Developing a photographic eye

[click agent]

I enjoy reading LensWork magazine. In all of the issues that I have read (about 6 after buying some back issues) they have had one or two good articles about seeing complete with advice. When I started photographing in Jan of 2003, I took pictures of about everything that I saw. Most of the pictures were garbage. Now I am more calm and just take pictures when I "see" the photo. Most of the pictures are still garbage, but there are not as many. Hehe. Seriously, I think that the latter technique works best for me.

[sarijos]

Hi Luis,

 

I just wanted to thank you for starting this thread. I feel pretty much the same way about my photography and have just spent the better part on an hour reading all the responses with great interest.

 

My 2 cents would be to try not to worry about the technical aspects but focus on what you want to say. Once the eye is trained to "see" the picture, then you are more than half way there. I might even take the advise to heart

[david enzel]

The book "On Being a Photographer" by Magnum Photographer David Hurn and Bill Jay helped me more than any other book about photography I have read. One of the main things I learned is the importance of picking a project rather than just walking around looking for pictures. And it is important that the subject matter you choose be continuosly accessible. This translates for most people into picking a subject close to home. It is harder photographing your own day to day life. You don't need exotic places -- and often they are deterrent because the photographer does not know the exotic place well enough to capture its essence. Showing what is beautiful (or not beautiful) in your day-to-day environment is infinitely more interesting.

 

I too am enjoying this thread.

[luis_bascones]

Well, this is quite a thread. I did not expect to get such a number and variety of responses.

 

First, I would like to thank all who have taken the time to read my question and participate with recommendations and opinions. They have helped me greatly not only in thinking a way to re-approach my photographic interests, but also in understanding the different meaning and interpretations people give to the practice of photography in general.

 

The question I posted here is one of many that I have been asking myself from a few months back, when I realized there was something fundamentally wrong in the way I was approaching photography. I had been reading a few articles here and there, and a common underlying thread started to form. It all came together when I read an article in Lens Work in which the author mentioned that novice photographers spent more time talking about equipment than about prints. I realized that I was doing a lot of exactly that � talking with other fellow photographer wannabes about the merits of one lens vs. the other, one brand vs. the other, or about mega-pixels vs. sensor size. All of these based on the more technical aspects of photography: MTF curves, groups and elements, diffraction, singal-to-noise ratios, you name it. But when it came down to it, I haven�t taken that many photos that I love, and neither do many of my fellow wannabes.

 

I have spent a decent amount of money on equipment � maybe not pro, but definitely prosumer-grade. And some of these guys are gear slaves � they gotta have whatever is out there that gets good reviews. After all �it�s the only way to capture that elusive photo. Be ready and have the gear.� It just didn�t sound right.

 

So, thinking about it, it dawned on me that this is not being a photographer � this is simply being a consumer. Some people in photo.net have posted amazing images that they have captured with an old, medium quality, all-manual cameras � some of them even P&S�s. Clearly, gear is important, but it�s not the driving force. As posted around here so many times � it�s not the camera, it�s the photographer.

 

The basic problem I was having was that I had been concentrating on the aspects of photography that come easier to me � they technical side, with its gauges, graphs, formulas, clear explanations, and certain repeatability. After all, I am an engineer. I do love art, but still my formal education is definitely a quantitative one. Clearly, I have been doing this to avoid the bigger questions: What is it about photography that draws me to it? What is it about a photo that can whisper to my soul? It certainly isn�t gear, because I normally see the photo and not the equipment it was taken with.

 

These thoughts plus others not worth mentioning here have led me to my own quest of creating a personal interpretation of the gestalt of photography. I�m not certain that I will get there, but I can say right now that I am enjoying the path I�m following. I am reading about photography under a different light, and I am ready to start re-training myself now that I have switched frames of mind. As I mentioned before, I understand well the basic photographic techniques. I execute fairly well in photographing what I see, but I�m not seeing that much. I take pictures of what�s in the viewfinder, but I fail to give them an interpretation. I believe I understand my problem. This is what brought me here and lead me to ask the question.

