Cherry_F
Senior Member
That sounds smart. I'll try it.
A pro photographer once gave this advice: set up a sketch of the pic in your head before you shoot. If that makes a good 'drawing', then press the shutter.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Let's talk about "Seeing" and how to improve it.
- Thread starter rick decker
- Start date
A pro photographer once gave this advice: set up a sketch of the pic in your head before you shoot. If that makes a good 'drawing', then press the shutter.
Tom Axford
Forum Pro
This is a very interesting picture in that the road and cars immediately catch one's attention and, from one point of view, spoil an otherwise entirely wild and natural scene.I have been going to Moab since the mid 1980s and at least a dozen or more times. recently I was looking at some pictures in the AAA quarterly magazine which had the focus on Arches and the desert crush at parks (by tourists). It had 3 shots that are examples of good seeing. Ones that I had taken at least once and not seen them that way. I also noticed and not being critical that they were warmed up somewhat and more appealing because of that.
So the question is how to expand ones "seeing" ability. Both from the standpoint of using equipment and from the standpoint of using the eyes.
Two experiences stick out in my memory. One, the cardboard cut-outs used by some in the pre-digital age. Second a field trip with Ernie Braun a California landscape pro to Point Lobos area. He got this one shot than no one else in the group "saw". He had great seeing ability.
I want to encourage forum members to contribute some ideas about seeing and expanding ones seeing.
Here are the pictures from the AAA magazine This guy was shooting for the mazine so he wanted tourists in the shots:
This is not very far into the park . It took me a while to figure out where it was taken from. My wife commented about liking it. She doesn't pull any punches when looking at my stuff or others' stuff. When I go back to archs (if) in March, I will look for it. The center spire is the Three Gossips sideways.
However, I suspect that if the road and cars could be completely removed from the scene, the picture would have much less impact. The road and cars give the viewer an immediate impression of perspective and scale that is much harder to get from the rest of the scene. The huge height and scale of the canyon is made more apparent.
Photographers talk about including people in a picture to give a sense of scale. However, a sense of perspective is often equally important and sometimes forgotten about. In this case, the road and cars receding into the distance gives us a good sense of perspective, which makes it obvious that the spire in the centre is a great deal further away than the cliff on the extreme left. The size of this cliff is obvious from comparison with the cars. The perspective then gives a better feel for the size of the more distant parts of the scene.
We generally like to keep roads and cars out of our landscape photographs, but this image shows how they can be used to very good effect to add to the impression of depth.
- Just my thoughts on the subject.
jaggedhorizon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,456
- Reaction score
- 3,984
What a great thread, thanks Rick for starting it.
Lots of good points above from Gloomy1, kaphinga, Lan and others, and great images too.
Here's what I would add.
It's often said that we should consider what attracted us in a scene and make that thing the key element. That's easier said than done, so I would have two suggestions to help:
- first, and maybe counterintuitively for a visual medium, "draft" a short statement of what interests you about the image (in your head, but you can even do it out loud as an exercise), i.e. name the interesting feature: "the fog on those tree crowns looks great", "the shadow on the ground of that building is really weird", "the three main colours I see in this image complement each other well", "there are converging lines that pull me into the image", "there are three layers with different textures in this image", etc. Make this clear and specific, it's no use to say "that is a nice vista", or "I want to photograph that church in the forest". If there's more than one interesting element, name several, but then I would argue that the next step is thinking of the interrelationships between these elements and what role these play in the composition - see also the next point
- second, I would argue that one useful step is often to start by trying to simplify the composition as much as you can. See if you can eliminate more and more things from the composition and if it still remains a strong image (in your head, or in the viewfinder). This doesn't mean just the use of telephoto - one can have a great image with a simple composition and /or few elements with a wide-angle lens. It also doesn't mean that you have to end up only with simple compositions - some great images have several elements, layers, textures, etc - however it does mean that you go first through the simplification exercise and then, if you feel that the essence has been lost, you go back to a more complex one, hopefully with a better understanding of what drives the interest in that complexity.
Just to show that this process does not always lead to very simple compositions: for the image below, the element that really impressed me strongly was the light of the moon on the mountains, so my first images were focusing only on that , but the impact was far less than the awe I felt looking at the scene. In what was probably a subconscious assessment, I realised that perhaps it was the relationship between the mountains and the buildings in the village that I was also registering, including the colours in the scene, so I sought out a vantage points a few streets further up, where I could get the village church in the shot (fyi, this is not quite the final edit, I improved it further, mainly on eliminating some false colour on the lower snow fields).
