To See...

[firecracker]

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.

Reminds me of what I learned in a basic drawing class back in college. The very first thing we learned was not to outline the object but identify the shapes of lights that create it...

 

[Iwagoshi]

Some reading for you:

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

Barriers to Seeing
"...the "Me cramp"; too much self-concern blocks direct experience of things outside yourself."
Excerpt from Photography and The Art of Seeing by Freeman Peterson. Thanks Rob I might have to pick up this book.

 

[mark]

I can't remember where I read it, or heard it, or something, but someone once said shoot, and shoot a lot. Then evaluate and evaluate a lot. Evaluate means how could this have been better at acheiving what you want. The more you shoot the more loose you will become. The more you evaluate what you shoot the more focused you will become. They said the idea was to shoot loose and focused on what you wanted. You would train yourself.

I find that when I go out shooting, after a long spell of not shooting, I am "looking for the masterpiece", and I would always want to throw away what I shot. But if I take along a roll film camera and the LF camera I purposely blow through a roll or two just to loosen up. I then find I am more relaxed and can see better. I also get more keepers for me. Maybe not the master piece I was looking for but I am more comfortable with what I got.

Works for me. YMMV

 

[CJBo001]

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.

 

[Larry Bullis]

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.

I've heard about this, and can well believe it. Are you familiar with the work of Uta Barth? She makes photographs which attempt the first look you get at something before you quite figure out what it is, before it is "conscious".

 

[keithwms]

Umm, she, actually.

apologies! I saw Bethe and thought Hans.

 

[winger]

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.

 

[MattKing]

That's ok - I gotta get a decent avatar up sometime. My username doesn't give much of a clue either.

Ah Bethe, it is the mysteries in life that give it spice!

Matt

P.S. not that you could tell a lot by my avatar

 

[SuzanneR]

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.

The strength and beauty of photography lies in the fact that a lens can see EVERYTHING within it's field of view. I love the surprises I find in my pictures, that My eyes never saw.

Exercises, like drawing, and stopping to really look, and not allow your brain to override your eyes will hopefully lead to being a better photographer or artist. That said... there are still small details that turn up in my photographs that I did not see at the time, and I think that's part of what drives me to keep at it.

Great thread everyone, thanks!

 

[eddym]

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.

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.

 

[JBrunner]

Take some object, one you recognize as "familiar" and examine it. Learn how it really is, how it looks, and how it looks from different perspectives, instead of thinking the little bit you remember from long ago, is the object.

 

[winger]

That's ok - I gotta get a decent avatar up sometime. My username doesn't give much of a clue either.

Sorry, no way to edit. Keep discussing the original topic. I'm getting some good ideas.

 

[Peter Black]

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:

 

[thebanana]

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

 

[RobC]

A friend of mine has always said, "go with the flow"...not bad advice in general

On another forum someone has a signature, which I've always thought was quite good, which says "Only dead fish go with the flow".

 

[Larry Bullis]

A friend of mine has always said, "go with the flow"...not bad advice in general

But hey, be careful! "Even a dead fish can go with the flow" -- Jim Hightower, the American populist political commentator who also says that "the only things in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armadillos"

 

[SuzanneR]

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.

Eddy.. I could be utterly wrong!

Like you.. I'm looking at the screen of my computer as I write this... watching each letter as it appears. When I am focussed on one point, the rest is a bit of a blur... I can see green out the window behind the computer... but I'm not really making out the individual trees and leaves that are there. It's difficult to take in all the details of any scene in front of us (especially the mess on my desk... wish that would just disappear from view )/ I can look at all the details... just not at the same moment.

When I review film... and print pictures, there are things there that I overlooked. I tend to concentrate on the perimeter of the frame when I am shooting. In the following photograph... I knew I had a bright spot of sun behind my child... I knew he was holding (though I could not see it, so my brain fills in that detail) a gill snail that was in the bucket... but I did not consciously see the shadows of leaves on his shoulder blades.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It was a pleasant surprise, and admittedly, easier to see in the print than the scan, but I think that's what I mean by a camera lens (with film of course) can record the kind of detail all at once, that is hard for our eyes to see at the same time.

That's why, I think, taking the time to hone our observational skills will improve our pictures... if for no other reason than, we can find ourselves in situations to make those happy accidents and details happen more frequently... even if our eyes behave slightly differently than a camera lens.

If that makes any sense at all??

Oh, and Bethe... great avatar!!! Good to "see" you again!!