 

The range of answers that have been posted cover quite a bit of ground. Most people agree that practice will allow me to learn to SEE within the limits of my talent. They emphasize feedback, self and expert constructive criticism, and the development of themes (mostly on things are care for and know a lot about). Then some more practice. I will follow this advice plus a more personal approach for getting there within the limits of what my current lifestyle allows. I will use photo.net as one of the places to get feedback from. There is a lot of talent here and, most of all, a good bunch of people willing to help those of us who (foolishly or not) believe that somewhere deep we have an eye just waiting to see.

 

Thanks to all,

 

-Luis

 

[Marc453]

I have been taking photographs for almost 35 years and I don't think I have an artist "eye." But I can and do see photographs, mostly without my camera. I used to teach photography and the rule was if you got a photo published in a magazine during the course you got an A. My assignments included making something ugly look pretty, photographing the crowd and making masterpieces on Polaroid film. All these assignments are self explanatory and as one student said, "harder than hell at high water!" The idea is to think about what you are seeing and capturing it for others to see.

 

Another thing that most posters missed is knowing your equipment. You have to know what your camera is capable of doing. If you push it beyond the physical limits, you won't get the desired results. However, knowing and using its capabilites to work for you is half the battle. I used to photograph pro and college basketball in Chicago during the 1980's (prior to the championship years). One day I was shooting at the Chicago Bulls, and some of the other photographers came over to me and started slapping me on the back and saying I was a real photographer! Dumbfounded, I ask what was going on, and one of them said, "You unloaded and loaded your camera (a Canon T90) without even looking down at it once! Only a true camera man could do that! i looked down and they were right, I had changed film and had not realized it. I truely loved the T90 and actually had two of them. They were great tools and did their jobs wonderfully. But they were tools. I could see photos in dimly lit gyms, but I couldn't capture the images because of their limitations. I did overcome some of that with darkroom work, but you still have to know your tools.

 

You are right about reading magazines and books on the subject, but I would caution you to be aware that you are not copying someone else's style. You already have a style, just make it work for you. Lastly, take a lot of photos, then go take some more.

 

As a rule I think a photograph should tell one story. Make one point. Clarify one idea. Either with strong emotion or subtle inferences, but just one point. And when you look through the viewfinder and see that one point--push the button!<div></div>

[jkeil]

Forget the books. Forget people tryng to tell you how to see. Just go out there and

use what the good lord gave ya. Don't over-complicate. If you have such an interest in

photography, it seems to me that you're already on the right track. You must have

certain tastes already. Do you like landscapes, portraits, architecture, abstract, etc?

My best advice is to learn about the great photographers and find the ones you like

and study them. But don't go imitating anyone. Allow their influence upon you but

follow your instincts. Just please - put that book down!

[david enzel]

Marcus --

 

I want to thank you for your post, It is not only based on 35 years of experience but

is also well written and comes from the heart. I learn here in ways I never imagined

when I registered with photo.net.

[dylan_rogan1]

Perception & Imaging by Richard Zakia (Focal Press, 2002, 2nd ed.)

[fast_primes]

Is it possible that it's not a lack of photographic talent, but something else? Consider the following check list:

 

1-Complexity can obstruct creativity! Do you have too much equipment?

 

2-Boredom/job burnout! Have you had a chance to unwind?

 

3-Your place and you! Where are you that your surroundings don't inspire wonder? If they don't, travel to new ones!

[hoang_tran]

I'm very new in the field and had taken quite a large number of worthless pictures as well, so I don't intend to tell you anything new but just my own experience. Personally, I find that:

 

1. Camera's images and our brain images are quite different in the level of details, the colour, and especially the feeling. When we faced the reality, we gathered information about the surrounding using all our senses, that include temperature, the blowing of the wind, the transition of the feeling between what we have recorded (say a minute ago) and the current one and yet the camera only recorded light/dark/colour (which forms the images). Because of this we could never translate the entire feeling we have to other people by just the limited image that was taken by the mechanical facilities.

