Learning to see - a few thoughts on the "stages"

[Overread]

Just an observation I've made based on my views of others and also of myself when one approaches photography from a less artistic background and starts to first learn about composition and art within the photographic area and not just focusing on the technical side of exposures. I thought it would be worth to air this view and get some discussion going on the learning side of things, specifically toward the artistic side (esp since we oft overly focus on the technical side).


1) The "blind" stage - you generally know what you like and what you don't like, but you don't always know why nor even question. You might or might not also have much breadth or depth in what you've looked at, this results in you having more lax standards than those with more experience.

2) The why stage - you start to question why it is that you like certain photos against other ones. Compositionally this is where many start to learn of "the rules" of composition - such as the good old rule of 3rds.

3) The rule stage - you start to become a bit more selective, a bit more refined as you're looking at more and more photos - your criteria will oft start to become more stringent. This is however a tricky stage as you can fall into a bad trap of viewing within the rules alone and quickly dismissing photos that do not follow the rules (remembering that most only know one, maybe two "rules" to work with). This can be a big pitfall for many as they restrict their vision to only the "rules" and also being easily dismissive of photos which either break or use different rules.

In essence this is where many try to like photos purely based upon the rules first and not upon their own taste, feeling that if a photo follows the rules it must be "correct" to like - and vis-versa that if it does not follow the rules one should not like the photo.

4) The whole stage - this is where one learns to step back from the rules, in essence to return to the first stage of first liking a photo and then coming to understand the reasoning behind it; this is often learning to step back and view the photo as a whole not as a resulting assembly of "rules". This is where many learn both a wider breadth of "rules" but also where they start to respect when its important to "break" these rules.

 

[Rekd]

This us huge. Knowing when you see something you like is pretty basic stuff. But understanding what makes things pleasing to the eye are key and you've started a great topic to discuss and understand those facets of the hobby/profession.

 

[analog.universe]

There is a technique that I read about once that I've found very helpful, in terms of learning to translate between the rules and the senses, so to speak. You pick a single compositional rule, tool, element, concept, whatever... and go shoot for a day thinking only about that one thing in your photos. Adhere to it strictly, ignore it all together, push it so it looks better, push it so it looks terrible, just everytime you click the shutter, make sure you're taking the shot to play with that particular concept. And then when you review the photos later, view them with the same attitude, what did X do for this shot? how would pushing X farther make it better? what would have happened if i never learned about X? etc...

The idea is to every now and then, research and read and learn about a concept, spend some time beating it to death in the field, and then try and cognize what happened. I've found that breaking the language apart one thing at a time like this allows you to learn it, and then quickly get it out of your way so you don't become trapped by it. Not that everytime you setup a shot you're thinking rot, dof, horizon off center, leading lines, triangles, golden ratio, color vs. form.... you make each of those things subconscious one at a time, so that when you look through the viewfinder, the relevant ones jump at you, and you're not distracted by the process.

I still get distracted by the process though : ) Everytime I shoot I have one of those moments where I need to remind myself to step back for a second, take the long view, walk around and wait for something to pop....

nice topic :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

*gives the thread a little bump to promote talk and for the benefit of our learning beginners*

 

[Shadowbox]

I definitely have an issue with either ignoring rules completely or if I focus on them I can't step outside of their limits.. it's one extreme or the other. This forum is fabulous, it's a wonderful tool we're lucky to have, but sometimes it does lose sight of the passion of photography and the art behind it to focus on the technical aspects.

I think the greatest rule in photography should be never to lose your passion or inspiration because no matter how technically accurate your photos are & no matter how well you know the rules and stick to them, if there is no emotion and no love for creating and capturing photos behind the picture then it won't have nearly the same impact.

 

[imagemaker46]

Learning to see light, understand it, and know how to use it. Not a rule, but I believe that it is the most important part of photography.

 

[The_Traveler]

The 'rules' or 'guidelines' of composition are really only a simpler way of explaining to beginners how people see pictures and the subliminal impressions people get from images. Once a photographer gets to the point in composing pictures where they actual try to manipulate how people look at their pictures using placement, focus, etc, then the rules aren't pertinent.

 

[Forkie]

I've seen a few beginners who have taken a poorly composed shot for C&C on here, when told that they haven't followed the Rule of Thirds, or the horizon is in the centre or some other compositional faux pas, that they quite often come back with the phrase "Rules are meant to be broken". Which is true, but what I find difficult to explain to other people is that while you can and should break the rules from time to time, you must still show that you've understood them in the first place.

When I first started, my photos were the same as any other beginner's; horizons and heads in the centre of the shot, etc. But the "Eureka!" moment happened when I realised that, actually, it's not what I'm taking a photo of that makes the photo interesting, but how it's presented.

My thought process when taking a photo is generally "How can I make people feel the same as I did when I saw this".

 

[Big Mike]

I think that one important 'stage' or realization that I hit...was when I started to 'see the light', so to speak.

An early stage is when people simply point their cameras at stuff they think looks good. But when you learn to 'see the light', you might better understand why those things look so good.

For example, a beginner photographer will see a nice sunset and take a picture of the setting sun. A more learned photographer will turn around and take photos of things that are being lit by the wonderful light from the low sun.

Once you take that to heart, you can apply it to practically all of your photography.

 

[Forkie]

...An early stage is when people simply point their cameras at stuff they think looks good...

This is what I was trying to say. People think that an interesting object is enough to make a photograph interesting.

 

[Bend The Light]

For example, a beginner photographer will see a nice sunset and take a picture of the setting sun. A more learned photographer will turn around and take photos of things that are being lit by the wonderful light from the low sun.

Yes, I agree with this. But also one should take photos of the sunset as well, just with a little more thought to how it is presented.

For myself, I am an amalgam of stages 2, 3, and 4. I have a good mentor in a photographer of old who is primarily an artist. He showed me the compositional techniques of the masters, and showed techniques that were so subtle you had to be shown them, but once seen, were so strong. I now try to avoid obvious breaking of the rules (i.e. centering, etc.) but try not to "overthink" it and make everything look contrived.

 

[shmne]

I think this is a cute little write up, explaining plausible phases that a photographer can go through. I don't know if I would say this could be used as a definitive tool however, because while these may be phases for most photographers everyone will go through them in different orders and in different ways.

Possibly more important than labeling steps would be to call them paradigms beginner photographers get stuck in.

Just my opinion. It would be much more accurate and useful for beginners as at any point in their growth, they can get stuck in this mentality. There is no step 1,2,3,4.

Edit: To give a little more background
When going through my design classes we were forewarned about several paradigms entry level artists get stuck in. This way, if we identified falling into this trap we could easily recognize it and shift into a healthier thought process. Very similar to what you are saying, however more importantly is the recognition that in any moment of your growing this can happen. Even years down the road.