Peter Dattolo wrote:
I Think before either of those, you have to know what a good photo is (a good eye).
You can have the best camera, best lighting, best teacher, best model....if you cannot see that spectacular photo opportunity and capture it...its all a waste of money.

Amen, thats it in a nutshell!

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Justin, where would someone go or what would they study to "learn how to visualize?"  Isn't visual sensibility something learned through directed attention and development of a vocabulary to work with?  Are light and color part of this?  How many colors should a photographer be able to name?  What examples of classic composition are guidelines for a photographer?  Does the body of American or modern photography have to be studied to know how to visualize for film or are Western paintings enough to start?  Is it important to know what chioroscuro or Rembrandt lighting are to be able to duplicate these and perhaps more importantly to be able to talk and think about?

Can visualization come only from inside or must it follow the laws of the universe (physics)? 

Just curious,
-Don

Ooh! We're gettin' deep now! I'll take a spin on this one...

It seems like we're talking about the disparity that comes up between photographers who are more technically educated/proficient, and those who are artistically educated. Does one need to know the difference between Rembrandt/Tenebrism light and Chiaroscuro? It certainly helps. To understand the physics of it is one thing, it's quite another to understand the aesthetic that it satisfies at a visceral level. One can dissect it in purely mathematical terms, and if someone understands it only mathematically, it is my opinion that it is only an excellent start - not the end of the learning. Although for most, it seems easier to learn the art history first, then learn the science of it.

I think that a good education in art history helps any artist (even photographers!) at a very fundamental level. Not so you can be really good at Trivial Pursuit (although that has its perks too!), but as a means of reprogramming the way you see things at a subconscious level, and can translate it into the visual. You can certainly break music down into mathematics, but then you eliminate the simple, aesthetic pleasures.  (We can cover Kant in another thread).

Now, to your question, "Can visualization come only from inside or must it follow the laws of the universe (physics)?" - It is my contention that it first comes from within. Not necessarily because of some hard-wiring that demands that we find certain things appealing and others not so much. IMHO physics and optics only strive to measure and quantify something that is inherently not mathematical. What strikes a chord to us at the aesthetic level one day might be different the next. Personality, culture, mood, etc. play an enormous amount in photographs. Exposure to art history and other mediums opens up our awareness of our own aesthetic sense. Visual Sensibility is perhaps a misnomer, perhaps it's more accurate to call it "Visual Sensitivity" - to describe how deeply the vision can tap into your sensibilities that you learn from those who have gone before.

Not to disparage the more technical photographers (my dad is one!), but I think that in photographing people, specifically, the math is incidental to the aesthetic.

My brain hurts now. I need to go watch Fox news or Teletubbies or something to calm it down

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
What is the first thing about photography?

I'd have to say, know your equipment.  It doesn't matter what kind of camera you are working with, from toy cams to high end digital and film SLRs, if you don't know how to use it, you won't get the best results.  Know its abilities and limitations, how to use its settings, etc.  Don't buy an expensive digital SLR and use it like a point n shoot because you haven't the slightest idea what to do with it. 
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that buying a better camera will make you a better photographer.  It will not make you take better pictures, and it won't even make anyone who matters think you are a better photographer.  Practice, instruction, a good eye, and practice will make you take better pictures.  I can't even tell you the number of people who show up to photo club with the newest digital SLR and 3 lenses and they don't even know what aperature is.  They walk around with it in auto mode snapping pictures like they think because they spent $3000 they should be taking pics like a pro.  They should have spent some time on a lower end camera instead of money on a higher end one.

I would have to disagree on this one. It's never the camera - it's always the person behind it that creates a great (or a crappy) picture. Some of the greatest pictures in history were created with manual cameras, with nothing but a shutter release button and an aparture dial on them. The ability of the photographer to translate a vision in his/her mind to a well composed, well lit image is what makes a great picture.

In my career I have instructed many press photographers (I was the photo editor of a daily newspaper) and many of them were armed with the best gear and actually read the manual. Few were successful. One of my tricks at the time was to have them leave their fancy equipment in my office and take a manual camera, light meter and a 50mm lens and go out on assignments. You know what? When a photographer leaves behind a 5fps motordrive and starts crancking the camera for every shot - the photographer starts thinking "decisive moment". No longer 36 almost identical frames, so maybe one will be the money shot. Now you have to think, compose, see where the light hits your subject. And when you do this for a while - you get to become a better photographer.