 

2. When we see other people's images, the brain is then reconstruct the environment using the past experience that we have, or it has recorded, to give definitions and meanings to the picture. The amount of definitions recorded in our brain are vastly different between person to person, for various reasons ei. background culture, the amount of travels, opportunities etc.. which bring about differences in opinion to the same picture.

 

Personally I don't think there is such thing as a best photo, although there are photos that were liked by a large group of people, and certainly copying others won't make you a good photographer either. By copying, you will learn the "wining formular" of one group and will be liked (if you're a good copier) by that group of people, but it doesn't necessarily make you a winer in another group. Find something that make you feel butterfly in your stomach, stick to it, mess about with it, turn it upside down, inside out and don't care about what people say, but care about what you've learned and improved and oneday you might be there. I certainly do so myself. These are just some of my humble thoughts.

[r_m3]

i think like all things it comes naturally to some, some develop it, and some can never achieve it. experimenting is the key to inspiration. you must really look at things. and differently. a professor once told me that in order to define something you must think of everything is not. like a dog- a dog is not a cat, it does not fly, etc etc. in defining it by what it is not, you are seeing it differently like in drawing studio they teach you about positive and negative space.

 

the way to see things differently begins by observing-staring... treating yourself like an outsider...like maybe somebody that is not from this earth and when you take notice in this way, you see the wonderful opportunities. a plant in your backyard may not look interesting but dont look at it through your eyes, look through your camera, frame your shot..take your camera and put a macro lens on it and capture the texture, shape, etc of the leaves.

 

and another piece of advice...try leaving your backyard to take shots. maybe its too familiar for you to see its treasures.

[timberwolf1]

Some photographers have used emulation: They simply re-take the photograph of

another photographer. Painters do this; paint a copy of a work.

 

This may give some confidence, but will it impart knowledge of qualities? I doubt it.

A picture must be analyzed for its parts.

 

After learning the "qualities" one must understand the "cliches", and the "generally

accepted" styles or technical qualities of a print. This is like adding an additional

filter.

 

But you start with qualities. And you should start with giving yourself assignments to

find these qualities around you. For example, go find shadows (1 quality) that create

diagonals (2nd quality) across your frame. Find shadows that "creep" (3rd quality).

find shadows that add texture (4th quality) or confusion/energy (5th quality). Place a

symbol (6th quality) in the picture.

 

If this sounds alittle like writing a composition, you are right. You have alot of

freedom, but you must adhere to a few disciplines, a few qualities.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherdng

[timberwolf1]

You will gain the "photographic eye" by talking about it. Many posters here are

romanticising the process, intellectualizing it. Others are talking all around it. Still

others are leaving "feel good" messages so that you won't quit. The only way to get

there is to stare at your subjects like Zen and find those qualities.

[timberwolf1]

Correction above: "by not talking about it".

 

I believe that people who practice ZEN have an advantage. Anything that can transfix your gaze to a subject should help you. If you could create the patience to look at a subject for 3 minutes straight should help you. As time goes along, you won't need 3 minutes, you will be able to do it in 6 seconds. Experience finding these qualities speeds up the process because you are organized and familiar.

 

You will become more sensitive as you go along. Just as listening to music, you will become alittle "wow'd" by what you see. You must let go of your thinking; then you "drink it in". This process increases your intuition.

 

To get new ideas, you will need to let go, then scan and feel. This is not how a beginner should do it. At first, you need to learn qualities. Then later, you can use more "fast track" ways to get to the completed composition, the completed picture.

 

Don't look for "meaning" in the beginning. Look for an experience.

