A Blank Canvas

[S.Byrne]

Being new to this forum, I would like to say hello, and that I’ve spent some time reading a few of the current topics and really enjoy the posts. I can see that there are quite a few very knowledgeable photographers here. Actually, it’s pretty intimidating. I see that most people take an interest in a specific genre of photography, and then learn and grow in that area. I read the topic about the major new upcoming event and am looking forward to reading the articles. I can't think of a better way to gain insight than to read what is going through the photographers mind when planning a photo. My question is, what is the best approach to taking a photograph? Or, does that depend on what the subject is? I have a serious roadblock of being able to visualize what I’m trying to show in an image. I imagine that a gifted photographer can see in their mind exactly what it is that they want to portray in an image before they even take the picture. That must be the hardest thing of all to learn. I'm interested in learning more about taking photos of nature and landscapes, but not only that. Right now I feel I’m stuck with a blank canvas, thus the title of the post.

 

[dennybeall]

You can choose to specialize in one particular type of photography although most people don't, at least at first. Are you most comfortable documenting reality or creating "art". The trick is to learn about light and how to use the camera then experiment with different things until you find something you enjoy the most. I enjoy just capturing things that occur naturally, like landscapes and animals. Personally find studio work boring and unfulfilling, but that's me. You may be absolutely fascinated trying to get the best photo of an apple on a table. (That ain't easy by the way!!)
Best to just flutter about like a butterfly until you find the perfect flower for you.....

 

[weepete]

Pre visualisation can be useful, but for me it tends to be a process of something catching my eye and then using a few photographic techniques to emphasise that. Add in some basic composition and that's pretty much it.

 

[Designer]

My question is, what is the best approach to taking a photograph? Or, does that depend on what the subject is?

Yes, but not just the subject. Other factors include; your creative interpretation, your light, your equipment, etc.

Let's just talk about the one type you have already mentioned. For "nature and landscape", you will most likely, but not always, depend on what light you find there. That limits you somewhat, but learn to overcome the shortfalls or learn to add light if you can, and that will help.

Even the choice of lens is up to you. Most landscape photographers attempt to get as much of the scenery in the shot as they can, so they lean toward wide angle lenses, but that is not chiseled in stone.

Your homework assignment is to look at photographs of nature and landscape to see if there is anything that strikes your fancy. Try to look at only the good ones, because you certainly don't want to emulate poor photography.

When you have specific questions about a subject, a technique, or even another photograph, start a new thread and ask. BTW: If you wish to reference somebody's photograph, just post a link to it, not the actual image.

 

[Overread]

Experience.

Pre visualising is often greatly based upon experience; which is why certain photographers that work a certain way oft previsualise the same way - ergo they end up with a style (although often as not they can have more than one).

Experience is based upon experimentation and breadth and depth of understanding. So a part of it is getting out there; playing around and shooting lots. The more you shoot; the more you learn the more concepts you get; the more tools you have and thus the more you can start to decide what you want to create, as well as understanding what your gear and situation allows you to produce.


This is why projects or subject focus is often what drives many; because by focusing upon a particular area(s) you can restrict the amount of theory and in-field practice to a more manageable level. Trying to do it all can, for some, feel overwhelming. It can also lead to a lack of structure which results in making things a lot harder to plan out and organise.


Have a look at the link in my signature about critique and hop on - learning from your own shots is a huge boon and should help you both technically and artistically. Work at it and you'll find yourself learning big and little bits all over the place (and if you practice self critique you'll also pick up a lot from your own work and that of others as well).

