"What I saw in the field"

[Enrique Patino]

This is one of the first things I read when I rekindled my interest in photography a little over 3 years ago. Part of the creative process of an artist/photographer is to know how to use the medium to represent what one sees at the moment when the image was created... or something like that... and I have had others include this phrase in response to my comments to images here in this forum... so I know this concept is used by users here.

I do not know exactly what this phrase means and I suspect that its meaning or interpretation is not the same for everyone.

Photography has made me pay better attention to how I see... how I use my eyes to see general and specifics and how focusing on an object using my eyes is accomplished by what seems a requirement to eliminate the processing of all other information that is not part of the specific focus a a specific moment. And this type of "eye-brain focusing"can shift quickly. Our eyes also work that way when examining an image on the screen and in print. I am not sure I ever know what I saw when I press the shutter because I am busy looking at dials and readings, focusing points, tracking subject movement and position through the viewfinder, and trying to compose... not knowing the exact DOF that will result, the boken , etc...all while pressing the shutter... Is the phrase "to represent what I saw in the field" intended to give the photographer artistic freedom or to limit PP of an image... or either o both?

When choosing and developing images, this phrase comes to my mind... and I wonder what others think about this or if it has been discussed before...

thanks!

[arash_hazeghi]

Well I'm not sure if this makes sense to me, I remember quite clearly and vividly what I see in the finder when I capture an image. I see, first then I make an image. I even remember the images that I saw in the finder but missed and did not capture and try to get them the next time. If you are looking at your dials instead of paying attention to your subject and its behavior you will miss the right shot anyway.

Also when you spend some time in the field you obviously observe the bird, environment etc. for some time at least and I can't imaging you "forget" what it looked like at least from a general perspective.

[Enrique Patino]

Thanks Arash.

I agree that looking through the viewfinder one can remember vividly as you say and that at the moment one presses the shutter (hopefully on target) it is not the right time to be dealing with dials and readings. My point was that there is a lot to pay attention to ... and that representing what one saw in the field with any given image involves a bit of memory of the exact moment the image was created and a bit of interpretation (and incorporation) of elements that one remembers outside of the moment the image was created... as you say, from observation of the animal and its environment...

in the case of the image where you made the initial comment using that phrase, we were discussing details in the white (I was anyway)... others suggested lack of white detail and I suggested (tried to) that my playing with the image led me to believe that more white detail was possible - and as you were also present photographing white birds... you suggest, I believe, that the OP in that thread depicts exactly the amount of detail when viewed using a high-end calibrated monitor as you remember seeing in these birds live during your outing... and that more detail would make it look unreal for the purpose of web presentation... is that accurate? if so, I think I understand what you meant when you used that phrase ... and I thank you for your reply...

[John Chardine]

Hi Enrique- I tend to remember the general circumstances rather than specifics, and then usually only when the circumstances are outstanding, like particularly good light or amazing sky, or when a subject just cooperates with you. And of course there are different time frames for memory from short to medium to long-term. There's something to be said for processing those special images on the same day or soon after you made them so the memories are still fresh.

I'll remember this sky for a while!

[Phil Ertel]

Hey John, May I use your time machine?:bg3:. I must add very nice image!

[John Chardine]

Thanks Phil! This is the second time I've done this on BPN. I must get rid of that preset in Lr. Here's the corrected image!

[David Stephens]

I believe a key to the best bird and wildlife photography is anticipating what the subject might do and being ready when it does it. That includes being on the right side of the light, in line where the subject is likely to go, anticipating the action and then releasing the shutter at just the right moment to catch the action. All this includes getting the exposure set before the action starts. Part of anticipation is vividly remembering mistakes from the past and having a plan to correct those the next time that you're blessed with a chance. With bird photography, particularly BIF, knowing which way the wind is blowing is as important as knowing where the light is. Getting nothing but tail feathers as birds take off and land is what happens when you've positioned yourself in the wrong position for the wind.

[Jim Neiger]

I try to see the image I want to make in my mind and see it the way the camera will see it. Then I try to find a way to make the images I see. The images I see are based on my experiences in the field. Images I have planned and successfully created are usually among my best images.

[BobbyPerkins]

I'm always reminding myself that Observation is the Key to Intuitive Thinking. This especially holds true to the Thinking Photographer.

I agree with David & Jim.
Much observation develops the experience to be visionary, and developing the skills like Jim say's to see it as the camera does (the medium), to the creation of that vision.

[Roger Clark]

what one sees at the moment when the image was created... or something like that...

.... I am not sure I ever know what I saw when I press the shutter because I am busy looking at dials and readings, focusing points, tracking subject movement and position through the viewfinder, and trying to compose... not knowing the exact DOF that will result, the boken , etc...all while pressing the shutter... Is the phrase "to represent what I saw in the field" intended to give the photographer artistic freedom or to limit PP of an image... or either o both?