If I could have had another viewpoint, I would have gone further up the mountainside and used a longer lens to make the church or the entire village smaller by reference to the mountains. However, for a number of reasons (including the lack of a road above the village!) this was not so easy, but I'm happy with the image.
La Grave at night
Another strategy that sometimes works is asking yourself "if I was here with 10 other photographers and I absolutely had to come up with an image that no one else has taken, what would I try?". This is not very helpful in terms of giving you a specific place to start, but perhaps it can at least stop you from taking a typical image. (Note: I would not use just this approach when I have great conditions or when I visit a place where I'm unlikely to return, as it could lead to missing some really good potential shots - it's more useful as an exercise in areas that we know and can return to).
--
http://cedricpopa.zenfolio.com/
Lots of good points above from Gloomy1, kaphinga, Lan and others, and great images too.
Here's what I would add.
It's often said that we should consider what attracted us in a scene and make that thing the key element. That's easier said than done, so I would have two suggestions to help:
- first, and maybe counterintuitively for a visual medium, "draft" a short statement of what interests you about the image (in your head, but you can even do it out loud as an exercise), i.e. name the interesting feature: "the fog on those tree crowns looks great", "the shadow on the ground of that building is really weird", "the three main colours I see in this image complement each other well", "there are converging lines that pull me into the image", "there are three layers with different textures in this image", etc. Make this clear and specific, it's no use to say "that is a nice vista", or "I want to photograph that church in the forest". If there's more than one interesting element, name several, but then I would argue that the next step is thinking of the interrelationships between these elements and what role these play in the composition - see also the next point
- second, I would argue that one useful step is often to start by trying to simplify the composition as much as you can. See if you can eliminate more and more things from the composition and if it still remains a strong image (in your head, or in the viewfinder). This doesn't mean just the use of telephoto - one can have a great image with a simple composition and /or few elements with a wide-angle lens. It also doesn't mean that you have to end up only with simple compositions - some great images have several elements, layers, textures, etc - however it does mean that you go first through the simplification exercise and then, if you feel that the essence has been lost, you go back to a more complex one, hopefully with a better understanding of what drives the interest in that complexity.
Just to show that this process does not always lead to very simple compositions: for the image below, the element that really impressed me strongly was the light of the moon on the mountains, so my first images were focusing only on that , but the impact was far less than the awe I felt looking at the scene. In what was probably a subconscious assessment, I realised that perhaps it was the relationship between the mountains and the buildings in the village that I was also registering, including the colours in the scene, so I sought out a vantage points a few streets further up, where I could get the village church in the shot (fyi, this is not quite the final edit, I improved it further, mainly on eliminating some false colour on the lower snow fields).
If I could have had another viewpoint, I would have gone further up the mountainside and used a longer lens to make the church or the entire village smaller by reference to the mountains. However, for a number of reasons (including the lack of a road above the village!) this was not so easy, but I'm happy with the image.
La Grave at night
Another strategy that sometimes works is asking yourself "if I was here with 10 other photographers and I absolutely had to come up with an image that no one else has taken, what would I try?". This is not very helpful in terms of giving you a specific place to start, but perhaps it can at least stop you from taking a typical image. (Note: I would not use just this approach when I have great conditions or when I visit a place where I'm unlikely to return, as it could lead to missing some really good potential shots - it's more useful as an exercise in areas that we know and can return to).
--
http://cedricpopa.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
landscaper1
Veteran Member
What I've found is that narrowing your vision can help you to see unusual images. I was on a group photo tour with a pro in Jasper Nat'l Park (Alberta, Canada) and we stopped at Sunwapta Falls. Most everyone took a variation on this scene ...
but I was the only person in the group who took a closer look. I repositioned myself and shot this image with the same shutter speed.
--
Landscaper 1
-----
"Open up your eyes and look around you.
There's a lotta world you've never seen.
They've got the sights that will astound you.
You CAN go there; you CAN see your dreams."
-- Pan American Airlines radio jingle (c1980)
but I was the only person in the group who took a closer look. I repositioned myself and shot this image with the same shutter speed.
--
Landscaper 1
-----
"Open up your eyes and look around you.
There's a lotta world you've never seen.
They've got the sights that will astound you.