 

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

[michael_graziano]

The only way to "develop a photographic eye", IMHO, is to shoot something you care about, or something that is particularly striking to your mind & eye.<br>

<br>

For example: I am a very political person. Looking through my work, you see quite a few protest marches and rallys - 2, 3, 4, 5 rolls of them often. Are all the images "keepers"? No. Honestly, a good majority of them SUCK to the point where I won't even go beyond a contact print of the roll. Others are what I feel (and some others have told me) are excellent shots that really capture the experience of marching for those who could not be there to experience it personally.<br>

My view of what a good image is does not always coincide with what others like - for example: <A HREF="http://www.bsd-box.net/~mikeg/websites/photography/htdocs/images/2-1.jpg">This Image</A> happened to be my favorite of the set I took at the Feb. 14 NYC antiwar rally (the scan does not do it justice, and a lot of detail in the hat and the mask flass was lost). Other people have expressed a liking for <A HREF="http://www.bsd-box.net/~mikeg/websites/photography/htdocs/images/2-3.jpg">this image</A>, despite the out of focus foreground and the fact that my (intended) subject (the girl on her father's shoulders) happened to turn away as I tripped the shutter, because they feel it showed both the scope and the humanity of the event.<br>

<br>

Other things of interest to me are industrial or industrial-esque shots (brick & mortar facades, machinery, harsh/technical looking scenes) like <A HREF="http://www.bsd-box.net/~mikeg/websites/photography/htdocs/images/3-3.jpg">this one</A>, and scenes that capture motion or action (my favorites here are not scanned, one is by me - a shot of a parkway onramp with trees and bushes surrounding the streaks of light from cars and a shot of a factory smokestack pumping away in the background, the other is by a fellow student - a very lucky shot at a softball practice with the ball caught midway between the pitcher and catcher (with no motion blur), seemingly suspended in air and caught at just a perfect moment.)<br>

<br>

The short version of my answer is, your photographic eye may not develop at the camera, at least not right away. As time goes on you will get a sense for what will make a good image. For now, consider instead what you like in others' work and what aspects of your life make a significant impact on YOU PERSONALLY - Then try to unify those two aspects into your own style and subject matter. Lots of film will probably never pass the contact sheet stage -- I have about 20 rolls that I wouldn't print a blessed thing from, and I'm sure that number will only increase -- and while you may feel you've wasted money on the "worthless" images on the roll, you will be advancing your own skills and techniques, and you never know what someone will say one day browsing through your contact sheets ("That is such a cute picture of your dog! Why didn't you make an enlargement?" (one of my recent rolls - mostly snapshots of Puppy (it is a lot harder than it looks to make them pose))).<br>

<br>

Above all, try new things always. I enrolled in "basic photography" and now "intermediate photography" at my university, not to learn how to take and print pictures but for the challenges and assignments that force me to look at things in a new way (the "industrial" shot above was actually taken for the shadow under the utility light, it just happens to also fall into the stark and linear style of many of my building photographs). There are endless ideas for subjects and techniques here on photo.net - I find I am most creative when I am challenged and entertained by what I am shooting, or when I have some personal involvement with it.<br>

<br>

Hope this helps somewhat.

[jim_koral]

I'm glad the book "Drawing on the Right of the Brain" was mentioned. I did the

exercises from the book long ago and it really made aware of the artistic "zone" (I

hate that word). Full awareness of time, words, analytical thought go out the door

and you see things as shapes, or "blobs" that are really, for example, chairs or flowers

or people. There's alot of pleasure trying to capture them on paper. I think those

who become artists naturally fall into this "zone" and the development of their craft is

a byproduct of them compelled to use this part of their brain. Just a thought from the

left side of my brain.

 

I read that film director David Fincher, noted for his visuals, likes to line up shots with

with his left eye to the viewfinder. The idea being that the right side of the brain

processes the left side of the body's input. The right eye is for setting focus, or even

objectively identifying items within the frame. He said he was given this tip when he

worked at ILM nearly 20 years ago.

