Neither, Christoph here. I earn my money with ophthalmology.
So, in the center of our retina, equivalent to an angle of view of about 3 degrees, we have only cones. Those are sensitive to colour, but need a certain amount of light to function. At about 5-8 degrees from center, we have a maximum density of rods, which are much more light-sensitive (single photons, if well-adapted to dark), but see only black and white. This is why stars vanish if you look at them directly (and why, at night, all cats are gray ;-).
And finally, the sum concentration of rods and cones diminishes centrifugally from the center of our retina, where we fixate. So, we do have a horizontal angle of view of more than 180 degrees, but only the central 3 degrees are sharp at any given moment (and, given enough light). The subjective impression of panoramic sharpness comes about because we constantly move our gaze over what is in front of us. Motion studies with infrared eye trackers (nifty machines!) have shown that we pay repeated attention to points of interest and flit about over the filler material. So, there really is a lot of filling in of visual content done by tertiary and quarternary visual centers in the brain.
But the natural angle of view of "the eyes" ... it depends!
HTH!
Christoph
Back in the younger days when I was caving I would often stop when my group was catching up or otherwise moving past and turn out my own light to watch the way thier lights shaped the walls around me. The difference was amazing how subtle shapes and texture emerged as the angles of illumination were changed compared to the very flat light my own headlamp gave me from my perspective. Sometimes what I saw was totally unrecognizable until I flicked my beam back on.
The analogy would be to have a friend shine a flashlight around a darkened area while you watch from the dark.
Did you happen to read the Ape Cave story that I linked to above? If not, I wish you would. I'd sure like to hear what you'd have to say about it.
Here's the link again: http://circle-of-confusion.net/index.php/ape-cave/
I tried to add an image, but it didn't work, somehow. Here's a url to it: http://circle-of-confusion.net/files/Ape Cave 1.jpg
It is a pretty short read, and if you've had that experience, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.
This is an excellent point.The reason a child can see the details in childlike wonder is it hasn't developed the filters in the perceptive system that screens out the "static" of everyday life ...
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.
This is an excellent point.
My thought is that it is not as important to learn to see as it is to learn NOT to see. Pretty much all of us were born into a world of TV and advertising and have been bombarded by visual imagery compacted into framed little boxes throughout the development of our perception. It all comes from the outside effectively polluting any personal vision we might have. The most difficult and most likely impossible thing to do is to compose an image that is not influenced by the hundreds of thousands that came before.
When I work, I do my best to stay inside my head and away from "seeing" with my eyes. My perception becomes very keen, but I wouldn't call it seeing. I like to get into my mind or into states of mind where I might be completely absorbed in thoughts of some prior place or experience. Sometimes wonderful places, but I have to admit to often going to dark, emotional times as well. I find that when I do this, I become very aware of even the smallest things and when I am really feeling "it", it is like the world opens up and gives me things. I realize this may seem like esoteric bullsh*t and I have not gone without ridicule when I speak of this, but it works for me and I have a great respect for it.
None taken! Thanks for asking. Often when I read back over this stuff I wrote, it looks crazy to me!No ridicule!!
None taken! Thanks for asking. Often when I read back over this stuff I wrote, it looks crazy to me!
I hope I am answering your question without sounding like I am completely off the deep end!
I'm obviously still using my eyes to see and it is not like I am using my imagination. It has to be some real experience for me otherwise too much effort has to go into the crafting of the story.
...
I can't be thinking gear, f-stop or meter readings either. The simpler and more spontaneous, the better. I've got to be ready for it when it comes and roll with it when it does. Sometimes I don't know where it comes from and it doesn't happen every time I go shooting.
Close, but it is more than that as it seems that where I go in my mind can have an effect of the work as well. I know this is going to sound crazy, but once I get rolling and have that relationship with the subject going, it is almost as if what I am photographing bends to my will at times and does what I want it to. I know this can't be and it must simply my being open, aware and ready, but that is the way it can feel.I'm thinking that you may be saying that you need to eliminate distractions so that your perception can be more simple and direct. Is that it?
I guess it is, but I've never learned any accepted technique. I wish I could control it more, but am afraid if I push too hard, it will never come back!Sounds like meditation technique to me.
...I know this is going to sound crazy, but once I get rolling and have that relationship with the subject going, it is almost as if what I am photographing bends to my will at times and does what I want it to....
If I am getting what you seem to be saying:
I suspect that when this happens, there is no bending. More likely an alignment of what's really there and your "will". You being truly present and functioning as a part of the process rather than "doing" something. You are not using the subject and the light, etc. to "take" a picture, or even to "make" one. It is probably out of your hands. You would not be rationally conscious of it, because it is not under the control of your "doing" and "knowing" mind; rather, you are operating under a different rule. In this state, you and the subject are equal, true? In fact, if I have it right, I bet there really isn't the same "you" at all. True? Or am I reading it wrong?
Your fear of it sounding crazy is well founded. I'm sure that some of your readers are probably thinking so, and if they think YOU are crazy, they are sending the men in white coats to get me as you read this. Your experience does not fit the model that we here in Ameriky assume; it is not under the control of the ego, where "I" make things happen. In some eastern traditions, if I am reading you right, this would be considered vastly more conscious than our natural state where we think we make things happen. I am not surprised at all that you see it as if it were bending to your will. We have no language for this, so we have to use the words and syntax that we do have, and it comes out all wrong.
By the way, some of my very best friends, some who even love me, really think I'm over the edge when I talk like this. Don't worry about it. Just don't take them shooting with you. What you are describing is priceless. Take care of it.
Neither, Christoph here. I earn my money with ophthalmology.
Thanks! I think I'm getting my point across now judging by your response.By the way, some of my very best friends, some who even love me, really think I'm over the edge when I talk like this.
I have been reading Zen crap for 40 years. I should have just followed Bill.
Jim
What do we think are the most significant factors that determine "success" or "not so success" of our photography?
Related ... What constitutes "good work"? ... Is it our internal evaluation, or dependent on the opinion of others?
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?