What and How Have You Learned to See?

<p><strong>What I've learned to see </strong>(not exhaustive, of course)<strong>:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Highlights can be as nuanced as shadows. At first, I almost instinctively felt the depth of shadows and how inviting and penetrating they could be. I had a more one-dimensional approach to highlights. The subtleties of highlights took some time for me to be able to see and then realize.<br /><br /><a href="../photo/6934422&size=lg">ALEX</a> is one of the first photos I worked on where a sense of movement and variation to the highlights began to take shape. Though the shadowy nature of the lighting was more easily accessible, the way I began to work with highlights to lead my eye and emphasize muscles, curves, and direction was a turning point. Rather than being simply striking, highlights became more of an involvement.<br /><br /> </li>

<li>I've learned how to see poorly-executed technique, especially digitization that can creep in from poor post processing.<br /><br /><a href="../photo/5657132">EMIL</a>, an early, now hidden photo, is outstanding in its crude approach to processing that I simply wasn't seeing at the time. The drop-off in lighting on Emil's neck and especially around his shoulder blades has a very digitized look, not an organic sense of shadowing. Some of the same crudeness of processing can be seen in the photo of Alex talked about above, especially above and below his mouth and on his lips.<br /><br /></li>

<li>I've learned how to move from hunting and capturing poseurs to intentionally utilizing staging and pose to advance a more personal and intimate vision.<br /><br />Without saying much about them, I leave you to see the distance and aloofness of <a href="../photo/5553020">POWELL STREET</a> , also now hidden, and what I experience as more consciousness and engagement in <a href="../photo/7887994">GERALD</a>.</li>

</ol>

<p><strong><br />How I've learned to see:</strong></p>

<p>I've broken down the work of others into manageable photographic elements. I've looked at how, with depth and the suggestion of detail and texture, I could become involved in shadows, how the dynamic variations of light could lead my eye throughout the frame, when technique seemed to relate to subject matter and when it seemed to just lie on the page. I've looked intently at work I don't like to understand why. I've taken pictures in my mind, without my camera. I've put each of my photos in a variety of contexts, created new folders with different juxtapositions and themes, altering the presentation periodically.</p>

<p>Trial and error has yielded more intentional focus. I've been willing to explore different ways of seeing, to rework the same photo in a variety of ways because I couldn't visualize much in advance. This has led me to a more committed overall stance and more confidence when I feel compelled toward a certain viewpoint or perspective. I can now go for it more unhesitatingly and with gusto.</p>

<p><em>[Note: Please don't take my recognition of having learned to see as a non-recognition that I have more to learn. Thanks.]</em></p>

<p>I've learned to see light - its intensity, direction and color on favorite subjects. A photo is as much about light as about subject. At times I've learned about myself through making a photo as much as I've learned about the subject. Why do certain subjects draw me with such excitement? It remains mystery - more intuitive than intellectual. This morning I caught a glimpse of a bright spot on our back yard fence through our window from the breakfast table. After a few moments it explained itself to my brain: a flower from our neighbor's yard had managed to find an opening in our fence and bloom there. As I photographed it in a series of stills from different angles and perspectives I realized that a last silhouette shot could be a bio photo for my page here at photo.net. Maybe I'm a bit enamored with the shot right now, but I think this photo is a good statement of how I'm learning to enjoy light.</p><div></div>

<p>In workshop programs I constantly see presentations listed for Seeing Light and Color, The Kinds of Light, etc. There are always discussions about light and its importance to photography. But it's shadow created by the light that I believe really makes the statement.</p>

<p>Shadows give dimension. Shadows hold the unknown. Shadows demand our attention and a deeper scrutiny.</p>

<p>But to respond to how have I learned to see. Simply by looking and looking and looking. I'm obsessed by it.</p>

<p>I cannot say that I have learned to see, in the sense that I think that I have been realising something, but it's far from acquired.<br>

<strong>What I've learned to see</strong> (a first idea):<br>

But one thing I have started to learn - at least theoretically - is to see is beyond the obvious. My eye sees a scene and there is a main visual element. I could have the temptation to portrait this main visual element. But there also might be other elements in the photo, besides the main element, which might require more attention, and therefore emphasis in the composition.<br>

