what does the mind think during the time that leads to the exposure

I know a lot of great texts about this subject exists, especially by

Cartier-Bresson and his theories of the decisive moment.

 

How do we decide what we are going to shoot and what do we imagine

the outcome to be? How is the pre-visualized image relate to the

captured image?

 

There is an ongoing process of pre-visualizing, snapping and

reviewing in digital photography. Has anyone dealt with this subject

before? I think it is worth exploring what the affects of this

process could bring to photography.

 

I believe that prior to the instant feedback generated by a digital

camera, photography was sort of like sketching blindfolded. You

could visualize what you were going to get, go ahead and carry out

the action but then get no feedback about what had happened. And

there were many tools dedicated to being able to pre-visuzalize more

of the subject, like the zone system and the DOF preview in TTL and

the "flash confirmation" light that lit up after a successfully

exposed flash photograph.

 

I think this instant feedback of digital is not merely a medium or a

new technology but it is a new genre. It is what photography out to

be in the first place. My argument might come on strong but I

specifically mean this for the time that leads up to the exposure

and not the whole process of darkroom and everything else.

 

What do you guys think? Have you ever encountered any text written

on this subject (for digital or "photography as a sketch")

 

thanks..

 

Diz

I know what it is like to shoot 20 rolls of film develop it then make contact sheets and final prints.How many times can you do this without getting stale? Digital photographers who never shot a lot of film have no idea how much work this involves.When I look at prints by digital cameras I see things the person who took the picture is not aware of as they have nothing to compare it to.Sometimes after reviewing the contacts after a year or two you see things you overlooked the first time around.

Thanks for your contribution John,

 

But I am having trouble understanding what you mean.. Are you saying that since it is too easy to take photos with a digital camera and there is nothing involved in seeing the final product; you find that digital photogtaphers are not putting in too much attention to what they shoot?

 

This is one of the factors that might lead to a cultural erosion you would think? Photographs will lose value as there will be too much supply and people will not be interested in them as they are all around and easily achievable?..

 

hmm..

<p>

RML,

</p><p>

You bring up a good point. But, you also listed exactly what you think of before you take a picture. If you want to capture the beauty of the lights for example you instantly think about how it would look once the final image is printed, then you go back to chose a place to stand and a camera angle. Then you decide if you want to glorify (as in the case of an object posessing a sense of speed or power) the object or if you want to melancholize (sp?) it. You want to make the image as powerful as you can and tie it with your initial impression of the scene. You want to capture your impression of the scene as accurately as possible on film.

</p><p>

There is instantly a creative process that starts to flow in a photographers mind once the decision to take a picture is established (or maybe long before...). You tie the scene with a theme you have in mind and go after it, start finding ways (apertures, shutter speeds, camera angles, any special effects -lets say factors-) that will enhance the communication of your final image and convey the original scene to the audience..

</p><p>

It was written by (no name given) an editor in National Geographic that a photographer sketches a theme along the way. They take pictures of parts that lead to an ultimate image (i dont know if i believe in the "ultimate image"). It is briefly mentioned in their photographers FAQ on their website. I wonder if I can find more information on that subject matter in literary publications.. hmm..

</p><p>

Here is the <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html#top">link</a>

I "chimp" the camera less and less these days as my eye/brain get used to working with

the camera. And trying to judge the quality of the photo on a tiny low resolution LCD in

less than ideal light is silly. ("Chimping" is a term derived from the reaction of the apes to

the monolith in the "Dawn of Man" sequence in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey".)

 

I pay attention to what I see in the viewfinder, I am very much concentrating on what is

contained by the four edges of the frame -- the action & movement of the subject, what is

going on in the backround: colors , shapes, tones, what is happening with the light, how

everything fits together -- the composition -- and the framing, what is happening along

the edges of the frame. Any "previsualizing" I'm doing I've done before I brought the

camera up to my eye.

I've never used a digital camera, but from what I'm reading of others' methods, the difference between the calculated approach of someone who lugs a heavy camera into the field, previzualizes the print from what he sees in front of the camera, selects the appropriate film, lens, filter, angle, depth of field, exposure and focus and someone else who fires off a digital auto-everything camera at whatever tickles his emotional fancy is like comparing a hunter with a rifle to one with a shotgun. In both instances, the result is, hopefully, a fine picture. But, the roads to that destination are quite different.

