Learn to see?

aido182

Hi All,

Im a long time lurker, always amazed by some of the photos here.

I recently read a thread about the most important things to learn for photographers. Somebody said "learn to see" which got me thinking...

Im new to the DSLR world and have fallen headlong into the trap of looking at photos in magazines, posted on websites etc and thinking to myself...."I could do that". WRONG!! I have yet to take a photo that I would even think of putting up here :-(

So my question is this...is it possible to learn to see a potentially good photo or is it one of those innate artistic things that you are either born with or not. Should I just go and sell my new camera and take up basket weaving instead?

Ballyman

First off , welcome!

I'm only at this since april/may so I'm prob not the best to be giving advice but I think it's definitely possible to learn. Like you I was looking at photos thinking I could do that and yet when I tried to do it I couldn't.

You learn though. You realise that light is very important. The most beautiful secne can be junk unless the light is right. But the only way you will learn what is right and wrong is by posting photos here so people can tell you what you are doing right/wrong. You won't teach yourself alone as your eyes will be incredibly biased towards your own stuff and you need to be told when something is junk but more importantly WHY it is junk.

Obviously there are some people who just have an artistic eye and will always see things that would never dawn on you, unfortunately I am not one of these people, but I think you can definitely train/teach yourself to see some scenes that make excellent photos.

100% of the stuff I was taking up to a few weeks ago was junk. Now it's down to about 90% junk. Last saturday morning I went out with the camera. I took 57 shots and kept 5. This is an improvement on the 60 shots and keeping 1 and then deleting that 1 a week later when you realise it too was junk that I was taking a month ago. Not a great return but an improvement

Paulw

I would have to say that photography is a combination of a number of factors. It's never easy to take a magical photo.

I've read/seen many issues of National Geographic. Then I've read about some of the photographers who are printed within. Some would take thousands/tens of thousands of photos, just to get 2-3 images printed in a publication. An assignment of a number of weeks on location, all to get a small number of photos printed in the magazine.

So, if it takes them that many, that gives me hope. :rolleyes:

It takes time and practice. Learning about your likes/dislikes, learning about your camera, learning the technical side of photography, and then being able to see something you like as a photo. Sometimes a simple thing, like a higher/lower view or a different angle can totally change a photo.


Don't get rid of your camera just yet. Practice, practice, practice. Don't just give up. It may even take many years.

AnCatDubh

Who gave that piece of horses**t advice??????? I actually think it may have been me that posted it somewhere on one of the threads (oh how your past posts can come back to haunt you!).

From the moment you are born those of us that are privileged enough to enjoy sight begin to see. You don't learn it. You just open your eyes and it's just there. Biological, physical, whatever - it just happens for us. Apparently the volume of raw data which the brain discards from our eyes is phenomenal. I think i had in mind that you can drive a road everyday for a month or a year or a lifetime and you never get to appreciate if you stopped and stood still and just looked and sampled the area, then take a different angle - how does the perspective change if you look from a height vantage or a lower nearer to ground - what happens if you look close (real close) at something.

There are so many wonders there in the natural and man made world which makes for stunning photos. A macro of the stigma of a flower for example - from a normal distance you'd hardly realise that its there. However get right up close and a new world emerges.

Isolate part of a machine - an engine, an old pipe, a tap even - they can make such interesting photographs and explorations (many of which you can find in your back yard).

Probably like most when i started doing some photography, it didn't matter what equipment was - it was a case of point n click which invariably led to disappointment when you compare to books and some of the wicked stuff that gets posted around here from time to time. Then I slowed things down a bit started taking time out to look at things and to try appreciate what goes on with the scene. What makes it nice or not so nice.

I mean this morning i was coming up the back stairs in work when i caught a glimpse of the rather large hanging decorations in our offices for the season thats in it. All last week i looked at the same decorations at various stages and thought there must have been a picture in there with some nice bokeh in the background - very seasonal, warm n fuzzy I thought. The glimpse was through a door at a rather unusual angle as i was being elevated on the way up the stairs. That view was the one that would make a picture of significance (at least to my mind). So I had looked for a week and finally it was there in front of me.

Remember, what you need is something that satisfies your own desires and expectations. I'm not a brilliant photographer (and there are probably many that would testify to that ) but by making the time to look, I tend to see a lot more that satisifies my expectations of what i should be able to take. I may never be a published photographer - certainly couldn't see it as a full time for myself, but i'd firmly believe the difference between a snap shot that anyone can take really - they are just point and shoot, and something that you will revert back to time and time again is that you have "learned to see".