 

[S.Byrne]

Thanks for the advice, everyone! There are a few landscape photo websites I enjoy, but the bar is set stupidly high. One in particular is David Thompson's Flickr D Breezy - davidthompsonphotography.com s Photostream But I don't have unlimited funds to travel the world over in search of the perfect shot. I'll just focus on the local scenery or wait till I'm on vacation!
Overread, I read the links in your sig. Pretty coincidental that that you have a link to Zach Arias. I bookmarked his website when I stumbled upon it some time ago and is one of the reasons I'm trying to focus on composition so much! BTW, the link is no longer valid. This may work for your purposes; Photography By Zack Arias

 

[Forkie]

I've been a photographer both as an amateur and paid (professional, if you like although I don't feel like it!) for about 8 years and it was only 18 months ago, I decided which genre I was going to concentrate my career on, and only since the Christmas just gone have I had an image in my head and got some people together to actually make that image. It's taking lots of time and planning, but hopefully something good will come out of it.

Don't be put off by not knowing what you want to photograph or pre-visualising your shots - that will come in time when your creativity develops further and you learn what you're good at and, more importantly what you enjoy the most.

 

[soufiej]

Being new to this forum, I would like to say hello, and that I’ve spent some time reading a few of the current topics and really enjoy the posts. I can see that there are quite a few very knowledgeable photographers here. Actually, it’s pretty intimidating. I see that most people take an interest in a specific genre of photography, and then learn and grow in that area. I read the topic about the major new upcoming event and am looking forward to reading the articles. I can't think of a better way to gain insight than to read what is going through the photographers mind when planning a photo. My question is, what is the best approach to taking a photograph? Or, does that depend on what the subject is? I have a serious roadblock of being able to visualize what I’m trying to show in an image. I imagine that a gifted photographer can see in their mind exactly what it is that they want to portray in an image before they even take the picture. That must be the hardest thing of all to learn. I'm interested in learning more about taking photos of nature and landscapes, but not only that. Right now I feel I’m stuck with a blank canvas, thus the title of the post.

First, if you are unaware of your personality type, you might want to explore just how you function. Many professions, those in the sales, education and medical fields in particular, will learn how to find another person's basic operating mode so they might best know how to approach any one person. Or to know when that person is feeding them a line of BS.

In general, people fall into one of three very broad categories here; visual, auditory or kinesthetic. Let's say I am a sales person discussing a potential buy with you as a client. If I determine your motivations come in a kinesthetic manner, I will have you handling and operating the merchandise as much as possible since you take in information by way of feel. An auditory personality suggests you will mostly hear my words as I emphasize specific details which I feel are more important than a mere physical presentation. Finally, a visual personality type will see and explore the patterns of the merchandise. These are people who tend to see patterns in everything.

These are generic descriptions and each individual tends to have a mixture of all aspects with one being the most predominant. But a salesperson or educator would be unwise to ignore the signals a client/student gives off for how they want a presentation to be made.

Should your personality type be outside of the visual sort, then right now you are quite likely not as quick to pick up on patterns, shapes, lines, contrasting elements and so forth which make up the basics of "composition". This might be a simple explanation for your "blank canvas" state of mind. As with any hobby, it would be best to recognize your weaknesses and work on those specifics which will strengthen your overall game. There are online personality tests which can assist you in determining your strengths.

If your personality is not based on visual clues, then you must put your attention on developing your sense of composition.
"Artistic visualization" is, IMO, a bit of a misnomer when it comes to photography. If you are primarily a visually oriented person, then you have the natural ability to see patterns and possible images in the most mundane subjects. If you are not that sort of personality, then you do not see in the same manner. You can't really alter your basic personality type, you can only work to gain more capability to comprehend the rules of another presentation style. If you are a kinesthetic or auditory personality, in most cases simply looking at great photos won't provide any strong clues as to why the shot is considered good.

This does not mean you cannot learn how to see a possible composition. You should though approach the learning process in the manner which best suits your personality. An auditory personality will learn best when the lessons are done by someone instructing you, say, on youtube or in person with an emphasis on the spoken word. Explaining a piece of art and how it operates will likely work best for that personality type. Possibly, a short course in composition is best if you have an instructor to guide you.