You CAN go there; you CAN see your dreams."
-- Pan American Airlines radio jingle (c1980)
Last edited:
Thanks for the thread and the ideas from everyone. I’m a classic copycat. I see something I like, I try to figure out where it was taken from and if I can duplicate it. Then I discover that, “when”, is often more important than, “where”. I then realize that with my large family, waiting around at sunrise or sunset for the moment really isn’t in the cards for me.
So, to figure out how to “see” what’s already there when I’m there would be most beneficial. I definitely more technician than artist (and I still need a lot of work at the technical side anyway).
So, to figure out how to “see” what’s already there when I’m there would be most beneficial. I definitely more technician than artist (and I still need a lot of work at the technical side anyway).
martianphoto
Forum Enthusiast
Another interesting thread with good points already made.
For my two cents i would add the following;
I have spent a lot of family time touring the US National Parks most of which have been done to death with countless shots of the same things. I have rarely had time to wander for hours looking for that single elusive shot.
So; Take the obvious shot(s) first.
However, once you have the 'stock' image of the area then ' look ' around. There is almost always something else, - if not, improvise..
Sometimes its a particular framing, sometimes people, sometimes just the light. Then shoot quickly and with confidence. If your judgement is reasonably sound you will come up with something that pleases you - even if it is not great art!
These are the shots that will enable you to evaluate later when editing and learn from your mistakes.
Be realistic, we are not all professional photographers with infinite time and resources, mainly just reasonable amateurs with the ability to improve our skills.
Grand Prismatic Spring - Yellowstone, with a storm blowing in very quickly
Autumnal reflection - El Capitan, Yosemite
Birds eye view - Canyonlands
martianphotography (smugmug.com)
For my two cents i would add the following;
I have spent a lot of family time touring the US National Parks most of which have been done to death with countless shots of the same things. I have rarely had time to wander for hours looking for that single elusive shot.
So; Take the obvious shot(s) first.
However, once you have the 'stock' image of the area then ' look ' around. There is almost always something else, - if not, improvise..
Sometimes its a particular framing, sometimes people, sometimes just the light. Then shoot quickly and with confidence. If your judgement is reasonably sound you will come up with something that pleases you - even if it is not great art!
These are the shots that will enable you to evaluate later when editing and learn from your mistakes.
Be realistic, we are not all professional photographers with infinite time and resources, mainly just reasonable amateurs with the ability to improve our skills.
Grand Prismatic Spring - Yellowstone, with a storm blowing in very quickly
Autumnal reflection - El Capitan, Yosemite
Birds eye view - Canyonlands
martianphotography (smugmug.com)
Commenting on how the photographer of this image 'saw' the scene, interestingly at one time there were probably a lot of people who came home from Arches with something similar in their camera because the photographer took this from what was a park service built paved pull off on the side of the road that was built purposefully by the park service because they felt it was a good spot that gave people a good view up the canyon and a different view of the gossips.
This is not very far into the park . It took me a while to figure out where it was taken from. My wife commented about liking it. She doesn't pull any punches when looking at my stuff or others' stuff. When I go back to archs (if) in March, I will look for it. The center spire is the Three Gossips sideways.
If you look at google maps you will notice today the pull of is now gone, (the sign is different too, now with a speed limit added to it). My guess is as the park got more popular and with more traffic, they started to realize this pull-off placed at the exit of the curved in the road wasn't a safe or good idea anymore and removed it.
So the photographer in the magazine probably 'saw' this image because he was just taking advantage of a park-made photo op stop like many in the park, today almost everyone is just driving right by it. This screen grab below shows the spot today minus the pull-off.
When you return and head to this spot, you likely will be the only person that stops there to take a photograph in years, all because you did research and saw an image someone else made long ago under more convenient circumstances.
This is a good discussion, I'm enjoying reading other people's observations and comments on their personal ways of seeing.
--
Thanks,
Mike
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
The turn out is newer. Street view hasn’t been updated since May 2013. The cars in the AAA picture are all newer than that.Commenting on how the photographer of this image 'saw' the scene, interestingly at one time there were probably a lot of people who came home from Arches with something similar in their camera because the photographer took this from what was a park service built paved pull off on the side of the road that was built purposefully by the park service because they felt it was a good spot that gave people a good view up the canyon and a different view of the gossips.