<strong>How I learned to see</strong>:<br>

Mainly listening to others. Not necessarily they have addressed the specific element, but considering what they said, thoughts came up.<br>

But also viewing other work.<br>

It's more a subliminal work than a conscious process.</p>

<p>I'm eager to read and reflect on what's said on this thread.<br>

I think I'm becoming less concerned with "seeing" than trying to comprehend (not a first-order visual process): unfolded/unfolding visual clues for which I can identify or invent some sort of back story...not just beauty or graphics. Little theatre attendance (contemporary stage) and audio recording of my own narratives have played some kind of role in bringing "comprehension" to my attention. Beauty is becoming increasingly dubious. This too will, undoubtedly, pass :-)<br>

Howard V's flower/fence/shadow ("Backyard fence") is something I can comprehend in that way...it's dramatic and he's provided a back story. It's not just a visual. </p>

<p>...to clarify, what attracts me to Howard's photo is its distinctly multiple levels, and not just the visual ones.</p>

<p>Good subject Fred and good introduction.<br /> It is a complex subject matter because I, like you, continue to learn seeing things that I have never noticed before and because the sources of inspiration and learning are without limits. I see things because of my professional affiliations and engagements but surely also because of what I read of literature and especially Asian literature (read Jun'ichirō <em>Tanizaki </em>essays and novels for example and you will never look at old men in the same way anymore!).</p>

<p>Music plays a central role in my way of seeing. You cannot listen to music of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xXqEkWN-dQ">Debussy</a> like "The Sea" without "seeing" sea side differently and especially more intensely. I don't think Meyerowitz could have shot <a href="http://dig.henryart.org/photography-and-new-media/assets/artwork-images/97107_Meyerowitz_b.jpg">Cape Light pictures</a> without having listened to the music of Debussy.</p>

