are absolutely correct. The camera will see what's in front of it even if you haven't seen it, and you can claim credit for it later. In drawing, you cannot get away with that. There can be no better visual training than drawing.

 

[winger]

I think we need to put Bethe on the therapist's couch and find out what he feels he isn't seeing

Umm, she, actually.

Whitey, I wish I could have had someone like you for art class as a kid instead of Mrs. Smith. I never really did do much drawing, except on my own or in the pre-digital days at the lab (we had to sketch the evidence to show where stains and such were). Maybe I should try some. Or find a class even.