Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Category: Artistic Process

What Is a Photograph?
I still see people agonizing over how much processing they are “allowed” to do on their photographs. But what is a photograph and what does it become if it is processed heavily?
Unique
Photography is rather unique among 2-dimensional art forms. Other forms like painting construct an image directly on the media. It is immediate and tactile. With photography, we usually capture the image whole and then indirectly manipulate the pixels. The final image is produced later.
The tools we have available now allow great freedom in the manipulation that can be done. So much so that some people cry foul and say, “too much, it’s not a photograph anymore.”
Is there a rule here, or are people just expressing their preferences?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Technology
In photography, we never actually touch our pixels, and usually not the media. Light is captured by a sensor or on film. It is digitized. Then we process it as data in our computer. Even when we view the resulting image on a screen or as a print, we still only indirectly see the result of our processing. A pixel, as a digital value, is almost imaginary. It cannot be seen or felt or weighed.
So, we must use a complex tool chain of technology to accomplish our results. Modern cameras are amazingly complex, with processing power that rivals computers of a few years ago. The digital files must be brought into our computer and processed with some of the available application software, depending on our preferences.
Even to view the image requires complex technology. Web browsers or other viewing software using high resolution monitors. Printers with sophisticated error diffusion algorithms, using multiple inks to construct a pleasing representation of what we created. To make a print, the pixels are “sprayed” on a media by a machine, not by our hand.
Even if you use film, it must be developed and printed. It is probably digitized. Then it goes into the technology chain I described above.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Core of reality
But despite the technology differences, a major factor is that traditional photography usually starts with a real scene. This, to me, is one of the great things about photography, but also a problem for many people. In normal practice, we do some corrections and tone changes, maybe remove some distractions. If we compare the result next to the original scene, nearly everyone would recognize that the photograph represents that scene.
Because of the history of the medium and the nature of the photographic process, many people imply a contract that a photograph must represent reality. Reality being what was actually in front of the camera at the moment of exposure.
If our artistic processing deviates too far from this implied contract, many people get offended. Or at least nervous and filled with doubt.
The question seems to revolve around whether the artist claims the image represent reality or it is art. If I see a photograph of a news event, I expect it to be showing reality. Sure, the exposure could be corrected, and a few very minor distractions could be cloned out. But these changes must not alter the substance of what the image is showing. If a news outlet uses an image that is altered to significantly change the scene, or is created by AI, they will lose all credibility with me. I will never trust them again.
But to me, art has completely different standards. I can’t help what viewers assume, but I can control my intent.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Painting
Let’s contrast this to painting. I believe the same standards exist, but to a lesser degree. If a painting claims to show reality, it must do so. Otherwise, it is art and it can do whatever it wants. But few people expect a painting to represent a scene in exact detail.
Did you know that some portraits of Abraham Lincoln were somewhat false? He was a notoriously homely man. Some portraits softened his features to make him look better. That seems a gray area. Not a faithful representation but not entirely lying.
At the other extreme are the paintings of Albert Bierstadt. He was a romantic artist of the 19th century who glorified the American west. I have been to some of the locations he painted, and I can attest that his images are complete fiction. But they were popular. In those days, very few people could visit those areas, so they believed his paintings as reality.
But the nature of a painting is that the artist starts with a blank canvas and uses a brush or a knife or a pencil to lay pigment on the substrate. It is hands on and considered to be creative. There is little criticism if the artist takes liberties or completely makes up the scene.
Even if you watch a painter working en plein air, the resulting image is seldom a faithful representation of the scene. They take whatever liberties they want to simplify, or eliminate distractions, or change it to be more interesting. It is recognized as being art.
I have never seen one criticized for not looking exactly like the original. People hold photographs to different standards. Even other photographers.
What is a photograph?
So, then, what is a photograph and why do we treat them differently?
I believe it is because many people have a model in their heads that paintings are creative works and can be anything the artist wants to do, but photographs are snapshots of reality and should stay that way. I believe this statement is too restrictive of photography as it exists today.
In the 19th century, when photography became popular, the technology was crude. Photographers could only capture black & white images of still subjects. So the marketing pitch was that they can capture reality in an instant.
