To See...

[SuzanneR]

I think we are veering a bit, and getting ahead of ourselves... my intent here with this thread was to consider for a moment how we go about seeing.

Simply to see...

The rest can come later, or... in fact would best be addressed in the "viewer" thread.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Early Riser]

I don't go for any mumbo jumbo, there's nothing esoteric or unusual needed to see images. I believe you just keep your eyes and mind open and look for the relationships between things, special relationships. Now that only gets you the subject matter and there are other factors involved that I feel are needed to make the subject interesting or to convey what it is that you were seeing in that scene. This is where lighting comes in to play. Sometimes the interaction between objects is far too subtle, certain moments of light or atmosphere can make these relationships more pronounced, even dramatic or moody.

If I see a great relationship or composition but the conditions are not interesting I just come back another time. No sense in spending time shooting a scene that is not working yet. Maybe the conditions that you are in will yield a better image somewhere else. It pays to have an understanding of light, weather and the changing positions of the Sun. I see far too many images where the photographer had something there but just didn't have the light or conditions to really make something special. And then once you see a great moment or special scene, you then have to visualize the print, at least that's what I do. I see the scene in my head, I see it with a time exposure or frozen, lower contrast or higher, I see the dodges, burns, gradations. It only takes a few seconds.

I find that carrying a set of croppers really helps. If I'm on location and have forgotten my croppers I'll find a framing place and buy a precut mat and make it into a set of croppers. Croppers really help you isolate the scene and lets you know if there's enough there to stand on it's own. If you don't isolate the scene many of the other factors of your location can add peripheral stimulus that makes you like the scene more, but when that print is up there all alone it needs to be able to carry itself with just the information that you provided within the crop. Croppers get you there.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I get the impression that success depends on your willingness (and time spent) to advertise your work. Every kind of photography will find it's clientele.
Christoph

Ed,

I wonder whether you are defining "success" in the way that Christoph is; that is, recognition either financial or in some other form. Or are you simply LOOKING for a way to define success? Have you determined just what success would be?

In terms of this thread, is success related to the quality of the seeing?

 

[Larry Bullis]

I think we are veering a bit, and getting ahead of ourselves... my intent here with this thread was to consider for a moment how we go about seeing.

Simply to see...

The rest can come later, or... in fact would best be addressed in the "viewer" thread.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Suzanne,

I'd certainly defer to you, given your ownership of this thread. I do think, though, that some of us may think of photography, in different ways. If the purpose of engaging in photography could be "simply to see..." then we might define success in those terms (process) rather than in commercial success, or even the approval of one's peers. Seeing, in itself, may constitute success.

 

[Whiteymorange]

I think we are veering a bit, and getting ahead of ourselves... my intent here with this thread was to consider for a moment how we go about seeing.

Simply to see...

The rest can come later, or... in fact would best be addressed in the "viewer" thread.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sorry, Suzanne, there is no "simply" about seeing, or so it seems in this company :- )

 

[Larry Bullis]

Sorry, Suzanne, there is no "simply" about seeing, or so it seems in this company :- )

The goal may be simplicity in seeing. The detritus in the way is complex!

It is amazing, isn't it, how we humanoids complexicate everything. It's a wonder we tolerate each other even to the extent we do.

 

[SuzanneR]

Sorry, Suzanne, there is no "simply" about seeing, or so it seems in this company :- )

Well, I never said it was easy!

 

[Frank Szabo]

The goal may be simplicity in seeing. The detritus in the way is complex!

It is amazing, isn't it, how we humanoids complexicate everything. It's a wonder we tolerate each other even to the extent we do.

We, as a group, aren't complicating anything. We are all (for the most part) able to set up the picture box of our choosing, take a shot, and say "cool".

What's going on here is many people seeing and feeling the same things and using different words to describe those things - that seems to be the most complex part of all, translating our automatic actions into words.

 

[keithwms]

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Is anyone willing to point to a specific photograph and explain, as directly as possible, how they were able to see that scene in a unique way?

 

[Larry Bullis]

We, as a group, aren't complicating anything. We are all (for the most part) able to set up the picture box of our choosing, take a shot, and say "cool".

What's goig on here is many people seeing and feeling the same things and using different words to describe those things - that seems to be the most complex part of all, translating our automatic actions into words.

