How do you “see” when it comes to subjects?

[TurtleCat]

Back over 10 years ago I went on my first (and to that time only) workshop. The workshop leader said that people have different perceptual seeing for what they are “tuned” into. I’ve thought about that over the years and I think he’s right but I haven’t really heard anyone else bring it up. This person said that people generally fall into these categories. It’s not that you can’t do anything but this is where you’re tuned.

1. Wide Angle (you see scapes, positions, balance between objects over a large area)
2. Telephoto (you see subjects isolated from a wide selection of area or objects)
3. Macro (detail specific, very specific details)
4. Shapes (you mostly observe shapes and how they relate)

When I think back to pictures I’ve taken and pictures I’ve seen from others I think people do tend to fall into those kinds of categories. Maybe there are more categories, maybe they are defined differently by others? For myself, I would define myself as telephoto. I just instinctively look to isolate subjects from a scene whether in a landscape, wildlife, or portrait setting.

 

[bleirer]

It's old-timey now, but a lot of Ansel Adam's writing was about pre-visualization as a skill. Of course in his case a lot of that was where the brightness zones might fall in the final print. But also a certain way of looking where you would consider what the intent of the final image was to be.

 

[tclune]

Maybe there are more categories, maybe they are defined differently by others?

The thing that leapt out to me in the list was the lack of colors as a compositional category. I'm sure there are others, but that omission stuck me as huge. Folks with a higher tolerance for B&W than I have might want to add texture to the list, too.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Interesting topic.
I "see" thru the lens. I find it harder to look at something and think - oh - that would be nice. I seldom do that. I "see" my foto thru the lens - nevermind what lens, Cause then I notice the subject, the background, the light. and more importantly - the moment

 

[StefanSC]

I think seeing in a certain way is a skill that can be developed and activated at will.

If I am shooting macro, I'll be looking for the close-up details and subjects and I won't see an eagle flying in font of my eyes (happened a few times).

If I am shooting wildlife, I'll be looking for movement, certain pattern and such and I won't find a macro subject to save my life, even if it's in front of me.

And so on...

 

[Calson]

Best advice I have received is to consider first the background and second is to look along the edges of the frame when composing. I seldom have used a 50mm lens and instead prefer the 105mm focal length as it is closer to what my mind's eye sees in terms of field of view and perspective.

 

[TurtleCat]

The thing that leapt out to me in the list was the lack of colors as a compositional category. I'm sure there are others, but that omission stuck me as huge. Folks with a higher tolerance for B&W than I have might want to add texture to the list, too.

I think the person who told me wasn’t thinking about all compositional bits but how much tunnel vision you naturally have. But it’s been 12 years since I heard it so I may be misremembering.

 

[jeffnles1]

I tend to start with the detail and then work my way out from there. I will see the deer in the field and then look around it to see the full scene and then, when I have a grasp of what I'm looking at, I will shoot the shot. I do a lot of macro wildflowers in the springtime and early summer. I usually see the individual flower or the insect or center first then widen my personal view out to see a larger scene and then compose my image. Of course, sometimes it's just a sanap photo, a bird lands on a branch, a deer running through the field, a bee or butterfly lights on a flower etc. however, my eye usually picks up the detail first and then my view widens out from there.

My wife has an incredible sense of detail and can spot tiny insects on flowers as we're walking on a trail or she will see a bird deep in the brush when I didn't see either.

Jeff

 

[Viathelens]

I tend to see composition and possibilities right away, especially action for animals. I'm very visual in nature and my brain can see the thing, photo or whatever, completely done, I did this when we had a house built 21 years ago: I could see the entire house and the surrounding landscape in my mind and that is how it turned out. I also know immediately how to take the shot and use the processing tools I have to create my vision of the scene. I usually take a few minutes to look around me, 360 degrees, to see what is going on. I often say "I shoot composition." This makes it fairly easy for me to quickly photograph a subject. My eyes are fine tuned to composition and all that it includes. I'm less proficient on macro than I am on wildlife and larger compositions.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

I tend to see composition and possibilities right away, especially action for animals. I'm very visual in nature and my brain can see the thing, photo or whatever, completely done, I did this when we had a house built 21 years ago: I could see the entire house and the surrounding landscape in my mind and that is how it turned out. I also know immediately how to take the shot and use the processing tools I have to create my vision of the scene. I usually take a few minutes to look around me, 360 degrees, to see what is going on. I often say "I shoot composition." This makes it fairly easy for me to quickly photograph a subject. My eyes are fine tuned to composition and all that it includes. I'm less proficient on macro than I am on wildlife and larger compositions.

