Importance of a photographic eye

This is all totally true, it is all down to the photographers eye and what he/she sees before him/her in that viewfinder. A good photographic teacher can help and advise on all that technical blah blah, though in my mind the first step for everyone should be composition. If the person behind the camera can't think of composition then all the knowledge about f stops, apertures, strobe positions, metering light and all that other stuff ain't gonna help.

In all honesty I think the best way for all underwater photographers to start is with one of the simple point and shoot cameras, if they can't take a decent macro composition with one of these then it may not be worth going for the big upgrade. Though hey maybe if I had enough expendable cash I'd go out and buy the top of line camera set up to play around with?

Bugger..'Great stuff' and my films do not go together

I will have to wait and see.

So much for insider info....

Lots of Wetpixel brothers at the bar then Good times.

Dive safe

DeanB

Sorry, forgot to say that photographers also need to know their subject! Especially natural history! I think that somewhere Alex has pointed out that pigmy seahorses are usually photographed on coral with the polypd in - that is to say, disturbed - whereas a good natural history shot would show them out. It really isn't all about the technology.

One of the important advantages that I think hasn't been mentioned yet (or maybe I missed it) is the instant feedback. First on the camera's LCD screen (which I still do far too infrequently) and then on a laptop. Especially if you don't get to dive frequently, reviewing your images daily helps a lot to get the worst errors recognized and fixed early on in your holidays.

I am unfortunately not blessed with the eye in an artistic sense (that is probably why I should mostly fish identification style portraits). However, with luck you sometimes shoot a fish that seems to be connecting with you through the image. I'm not sure if that requires an artistic eye but it requires some kind of eye plus the ability to move into a fish's comfort zome without breaking its comfort. Anyone know of a book dedicated specifically to fish photography?

Bart

Nahh, you've got it backwards, a photographic eye is not necessary with digital.

 

With film you had 30 chances per dive to get it right. With digital you can easly snap a few hunderd shots on a single dive. One of them is bound to be good.

Ah, the lotto approach to photography.

I've entered one-day beach dive photo competitions (with film and digital categories). Many of the digital entrants shot 200+ images in 3 or 4 dives; one entrant shot almost 500 images. (the only digital shooters that consistantly place normally shoot around 50 to 150 images and have practiced extensively) The problem is most of the photogs are just shooting snapshots/grab shots. Even if the photographer gets a winning image (mostly, just blind luck for the lotto photog), they don't know how they got it and couldn't repeat the shot.

A good photographer will produce good to great images with their practiced/finely honed techniques in a very consistant manner (if they can find subjects to shoot).

The photographer's eye =

Technical:

focus, exposure, lighting (know what your equipment can do and cannot do)

Artistic:

Composition, Peak of Action, Point of focus, Lighting for affect

(All of which can be learned, previsualized, planned, and practiced)

The instant feedback of digital is a _huge_ advantage over the old days of shooting slide film (where if you're lucky, you get to see slides the same day you shot them).

Use all digital's advantages (instant feedback, histograms, 100+ shots/dive) to improve your technique every dive. DON'T just shoot the same old "broken" snapshot over and over.

Look at you images critically, make a list of errors, rank the errors, work on fixing the biggest error, when it's fixed, fix the next biggest. (repeat until you've fixed all errors)

Take Care,

ChrisS

With film you had 30 chances per dive to get it right. With digital you can easly snap a few hunderd shots on a single dive. One of them is bound to be good.

I hope this was tongue-in-cheek or sarcasm. While being able to shoot digital allows you to get the exposure right, the machine gun approach usually results in the big zero keepers. It's like walking into the bar, immediately going up to woman, and asking her to go home with you. When she says no, you immediately move on the next woman. This percentage technique generally results in loneliness or memorable (not in a good way) results.

If I run in to a machine gun shooter (once people have mastered the use of their camera), I recommend they take fewer images per dive.

I agree 100% with Alex's premise. This is why I am not a great photographer.