If you are a "feel" type, learning the operation of your camera and putting your knowledge of how a shot is put together in a technical sense might be best for you. In other words, rather than looking and "seeing" a composition, you might find an interesting subject and then explore in your mind just how the camera's operation could make that an even more interesting image. Hands on work is typically best for the kinesthetic personality. Take you camera and explore the variables the camera allows.

Since no one is purely this or that personality type, you can train yourself to become better at the other values. You do, however, have to approach the subject with how you best learn in mind.

 

[Derrel]

Pre-visualization is over-emphasized and over-idealized to a great extent. It's impossible to pre-visualize many types of photos. Being able to adapt to the conditions, and being able to command the camera and lens to create good images in changing situations is the exact opposite of pre-visualization. Pre-visualization can also be looked at as a less than positive, less than ideal way to make images; hewing to the pre-visualized idea means not being able to make a mid-course correction, not being flexible, not being able to se what is ACTUALLY THERE. So, don't worry too much about pre-visualization, but instead focus on using what you have at your disposal in any and every situation.

It's often said that painting is the art of inclusion, and photography is the art of exclusion. The photographer needs to exclude the unnecessary, the distracting, the pointless, and include ONLY that which advances the composition. As you change focal lengths while working the same scene, you will find that what is necessary, what is extraneous, and what is needed, will CHANGE with the focal length shifts. There is no one, single best photography from any scene. Idealizing the idea of pre-visualization is a hangover from painting's tradition of pre-determining everything that was to be included on the blank canvas...but this is photography...when presented with subject matter, you need to look through the viewfinder and decide what to **exclude**. You need to react, not so much act. It's more about improvisation than it is reciting lines. We're not working with pigments on canvas in photography, so the thinking needs to be modified to a great degree.

There. There's your free pep talk from me! Don't worry about things you cannot control, and do not worry about living up to ideas that are, in many cases, out of date and borrowed from other arts, from other, long-dead eras.

 

[fjrabon]

I think the true greats attack creating their best work from all sides. I think it's a myth that anybody of true substance completely pre-visualizes a shot, or that anybody goes into a shot purely reactionarily.

My very vague process is something like this:

1) I go in with an idea of the most vague type of thing I want to shoot as possible. Am I doing sports? Portraits? Studio? On location? Outdoors with lights? Outdoors without lights? street? landscape? family candids?

2) What gear is absolutely essential given the answer to the above? What gear would provide adequate backup, if it's paid? What gear would make my life easier? Take no more or no less gear than you need. Don't skimp on stuff you have to have, but don't take something just because you own it.

3) Am I doing photography, making photographs or finding photographs? Doing photography would be something sort of like sports photography or reporting or landscape of a particular thing, etc. When you're doing photography, you have a specific thing you're trying to photograph, but you have no control over what you're trying to photograph and minimal at best control over the environment in which you're photographing. Your only real control is yourself and your gear. Making a photograph is essentially studio photography. You have nearly full control, although not complete (especially if dealing with models as opposed to still life). Finding photographs is street, wildlife, etc.

The answer to these 3 questions will set my mindset and approach.

Examples:

If I'm doing a soccer game, that goes from 5:30PM-7:30PM I'm thinking of what locations along the periphery of the field will give my best shots, due to it being changing light time of the day I'm probably shooting aperture priority mode, I need a big ass long lens, and I need a camera that will shoot fast and I need to be in action anticipation mode based on my knowledge of the game.

If I'm taking senior portraits in a studio, I get my basic props set up, look at some pictures I have of the subject, thinking of what poses are likely most flattering, what colors best fit their skin tones and chosen wardrobe, what focal lengths will be most flattering, what types of shots will best show their personality (most likely). What kind of lighting will be most flattering, etc. I then pre-visualize what most of the shots I'll try will be, but I'm also not rigid there either. I like to have a gameplan, so that I can deviate here and there without the shoot going sideways. I know that since I can always get right back on my pre-set plan, that I'm free to take a few chances knowing that I can always just provide goos solid shots by sticking to my pre-game.

