Metaphorically Photogenic

“A picture is worth a thousand words.” - unknown

Photography, at least in the way I would describe my interest in it, is:  the art of capturing life in specific, single images; freezing a single moment in time and preserving that moment to be shared to various audiences. 

But there is so more to a photo, and photography, than the art of a series of frozen single moments. 

Photography for me has been a hobby since I was in my teens. Over the years, I “dabbled” in film photography but financially, I wasn’t able to really develop this hobby, until digital photography took a serious hold on society. The ability of learning by “trial-and-error” was made much easier when I was able to just delete “not-so-good” shots, instead of “wasting film”. I’ve never taken a photography class, either at a college level or at a community level, but as I started taking more pictures, I’ve purchased a few how-to books which have definitely helped me learn different techniques and “things I can do to get the results that I picture in my mind.” So, my explanations below are at best somewhat technically inaccurate. SPOILER ALERT:  I’m headed towards a bigger point than a high-level photography lesson.

Within photography, there are always two vantage points…the vantage point of the photographer, and the vantage point of the viewer. What the photographer sees, or even attempts to portray, may be completely different than what one viewer sees, which may be completely different still from what another viewer sees. And in terms of these various vantage points, there is not a single right or wrong answer. 

The first obvious concept in photography is focus. Pretty self-explanatory; it’s whether the subject is sharply in focus or intentionally left to be a little blurred. There are some instances where an intentional blur may drive a desired effect, such as attempting to show motion. The classic picture of a horse running looks different if the horse itself appears a little blurred…as in, too fast for the picture.  

The next concept in photography is perspective. For example, many people, including myself, have a natural tendency to center their subject in the photo; whether it's the horizon in a landscape photos, or a person in a portrait. But, by moving your subject slightly left, or right, or up, or down, can produce a photo that is significantly different than a perfectly centered photo.    a compelling photograph tends to NOT be perfectly centered.

Once those two concepts are conceptualized, there are a handful of settings on a camera that have an impact on what the final photo will be. These settings (again in my non-technical translation) are:

• Aperture:  Adjustment of the size of the lens opening, which controls the amount of light passing through the lens. Aperture effects depth-of-field; generally how much the background is in- or out-of-focus
• Shutter Speed:  this is how long the lens stays open when taking a picture. If the camera takes a picture in a split second, more movement is frozen. But the longer the lens is open, the more that movement appears blurred.
• ISO:  generally sensitivity to light; helps control how bright or how dark a photo turns out.
• Type of lens (normal, long focus, wide angle, telephoto, macro, fisheye, or zoom) helps to determine how much of a view can be seen in a single photo.
• Filters placed near the lens, either in front of or behind the lens, can also help control the clarity and brightness, or even tint, of a photo.

The process of taking a photo involves analyzing, or following instinctively, all of those factors above:  vantage points, focus, the size of the lens opening, the speed or quickness of the shot, the sensitivity of the camera, the type of lens, and the filters used. A single subject, by change those above factors, could be represented in several widely different photos, each telling a different story from both the photographer’s point-of-view and the viewer’s point-of-view.

But what if I take the above, and I replace the subject with another noun – a person, place, or thing? Whether it’s a concrete noun or an abstract noun?  And what if I substitute the camera with my mind? For example, how do I view a person in terms of:

• ...my vantage point?
• ...their vantage point?
• ...how in focus that person is to me (abstractly speaking)?
• ...my mental aperture; how open my mind (lens) is, and what my depth-of-field is:  am I seeing the forest through the trees?
• ...my mental shutter speed; how quickly do I snap to a conclusion (freezing an assumption in time vs. letting assumptions blur over a longer period of time)?
• ...my ISO; how sensitive am I in this situation?
• ...my type of lens; am I able to only see the tip of the iceberg, or what’s under the surface?
• ...my filters; am I applying any filters? Should I apply any filters?

The photography books that I read all make this same general statement:  photography isn't about quickly taking a picture as you first see it.  Have fun; experiment; change your settings; make mistakes; try different angles; adjust your sensitivity; use different filters; think about unusual vantage points; etc...  There are no rules - the results you get may be surprisingly beautiful.

And isn't this the same in us, as people, when thinking about people, places, things, concepts, and the biggest noun of all - life?   Having fun; experimenting; changing your settings; making mistakes; trying different angles; adjusting your sensitivity; using different filters; thinking about unusual vantage points; etc...?  

There are no rules - the results you get may be surprisingly beautiful.

“Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.” – Oscar Wilde, Irish Poet, Novelist, Dramatist and Critic, 1854-1900