 

I've tried it a few times, going back and forth with my left eye and right. When I used

my left eye quite alot, I got the same feeling as if I were drawing using the book's

exercises. The image in the viewfinder seemed like a finished print I'm looking at,

like I'm at the editing stage yet I still can change the composition and all the other

variables. It became fun to juggle the blobs of shapes and forms to a pleasing layout.

I think there's some truth to it.

 

In addition to that and shooting lots of film, check out that book and give your right

side a workout.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jim, the right side of the brain processes the left hemifield of vision <B>of both eyes</B>, and the left side of the brain processes the right visual hemifield, again from both the left and the right eye. The images of the two eyes are merged at an early stage, and I doubt that any higher functions can process the info separately.

[j.arthur]

This thread has been great everyone. It has inspired me to upload some of my images. I am more on the artistic rather than technical side of the discussion. I have knowledge of the tools but am more interested in the end result (which for me is an image I can frame and hang on the wall). I am not a professional photographer but would like to attempt to earn some revenues to help pay for the massive amount of time and money I spend on this hobby. I would like for anyone interested to take a look at my folders and let me know what you think. I would appreciate any helpful insights on my images.

[timberwolf1]

To photograph architecture is to give you a headstart on gaining a "photographic eye"

towards graphical concepts. The architects are arts themselves and they deliberately

place these "pieces", these interactions, these graphical concepts in their buildings.

Therefore, you will be presented with "graphical qualities" if you look at architecture.

 

You won't learn anything about photographing people or nature. But you will be

exposed to graphical "excitement". Architects work in 3D, and your assignment, if

you wish to accept it, is to "convert" this 3D excitement into 2D photographs.

 

You will notice that diagonals give more energy than simple verticals. Asymetry has

more energy than symetry. Shadows can sometimes enhance the shape of the

building.

 

After you photograph architecture and parts of the building, like some stairs, you

could graduate to placing a person in the picture. But when you do, you may want to

make the person harmonious with the present staircase or diagonals or asymetry.

This all adds complication. Then the next step is to make the person look

"believable" in the picture, and this brings us to theatre and acting: We need to

believe that this picture wasn't staged, even though we would bet money that it was,

because it appears in an ad, for example. But we want to believe it.

 

So, because you need to find backgrounds for people, it is a good idea to shoot

architecture first. By the way, many famous architects actually became famous

fashion designers, designing dresses for woman! So you see, the "qualities" that you

learn placing your attention on buildings is "transferable" !

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

[timberwolf1]

The problem with photographing with a 35mm camera and learning is that the

viewfinder is too real. What we need is a viewfinder that more obviously converts the

3D image to 2D. Twin lens cameras like the Yashica D and Rolleiflex do this.

Therefore, in photographic classes everywhere, twin lens cameras are used in first

year photographic courses. These cameras also slow the photographer down so that

he/she contemplates alittle more.

 

Just "taking alot of pictures" is like hitting alot of baseballs. You can do it with

discipline, or you can do it mindlessly. In the beginning, spend a half a day just

taking 12 pictures total. Architectural photographers oftentimes only take 5-6

pictures with their 8x10 cameras over 1-2 hours length of time. What would you do

if you only had 2 shots left? You would be very sure of everything. And that is how

you must get to become better.

 

For example, i may be able to take a picture that is 90% perfect with 2 shots. In order

to get to 99%, I may need to take 20 more. To get to 100%, I may need 50 shots. I

take more shots to get closer to perfection of the "idea", or the "experience."

