The Art of Seeing - can it be acquired or trained?

[xpatUSA]

At 75, I find it difficult to visualize how something will look in a captured image as opposed to the scene as-observed. The Zen approach of shooting without thought somehow doesn't work for me

Are there tricks?

Would perhaps a fuller use of the viewfinder help; or the film producer's 'framing with the fingers' routine?

Are there articles on this subject per se or is it, in your opinion, adequately covered by the many articles on photographic composition?

[Shadowman]

It really involves stopping, contemplating, and letting the vison slowly overtake you. I find that the best inspirations come when I am totally overwhelmed with life experiences, I stop and take a rest and close my eyes, when I open them what I initially see is totally alien to me until I let my mind try to acquire a recognition of what I'm seeing.

[NorthernFocus]

This is a very personal thing. Just like how we learn other things is very different among individuals.

I've mentioned previously in other posts that for me photography is a technical process. I'm simply an equipment operator recording images of what I'm blessed enough to observe in creation. Through reading material I'm able to understand exposure, DOF, etc, but I've had to learn the "creative" side of photography experientially. Via trial and error I've learned how the equipment renders imagery relative to my eye or, more importantly, relative to my mind's eye. Combined with understanding what can and can't be done with post processing, I've learned to be able to look at a scene and have a pretty good idea what can be produced from it.

One of the biggest, ongoing challenges for me personally continues to be the awareness of how the mind filters information that the camera doesn't. Particularly with landscapes I have to stop and think about what is in a scene that caught my attention and how to compose the image to isolate/emphasize that. One reason I gravitate towards wildlife photography is that it is more technical and less creative. The animal is there doing what it does. The photographer has no control and simply operates the equipment and records what occurs.

[KCBrecks]

I know what you are saying Ted. What we capture is often so very different to what we thought we were going to get, and consequently so disappointing. Perhaps one way to try solving it is to use the rapid fire drive of the camera to take many shots of a scene, at different angles and aspects. There is no longer any cost penalty with digital cameras.

There is of course the other factor - one of my friends often remarks my images are all taken standing up, whereas there might be a better image from getting lower, say crouching or kneeling. Sadly that is an option well behind me in the past, I would only do that if there were at least a couple of hefty young fellows nearby to help me up.

Keep pressing the button...

Keith

[rpcrowe]

I have a 10% - 80% - 10% theory on photographic seeing. The actual numbers are just a guess but, I think you can realize where I am coming from...

I think that there is one group of people who from the first time they touch a camera start to produce very-good to excellent imagery. With training, these folks can even increase their skills up to a higher level. These lucky folks are able to see 2-D images resulting from the 3-D world they are looking at.

The next group is the largest and comprised people of many variations in vision and skill. Through training, education and experience, the vision and skills can be honed to a point in which most of their imagery is very respectable with some approaching the point of being outstanding. This group can be subdivided into varying degrees of ability. That ability has a lot to do with the training and education received as well as the motivation and opportunities that these people have to practice photography.

There is one group who despite any level of training and experience will not produce decent to very good imagery on a regular basis. These people "look" at the world around them but, for some reason, just cannot "see" that world in 2-D terms.

Experience certainly helps but only if that experience can be transferred to the skills required to produce top-notch imagery and forms a basis on which the photographer can build.. One person may have 20-years experience in photography while the next person may have one year of experience repeated twenty times!

IMO, a photographer needs less technical skill in order to produce decent to good imagery that did the photographer in the days of film, manual exposure and manual focusing cameras, Using today's digital equipment and shooting auto-focus with one of the auto modes (full auto - Programmed Auto - Aperture priority - shutter speed priority) the chances of getting a decently exposed and focused image with no technical skill is far higher using the digital systems of today that were those chances using film, manual exposure and manual focus in the bygone (but, not so good-old) days of photography. This allows the photographer, if he or she desires, to concentrate efforts in achieving a well composed image captured at the right moment!

[chauncey]

Ted...I sympathize with you as we suffer from the same affliction.

I've semi-succeeded in rationalizing the problem by laying the blame at genetic deficiency and...
the fact that I have an adequately sized left brain along with an inadequately sized right brain.

My crutches involve tethered shooting to visualize the subject on a larger screen and/or
shooting wide>photomerging>cropping to a semi acceptable looking image.

[xpatUSA]

A generic "like" from me to all who have posted so far - thanks!!

Great food for thought and action . . and, at least, the discovery that I'm not alone is comforting!

[Geoff F]

I find that when it is possible, I tend to see more in the viewfinder if I am using a tripod; and it is a static subject of course, so I have time to look and think.

When hand holding I'm concentrating on other things like being level so it is so easy to overlook something which should be glaringly obvious.

[jcuknz]

Keep pressing the button...
Keith

I often read about working the subject but personally I see no point in this because I see a shot and take it ... other angles being simply a waste of time.
But that is my approach and I have no idea if I am a good or otherwise photographer. As to if I can see a shot I do not know that either but firmly believe that some have it and most do not and consistently show they have not ... and very occasionally I get a shot with the help of the camera that some appreciate. I consider those who have an idea and create the shot to be working at a much higher level than myself who merely records what I see.
That is enough honesty for now

[James G]

Ted,
I'm not sure I can offer coherent comment. I try not to think , or more precisely 'over think' the capture process. I kind of go with some kind of instinct that is not easy to define even to myself, when I commit to clicking.

Sounds a bit random doesn't it, except it's not really. I have found over time that for me, thinking /anticipating the specific kinds of image that I want to capture, requires being open to seeing possible matches intuitively.
I don't think it's a zen like process for me, though, since I am conscious that I am somehow synchronising part of the 'real' world with something I've been thinking about.