 

With the olde ways, it's the photographer's mind that has to do all the work mindlessly done by an automatic camera. In both instances, the spark of creativity has to be there to ignite the balance of the process. Is a studied, thoughtful approach better than a more whimsical "shoot 'til you hit something" one? Or, do all the mechanical details of the olde ways cloud the creative eye?

<I>I've never used a digital camera, but from what I'm reading of others' methods, the

difference between the calculated approach of someone who lugs a heavy camera into the

field, previzualizes the print from what he sees in front of the camera, selects the

appropriate film, lens, filter, angle, depth of field, exposure and focus and someone else

who fires off a digital auto-everything camera at whatever tickles his emotional fancy is

like comparing a hunter with a rifle to one with a shotgun.</I><P>The difference lies in

the photographer not the equipment. I've seen people mindlessly use a large & medium

format film cameras. I've seen photographers (and to be honest I am one ) who uses a

DSLR just as deliberately as I do my large format cameras. This equation of digital =

mindlessness (and lets ignore the Zen aspects of being mindless when acting or creating)

is just specious.

Thank you everyone for your contribution.. I hope this topic does not turn into a digi vs. film thread. I intended to question something completely different..

 

Well, like the thing RML mentions, the trance you go into, there must be subconscious decisions and things like that you think about when you are taking a picture. Something draws you into the subject and your dream of capturing it onto your medium of choice..Your mind deliberately makes decisions and chases an image. There are a thousand factors involved in what you want to capture and what else to crop out. I am specifically interested in how that decision forms :)

 

I know it is different for all genres of photography, for example a portrait photographer would be interacting more with their model and trying to get them to relax or get in a certain mood, or a still life photographer would be senselessly watching the shadows and reflections and hues.. and so on...

 

The process is pretty similar for different kinds of cameras, be it a range finder, a good ole SLR or a view cam. I mean the actual physical process is *very* different but what is on your mind does not matter much (or does it). And I am putting forth and saying that with the advent of digital photography and the possibility of instant feedback it does change the way we think about a photo, the whole process leading up to the moment of capture is different and it has revolutionized my approach to shooting..

I guess I owe an explanation of my use of the term "mindlessness"! The reference was to those who rely solely on a camera's ability to judge exposure and who, because of its ability to capture many images at relatively little cost, admittedly substitute vast quantities of shots for a more frugal approach, hoping that the law of averages will produce something useable. I'm sure that many who use digital cameras give the picture as much thought as anyone else and in no way intended to suggest otherwise. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

As for the Zen reference, I've studied that branch of Buddhism a bit and see no reason to connect mindlessness with a mindfully centered approach to photography. That approach is a little harder, though, when you're contemplating all the variables that constitute a previzualized photograph, rather than just snapping away and letting the camera make the decisions. Ultimately, it's the resultant picture that counts, isn't it?

The reason I used the film as an example is because in my mind everything seemed right but after proofing 20 rolls it was not what I visualized so on the next try I try to be more careful due to the amount of work involved. Shooting with digital with care also works but I have a tendancy to loosen up after a while and the ease of shooting a lot with no expense is hard to resist.I have a few friends who really shot a lot of digital and have burned out from shooting too many images and lose the drive to edit them all ala Garry Winogrand .The last 5 or 6 years Garry just shot and did not edit because the drive to see them was not there.

I started photography with a digital P&S with which I composed on the LCD instead of optical viewfinder. Then I "moved up" to a film SLR with which I carefully compose and focus on the viewfinder, in this case you almost get what you see. Then I "moved down" to a Holga and point and shoot film camera, with which you see approximate composition but no way to check focus and DOF (the same issue with range finder). Then I used the lowest level: a pinhole camera without a viewfinder at all.

 

When I move down from the ladder of viewfiner accuracy, my mind is trained to see what is going to be recorded on the film. I started to understand the true meaning of previsualization: it is not what I see with my eye but what I see with my mind. When I see the final image, I recall what I saw when taking the photo. This feedback is the most fundamental training for a photographic eye. If you understand this, it is irrelavent whether you shoot film or digital, although digital helps to accelerate the feedback.