The good news is one can learn composition and to see better. But, there is nothing better than a brain that can visualize that which is not obvious to most of us.

As I skimmed through the thread, a thought came to me that the technology that is avialable today with the instant feedback of the LCD, ability to shoot 100 time on a dive and critique on a computer in the evening prior to the next dive allows a somewhat new U/W photographer like me to develope a "photographic eye" quicker than if I was using much older technology.

It's simply easier to learn now, that part that is learnable. I beleive that part is due to natural talent that I have yet to find in stock at Backscatter...

Take care,

John

I don't know what you're all talking about. Whenever I show someone a photo I like, they immediately ask me what camera I use! Therefore, I concluded some time ago that it was the camera that made the photographer, any not anything else.

um.

right?

I don't know what you're all talking about. Whenever I show someone a photo I like, they immediately ask me what camera I use! Therefore, I concluded some time ago that it was the camera that made the photographer, any not anything else.

 

um.

 

right?

I took some pictures for a dentist. He asked why his pictures were not as good as mine yet he had a much more expensive camera. I retorted that I knew he wouldn't let me work on his teeth even though I promised to use all his best kit.

You know what you need for good photographs? A good photographer!

Come on now, everyone knows that you need to have the newest and most expensive peice of kit available to take good shots, you won't see a pro using a cheap or old camera now would you?

Don't worry I haven't gone totally mad -- I was only joking...

It's not about having the best or newest kit to take good photos. I keep hearing so many people talking about upgrading. My advise would be -- get to know the kit you have first. If you keep changing cameras and housings you will never get to know what your kit is capable of. This goes out especially to those who only go on one or two trips a year, no need spending more money every year, save the money on the upgrade and take the camera you have on another dive trip instead.

I don't know what you're all talking about. Whenever I show someone a photo I like, they immediately ask me what camera I use! Therefore, I concluded some time ago that it was the camera that made the photographer, any not anything else.

I wonder if this is a universal law - for example does owning an expensive, fast car indicate an excellent, safe, law-abiding driver? Or wearing the latest designer fashions indicate a beautiful person?

Are we perhaps confusing technical quality with artistic merit I wonder?

"You know what you need for good photographs? A good photographer!"

Nail on the head, John!

if someone would kindly send me a newish Nikon camera and housing i would gladly do some side by side tests to see if my pics improve....

I think i could get even more mantas in a row if i had more megapixels, as a bonus that would make Mr Bantin happy..

if someone would kindly send me a newish Nikon camera and housing i would gladly do some side by side tests to see if my pics improve....

I think i could get even more mantas in a row if i had more megapixels, as a bonus that would make Mr Bantin happy..

 

If I come over there Mike, you'd better have them all lined up!

I have read the thread, and tried REALLY hard to resist the temptation, but I fell....

.... photographic eyes?

I do think that time in the water helps. I was asked to take leave, or lose it, at short notice. I ended up in Sipadan in the monsoon, and had a wonderful time (I was going to the Maldives, but the boat wasn't launched). I spent unexpected time in the water, concentrating on photography with a small number of divers. I had time to "get my eye in".

I like the asymmetry here:

but everyone I know likes this, technically inferior with a slowish Magic Filter exposure:

My point?

The eye of the beholder matters, too. My wife is studying art history, and I can't look at paintings in the same way, now, because she is training MY eyes. Experienced photographers look at images in a different way to other people, and value different elements of technical skill and composition.

And I am going to value my D200, though it has only a nylon coat at the moment for shooting in British drizzle, and no housing. I think that might be the sports-car effect (presumably an MG not a Maserati!).

Tim

B)

Tim,

Loved little Nemo....Different view to the usual...Booty !!!

Dive safe

DeanB

Never thought of it but I guess maybe I'm the poster child for Alex's observations. Was certified in 2002, never held a camera until I'd rented one for a dive and was hooked right away.

My technical knowledge is sadly lacking but I've still managed to grab a decent shot or two along the way.