We have come a long way. The technology has far fewer limitations. Very high speed or very long exposures can freeze or express movement. Dynamic range is extended. Digital prints are almost perfect. Editing tools are so good that there are few excuses for having an imperfect image – unless that is the artist’s intent. Parts of scenes can be composited together or parts can be “painted” or AI generated.
Because of these greater freedoms, artists are now able to express themselves more. In the same way that Impressionist painters were completely rejected by their Realist contemporaries, we see photographers beginning to push the boundaries and make photographs into something different, and bring criticized for it. Something that does not follow the rules and conventions established by others is initially rejected.
What is a photograph? Maybe it is anything you want it to be. Maybe the distinction is the contract with the viewer. Is it presented as reality or as art?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
When is it not a photograph?
I consider myself a photographer and an artist. In my work, I may alter the pixels any way I want to achieve the result I like, because I am presenting art to you, not documentary. I can blur or sharpen. Distractions can be removed. Skies can be replaced. I often composite bits and pieces of many disparate scenes to create something new. I have been known to stretch and twist and flip with little regard to the “truth”. of the actual scene. Sometimes, the more I can forget the original scene, the better my art gets.
With all of this, I am comfortable calling my work photography. Occasionally I call it art based on photography. Depends on the audience.
Since what I do is pixel based, and nearly all of it came from captures of real scenes, It is clear to me that it is photography. It does not matter much to me where the pixels came from as long as they are my original work. It doesn’t matter to me if the end image represents something that exists in reality.
On the other hand, by my value system, if a digital image is AI generated or entirely drawn or painted, it blurs into what I would call Digital Art. The distinction being that there was no image capture at all.
My position is that I will not use AI. I don’t like it, and I don’t plan to use it to create my images. I do not consider it photography. That’s my bias.
My stance
One of my granddaughters is studying animation. Most of her work is based on 3-D models. Is that photography? Not to me. And not to her. But if one of those artists chooses to call what they do photography, or if someone calls what I do Digital Art, I am not in a place of authority to prevent it. Labels are not important to me.
So, a working definition for me is that it is a photograph if it was made mostly from photographic captures. The degree of processing makes little difference. If it was substantially generated by AI, it was not a photographic capture. But the reality is, there is no rule, and I don’t think there can be.
My contract with the viewer is this: if I claim the image is truth, it should essentially represent the original – essentially, I am not a photojournalist. If it is art, then almost anything goes. Either way, I claim it is a photograph.
I will not give you an AI generated image and claim it is a photograph I made. Neither will I go on a public rant against an artist who does. The philosophers and great minds can debate the fine points. I prefer to go on just making my art however I want to.
October 21, 2026
Documentary Shots
Documentary shots, or record shots, are something I have avoided for a long time. There came a point where I did not consider them “art”, and therefore, not interesting. I have changed some.
Documentary shots
Documentary shots record a place or event or person. They can be excellent images by themselves. If I go to an iconic location, I probably shoot a few frames of it, just to remember it. Likewise, when I am traveling, I often shoot some images of a new place I haven’t seen before. Again, just to remember it. I have no thought of putting them in my portfolio. And when we shoot pictures of family or events, likewise, they are for the memory.
Sometimes I will shoot these with my phone, since they are not “serious” images. I may put careful consideration into the framing and exposure and composition, but they are not intended to be published.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Art?
These are second class images to me because they are records of something rather than an interpretation of it.
I consider that most of my work in at least the first 20 years of my photographic journey was record shots. We would go to some great location in Colorado, and I would have to photograph it all. The sweep of the mountains, the ruggedness of a Jeep road, mountain waterfalls and streams. All well exposed and sharp, but really just “I was here; look what I saw” shots. Mostly uninteresting, from an artistic point of view.
The term “record shot” became synonymous to me as boring and not artistic. That was probably an overreaction.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Epiphany
Recently I had a mild epiphany. I have been studying American Civil War history lately. Somewhere along the way I realized that there is a wealth of photographs from the era. They are very impactful when they appear in a video or in a book to supplement the historical narrative.