 

Now I started to train myself to shoot without looking through viewfinder at all with my AF camera, because I am familiar with its operation, FOV, etc. It becomes my third eye.

It seems to me that the question is too narrow. What you're thinking, surely, will depend

on why you're taking the picture. A journalist will be wondering if he's caught the image

that reflects what he's experiencing (as will, I imagine, someone taking pictures of his

children). An architectural photographer will be assessing whether he's found the correct

angle to represent the building and if the exposure will be correct. An advertising

photographer will be thinking about whether the view matches the layout sketch, and so

on.

I think the key and only really valid moment for photography in the chain from idea to print is exactly the one moment just before the picture is taken and where everything comes together in one perfect act of continuality. It's not thinking but knowing for sure that the photograph has to be made, that it couldn't be otherwise, no different angle, no nothing, you can see the perfectness of the scene right there on the spot. After that, the perfection of it slightly fades away to a lower level of anticipation, cause, the picture is made and the continuality is broken as everyone can view it and it doesn't belong to the photographers mind only anymore, it's over and there's nothing more to say about it, nothing usefull anyway but just a lot of analyzing thoughts that only help deconstruct that first perfect moment. So maybe the answer of the question is hidden in phrasing it otherwise : 'what does the mind not think during the time that leads to the exposure?'

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000TA6

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Hqe

<i><blockquote> I started to understand the true meaning of previsualization: it is not

what I see with my eye but what I see with my mind. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

so sez u. By previsualizing you help get better photos by understnaind what the final

capture will look like.

 

It's understanding the transposition of three-dimensional space onto a 2d frame and

how mechanical tools like lenses of varying range affect that 2d space.

 

You can 'see' an awful lot with your mind you won't see in your viewfinder.

I would think that the thought processes of a street photographer would be very different from say, the thought processes of a product or landscape or fashion photographer. It seems there are times when one might react and times when one might create and compose. To make an analogy, there are some musicans who can "jam" brilliantly and there are some who are virtuosos only when reading the sheet music sitting in front of them and most of the time neither could fill the other's shoes. ;-)

RML wrote that he takes photos without thinking, just as he doesn't think about breathing or his heart beating. I'm sorry to say that this is impossible. The body has two nervous systems. Conscious and Sub Conscious. The Sub Conscious nervous system controls your breathe, heart beat, food digestion, manufacture of blood cells etc. You cannot use this nervous system to produce photos. The Conscious nervous system controls our senses, thought processes, actions etc. This is the nervous system that we use to take photos with. So however much you believe you produce photos without thinking i'm afraid it is impossible. If you use the anology of driving a car. We all drive "without" thinking about it. You know when to brake, accelerate, turn the wheel etc. But an active thought process takes place before you do any of these things. When you were learning you had to think about where the gears were, it's only because you've done it a million times that it seems to come naturally but the same thought process is used now as when you were learning. Do you get my gist. Just because you have taken a million pictures it "feels" like you don't have to think about it. But you think about it in exactly the same way as when you started this great hobby of ours. It's just that the brain is so accustomed to this information it can process it a million times faster(thats three mentions of million in this post I need a thesaurus).

I feel...Jim

steve, actually, the body (brain) does not have two separate nervous

systems. they are indeed interconnected. there are regions of the

brain that correlate with sub-conscious functions such as heartbeat,

respiration, etc... just as there are regions which correlate with

cognitive thinking, reasoning, and association from sensoral inputs.

quite complex actually as well as fascinating. all parts (even the

noted, sub-conscious) parts are required to take pictures. could you

imagine that your brain region controlling your heart suffered a

stroke during the process of setting up your shot and you keeled over?

the three major parts of the brain are the reptillian, the limbic, and

the neo-cortex. but you stand correct in saying that the more time you

spend in photography, the more automatic it becomes. it's because all

of the neural processing in composition, exposure, waiting for the

"decisive moment" has been so reinforced by repeteive brain

associations, that the neural responses become more or less

"automatic"... yes, like when you are learning to drive a car for the

first time logfically analyze things and a seasoned driver goes by

instin

It's the same as basketball.

"I hope my light meter is accurate", or "how many shots do I have left on this roll?".