 

So, do not confuse the recommendations for "taking lots of pictures" with

"advancement" towards a photographic eye. You can be scatterbrained about it, or

you can be focused towards a goal.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

[robin_holmes]

Some days, like yesterday, EVERYTHING I see - even something like a McDonald's playland - looks like a good picture to me and other days I don't see a picture in anything! Also, experimenting with a new lens, I went across the street to photograph this rusty, old-timey tractor-type piece of machinery. The late afternoon light was great and I got some great shots. The next day, I did it again to try other technical things and I looked at what I had taken pictures of the day before. I thought, I sure wouldn't have seen a picture in THAT today! But I found new angles the second day that I hadn't seen at all the first day and got good shots with them, too. I think it's interesting that one's photographic "eye" can change from day to day, hour to hour, etc. I'm realizing that I can't demand of myself to see great shots all the time, but when I do, GO for it!

[davewittemann]

This is one of the best and most obvious questions ever posted. I think every artist has wrestled with this question. I my opinion it is a skill that can never be mastered. The path to that perfection is the reward. Check out the two different versions of "The Tao Of Photography". Two very good books on 'seeing' photos. Another excellent book I just picked up is called "Home Photography: Inspiration on Your Doorstep" by Andrew Sanderson. It's all about looking past the obvious and seeing some great pictures. It is very adaptable and thought provoking. Presonally, I look back to the old masters. Brassi, Sudek, Meatyard, Bullock, and Stiechen. See how they solved some of thier problems, what paths they took. Keep looking! The more you look the more you will find. Don't focus on just photography. Look to movies,paintings videos, and books. Lots of literature is very evokative vissually. This whole process may become a bit bewildering at times. It is then that you weed out what you need and toss the rest. Look back at some of your old negs and see just how much you have improved. Go to galleries museums and shows. Heck, bomb around the net and look at different websites. But remember the momment you can say "there, i've done it! I'm compleetely satisfied with myself as a photographer and have learned enough!!" That is the day to put the cameras up on e-bay and take up a new quest. Good luck and keep looking.

[pazellisphoto]

Luis, I was so happy to see your question! After I had posted my own someone referred me to yours and it was very helpful. Helpful because I believe I am on the opposite side of the "dilemma".... I feel this great surge of creativity and see the shots and what them but feel ill equiped with the little technical knowledge I have. Truth is, I never really read any of the photography books. But after all the wonderful suggestions you received... I will be reading many books on the subject. And I will get up close and personal with my cameras. One in particular, is my Rolleiflex 2.8e that I purchased several months ago and was afraid to use! But I am now reading The Rollei Book by Dr. Herring and am feeling a bit more empowered.

 

I am the sort of person that often skips the instruction manuals and throws herself in without any second thoughts, But I think I have made a huge mistake in my eagerness to shoot what I love and not learn how to do it 'properly'. I believe once I have more technical knowledge that I may feel that i am able to do what I want and not necessarily follow all the rules, but I think I should at least know what the rules are first! My next question here will be whether or not any of the online photography courses available are worth the money and if so, if anyone can recommend one. Any ideas? Luis, thanks again for your wise, thoughtful thread. I have learned much here on photo.net. I can't believe that after visiting this site religiously for almost 2 years, this week was my first time to register and post a question!

[greg_stone1]

In my honest opinion, practice,practice,practice. When you become comfortable with the equipment and lighting, they will be second nature and allow you to concentrate on the creative aspect. Study other photos that you like,look at techniques, what angle looks good,what depth of field works, what was the message(if any). Don't be discouraged by not getting an interesting shot. Study your mistakes and go back and reshoot. The only way that you will fail is to give up. When your looking at other photographers work remember that your not seeing the work that hit the cutting room floor. All of the text and info in the world will not make you a better photographer, only you will and only if you shoot and shoot and shoot and so on and so forth. Growth,like mistakes,is inevitable.

 

 

Greg

[acrummey]

I have tried many times to develop an artistic flair in my photos, usually the results are not good. My best work comes when I stop thinking about taking pictures and start looking at my subject matter. Concentrate on the image you want to capture, take your time, and choose subjects that you find interesting, this will lead to better pictures, especially if you already have the required technical skills.

 

Ira