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

[rob marshall]

Abhi and I have been having a discussion by PM over the past two days about 'seeing' with regard to photography. As it's quite interesting and seems to touch upon many of the problems that are thrown up on the forum I thought it worth posting and opening up for general discussion. I have Abhi's permission to do this, and to copy his (edited) PM contents.

Why can't I see half as well. Put more than two or three elements in a scene and my brain either filters out half of them, or if I try to be patient confuses itself.

Abhi

Abhi

I'm a very analytical person. I simply can't ignore anything. If I buy something new I have to redesign it, if I talk to someone new I start analysing them in detail. I just 'notice' things and think about them. I have always done it, and I can't help it. Sometimes it's a real pain, and it has got me into trouble at various times when I have thought too much, and said too much as a result.

A good method to improve your observation and analysis skills is next time you are outdoors in a static photographic situation (say a landscape), put the camera down, and write down a list of all the things you can see - as many as you can. Then write down everything you feel about what you are seeing, and any other observations. You will be surprised at the list you get. Then pick up your camera and take your shots. They should improve!

Rob

Rob

What you said about yourself is very interesting, and I feel the need to elaborate, if you don't mind. In that I would say I am very similar (I blame 10 years at the university, studying engineering for that). I can completely understand getting in trouble by over-analyzing things. But, at the same time it has saved me at times.

I can "see" a lot of things. Subtle changes in tones, minor variations in colour and tiny details others may overlook. But, only in the subject I am focused on at the moment. Photography wise, I find my troubles to be two-fold:

1. I have a tendency to focus on individual things, much more than most people. For example, in that cave sculpture shot I did not pay attention to the highlights.

2. When I try to pay attention to everything, that's when I face my real trouble. I can not seem to fathom the interplay and relationships between objects/shapes, light/shadow, etc. well. So, while with enough effort, while I do ok with simple compositions and single objects, complex scenes leave me bamboozled.

The exercise you suggest would, I am sure, be beneficial to me in the long run. I suspect that the first few days I will come back with a long list of things, with an empty feelings column. But, eventually the exercise of writing about how individual subjects in a scene feel to me would force me to tap my sub-conscious, I hope.

Abhi

There is clearly more to taking a good shot than having a good scene and a decent camera. Photography should be a way of expressing something to the viewer. We are all guilty (me too) of just presenting a shot because we are pleased with out technical ability, and failing to appreciate that the content, and the way in which it is portrayed will by of far more importance to the viewer when it comes to carrying a message that evokes emotions and thoughts.

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.

For me, what remains vitally important is taking the time to see and to observe, and to think about what I see, then think about how it should be portrayed. I'm then in a better position to use the practical/physical techniques, such as lighting, composition, set-arrangement, camera angles, different lenses etc, to get to my goal.

I'm sure that Abhi and I would welcome your views on this.

[LeoLeo]

For me, what remains vitally important is taking the time to see and to observe, and to think about what I see, then think about how it should be portrayed.

I think everything is condensed in this phrase. I am also guilty for not doing this in most of my pictures, unfortunatelly, and the results are obvious. I don't try to excuse myself, but I'm hunting pictures, most of the time. Because of this, being in a constant hurry, and taking pictures just for the record,my photography is not improving at all. Is exactly the opposite, making me to believe that I'm limited by my gear, and not paying attention to the information that should come from my photography.

At least for me, I should go back and take a deep breath, and start from scratch. To start with the basics, with lines, shapes, formes, patterns and colours, to know all sorts of light, and not at least, with the basics of composition.

Looking back from time to time over my photos, I know that in most of them I don't "see" anything, maybe a slightly improvement in technical aspects, but that's all. I'm thinking to start reading books of visual arts, and to forget for some times about shutterspeed and aperture size.

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.

Maybe proposing myself some "themes", achievable one, like beches, streets, doors, windows will make me stop and force me to compose more and think more.

Leo

[Shadowman]

It's one thing to see the elements in your own photograph, but can you see them in others photographs. What really catches your eye when you vote in the contests, is it just the composition, is there a story behind the image, do you really care why the photographer took the image or is just viewing it enough for you. If you can see the story, the purpose or intent in the photographs of others then you can eventually incorporate into your own works. But just like Abhi said, when the brain starts trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together we usually suffer brain freeze. Writers go through the same dilemma, staring at a blank page wondering if the next word is fitting for what their mind en-visualizes.

