In my opinion, a bridge exists between the heart and the head in photography, just as it does in many other areas of life. I use “bridge” rather than a word like “battle” because they aren’t really at odds with each other. They’re just two parts of the photographic process.
In other words, the decisions you make every time you take a picture range from spontaneous (the heart) to meticulously planned (the head). Both are important if you want to take powerful photos.
Table of Contents
The Heart
As a photographer, some objects you see in the world will interest you more than others. Which ones? That depends on you. No two people will have the same answer.
Often, this is subconscious anyway – having something draw your attention. (I even considered calling this article “Photography from the Subconscious and Conscious,” but it didn’t have the same ring.) You’re walking along with a camera, and a subject catches your eye. You’ve taken a photo before you know it.
That’s all heart. Heart is the broad stroke of photography – the inspiration, whatever it was, that led you to take a picture in the first place.
The Head
The other side of photography involves conscious decision-making. The most obvious example is picking your camera settings, which requires at least some level of thought in order to do properly.
But there’s more to it than that. My mantra in photography is simple: ask questions. Look at the scene in front of you and make certain that you’re capturing it as well as possible. Are your camera settings optimal? Is your composition balanced? Do you even want a balanced composition in the first place? Why?
These decisions are part of the head. It’s the detail-oriented side of photography – turning your inspiration into a tangible, successful photo.
Which One Should You Work On?
As I said at the beginning of this article, heart and head in photography are not at odds with one another. The situation isn’t, “my heart wanted the photo to look one way, even though my head told me it was a bad idea.” It’s more, “my heart liked this subject, and my head figured out how to photograph it.”
In other words, you should try to improve both. Improvement in one does not come at the expense of the other.
Here are some signs that you should develop the heart/subconscious side of photography:
- You feel like you need to be in an amazing location to find good subjects
- You inadvertently skip over good subjects and only realize it later
And some signs that you should develop the head/conscious side of photography:
- You need to delete photos for image quality reasons
- You realize how you should have composed a photo only when you’re back at your computer
- You don’t have an end goal in post-processing and catch yourself just pushing sliders around
- The first photo you take of a subject is the best, rather than a steady improvement as you refine things in the field (aside from cases where conditions out of your control get obviously worse, like a rainbow fading)
If any of these sound like they describe your photography, don’t despair. To varying degrees, I think most of them apply to every photographer out there. And knowing what you need to fix is an important step in actually fixing it.
How to Improve Both Types of Decisions
Almost every tutorial you read or watch about photography will focus on the conscious side of things – the head. That’s because those are actually possible to teach. Whether it’s a post-processing walkthrough, camera setting recommendations, or composition tips, there’s usually a takeaway that you’re meant to remember in the future. And a takeaway is the sort of thing that appeals to the head.
Be aware that “the head” does not mean “emotionless.” Instead, “the head” is just about making conscious decisions – and would anyone argue that you can’t make conscious decisions about emotion? If you decide, for example, on a centralized composition because you like the power it gives your subject, that’s a decision of the head. I’d even argue, as I have in the past, that conscious decision-making is the key to creative photography – because it’s the sort of thing you can control, and it’s the easiest way to root out issues with your photo’s initial appearance.
If you need to work on decisions of the head, I recommend reading or watching tutorials about photography whenever possible. Try to figure out what skills you need to work on (hint: what are the 2-3 most common reasons you have to delete a photo?) and find a some good books or articles that cover those topics.
As for the “heart” side of things, that’s trickier. Do you want better subjects to catch your eye? Then, somehow, you need to improve the spontaneous, unconscious process of what draws your attention. It’s akin to improving what you like. No wonder there’s not much written about it.
But that doesn’t make it impossible. Personally, I think the best way to improve “the heart” is to consume a wide variety of art of all different media. Everything from music to books to sculpture, definitely not just photography. Some you’ll like, and some you won’t. You’ll develop subconscious preferences and tastes along the way, which I firmly believe carry over when you practice photography in the real world.