To me this phrase means nothing was added or subtracted from the scene. But in many cases it can't be taken literally. For example freezing action at 1/2000 second: our eyes can't see an event like that. A long exposure waterfall (e.g. 2 seconds) with smooth flowing water: our eye do not see that. But our eyes do see a large dynamic range, some 14 stops or so, and most cameras can not record that dynamic range, especially at high ISOs. So the camera can record some things we can't see/perceive, but can't record other things we see (e.g. unless one does HDR). Further, the output media (print, monitor) have less dynamic range, so the camera data must be compressed. And the standard characteristic function of the output image is a variable gamma function invented over half a century ago for vidicon TV tubes, and is not the characteristic curve of the human eye. So the output can technically never be "what one sees in the camera at the moment of exposure."

But having said that, in my view the "what one sees in the camera at the moment of exposure" phrase means nothing was added/subtracted from the image, and the stretching is a reasonable representation of what is there. But then it gets fuzzy. For example, the camera can record great feather detail in that 1/2000 second exposure, but surely no one can see that detail in rapidly flapping wings. So by the nature of the statement, it must be taken loosely.

Regarding planning images. Yes, I plan certain types of image, some with a lot of planning, like nightscapes where I plan direction and specific time of year and then time of night to get a certain star field over the landscape. Or planning a waterfall landscape with the sun at a certain angle. Wildlife is different. Of course one can do bird setups or calling birds or baiting animals and that includes planning. But I do not do that. For truly wild images, where one searches and encounters varying types of wildlife (birds, bears, lions, etc), then one has more limitations. But one can usually work to choose position for best light, foreground and background. Then, know behavior of the subject, be in the best position for capturing a great image of what you anticipate the subject to do. But that means being ready: having all your settings perfectly set for the situation before it happens, including aperture, exposure (if manual), AF point(s), and ISO. One shouldn't be fiddling with settings during the heat of the action (unless of course something changes and your settings are quite wrong and you discover that after the action started, but that should be a rarity). This latter kind of situation can happen in target rich environments, like an African safari, where, for example, one is following a subject in action in sunlight, and suddenly something happens in another location in the shade (e.g. a leopard pops up out of the grass in the shade of a tree). If one was imaging in manual, the exposure in the shade is too low.

For me, it is the excitement of the unplanned wildlife photo that is more exciting and meaningful to me. But that doesn't mean I don't try and plan. For example, head out in the morning looking for giraffes to get them at sunrise. Yes, there is a plan, but it is a loose plan. If one finds giraffes, are they in a location for a good sunrise? Will we find something else along the way that diverts the plan? If so, so be it.

Then when the shutter is pressed and the image recorded, sure I remember the event and the scene, especially when I see the image again. If I've done a good job in the heat of an action moment, and the foreground and background are good, then I can make a great image from the raw data that represents what I saw in the viewfinder at the time I pressed the shutter.
If one erases/clones out/in things to make the image better, then it can not be "what one saw in the camera at the moment of exposure."

Merry Christmas everyone.

Roger

[adrian dancy]

Well I'm not sure if this makes sense to me, I remember quite clearly and vividly what I see in the finder when I capture an image. I see, first then I make an image. I even remember the images that I saw in the finder but missed and did not capture and try to get them the next time. If you are looking at your dials instead of paying attention to your subject and its behavior you will miss the right shot anyway.


I think you have abilities which go beyond the 'savant', for not only can you recall the image which most of us would quickly wish to forget, you are able to remember the unseen image taken when the camera shutter is closed:S3:

Turning to the OPs point,

In short, all that the camera operator can do is recognise the window of opportunity for making good images after having taking care with exposure settings etc, keep the camera steady or pan appropriately and press the shutter button. The rest is up to something which is rarely credited by photographers, and that is... 'luck'. We can wish for a particular capture and maximise the opportunity in getting it with better equipment but lady luck plays a major part no matter what equipment is used.

Regarding remembering scenes that can be recalled in detail, which are then transposed onto a screen or print, I have serious doubts about. You can look at one scene for a considerable length of time and be easily fooled by colour, shade and tone. To demonstrate this take a look at the checker shadow illusion
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

When back home at the computer it follows that all we can do is make an educated guess when reconstructing the final image on screen, aided by tools, as to matters of colour, brightness, contrast etc. The camera does not record perfectly nor does the eye/brain. Individuals will perceive scenes differently also. As one gets older the eye lets in less light. So finalising an image so that it transposes onto a screen or print so that it appears accurate to the general audience is as much an art as it is a science.

So for reasons I have given above, and some good points raised by Roger, I take the phrase 'It's what I saw in the field' with a very large dose of salt:w3

[Roger Clark]

In short, all that the camera operator can do is recognise the window of opportunity for making good images after having taking care with exposure settings etc, keep the camera steady or pan appropriately and press the shutter button. The rest is up to something which is rarely credited by photographers, and that is... 'luck'. We can wish for a particular capture and maximise the opportunity in getting it with better equipment but lady luck plays a major part no matter what equipment is used.