<p>I have especially learned seeing by "studying" (I have no educational background in arts) especially 19th century art and here especially paintings. The paintings of Realism of for example <a href="LÆS AVIS KØB AVISENABONNEMENTPOLITIKEN PLUSPOLITIKEN BILLETANNONCERMOBILJOBZONENWEEKLYOM POLITIKEN SØNDAG 15. AUG SENESTE NYT: SLIKURET RINGER HVER AFTEN KØBENHAVN KL. 18: › Vejret næste 10 døgn › Vejret i andre byer 22° NYHEDER KULTUR SPORT DEBAT IBYEN TJEK REJSER POLITIKEN TV FOTO BLOGS NEWS BAGSIDEN WM Danmark Politik Internationalt Erhverv Klima Videnskab Uddannelse 48 Timer »FLÅTEN – EN SPÆNDENDE MIDE«: LiSTEN er tilbage BOLIGJAGT: Find dit nye hjem blandt 75.000 boliger på politiken.dk PLUS: Kig forbi den nye Plusbutik i Vestergade 22 og gør et kup. Pluspris Kr. ,- DANMARK 15. AUG 12.37 Læser: Vi blev bange. Det var så voldsomt Voldsomt regnvejr betød ekstraordinære oplevelser for flere af politiken.dk's læsere. LÆS OGSÅ Knæhøjt vand stopper S-tog Busser og tog er ramt af regnvejret i hovedstadsområdet. LÆS OGSÅ Forsikringen dækker det meste SKYBRUD KOM BAG PÅ METEOROLOGERNE: Troede kun svenskerne ville blive ramt › Hjemmeværnet vogter forladte huse i Kokkedal › Jyske pumper skal tørre op efter regnen › Motorveje i Nordsjælland er spærret › Skybruddet druknede hovedstaden › Bilister med druknede biler kimer Falck ned › Vandmasser lukker flere veje i København › Hel villavej står under en meter vand FOTO: Regn, regn, regn, regn... TIP OS: Hvordan oplevede du uvejret? MEDIER 15. AUG 14.56 Jeppe Nybroe: »Jeg blev så ked af det, at jeg ikke kunne hænge sammen« DR's højest profilerede tv-vært mistede alt det, der var ham. Nu fortæller han sin historie. TJEK 13. AUG 08.52 Hver anden af dagens jern- mænd gør det for første gang Årets udgave af Challenge Copenhagen er debutanternes. LÆS OGSÅ Jernmænd får våd start ved Amager Strand LÆS OGSÅ »Hveranden vil have gel. Hveranden vil have bar. Det er ikke til at finde ud af« INTERNATIONAL 15. AUG 12.12 Mindst otte tilskuere dræbt ved racerløb FODBOLD 15. AUG 13.55 LIVE Silkeborg øjner sæsonens første sejr Annonce SENESTE NYT 15. AUG 2010 KL. 15.00 Pristjek: Spar 200 kroner på kasserollen 15. AUG 2010 KL. 14.57 Jernmændene og vandbærerne 15. AUG 2010 KL. 14.56 »Jeg blev så ked af det, at jeg ikke kunne hænge sammen« 15. AUG 2010 KL. 14.21 Jakob Poulsen er tæt på ny klub 15. AUG 2010 KL. 14.11 Esbjerg-træner frygter ikke fyring 15. AUG 2010 KL. 13.51 Skalle afgjorde tungt boksebrag 15. AUG 2010 KL. 13.49 Debutanternes triatlon 15. AUG 2010 KL. 13.39 Lene E. siger hun ærgrer sig over eksministers farvel 15. AUG 2010 KL. 13.32 18-årig fængslet efter stilethæl-angreb i Hvidovre 15. AUG 2010 KL. 13.17 Mølby: Poulsen er perfekt til Liverpool >Se flere nyheder">Courbet</a> (painting of 1834) opened my eyes for the wonders of the trivial views around us. German Romantic art of for example Casper David Friedrich (1774-1840) (see <a href="http://dhdc2917.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Caspar_David_Friedrich_DerMorgen.jpg">here</a> the painting "Morning" or <a href="http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Monk%20by%20the%20Sea%20Caspar%20David%20Friedrich.jpg">here</a> "Monk by the sea" or <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6c/20080217165042!Caspar_David_Friedrich_001.jpg">here</a>) opened my eyes for the almost divine light of nature and the central importance of <strong>under statements</strong>. I think that every major school of European art especially has developed my sensitivity for seeing things when I shoot photos. Most influence of my way and capabilities of seeing, I think I have received from abstract expressionism which continues to teach me. The way Pierre Soulages worked with the <a href="http://aldoror.free.fr/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Soulages-31.jpg">color</a> <a href="http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/ecoles/hg/IMG/jpg_Pierre_Soulages_peintures_222x628_1985.jpg">black</a> or Paul Klee <a href="http://www.geoscopies.net/images/nebenwegeG2.gif">subtile colors</a> are a challenge to the eye which invites me to see contrasts and color palettes in a new and ever changing ways.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have learned that the camera is here to serve me, not vice versa. I have no interest in conforming my vision to that of the camera; I want to show what being in the world is like to me. Pax Garry Winogrand, I have no interest in seeing what the world looks like in a photograph. The camera's "vision" doesn't interest me; my vision does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have learned that the camera is here to serve me, not vice versa.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great point! I feel the same way. I don't get too hung up on different technical points, I just try to get where I want to go.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in conforming my vision to that of the camera;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, letting the camera decide means the photographer can leave the room.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I want to show what being in the world is like to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, I have no interest in this. What I am is irrelevant, I live in service of the photograph. I take things I see and use the camera and post-processing to turn them into other things. For the longest time, I have done movie stills from non-existent noir and horror films, it has nothing to do with what being in the world is like to me, but it is something that comes from somewhere inside. Here's the most recent one.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/outatnight.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<em>They Only Come Out At Night, Copyright 2010 Jeff Spirer</em></center></p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>How? </strong><br>

(in no particular order, except for the first one, and no, in no way is this any kind of Gospel, nor do I preach it)</p>

 

<ol>

<li>By paying attention. </li>

<li>Listening to the Muses that cross my path. I never know from where the next one is coming from, or what form it/they will take. They're never aware of the energies and burdens they are gifting me with. <em> </em></li>

<li> I believe the world is an unimaginably rich place, that the gold ring thumbs our noses constantly, the universe cries out to us, and more, but until we get eyes and ears, it remains almost totally undetectable. </li>