On top of that, take some time to really look at your best photos. Also, look at the photos you’ve taken that don’t work well, even (or especially) if you got all the technical things right but still don’t like them. There’s no deeper thing you should do here besides taking it all in. You’re just trying to internalize a sense of what works and what doesn’t, in hopes of improving the “caught your eye” mechanism that goes on behind the scenes.
Lastly, the one way I know to improve both the heart and the head simultaneously is practice. The more pictures you take, the better you’ll get at every type of decision-making in photography, whether conscious or spontaneous.
Examples
To make it clear what I mean by heart and head, and where each starts to apply, I want to show a few examples. This is a bit similar to what I covered in my article on the refining process, but in this case I want to pinpoint where heart and head come into play.
We’ll start with a basic example. I noticed some interesting wires on a building during our UAE/Jordan workshop and immediately took a picture. This is as close as you can get to my initial, subconscious impression – i.e., heart:
It didn’t take much prompting for me to envision this subject as a sci-fi alien stranded in the desert, and I wanted to capture that essence as best I could. Anything that took away from that message or gave a sense of normalcy had to go, especially the distractions on the left and right. So, I made some conscious decisions (head) in hopes of improving my composition, which led to this second version:
Finally, in post-processing, I wanted to make the photo look more lively – which, by extension, hopefully would make the wires look more alive. To me, the original colors are too muted, as is the case with most RAW photos. I decided (head) which sliders would give me the proper look, and I adjusted them accordingly. Post-processing is nearly always based on conscious decisions, and this was no exception:
The next example has a similar story. I was taking telephoto cityscape pictures and trying to settle on a good subject for long exposures. The following pattern of roads stood out to me, so I took an initial photo without too much thought about perfecting my composition. It’s more heart than head:
I realized (consciously) a few things that needed attention. First, the photo is imbalanced; too much attention is on the brighter left-hand side, which doesn’t work for my smooth and tranquil message. Second, the left-hand edge is distracting anyway, with a lot of circular shapes that can draw away the eye.
But most importantly, I realized that the dark bridge in the center of the photo was actually a set of metro tracks.
So, in addition to the smaller refinements of the composition itself, I felt a moment of excitement at the possibility of capturing trails of light from the train as it passed by.
A lot of times, the conscious side of photography is about making small refinements to your composition. But, sometimes, it plays a bigger role. Maybe you have a moment of inspiration (heart) to take a certain still-life photo in the studio; then, you spend hours on end meticulously constructing the entire photo from the ground up (head). My situation this time wasn’t that dramatic, but the additional lights on the bridge really do help bring the photo together:
And then, like before, I made conscious post-processing decisions (head) to improve this photo, mainly just brightening the picture quite a bit and correcting the green color cast:
Another example that fits well in this “head and heart” framework is my attempt to photograph a camel with a shallow depth of field. On this same workshop, our group passed some camels while driving through the Liwa Desert in Abu Dhabi. We stopped and rolled down the window, while one camel turned its head toward our car with an expression of curiosity. I didn’t have any time to think and just captured a quick shot (heart) that stood out to me as a fun image:
But because of how quickly it happened, I didn’t have any time to take more photos and refine things like my focus point or composition. Still, I kept this photo in the back of my mind, and later that day I got a chance to capture something similar. Because I had been thinking throughout the day (head) how to improve the picture, I was prepared:
The second time, I had a wider lens and stood closer to the camel to exaggerate its features. I focused on the camel’s mouth rather than the eyes in order to capture what seemed to be a smile. I still kept the shallow depth of field of the original, but I think the new version is better (in part because of the brighter and more cheerful background). With some deliberate post-processing to brighten the photo, crop it a bit, and add some vibrance, my final image looks like this:
The last example I’ll give is a bit different. I saw an awesome window and staircase in the ancient city of Jerash in Jordan, and I knew immediately that I wanted a vertical, black-and-white image of it. Here’s my first attempt, which was mostly a product of heart, but also involved some conscious refinements in order to straighten the composition properly:
I knew next that I needed to take an HDR in order to get detail in the bright region of the photo, so I kept that composition and took a series of additional photos. That was just a technical decision, entirely head rather than heart. The completed HDR looks like this:
I made some additional post-processing decisions to refine the photo, including more highlight recovery and a bit of dehaze boost to sharpen up the textures. Again, all those decisions were head rather than heart:
And then my final step was to convert the photo to black and white. You might think this was another head-based decision, but I’d argue it was more about heart. That’s because, as I mentioned a moment ago, I wanted from the start to take a black and white photo of this scene. Unlike some photos where I debate about converting to B&W or not (a head-based decision), this photo was never a color image to me. And so I finished by converting the photo to match my original, spontaneous impression:
Final Thoughts
Keep in mind that “heart and head” is a just a framework. It’s a simplified lens through which you can see the world of photography – a useful analogy, but not a perfect description. Sometimes other factors play a role in your photos, like luck or accidents, which don’t fall neatly into either box.
Nevertheless, I think it’s helpful to see decisions in photography through this framework. Successful photography involves making choices – many of which are with your head, except for that crucial moment when you notice something and are inspired to take a picture in the first place.
This conscious-vs-subconscious debate has lurked behind the scenes in many of our previous articles and discussions on composition, so I’m happy to finally put my thoughts down into words. Hopefully this article helped you figure out which side of photography you need to work on and how to go about doing that. If you have any questions or comments about the article, let me know below!
Good article,
I would like to mention my two favorite masters and their thinking on the subject:
-There no rules for good photography.There are just good photographs.
Ansel Adams
– It’s an illusion that photos are made with the camera. They are made with the eye,heart and
head.
Henry Cartier Bresson
Thank you for your article
Walter
Good article exploring two key areas. I’d suggest most fail to invest enough in head activity to be able to share/capture/communicate their heart on the subject.
In my world (wildlife) the key is to learn and practice – learn and practice. It’s much like top tier athletics – practice is about training the brain and body in best practice patterns, so that when it’s time to perform, the body/brain does what it’s been trained to do. In my experience, in the early days, I was overwhelmed with all the stuff (head) to think about. With some genres, there are many more of these kinds of things to learn. Learning to MASTER ALL the gear and settings that are relevant to your genre is a journey that will require plenty of practice in the field.
We have to make a side trip, though, here. Peoples interest in head/heart development is quite varied, and occasionally influenced by budget – though I would observe that the greater the heart, the more dedicated to heart and communicating the best you can with what you have, regardless of budget. I rarely meet people limited by their gear.
At the end of the day, I think the wise will understand their own heart and head and choose accordingly – without expecting others to do the same. It’s taken me years to come to this conclusion. I have shot wildlife all over the US and on a few other continents and most of the time people ignore common best practices for wildlife photography – even if they have heavy investment in top tier gear – because they can afford it. Improving the photographer (head) requires a lot more humility and work, so can be the toughest to work on. And many have been plain to me, to do so would make photography no fun for them. I’m the opposite – developing every element possible is the fun for me, leading to the payoff of an image that is the result of that investment.
I think you really hit on a key point on your last bullet item – if your first shot is the best. That is rarely the case for me, unless it’s high action that I have been observing for awhile and planned for the capture. It’s far more fun when I get to really work a critter/group/scene and as I study the subject/background and what light is doing in it, that is the most fun and usually gives me time to connect heart and head.
For me, I grow the most by reading/watching the work of photographers whose results I really respect – in Nat Geo, etc. The final point I would make is that when both heart and head mature, it births vision for the images that you want and can capture. Before that, most images are “me-too” images copying what we have seen others do. The real reward is when you get the chance to capture something in a way that reflects your experience of that subject in a way that no part of the gear is in the way of the capture – as a result of knowing how to tweak every element of that gear.
Good topic!
Thanks for adding this!
I agree – a big part of the fun of photography for me is trying to learn and master the background knowledge, then apply it successfully to capture a good photo.
Wildlife photography is a completely different ballgame from landscapes, no doubt. Although I do some macro photography, even those skills wouldn’t mesh well with wildlife photography without a lot of practice. It’s almost like a separate sport, with different instincts and mindsets depending on the subject.
Another great article Spencer! My professional background was in music and I love exploring photography as an amateur. I’m convinced that any art form, whether visual or aural, needs to make an emotional impact above all else. I’ve gone to concerts and read detailed explanations about what a composer was trying to convey with a composition and after listening to the piece, I was left stone cold. That is especially true for me with abstract contemporary music. I respond to visual art, which of course includes photography, in much the same way. I’m sure by the “head” you were referring to the technical expertise necessary to execute what your heart is telling you to do. I love getting the technical advice and thoughts on photography that you and Nasim provide! Thank you very much.
Mr. Francis, I think that you have said it best. The head provides the technical expertise necessary to execute what your heart is telling you to do. Perfect!
Absolutely correct, Elaine and Dan! And the emotional impact is at the center of everything. If that’s not there, it is much harder to find good subjects, let alone convey them in a meaningful way.
What a potentially deep, wonderful topic Spencer. The way this resonates with me, without thinking much about it, as a non-creative amateur photographer who enjoys landscapes, countryside architecture, and portraits of my kids, is by noticing the following questions appear: Do I notice love? How? Do I need to “capture” it? Short of being able to capture it (I don’t know how), can I identify its sender or its inducing trigger? How do I capture it? (and as an added bonus: do I get to play with cool toys in the process?)
What a delight to read an article who places our humanity at center. Thank you Spencer.
Thank you, Fabrice! The process you describe, of asking yourself questions, is such an important part of photography (whether it happens consciously or not). I am glad you enjoyed the article.
That final bridge image is superb!
Much appreciated, Michael! I was very happy with how that one turned out.
As Jan already said, “It just would not work at all if one of both is missing (to take powerful photos).” In my experience, head is always trying to find reasons why stomach or guts want to do something. And we’re giving this brain work too much of importance. In fact, there are much more nerves around the belly than around the heart. Logic and emotion are also two “opponents” but humans always need both, generally.
My brains at best can help to make my emotions become a picture. But a lot of the brains routine can be replaced by sort of intelligent automatisms, or call it algorithms in the cameras, which become more and more computing devices.
For standard situations a camera owner really only needs intuition to get a good picture. For a better picture one needs to be aware of why a picture is making a better or deeper impact – which includes breaking with viewing habits. Some of us will analyse and still only get technically very good pictures, which often lack of emotional intelligence, others are technical idiots but have a super powerful intuition.
It’s a good moment to stop and think why I’d like to take the effort and make the picture – but without understanding how I transform my emotions into a frame, I can wait forever and it will not materialize.
I think that’s exactly right – when you said “For standard situations a camera owner really only needs intuition to get a good picture. For a better picture one needs to be aware of why a picture is making a better or deeper impact.”
A lot of the photos I take on my phone are cheap “throwaway” photos, but even then I’ve noticed they’ve gotten better on average as I’ve learned more about photography over time. But I don’t put any real thought into those pictures, and probably as a result, none of them are especially good. With the same level of thought and care as I put into my “serious” photos, I’m certain they would improve.
“…the decisions you make every time you take a picture range from spontaneous (the heart) to meticulously planned (the head).”
I think it is not quite correct. Decision making (always) follows the pattern: feeling, thinking, feeling, acting. The limbic system of the brain has always the last word before we act. You cannot skip one of those steps. But you can repeat the thinking and feeling. The more educated and experienced one is, the quicker one goes through the above process. (And if you are a total beginner, you do not have much to think about and are quick too).
Planning has not much to do with the actual process of taking a picture. It is just a preparation as was the whole period while one learned the necessary skills.
“Both [head, heart] are important if you want to take powerful photos.”
It just would not work at all if one of both is missing (to take powerful photos).
Your first example with the wires is not one but rather two different acts of taking this subject’s photo. The second time you “took” the photo was when you cropped it heavily. The post processing already belongs to the second step “thinking” and is only executed afterwards (remember: experience and education).
With the other two examples it is the same: feeling, thinking, feeling, acting (heart, head, heart, press the shutterbutton) is not described here. You call post processing as head and the actual taking the picture (here) as heart. Ideally is should have gone like this:
Feeling: You see the window and the staircase and the interesting light and get an urge to take a picture of the scenery.
Thinking: You know you can’t really get the whole dynamic range, colours are less important than light, therefore b/w. You adjust your camera accordingly. You compose the image, look for line, patterns, masses… You got your frame.
Feeling: Is the framing and composing good, yes? -> Act. no? -> Think again.
And in post you just do what you already knew what you would do. If you do more, you are back in the “feeling, thinking, feeling, acting” pattern. A new(!) process starts.
Thanks for the inspiration, Spencer. Cheers! -jan
Thank you, Jan! That’s an excellent point – it’s not always just having an urge to take some picture, followed by thinking about how to implement it. There are more “feeling” steps afterward when you get the sense whether or not your photo worked, and go from there.
I’d still say that “feelings” or “impressions” do not necessarily need to happen in the heart instead of the head. Maybe that’s evidence of a weakness in the heart/head terminology. But sometimes I’ve thought to myself, “hm, is this photo good? Maybe not – I’m aiming for a sense of peacefulness, but my first composition has an imbalance of interest to the right, so I should do something to balance it more.” Same if you need to take a stock photo of a stapler or something, and you have a specific set of criteria you’re trying to meet. Figuring out whether you’ve met them can be a conscious, checklist-like process much more than a gut-based (subconscious/heart) impression.
But you’ve convinced me – feeling, thinking, feeling, thinking is a better description overall than heart vs head, because it isn’t ambiguous in these situations, and allows more flexibility in the order the steps occur. I’m very glad you added this!
Thank you as well. Feeling is the key expression here. We would have to define where the line or the area is where feeling is distinguished from thinking, but I do not have this knowledge and I doubt there is anyone. But we for sure know that the overlapping between feeling and think is enormeous and and there is a heavy interacting. So even a description like feeling, thinking, feeling, acting is not really correct.
And after all, the “heart” is not a wrong description. Tell it guts or stomach and it is more correct. There are masses of neurons in this area (more than in the heads of most animals). And we all know about the feelings created there when our mind realizes certain situations (happyness, sadness, nervousness).
I did not want to say the head-heart concept is wrong. It is just not quite correct. It justs starts and ends with “heart”.
And yes, you are right, some depend more on feelings, some more on thinking. Or sometimes you yourself does one more than the other.
It is getting interesting, when you cannot escape the circle feeling, thinking, feeling. You never get to a decisive action (if you take action anyway you are uncertain, if it was the correct one). That happens e.g. if there is not enough skill or if there is not enough time.
In the end it leads to the same: The more you learned, the more experience and practice you have, the easier is the process of making a decision and, probably, the better decisions yo do.
The world is broad, there are as many ways to think as there are people there.
I love that Spencer started this discussion.
Jan, I agree with your perspectives. My view is that As more photographers and people gain a deeper understanding of how the heart and mind works the world will be a better place. During COVID-19 we’re getting glimpses of that as people are separated some are actually experiencing more connection then ever.
I agree that I would need to continue improving the technical part of my photography. I just love to take photographs and I always shoot from the heart.
I use The free heart tools and techniques offered by HeartMath.org/HME to keep me grounded, manage my vanities and stay in the flow when I’m taking a photograph.
There’s also fascinating underpants research psychophysiological balance.
In Chinese philosophy, I think there’s only one word for heart and mind.
The heart sends more signals to the brain then the other way around. In the end I understand it’s a joint venture.
Lots of compassion and love for all of us during these turbulent times.
Take care, Dan @heartthing13
great article Spencer! Thank you.
Sure thing, Danny! Glad you liked it.
Nice article. I think it’s something all photographers struggle with. These are some of the steps we need to improve. Your comment on practice is so true, I just finished a book by Dan Bailey, and one of the key points he tried to hammer in is “your best photographs are the result of one thing, making an effort to get out and shoot.” Thanks for an interesting post.
Thanks, Mark! Looks like Dan worded it a bit differently but has the same message. It’s a good one! We can’t improve without practice.