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.
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.
A recent article in The New Yorker magazine discusses new scientific evidence discrediting the naive theory of perception, which says that images (for example) come to us complete through our eyes. In fact, the brain comstructs images using often fragmentary visual input.
apologies! I saw Bethe and thought Hans.
That's ok - I gotta get a decent avatar up sometime. My username doesn't give much of a clue either.
A recent article in The New Yorker magazine discusses new scientific evidence discrediting the naive theory of perception, which says that images (for example) come to us complete through our eyes. In fact, the brain comstructs images using often fragmentary visual input.
Seems obvious to me that our eyes see things in a very fragmentary way. Our eyes can really only focus on small areas of any scene in front of us, and our brain is constructing... filling in if you will... the rest.
That's ok - I gotta get a decent avatar up sometime. My username doesn't give much of a clue either.
Keeping a long story short, I happen to find myself away from home working in another city and under some pressure to move out of the hotel and into a flat (apartment) on weekdays for several months. I've scoured the web for a suitable one and I've been to see ones that were so much worse than the photos suggested, yet through all of this I never even considered taking a camera for some record shots.
And then came Thursday's viewing. It was sparsely furnished. It was painted white, or something close to it. It had ceilings that were 12 or maybe 15 feet high. It had a west-facing outside wall that was at least 50% glass. The day was cloudy with showers and an occasional hint of brightness. The light was beyond words, the opportunities for natural light portraits fantastic. It is a long while since I did any portraiture, but this light just made me want to do some. It made me want to go MF or maybe even LF, to learn to use reflectors to good effect, to utilise the drop-off in light for craggy-faced men, but also to draw the white blinds (shades) to make a massive softbox and give flattering skintones for all those who might usefully benefit from them.
The craziest part of this is that I don't know anyone in this city and as a 50 something overweight and balding guy I'm not gonna be hanging out with the beautiful people, the flat is likely to be cold in the winter with all that glass, I don't particularly want the job and I really don't want to be away from home for all of that time. But the light has had a profound effect on me, and that's what photgraphy is all about ................:confused:
A friend of mine has always said, "go with the flow"...not bad advice in general
A friend of mine has always said, "go with the flow"...not bad advice in general
Suzanne-- Are you sure about that? I'm sitting here reading your post, looking directly at the laptop screen. Yet in my peripheral vision, I see the windows behind and to the sides of the screen, the outdoors beyond them, the bookshelves on both sides (inside the room), the rest of the desk, and part of the floor. Surely, I am CONCENTRATING on the screen, but isn't it my brain that is doing the concentrating, and not my eyes? My eyes are indeed focused (in the optic sense, not the conscious sense) on the whole view, but isn't it my brain that narrows my attention to the screen and keyboard?
Caveat: I am not a psychologist, nor an ophthalmologist, so this is not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer, but it seems to me that the eye, as an optical instrument, must be focused on everything in its view.
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.
Perhaps a thread detailing exercises or assignments designed to hone your observational skills.
Perhaps a thread detailing exercises or assignments designed to hone your observational skills.
Suzanne-- Are you sure about that? I'm sitting here reading your post, looking directly at the laptop screen. Yet in my peripheral vision, I see the windows behind and to the sides of the screen, the outdoors beyond them, the bookshelves on both sides (inside the room), the rest of the desk, and part of the floor. Surely, I am CONCENTRATING on the screen, but isn't it my brain that is doing the concentrating, and not my eyes? My eyes are indeed focused (in the optic sense, not the conscious sense) on the whole view, but isn't it my brain that narrows my attention to the screen and keyboard?
...snip
Eddy.. I could be utterly wrong!
Neither, Christoph here. I earn my money with ophthalmology.Maybe a member of our medical staff could explain this to us more clearly. Mike? Jerold?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?