And realizing, as I frame each subject, that it's usually been done before. I'm starting to swim more and shoot less. Looking for that "special" situation that hasn't been done a bazillion times. And failing that, spending way too much time thinking about shooting common subjects in an uncommon way. It's a nice thing to say, but a flounder is still a flounder. ;-)

Rand

A couple of gem-like pieces of advice passed by one of my old graphics editors, Larry Nylund:

"If you can't be good, be wierd"

"The most important thing about (photo)Journalism is being there"

"The eyes have it"

"I don't care if it isn't (technically) perfect, if the whole story's there, I'll print it"

All the best, James

I've been reading for days, and will chime in now.

Lot's of good stuff said -- and a good bit of unwarranted (no, not false) humility from the likes of Rand and others.

Those of us who get to dive less often -- for example, I teach, which constrains finances and schedule -- have to find other ways to develop our eyes. For me, that has meant

(1) Recognizing that "conventional" (supra-aqua) landscapes are a fantastic way to learn about shooting reefscapes -- they pose the same challenges of dynamic range, saturation, and composition -- I think. For me, there's an additional wrinkle, in that I'm doing a lot of my current landscape work from a kayak, which involves location contol that ain't so different from underwater shooting. Favorite lenses for these shots are the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 17-55.

(2) There's a lot of similarity between long-tele (say, 200mm+) supra-aqua work and macro underwater. Stealth. Lighting -- except that flashes don't work so well at tele distances supra-aqua. But to me, the challenges are similar. To me, these shots seem more similar than macro shots in each local (UW and not).

It's clear to me that shooting a lot of landscape and tele, and some macro, above water is helping me develop my eye. With wholly justified humility, I'm pleased that people (who were with me at the time) say "I kinda remember that, but I sure didn't see it that way...that's like fractally/emotionally/technically cool".

THAT'S what it's all about, for me.

And I just get a huge pixel woody when I think HOW MUCH BETTER I CAN BE.

All the best,

Chris

A couple of gem-like pieces of advice passed by one of my old graphics editors, Larry Nylund:

 

"If you can't be good, be wierd"

 

"The most important thing about (photo)Journalism is being there"

 

"The eyes have it"

 

"I don't care if it isn't (technically) perfect, if the whole story's there, I'll print it"

All the best, James

I totally agree with James here. The "photographic eye" (but then I don't know even the precise definition of that term, seems sort of nebulous - even in Alex's explanation of the "eye"........, maybe it is an "everyone knows sort of thing...")

Any precise definition of the subject of this post aside.........., I think it is much as in the other arts or even in life. If one works on the ability to communicate the concept of the subject to the viewer, the experience, the moment in a compelling way - then it is a good photograph as long as some grasp and understanding of the "technical" aspects of photography are mastered in the composition.

I think this "communication" needs to include communicating something interesting in the photograph. It doesn't have to be a creature never before photographed (although that always makes an interesting photograph to me, regardless of composition, etc!!!). I mean look at Eric's recent winner - Jellyfish in Jellyfish Lake. How many people have photographed those creatures and scene? But because Eric did his technical homework, he knows what is interesting and has decent equipment (and was able to get that decent equipment up and over to jellyfish lake............. ) - Eric came up with a beautiful and compelling photograph of a much photographed creature and place. It really communicates "Jellyfish Lake" to me!

I say know your underwater subjects, which are interesting and which will communicate well. "Like" your chosen underwater subject (most important to have real affinity for the chosen underwater subject). Get some understanding of photographic techniques and a good understanding of photographic terms. Take lots of underwater shots (as James said be there!!!). Get enthused. Take lots more and better underwater shots. Get more enthused............; and I think pretty much anyone can then submit a great underwater photograph.

For what is a photograph anyway but a communication from the photographer to the viewer?

Then we can "dispense" with this nebulous "eye" stuff I think........... One less superstition to bow down to I think!

Carol