NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on September 03, 2015, 11:41:44
-
[Another approach to process]
As photographers, we are all different, and the way I entered close-up nature photography is perhaps unusual in that for me (at least in the beginning) it was not about cameras or even lenses, but only about the “Seeing” in seeing through lenses. Let me be clear. It was not about what I saw through the lenses (the subject of the photograph) so much as it was the very process of “Seeing” itself, the seeing clearly through lenses at micro-worlds and mini-dioramas, what I call “Small Worlds.” There is more.
To hopefully be even clearer, I was looking through lenses at small worlds in nature, rather than at cars, buildings, family, or what-have-you? Mother Nature is what I was looking at through the lenses. Yet, what in actuality I was looking at, what I call “Seeing” (what I was seeing) is seeing clearly as to the nature of my own mind, if that makes sense. It does to me, of course.
In other words, I used photography (and especially fine lenses) to better “See” the nature of my own mind. And it was this process of “seeing” that has always captivated me, and so I paid closer and closer attention to the process involved in what here I am calling “seeing.” And, as a byproduct, my resulting photographs improved as well.
Now, to me, all that is history, my mixing photography with meditation practice until they were one and the same as far as I knew and, at the time, I didn’t even know I was doing this. That realization came later. I even wrote an entire book about this, the mixing of mind-training (Mahamudra Meditation) with photography. It is called “Mahamudra, A Story” and it is available as a free e-book at this link (scroll down), or as a printed paperback on Amazon.com.
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Dharma
As photographers, we all know that the process is what produces the result. In my case, the process is the result I am after, not just the resulting photographs. And for me, within that process, it is the “Seeing,” not just as in seeing what to photograph out there in nature, i.e. the impression in nature itself that imprints in my mind and that I subsequently wish to capture photographically.
By that time, I have already captured the exterior image of the nature-subject with my mind. It remains to be seen if I can record that nature impression with a camera. Yet, as mentioned, that is not the “seeing” I have been referring to here, i.e. the resulting photograph of my impression, what I see in Mother Nature. Not at all.
The important “seeing” for me is the “seeing” itself, the resulting clarity of the mind that arises through the sometimes tedious process of stacking photos or whatever. That particular “seeing” could just be called “seeing clearly” or, better put, the “seeing of clarity” itself, as in: seeing the sheer clarity of the mind itself and resting in that.
Now, the question for me is whether that seeing of the mind itself (that clarity) leaves any traces in the resulting photographs. Mostly, they fall way short of what I internally see while I am externally seeing.
And here is the subtle part. The photographs that are the result of what I am here calling “seeing” have gradually improved, thanks to my attention to the process. Yet, as I pointed out earlier, what I am actually seeing within the process itself (as mentioned) is not just the subject of the photograph, but something as well of the nature of my own mind and its luminous clarity.
Is that kind of clarity also captured in the photograph? You tell me. I believe that, to some degree, it is, not because we can record something that is beyond elaboration (beyond words), like the mind itself, but more, as the poet William Butler Yeats put it:
“Because the mountain grass,
Cannot but keep the form,
Where the mountain hare has lain.”
My apologies for the complexity of all this, and I hope this is clear to at least some of you, and perhaps even of some small interest.
[Photo with Nikon D800E, Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar]
-
I feel the clarity is more in the pictures than the words in your case.
I love the pictures and I mentioned earlier that I consider them to be meditations on
what you call "small world dioramas"
this turtle being another great example
thank you
-
By definition, the words cannot but point to what I am talking about, so I agree. However, a careful reading should make sense, if only to a few.
-
My English is far from perfect, so correct me if I am wrong, but "seing is the seing itself with the resulting clarity of mind" suspiciously looks like a Mahamudra way of describing a common process of a concious developement of one's aestetic vision. ;)
-
My English is far from perfect, so correct me if I am wrong, but "seing yourself of the seing with the resulting clarity of mind" suspiciously looks like a Mahamudra way of describing a common process of a concious developement of one's aestetic vision. ;)
What is suspicious about what I wrote? You have heard, I imagine, of the book "Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance." This might well be "Zen and the Art of Photography," except I am not a Zen practitioner. However, I am a Mahamudra practitioner.
