Viewing photographs with fresh eyes

[KrisCarnmarker]

I don't think the subject title is accurate, but I would like to discuss a problem I have when viewing my own photographs. I'm hoping others have or have had similar problems and can help me with them.

Let me try to explain. When I view another person's photography, I am usually completely unfamiliar with the subject or at the very least I was not there at the time, viewing the subject in real life. The fact that I am "removed" from the subject lets me view/analyze/appreciate the image for what it is, not really in comparison to the three dimensional real life view I get with my own eyes.

Contrary to that, when I am the photographer, I am so familiar with "reality" that the image rarely does it justice, and thus I am rarely satisfied with the image. This mostly applies to landscape photography (which is why you will not see many of those from me ). I think this is also (partly) why macro photography fascinates me so much. That is a whole different world where "reality" masks that world from me. Every image is a surprise and delight.

Now, when I come back to an image much later, months or years later, I can remove myself from the location and view the image with a fresh pair of eyes. The question becomes: how do I remove myself from reality just hours or days after the image is taken, giving me those same fresh pair of eyes?

I don't know if I made the issue clear. If not, just ask away and let me elaborate.

/Kris

[Martin McLean]

By understanding that there is no reality. There is only your perspective. Neither through you camera lens nor your eyes. Photographs are an illusion. Enjoy it. Work with it. Make it your passion.

I believe that your problem lies in your perspective of what your photograph "should" be. Enjoy them for what they are. Make them be what you want them to be. Just don't blame them for not being what you thought you saw.

There is no room for the purist in my world.

I don't know if I made the issue clear. If not, just ask away and let me elaborate.

-M-

[Colin Jago]

Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker

The question becomes: how do I remove myself from reality just hours or days after the image is taken, giving me those same fresh pair of eyes?

/Kris

Be most suspicious of images that you "know" are going to be good.

Shoot so many images such that you can't remember them all (or the circumstances of their taking etc.).

Work at finding the minimum time separation that is right for you. If the answer is overnight, then never try to assess your images any faster (if you can ignore the commercial pressures).

Shoot film (flippancy aside, I find that the delay caused by processing and the slightly tedious nature of scanning both combine to mean that my selections from a film shoot are better).

Find somebody whose judgement you trust to give you some second opinions on your edits.

Colin <grinning - guess who has been thinking through this very subject recently>

[Mike Spinak]

When I view another person's photography, I am usually completely unfamiliar with the subject or at the very least I was not there at the time, viewing the subject in real life. The fact that I am "removed" from the subject lets me view/analyze/appreciate the image for what it is, not really in comparison to the three dimensional real life view I get with my own eyes.

Contrary to that, when I am the photographer, I am so familiar with "reality" that the image rarely does it justice, and thus I am rarely satisfied with the image.

I think I get what you're saying, except... I'm not sure I understand what is "problematic" about this tendency. It sounds to me like knowing the photographic potential of the real scene, and not being satisfied with pictures that don't do it justice, are elements of being critical about your photography, toward self-improvement as a photographer.

Mike

[Asher Kelman]

The problem Mike is the great cameras we have allow for the current fast path to a beautiful image with the wonderful computer screens we have. They are too real. There is no gap between seeing and then seeing again!

In the old days we struggled in the darkroom or waited with fingers crossed for the prints to return from a processing house.

Now there is immediacy. Well it's the same with our whole pace of life. Everything we do!

We don't spin wool for clothes. We don't collect fruits for half a day; we go to the refrigerator.

Everything is like that!

Emails not letters, pressboard not hand-carved oak.

How to combat this and preserve the mystery of things?

Unless it is for an event, I like to hold off editing., so that even I feel guilty. Then, when I look at the images, there are always surprises, thrills, discoveries and many disappointments.

For an event, I may have a slide show for guests as they leave. The freshness is perfect then. That is, after all, what they want. Immediate proof that they had fun and they looked good with their friends!

As for judgment of your OWN art, just do what is absolutely needed, no more and allow others to be the critic.

Alain does not like to be the critic of his own work if I understand him correctly.

You, yourself will see all the flaws. Give it time, shoot more and return, then you will be wowed again.

Asher


Edited for clarity (in green) following Mike Spinak's comments below

[Mike Spinak]

In the old days we struggled in the darkroom or waited with fingers crossed for the prints to return from a processing house.

Now there is immediacy. Well it's the same with our whole pace of life. Everything we do!

We don't spin wool for clothes. We don't collect fruits for half a day; we go to the refrigerator.

Everything is like that!

I agree that, in many areas, gratification has become faster and more convenient, and I agree that there have sometimes been corresponding losses, along with the gains. However, I still don't understand how that is relevant to this discussion.

