To See...

[panastasia]

"Seeing simply is seeing significantly" (Jack Wilkinson, artist); BLACK CAT PHOTOGRAPHIC RULES-OF-THUMB, #47. PHOTOGRAPHIC SEEING.

#10. COMPOSITION - When the word rule is used, substitute un-rule, for there are no rules, only considerations.

 

[SuzanneR]

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

Thank you, Christoph! That explains a lot! And sometimes it's the filler material that we have to struggle to overcome by practicing with our eyes!!

There's an interesting article in today's Boston Globe that, and relates nicely to this conversation... and I think Whitey mentioned something along these lines earlier...

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_ar...make_better_doctors/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1

 

[glbeas]

We do not "see" with our eyes, all vision occurs in the visual centers of the brain. Plus there are multiple processing centers in the brain with different operations happening simultaneously to create our perceptions. Part of the brain processes movements, other parts work on object edges, more than I can remember to list, then it all comes together as "sight". This is why seeing is such a complicated thing what with all the processing and information filters the brain imposes, it's a wonder we can see anything at all.
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 that would bog us down trying to perform our daily rituals. So a lot of what we as photographers have to do is try to bypass or unlearn the filters we grew into.

 

[Larry Bullis]

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.

 

[Frank Szabo]

That's a lot how I've always looked at "sight".

The stuff we learn "not" to do in life sure screws us up.

 

[glbeas]

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.

Hilarious and head shaking all at the same time. This is sealed perceptions for sure, they don't even know how to see whats in front of them.

 

[bill schwab]

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 ...

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.

 

[David Brown]

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.

You might find this interesting:

Dead Link Removed

"The Photographer's Guide to the Eye"

Caveat: I let my subscription to PopPhoto lapse several years ago when I realized that every 3 months there was a new, greatest digigizmo. But, I bought the August issue this week when I needed something to read on the plane, and this gem was in it.

 

[Larry Bullis]

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.

I don't recall whether it was on this forum or the other one about "learning to see" (the two perhaps at this point probably ought to combine, there is significant duplication) Ed Sukach (sp?) made the point that we are "brainwashed" by our culture. I think these conventions in imaging are part of it. There might be a case for our being "dead to what's real" in that we are so thoroughly saturated with our cultural myth that it is as you say, difficult or impossible to do anything but replicate conventional forms.

This is where I have a great deal of difficulty when the terms "good" or "bad" etc. are used in relation to a photograph. What does this mean? Is a "good" photograph one that most closely replicates the forms? Is a "bad" photograph one that does not? When we make these judgments, what are the criteria for the assignment of value? I make a very strong effort NOT to use value terms in class critiques. It drives students absolutely nuts, but eventually I think most of them understand. You know, we all want to hear "you're good"! -- but does it help us, really? Or does it reinforce our illusions?

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.

I'm not sure what you mean, here, Bill. Are you using your eyes, or your imagination, or what? No ridicule!!

 

[bill schwab]

No ridicule!!

None taken! Thanks for asking. Often when I read back over this stuff I wrote, it looks crazy to me!

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. It ususally is attached in some way to the situation I find myself in as well. An old trip, an experience with friends, family, etc. It is more clearing my mind from the usual process of seeing and photographing and that process helps me do so. I get as far from those thoughts as I can by ...daydreaming in a way. By opening up and in effect listening with everything you can muster, you can make some pretty incredible stuff, I believe. I suppose this is why, even though I love to shoot with others, I don't produce so well in those situations. 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. There are photographs I've made in the past that I am surprised came out of me. It's very strange sometimes.

I hope I am answering your question without sounding like I am completely off the deep end!

 

[Ed Sukach]

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!

You are!!

This is awkward ground. I run out of English language capability - very quickly.

 

[Larry Bullis]

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.

Sometimes I need to parse what someone's written and figure out whether maybe if I restated it, I'd come up with something that means something different from the way it sounds to me as it is.

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? When you say "daydreaming" that could mean you are building castles in your mind, but I find enough contradiction in what I'm reading to suspect that isn't what you are doing.

Much of what you say seems quite familiar. I can remember times when I've more or less floated from one image to the next for a whole afternoon, etc. And no, it doesn't happen every time at all. I wish it did. I'm working on it.

 

[glbeas]

Sounds like meditation technique to me. Clear the mind, drop into the Alpha state, see the world in a new light. Sounds like you have a good handle on it Bill. Never thought of using something like that for photography, though it does make sense.

 

[bill schwab]

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?

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.

 

[bill schwab]

Sounds like meditation technique to me.

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!

Back to the real world now!

 

[Larry Bullis]

Here, I reveal myself as the kook that I really am.

...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.

 

[eddym]

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.

Bowzart, if you're a kook, then so am I. I've always felt that when I'm really shooting well, I'm in a sort of creative "zone," or an "altered state" of mind. You just open yourself up to whatever is around you and let things happen without trying to impose yourself on them. It's like a Zen state, or an altered consciousness.

 

[eddym]

Neither, Christoph here. I earn my money with ophthalmology.

Thanks for the explanation, Cristoph, it does indeed help! I knew I had read all that at some time, but couldn't remember the details.

 

[bill schwab]

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.

Thanks! I think I'm getting my point across now judging by your response.

Sorry to be so vague. I'm trying!

Thanks again.

Eddy.... - thanks to you as well. A much shorter explaination that I can come up with!

 

[Gim]

I have been reading Zen crap for 40 years. I should have just followed Bill.
Jim

 

[ilya1963]

Space in between ,
you know,
the place you go
where
you become a tool
where eyes are shut wide open

ILYA

 

[smieglitz]

I have been reading Zen crap for 40 years. I should have just followed Bill.
Jim

Ahh, Grasshoppah. What is sound of one Zen Crapping?

 

[Ed Sukach]

This thread had led me to think - deeply - about photography and my approach and modus operandi.

Now, I think I am suffering from brain fatigue, A LOT of raw, unprotected nerves have been stimulated - and all that seems to make it difficult to write.

My list of what I am going to try to do in the near future:

1. Simplify

2. Not try too hard. In fact, not "try" at all, at least not in the sense of trying to "force" the creation of an image.

3. Explore my emotional connection with the subject and the atmosphere of the moment - and its effect on the finished work.

4. At least for the immediate future, do only that which I enjoy - what I want to do. I've got to get back in touch with the "bright sparks" of discovery and elation I've enjoyed before.

I've got to go - surprise visitor. More later.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'm in "time trouble" at the moment , but here goes...

I've been doing a LOT of introspection, thinking about the possible correlation, or lack of it, between education, knowledge, discipline, conforming to convention....

We ALL produce work of varying "qualty" ... "success" is proobably a more coherent measure.

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?

 

[phaedrus]

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?

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.

"Good work" on the one hand is something you tell yourself when things come out like you intendend them or even surprise you by their quality. Still, it is even better to hear these words uttered by "a jury of your peers".

That satisfaction and the satisfaction of success as defined above seldom come together or even relate to the same photo.

Just my impression from starting to pursue photography on a more serious level.

Christoph