Well, the language here has to be exact, please. What I mean in that line is "The important “seeing” for me is the ‘seeing itself, the resulting clarity of the mind that arises through... etc. I should know better than to post anything that smells like meditation here, although combining photography as a meditative discipline seems to me to be very understandable. Certainly, some one reader or so will understand what I write about here and we could discuss this.
-
OK, let me rephrase.
"Seeing itself, the resulting clarity of the mind that arises through the sometimes tedious process of stacking photos or whatever" does sound to me like your way of describing a process of a concious developement of one's aestetic vision.
-
OK, let me rephrase.
"Seeing itself, the resulting clarity of the mind that arises through the sometimes tedious process of stacking photos or whatever" does sound to me like your way of describing a process of a concious developement of one's aestetic vision.
Well, it is my way. That's how I wrote it. The reason I wrote it is to discuss what I wrote and to see if others did anything similar? :) Do you have a similar experience?
-
I feel you said it much better in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7aVAVFYFaE#t=255
-
dont try to see ;D
-
I am always interested to hear any given photographer's aesthetic philosophy, if they have one.
Thank you for sharing.
-
as Fons says, do not try to see, and then I see potential images all the time
then if I have my camera on my hand and I try to see my mind will block until I relax enough
-
While i lack skills in the English language to understand the subtlety of parts of what you write, it seems to me you're writing about the way one is "feeling" (you call it "Seeing") the subject of your photography (nature as you call it) through the process of photography.
I understand, and share, that it is not through photographs, but through the process of looking at subjects. And each time you look at subjects, you look at them with the experience of having looked at them previously (or any subject really).
Coincidentally, over my holidays, i've been reading Rowell's "Inner game of outdoor photography" where he describes, in part, a similar process (perhaps the same) as you're describing above. I found that really interesting, as it seems i'm getting old enough to understand such things. Therefor, if i'm interpreting your writing right, it is also what i'm experiencing myself.
Obviously, where you are indeed creating much better results (whether it is what you aim for or not), my results are mediocre at best.
Anyhow, this process also mandates that i keep keeping at it, so that may improve in future.
I did enjoy your post !
-
While i lack skills in the English language to understand the subtlety of parts of what you write, it seems to me you're writing about the way one is "feeling" (you call it "Seeing") the subject of your photography (nature as you call it) through the process of photography.
Thanks for actually addressing the content of the post. I have not read any of Galen Rowell’s work, but I will make a point of doing so.
Words don’t express what is, as they say, beyond elaboration or description.
I would not characterize what I was pointing out as having anything to do with “feeling,” but it just may be semantics. My point in the post was, without going through it all again, that while looking outwardly at the subject of the photograph, we can simultaneously also look inward at the mind itself and rest in the clarity of the actual nature of the mind. That is a different kind of “seeing,” and in fact is probably the main reason I shoot photos at all. And…I wonder if that inner “seeing” is in any way captured or rubs off on the resulting photo.
I thought it would be nice to talk about that seeing… some.
Nikon D810, Zeiss Otus 55mm APO, Zerene Stacker
-
While you are in the telling mode, like you seem to be in your videos, I have now seen quite some of, I feel you better.
A key for me to understand your world view was that you tell about your empty walls, that the process of picture making is the essence for you not the final outcome. That is why you do not hang pictures to your wall.
PS: Equipment wise I have some questions after watching your videos. Where is the best place to put them?
Esp. I am looking for a way to mount my Schneider 120mm APO Digitar (year 2012 with 15cm image circle at f=11 at infinity as well as 1:1, now in Copal 0 on a Sinar plate) to my Nikons other that my beloved studio set up (sinar p2). A light weight yet sturdy field mono rail that fits into a backpack, is quite inert to weather and lets me take all the resolving power and movements of this exceptional lens to the outside world.
-
Thanks for actually addressing the content of the post. ...
No worries, i am also just trying to reflect on my photography. What you write prompts me to do that. Thanks for that.
... I would not characterize what I was pointing out as having anything to do with “feeling,” but it just may be semantics. My point in the post was, without going through it all again, that while looking outwardly at the subject of the photograph, we can simultaneously also look inward at the mind itself and rest in the clarity of the actual nature of the mind. That is a different kind of “seeing,” and in fact is probably the main reason I shoot photos at all. And…I wonder if that inner “seeing” is in any way captured or rubs off on the resulting photo. ...
