"Seeing" the image and other problems

[Tobers]

In my transition from sports photography to landscapes, I've found one of the most frustrating but engaging things is being able to "see" an image in 2D, and create a composition from various elements to "make" something that the casual onlooker would never notice. I find it really hard. I also find that I see too many images/compositions on my computer afterwards when I'm back home rather than when I am out in the field and end up cropping and cursing. In sports photography, the image is generally presented in front of you and you can't easily move location, so the challenge is more one of timing and technical prowess. Landscape is a very different pursuit.

I've written a blog post about this with a couple of examples. I'd be interested if others have found the same problems and how you've overcome them or trained your brain. It can't be just me!

Andy

 

[simon ess]

I find this a fascinating aspect of photography. It's something I've discussed and thought about regularly.

There is a tendency for there to be a disconect between what you see in the viewfinder and the resulting image.

This is a result of the necessary human interpretation of visual sensory input. We tend to see what we want to see and to not see what we consider unimportant.

The answer is to really study the viewfinder. I mean, really study the viewfinder. What you see is not going to change in the final image.

I think you're right; it is about training the brain, but also about being ruthless.

I'll have a read of your blog now.

ETA

I meant to say as well, if you could paint or draw, would you spend a week painting the composition you see in the viewfinder?

 

[simon ess]

Interesting.

I think this one is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You could see the opposite bank, you knew it added nothing to the picture and so, maybe subconsciously, dismissed it and stopped seeing it.



It's fascinating.....and I'm rubbish at it.

 

[sk66]

I think they key is figuring out what is drawing you to a scene and focusing in on that specific aspect. It's always there, but it isn't usually conscious.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I have to disagree with this comment, but I know where you're coming from

The answer is to really study the viewfinder. I mean, really study the viewfinder

You should only be raising the camera to your eye when you've already figured out what you're going to shoot, not the other way around

Dave

 

[simon ess]

Yes, I agree. I was assuming the studying of the scene and decision on what to shoot had already been made.

After that, when looking through the viewfinder, what I suggested applies. All IMO, of course.

 

[Tobers]

I meant to say as well, if you could paint or draw, would you spend a week painting the composition you see in the viewfinder?

That's an excellent way to think about it. Maybe because it's so "easy" to take a digital picture we tend to get a bit lazy. If the time investment was much larger, we'd be more careful and considered. This results in ingrained behaviour which we don't realise is happening.

You could see the opposite bank, you knew it added nothing to the picture and so, maybe subconsciously, dismissed it and stopped seeing it.

Very interesting. I knew there was something in that picture, but hadn't figured it out until I got back home. So what I need to do is think more about what the "something" is and then execute on that.

I think they key is figuring out what is drawing you to a scene and focusing in on that specific aspect. It's always there, but it isn't usually conscious.

Ah yes - sounds good.

You should only be raising the camera to your eye when you've already figured out what you're going to shoot, not the other way around

Indeed, but in this case I had figured out what I wanted to shoot, it's just that it wasn't quite the right thing . Or to put it another way, I became "target fixated" on what I thought the shot was rather than considering all possibilities.

Yes, I agree. I was assuming the studying of the scene and decision on what to shoot had already been made.
After that, when looking through the viewfinder, what I suggested applies. All IMO, of course.

Correct. I'm just not very good at the former!

 

[69Bonni]

Interesting.

I think this one is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You could see the opposite bank, you knew it added nothing to the picture and so, maybe subconsciously, dismissed it and stopped seeing it.

View attachment 60120

It's fascinating.....and I'm rubbish at it.

I have seen that shot before recently, Simon
@Tobers Andy take a look here https://photographylife.com/construction-of-a-photograph-the-process-of-visualization this makes interesting reading!
Don't you just envy those that can 'See' the shot everywhere and in everything. For us mere mortals we have to work at it

 

[monkeyleader]

Howdy,

Really interesting read and something which I'm finding myself neck deep at the moment also. There were a number of factors which contributed to our move to back to Ireland earlier this year, not least from a personal health point of view. I'm a huge fan of Paul Sanders work and it was in conversation with him on a workshop in London last year that I first made a connection between photography and mindfulness. Now of course a lot of people will roll their eyes and that's fine, but for me, personally, I'm finding myself connecting a bit more with my photography by being much more mindful in the field. I think the connection actually is more with the landscape itself which in turn is aiding on the photography side of things.

What was interesting is that none of this comes naturally. I don't just rock up to a pretty scene, sit cross legged in robes while chanting the Aperture times tables over and over until an image appears like a dream and then hit the shutter button. No, instead I still have to force myself to 100% slow down. It's breaking habits of a lifetime, like not grabbing the camera and setting it up on a tripod as soon as I arrive. Part of my head still whispers that instead of sitting looking I should be taking pictures. This isn't photography. Come on man. Get shooting.

