The essence of photography: the ability to see and create
Hello dear readers!
If someone has not yet noticed, we remind: we have published a magnificent book of the legendary American photographer Bruce Barnbaum " The Essence of Photography: the ability to see and create "
')
Under the cut - a translation of Mr. Barnbaum’s thoughtful and slightly verbose article on the secrets of photographic creativity. We would say teaser for the book.
Enjoy everyone
Looking at things is simple. We constantly look at them without even thinking about it. Every now and then we glance at a particular subject, but do we often see what we are looking at?
The book is the essence of photography. The ability to see and create tells us that the photographer cannot be an outside observer. The photographer must capture the relationship between objects in the scene, regardless of whether it is staged (studio), street, landscape architectural or any other. The photographer should see how the elements of the scene correlate in form, shape, tones and color, and consider these relationships in the context of a three-dimensional panorama that opens before his eyes. The photographer should recognize how colors, lines, outlines and shades in the foreground are combined with color, outlines, etc. in the middle and in the background. A photographer should be able to notice that it is enough to move ten centimeters to the right - and the whole panorama before your eyes will improve significantly. The portrait photographer must tell the model how to sit on a light or dark background, or how to find a more advantageous position in a complex interior or on the ground, so that the picture is more expressive. The photographer must understand the types of lighting, know the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Lighting, ideally suited in one situation, may be unacceptable in another.
Light and creativity
To learn to distinguish such a light that will decorate the scene, and such that only distracts attention from her, experience is required. Since the camera captures only the light, the photographer must learn to see the light, to understand how it emphasizes or damages the lines, outlines, colors, dimension and other aspects of the scene. The ability to see the light is acquired with experience, because in fact a person is accustomed to look closely not at the lighting, but at the objects. We have been doing this since birth. The baby learns to recognize mom, dad, and then - and other objects that seem important to him. But no one is trying to look at mom or anyone else (anything) as a collection of chiaroscuro. A person does not learn to correlate lines, outlines, and figures — for example, how are the mother's oval and the father's oval face are similar and different. No, a person looks at the facial features as such. So, the ability to consider the elements of a particular scene in the context of their illumination, as a combination of lines, forms and contours, is by no means acquired by itself. Photographic vision needs to learn.
This is difficult because the eye and the camera "see" differently. When you study the scene with the naked eye, the iris then expands so that you can better see the darkest parts of the scene, it narrows so that the brightest spots do not cut the eye. So, in essence, you are viewing any scene with a variable aperture. But when you release the shutter of the camera, the whole scene is captured in one aperture - the one you installed. If you do not understand the technical intricacies of contrast control in the process of preparing a picture (we can talk about traditional film exposure or digital photography), then you risk losing a lot of information that you expected to save in the final image.
The problem is further aggravated by the fact that the camera has only one lens, and the person has binocular vision. That is, you simultaneously see the scene with your left and right eye, so it acquires a depth that the camera does not catch. Try to examine the scene with one eye - then you will see that its depth will weaken considerably. If you want to convey the depth of the picture, you have to learn how the “one-eyed” camera “sees” the scene in different lighting, learn to recognize exactly what kind of lighting helps to emphasize the depth of the scene.
All this is quite difficult. Surprisingly, many people think: “I took a camera in my hands - here I am a photographer”. Anyway, what to say: "I have a pen - here I am a writer." It's not at all like that. Photography is treacherously difficult. But some have an innate talent for photographing, and master this art faster.
People who were interested in my seminars, or some of my students often said that they had a "bright eye." Some really do. As a rule, they mean that they can find beautiful scenes. And although I don’t like to disappoint them at all, it turns out that almost everyone can find a suitable scene. The man who first appeared in the Yosemite Valley will hardly pay attention to how beautiful it is there. But after that, it will seem to most people that they have a “eyes of smarts.” No, it's not that simple. An observant photographer knows how to capture such interrelations between forms, which are just striking when you consider the scene in one perspective, but are not so noticeable, you should slightly change the point of view. "Eye of smarts" means that you understand under what weather or what kind of lighting this scene looks extraordinary, and under what conditions it is rather unobtrusive. An experienced photographer can quickly notice an unusual and especially interesting scene at a busy intersection in the bustle that prevails there almost around the clock. With experience, you will learn to notice moments when the strength and type of light falling on a person’s face, along with an interesting turn of head, allow you to make a chic portrait that stands out against the background of most studio shots or “VIP-person” photos that come up with “important speech”, what you can meet on the 6th page of the daily newspaper.
To create good pictures, you need to learn to see the light and the relationship of objects in the scene. Learn to see how the camera. It would be great if the camera could be seen as a person, but, unfortunately, this is not an option.
Personal interests as a reflection of creativity
Mastering the art of seeing the light and catching the relationship between objects, you also have to choose a subject and choose a rhythm. Ensel Adams liked landscapes, more precisely - the mountains, and his best photos, no doubt - just those that depict such majestic landscapes. Perhaps he would have become a good portrait photographer, but the portraits in his performance would definitely not be compared with such landscapes, and he would not have gained the glory he has. Perhaps August Zander would be a good landscape photographer, but the portraits of the German workers he created are stunning, exciting, piercing images. These and other great photographers are always to a particular genre, which had a special meaning for them, gradually moving away from other topics. That is why they got such outstanding work.
My interests evolved from landscape photography to abstraction, and then to monumental ancient architecture. Throughout my entire creative journey, I tried to expand my interests, without departing from them completely. Others act differently. Someone immediately determined with the interests and always adheres to them. Some easily change their interests, discarding the old and prikipaya to the new. Others start with diverse interests and gradually narrow the spectrum to one or two topics that they work with until the end of their years. Which approach is correct? What is wrong? It turns out that all the options are good, no more or less winning. Your creative method must meet your interests. What is useful to me, may not suit you or another photographer - and vice versa. So you can formulate your own interests, find the outline, your unique creative path. So you acknowledge that your interests may change, expand and concretize. Understand that you and only you can determine what you want from a photo. It is up to you to decide how it will look, what you want to demonstrate, what to avoid, what to emphasize - in other words, what your photo should tell. It is yours, and over time you will develop your own style and course.
Some photography teachers are pushing students to confine themselves to a narrow sphere of interest. I am against this approach. Every person is multifaceted. Of course, in life we ​​have many interests; how to limit only one interest in photography?
Creative images - stick to the photographic rhythm
There are photographers who need to choose a genre, explore it, navigate there and gradually understand how to work in it - and only then they begin to get pictures, masterpieces. I knew a few photographers who have gone through this evolution. Their first pictures did not shine with anything, although the photographer himself simply burned with enthusiasm for the chosen subject. But as time went on, they tuned to the desired mode, their photos became more and more interesting, refined, and deep. Photographers found their way and moved along it with incredible strength, grace and skill.
Harrison Branch, who for many years headed the faculty of photography at the University of Oregon, for the first time examining a new place where he was going to photograph, first came there every time without a camera. If the place seemed interesting to him, he returned there - again without a camera - in order to get a better look at all the nuances. Finally, after several visits, he already came with a camera and filmed.
I do not work at all like Harrison. In fact, I could not work like Harrison. At joint seminars we discussed such a difference in approaches with our listeners. Usually, I quickly notice things and actively react to them, or not at all. Once in a new place, I take my most powerful shots there with almost no preparation. Gradually exploring this place, I find material for more delicate work.
I do not know why I manage to see the most interesting things almost immediately - but it turns out! Over and over again I catch myself on this. Which method is more correct: my spontaneous reaction or harrison's thorough analysis? Both are correct. Harrison's method is great for him. He knows his rhythm, and works best in his manner. I'm in my. You will have to develop your own style. It is likely that my method and the method of Harrison - these are two extremes, and the other suitable some intermediate options. Fine. It is necessary to work at a speed convenient for you, in an optimal rhythm. You will be killed - fly out of the game. Aim for your comfort zone.
How tools influence creativity
In many ways, digital photography has completely reversed the approach to photo art. Usually the photographer first looked, then shot, taking the time to compose the image, searching for interrelations in the frame, and only then releasing the shutter - even if he specialized in such a dynamic genre as street photography. Today, the majority of photographers working with the figure, first removed, and then look. First, the image is exposed, then checked on the display of the camera, what happened. With digital cameras, this style of work is natural, because if you don’t like the footage, you simply delete it. You cannot do this on film, you are constantly moving from the previous frame to the next. Digital photography definitely frees up, allows you to shoot more, but it is a double-edged sword, because in this case a lot of frank marriage can be obtained.
In my opinion, “photographic rhythm” is something else. You simply wish, hope, press the button, and then look what happened. There is no personal rhythm here. Just chasing the quantity that, if lucky, will begin to turn into quality. Frankly, I myself can remove a few digital exposures, but almost always the fact is that I did not guess the contrast, which, it seemed to me, would fit within the chosen shutter speed - and it turned out to be too sharp. Or for other similar reasons. But not because of the unsuccessful composition and not because the picture seriously hurts the eyes.
Essence of photography
Of course, this is not all. Learn self-expression through photography, so that the pictures are filled with meaning and even a bit heavy. Here, one cannot do without visual research, experiments and, of course, without personal satisfaction. You need to find a scene, staged or natural, and recognize the potential for your self-expression. One should strive to create no less impressive pictures than Ensel Adams, Edward or Brett West, Cornell Capa, Imogen Cunningham or Sebastian Salgado.
If someone has not yet noticed, we remind: we have published a magnificent book of the legendary American photographer Bruce Barnbaum " The Essence of Photography: the ability to see and create "
')
Under the cut - a translation of Mr. Barnbaum’s thoughtful and slightly verbose article on the secrets of photographic creativity. We would say teaser for the book.
Enjoy everyone
Looking at things is simple. We constantly look at them without even thinking about it. Every now and then we glance at a particular subject, but do we often see what we are looking at?
The book is the essence of photography. The ability to see and create tells us that the photographer cannot be an outside observer. The photographer must capture the relationship between objects in the scene, regardless of whether it is staged (studio), street, landscape architectural or any other. The photographer should see how the elements of the scene correlate in form, shape, tones and color, and consider these relationships in the context of a three-dimensional panorama that opens before his eyes. The photographer should recognize how colors, lines, outlines and shades in the foreground are combined with color, outlines, etc. in the middle and in the background. A photographer should be able to notice that it is enough to move ten centimeters to the right - and the whole panorama before your eyes will improve significantly. The portrait photographer must tell the model how to sit on a light or dark background, or how to find a more advantageous position in a complex interior or on the ground, so that the picture is more expressive. The photographer must understand the types of lighting, know the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Lighting, ideally suited in one situation, may be unacceptable in another.
Light and creativity
To learn to distinguish such a light that will decorate the scene, and such that only distracts attention from her, experience is required. Since the camera captures only the light, the photographer must learn to see the light, to understand how it emphasizes or damages the lines, outlines, colors, dimension and other aspects of the scene. The ability to see the light is acquired with experience, because in fact a person is accustomed to look closely not at the lighting, but at the objects. We have been doing this since birth. The baby learns to recognize mom, dad, and then - and other objects that seem important to him. But no one is trying to look at mom or anyone else (anything) as a collection of chiaroscuro. A person does not learn to correlate lines, outlines, and figures — for example, how are the mother's oval and the father's oval face are similar and different. No, a person looks at the facial features as such. So, the ability to consider the elements of a particular scene in the context of their illumination, as a combination of lines, forms and contours, is by no means acquired by itself. Photographic vision needs to learn.
This is difficult because the eye and the camera "see" differently. When you study the scene with the naked eye, the iris then expands so that you can better see the darkest parts of the scene, it narrows so that the brightest spots do not cut the eye. So, in essence, you are viewing any scene with a variable aperture. But when you release the shutter of the camera, the whole scene is captured in one aperture - the one you installed. If you do not understand the technical intricacies of contrast control in the process of preparing a picture (we can talk about traditional film exposure or digital photography), then you risk losing a lot of information that you expected to save in the final image.
The problem is further aggravated by the fact that the camera has only one lens, and the person has binocular vision. That is, you simultaneously see the scene with your left and right eye, so it acquires a depth that the camera does not catch. Try to examine the scene with one eye - then you will see that its depth will weaken considerably. If you want to convey the depth of the picture, you have to learn how the “one-eyed” camera “sees” the scene in different lighting, learn to recognize exactly what kind of lighting helps to emphasize the depth of the scene.
All this is quite difficult. Surprisingly, many people think: “I took a camera in my hands - here I am a photographer”. Anyway, what to say: "I have a pen - here I am a writer." It's not at all like that. Photography is treacherously difficult. But some have an innate talent for photographing, and master this art faster.
People who were interested in my seminars, or some of my students often said that they had a "bright eye." Some really do. As a rule, they mean that they can find beautiful scenes. And although I don’t like to disappoint them at all, it turns out that almost everyone can find a suitable scene. The man who first appeared in the Yosemite Valley will hardly pay attention to how beautiful it is there. But after that, it will seem to most people that they have a “eyes of smarts.” No, it's not that simple. An observant photographer knows how to capture such interrelations between forms, which are just striking when you consider the scene in one perspective, but are not so noticeable, you should slightly change the point of view. "Eye of smarts" means that you understand under what weather or what kind of lighting this scene looks extraordinary, and under what conditions it is rather unobtrusive. An experienced photographer can quickly notice an unusual and especially interesting scene at a busy intersection in the bustle that prevails there almost around the clock. With experience, you will learn to notice moments when the strength and type of light falling on a person’s face, along with an interesting turn of head, allow you to make a chic portrait that stands out against the background of most studio shots or “VIP-person” photos that come up with “important speech”, what you can meet on the 6th page of the daily newspaper.
To create good pictures, you need to learn to see the light and the relationship of objects in the scene. Learn to see how the camera. It would be great if the camera could be seen as a person, but, unfortunately, this is not an option.
Personal interests as a reflection of creativity
Mastering the art of seeing the light and catching the relationship between objects, you also have to choose a subject and choose a rhythm. Ensel Adams liked landscapes, more precisely - the mountains, and his best photos, no doubt - just those that depict such majestic landscapes. Perhaps he would have become a good portrait photographer, but the portraits in his performance would definitely not be compared with such landscapes, and he would not have gained the glory he has. Perhaps August Zander would be a good landscape photographer, but the portraits of the German workers he created are stunning, exciting, piercing images. These and other great photographers are always to a particular genre, which had a special meaning for them, gradually moving away from other topics. That is why they got such outstanding work.
My interests evolved from landscape photography to abstraction, and then to monumental ancient architecture. Throughout my entire creative journey, I tried to expand my interests, without departing from them completely. Others act differently. Someone immediately determined with the interests and always adheres to them. Some easily change their interests, discarding the old and prikipaya to the new. Others start with diverse interests and gradually narrow the spectrum to one or two topics that they work with until the end of their years. Which approach is correct? What is wrong? It turns out that all the options are good, no more or less winning. Your creative method must meet your interests. What is useful to me, may not suit you or another photographer - and vice versa. So you can formulate your own interests, find the outline, your unique creative path. So you acknowledge that your interests may change, expand and concretize. Understand that you and only you can determine what you want from a photo. It is up to you to decide how it will look, what you want to demonstrate, what to avoid, what to emphasize - in other words, what your photo should tell. It is yours, and over time you will develop your own style and course.
Some photography teachers are pushing students to confine themselves to a narrow sphere of interest. I am against this approach. Every person is multifaceted. Of course, in life we ​​have many interests; how to limit only one interest in photography?
Creative images - stick to the photographic rhythm
There are photographers who need to choose a genre, explore it, navigate there and gradually understand how to work in it - and only then they begin to get pictures, masterpieces. I knew a few photographers who have gone through this evolution. Their first pictures did not shine with anything, although the photographer himself simply burned with enthusiasm for the chosen subject. But as time went on, they tuned to the desired mode, their photos became more and more interesting, refined, and deep. Photographers found their way and moved along it with incredible strength, grace and skill.
Harrison Branch, who for many years headed the faculty of photography at the University of Oregon, for the first time examining a new place where he was going to photograph, first came there every time without a camera. If the place seemed interesting to him, he returned there - again without a camera - in order to get a better look at all the nuances. Finally, after several visits, he already came with a camera and filmed.
I do not work at all like Harrison. In fact, I could not work like Harrison. At joint seminars we discussed such a difference in approaches with our listeners. Usually, I quickly notice things and actively react to them, or not at all. Once in a new place, I take my most powerful shots there with almost no preparation. Gradually exploring this place, I find material for more delicate work.
I do not know why I manage to see the most interesting things almost immediately - but it turns out! Over and over again I catch myself on this. Which method is more correct: my spontaneous reaction or harrison's thorough analysis? Both are correct. Harrison's method is great for him. He knows his rhythm, and works best in his manner. I'm in my. You will have to develop your own style. It is likely that my method and the method of Harrison - these are two extremes, and the other suitable some intermediate options. Fine. It is necessary to work at a speed convenient for you, in an optimal rhythm. You will be killed - fly out of the game. Aim for your comfort zone.
How tools influence creativity
In many ways, digital photography has completely reversed the approach to photo art. Usually the photographer first looked, then shot, taking the time to compose the image, searching for interrelations in the frame, and only then releasing the shutter - even if he specialized in such a dynamic genre as street photography. Today, the majority of photographers working with the figure, first removed, and then look. First, the image is exposed, then checked on the display of the camera, what happened. With digital cameras, this style of work is natural, because if you don’t like the footage, you simply delete it. You cannot do this on film, you are constantly moving from the previous frame to the next. Digital photography definitely frees up, allows you to shoot more, but it is a double-edged sword, because in this case a lot of frank marriage can be obtained.
In my opinion, “photographic rhythm” is something else. You simply wish, hope, press the button, and then look what happened. There is no personal rhythm here. Just chasing the quantity that, if lucky, will begin to turn into quality. Frankly, I myself can remove a few digital exposures, but almost always the fact is that I did not guess the contrast, which, it seemed to me, would fit within the chosen shutter speed - and it turned out to be too sharp. Or for other similar reasons. But not because of the unsuccessful composition and not because the picture seriously hurts the eyes.
Essence of photography
Of course, this is not all. Learn self-expression through photography, so that the pictures are filled with meaning and even a bit heavy. Here, one cannot do without visual research, experiments and, of course, without personal satisfaction. You need to find a scene, staged or natural, and recognize the potential for your self-expression. One should strive to create no less impressive pictures than Ensel Adams, Edward or Brett West, Cornell Capa, Imogen Cunningham or Sebastian Salgado.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/302974/
All Articles