gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

We don't physically see and record a scene the way the camera does. There, I've said it. I hadn't thought about this until last night's "aha" moment. It speaks to the difficulty I have in translating what I see into what I want the photo to show, this thing called artistic vision. Photography, in a way, is like viewing a scene with part of your vision cut off, then adding the various pieces back through falible technology. The challenge is real.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Physically, the camera records (most cameras that is) like seeing thru just one eye, ie in two dimensions. That makes a huge difference.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Photography is an art. I agree with you that we do not see the way the camera does and the camera in a majority of cases cannot render a scene the way we saw it. Where I do not agree is "viewing a scene with part of your vision cut off." No, part of our vision is not cut off, it is there but you have to realize that our eyes can see better than a camera being up to us to represent the subject in a multidimensional way through our photographic skills to make our subject look more realistic.

BebuLamar

It took me some time but I learned that a long time ago that the camera can never capture what I see. So I learned to imagine the many different ways I can make the camera renders the scene and choose among them. None of them is the same as what I see.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

What is new here?
As said by others:
- A camera records two dimensions and does not see 3D
- A camera does not have the ability to adapt and see the same dynamic range the way a human eye does

More importantly:
- A camera does not suffer 'illnesses' as the human eyes do. (shift in color due to old age by example).
- A camera does not fixate on an object and make it appear closer than it really is. Our brain does that hence all the complaints of 'the camera does not see what I saw'. Wrong, it does and sees even more, it just does not 'select' something out of the peripheral noise.

So what is new? Nothing.

Artistry in photography? THAT is reserved for creators - there are very few today - not wannabe recorders. Then you have the other side... Those who may or may not diss an image for one reason or another, correctly or not. So what are you left with? Artistry or a really mixed pot that means nothing???

Just take captures of what you (want) and (do) your best to show what you saw.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

UHH user MinnieV (aka Paula Van Every) translated a smelly, dirty harsh environment - dam spillway - into an artistic vision that led to her receiving a grant, a museum exhibit and this article in Luminous Landscape.

Sure, most of us "wannabe recorders" don't have that kind of artistic vision. But people can choose to feel defeated by the aha moment, or can seek mentors to help them on their path to a certain goal, or they can just enjoy the journey - the joy of picking up a camera every day and exploring the world.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Instead of ranting read the last line:

Just take captures of what you (want) and (do) your best to show what you saw.
(Edited and will edit the original since I still have the time.)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

There are things the camera can see that the eye can't - stopping action, or blurring action, long exposures, multiple exposures for example.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Throw this in for discussion;
"We see in 3D the camera only sees in 2D." I think that is an excuse!
When we compose threw a view finder, with an LCD live view or when studying the ground glass of a view camera, the image we see is in 2D. Always.
I think what happens when we see a 'scene' we want to capture, sometimes we keep that image in mind and don't really pay attention to how it translates in camera. The camera crops and that alone can completely alter the mood of what we saw. Taking the time to study what you see in camera and asking yourself if that is what initially captured your attention can help.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That too. It removes the context.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Along the same track, the larger percent of camera users today carry a zoom lens. When looking at a view, “X” strikes the imagination and the user zooms in tighter to capture “X”. Totally taking it out of context and deleting the wow facture in the process.
Again along the same track, how we frame the subject matters. What we see could be viewed in our sub-conscience vertically but we capture the image horizontally and it loses the magic. The subject might be best displayed in a 1:1 ratio or something other. Trying alternate formats can help find in the final image what we saw. If we back the zoom off enough to afford options in post we might be happier with our work

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

For a moment, let's put "art" and "philosophy" aside and consider some simple technical principles.

Simply stated, if you want a "scene" to appear as close as possible to the way you see it there are a few rudimentary approaches to understand. Since we have two eyes we experience stereoscopic vision so we have depth perception- the camera has one "eye". We see dimension and shape in things that the camera may records as "flat". So...our job is to create the illusion of a 3rd dimension on a 2-dimensional piece of paper or a flat screen.

One of our tools in this effort is the use of light- light and shadow. Highlighting and shading makes the difference between "stick figures" and realistic drawings. Another element perspective- our eyes don't compress or elongate distances. IF you want a scene to be rendered authentically, you need to select a normal focal length for the format you are using. Composition is yet another component in that certain methods like foreground framing and background treatments impart the illusion of depth and give scale to certin objects in the composition. Tonal and contrast control in monochromatic work and color harmony and contrasts in color photography are additional considerations.

Our minds can "superimpose" certain information on a scene, a person, or an object. We KNOW that grass is green, the sky is blue and folks come in various colors and shades. The camera, film, or sensor may perceive perceive things as the are with out any predisposition of thought. We can be disappointed when we see certain nuances in a photograph that we did not perceive. Our minds know that "Marry Jane" is Caucasian and is therefore supposed to have kind of a pink skin tone. If she is ill or wearing too much makeup we might find the camera has recorded a different skin tone even if all the exposure and color balance is correct. Sometimes the dyes in the film or paper or in the cameras guts are not the same as the dies and pigments in any scene, person or object.

So- IF you want realistic renditions, try to view the scene with one eye and analyze what needs to be done to un-flatten the scene. Don't let you mind "fool" you and observe everything carefully. If you are working in black and white, view the scene through a green filter- it will give you some idea of a monochromatic interpretation. You may consider filters to light and darken certin tones to enable separation of tones that may otherwise blend. If the light is too flat, you may need to return at another time or day or in different weather conditions or alter you camera angle to accommodate the existing light. If you have control over lighing, such as in a studio-like" situation or where you can move the subject into a different lighting pattern make the necessary changes.

On this site, so many folks quote Ansel Adams but the may have forgotten what he wrote in his "The Camera" book about using a normal or slightly longer that normal lens for landscape work when you want realistic perspective. As has been discussed very vociferously on this forum we know that DISTANCE changes perspective, NOT focal length. The normal focal length, however, at practical working distances works well in this issue.

Now- none of this means that y'all must strictly adhere to any kind of "carved in stone " rules, however theses are basic photographic principles that are good starting points. If you pictures seldom look like the original scene- perhaps you are doing somethings wrong.

ART- creativity, breaking the rules? Why not? I can't tell anyone what to do to create art except to learn the techniques and use them to interpret things as you wish.

Folks like Adams were/are indeed ARTISTS but they were master technicians as well.

Know you onions!

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Oh look, a dead horse that needs kicking...

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Oh look, a gratuitous comment from someone with nothing to contribute.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Within the whole field of view that our eyes give us there is a relatively small central area of sharp focus and high resolution, and this is surrounded by what we refer to as peripheral vision, which is a large area of poor focus and low resolution. Our brains know to concentrate on the small detailed area in the centre and regard the rest of the field of view as a source of largely unnecessary (but potentially useful) information. Within the small central area our brains can selectively concentrate on whatever we wish to examine. It's a bit like having a sharp telephoto zoom working alongside (or should that be within) a much softer wide angle prime lens.

So yes, you're right - we don't see in the same way that our cameras do .