Long exposure photography is helping to bridge the gap in a way. While the camera is sitting doing its thing for sometimes 10 minutes at a time, I allow myself to sit and consider. To try and rid my head of anything other than the moment that I'm in right there. There have been times during this that I've seen connections and scenes in the landscape that I simply would not have seen otherwise. It surprises me. Then makes me realise how little I actually see without really focusing. In a way I liken it to long exposure photography. 20 seconds of exposing when using a 10 stop (for example) will give you a very dark underexposed scene, whereas letting the camera exposure (or stare) for minutes on end and you perhaps get something worth remembering.

Of course now living on the North Antrim Coast it's pretty much impossible to consider images outside of the well trodden paths (Giants Causeway, Ballintoy etc etc ..) .... Again this is where I'm having to take a more controlled approach. I'm allowing myself a day or two at the well known places. More so to continue to practice my craft for one, but also to perhaps see something different. The other days I avoid them, instead spending time on the interconnecting coastal paths which get about 1/10th of the footfall. The forests. The glens.

Still very early days and external influences still cause plenty of self doubt and at times procrastination.

Cheers,

Nige

PS: by the way I think it's taken me about an hour longer than it should have to write this .... one can very easily get very lost as they browse through David's galleries .... An education in composition, light. mood and feeling right there ...

 

[srhmoto]

This is a very thought provoking thread, and timely for some of the things I have been trying to think and work through personally. I'm another that can border on a 'spray and pray' approach to landscape photography. I have been working through Thomas Heaton's blogs / vlogs and his approach is something I would like to aspire to. I'm booked on a workshop in April where I hope to try and work through that and the points that @Tobers makes in his OP. I really want to move to a position when I'm taking far less in terms of quantity and pushing the quality up, but as others have said so far I'm finding that really difficult.

Simon.

 

[Carl Hall]

It's a hard thing to learn and I think it's just a case of practice and reviewing your photos later on, until you can kind of imagine what you want the final photo to look like, before you take it.

Using a prime lens helps me personally; I mostly use an 80mm lens (50mm equivalent for FF) and I find it really helpful as my mind can get used to what sort of framing is available from where I'm stood. If I were using a zoom lens I think it's much harder to foresee what can and can't be in the frame from where you're stood.

Another thing that I recommend is not walking around with your camera attached to the tripod. I did this for years and it makes you fall into the habit of shooting from where the camera is once you put it down. Now I move the camera around until I find the best position, and then move the tripod to where the camera is. I can't tell you the amount of times I've literally moved a couple of inches and it's made a big difference, and that's something I wouldn't have done if the camera was already on the tripod.

Also using a waist level finder makes life much easier for me, as looking down on the glass is like looking at the final print in your hand.

 

[Steve B]

Using a prime lens helps me personally; I mostly use an 80mm lens (50mm equivalent for FF) and I find it really helpful as my mind can get used to what sort of framing is available from where I'm stood. If I were using a zoom lens I think it's much harder to foresee what can and can't be in the frame from where you're stood.

Yes I found that using a prime, a 35mm equivalent in my case, really helps with seeing the shot, before even turning the camera on.
Also, I very rarely use the viewfinder to compose, preferring the LCD on the rear of the camera, standing back and checking the whole frame and adjusting if needed.
Although thought by many as rather cliche, long exposures really help me connecting with a scene, as @monkeyleader referred to above, it gives moments of contemplation while the camera does it's stuff and often leads to an alternative view.
Actually this fits in well, an interview with Paul Sanders looking at the spiritual side of landscape photography, though I'm not religious, can certainly relate to the sentiments.

View: https://vimeo.com/151950103

 

[69Bonni]

It's a really interesting thread, first thanks for kicking it off @Tobers! Here are several thoughts I have noticed about my photography and probably others may have found similar.
First I came up through the film route, I found film a slower process of photography, prime lenses did make you very much more aware of framing as @Carl Hall mentioned. One of the other elements was cost, it made you think not to waste film and shoot with a little more thought.

Digital seemed to send me stir crazy, I think it almost erased almost every strand of photographic knowledge. Until I thought what the hell am I doing!

Anyhow I guess for those that are fortunate enough to live in an area with stunning natural beauty 'Seeing' comes a lot easier because of the area in which they live, so the learning process must be a lot easier. I find it not uncommon once I have found a location that it takes several visits to get the shot I want, first visit looking around taking some shots but it's not until you have been to the location at least a couple of times, you can visualise in your minds eye what you want where you want the light to be (no matter how much you google the location or use suncalc or whatever). IMHO.

