gvarner wrote:
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.
Right on!
The eye is ofen compared to a camera, but this is misleading. Human eyes are binocular moving image imput devices for a supercomputer.
There are two of them (stereo camera) and they take dozesn of exposures, while the brain engages in pattern recognition and 3D modeling.
The actual image taken by one eye is *horrible*:
-- single element lens
-- sensor only sharp in the center
-- big hole in the sensor about 20 degrees off center
-- no way to measure depth
Close your left eye, and stare at a point on the wall with your right.
Hold your right thumb at arm's length so it blocks this point. Then
swing your arm slowly to the right. At about 20 degrees, your thumb
will disappear!
Any time you are using only one eye, there is a big hole in your vision.
You don't notice, because the brain fills in the hole with what it expects
to see!
The eye is nothing at all like a camera, and would mae a horrible camera.
Fortunately, it's par of a supercomputer controlled scanning system
It produces not a single image, but a composite image and ultimately
a mental model of the physical world.
A camera, on the other hand, must try to do in one exposure what takes
two eyes dozens of images to accomplish. This explains why photography
is so difficult, when we already know how to see.
Photography is closer to drawing or painting than it is to seeing.
Like an artist, a photographer will try to compose his image. He may chose
to include a vanishing point. None of this comes naturally--it must
be learned.