Adrian,
What you describe is "pray and spray." I do see people praying and spraying when I am in the field next to other photographers (e.g. at Bosque). But then I'll hear photograophers shoot in short bursts, like 1 to 3 frames. This is what I do when the action is slow enough that I can anticipate when the peak action is. For example, if I want the bird's wings up and the background just right, I'll follow and wait for that perfect moment then fire a frame or two. Only with fast birds with wing flaps faster than about 5 to 10 per second do I "spray and pray" for BIF. One can do this too with animals. Only when the animal's legs head and ears are in the right position and with good foreground an background do I press the shutter. Cheetah's running are another too fast for catching a peak, so just spray and pray. And with real fast action, like a lion fight may last only a few seconds, so spray and pray is about all one can do. But for much wildlife action photography, learning behavior and only pressing the shutter at peaks of action is the beast way. It is editing in camera before pressing the shutter. I also call this "when not to take the picture." It also saves time in downloading, editing and deleting. This also save card and buffer space so if a sudden peak action starts, the camera is ready to respond rather than busy emptying the buffer.

Roger

[Enrique Patino]

Thank you all for your responses.

I think I like the definition of not adding or subtracting elements for a given image.

And since the eye can "see" more dynamic range the the camera, correctly exposing for a "dark" subject in a "bright" background most likely need some tweaking in PP to represent what one sees in the field. Also, since cameras can freeze action at 1/2000 - something that the eye-brain can't do - feather detail in a BIF (for example) is something one can work on during PP according to taste or preference... if one is going to rationalize PP work as an attempt to represent "what one saw in the camera at the moment of exposure."

does that make sense?

[James Shadle]

Has anyone ever heard the phrase - Found View Compliant?
It meant any process that was out of the realm of chemical darkroom possibilities (and I'm not talking about noise reduction and cleaning specular highlights) was a modification.

From my experience, Art Directors or Advertising Editors rarely if ever care about what has been done to the image. They just want a visual they can sell.
On the other hand, most nature photography contests, environmental publications, naturalist publications etc almost never want any modifications.

I think disclosure is the important issue.

That being said, I try to visualize an image and then use my camera to create it. Many elements I see might not be seen in the image I create.
Depth of Field, angle of view / focal length, shutter speed, perspective , etc. all will affect the final image. I've actually hidden a garbage can behind a low dune on a beach by changing my angle.

Be careful of what you envision - this image took me 20+ years to create after "seeing" it in my head.
136089

[Daniel Cadieux]

That can be a toughie as everyone has their own standards and ethics. Composition-wise I'm OK with removing things in post if it could not be done on the spot to make it closer to my vision, but I like the be faithful to what I saw (or think I saw) in the field as far as exposure and colours go. Of course when working on an image hours, days, or months after the fact it is difficult to be 100% faithful to what was actually there, but I try to be as close as possible to what I remember. Also, as mentioned, almost everything else is not really what we can humanly see in the field with those wide open apertures, or ultra fast or slow shutter speeds...so those are the artistic liberties one must decide for themselves as to what they want to achieve as a final product.

[Enrique Patino]

With long lenses the field of view is much reduced. With macro photography is even weirder... as for what one sees at the moment of exposure.

Manipulating shutter speed or aperture to stop or to provide movement and control dof and exposure allows "creativity", i think is what you wrote Daniel. I agree.

Seeing an image in your mind and then looking for it in order to produce it (1) is not the same as taking an image and presenting it a way that is faithful to what one saw at the moment of exposure (2). 1 may require 2, yes.

James, how much of the "product" (image posted) had you seen in your mind before taking it? I mean, the size and shape of the boat, the size, position and gender of the human in the image, for example? 50% of it, 75% or close to 100%? How many attempts did you have to do during those 20 years? Great image BTW

Also, when you envision an image, do you envision it displayed on a monitor or printed (and at white size and paper type)?

thanks!

[James Shadle]

With long lenses the field of view is much reduced. With macro photography is even weirder... as for what one sees at the moment of exposure.

Manipulating shutter speed or aperture to stop or to provide movement and control dof and exposure allows "creativity", i think is what you wrote Daniel. I agree.

Seeing an image in your mind and then looking for it in order to produce it (1) is not the same as taking an image and presenting it a way that is faithful to what one saw at the moment of exposure (2). 1 may require 2, yes.

James, how much of the "product" (image posted) had you seen in your mind before taking it? I mean, the size and shape of the boat, the size, position and gender of the human in the image, for example? 50% of it, 75% or close to 100%? How many attempts did you have to do during those 20 years? Great image BTW

Also, when you envision an image, do you envision it displayed on a monitor or printed (and at white size and paper type)?

thanks!

The final image has more detail than I envisioned. Other than that, close to 100%
It took the right atmospheric conditions at the right time and place. (Ft.Desoto, Fl)

I saw the boat a noted it's course. I then knew I had a chance.
Immediately I ran down the beach while at the same time pulling the tabs on my tripod legs so I could shoot from as low a perspective as possible.
Once in place, I put my 2x on the 600mm (already on tripod), adjusted my exposure and then let go at 8 frames per second.