[wilgk]

A very interesting discussion Gentlemen and as I have been accused of suffering in my previous work career of 'analysis paralysis'
- I feel I am at least here amongst friends
That phrase itself is indeed interesting as one can over analyse, which would be ok to a point as long as the analysis does not paralyse the thought processes or action that needs to follow.
Leo your comments are also very interesting in how you describe 'hunting pictures'. Steve (Wirefox) has led some discussions about this exact point - 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....

[FrankMi]

Over the years I have run the gambit from shooting everything because it all looks great to not shooting anything because none of it looks good enough and back. I have read more composition tips that I can ever possibly remember when I have my finger on the shutter button.

In the end, I think what works best for me is to try to understand what it is about an image that make me want to push the button. What emotion do I feel for the image? What do I have to do to get a result that can convey that emotion to the viewer? What will I need to do in post processing to complete the process? When I can take the time to ask myself these questions, the composition tips I need to concern myself with become more obvious and I get a better result. Eventually I begin to understand what I am looking for in an image before I head out to shoot.

I don't think that this approach will necessarily work well until you have been through enough trial and error to be able to focus on what works and what doesn't. The try and fail process never ends if you want your abilities to continue to grow, but I feel that sharpening your ability to 'see' comes with sharpening your ability to determine what you are looking for and that is an ever-evolving experience.

[tbob]

This may be a bit of a tangent, however the main reason I do photography is that it allows me to immerse myself in the present and drop all the ephemera and extraneous mental debris associated with life and work. I find I usually need at least ten minutes of sitting in one spot to go into photographic zen mode. My process is to sit down and just look in a very restricted area,often ten feet by ten feet in a field or as small as a square foot in the forest, until suddenly I "see". It might be a bit of spider web running from a leaf to a twig, light reflecting off a blade of grass or a the curve of snow along something (at minus twenty degrees or less the process may be circumvented by impending appendage death but you get the general idea).

Often due to contortion or position problems I cannot photograph the interaction, however the meditative process of stopping and looking at what would otherwise be mundane is what I need to get into the zone.

Can I create great images consistently? No I still rank myself as a plodder creatively. Sometimes it all gels and I can portray what I see, alas the frequency is quite low. At this point it's all about the hunt and training myself to be less goal oriented and take what comes. Amazingly I find my best images are always a result of serendipity rather than planning.

[ktuli]

My particular difficulty in this area is that I have found that my view of the world is often very different from what most people see. Every once in a while, they converge, but usually I'm on the outside. I sometimes can understand why people like something in a photograph, but I know deep down that I don't like it. There are things in some of my photographs that stir me deeply, that other people look at and couldn't care two shakes about.

This is especially frustrating for me when I try to have my photos compete with others. Our local photography club has regular competitions and they announce the scores for each photo as they scroll through them during the competition. The scores I assign in my head are usually wildly different and often polar opposite of what the judges score. I can't explain it other than to say it is just who I am.

So I've grown to accept that. There are plenty of times when I look through the viewfinder and I see things that I know I like but that I expect very few other people to appreciate. There are times I see things that I think others will like, and sometimes they do sometimes they don't. The problem there is that I'm trying to see with someone else's eyes, I think.

Sure - I still share my photos. I learn what others see in them that I either missed or chose to ignore. I store that away for future reference if I want to use it. I try to do the same with other peoples' photos as well - learning what they were seeing and what I am deciding to pick out of their vision.

Can I learn to "see" like others? Problably. Do I want to? Personally, I don't think so - at least not fully. I know that part of photography requires our own stamp on our images, and if I lose that, then I won't like my photos either. I'll continue to hone it and tweak it, but in the end it will likely still have my vision to it - whether other people like it or not will have to be seen.

- Bill

[rpcrowe]

IMO, "seeing an image" or composition is a many faceted evolution...

IMO, many photographers have a problem converting a 3-dimensional scene into a 2-dimensional view which is why, I think, that some photographers like to compose using live view. It is easier for them to see the image portrayed on the 2-dimensional LCD. However, I personally like eye-level viewfinders because the viewfinder eliminates other distractions and "puts me into the image"...

Another problem with composition is that humans have selective vision when viewing a 3-dimensional scene while the camera has no such selectivity. We tend to "see" subjects which interest us to the exclusion of the environment around those subjects. The photographer needs to inject such selectivity (by using selective focus, leading lines and other techniques) so the viewer of his or her images "sees" what he or she is seeing. One problem caused by the selective vision is that the background often intrudes into the subject. In our images, without the benefit of our selective vision; we see trees or telephone poles growing out of the heads of subjects and we see the backgrounds intruding onto our subjects or our subjects disappearing into the beackground...