Very interesting- kind of like the opposite of me!
I thought i was odd

 

[Viathelens]

Very interesting- kind of like the opposite of me!
I thought i was odd

Or maybe I’m the odd one!

 

[Replytoken]

Interesting topic.
I "see" thru the lens. I find it harder to look at something and think - oh - that would be nice. I seldom do that. I "see" my foto thru the lens - nevermind what lens, Cause then I notice the subject, the background, the light. and more importantly - the moment

Just curious, what is your reaction when looking through a lens of a focal length that you do not normally shoot (or perhaps care for)? I know there are certain focal lengths (i.e. wide angle) that just cause be to grumble about why I am not shooing with a lens that I normally use. Its not that I cannot compose a shot, but it does take a lot more deliberate thought to fill the frame.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Best advice I have received is to consider first the background and second is to look along the edges of the frame when composing. I seldom have used a 50mm lens and instead prefer the 105mm focal length as it is closer to what my mind's eye sees in terms of field of view and perspective.

Not unlike how I tend to approach composing. But I was recently watching several videos from The Raw Society on YT and there was a lot of discussion about layering as well as composition. Jorge Delgado-Ureña, who put up several of the videos, talked about how different focal lengths impact layering and composition in travel/street/PJ images. I suspect that folks who like to regularly shoot with wider angle lenses are much more in tune with layering (background, midground, foreground) as there is often little to no subject isolation. Not sure my mind may not already be doing this to one degree or another, but it was an interesting presentation.

--Ken

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Just curious, what is your reaction when looking through a lens of a focal length that you do not normally shoot (or perhaps care for)? I know there are certain focal lengths (i.e. wide angle) that just cause be to grumble about why I am not shooing with a lens that I normally use. Its not that I cannot compose a shot, but it does take a lot more deliberate thought to fill the frame.

--Ken

Ken - I have trouble seeing wide angle - but I have recently started working on my landscapes. Got filters for the 24-70 and 70-200 - thinking oh well I probably need wide angle but will in all likelihood use the 70-200. I have been somewhat surprised that I am using the 24-70 more than I thought. I dont know how to even describe it - but something perhaps twigged in my brain - and I am able to "see" more than I did before. Something just clicked for me - and I am able to visualise better with the wider lens than before. I am very happy about that of course.
I still wont get a wider lens though. I don't care for a 14-24 (used to have one) and only use fish eye 16mm for stars once in a blue moon.
I do favour longer lenses over all. But I also try to do this:

When I am at a scene - and if practical - I work that scene with all my lenses. Wide, long, macro, fisheye, because you see the world differently through a different focal length. I still suck at macro though.

 

[TurtleCat]

I think we can train ourselves to see a scene easily enough. One technique Bryan Peterson espouses is to pick a target about 100 feet away and select a focal length. Take a picture, move up 5 feet and repeat until you’re right up on it. Then change the focal length and do it again. Repeat the process for several months and you’ll know what you’ll get for a subject, perspective, and focal length.

All that said, I do keep thinking there is a “default” in our brain that predisposes us to seeing things in a particular way first.

 

[fcotterill]

I find using a frame to simulate the field of view of a wide angle, which helps to see the structure in a scene and best position the elements of composition etc
It's as challenging, often more so, to pick out the Gesture that brings a landscape "to life" eg shifting clouds, or the ideal time of day for better light etc.
With wildlife subjects, it pays dividends to predict behaviours likely to enliven the scene. This can be a specific behaviours or the animal moving into a optimal position with respect to the lighting and/or background. Examples are interactions between individuals, and feeding events. These are often fleeting moments, so challenging to capture.

 

[pochito]

Specially in landscapes, I look at the scenery first. an old habit. Some time ago I only made landscapes with the large format camera and in-camera I got an inverted image. This for some reason helped with the composition. I also had lots of time for measuring light etc etc. Every negative (or almost) was right.
Now with animals this is very different. I should know more about them and expect always the unexpected. Usually it's "spray and pray".
As a rule few "negatives" are "right", if at all.
Also satisfying, but a different discipline

 

[bleirer]

I find that squinting a little helps me see the values/luminosity better and knocks out details to help compose in consideration of the bigger areas of relative lightness.