It must be semantics, as well as my lacking English skills. I think what you elaborate on here is also what i mean. I used the word "feeling" to indicate the inner process, as opposed to "seeing" the outer process. Again, semantics.
If i mirror this to my job in IT (strangely enough that seems possible), i would actually call it envisioning. The process of coming to an inner view of solving all (potential) information related problems at once. This can never be resulting in a real IT solution, because such is live. However, it kind of gives me a similar feeling as the process you are describing here (and which i'm beginning to experience myself). I am not sure this makes sense ???
-
PS: Equipment wise I have some questions after watching your videos. Where is the best place to put them?
Put them here or somewhere as part of a post built around the subject, so others can answer too.
As for mounting the lens, I don't know. I would ask Dr Klaus Schmitt. He is who I ask and he knows his stuff.
-
HCS wrote: "If i mirror this to my job in IT (strangely enough that seems possible), i would actually call it envisioning. The process of coming to an inner view of solving all (potential) information related problems at once. This can never be resulting in a real IT solution, because such is live. However, it kind of gives me a similar feeling as the process you are describing here (and which i'm beginning to experience myself). I am not sure this makes sense ???"
I am a system programmer who migrated into database engineering and finally into content aggregation, where I stayed until I retired. There is synergy here, but definitely a semantic problem, but something more as well. When you have time, look through my own voyage of discovery of photography + mind-training in this free e-book called: “Mahamudra, A Story” at this link. Also in paperback on Amazon.com. Scroll upward to find the book.”
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Photography
What I am describing here is connected to what is called Insight Meditation which, combined with another meditation technique called Shamata Meditation produces Mahamudra Meditation, which is what I practice.
When we work at typical IT jobs (or very detailed photography!), where a LOT of concentration is required over long periods of time, we develop the basic mental-muscle needed to actually meditate, a type of meditation called Tranquility Meditation (Shamata). When that mental-muscle is combined with Insight Meditation, the “Seeing” I described in the earlier post CAN be the result, an extreme clarity of mind that allows us to do some pretty wonderful things.
When I teach this kind of meditation, I came up with this analogy, which might help: It is like trying to thread a small needle with very shaky hands. The concentrative Shamata-style meditation we can learn from IT takes the shakiness out of the hands, so that we can thread the needle (Insight Meditation). When I am doing photography, I am doing a form of Insight Meditation where I am looking at and focusing on whatever object I am photographing, yet at the same time allowing my mind to come to rest, not on the subject I am photographing, but rather on the nature of that subject, which is the same as the nature of the mind itself.
I admit, this is a very technical, for me way more difficult than the techniques of photography, but the two go together very well indeed! I imagine that many highly-skilled photographers are doing a form of meditation, but perhaps are not aware of it.
Nikon D810, Zeiss Otus 55mm APO, Zerene Stacker
-
Michael, you have a much, much better way with words!
I'm pretty sure i mean what you write, but can't write it like that.
By the way, in my IT job, i've moved past the concentration point, i'm an architect of sorts who needs to come to grips with the world around him to get to that solution. I've been doing this for about 5 years now and to me it's been a journey you describe for yourself and your photography every step of the way. The results i achieve are not what i'm after, but a better understanding of the "universe" around me.
Anyway, i'm not even remotely close in my photography, journey wise and result wise. That's no reason to stop though.
Thanks for the train of thoughts and i will check out your e-book some time.
-
“When words become unclear,
I shall focus with photographs.
When images become inadequate,
I shall be content with silence.”
- Ansel Adams
-
A long thread about a turtle photo... and as usual a great photo.
What I really don't like is seeing in the eyes (whatever the subject might be) the photo gear reflex... and this happens a lot. In fact it's one of the first things I search on such photos.
If one takes great care taken the photos why not correct that afterwards, or even better, during the session?
-
Pedro, I have seen many commercial portraits(Norman Seef's 1970's rock album covers come to mind) where the blatant octagon softbox showed in the eyes of the subject, and I always felt it was annoying and unnatural-looking.
However, to me, the reflection in the turtle's eye is more amorphous, and doesn't bother me. Also, I feel that removing it, would not be a major tragedy, it would be dishonest.