<li>Everything I've learned gets in the way until fluency gets me to the point that I don't have to consciously think about it. Then it becomes like breathing, mindless, but quite useful.</li>

<li>Meditation. </li>

<li>Like Jeff, I believe myself to be in service... a mere vessel, conduit, or medium for somethings far greater than myself.</li>

<li>Question everything you do, but not to the point of paralysis, of course.</li>

<li><em>Test </em>everything. Push all the boundaries. Whether it's cameras, lenses, programs, materials, principles, identities, procedures, etc. See what happens for yourself.</li>

<li>Pass it on to someone else. Whether as a professor, mentor or buddy. The more you give away, the more you rehash everything, & make room for more to flow through you. </li>

</ol>

<p>10. Follow hunches!</p>

<p> <strong>What? </strong></p>

<p> Offhand...(sorry, no nuts or bolts).</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The obvious is the last and most difficult thing we see.</li>

<li>There are innumerable photogs who have the technical hands down. The number of creatives is unbelievably small. The ratio is probably similar to the number of people that can play Bach to the number of <em>Bachs. </em>And Bach may not have played his own music as well as many of the technical virtuosos can.<em> <br /></em></li>

<li>Having said #2, I should make it clear that I believe that making craftwork, and art in particular, is an intensely human activity, one that if benign, has healing and growth-inducing properties to those who make and come in contact with it.</li>

<li>Most photographs are incredibly boring. Until you spend some time looking at them. Anything looked at long enough becomes everything.</li>

<li>No matter how skilled and great you fancy yourself to be, knowledgeable, etc., the act of photographing boils down to <em>breathing life into the image (What FG once called "spark")</em>. This is pure magic. Irrational, unjustifiable, unexplainable, unprogrammable stuff. When achieved, said image in turn breathes life into viewers, to each in his own way, like a psychic generator and/or a conceptual kind of messenger RNA. </li>

</ol>

 

<p>I've learned to see pictures by taking and anticipating lots of 'em. But seeing pictures doesn't equal to seeing and what seems the easiest is perhaps the most difficult of all : to see with our eyes what lies before our eyes. I'm still learning to see, if there's anything at all, then that's what I've learned through photography. And that the camera is never blind of course. I wonder what I have unlearned.</p>

<p>After ancient and modern painting traditions like mentioned above, surely, like<strong> Phylo</strong>, I have to a large degree learned "seeing" in photographical terms by studying and analyzing the work of photographers. I think that having a continuous open eye for what other photographers do or have done with photography is inspiring to the least. Like painters copying the stile and themes of old masters was part of their training it is also part of training of any photographer whether they admit it or not. It teaches us to see and to use the technical means available to us as photographers. The aim is of course liberate yourself from such masters and find a proper style and was of expression. To "see" with my eyes and not through the eyes of somebody else.</p>

<p>I have throughout a very long time slowly to develop analytical tools for analyzing photo that catches my attention as exceptionally "good". I think most of us have such approaches at our disposal, whether formalized or not. Analysis of compositions plays here a central role. Keeping track of them and categorizing them is part of sush an approach to earning in my mind.</p>

<p>For me the danger of the camera taking over does not exist. I have no specific interest in the technics apart from the obvious necessity of mastering what I have in my hand to the best of its possibilities. I have no intention of carrying around multiple camera or even a great number of lenses.<br /> Traveling light is part of my way of seeing when I shoot photos. What I see at a certain moment is therefor ot a large degree dependent on what I can express given the tools I have brought with me. To foresee what I can expect to see at a certain occasion is part of the choice of the photographical tools I bring with me. I can therefore not say like <strong>Julie, Jeff</strong> or <strong>Luis</strong>, that my camera has no influence of what I see.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is a saying in Hebrew (I wrote it before too,free translation)..."From all my teachers I became educated". The first thing is that one wants to learn and be educated..<br>

I don't think that learning to see can be divided to subjects.I think that it is a building/developing long process, by layers on top of layers.<br /><br />I see the camera as a tool , like the brash for the painter, the chisel for the sculptore, like the written word of the writer/poet, like the note for the composer and musician. Learning to see is to be a "sponge"....to be alert to your surrounding, to people's life, to art in its different forms, to lights of human existence as well as its darkness.<br>