I have worked with great photographers that ONLY shot in AP (aparture priority) because they would know they wanted to use DOF as a visual tool in their image. I have worked with some of the best sports photographers who didn't know how to use their flash for fill - but created images I haven't seen anywhere else.

I don't say that knowing one's equipment is not important, on the contrary. But a great picture is created first in one's mind, and a good photographer will know how to translate it to a winning photo. My two cents.

00siris wrote:

You know what? This has got to be the best thread I've read in a long time (perhaps the best overall) Maybe it's because I am guilty of this very notion. I only WISH I was more intimately involved with the mechanics of the camera thereby making me a better photographer.

No offense against models, but this is why a compliment form an exceptional photographer means way more to me than from a great model. I'm always trying to learn more about aperture/f-stop relationships, shutter speeds, depth of field, white balance, iso effectiveness, etc etc etc.

I don't even own an SLR (Sony F828) but I often get complimented for my completed work - I thank the people but I long for the days when I master what I'm trying to accomplish by virtue of understanding how the camera functions and how to use the correct settings.

Remember Ansel Adams had NONE of this high tech equipment but who can challenge his mastery - his art?

Side Effects Studio wrote:
...physics and optics only strive to measure and quantify something that is inherently not mathematical.

...the math is incidental to the aesthetic.

Thanks for reading that and thinking about it.

On the former note, I read a novel once where the female protagonist believed God to be Mathematics, as that is the only explanation she could come to for why the universe obeyed the laws of physics only.  Personally, I believe everything is quantifiable.  Does that belief constitute a religion?  (Probably not as once something can be shown to be non-quantifiable, my belief will go away.)

On the second note, everything I mentioned and everything you said are well covered in the curriculum of a good photo school.  Techne' and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive and one doesn't have to pick one or the other.  They are parallels and are both necessary.  Aesthetics without the technique to make beauty is worthless.  Technique without taste (the Kantian version) produces well-crafted schlock.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Aesthetics without the technique to make beauty is worthless.  Technique without taste (the Kantian version) produces well-crafted schlock.

-Don

I think this is a well crystallized way to say it.

I've read a bit on the Math God idea - it's an interesting concept. If you've ever seen the movie Pi, it's easy to see why people lose their minds contemplating it, and why philosophers drank

Manish wrote:
Love photography and sooner or latter you would end up becoming a good photographer.

yea i love astronomy and one day i became an astronaut

Pixelmaster wrote:

I would have to disagree on this one. It's never the camera - it's always the person behind it that creates a great (or a crappy) picture. Some of the greatest pictures in history were created with manual cameras, with nothing but a shutter release button and an aparture dial on them. The ability of the photographer to translate a vision in his/her mind to a well composed, well lit image is what makes a great picture.

In my career I have instructed many press photographers (I was the photo editor of a daily newspaper) and many of them were armed with the best gear and actually read the manual. Few were successful. One of my tricks at the time was to have them leave their fancy equipment in my office and take a manual camera, light meter and a 50mm lens and go out on assignments. You know what? When a photographer leaves behind a 5fps motordrive and starts crancking the camera for every shot - the photographer starts thinking "decisive moment". No longer 36 almost identical frames, so maybe one will be the money shot. Now you have to think, compose, see where the light hits your subject. And when you do this for a while - you get to become a better photographer.

I have worked with great photographers that ONLY shot in AP (aparture priority) because they would know they wanted to use DOF as a visual tool in their image. I have worked with some of the best sports photographers who didn't know how to use their flash for fill - but created images I haven't seen anywhere else.

I don't say that knowing one's equipment is not important, on the contrary. But a great picture is created first in one's mind, and a good photographer will know how to translate it to a winning photo. My two cents.

No, of course it's not the equipment.  You can make a pinhole camera out of a film canister but you have to know how to use it.  If you don't know how to use it, it's just a shot in the dark (teehee...)

DAF Productions wrote:
I think you can't know the first thing about photography.  Its more like you are born with it.  A good eye.

True, one might get every technical aspect of an image perfect. Then wonder why so many people are uninterested. Its one thing to know all the rules, and all the technical perfections and such, its a nother thing to know when to breake them and when to make something intriquely imperfect or unique that catches viewers attentions.