Do you approach and see the world differently with a camera in your hand?

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a question I have asked myself for years, and now pose it to this community.

I once encountered a Game Warden as I was walking along a stream with my Rollei 6008i medium format camera gear. He saw my car on the side of the road and came looking to check whether I was fishing and if I had a license. When I admitted I was "fishing" but had no pole, he looked quizzically at me. I explained that I was "fishing" for that perfect image, just as I always did with a camera in hand.

I hesitate to use the term "possess" to describe my motivation when I leave the house with my camera, but it is the best word I can conjure. I have a very different mindset with a camera in hand, or even when I am just looking at the world as if through the finder. Indeed, my eyes become the "finder." My visual senses are heightened. No matter what I see, I am observing composition, texture, the play of light and all those components that make a successful image. If there is one there, or if I can make it happen, I want to "possess" it.

When I go out shooting with a good buddy we often compete to find what we each think is the best shot. And when we shoot from each other's perspective, we call it "poaching."

When I travel, as with an upcoming trip to India, it is my camera gear that I organize first and fret over most. And when I am in that new place, for better or worse, I am "focused" on my surroundings primarily as subject matter for my lens. Not so much for mere documentary purposes, as others may do with a point and shoot mentality, but for the purpose of "possessing" images that transcend the obvious. I can not help myself - PAS (Picture Acquisition Syndrome). And when I see that lovely chrome on the light box or image on the screen, possession leads to a uniquely fulfilling satisfaction.

I believe there is an artistic and, perhaps, even an existential drive that commands the photographer's eye and mind. And I am delighted to have that sensibility. It sharpens the senses and powers of observation. But I can not help but wonder if this relentless hunt for the next shot makes one somewhat oblivious to the bigger picture,as it were.

And so I ask, in the search for that next best image are we photo enthusiasts, with our tool of choice in hand, seeing it all?

Thanks for reading.

David

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[TomB_tx]

This was a key concept in the '60s movie/book "Blow-up" - about a photographer who could only be sure what he saw was real if he saw it through a camera.

[Deliberate1]

This was a key concept in the '60s movie/book "Blow-up" - about a photographer who could only be sure what he saw was real if he saw it through a camera.

 

I vaguely remember this one. Will have to see if I can find. It will probably make more sense to me that it did when I was a kid.

David

[Lindolfi]

Interesting issue!

There are two sides to it, I feel.

 

The positive side is that if you plan to make an image with your camera, and you are still open to subject, moment and location, it does help to increase awareness, especially since you look at the world beyond its everyday usefulness. Only drawing or painting can beat photography in that respect.

 

The negative side is that you cut up the world in frames and you can indeed start to miss connections that are not directly visible. For instance if you set out to make some excellent images of soccer players during a match, you may loose the sight on the strategy of the game.

 

The solution is to switch attention regularly. In fact it may well be advantageous for your photography to switch between the normal flow of awareness and the more directed awareness needed to create images. In fact that is the most exciting part of street photography: a possibility for a good image suddenly pops up while you do something else. It may even be beneficial not to press too hard on nailing some images, since being pressed may narrow the possibilities you see. But either way, it is always good to bring a camera, I feel.

[Frank Sellitto]

No.

 

 

http://www.franksellitto.com

[lars_bergquist]

Yes of course – if the camera is a Leica M.

 

Because then I have the camera's eyes – 35mm eyes, 50mm eyes, maybe 21mm eyes. I won't claim that I actually see the world with a 35mm or whatever bright frame superimposed on it, but somehow there is an 'internal field of view' that corrsponds to the focal length I am using. That means that the picture is composed, at least in the rough, even before I raise the camera to my (physical) eye.

 

And needless to say, that focal length tends to guide my feet too.

 

The old man with a rangefinder camera (Zeiss Super-Ikonta, Mamiya Press, Canonet QL, Mamiya Six, Leica M4-P, M6 TTL, M8, M9 ...)

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you approach and see the world differently with a camera in your hand?

 

Thanks for an interesting question David.

 

I don't need to bring a camera to do this because it happens naturally. Then I kick myself if I don't have a camera with me when I see something I'd like to capture (though this happens less these days with good camera phones; I've recently been very pleasantly surprised with the 4S, for instance, as a backup).

 

My wife often says when we return from trips and look at photos that she hadn't "seen" - she uses that word - what I photographed. So I agree with you re "looking at the world as if through the finder" and re the visual senses being "heightened". I definitely function like this.

 

That said, on occasion I become tired or, to use Austin Powers's expression, spent from doing so. This is usually because I have photographed a lot and my energy is drained. I have recently gone back to using film and really like the "forced" break from photography that changing the roll gives. That auto charges my artistic batteries, it seems.

 

I don't, however, fret over what camera gear to bring. I have a lot of stuff, bodies lenses and accessories, but never have a problem deciding what to bring. I have realised that the more I photograph - and like many on this forum I've done it for several decades - the less I need to bring. Bringing less also requires looking at the world differently.

 

Cheers

philip

[Deliberate1]

Thanks for all your replies.