The problem Mike is the great cameras we have allow fast path to a beautiful image with the wonderful screens we have.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement, but, the way that I read it, I disagree. The wonderful screens on our great cameras can only affirm for us that we exposed, focused, and framed as we desired; but does not replace any of the mental aspects involved in creation, and thus, does not seem to me to be any kind of "fast path to a beautiful image" (other than, perhaps, speeding up the learning process).

Mike

[Dierk Haasis]

At first I did not comprehend the question posed, until it dawned on me that some folks are rather happy when told, 'you haven't changed a bit since high school'. I look at my photos afresh every time; it's impossible for me to not find something new in them [obviously I am relatively rigorous deleting the duds early on]. One, not too artificial way to do this, is to set oneself challenges.

Before you look at your images come up with a task you want to fulfill with an 'entry'. to me the only interesting part about contests: you get a theme and have to find something fitting but not too bland.

[Asher Kelman]

Mike, what I'm referring to is the whole chain from seeing a scene and getting a print in your hand had a long timeline.

During this break you had shot many pictures, slept several nights and probably argued and discussed all sorts of things, so seening the printed picture was a surprise and you could view it fresh and be satisfied.

Today, there is too little time. The screen on your camera is no better than a screen on my 4x5 or my Bronica. But that is not the screen I refer to.

It is the bright and almost life-like monitor on which you see your images that night, before you have forgotten a thing. Then again when you process them that night or the next you are too close to the original, so it's harder to be satisfied.

However, if you do something else, you can regain the freshness in editing and the satisfaction to the final print since the original experience has been obfuscated by everything that occupied your attention and feelings in the gap of time you allowed.

Now you are not so self-critical and are more able to accept the print, not as a version of reality, but a version of your creation.

Asher

[KrisCarnmarker]

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who as pondered on this issue. The only thing that has worked for me is to do just as some have proposed, that is to leave the critical editing for a later time. For me it takes more than just overnight though, and I wanted to hear from others if there is something else that be done.

At first I did not comprehend the question posed, until it dawned on me that some folks are rather happy when told, 'you haven't changed a bit since high school'.

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Are you saying that because I have a fresh mental picture of the scene in my mind, I somehow am a stagnant person? Maybe you could explain what you mean.

It sounds to me like knowing the photographic potential of the real scene, and not being satisfied with pictures that don't do it justice, are elements of being critical about your photography, toward self-improvement as a photographer.

I think this is a great point. My guess is that the better you get at photography, the easier it is to see the picture in your mind before you take the photograph and thus your reference during editing will be that picture in your mind, not the real scene.

I still have a lot to learn, and although I try to plan the shot and think about what I'm trying to accomplish, that mental picture of the "perfect image for this scene" is not what I refer to later.

[Erik DeBill]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Mike, what I'm referring to is the whole chain from seeing a scene and getting a print in your hand had a long timeline.

During this break you had shot many pictures, slept several nights and probably argued and discussed all sorts of things, so seening the printed picture was a surprise and you could view it fresh and be satisfied.

Today, there is too little time. The screen on your camera is no better than a screen on my 4x5 or my Bronica. But that is not the screen I refer to.

It is the bright and almost life-like monitor on which you see your images that night, before you have forgotten a thing. Then again when you process them that night or the next you are too close to the original, so it's harder to be satisfied.

I actually have the opposite problem.

Often the moment when I take the picture is rather magical. I've been wandering around in a cloud of wonder at the beauty around me, or am excited and captivated by what an animal is doing. I take the memories of those feelings with me when I go to process my images. It clouds my judgement and I think that my pictures are better than they are because I have an emotional attachment to their subject (just like proud parents with pictures of their children, or pet owners with pictures of our pets).

I, too, find that more time between when I take the picture and when I process it helps me be more objective.

So we have different reasons to do the same thing.

I need a large format camera to help me slow down. I wonder if I can convince anyone else of that?

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Erik DeBill

I actually have the opposite problem.

Often the moment when I take the picture is rather magical. I've been wandering around in a cloud of wonder at the beauty around me, or am excited and captivated by what an animal is doing. I take the memories of those feelings with me when I go to process my images. It clouds my judgement and I think that my pictures are better than they are because I have an emotional attachment to their subject (just like proud parents with pictures of their children, or pet owners with pictures of our pets).

I, too, find that more time between when I take the picture and when I process it helps me be more objective.

So we have different reasons to do the same thing.

I need a large format camera to help me slow down. I wonder if I can convince anyone else of that?

Erik,

What you are describing is exactly what I laid out above if you reread it! Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The lack of the slow wet chemistry process and the availibilty of the images to review in perfect color in minutes, can interfere with the creativity of the processing stages of photography.

For weddings and sports events that immediacy may be fine. For some artistic expression some of us might benefit from a gap but it is going to be an individual experience.

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Asher and Erik
as I've previously said in the B&W topic, take a little more time before pressing the shutter, adjust your framing/angle/speed etc.
Then your pic, when opened in your best Derawtizer will be much more close to what you thought. Pleasant or unpleasant.
That little priviledged instant between you, your subject and your camera, a kind of 1000th of second, is one of the best moment in the photography process. Take care of it!