I'll agree with paragraph one, but not paragraph 2. I think that there are very significant differences in the ways of seeing that have been expressed, not just the language used to express them. This is not to say that anyone is WRONG - that's not true. The way anyone sees is simply that, the way "I" see, whoever is the "I".

It is interesting to see how strongly people seem to hold their points of view toward this. It is hard to imagine why it is such a hot topic. I suspect that it is indicative of deeper orientations in each of us; how we view ourselves and the world in general. You know, some see things in sharper contrasts, others in more subtle shades. Some like to take things at face value, others must try to figure out how they work in detail.

Disagreement between people is a fact. Attempting to erase it could be well intentioned; I can see how it may be troubling that there seems to be a bit of tension in these conversations - but I think it is a mistake to deny that it exists.

 

[phaedrus]

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Is anyone willing to point to a specific photograph and explain, as directly as possible, how they were able to see that scene in a unique way?

No offense meant, but that's a trap. If it has to be explained, it can't be that good. And if it can be explained, it's material for a workshop or a how-to-book. The picture itself should be the mediator of it's content, not the words used in explaining it.

Here's my protestant art ethic running amok ...

Christoph

 

[Larry Bullis]

No offense meant, but that's a trap. If it has to be explained, it can't be that good. And if it can be explained, it's material for a workshop or a how-to-book. The picture itself should be the mediator of it's content, not the words used in explaining it.

Here's my protestant art ethic running amok ...

Christoph

I don't think he's asking for an explanation of the image. If he were, you would be quite right to object. He seems to want an account of the process in my mind while making it. What's wrong with that?

The only problem I have with it is not with his wanting it at all; remembering specific circumstances and putting it into words is where I'm somewhat stuck, but I'm going to try. It won't be immediately, though. However, I think it is well worth some effort.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, correct, I am looking for some discussion of how some of the principles discussed in this thread were applied in specific cases. If anybody is willing.

I can try to provide an example. Then people can critique my way of seeing. Just don't critique the image itself, I didn't post it for critique per se

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/Closer to Home/Rivanna Anhinga.html

What is it?This is a scene of the river where I scull and coach sculling; if you look closely at mid left you will the edge of a dock and a small scull and sculler pushing off from the dock. In the water you see an anhinga (a type of bird) atop a protruding log. For about a week, I observed the anhinga every morning at ~5:30 before the sunrise; it would swim to the log, shake the water off vigorously, and spread its wings as the sun rose, as if to dry them off. It would hold this position for quite some time, so one morning I sat waiting for it on a nearby bridge...

How I initially saw it: it occurred to me that the morning ritual of this bird closely resembled my own- we both took comfort in the reliable warmth of the morning sun, and used that time to find some peace and quiet.

Aside: speaking of peace and quiet, at the time I took this, there were several fishermen loudly cursing me from behind because I was occupying a prime spot on the bridge :rolleyes: who ever said photography is easy?!

What I couldn't see at first: the scene isn't merely "pretty" or dramatic, it is very personal in the sense that when I look at it now, I relive those peaceful, quiet mornings on the water. Thus it is a sort of meditative image for me. I was not expecting the effect to be so strong when I shot it; it was a nice surprise, though printing this has been a real pill because I find it difficult to work all the feelings into the print. So it is a work in progress... for a couple years now.

What I think I accomplished with this: I feel quite pleased that the scene was one of my first that didn't readily break up into 'subscenes' with contrived linkage; it is one of my first images that (to me) naturally conveys a total sensory feeling including not only vision but also sounds and feelings. Even the smell is quite vivid when I look at it. Of course, I do not expect anyone to get all these things out of it. It just is what it is.

So... did I destroy the image for you by telling you how I saw it?

 

[glbeas]

That was quite good Keith, much better than rambling technical details. I have to admit the picture doesn't capture me that same way it does you but thats to be expected, and I like being able to percieve it through your eyes in a fashion with your narrative.

 

[smieglitz]

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Is anyone willing to point to a specific photograph and explain, as directly as possible, how they were able to see that scene in a unique way?