As I thought about this a bit more, I considered the very language we use to describe the photographic process. At least in English they are hunting terms - "shooting" the image. Or "capturing" the scene. We look through the "finder" in search of our prey.

Is this the case in other languages as well?

David

[bbrovold]

I actually see things the same whether I have the camera or not. The act of photographing has changed the way I look at things overall and the abscence of a camera just means that I am not going to have a copy of that particular scene.

[elgenper]

....

As I thought about this a bit more, I considered the very language we use to describe the photographic process. At least in English they are hunting terms - "shooting" the image. Or "capturing" the scene. We look through the "finder" in search of our prey.

Is this the case in other languages as well?

David

 

Interesting spin-off....

 

As for Swedish terms, we seldom ´shoot´ (skjuter) with a camera; we ´knäpper´ or ´plåtar´, without much firearms associations (although ´knäppa´ was used long ago as a colloquialism for shooting somebody). `Knäppa´ is ´snap´, and ´plåta´ goes way back to the age of glass plates (or possibly ferrotypes...).

 

We ´fångar´ a scene or subject, which is about the same as capture, but curiously enough our finders are ´sökare´ which means seekers. Seek, and ye shall find....

[Deliberate1]

Interesting spin-off....

 

As for Swedish terms, we seldom ´shoot´ (skjuter) with a camera; we ´knäpper´ or ´plåtar´, without much firearms associations (although ´knäppa´ was used long ago as a colloquialism for shooting somebody). `Knäppa´ is ´snap´, and ´plåta´ goes way back to the age of glass plates (or possibly ferrotypes...).

 

We ´fångar´ a scene or subject, which is about the same as capture, but curiously enough our finders are ´sökare´ which means seekers. Seek, and ye shall find....

 

Nice - thanks for that.

David

[Jeff S]

The question evokes for me a comparison to driving a car. After I first owned a motorcycle, I became more attuned to my surroundings, tightened my reflexes and became generally better prepared to predict and react to others' actions. The awareness and preparation carried over to my daily car driving, even though I wasn't on the bike.

 

Owning my first camera did the same, but the type of camera also played a part. Early on, street shooting with a 35mm camera was somewhat akin to the motorcycle example. But, later on, using large format helped me better understand composition, especially considering the upside down and reversed image. Certain drawing classes rely on this image reversal to improve technique, and I still find myself turning prints upside down to better assess the geometry.

 

The most important part of photography is of course seeing, not the gear, so anything that improves one's ability to see is a good thing. I no longer need a camera to do it, but the early experiences using different types of cameras proved immensely beneficial in that regard.

 

But it's always more fun to have the camera, and even better to be surprised when I sometimes find that what I thought I saw is even better in print. Winogrand nailed it when he said (paraphrasing) that he photographed to see what something looked like photographed. There's seeing, and then there's the print.

 

Jeff

[Clive Murray-White]

I've enjoyed this post too - I think the key is that regardless of how realistic we think photography is, it is in fact a process of abstraction from 3D to 2D, 2 eyes to one, movement to still, seamless space to dof controlled layers + many more - to me the "heightened" visual awareness that we experience is actually our mind abstracting what we see into "photographic" mode.

[Ellie]

My eyesight is a bit blurred beyond 10 meters now and I'm always amazed zooming in M9 pictures in Lightroom, it captures the world in such detail. I have a concept of the lighting and view when taking the picture though.

[Wallyvision]

Thanks David, for a great and provocative question. I've always thought that I saw better with a camera in hand. It might be that I felt that carrying the instrument forced me to justify it. Who knows.

 

A related question that has intrigued me is, does shooting in B&W necessitate additional observational skills?

 

And, are new photographers coming along with the automated equipment, able to see more freely than those of us who grew up with manual equipment or will they be handicapped by not having to think about the process?

 

Wally

[Jeff S]

does shooting in B&W necessitate additional observational skills?

 

Absolutely. Just as seeing in color involves more than just seeing the world as it is.

 

Jeff

[roguewave]

No.

[Clive Murray-White]

A related question that has intrigued me is, does shooting in B&W necessitate additional observational skills?

 

It depends on what skills you already have

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

Most importantly I feel that it makes me I'm more appreciative of this extraordinary planet on which we all live:).

 

I find that carrying a camera I'm much more interpretive and perceptive of my surroundings, and constantly interpreting them with respect to patterns, tone, and texture (as I mainly photograph for B&W). However I feel that it also makes me much more aware of my surroundings even when I do not have a camera in my hand (and then thinking why I do not have the camera with me:rolleyes:).

 

It reminds me of just the other day we were walking along the Harbour foreshore with friends coming back from dinner, just after sunset. My wife and I walk along here most evenings with the dog and I usually have my camera with me. On this night the light was extraordinary and there were the most glorious silvery clouds. I was quietly fuming, and then even even our friends commented that I should photograph the scene...sure enough no camera:(...

[Deliberate1]

On this night the light was extraordinary and there were the most glorious silvery clouds. I was quietly fuming, and then even even our friends commented that I should photograph the scene...sure enough no camera:(...

 

That, of course, is the urge to possess unrequited. Pisser ain't it:D