All this are ,and always will be my tools to see, and create my personal point of sight.. one layers on top of all the others I have experienced.</p>

<p><strong>Jeff Spirer's "noir/horror" look </strong>has leaped forward wherever I've seen it ...and/but his very specific and classic cinema reference seems to conflict with his humble claim that he "serves" photography and is not himself important.</p>

<p><strong>I hope Jeff will expand on what the "photography" he "serves" means to him. </strong></p>

<p>Maybe I'm over-emphasizing Jeff's intentions and the importance of his chosen approach, but they seem to result in a style of imagery (noir/horror) he's defined in advance, both technically and by virtue of his subjects.</p>

<p>His intentionality and that resulting look seem more powerful and significant than "seeing." He's not a mere "seer" IMO. I've always considered Jeff a "virtual cinematographer," hinting at back stories, as much as still photographer.</p>

<p>[<em>Nodding at John. Somehow I don't see Jeff as a milquetoast, wallflower kind of guy meekly serving ... anybody. On the other hand, I expect he is very much a professional at what he does, and can apply himself to the task at hand ...</em> ]</p>

<p>I have a lot of trouble responding in a useful way to this thread because I've been photographing since I was ... six, seven (?) years old. The way of working (and the bad habits) are second-nature.</p>

<p>However, I can think of one thing that might be relevant. Some years back I spent a lot of time exploring the dynamics of the edge of the image frame. That edge is the one area where the camera does prevail as long as I want to make rectangular prints (as I do). How close is "too close" to the edge (almost-but-not-quite-there will make an irritating buzz/tension)? What happens when/where you breach the edges with some line or object? What's going on in corners? What does the frame proportion do to the power/pull of the center? That kind of thing.</p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong> you touch a very important dimension of seeing when you mention the role of the frame.<br>

I think that the frame is essential to create and to understand a photo: what happens near it, on the border and maybe especially outside the frame. The way the photographer prepares the viewer for what is the limits of what he/she is allowed to see by creating a tension between what is inside and outside the frame is essential for the degree to which the photo provokes interest and attention. Framing is maybe the most essential act of the photographer which creates the photographical reality so much different from real world reality.</p>

<p><em>"At times I've learned about myself through making a photo . . . "</em> <strong>--Howard</strong></p>

<p>Can you give an example or two of something you've learned about yourself and a description of or link to the photo that helped you learn it?</p>

<p><em>"how have I learned to see. Simply by looking and looking and looking."</em> <strong>--James</strong></p>

<p>James, when you look through your camera lens do you look differently than when you look without your camera? Can you talk about any differences?</p>

<p><em>"to see is beyond the obvious"</em> <strong>--Luca</strong></p>

<p>I sense in some of your recent work (the tractors) a presence that is, indeed, beyond the obvious. It's hard to describe what I mean by presence. I like it when I sense it (and I sense it because of what I see).</p>

<p><em>"unfolded/unfolding visual clues"</em> <strong>--John</strong></p>

<p>Yes, the kind of thing I am thinking about as well . . . as opposed to the abstract idea and probably non-existent state of "mere seeing." I have been involved with conceptualization for so long, that I am relieved to look and to discuss seeing, visualizations, unfolding visual clues, without necessarily referring to the concepts themselves too blatantly. But it is a matter of emphasis, for surely there are ideas and intentions behind what I do, as you've recognized in your response to Jeff, with which I agree.</p>

<p>I agree that "beauty" (as commonly used) is dubious. I think concepts and ideas can be dubiously beautiful as well. It's not just visual beauty that is suspect. Check out this week's <a href="../photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=8610705">POW</a>. It's a "bea-uuu-tiful" concept executed with visual awkwardness. A more sophisticated and deep concept continuing to utilize a visually unconvincing approach would still lack something significant: the photographer's visual realization of his idea.</p>

<p><em>"Music plays a central role in my way of seeing."</em> <strong>--Anders</strong></p>