As I walked into the building, I observed the change in shape and apparent angle of the shadow on the three different planes. Realizing there is only one best position in space to take the best photograph of any subject, I searched for that point at various times of the day as the shadow progressed. (Realize that moving an inch one way or another or being at that spot at a different time and hence sun angle, totally changes the appearance of the shadows on the three surfaces. This type of relationship exists everywhere and is not confined to this location.) When the cast shadow finally was sized and positioned as I wanted on the the vertical wall normal to the lens axis, I found the proper point in space for that time and took the photograph. The camera used was a $3 plastic Sunpet 120 which I knew from experience would produce the vignette and some barrel distortion. I exaggerated the vignette and saturation using the materials at hand (VHC 120 film and Ultra paper) and also by burning and dodging when printing. My intent was to exaggerate the collapsing of three-dimensional space into a two-dimensional photographic surface. It is a photograph about photography. The line is ever so slightly off because of the parallax between the taking lens and viewfinder on the cheap camera, but I decided that was OK afterwards because it touched upon another artifact of the photographic process.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Then people can critique my way of seeing. Just don't critique the image itself, I didn't post it for critique per se

Keith, I don't think there is much point (for me anyway) in "critiquing" the way you saw it. The way you saw it is the way you saw it, and you are doing great. What impresses me most is that you are thoughtful about it and apparently, you are learning from what you are doing.

The one thing I might ask, is: were you aware of yourself at the same time? You don't have to be to make "good pitchurs" but some people think it might be important. I know of one extremely well known photographer, at least, who is committed to being aware and present when the shutter is released. That is part of his personal discipline. I'm not giving names here because I think if someone wishes to make anything like this known, s/he ought to be able to make the announcement personally. That applies to my asking this question, also. An answer is not necessarily expected.

Regardless of whether we have some seeing discipline that we apply, when people are cursing us, it is pretty hard to concentrate. However, after you left, they caught twice as many fish. Fish are attracted to the elevated energy fields resulting from concentration, as I'm sure you already know.

So... did I destroy the image for you by telling you how I saw it?

Not at all. I found it very interesting. I would much prefer this to the litany of camera, lens, aperture, shutter speed etc. which so often spoils images for me!

 

[keithwms]

The one thing I might ask, is: were you aware of yourself at the same time?

I am not quite sure, to be honest.

I did of course feel very connected to the scene and particularly the bird. I've turned that corner, through the morning mist, so many times before. (Experiencing it so silently and smoothly, in a scull, is something that simply must be experienced) I did want to make a record of a feeling. In that sense, I do think I was aware of my own feelings... and all the technicalia was far in the background- or drawn upon more or less instinctively, I suppose. I don't recall any fuss about technicals.

On the other hand, I cannot help but think of a scene as a perfect painting in a store, a painting that I am attempting to steal by sleight of hand. It is something that I'd like to own. Is it so wrong?! lol But this feeling would seem to be in opposition with the idea that the scene always was, and always will be, mine. Not something I need to steal or own.

Also, as I mentioned, there was some effort expended to get the shot: leaning over the edge of a bridge beside the loud morning traffic of fishermen, which led to some rush and worry about whether I would be there at The Moment. So I am not fully convinced that I was "still with myself" as MW prescribed. I suppose that if a person can truly "be still" and let influences fall silent, then the right moment will present itself, and the rush of preparing the frame might be replaced with a relaxed confidence that The Moment will be experienced, even if not "captured."

Perhaps what I need to learn is to be "still with myself" at the enlarger and accept what I did. :rolleyes: As opposed to wondering how 5x7 fp4+ would have benefited the scene... or whether a blue filter might have brought the mist out a bit more... or whether some masterful feat of dodging and burning might make the sun's rays enter at a shallower angle and touch the bird more obviously... or, or, or...

P.S. I suppose the fishermen impatiently awaiting my departure were blind to the scene- they had other pursuits, and had seen this scene so many times... I wonder if they'd think it completely ordinary and mundane.

 

[keithwms]

Realizing there is only one best position in space to take the best photograph of any subject, I searched for that point at various times of the day as the shadow progressed.

Joe that is the very first thought that crossed my mind when looking at this: how special the roof's orientation is and wondering what it took to get it the shadow just so. So interesting the way this photograph automatically makes us "perspectivists" think and appreciate that particular point.

Dare I say, I think I see something in common in both of our shots- a slightly OCD-level concern about how to find the right place and the right time.

I suspect that you recorded your thoughts very effectively in this photograph.

 

[Larry Bullis]

It is a photograph about photography. The line is ever so slightly off because of the parallax between the taking lens and viewfinder on the cheap camera, but I decided that was OK afterwards because it touched upon another artifact of the photographic process.

