visually impared photographers

This raises the question. How do we 'see' a picture? Is it a gift. Is it learned?

Take ten photographers and a single object. How many will see the same picture? How many will look beyond the obvious and see someting unique?

I ask the question because my dear wife can never see the same picture that I see.

I get the usual Oh! That's nice, dear! but the look on her face is telling me. What the heck is that all about.

Is it me, or is it herself that is not 'seeing' the picture.

And the there is the Gallery. Be honest! How many times have you thought just that. What the heck is that all about!

Help me out Pentaxians. Is it me? or is it the other person.

regards Thoramay.

nooooo.... you'll be asking "What is Art?" next...

Although I do know what the difference between "Craft" and "Art" is - its about 3 extra zero's on the price-tag...

I think Stefan and I exhausted the 'what is art' question some time ago, Flossie.
I am interested in whether Forum members feel that 'seeing' a picture is a gift or is taught.

I have lost count of the number of magazines I have bought that boasted that they would make me a better photographer. I read the articles and just could not see what they were expounding.

Again! Is it me or them?

Thoramay.

It is learned, actually 70% or more off what you see is learned or a better word for it imagined.
The brain is incapable in processing all the information off what your eyes see so the brain make logical assumptions for what's normal so it's almost certain we all see something differently.

Does this answer your question?
I think not but it sounded interesting to write it down. ^^

I think what you're describing should actually be mentally-impaired photographers.

I'm sure all the thousands of genuinely visually-impaired photographers on Flickr and elsewhere could do without the insinuation that they do not have the gift of 'seeing' a picture.

The insinuation is within you Tim. Nothing I have said has the slightest insinuation towards anyone. Your comment, obviously well meant, is not helpful, but you are entitled to think as you wish.

Why do I see a different picture from other photographers? Why do other photographers see a different picture than I do.

It is a constant point of discussion at every one of our photo club comps. There has to be an explanation. I would be interested in your explanation.

regards thoramay.

Similarly the Brain is also very good at photoshop.

A few years ago I spent some time groveling around in the grass with a Pentax 110, trying to get a particular wide angle shot of a building from low level. Eventually I was satisfied that I had the shot I wanted and moved on.

When the film came back I had got the angle right enough, but several very tall blades of grass ran right up the middle of the building in the extreme foreground. I could swear they were not there when I framed the shot, but clearly they must have been. Unfortunately my concious mind is not as good at photoshop as my subconcious, and I was unable to save the shot.


In another example, my Gran has a blind spot caused by a blood clot in her retina years ago. She tells me that when it first happened it was very annoying, but that now she never notices it except when she is somewhere she hasn't been before, her brain doesn't know what to fill in into the blank.

If you want to see how your brain fills missing things and fails to spot the blindingly obvious - have a read of this article and try the three video tests...

You have titled the thread "visually impaired photographers". What you're talking about has nothing to do with people being visually impaired, it has to do with creativity.

Robbie.
Read my first comment. I am talking about 'seeing' a picture and how my wife does not 'see' what I can see. In a sense a visual impairment.



I had hoped that the connection would be made between this and my heading and the previous threads where this subject was discussed. I am not talking about phisically impaired

Stefan had no problems with this and neither did Mongoose.

Now!! Mentally impaired. That is hard to take, but it is how Tim sees it and that is his right.

There will be those who do not 'see' it as I 'see' it. That is their right.

You obviously feel the need to take issue and that is your right.

We clearly have a different thinking pattern that has raised itself before. Lets not go down that road again, Robbie, Please

Thoramay

Flossie.
An interesting one. I can never see that my wife has had a hair do, yet! Let someone move something in my garden and I notice it instantly.

Funny people, we are.

Thoramay.

Thoramay,

I was merely pointing out why I thought Tim (quite reasonably) had made his post. The one which you took such exception to.

Yet it is me you decide to aim your displeasure at, whilst everyone else, it seems, is allowed to have their own opinion.

Oh well, it seems you're up to your old tricks.

It is true that the expression "visually impaired" already has a widely accepted specific meaning: i.e. experiencing an impairment in the functioning of the physical organs of vision (what was, in pre-politicaly correct times, simply called "blindness").

So, on reading the title to the thread, I too expected to read something about "blind" photographers and prints in Braile.

However, on realizing my error, I was quite happy to overlook thoramay's way of putting it and just got on with reading his main message, which was that different onlookers perceive or "see" things differently, as exemplified in the old saying: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Visual literacy / illiteracy are less ambiguous terms for what Thoramay is talking about, I think. But back to the subject, and I agree that these skills are mainly absorbed through our culture, as well as individuals having more or less innate ability.

Visual literacy can be learned, practised and developed, but a spark of natural talent always helps.