civilized ku # 188 ~ the periphery
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 08:42AM 
The new Cooper Union ~ NYC • click to embiggenIt has been suggested by "j" that I do not practice what I preach real-wise.
"j" bases this assertation upon the notion of the vignetting that is evidenced in my picture corners - that this an interpretation that does not meet a reality test. "j" asks ...
Does normal human vision have dark/black edges?
... to which I would answer, "yes" because ...
Our eyes do not make very good images. They only have reasonable resolution in the center of the visual field; and this part must be projected onto the only area of the retina that has good resolving power, namely the fovea centralis. Our vision relies on a coordinated system of extraocular muscles to orient our eyes and to direct our focus on points of interest.
Now, if "j" want to split hairs, I will readily admit that I really can't say how dark and out of focus the edges of our visual field are. The only thing I can state with certainty - from my own vision and that of vision science - is that human vision is "vignetted" at the "edges".
And, the other thing that I can state is that my vignetting does, in fact, mimic / represent how the human eye / vision works - that what I am presenting is reality based - human visions focuses (literally and figuratively) on what is centered in our field of view. That characteristic of human vision applies to the viewing of pictures as well. Even when viewing a 4×6 inch print the eye must scan the surface of the print to take it all in in focus.
Some humans have managed by "training" to be able to distinguish things in the periphery of their vision much more acutely than the rest of us. But this ability is the exception, not the rule.
A great read that includes this idea is the book, A Sense of Where You Are, by John McPhee. The book is about the great basketball player, Bill Bradley. Bradley had an extraordinary sense of where he was and what was going on around him on a basketball court. He attributed this ability to his childhood habit of walking down the street and seeing / reading things in store windows by means of his peripheral vision - a technique he used to "train" his eye.
In any event, I am interpreting nothing with my vignetting. I am merely representing how the human eye sees.
Reader Comments (5)
Some humans have managed by "training" to be able to distinguish things in the periphery of their vision much more acutely than the rest of us. But this ability is the exception, not the rule.
To be fair, you sort of undermine your whole argument by admitting this (not that anybody could deny it in the first place). It's either reality or it isn't, no? Here, you've clearly stated that your processing isn't in fact some Objective Truth or Reality. Hence, it's an "interpretation" of reality.
Now I can undermine my argument by conceeding that it isn't strictly an "interpretation" in the sense someone uses to describe, for instance, Impressionist painters--since it closely resembles what many people (not all) see most (not all) of the time--but you've been splitting hairs about what Is and Isn't Reality in your posts, which really isn't something you can do with serious objectivity.
I've excerpted a bit from the Wikipedia entry for Peter Henry Emerson, a British photographer of the late 1800s.
"Emerson also believed that the photograph should be a true representation of that which the eye saw. This led him to produce one area of sharp focus in his pictures the remainder being unsharp. This he believed mimicked the eye's way of seeing. The effect was for a picture that remains up-to-date when compared to the constructed all over sharp production a la Robinson school. This was an argument he pursued vehemently and to the discomfort of the photographic establishment."
I saw a few months ago another explanation of his reasoning, which makes it clear that he felt that the eye sees only a central area of focus, with the rest of the field of vision being unfocused and darkened, as in the method of vignetting that Mark (and I) use. Can't recall where that was, but it certainly jibes with my own thinking before I read it.
Here is where I read a better explanation and background for his thinking.
The Life and Work of Dr. P. H. Emerson
Hey Mark,
I would post the links but anyone with a computer and Google can quickly find that everyone from virtual reality researchers to scientist doing studies for corporations who want to know how workers process visual information to scientist doing safety studies on automobile drivers all describe the useful field of view of human beings as being horizontal. Does perception fall off. Yes.... but nothing like you represent with your square. Human beings scan scenes(combining FOV with brain functions) as many as 50 times a second to build a perception of reality. This is an unconscious process. In other words you don't think to do it. It happens. Just like breathing in your sleep.
There is a reason based in reality that the most money rich culture on the planet that creates visual media (Hollywood) presents its finished product for viewing in some form of a panorama. If you really want to keep it real then I would say Aaron has one up on you here.
Ultimately I could care less because I have never taken much of your writing, when you get on the truth sayer, reality preacher stump, very seriously (understatement for all time). You have attacked enough straw men here to make me think you might have an issue with oats, wheat and barley.
I take your passion and many of your pictures very seriously along with your push to encourage people to go for a more documentary approach but to me most of the rest of this is what you use to draw a crowd and its not surprising to see it involves the very drama you rail against in photography. Trying to get completely away from drama as a storyteller will be quite difficult as evidenced by the totality of your work here (writing plus pictures).
While I am at it are you ever frustrated by the lack of direct feedback about your work. Its almost non existent. For instance...todays picture to me is very beautiful. I love it. But it seems people have been trained not to like your work at the level of beauty and all of the angry posts could definitely dissuade a gentle reader from taking an opposing view. If I'm not supposed to think its beautiful and I am afraid to disagree where do I turn. You say questions are your favorite form of feedback... so when is the last time someone asked you a direct question about one of your photographs ?
What role do you think you have played in creating a photoblog where their is almost no direct discussion of the individual photographs? ...Craig
Where is the blind spot Mark?
""j" bases this assertation upon the notion of the vignetting that is evidenced in my picture corners -"
You forgot to mention the square format and how it's not reality either. ;)
Vignetting like the very real blind spot that all of ours eyes have is ignored (mental photoshoping) for the most part by our subconscious mind.
Your artistic vision is no more or less an interpretation of reality than the over amped color of the flikr-stazi. But interpretation of reality it is.
Now don’t get me wrong Mark I enjoy your work that’s why I’m here. But what really interests me is that you can line up yourself and all your readers and we will all view a scene differently. In a very real sense we will all see “ be conscious of” different elements of the scene while all mechanically “seeing” the same thing.
I'm interested in what you see and why.