Finally, there is the aspect of privacy. Many photographers have a private space around them into which they resent intrusion or at least feel awkward when that space is intruded upon. 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?"

[mk00]

An interesting thread as it's something I've been thinking about over the past few weeks. I think I'm a little like Bill S in that what often I like isn't reflected by what others prefer. The mini competition entries being an example where this happens.
I have 2 types of photos I usually take - the straightforward record of an event - family gathering, holiday 'snaps' where I hope to record exactly what is there (avoiding trees growing out of peoples heads), and the ones that I think of as 'interesting'. The latter being the ones that cause problems with what I see. Very often I know how I want the result to look, and how it should look, but it doesn't always happen, no matter what I try. Often it is technical - getting the light right, avoiding reflections, blown highlights, background etc, but often it is just that I cannot get the recorded image to look how I 'see' it. As mentioned this is very likely the difference between what we perceive and how we perceive it and what can actually be recorded. Very frustrating but I keep working at it, and hopefully, getting better at it, or at least learning what I can and cannot do ! And never blame the camera.
All part of the fun of photography - I always try to remember that's why I do it.

[nickjohnson]

Humm ….. “seeing” …. if only I could.
Well since I started to do photography “properly” about five years ago, I've made lots of progress – hey I was a looooong way back so there was (and still is) plenty of room for improvement! The one thing where I know for sure I've made zero progress is understanding what looks good. I've been fortunate to have more than my fair share of good results in our competitions here on CiC, and plenty of not so good results too. But here is the thing, I have no idea – I mean NO IDEA – why some of my images are much better received than others. Now I like all of my images I post here on CiC, and I know that I like some more than others, but that has no coralation at all to the results I get. Please don't get me wrong – I've no complaint or issue with the competitions. Any disappointment that I may have is nothing more than self inflicted injury. So why does that all matter and what has it to do with “seeing”?
For me, it's very difficult to plan a shoot or set out with a pre-conceived idea since I don't know what looks good, or why one way of depicting a situation is better than another Oh yes, I know all the basic rules – composing on the thirds – having a lead in to give a sense of perspective – limiting the colour pallet – only shooting in good light. The well meaning list of things one must do is both endless and useless – at least to me. It's true to say I have executed some planned photography, and with some success. So perhaps I'm just too bone idle to do things properly. But if planning things and going out with a particular purpose is required (at least for me) – where is the spontaneity, the serendipity, and the joy?
I know that some of my difficulty comes from a lifetime of being a details person. One way or another all my working life has been about getting the details right – and the more complicated things where the better I was able to perform. (Sadly no longer the case – and another story). So how does this impact my photography? 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. But now there's another thing – what message? I simply don't know why I should – or need to – convey a message to anyone who is kind enough to view one of my images. Is it not enough that it is pleasing?
So, gentle reader – I hear you ask - “What is this bloke twittering on about, and why does he bother with photography anyway?”. To which I answer - “ I don't know”. I think that's where I came in …....

Regards,

Nick.

[Wirefox]

ust presenting a shot because we are pleased with out technical ability, and failing to appreciate that the content, and the way in which it is portrayed

This we are all guilty of on a scale of 1-10. As I have often said - and a may as well say it again - I simply cannot get my head around incidental shooting. I can see why it is necessary in some cases, street photography for instance. By incidental shooting I mean walking around hoping that you will see the next million dollar shot.

I am trying to train myself to never see anything through the view finder that I do not expect to see. The view finder is a very minor point in conceiving the image. It is used simply to frame the shot and has the added benefit of being able to view the settings. I always try to conceive the shot in my head. This is done either through abstract thought or a visual prompt. If visual prompt I will go away and think about what I want as an end point. So, all the working out, the composition the DoF etc. are already there before I even approach a subject. In fact it could be days before I actually find the right scene to fit the concept. If it does not exist or occur naturally I make it.

This brings me to another point. Many of my shots are taken with sometimes quite heavy PP in mind but even if you do not 'do' heavy PP it pays to think about what you could achieve with PP in a scene that is less than perfect and how to best capture the image so that PP will be successful.

