What do you 'see' when you take a photograph, and how do you portray it?

[Shadowman]

That's an interesting idea, John. I do not think it is for me for the moment. Currently, I feel fairly confident on the technical side, and I do not want to be in a situation where I am just looking for scenes where the object would "fit". It does remind me of one issue that I face, because of which I rarely take people photos. I absolutely am horrible at placing them in the environment! I do believe such an exercise would help me with that. Right now, the first step is to improve my ability to assess the elements in the environment.

Abhi,

I think the still life and portraiture idea will help you then. Still in particular because you can start with a bowl of fruit, how many times have you seen a painting or photograph of a bowl of fruit and said "I've seen that a million times" I don't want to repeat it. Then you see an amazing shot of a bowl of fruit with the flesh glistening in the morning light and say "now that makes me crave a piece of fruit" and you realize the photograher/artist did something new with the subject. It's not just an image, it's an emotion.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Rob, Abhi, all,

A very interesting thread, which I made a few notes about while I cuaght up today;

If you come across a great landscape view you might think it very 'pretty' and pleasing and wish to capture it. When presented to a viewer, they may also think it pretty and pleasing. End of story? No, I don't think so. Surely you are trying to evoke in the viewer at least some of the thoughts and emotions that you felt at the time, and want the viewer to share in that? Achieving that is rather difficult, and for some subjects it's an easier task than for others. But I'd suggest that you can do it for any subject by treating photography as a thinking exercise, rather than one just concerned with the practical aspects of camera hardware and processing software.

This is true Rob, what I think a lot of people miss is that size matters - I'd better explain that before someone gets the wrong idea
For me landscape shots need to be big - afterall, they envelopped the photographer and in so doing, gave him/her that elusive feeling. So if it is presented as a 700 x 500px image on an screen size that is 2 or 2.5 times that wide and viewed at arms length, it is going to be disappointing, gauranteed, both sense of scale and angle of view have been lost.

Now consider it posted at 1400 x 1000px and viewed on a 23 inch monitor at a distance that gives an eyes angle of view of at least 90 degrees (45 either side), that's about 16 inches eye to screen (sorta measured) - now it'll look much more impressive - provided the technical quality (resolution and PP skills) - are there to support display at that size. It is far more likely the viewers eyes can dart around the full scene taking in the beauty, just as the photographers did, and so get a similar reaction.

That's why photographic galleries display large print shots, as large as will be necessary for the viewing distance likely and necessary for the subject (not all things need to be viewed like that).

Some photographers said that "seeing" comes from experience. How we know that experience is on the right way or not?, for me this is the big question.

Yes, it definitely does, although I'm sure some/much can be learnt, possibly better by formal class than reading a book. Doing it from experience alone requires lots of shooting, then, when in PP (or after posting here at CiC), careful analysis of the result and figure out what choices you made at shooting time that worked, and what didn't - this means everything from looking at where the actual focus point in use was in relation to the subject (and how that related to the subject being sharp or otherwise), to a careful study of geometric shapes formed by the contrasty picture elements. In order not to over analyse, do this quick, look away, then at the image, where do your eyes first land, then what, and how many, things do they jump to in the next one second?

~ having a vision and then working to create it, rather than perhaps trying to find a picture when you don't know what you are looking for....

The applicability of this depends, to an extent, what you're shooting, if wildlife, unless time and access is unlimited, you have to take what presents itself on the day. If you want a really good image, you have to keep going back and hoping for a lucky combination of subject behaviour, getting it focused and exposed properly, background, weather, lighting, etc., just as say, Steve does, with his herons and deer. By comparison, for landscape shooters, the weather and lighting become far more relevant - unless someone parks a darn great truck in your shot.

Well. painting and drawing can be seen as essentially an additive process – one starts with a blank canvas and adds things in. In contrast, with photography one starts with everything and then uses the various tricks of the trade to strip away the detail that distracts from one's message.

Good concept, I can't say I had thought of it quite like this Nick, but you're absolutely right.

These photographers then have the natural tendency to avoid intruding into the private spaces of others. That is why we see some many people bringing home travel photos consisting of images of brick and mortar and vegetation (Oh yes.. those damned sunsets also!) and no shots of the people who live, work, and play in the areas which are visited. I will often see portfolios of travel images and want to ask, "Were there no people where you visited?"

Guilty as charged, m'lud
Thank you Ricahrd, I will try to address this in future.

I simply cannot get my head around incidental shooting.
~~ my approach is that I do not want to see a scene that needs to be composed at the last minute. It has to the case that composition and subject matter are pre-conceived.

Again this depends on what you want to shoot, I prefer the challenge of nature, usually birds (often in flight), over scouring pads

If you take this too far; when I go out to shoot herons, but a swan or goose presents itself; should I not shoot it?
Of course I will (but usually get caught out by having the metering set for the heron), so I have to do the best with what I have, I can't precompose a bird in flight shot much - at least, not from the typical distances I work at.

I can shoot different birds, even swap lenses (and mindset) to shoot bugs, but if I am out for those subjects, I am very unlikely to 'see' a beautiful landscape composition while doing so, it'd take something as obvious as a sunset, rainbow or a huge, dark storm cloud to redirect my attention - and then there's "what if the heron comes by while I'm phaffing around taking landscape and have the wrong lens on"

Here's an idea for Abhi, take a small object such as an old watch or small figurine. First photograph it in your home using either natural light, studio light, or some other source. Then take that same object with you where ever you go, hopefully it's not the garlic bulb, and photograph it in different locations using whatever background, light source you happen to be in.

Great idea John
I might go further and suggest using any lamps or torches to hand that can be positioned easily (ideal = 2 or 3 small gooseneck or angle-poise desk lamp), shoot the figurine (in monochrome jpg to keep things simple) and play with the lights, both position and strength (via distance) to observe the effects. Steve's (?) polystrene head is a case in point (forgive me, I have forgotten her name).

As an added bonus, people will wonder what you are doing and you can slip in a few candids as they watch you. Or better yet, have your wife photograph the object while you observe the bystanders.

and that one

Yes a very interesting read, thank you all,