 

[sun of sand]

I don't really see how sitting in a dark room looking at light on walls is going to make you a photographer
We have all seen light and we have all seen light -been conscious of how it operates and interacts with objects- since early in childhood. You don't forget your shadow.
But
Maybe someone can abstract the thought enough to be able to take it out into the real world and have it work for em


The only thing I can say is that you "have" to see -and I'd rather say-
experience
the small things in life
seemingly inconsequential stuff. Cracks in walls, bumps in paint, grain in wood, growth of grass, crap like that.
Become aware of small things often overlooked.
Shadows don't make a photograph. Light doesn't make a photograph. Relations makes photographs

This to that. What does this say about that. What's the story. How can you make a story out of it. What is there to learn.
Looking at walls isn't going to get you a date
Seeing the furtive glance just might.

Notice what is meant to be kept hidden from those unable to really see

and practice a lot because all that is bullshit, too.

 

[glbeas]

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.

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.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Minor w

Perhaps a thread detailing exercises or assignments designed to hone your observational skills.

In the spirit of the original post, I have posted an article under "photographers" (the available categories seem a bit lacking, and hey, I'm new here!). I thought it would be more than a bit long as a post in the thread, and also I suspect that interest in the subject may spill over into some of the other forums.

I hope some will find it helpful.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Minor White's methods of teaching "seeing".

Perhaps a thread detailing exercises or assignments designed to hone your observational skills.

In the spirit of the original post, I have posted an article under "photographers" (the available categories seem a bit lacking, and hey, I'm new here!). I thought it would be more than a bit long as a post in the thread, and also I suspect that interest in the subject may spill over into some of the other forums.

I hope someone will find it helpful.

 

[gr82bart]

My apologies, I didn't read through this entire thread. Photography is some respects is the same as any sport. "To see" takes some mechanical practice or exercises every now and then until one gets the clouds to part and the angels to to trumpet one big "aha".

One constant I keep hearing in my association with some great teachers is to constrain oneself every now and then. One begins to appreciate what one sees daily, but never registers ... some suggestions I have been told:

• Shoot only with a very wide angle lens for a month
• Pick a single subject and only shoot that subject for a month or more
• Take an egg and shoot 100 different images of it (or a mannequin)
• Shoot only a single 'compositional rule' for a while - ie rule of thirds for example
• Shoot only by breaking that same compositional rule
• Shoot by choosing one lens and setting the focus to a predetermined distance only
• Shoot an entire roll only at specific time of day for several days in a row - pick any time
• Pick a specific spot and shoot as many rolls from only that spot for an entire day - from very early in the morning to late at night - bring food!
• Pick the opposite of what you normally shoot - if you shoot rocks and trees, shoot only people for a while for example
• Pick the opposite film that you normally shoot - if you shoot b&w, shoot only colour for a while
• Shoot an entire roll a day everyday for a month
• Shoot only those things you find disgusting or disturbing for a while
• Shoot only those things that make you angry
• Shoot only those things you find beautiful
• Bring a friend with you and have them 'pick' things for you to shoot - and you can only shoot those things your friend points out - for an entire day
• Photograph a stranger for a day
• Photograph a loved one for a day
• Photograph yourself
• Photograph yourself in the nude
• Emulate a 'famous' photographer's body of work
• Don't take pictures for a while but do something else artistic

I look at these suggestions and the same theme appears - forcing oneself to respond emotionally in some way to things we see everyday by constraining oneself. I think the way to learn to see is to understand how you respond to the things you see. The big "aha". If that makes sense.

Regards, Art.

 

[Vaughn]

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

Actually, if you are reading Suzanne's post on the screen, then the windows, floor, et al, are out of focus in the optical sense. Try to focus on the screen and the window behind it at the same time -- and you will find that you can not. But our brains maintains a sense of focus -- even though optically, our eyes do not have enough depth of field to do so. The brain is remembering what the objects look like when they are in focus, even though our eyes are focused on only a part of the scene we are concentrating on.

My "seeing" changed dramatically when I finally realized that we do not see actual objects. I do not see a chair -- I see the light reflecting off the chair and its surroundings.

Now I photograph the forms light creates as it reflects off of objects -- the light becomes my subject...not the objects reflecting the light. The landscape becomes a field of light forms which I use to express what I am experiencing in that landscape.

Lordy -- that all sounds so foolish, but it is the best I can do for now.

Vaughn

 

[eddym]

Eddy.. I could be utterly wrong!

Yeah, me too.
I have a vague memory that maybe we have different sets of receptors -those rods and cones thingies- in the center of our retina, or maybe more of them, than in the outer parts. So maybe that explains why we see better the objects that we are looking at directly.

Maybe a member of our medical staff could explain this to us more clearly. Mike? Jerold?

 

[phaedrus]

Maybe a member of our medical staff could explain this to us more clearly. Mike? Jerold?

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