One thing though, it only ever works well for me if I'm relaxed and not trying too hard to make it happen. Hence my remarkable number of failures!

I've just read this all back to myself and I'm not convinced it's not utter gibberish, make of it what you will!

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I think artistic sensibility, which is what we are talking about, can be taught. It is a different way of looking at the world and, like meditation, you can learn it, but it requires a certain unhinging of conventional ways of seeing that feels very alien to some (most?) people. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't give it a go.

I take it from the title of the thread that you have read "Ways of Seeing". In my day, this was required reading for all art students. I hope it still is. It is a very good introduction to some of the conceptual issues in art and should be required reading for photographers also.

What boards like this do is emphasise the technical aspect. Conceptual stuff seems to be treated with a certain amount of distrust. However, I would rather look at a technically flawed but conceptually inspiring image than a crystal sharp but boring one. The camera is only our medium. We give it far too much emphasis. Less time should be spent in agonising over which is the sharpest lens and more time should be spent in galleries, looking at the rich legacy of art.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

And, James, you are not talking gibberish, by any means. The creative process seems to be enhanced when we are feeling relaxed and alert and are focusing on the here and now. And that is quite a Zen concept (hence my analogy with learning meditation. It is a very similar state). At the risk of sounding like a psychologist (which I am. Don't judge me) studies have shown that creativity is enhanced when we subdue activity in the frontal lobes of our brains, which are responsible for all that discriminating, judging and so inhibition. So, that alert, relaxed state. We then need to bring them in to use our technical knowledge to convert what we see into something useable, but getting "into the zone" is an essential step.

So, have a few beers (subdue those frontal lobes) and get the camera out.

[rpcrowe]

Here's an idea... Many people enjoy viewing their images on an LCD rather than through an eye-level viewfinder when shooting.

I am guessing, but cannot be certain, that it is easier for those photographers to view their images in a two dimensional format, such as the LCD screen), rather tan viewing that image through a eye-level viewfinder and making the mental conversion into a 2-D image.

OTOH, I cannot effectively work with the LCD as a viewfinder unless I am using a viewfinder hood loupe such as the Hoodman or one of the many Chinese knock-offs. I need to see what I am shooting excluded from the surrounding area. I also need to see what I am shooting in a much larger view that I do when using the LCD 12-inches or so away from my eye.

[NorthernFocus]

....What boards like this do is emphasise the technical aspect. Conceptual stuff seems to be treated with a certain amount of distrust...

I disagree with this comment... to a degree.

If you read feedback that is provided to posted images, I think you will find just as many comments about composition, placement of subject in the frame, etc. Those things are artistic/conceptual rather than technical. If purely technical we wouldn't care where something appeared in the frame as long as it was sharp and properly exposed.

However... in regards to providing feedback it is much safer to make comments on technical issues than creativity. In my experience comments on artistic aspects are taken personally much more easily than discussion of technical aspects.

[Shadowman]

I disagree with this comment... to a degree.

If you read feedback that is provided to posted images, I think you will find just as many comments about composition, placement of subject in the frame, etc. Those things are artistic/conceptual rather than technical. If purely technical we wouldn't care where something appeared in the frame as long as it was sharp and properly exposed.

However... in regards to providing feedback it is much safer to make comments on technical issues than creativity. In my experience comments on artistic aspects become personal much more easily than discussion of technical aspects.

Sometimes the technical/artistic critique can be attributed to one particular image, whenever techniques such as hdr or selective coloring are applied the feedback can span both aspects. There's quite a bit of technical control involved in both techniques; such as aligning, masking, and selecting.

[William W]

At 75, I find it difficult to visualize how something will look in a captured image as opposed to the scene as-observed. . . Are there tricks?

Try looking at every scene fresh, through a Child's eyes as if you have never seen it before.

That is not to say that you act or be "childlike" but rather "see" without the 75 years of experience that you have and the resultant records you have acquired and rackets that your mind performs.

It is all the knowledge and experiences that you have accumulated over 75 years and that you carry around daily and that your brain automatically defers to continuously, which are filtering what you 'see'.

Disconnect that part of the brain's processing and just un-think when you 'see'. Practice enough and you'll get there, I am sure.

***

. . . in your opinion, adequately covered by the many articles on photographic composition?

Composition happens after the brain kicks in. What you are asking about is how to see the infinite raw material at your disposal without the brain doing much processing, at all.

WW

[William W]

. . . I stop and take a rest and close my eyes, when I open them what I initially see is totally alien to me . . .

That's one method of getting to un-thinking.

But I suggest that there's not necessarily the need to wait until one's emotions are so much or so strong, that they overcome one and a s a result one is forced into the state of un-thinkingness.

WW

[William W]

. . . One of the biggest, ongoing challenges for me personally continues to be the awareness of how the mind filters information that the camera doesn't. . .

I'd suggest that's mostly because of all those records one has accumulated. Our brain never stops trying to run rackets on us, based on our experiences. That's good because that's how we learn that eggs are better cooked than raw and that's how we now when that a lit match is hot and how we access danger . . . and etc.

But it is bad, because it can be limiting to our 'seeing' what it is, that is in front of us.

WW

[William W]

Afterthought - this encapsulates what I was trying to describe.

They are the words of a genius of 'un-thinking' (or un-learning):

“A painter should begin every canvas with a wash of black, because all things in nature are dark except where exposed by the light”

[Dave Humphries]

They are the words of a genius of 'un-thinking' (or un-learning):

“A painter should begin every canvas with a wash of black, because all things in nature are dark except where exposed by the light”

I guess that's what John is doing (by shutting his eyes), it is a technique I sometimes apply, when I remember