That's a pretty neat image. I laid the edge of a piece of paper along the line, and the line is actually curved. That has to be from the distortion. It takes some guts to slice an image like that!

Very interesting isn't it? --How different this approach is from Keith's and Bill's.

Have you ever built an intersector? You seem to have that fascination with perspective. Here's a link to a few of Dürer's perspective studies. You've probably seen them before.

http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/Research/Short_Notes/homogeneous.html

I haven't got this attachment thing figured out yet.

 

[smieglitz]

...
Have you ever built an intersector? You seem to have that fascination with perspective. Here's a link to a few of Dürer's perspective studies...

I've used the last type for oil paintings.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I've used the last type for oil paintings.

Vincent Van Gogh reports, in his Letters, working with a similar device in Arles; he build it out of the local reeds. He found it pretty exciting.

To help him see...

I have a small one made of foamcore that I can fold up and pack around. The problem is always how to get the thing to stay in one place. I suppose a tripod would work.

 

[smieglitz]

Joe that is the very first thought that crossed my mind when looking at this: how special the roof's orientation is and wondering what it took to get it the shadow just so...

But part of my point is the roof's orientation is nothing special. The wall faces west, the other south and the sun is over my shoulder rising from the east. Classic Kodak box in the Northern Hemisphere. This is so common and so overlooked. This scene is everywhere.

The sun angle and height of the east wall affect the cast shadow on the north wall and where the hypotenuse appears on the surface. I waited until it just touched the door frame corners and then went searching for the lens point. A straight line between the horizontal, north, and east surfaces could be made any time of day before Zenith, but the location of the lens point shifts. I simply had to find the relationship of the three planes to the shadow. It was almost as though my eye projected the shapes you see in the final image.

I have a similar triptych where at one point I'm a step in front of the shadow cutting across a dumpster later placed in that scene. Then, I'm even with the line. Then the third shot is taken one step beyond the middle point. The appearance of the shadows is drastically different and almost chaotic, but very illustrative about the perspective point. Everything falls into place when the point is correct even if the time is held as constant as possible.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I thought you might enjoy some images from Brian Allen. He has a lot of fun with perspective.

http://www.pcnw.org/facultyPages/brianAllen/ballen01.php

There are three here. Use "next".

 

[Larry Bullis]

Dang. Post was ate.

Be patient with me. I'm trying to get the attachments to work. I don't get it. Still have half the space, have done it before, it ain't workin'.

failure. Here are the links to the images:

http://circle-of-confusion.net/portfolio/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/curved-cam-with-falloff.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/28/90049926_5297d0e410_o.jpg

Sorry. Hope it isn't too much trouble.

So, I begin again. Referenced is my image of the interior of the Washington State Capitol Rotunda. This is quite old but I remember it so vividly, that I can't think of a better example. Maybe some as good.

I had been there many times, often on jobs. I had always sort of wondered how I could shoot it. I had been doing a lot of specially designed pinhole camera stuff, so that was on my mind too.

Finding myself there once, I went and sat in the space for I'd guess about a half an hour. I know I moved from one place to another to get a sense of how things changed. Yes, I had thoughts in my head, and I know I made drawings in my sketchbook. Then I left and for a couple of years, thought about it occasionally. There was a period of several years, in which time the "seeing" was working internally.

When I needed to go back for some other reason, I built the camera shown below. The red line is the film; the green spots are the aspect of the pinhole as seen from the center of the film at that place. The idea (and I'd worked this out before; if you followed Pinhole Journal you may have seen it) was that the compressed aspect where the hole is close to the film will diminish the light, but where the film is farther away, the round aspect will admit more light; they cancel out.

The film is flat for about half (actually in the camera itself, not quite) then it begins to curve. The top of the image will show just past the zenith; the bottom just below the horizon.

Seeing in this way (and this is fairly typical for me) involves placing myself in the environment and staying there. A strong sense of my body within the space is very important. How does it feel to be there? In this kind of image, I want the image to show that; how it feels to be in the space.

I do / have done (who knows what's next?) many different kinds of work and this example refers only to usually manmade spaces. However, the variations may include some of the same features. When shooting the small cameras for magazines I did not do this; I hit the ground running. (I don't do that much anymore; I'm relearning almost everything.)

 

[keithwms]

Make sure you scroll down to the "close this window" button in the popout window when you add your attachments.... I don't see your image (yet).