<p>I think photographs have many of the elements of music: rhythm, harmony, discord, counterpoint. I often describe what I see with musical terms because music is so filled with the spirit/breath of life. And, yes, as far as painting (and drawing). When I first started photographing, a friend advised me to think like a painter. Looking at a lot of paintings, particularly the creation of light and the use of brushstrokes, helps me discover and utilize photographic texture. It's also very helpful in imbuing photographs with a sense of depth/dimension.</p>

<p><em>"I have learned that the camera is here to serve me . . ."</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

<p>There's strength and a lot of willfulness behind your post.</p>

<p><em>"I have no interest in seeing what the world looks like in a photograph"</em><strong> --Julie</strong></p>

<p>Since I'm doing more printing now, and learning a lot as I go, I'm curious about your own printing. Do you print? Do you care much for those prints? How do you see them / what do they mean to you?</p>

<p><em>"I don't get too hung up on different technical points"</em> <strong>--Jeff</strong></p>

<p>Can you give some examples of the types of technical points you're talking about? Regarding some of your other points, I'll be listening to any responses you care to make to John, because I like where he's gone.</p>

<p><em>"Bach may not have played his own music as well as many of the technical virtuosos can."</em> <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>Virtuoso performers are not just technical. Their artistry is simply in a different realm from the creativity involved in composing. It's like the difference between actor and playwright. An actor/performer gives of himself, body and soul, much more than technical virtuosity. I don't understand comparing those photographers who emphasize the technical (to the detriment of the creative, and I agree there are some) to virtuoso music performers. There are performers, like photographers, who are only technically proficient (some feel that way about the great pianist Maurizio Pollini, though I love the music he makes) and then there are other performers, as well as photographers, who transcend their technical mastery and are creators of great music.</p>

<p><em>"seeing pictures doesn't equal to seeing"</em> <strong>--Phylo</strong></p>

<p>I agree with that, though there are clear points of similarity.</p>

<p><em>"I wonder what I have unlearned."</em> <strong>--Phylo</strong></p>

<p>Have a go at it. Would be a compelling inquiry.</p>

<p><em>"like the written word of the writer/poet"</em> <strong>--Pnina</strong></p>

<p>I think the camera, as you say, can be compared to the brush of the painter. I don't think it can be compared to the written word, which actually appears on the page, while the camera itself does not. I think the written word is more comparable to what's actually visible through the lens and in the photo. Words are to a novel or play as visual structures, signs, and symbols are to a photograph.</p>

<p><em>"From all my teachers I became educated"</em> <strong>--Pnina</strong></p>

<p>A nice quote. And there are many sources from which I can be taught, they don't have to have a teaching or mentoring credential. I am spending the week in NY with several young children in my family. They teach me an awful lot . . . and it's fun. Smiling opens me up to learning.</p>

<p>__________________________________</p>

<p>I'll let it rest here, but I love thinking about the significance of the frame, so I hope that discussion will bear some fruit. Thanks, Julie, for bringing it up here, and Anders for pursuing it.</p>

<p>"Frame." </p>

<p>Doing "art" with a view camera I was always concerned about the frame...had plenty of time and the camera was on a tripod. Wasn't a worry with commercial work because the art director would always crop anyway...my job was mostly stuff like lens selection, positioning, detail condition of the subject, light, and exposure etc.</p>

<p>By contrast, I wonder of many of us have attended much to the edge and corner details of "Napalm Girl," "Moonrise, Hernandez," or any of HCB's Top 40? </p>

<p>As a longtime Aaron Siskind devotee I certainly can obsess on corners and edges. However, I think we/I sometimes prefer to think about those detail matters rather than considering the <strong><em>significance </em></strong>of the image. That "significance" question might be uncomfortable. I won't attempt to define significance beyond saying that the word is a question more than a description. Analysis seems easier than whatever it is that's suffering the analysis.</p>

<p>I mentioned theatre (stage) earlier. Did Shakespeare or Albee care much about stage setting? The furniture and bric-a-brac? Sometimes backgrounds are important in photographs, but I notice some of us are enthusiasts for f/1.1.</p>

 

<p>I usually find myself 6 pages behind in a thread like this and end up reading rather than posting. Maybe if I type and think quickly enough I can post this by page 4 or so.</p>