If I'm doing a landscape, I'll first visit to get an idea of the lay of the land, or if that's not possible I'll look at its orientation on a map. Decide what I think the best time of day lighting wise will be (99% of the time either sunrise or sunset, depending on the spatial orientation of the object), decide what I think I'll want focal length wise, what vantage point I want, etc. But I am also not afraid to call audibles on location.

If I'm doing street, I'll consider what time of day I want, where I'm likely to see the kinds of expressions and interactions I want, how close in I want, to I want to be unseen or part of the scene or something in between? Then on scene I go with one or both of two approaches: I find a background I like and wait for people to come into it, or I find a person I like and wait for them to get the right action in the right background. Street is 3 things: subject, action and background. You need all 3 to really have anything worth putting on a wall.

Now that I've talked about all that kind of stuff, The Most Important Thing to me is always "what am I trying to communicate?" What am I trying to get across.

To me photography is captured communication through two dimensional reproduction of the three dimensional world.

The 2D->3D aspect is taken care of simply by using a camera. That's what they do. The capturing communication part is up to you. What is this photograph saying? It can say anything, but as the author, you should be aware of what it is saying.

Then I think:

1)"what is clouding this communication? Is it creating artful ambiguity or ugly confusion?" If something is in the frame that I think detracts from the message, I consider how to get it out. Usually this is reframing physically, occasionally it unfortunately can only be photoshop, sometimes it's changes in aperture or shutter speed or even B&W conversion.

and

2) "How do I strengthen the aspects of the photograph that say what I am trying to communicate?" This is where the concepts of composition typically come into play. Creating dynamic balance, a sense of movement, etc. Going through how all that works is obviously outside the scope of this already over-long post.

These two aspects can be roughly analogized to editing an essay. Part one is getting out unnecessary sentences that detract from your message. Part two is re-wording your sentences to make them clearer, more poetic and more artful.

Ultimately though, you should always think "what is this photograph saying?" If you get a clear answer that you like to that question, then it's nearly impossible to go wrong. The technical aspects of photography aren't all that hard (though they always get sharper with more learning and experience). If newer and less inspired photographers mess up one thing, it's simply that they have no idea what their images are saying. They occasionally stumble upon a great photograph in much the same manner that I could perhaps accidentally write an artful sentence in Russian by randomly repeating words in the language that I only have a very vague sense of. However, doing so consistently would be nearly impossible.

Along every step of the process, you should be thinking "what do I want to say, what do I want to communicate?" From the time you pack your bag, to the time you finish editing the last shot from your card.

 

[S.Byrne]

I really appreciate all the time and effort put into the responses to my question, and have given them a good bit of thought. It actually makes a lot of sense. I never put much conscious effort into analyzing my style of learning. Usually, I prefer to read the subject matter and visualize what I'm reading. If I can't visualize it, then I don't feel I'm grasping the concept. I understand the idea of excluding what I don't want in the photo, and it makes a lot of sense. In my mind that means zoom, pan, or move location for a different angle but I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that. It makes a lot sense to do a little planning before I go out to shoot something. At this point, I just try to make it work with what I have. Just about all my gear fits in one bag! I really need to figure out what I'm trying to communicate. At this point, I don't really try to communicate anything, other than to get a visually appealing picture that someone might enjoy looking at.

 

[Overread]

Sometimes that's all the message we want to achieve. Sometimes you don't "find" the message till later when you look at the photo in editing and think "ahh yes crop a bit off there and yeah that works!"