In conclusion 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. The viewfinder is used to ensure the camera stands a fair chance of capturing what is in my head. We all do this to a certain degree. The landscaper often knows his or her location and will have a preconceived notion of what is required to make the image in terms of lighting, weather, time of day etc. The portrait photographer will have already worked out the lighting settings, the poses and the backgrounds. What I do not want is to go to the supermarket with a list that says; tin of beans and a loaf of bread and come back with a M&S ready meal for one.

So the problem of not seeing the wood for the trees will never occur. If you find yourself getting flustered by the number of variables in the scene, put your camera away, walk away from the scene and have a good think about what you wish to achieve (it could take days or weeks). When you have that mental image and the settings firm in your mind go back and it will come together in the viewfinder. You have done the artistic bit, not get down to the artisan technicalities of capturing that mental frame. I strongly believe that the ability to do this (or learn to do this) is the difference between an art photographer and an artisan photographer.

[Katy Noelle]

As I have often said - and a may as well say it again - I simply cannot get my head around incidental shooting. I can see why it is necessary in some cases, street photography for instance. By incidental shooting I mean walking around hoping that you will see the next million dollar shot.

It's a joy, for me, to be in the moment. To explore, discover, observe! I enjoy it tremendously and, dear friend, don't want to lose that (although, I would love to grow in the ability to preconceive an idea.) Actually, I think my "big explores" (as Tigger calls them) grow with ideas, every time, from the time before. The ideas are always percolating in the back of my head. I have other thoughts that are in sync with yours and Rob's, etc. but I need to run to the store to get a roasted chicken, sour dough bread and baby greens for dinner, tonight!

[Shadowman]

And what about still life photography? The only limitation to your imagination is choosing a subject to photograph. Once you have the object of your desire, then you just work that object until you get it right or you get something that appeals to you. Portraiture is another style that you can really work, however you don't want your model to suffer while you are trying to figure out how to master the lighting.

[rob marshall]

And what about still life photography? The only limitation to your imagination is choosing a subject to photograph. Once you have the object of your desire, then you just work that object until you get it right or you get something that appeals to you. Portraiture is another style that you can really work, however you don't want your model to suffer while you are trying to figure out how to master the lighting.

I agree. Still life probably offers the most flexibility when it comes to imagination and doing something 'different'. You have complete control over the subject and it's environment. Here's an example that I did some years ago. It's just a clove of ordinary garlic, but it offers so many other suggestions on the imagination.

[rob marshall]

I simply cannot get my head around incidental shooting. I can see why it is necessary in some cases, street photography for instance. By incidental shooting I mean walking around hoping that you will see the next million dollar shot.

Steve

I mostly agree with this. The main reason I bought the G1 camera was that I was out walking a lot carrying the 5D and a lot of heavy gear and occasionally (very occasionally) taking a 'good' shot. It just isn't worth it. The G1 can produce a very good image on the rare occasions that a great scene 'presents itself'. I know you probably will disagree with that last phrase, but it does happen, although it probably does depend on individual circumstances. I am fortunate to live amongst some of the best landscape countryside in the UK, and I do get out there at least 2-3 times a week on walks etc. It's inevitable that I will come across great scenes more often that some other people. I just have a statistically higher chance of it happening.

Here's a good example. This was shot several years ago while I was on a late evening walk on my local beach. I got back just at sunset. It had been cloudy up until I took this, but they clouds suddenly cleared. I just happened across this fisherman, and I asked him to pose - which he reluctantly did, but only for a few seconds. It's a totally unplanned shot. I've sold several copies of this, including one from another forum where I had posted it and a member PM'd me unprompted and said his wife wanted a copy of it to hang. Don't underestimate unplanned shots.

[Shadowman]

I agree. Still life probably offers the most flexibility when it comes to imagination and doing something 'different'. You have complete control over the subject and it's environment. Here's an example that I did some years ago. It's just a clove of ordinary garlic, but it offers so many other suggestions on the imagination.

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. As an added bonus, people will wonder what you are doing and you can sllip in a few candids as they watch you. Or better yet, have your wife photograph the object while you observe the bystanders. Either way, it should lead to some interesting shots and possibly some interesting conversations.

[Wirefox]

It's a joy, for me, to be in the moment. To explore, discover, observe! I enjoy it tremendously and, dear friend, don't want to lose that

Katy, I am not suggesting that what I am trying to do works for everyone. The enjoyment gained out of mooching about and getting the shots you can will appeal to the majority. It becomes part of the whole experience. All I am saying is that when I do go mooching about I know what I am looking for.