<p><br />I don't know that I can broadly address your topic, Fred. But reading and viewing some of the responses brought to mind a more specific aspect of seeing. Particularly in relation to John's mention of "stage". I do a certain amount of street photography, but because the genre is weighted with so many preconceptions and freighted with so much baggage (to me, at least), I actually prefer to call what I do "cityscapes". Which brings me around to "stage" and "seeing".</p>

<p><br />Three or four years ago my street work aimed at fulfilling the orthodox dictum of some contemporary practitioners to "get close, get close, get close". Some of it I liked, but it was not satisfying overall. "Here's a close shot of a stranger doing something!" ...maybe it's something interesting, but more than likely in most cases, it's not... Disembodied faces and torsos with little relation to their environment...but an invisible medal to the photographer (me) for "getting close".</p>

<p>So I backed up a bit and stopped looking for the people and concentrated more on the buildings, streets, doorways and alleys that interested me in certain kinds of light. Sometimes people would enter the frame of what I was photographing, and then I started waiting for them to enter. What they did, or what they looked like stopped mattering. Their geometrical placement in the environment became the primary factor. <br /> <br />Hardly a radical concept (sophomoric to some of you, perhaps), but none of it was conscious to me at the time. I pressed the shutter when it "felt right", and sometimes would run a burst to have several frames to choose from. I find this forum and these discussions beneficial because they often cause me to try and analyze what I am doing, or what I have done. In looking back at some of the cityscapes ("street", "urban"...call them what you will) I have done I see a pattern. The frame was the stage, the building in the frame was the set. (Since my concern in such shots is more the placement of the figures than the action they perform, I suppose that makes me more of a set designer than a director or a playwright. There are other types of shots I take in which the people play a more predominant role, but I have hard enough time expressing what I've expressed so far and who the hell wants to read it all anyway?)</p>

<p>Another element to such shots is why I choose what I choose. It is highly subjective and has to do with a combination of feeling (my own) and history. Photographing in the streets of Chicago is a joy to me (akin to the joy I felt the time I played blues harmonica onstage at an open blues jam at Buddy Guy's club on Wabash). I feel the history and tradition of the streets here. John Vachon, Russell Lee, Yasuhiro Ishimoto and Harry Callahan (among countless others) have photographed the life and energy of these streets. My parents and grandparents walked these streets in the 10's, 20's and 30's. A shot of Union Station at dusk with some indistinct figures in the background might convey some moodiness, some slight sense of existential angst to a viewer. But for me, beyond that, beyond the pillars on the well worn steps (if you've ever been there, you've seen the shallow depression in the center of the steps) leading down into the station are the ghosts of Al Capone, Joe Louis, my mother and father, some newly arrived sharecropper from the South...on and on. That does not come through in the photograph, but it informs my selection as much as light, time of day, angle of view, f stop, etc. It is the history I "see" and feel as much as what is physically in the frame.</p>

<p>Last, I suppose another thing I have learned to "see" is my own photography in a slightly and hesitatingly more analytical light than simply "I like this" or "It feels right".</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope Jeff will expand on what the "photography" he "serves" means to him.<br /><strong><br /></strong><strong> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I am saying is that I don't photograph what it feels like to be me, I photograph to make the photograph. I am completely uninterested in showing my feelings at the moment, more to show a view of what goes through my mind in the more general timeframe. Sort of like a Pandora's box of images. I have shot quite a bit in close proximity to violence recently. My "feelings" are usually fear - I am older and more out of shape than most everyone participating in some level of violence, but that's not really interesting to me. What the photograph gravitates to is never the fear in the situation, but instead where the scene plays into the photograph. It's a bit circular, but there is no other way to explain it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've always considered Jeff a "virtual cinematographer," hinting at back stories, as much as still photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will just say that I love Jim Carrolls' poetry, songs and stories, and the way he conveyed them when he was alive, and regard him as a strong influence on my photography. Rather than really tell a story (except for maybe The Basketball Diaries), he often created cinematic imagery with words that could be as vivid as any photograph and many paintings. I doubt I will ever forget these song lyrics: <em>They'd be so faceless they'd be like old film</em>/<em>Just like old film I never did process. </em> He understood, and I've always wanted to photograph that...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you give some examples of the types of technical points you're talking about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoot 90% of the time with one camera body and one lens. I use one of two apertures about 80% of the time. I have learned to get what I want from the setup. I do vary the flash and the ISO quite a bit, but that's just because it's necessary to modify the lighting. Otherwise, I pretty much ignore everything else. I think I shoot at an aperture higher than f5.6 twice a year. I shoot almost everything now with flash (I used to shoot nothing with flash before I learned to completely control it) and it's always the same flash except when I have access to s studio-type environment. One camera, one lens, one flash...</p>