I think Landscaping is possibly one of the hardest disciplines to crack. Light makes or breaks a lot of shots, so time of day is important which restricts to your window of opportunity. What looks great at sunrise can look nothing at sunset, so knowledge of the location is yet another element. Right place at the right time and all that!
Your dilemma coming from Sport Photography where, as you say the subject is presented in your lap, so it must be flustrating moving to Landscape where in many cases it's about chasing the light or alternately it's a waiting game with patience needed by the bucket load.

Things I struggle with are those poxy LCD displays on the back of cameras, can Togs really see their framed shots with them? Maybe my eyesights worst than i thought, as an experiment I have recently hooked up a tablet, just to see if it helps, not tried in anger yet... I use viewfinder always apart from when in live view, magnified up, to check focus.
I believe slowing down is probably the key, and like Carl says don't 'plant' your tripod! I think that frame shown in the link I posted in #8 above might be a worthwhile consideration too, at least initially. The other thing I will mention is studying others work on here, and critiquing, in that way I think it enables you to identify the good and bad elements of a landscape shot and thus help you 'see' what you like and what works and what doesn't.

Just my 2d

 

[Tobers]

Good comments from everyone. I think the "mindfulness" approach is well worth exploring. I find I create better images when I feel what it's like to be in a place and try and then represent that. And a lot of practice practice practice is always handy.

 

[Steve B]

I believe slowing down is probably the key, and like Carl says don't 'plant' your tripod! I think that frame shown in the link I posted in #8 above might be a worthwhile consideration too, at least initially. The other thing I will mention is studying others work on here, and critiquing, in that way I think it enables you to identify the good and bad elements of a landscape shot and thus help you 'see' what you like and what works and what doesn't.

Some good thoughts in your post above Steve, forgive me if I run with this part a bit more.

The use of a composition frame may at first look like a strange idea, but they really do work, especially if your object is in looking for smaller details within the landscape. Things like sections of a waterfall or stream, maybe a few rocks you want to isolate on a beach, that kind of thing.
Once you get over the fact you look a right pratt wandering around with a bit of cardboard with a hole in the middle, you start to realise just how useful a tool it can be.
I started with an A6 size one, even went to the trouble of sticking some thread to it to show the thirds lines. Certainly not the most convenient thing to carry around, luckily it fitted a side compartment of my bag, but the novelty did wear off a bit.
So I thought I would scale things down a fair bit. First off I cut the centre from a business card and that one is always in my wallet for if needed. The other was an old plastic 35mm slide mount ( Boot's I think) which was even more convenient for carrying in a pocket, but you need to hold it a bit closer to the eye and takes a bit of getting used too.
Starting with a bigger one is certainly easier, but once you get your eye in, the smaller ones do work well and are a lot more convenient to carry around.
Hope this is of some use.

 

[69Bonni]

I like that Steve.... I'm quite adept at looking a Pratt now it's taken years of experience though, and dragging a rucksack full of gear and camera stuff up hill and down dale has proved it . Another bit more I doubt I'll notice.

In seriousness I like your idea of a 35mil slide frame have loads of them! I think this could help you see things you might generally not see (well quite so obviously) otherwise.
Mindfulness I imagine will help to, I guess. I have noticed when you see a shot and you know it's right it's like a eureka moment. I think location is everything. If you shoot sunrise / sunset and there's nothing else of interest in the frame it's just ABS, but if it's at a beautiful location ..... Mountains etc etc
On the other hand if your in a bog standard rural location and you can put a stunning shot together out of nothing that's the sign of a true pro, and something we all aspire too, that's truly 'seeing' the shot, I envy the people that have that as a natural ability.

Anyhow in the meantime every day is a school day, now I look for the light more, study weather, and how the light falls and what it's touching what shadows its throwing.... There's so much to learn, but it's fun doing so, if not a little frustrating sometimes
I'll be digging out my old 35 MM. slides tomorrow then

 

[Steve B]

I'll be digging out my old 35 MM. slides tomorrow then

Takes a little while to get used to, it's not really that much bigger than the viewfinder, but I find useful.
Have fun

 

[Scirocco_09]

All you can do is practice and study images from the best. At least you can see your downfalls and you work on improving those. Eventually all the knowledge you pick up will give you more days where images present themselves like sports photography. Ok it's rare but days like that can happen in landscape. It's definitely true that having a connection to the places you shoot helps too

 

[alan72]

I guess a key difference between sports and landscape work is the pace. Sports is all about the moment and it is happening and changing very quickly, but also within a confined zone of sorts.

Landscape work can be similar, the light changes and shifts quickly, and I find a sunset / sunrise shoot can have a very intense period whilst the light is at its best.

For me, the best is to be on site well ahead of time, slow down and work to find that composition, to be ready for the light.

The art of finding a composition is not simple, I think just something to be done by experience. Keep looking at other people's work and try and break down why it works, and keep shooting!'n