I know you probably will disagree with that last phrase, but it does happen, although it probably does depend on individual circumstances. I am fortunate to live amongst some of the best landscape countryside in the UK, and I do get out there at least 2-3 times a week on walks etc. It's inevitable that I will come across great scenes more often that some other people. I just have a statistically higher chance of it happening.

Rob, this is a good point (and beautiful image by the way). I think if I lived where you do I would probably be tagging the photography onto the general exploration but in essence I would apply the same principles as I stated above. The only difference is that I would see a a lot more that I would be tempted to shoot outside of my original remit. I currently do not have a great deal of my time to devote on the photography so I tend to be economical with the time I do have. It is also a pain that with my condition I have to have someone with me when I stray too far

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. As an added bonus, people will wonder what you are doing and you can sllip in a few candids as they watch you. Or better yet, have your wife photograph the object while you observe the bystanders. Either way, it should lead to some interesting shots and possibly some interesting conversations.

John this is what I mean about hunting the shot. However, if you are new to photography this is an ideal way to learn about lighting and the camera general. You can apply disciplined shooting methods when the confidence is there that you can handle most shooting situations. One thing I have found with working the shot out before I pick up the camera is that I take very few shots. I usually take less than half a dozen shots for any one project. This means less time 'picking' the keepers and more time to spend on processing. I simply do not have the time to wade through 100's of shots every week.

[abhi]

You have done the artistic bit, not get down to the artisan technicalities of capturing that mental frame.

Thank you, Steve. I have had quite a few discussions with both Rob, and Jiro on the subject. And I had been reading voraciously on the topic, because the artistic bit was what I felt to be my biggest weakness. And this comment of yours helped me put everything that I had been reading, everything that Rob, and Jiro told me, together. If someone is interested, I found the these articles extremely helpful.

I believe that I took a major step yesterday in narrowing down the problem I face. And I realized I was probably asking the wrong questions. I used to look for leading lines, SFOs, and all such compositional elements. And on finding a candidate I tried to force myself to include that in the scene. That approach, I understand now, is incorrect. Instead what is required is to understand my vision, the characteristics of the subject that I want to portray; And how the various secondary and tertiary objects relate to that. I will try, from now on, to ask how various objects at the scene enhance that portrayal of the subject. Can it serve as a leading line? Can it serve as a SFO? Can I use it to add some contrast in the photo, for interest? And if yes, the next thing to assess is, how can that element be included without hampering my main subject, and the PoV and lighting required for the same. If it competes for attention, or has features that distract then it should not be included, unless probably I wish to show some kind of of tension in my photo.

As for vision, for me, it does not have to be something abstract, like messages as Steve's photos so brilliantly convey, or emotions that drive Jiro's photography. It could just be the colors of the sunset, the shape of a tree, arrangement of petals in a flower, pattern of clouds - my main subject(s). I still need to learn about the balance of elements and their relationships, but I feel that I have a much better grasp of the process now. It comes intuitively to some, and others, like me, need to learn the same. With, experience, and reading, I have hope.

Planning, per se, I feel is misunderstood. Every time we take a photo, we do some planning, consciously or subconsciously. The mere act of framing a subject in a particular manner indicates some planning. Some situations, or techniques require us to plan. Take panning for example. Kay's wonderful basketball shots in this thread are an example of how planning is useful and probably necessary for unpredictable subjects.

Actually, I think my "big explores" (as Tigger calls them) grow with ideas, every time, from the time before. The ideas are always percolating in the back of my head.

Katy, that, to me, is planning. Getting prepared to photograph the same subject again, or to photograph similar subjects when they present themselves. I think we just have a notion that planning should be a completely conscious process. Though, to plan consciously, is a requirement for people like me who otherwise see only what their brain wants them to.

Here is an one of my shots that was "planned", though I did not realize it at the time. I was out to photograph bees, and chasing them was not working. So, I decided to watch for some time, and noticed that they will always come back to some of the flowers. So, I framed the flowers in my viewfinder and waited. When the bee came, I was ready. This photo, composition wise, I feel is better because of that. To me it depicts choices. The pp on the flowers, .



Sorry for rambling on. And a big thanks to Jiro and Rob for some wonderful discussions, and for patiently answering my questions, and helping me understand my weaknesses better.

PS: When using the search box on the "Latest Threads" page, I am getting the following message:

Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.
Please push the back button and reload the previous window.

And going back and reloading does not help. Has anyone else faced this issue?

[abhi]

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.

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.

[Clactonian]

At least I now know where I'm going wrong!!
Yours
Spontaneous Joe