 

[MMoretti]

As an avid motorcyclist, I‘m naturally focussed on the mid-range distance with constant horizontal (and occasional vertical) scanning. I feel like this may explain (or at least associate) with my preference for wide-angle glass. By default, I keep a 21mm lens on one of my bodies whether walking about a city, hiking in a forest or riding my motorcycle (in which case it rides along in my tank bag). I‘ve never had a particular interest in longer glass (other than early on owning a 80-400 D and more recently 300 PF and 70-200), until late last year when I traveled to Namibia. Even now, though, after acquiring a 120-300 (which works very nicely with even the 2x TC), I’m not especially interested in (literally) zooming in on my subject. Okay, now and then I go through mental exercises over 500 PF v 600 PF v 500 FL… But, I still pretty much see the world as a panorama, I suppose, with an interest in what‘s happening mid-field. This may reflect in my social persona which prefers to stand back and observe in a large room, but isn’t too drawn to the stadium world. How was that for a ramble…?

 

[BLev65]

I tend to be a minimalist... this does not necessarily mean a wildlife portrait photographer, but one that tries to extract the simplest distraction free photo. My images often have a tiny subject in a very simple landscape... say a distant coyote on a field of snow. In addition, I tend to find monochromatic or dichromatic photos interesting... simplifying the color palate to create a mood. When I can't place my subject in a minimalistic environment, I will "weed the garden" digitally to remove clutter and simplify the image.
I'm the photographer and viewer of art that can look at a rock in a pool of water being bathed by soft light all day long.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I definitely see in telephoto FOV. That's reflected in my style of isolating wildlife subjects. When I shoot landscapes I rarely shoot at less that 70mm. I've tried to force myself to go WA/UWA but it just never took with me.

 

[Abinoone]

Back over 10 years ago I went on my first (and to that time only) workshop. The workshop leader said that people have different perceptual seeing for what they are “tuned” into. I’ve thought about that over the years and I think he’s right but I haven’t really heard anyone else bring it up. This person said that people generally fall into these categories. It’s not that you can’t do anything but this is where you’re tuned.

1. Wide Angle (you see scapes, positions, balance between objects over a large area)
2. Telephoto (you see subjects isolated from a wide selection of area or objects)
3. Macro (detail specific, very specific details)
4. Shapes (you mostly observe shapes and how they relate)

When I think back to pictures I’ve taken and pictures I’ve seen from others I think people do tend to fall into those kinds of categories. Maybe there are more categories, maybe they are defined differently by others? For myself, I would define myself as telephoto. I just instinctively look to isolate subjects from a scene whether in a landscape, wildlife, or portrait setting.

I‘m not so sure people necessarily fall into categories as they do vary in their observational skills and abilities. I think this is the great mystery of artistic talent - folks who seem to have a knack for imagining things in a unique or especially insightful way. It’s hard to put your finger on just what that talent is, especially when it’s applied consistently, but we’ve probably all known photographers who just seem to produce truly extraordinary images. I‘d like to say that I’m one of those people, but then I’d be lying if I did But, I do try to think about these things whenever I’m out shooting, and always hope to capture a scene that expresses the essence of what I’m seeing. Only occasionally am I successful!

 

[Replytoken]

I find that squinting a little helps me see the values/luminosity better and knocks out details to help compose in consideration of the bigger areas of relative lightness.

On a related note, I will sometimes close one eye and then survey what is in front of me. In my mind, the elimination of stereo vision sort of flattens out the image and helps me with composing.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

I tend to be a minimalist... this does not necessarily mean a wildlife portrait photographer, but one that tries to extract the simplest distraction free photo. My images often have a tiny subject in a very simple landscape... say a distant coyote on a field of snow.

I like, and often shoot, minimalist compositions as well, almost as much as I like to just isolate details in an image to give a hint of a greater scene. Its fun and interesting, but I do sometimes wonder if I can't see the forest for the trees. I am trying to refresh my ability to compose and layer with wider angle lenses as my wife and I are planning a trip to some cities later this year and I suspect that there will be lots of good photo opportunities.

--Ken