If you've had a chance to browse the boards photography yearbook. In there you will notice an extraordinary amount of cool, class, and very well taken photographs. Sure there is technical ability and knowledge of the art and capacity to control the technical controls of the camera, and a serious amount of luck sometimes but I would put it out there that the vast majority of people in there look for the unusual angle, an unusual scene, look beyond the normal which may be the main subject - essentially they have "learned to see".

dreamer_ire

I agree with the previous poster about trying some images out on the boards. I'm very much a newbie and have tested a few of my pics on the board recently and got some really constructive feedback on how I could improve. One poster even commented on the improvement in my pics and I was over the moon. I'm fully aware that I have a long way to go but for someone to acknowledge my improvement was such a confidence booster for me.

Go on, take a chance, find the pic you are most peased with and post it. You will undoubtedly get criticism but you will also get some invaluable feedback.

Phototoxin

Im new to the DSLR world and have fallen headlong into the trap of looking at photos in magazines, posted on websites etc and thinking to myself...."I could do that". WRONG!! I have yet to take a photo that I would even think of putting up here :-(

bawlz ! You could. You will.

Besides a lot of non-nature non-sport images are done in studios where you could technically reproduce identically if you had the same equipment. [having the creativity is another thing!] Other images are just lucky, but I guess people have skills when they can consistently produce decent photographs.

Also dont be put off by taking lots of pictures with different settings or 'chimping' to make sure you have it. FYI an average of 2 rolls of film (72 shots) are made to get *ONE* image for national geographic. so even these pros shoot alot. The only thing is make sure you notice what settings are being used and how they effect the picture. Sooner or later it will become second nature.

Covey

Phototoxin wrote: »

bawlz !

Other images are just lucky, but I guess people have skills when they can consistently produce decent photographs.

Wrong. I'd say a tiny fraction of 1% is the amount of good images as a result of luck. Like anything else, practise, learning and application are what makes for good results.

aido182

Thanks all for the advice. So, I guess there is hope for me yet. I'll keep pluggin away and start posting!

Cheers

nilhg

The OP has got loads of good advice so I'm not going to repeat it but one thing that I would add is that I found going out with other photographers is a great way of learning the ropes. Not alone do you pick up great practical advice, you can usually place their shots in their original context, so you get a feel for what experienced prople are looking for, and how they go about their craft.

In my case it was some boards meets that got me going, but a local camera club or even an intermediate/advanced course would do the same thing. I see DCC are running a course after Xmas, and I've heard good things about digital beginners and especially their creative course.

Phototoxin

Wrong. I'd say a tiny fraction of 1% is the amount of good images as a result of luck. Like anything else, practise, learning and application are what makes for good results. __________________

I agree though, but *some* images will undoubtedly be lucky.. its the repeatability that demonstrates skill surely?

ThOnda

I've been told by one excellent photographer, that in most cases, he thinks that the exposure he had just made by pressing the trigger would capture excellent picture. But he gets one really good picture out of 7 or 8 rolls of film. And that photographer is a pro in the best possible point of view. Mostly visual.

If I get one picture a year, I am happy and want to keep shooting :-)

imola94

hi aido182
I know exactly what you mean, the only advice i can give having purchased my first camera just 3 weeks ago is have a look at things you pass each day. I've been pasing the most beautiful scenic areas for years and have only recently learned to slow down and LOOK.

http://pix.ie/imola94/album/331207

These are an example of things that i would never have imagined photographing until recenly

elven

I used to get all frustrated if the light wasn't 'right' (definition of 'right': that golden, glowy, long shadows, backlit kind of light) and ended up going home frustrated more often than not, not even bothering to shoot a single frame. Over time, and using the digital camera so no problem of wasting film, I started not to care so much and clicked away anyway. Then only a couple of months ago i realised i'd been shooting in exactly the sort of light that i used to go 'meh' about, and was happy with the pictures! What the hell changed? I think I istarted to be able to see how to work with different kinds of light, and shoot to take advantage of it. it's a difficult thing to describe how to do, without just getting out there and doing it. All I can suggest is that you keep shooting whatever catches your eye, then edit edit edit and see if you can start to narrow down to something you do have a knack for. try concentrating on a single subject, so you get to know it from different angles, or at different times of day. When you're starting out, a good challenge is to stop before you actually make the shot and ask yourself, what are you trying to show? what else is in the frame, and how is it adding to or taking away from what it is that caught your eye in the first place? Simplify, simplify simplify. Use shallow depth of field, use a longer lens, get closer to the subject, cut out extraneous details. The main thing i see people being frustrated with when they start out is that what they saw isn't coming across in the frame because there's too much else taking away from it.

There's a big difference in how we see things compared to how the camera does, and if you start to understand the translation of the 3d world in front of you onto a 2d monitor or piece of paper, well, i suppose that's the holy grail for most of us really.... :rolleyes: