Cameras are not eyes

Eyes are not cameras. I’m not sure which way of saying that is best. Both are obviously accurate and, obviously, accurate.

To use a camera well, one must get in the habit of seeing the background and periphery of whatever one is focused on so that one can modify the view to preserve the image one wishes to record. Or one must be prepared to edit the photograph taken to remove the excess.

I am quite sure that professional and habitual photographers look at the world with different eyes than (many? most?). I’m not sure if that means their view/vision encompasses more or less than the eyes of those of us less camera oriented.

My eyes don’t notice the smudge on my window where a bird had a spasm and missed the feeder in its excitement. My camera does. My eyes don’t notice the screen in the window. My camera does. My eyes see the tree. My camera swallows the tree in the green behind it. Frankly, sometimes my eyes don’t see dust on a table until it’s changed the color of the paint.

Eyes as metaphor for Ego is easy. But, cameras are still Ego, just on a grander scale. And with a different Perspective.

One response to “Cameras are not eyes”

  1. nczine Avatar
    nczine

    I am often surprised by images recorded in the camera compared to what I originally thought I was capturing, things my brain didn’t record the way the camera did. It’s part of the fun of photography.

Leave a comment