You are missing the point. What your eyes see and your brain perceives are also different. Perception — the conscious interpretation of the scene — isn't that is actually there, it's the brain's filtered version of it stitched together in short term memory as the eyes dart from foreground > background and light > dark, adapting as they go.
One of the more valuable contributions of Adams was the creation a new vocabulary to describe the detail, expressed as tonal differences a photograph. You'd identify "Zone 1" black shadows w. detail and "Zone 9" highlights with detail with your eyes, and they would become the targets you'd aim for when making the print, in the process recording the full tonal range seen by eye and winding up with a photo that matched the perception by eye because the targets in the scene were established perceptually.
Unfortunately the digital medium doesn't allow us the luxury of recording the full range seen by eye, which is why the new skill set of massaging more detail and life out of sub-par captures is now the norm. The exception are shots captured on overcast days. They allow the full range to be captured and look flat SOOC, but when the tonal range is normalize on the end points for solid blacks and clear specular highlights, and the middle tones are tweeked by eye the net result is very similar to the full rich tonal range of a B&W print.
George DeWolfe, in his book on B & W master printing, discusses visual perception much as Chuck has briefly described. Chapters 1 & 2 are available for download here.
Now if I told you I consciously considered all of the above facets of composition, perception, and psychology at the time of capture, I'd be lying. I saw, framed until the image was "right" to me, and pressed the shutter release. Serendipity? Perhaps. As a saying in a modified version goes: "Images happen".
Bob Jarman wrote:
Now if I told you I consciously considered all of the above facets of composition, perception, and psychology at the time of capture, I'd be lying. I saw, framed until the image was "right" to me, and pressed the shutter release. Serendipity? Perhaps. As a saying in a modified version goes: "Images happen".
When taking those shots I had the final result in mind. Not clearly visualized in their finished state but consciously aware of the direction I wanted to take them and the potential beyond what the camera was able to capture.
I learned that type of pre-visualization from studying and applying Adams books which were far more than systematic darkroom technique. Mastering the technique was simply the means to the end of knowing the limitations of the capture medium and how to work around them.
I believe each of us does much the same, in our own, unique way - whether it is the zone system or seat of one's pants. The fine tuning and ultimate realization of the image come with practice, practice, practice.
I believe each of us does much the same, in our own, unique way - whether it is the zone system or seat of one's pants. The fine tuning and ultimate realization of the image come with practice, practice, practice.
That's what makes this fun.
Bob
Quite true, especially the practice, practice, practice part.
Photography is a curious medium because we react emotionally to what we see from birth, and the camera records what we see (more or less) but as beginning photographers some don't connect the dots between the clues we react to in person and how to duplicate and trigger the same reactions in a photo, at will, by manipulation of composition in the holistic sense of how subject and background contrast with each other and how lighting pattern, ratio and color bias clues affect perception.
With a more tactile forms of artistic expression like wood sculpture a beginner gains an understanding of 3D modeling and how to control the first time the try to sculpt a human head. A drawing 101 student will usually grasp concepts like body proportions and body language of posing because they start with mental image of why they want the figure to look like before they put pencil to paper.
The bigger picture of what is drilled into us by teachers and tuition in school isn't just to fill our heads with an encyclopedia of random facts, but to teach how to connect the dots to solve a problem that has never been seen before. At the bottom of any learning curve everything to some degree is a new problem. When setting out to write tutorials on lighting my broader goal was to give beginners a problem solving framework which would make them objectively self critical, so they would know whether or not a photo worked without running to the Internet with everyone to solicit the opinions of others. At the same time I try to give them understanding of how the tools of the medium work — how to sharpen the chisel and pencil, and why they work better than way to control the outcome.
One can use chisel to mortice a hinge to hang a door squarely, or to create a sculpture that is acclaimed as a masterpiece of artistic genius. It's difficult to tell which a student will go on to do when first handing them the dull chisel and teaching them how to sharpen it. The fun part in teaching is seeing which it turns out to be and being satisfied that the effort was worth it regardless of whether the student winds up being a competent carpenter or a sculptor.
Some of the the more creative and gifted people I've known had rather mundane day jobs to pay the bills, but used skills and problem solving techniques earned there for their creative outlet hobbies. One friend of mine in the 70s was a PBX (mechanical telephone switch) repairman, but for fun he restored vintage BMW motorcycles, was a skilled watchmaker (learned via correspondence school) and did some of the best hand tooled leather work I've seen. His motorcycles looked and ran like Swiss watches and had very impressive looking leather luggage.
If you've never worked with a chisel that is SHARPER than a razor, you've really missed out on one of the finer things in life. The effortless, velvety, buttery, smooth precision and control of working with such a finely honed (6,000-10,000 grit), mirror polished, precision tactile tool is one that has to be experienced to be appreciated.
From there, the direction you take the "Joy" is anybody's guess. But those who learn to do well in their endeavors will NEVER work with a dull chisel again ... once they've experienced the difference.
Bob Jarman wrote:
George DeWolfe, in his book on B & W master printing, discusses visual perception much as Chuck has briefly described. Chapters 1 & 2 are available for download here.
Haven't downloaded yet, but quickly going over the website, umm ... I get a feeling I'm gonna take a shine to this one. Thanks for the link.
RustyBug wrote:
The effortless, velvety, buttery, smooth precision and control of working with such a finely honed, mirror polished, precision tactile tool is one that has to be experienced to be appreciated.
RustyBug wrote:
Haven't downloaded yet, but quickly going over the website, umm ... I get a feeling I'm gonna take a shine to this one. Thanks for the link.
Quite welcome.
I finally went for the book from Amazon - interesting he uses LR with CSx for fine tuning local adjustments. No masks, no selections. Another tool in the box.
Got through 1 & 2 ... matches well with my "draw the eye" / "What's the point" / "Where do you want to take your viewer" mantra ... i.e. you gotta think @ your objective. I also like that he addesses both the reflectance and illumination as being the components of luminance prior to the processing that yields luminsoity ... goes along with my SOOC is incomplete.
I also like the fact that he references painters for study vs. photographers. Given that photography is "graphing light" ... I've always felt that the camera was simply the crutch for those of us who can't draw a stick man with a ruler , but an image is an image is an image, irrespective of the process used. Thus the significance of how an image (any image) is perceived is worthy of understanding.
So far, it seems to be a combination of the physics involved and the physiological / psychological interpretation relationships involved. Pretty much in line with all my science and art background. A little dry for most, but right in line with what I've been aspiring to ... will be interesting to see how it goes when he shifts from the what & why, to the how.