This is not very far into the park . It took me a while to figure out where it was taken from. My wife commented about liking it. She doesn't pull any punches when looking at my stuff or others' stuff. When I go back to archs (if) in March, I will look for it. The center spire is the Three Gossips sideways.
If you look at google maps you will notice today the pull of is now gone, (the sign is different too, now with a speed limit added to it). My guess is as the park got more popular and with more traffic, they started to realize this pull-off placed at the exit of the curved in the road wasn't a safe or good idea anymore and removed it.
So the photographer in the magazine probably 'saw' this image because he was just taking advantage of a park-made photo op stop like many in the park, today almost everyone is just driving right by it. This screen grab below shows the spot today minus the pull-off.
When you return and head to this spot, you likely will be the only person that stops there to take a photograph in years, all because you did research and saw an image someone else made long ago under more convenient circumstances.
This is a good discussion, I'm enjoying reading other people's observations and comments on their personal ways of seeing.
--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.instagram.com/mikefinleyco/
Cherry_F
Senior Member
martianphoto
Forum Enthusiast
I too thought there was a newer turn out - roughly close to the apex of the bend on the right, but i was last there in 2018 BC (before covid) so might be wrong.
martianphotography (smugmug.com)
martianphotography (smugmug.com)
I would hazard a guess that the situation was quite the opposite of what was asserted. The tendency of people to stop in that area for the view led to the need to add a turnout so that traffic wouldn’t be disrupted. You can see tracks from people having pulled off in street view. Increased visitation would only make that worse.
Last edited:
rick decker
Forum Pro
As time goes on I have become more amenable to road/cars/tripods for scale. I don't know if I would hang a print with a car. Roads and tripods yes...People well possible (i.e. beach scene etc). thanks for the comments
--
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---
--
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---
rick decker
Forum Pro
Thanks...Lots of food for thought here.
rick decker
Forum Pro
Thanks for posting this....It gives me a better understanding of the shot with the cars which must be longer than I first realized.
rick decker
Forum Pro
I like the crow shot...thanks
--
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.rickswavepics.com
--
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.rickswavepics.com
Last edited:
rick decker
Forum Pro
good point and very nice shot.
I've had an extensive conversation about this recently on another forum, and ended up coming to the following conclusion that I will copypaste below. In the end, it's all about dealing with our mind's limited ability to correctly determine the best option as the number of options increases (choice paralysis).
So here's what I found:
(...) although zooms are convenient and result oriented, the process often leaves me less receptive to the photographic opportunities around me - even though objectively speaking, there are way more opportunities than with a prime.
I'm beginning to feel that, when moving around a lot (when hiking, for instance), I'm better off with one, at most two fixed focal lengths, because the limited focal lengths on offer make it easier to curate the vignettes from my ever changing surroundings that I want to take a photo of. With a zoom lens and continually changing surroundings, everything's possible all of the time, and that just makes me shoot lots of mediocre shots, with the occasional good one inbetween that risks going unnoticed in the avalanche of photos. (...)
But when I'm sort of stationary, there's more time to take in my surroundings and really extract all opportunities in that particular scene, so I might want a zoom to fully capitalize on that.
Hope that helps a bit
Tom Axford
Forum Pro
I agree. A zoom makes life easier, but a prime is more likely to result in some better shots.I've had an extensive conversation about this recently on another forum, and ended up coming to the following conclusion that I will copypaste below. In the end, it's all about dealing with our mind's limited ability to correctly determine the best option as the number of options increases (choice paralysis).
So here's what I found:
(...) although zooms are convenient and result oriented, the process often leaves me less receptive to the photographic opportunities around me - even though objectively speaking, there are way more opportunities than with a prime.
I'm beginning to feel that, when moving around a lot (when hiking, for instance), I'm better off with one, at most two fixed focal lengths, because the limited focal lengths on offer make it easier to curate the vignettes from my ever changing surroundings that I want to take a photo of. With a zoom lens and continually changing surroundings, everything's possible all of the time, and that just makes me shoot lots of mediocre shots, with the occasional good one inbetween that risks going unnoticed in the avalanche of photos. (...)
But when I'm sort of stationary, there's more time to take in my surroundings and really extract all opportunities in that particular scene, so I might want a zoom to fully capitalize on that.
Hope that helps a bit
Blind Bill
Senior Member
Yes, and I like what you did here!
Peter Del
Veteran Member
Monument Valley
I couldn't do it now though!
Peter Del
--
Gallery: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8804053911
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum