Does how we see affect how we take photographs, and especially what we do with them afterward?

[ancient_mariner]

My eyes are changing, and not for the better.

Having once had very sharp eyes, now one eye is short sighted, the other long and also affected by astigmatism. This results in vision that is functional but not pin-sharp, particularly now at the sides, leaving reality much softer and less detailed than it once was. I don't *need* glasses to live normally, and for the periods when I've worn them, reality has looked quite harsh and contrasty.

Over the years my requirement of how an image should look has changed too. As a film camera user, 35mm never gave enough detail, and medium format was 'adequate' only. I mention this because when I say that after starting with decent digital (i.e. not a compact) in 2013, my attention was directed at getting decent levels of detail from an image - it's easy to assume this was just rookie behaviour trying to push all sliders to the right, and while there may have been something to that, it just ignorance.

See where I'm going?

Over the last 3 years or so I have found increasingly that I prefer pictures with the clarity rolled off considerably, still highly detailed when I zoom in, but softer, smoother, sometimes with slightly odd behaviour in highlghts and shadows. I think this is because it matches more what I see with my own eyes, even when I process for mono.

Roger @droj kindly commented last week about the way I'd processed an image, and this got me thinking about why I did it that way, and why I do sometimes push the sliders for results that aren't natural or don't fit with how others see things. @Lez325 also commented that I do quite a bit of abstract landscape, and again, that's partly because of how the world appears these days.

This isn't intended as a 'get out of jail free' card for slider abuse, but I do wonder if a part of what drives our approach to processing (or not) is because of how the world looks through our own eyes, let alone a viewfinder or computer screen.

 

[lindsay]

Did Picasso have to explain the reasons for "pushing the sliders in an odd direction"? No, he painted what he saw through his own eyes and so do we as creators. Guernica is still one of the most affecting images I've ever seen, but only he can have seen that (in his minds eye) in that way, yet it communicates so much so quickly and effectively. So it is with photographic art. "The Kiss" is so evocative not only for its socio-cultural context but because it says so much about the photographer too.
More power to your elbow (and sliders) Toni.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Interesting post. I have, mercifully very good vision. I am of those who can drive straight along a road at night, completely unfazed by headlights on full beam coming the other way. You see other drivers brake a lot when they see a car coming on the other carriageway towards me, not me. That might change as I get older (36) but I see utterly feeble attempts to drive at night by those younger than me, and it's usually oncoming vehicles with lights on that flusters them. Not me. That says a lot about my vision and how it responds to contrast, light and dark.

Don't think I got 20 20 - maybe slightly long sighter but don't wear corrective eyeware. Right eye is definately stronger. Try closing one, then the other, you'll see which one you would need the most. I've got strong peripheral vision, things don't look softer in the sides so much for me, hence my obsession with centre to edge sharpness.

Its why I like to aim for relentless technical perfection, because I can see it, and when processing really do check all the RGB curves to make sure they're as aligned to give a neutral black and white point.

I don't like that crunchy, high clarity/microconstrast look, I like to see the fine details in the image.

 

[woof woof]

Reading the OP here and looking at the B&W sheep shot and reading the comments I think there's a danger of over thinking things. I do this and did it most when I was, lets say struggling in life. Looking back at the pictures I over thought and attributed too much meaning to I can barely look at some now because of the association with those times and lines of thought. Other people have no idea about all that and just see a picture and either like it or don't and infact one of the most troubling to me pictures I ever took was printed out, framed and nailed to a wall by my then GF who really liked it. The point being that what we see and attribute meaning to might not be completely "got" by others. But who cares? Not me

I think what we like to take pictures of and how we process can change over time, my photo taking and processing has and that's only natural as I'm not the same person I was 10 years ago and our approach could well vary from one subject and composition and lighting to another subject and composition and lighting.

I hadn't really thought about how our eyesight affects how we shoot and process but the issue of colour shifts in vision has cropped up in other threads. I suppose I'm lucky in that although I now wear glasses most of the time my eyesight is still pretty functional without them and as far as I know 20/20 with them so I haven't faced this issue yet. I think though that if or when I do have issues I'll take pictures and process them as I do now, for myself or for whoever I'm taking a picture for. For example if I'm specifically taking a picture for Mrs WW to send to someone I may well do it differently to a picture I'd take for me.

In your place Toni, I'd just do what suits me. Having a picture liked by people on the internet is all very nice but I assume most of us do this photography thing for us and those close to us rather than for people on the internet.

And I quite liked the sheep shot.

 

[john.margetts]

I think this depends, at least partly, on what you think a photograph is. My photographs are pictures. I am aware that others think of their photographs as accurate records of 'reality'.

I start with the picture I want. That might mean saturated colours or it might mean muted colours or no colours. It might mean high micro-contrast or next to no micro-contrast. I don't think my eyesight alters that although it will clearly have an effect on the execution.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If a picture shows what I want it to show, it's a success. If others like looking at it or find it useful, that's a plus.

Best not to best not to blow these things up out of all proportion...

 

[droj]

sometimes push the sliders for results that aren't natural

Just to make clear that the overriding issue isn't realism as it's commonly understood. An image can be processed quite violently and still come out successfully - but the ethos that drives its processing must maintain a solid artistic integrity. That's something hard to measure & explain - my take is that we either see it or we don't. It's evidenced in a mix of vision, framing, focus, colour (when present), and tonality.

Although images can serve different purposes, I think that something that unites all good images is that each has to 'hang together' in itself. It should embody some king of integrity that distinguishes it from a casual snap. A concern with aesthetics alone is a red herring - an image needs purpose, and this could be documentary, or artistic, or whatever. For an image to be worthwhile it needs to mean something. Obviously that's a broad remit!

I do see a lot of photographs where it's plain that those who produce them enjoy the mechanics of photography - the equipment, & the processing whether analogue or digital - but lack an 'eye'. And to me having an eye isn't confined to the aesthetic realm - it also incorporates some sort of gut reaction.

The end result may not be judgeable by mind alone, but need to be appraised intuitively ...

 

[Suvv]

Like you I have one short sighted and one long sighted eye, I also have lots of astigmatism. In addition I have weak eye muscles so I can't get both eyes to point in the same direction so I do not see in stereo . I'm not sure how much it affects my processing but I do like softer images and I can only see in 2D so I never get telegraph poles sticking out of peoples heads.

 

[Dave Canon]

I had not thought about this but very much doubt that my photography has been affected by my eyes. About 20 years ago I noticed that my distance vision was no longer ideal (not recognising people in a long corridor etc. Eventually I needed glasses for driving (and reading). This short sightedness reach a peak a couple of years later and gradually moved back towards normal (quite common). In the last couple of years I can see as well without my glasses for distance and do not need then for driving. When I was tested last year she tested me on a smaller chart than normal as I could easily read the smallest letters. She declared that my eyes were better than hers (she is less than half my age). However, I continue using my glasses because they are photochromic and varifocal. This give me built in sunglasses and I can read things without having to get out reading glasses. I also suspect that my vision will continue in the long sighted direction and thus deteriorate again. I take most of my shots to enter into competitions and this is still as true today as 20 years ago. However, given the precision of auto-focus now, do we need to have accurate vision. I have often wondered whether we are all seeing different colours.

Dave

 

[the black fox]

I,m short sighted and have worn glasses since my early teens one thing I have picked up over the years of opticians visits is once you get to 45-50 iso your eyesight changes regularly ,now at 75 I go yearly for eye tests and its guaranteed to be different each year ,I now need a pair for distance and driving ,a pair for the computer but for reading /i.pad and any precise close work my eyes are fine .
moral of story ... get your eyes checked regularly once your 50+

 

[velocette]

I take photos that interest me mainly wandering around in London and its environs and if I like then turn them into postcards which are displayed around the house hanging from picture frames or in groups in larger frames. These are accompanied by purchased cards of interesting subjects or people. In London The National Portrait and Photographers Galleries always have something worth adding to the 'collection'. At any time there's probably 50 about the house on varying subjects, events or people including the loo.

 

[droj]

Interesting in itself, but I'm a bit baffled as to how it connects with the thread ...

And the thread title's intended sense might've been better expressed as 'Does our physical eyesight affect ..' rather than 'Does how we see affect ..'

 

[AJQS]

Perhaps we could refer to it as the Monet effect? I'm sure my eyesight is a factor in my photography, more and more I'm finding that the viewfinder of a camera is simply not large enough to allow me to clearly see my composition and work out what I'm doing, such that when I actually view it on a computer screen it seems a complete mess.

 

[droj]

I'm finding that the viewfinder of a camera is simply not large enough to allow me to clearly see my composition and work out what I'm doing

But an element of guesswork has often been part of the game, and more so the smaller the format - but isn't this part of the fun? And accidents can be productive (sometimes!).

 

[Dave Canon]

At any time there's probably 50 about the house on varying subjects, events or people including the loo.

Reminds me of a visit to Cornwall and the landlord of the B&B recommended a restaurant nearby and mentioned that Tony Blair has visited it. As we left for the restaurant, he asked us to particularly note where the picture of Tony was now hung. Next day we spoke to the Landlord again and he said that for a few years after Tony Blair's visit, the picture was in a prominent position in the main restaurant but recently guests had told him it was it the corridor leading to the cloakrooms. I was able to tell him it was now hung in the Male toilets; where next?

Dave

 

[velocette]

Interesting in itself, but I'm a bit baffled as to how it connects with the thread ...

And the thread title's intended sense might've been better expressed as 'Does our physical eyesight affect ..' rather than 'Does how we see affect ..'

I thought the thread said ' and especially what we do with them afterwards'

 

[ancient_mariner]

I thought the thread said ' and especially what we do with them afterwards'

It did. I had in mind the processing and preparation, rather than final presentation, but didn't make that explicit.

 

[sphexx]

I take photos that interest me mainly wandering around in London and its environs and if I like then turn them into postcards which are displayed around the house hanging from picture frames or in groups in larger frames. These are accompanied by purchased cards of interesting subjects or people. In London The National Portrait and Photographers Galleries always have something worth adding to the 'collection'. At any time there's probably 50 about the house on varying subjects, events or people including the loo.

OK but how are changes to how you see affecting how you are displaying the photos over time?