[Dierk Haasis]

Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Are you saying that because I have a fresh mental picture of the scene in my mind, I somehow am a stagnant person? Maybe you could explain what you mean.

To get that out of the way first: there was no moral judgement attached to my use of 'happy', although I find it very puzzling that people do not like change.

My point was that we change every minute of the day, the Dierk Haasis looking at my images yesterday is not the same as the one looking at them today. It does not mean we don't have character and personality but both develop. In the best of cases, which luckily is the norm, this development never stops; we may not embrace it, sometimes even try hard to not develop at all as parodied on The Simpsons by Grampa.

There's a lot one can do to enhance ones own perception towards anything, including ones taken images. The boilerplate, almost ironic, advice is to not follow the rules. Personally I tell people to put on the normal perspective prime lens [50 mm on 135 film, ca. 35 mm for APS-size sensors] and walk the area you live in. You have to re-explore, re-discover a dull place with no lens tricks to make a photo more interesting.

Every [good] piece of literature or visual arts will - almost by definition - be seen afresh by you every time you look at it. Just open your mind and don't go in thinking, 'hey, Ive seen that yesterday'.

Hm, coincidentally I found a nice rule of thumb of how to recognise the good ones in a collection.

[Don Lashier]

Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker

I am so familiar with "reality" that the image rarely does it justice, and thus I am rarely satisfied with the image. This mostly applies to landscape photography (which is why you will not see many of those from me ).

To convery on flat paper the sense of being there you must capture not reality but &#252;ber-reality. This is not easy to do on a planned basis. Everything, in particular the lighting, must be exactly right. It is not enough to have a sense of scene and composition.

It rarely works to set out with a goal in mind. Before you go out the door you've got to look out the window and see if the conditions are right - and then decide right for what? Where should I go and what type I shot will work today (now)?

Even then a few minutes can make a big difference. This shot was the surprise crossover hit (liked by both artists and general public) of one showing I had but the key to this was not simply spotting a subject and composing. I shot dozens of shots over a period of thirty minutes carefully watching the tonality shift as the sun slowly sank then picked the perfect shot out of the bunch. It was this attention to detail that made the shot a success.

Many times I have shot a scene and thought "I can do better" only to go back the next day and all the shots are total duds. Pursuing a particular goal can be an effort in futility. If the mantra of real estate is "location location location", the mantra of photography is "lighting lighting lighting". You've got to shoot what the light dictates. Doing anything else and trying to fix it in photoshop is like bashing your head against the wall.

I like the immediacy of digital. After a few hours shooting I usually race home and immediately unload and preview the images. I know immediately which are the winners (aside from an occasionally overlooked gem). This immediacy feeds the feedback loop where you learn to recognize in the field what has potential, but still the surprises of the review is one of the greatest joys of the process.

There is very low correlation between what I feel in the field is working and what jumps out at me when I get home. I've learned not to get my hopes up about a particular shot. But the fun and joy of the initial review is the unexpected gems that pop up.

nuf rambling for now.

- DL

[Erik DeBill]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

What you are describing is exactly what I laid out above if you reread it! Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The lack of the slow wet chemistry process and the availibilty of the images to review in perfect color in minutes, can interfere with the creativity of the processing stages of photography.

What I read was:

... when you process them that night or the next you are too close to the original, so it's harder to be satisfied.

I'm saying that I am too easily satisfied in that case. The afterglow of the original experience is coloring my view of the image itself and lending the image a little of the magic of the original in my mind.

If I come back a month later it just doesn't seem so good. I spot the flaws more readily.

I need to hold off and wait longer, not to allow myself to be satisfied with the picture, but to ensure that I'm not too satisfied with it. I can't properly self-critique when my judgement is clouded by the extra emotional involvement from when I took the picture originally.

This is one reason I like to make hardcopy. I can put prints up on the wall and look at them regularly for weeks. I'll spot things, like a slight color cast to the background, or lack of definition in highlights, that somehow escaped me when I was first working on the print.

(edit: adding the last paragraph)

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Erik DeBill

What I read was:



I'm saying that I am too easily satisfied in that case. The afterglow of the original experience is coloring my view of the image itself and lending the image a little of the magic of the original in my mind.

If I come back a month later it just doesn't seem so good. I spot the flaws more readily.

I need to hold off and wait longer, not to allow myself to be satisfied with the picture, but to ensure that I'm not too satisfied with it. I can't properly self-critique when my judgement is clouded by the extra emotional involvement from when I took the picture originally.

I was not clear at I see! My apologies.

I mean mistakenly easily satisfied and so we don't reach the full potential or this arc of creativity which, I postulate, often requires a step of "reseeing". The latter may help in refining one's vision of even with risk starting entirely anew.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com...read.php?t=974



Asher