It also varys lots depending on what you shoot. For myself I'll give an example

When shooting equine shots I find that much of my settings are defined by the limited light and fast moving subject. This imposes a real world restriction upon my shots and asks a basic question - do I want static motion or blurred moving motion. I make a choice on that front (experience helps me learn where the blur and divide- in this case at 1/640sec I get sharp shots - at 1/500sec some hoof blur - slower and more blur); then my aperture is almost chosen for me because of the low light. In increased light I get a choice - do I want the background more involved or not - well that one is easy for me to answer - I want it blurred out as much as possible as I want to communicate and show the rider and horse; whilst at the same time having enough depth of field covering a complex and quite deep horse and rider. Experience and experimentation shows me that f2.8 is suitable for this. (first time I went I was at f4 - which also works, but brought hte background in more so).
ISO is then based off those two settings and choices and the light present - the theory of expose to the right at the forefront of my mind in keeping the noise down; but also coupled to that is over-exposure rendering areas of no detail on the whites and annoying glare/shine being picked up as well. So those two theories and the limits on the settings and the light all let me set a working ISO (basically to boil that down the ISO goes up until such time as the blinking "overexposure" lights come on, then the ISO it taken back one step so that I end up with no or very limited blinking (blinking on light sources or areas close to them is fine - its typically got no detail there anyway to record).

So technically my pre-visualisation is done. Compositionally I'm limited by the position of the AF points since I use AF to get the shot (single point); but also then by the compositional theory of leaving space for a subject to move into in the frame. I tend to find that more fine-tuning of composition and considering other theories comes in after the event somewhat in cropping. Note that I'm trying to avoid getting it right in camera; but in this case getting the AF point on the horse - getting all of the rider and horse in the frame are the critical points that won't work without them being there. So sometimes the situation will make you shoot a little wide - then later when you've more time you'll go over the final crop.



So all that looks a lot to write; and can be a lot to think about at first. However each stage is simply practice, experience and experimentation adding up to give me a series of desirable components. The experience playing a big part in letting me order them (eg expose to the right is important for noise - but it comes under the desire to avoid over-exposure and losing details in the whites).

 

[fjrabon]

I really need to figure out what I'm trying to communicate. At this point, I don't really try to communicate anything, other than to get a visually appealing picture that someone might enjoy looking at.

Well, your purpose can be to communicate something that is visually appealing, but in order to do that, you have to understand what appeals to people, and how to distill that into a photograph. You can do it by luck, ie sometimes your lens just happens upon a visually appealing image, but if you understand what appeals to people, and then how to distill that, how to move away the non-appealing portions and enhance the flavors of the appealing portions, you will be MUCH more successful. It still comes down to what are you trying to communicate, even in that scenario.

The answer to "what am I trying to communicate?" doesn't have to be complicated (though it can be). But in order for your image to be worth looking at, it has to have some sort of answer to the question; the more powerful that answer is, the more compelling the image.

 

[Gary A.]

It is all about previsualization. Otherwise you're relying upon luck. You are on the right track. There are a few people who are born with previsualization ... they seek out guidance on how to adjust the settings to reflect what they see in their mind's eye ... and then there are the rest of us.

Photography is both a craft and a science. The craft part speaks to ... shoot and shoot and shoot. Time behind the viewfinder is required for climbing the previsualization learning curve. I do suggest you try shooting with only one lens until you know it like your right hand. Knowing your equipment inside out will help you previsualize. Knowing precisely the image what a 28mm will deliver ... or an 85mm ... or a 300mm ... without tossing it on your camera is essential for previsualization. Harmonizing with your equipment until the lenses are an extension of your eyes and the camera and extension of your hands allows you to shoot in the 'Zone'. Adjusting your settings semi-unconscientiously allows you to use more of your brain power for previsualization. (Speaking for myself ... when one has limited brain power, minimizing dividing a limited resource is important.)

Time behind the viewfinder and harmonizing with your equipment will open up previsualization to you.

 

[Gary A.]

PS- Use your Blank Canvas to your advantage. Shoot everything ... take a camera everyplace ... be selective with what you put on your canvas. It isn't about filling the canvas with stuff ... it is about filling the canvas with good stuff. Wear out your delete button, be your worst critic ... build today on what you shot yesterday ... take what you find successful in one genre and apply it to a different genre. (Hence shoot everything, step out of your comfort zone.)

G