<p>I have been inspired by the work of Mario Giacomelli, he's been a favorite of mine since I first saw his work while he was alive. He shot almost everything he did during a long life of photography with a camera that was stuck on a single shutter speed. He spent far longer thinking and working on his photos than he did taking them. He shows how little the technical matters if one can formulate what one wants. Within boundaries, of course, I wouldn't shoot the fights with his large format camera with one shutter speed.</p>

<p>Back to cinema, I saw a scene on the street, it looked nothing like this if you were just watching, I took it into an old favorite filmaker...</p>

<p> <center>

<img src="http://spirer.com/images/fellini.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br /> <em>8 3/4</em></center></p>

<p>I've always, as far back as I can remember, seen things around me every day that I "frame" in my mind that would be great photos, particularly people's faces. As I get older, faces interest me more than landscapes, city-scapes and abstracts. Facial expressions are so infinite and subtle it amazes me. Lighting and composition have always come quite naturally for me and I don't have to think about these things much consciously as I photograph. I have learned from every photo I have seen; I have learned what "works" and what doesn't. At 60 I am still trying to keep up to the standard I set as a teenager, when I was shooting entirely from instinct and unfettered by theory and "art."</p>

<p>Fred, ( It is not easy to do it in English, but I try, the reading of the thread is slow)....I would like to clear my thoughts about tool of words of a writer/poet . I think Julie's addition about framing fits my intention and thoughts. I think that a book is a "framing"of the writer thoughts ,imagination, and a way to express himself, like a score /partiture of a composer that has the note and detail framed /" photographed"/listened /seen in his minds head. The end result is a book, concert , painting , photographs, that are a realization of an individual seeing possibilities.<br>

I see with my eyes, feeling , personal history, knowledge and interests before I start shooting with my camera.</p>

<p>Pnina, I think there are different categories of tools. In one category, there are the thoughts and emotions that go into creating a visual work. In another category, there are the tools of conveyance, what one uses to help realize the vision, what one physically utilizes: the camera for photographer, the brush for painter, the knife for sculptor. In yet another category, are what builds up the piece being worked on, the elements that add up to the work: words for the poet, dabs of paint for the painter, light and chemistry for the photographer. Words are similar to a photographer's light and visual structures, not to a camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Frames exclude. They often make apparent -- especially for the one doing the framing -- what is not.</p>

<p>Frames bring something into focus even as that focusing may create questions and mystery. Something framed seems to command a dramatic kind of attention.</p>

<p>Julie, I've had similar experiences, wondering what is enough and what is too much to include (exclude) at the edges of the frame. It's that fine line about when is enough too much or not enough. A hint is only a hint if it's enough to be a hint.</p>

<p>Backgrounds effect me differently in different photos. Steve, I can relate to your talking about "pulling back." I've been doing very much the same thing in order to add visual narrative (for which I don't necessarily utilize or need words) to my photos/portraits. I am as in tune and in touch with my backgrounds as with my subjects, especially as they relate to each other, and I'm as likely (perhaps more so) to shoot a portrait with f10 and above as with my narrowest f4. The rumble and lines of the supporting cellos and basses are as important as the soaring melody of the violins, though I may come away more likely to hum a melody.</p>

<p>This brings me back to learning to see. Learning to hear rhythm, color, and counterpoint in addition to melody has added depth, dimension, and texture to my vision.</p>

<p><em>Addition:</em> I may not give my backgrounds the same visual weight as I do my foregrounds/subjects but that doesn't necessarily make them any less profound and doesn't mean that every detail doesn't count.</p>