It shows the people, the locations, and, sometimes, the horrible aftermath of battles. This is straight documentary photography. The equipment was large and the film speed was very slow, so they could only do tripod shots of people or landscapes. Things that sit very still. But I was seeing reality 160 years ago. That is impactful.
There was no consideration of AI fakes. They had little opportunity to be overtly dishonest. Of course, there are always the decisions of what is shot and what isn’t, where the camera is placed, and what is excluded. Those design elements were part of photography then as they are now.
But the hardy photographers back then knew they had an opportunity that never existed before to capture scenes of this war. It looks, from the images I have seen, like they were trying to be brutally honest. I believe this was the first time a war was extensively documented on film.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Context
This got me rethinking record shots. Although none of the images I have seen would win any prizes today based on their composition or artistry, they are valuable evidence of what happened. They are records of history.
Being able to see portraits of Lincoln and Grant and Lee and Jackson and other leading figures of the time makes them much more real. Seeing Lincoln at Gettysburg just a couple of days after the battle is powerful. Images of the battlefields at the time helps understand how the terrain contributed to the battle plans. And a picture of the aftermath of a battle captures the devastating destruction and loss of life and suffering better than a simple narrative can.
Did these photographs become good just because they are old? That’s partially it. But it is more than just age. They became more valuable because they are records of scenes that are gone. They could not be taken now.
These old photos bring us realities of people and places and events that are past and can never be again. That makes them unique and valuable historical documents.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Eugène Atget
I was also reminded of a photographer I heard about one time named Eugène Atget. He photographed Paris street scenes and architecture in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. It was a time of great change, and he recorded scenes that were disappearing.
Here is an example of one of his images in Paris:
Storefront of Little Bacchus, rue Saint-Louis-en-I’Ile, Paris (1901). By Eugène Atget from Wikimedia Commons(Public Domain).
He was virtually unknown during his life. An American photographer, Berenice Abbott bought thousands of prints from Atget’s estate after his death. She exhibited them and built recognition and appreciation for his work.
After his death, Atget’s style influenced the American realist/documentarian movement of the 1930s and 1940s. He even became associated with the surrealist movement. Man Ray even used one of his photographs as a cover image for the surrealist magazine la Révolution surréaliste. Art galleries in the USA also paired Atget’s photos with surrealist art in exhibitions.
C.S. Voll, in a Medium article, says “He had been so immersed in his project to document Paris that he hadn’t been aware of how avant-garde the images were at that moment.”
Good idea
These have got me to thinking about the history I have seen and the historical documentation I have done. Cities grow and spread. Wheat fields are permanently destroyed by housing development. Climate change alters the landscape. Buildings are torn down and new ones built. Companies I have worked for no longer exist. Many people I have known are dead now. Opportunities that will never happen again. How many pictures do you have in your files that could not be taken now?
Is there value in the records of these happenings? There could be. For ourselves, if for nothing else.
I have decided to embrace “record shots”, shoot more of them, and keep them. I have witnessed many changes in my life. Some of them I have photographed. I wish I had shot more of them. While I do not expect any of these to make me famous or to start new art movements, I believe they have value.
Documentary shots are not necessarily second class to art. They are a different photographic expression. My primary intent is fine art images, but I now see documentary images as a valid and useful thing to do. Some of them can be art, too.
September 18, 2026
Intro or Extro?
Which is your natural approach to photography? Introspection or extrospection? Intro or extro?
Psychology
Psychologists work hard to try to explain human behavior and thought processes. Sometimes their ideas seem insightful. Sometimes, off the wall.
There are many different personality tests and other tools that attempt to sort people into convenient boxes. Mostly with the noble goal of helping to understand ourselves and other people. These can help some, on a surface level. But humans are far more complex than can be captured in a simple test.
Across most of the personality tests, one of the important axes that seems to occur in some form is introvert vs. extrovert. And the common underlying definitions are based on whether you get your energy from being alone (introvert)or with people (extrovert)
Personally, I believe most humans are.far too complex and interesting to be put into a box. It causes us to make snap judgments about them, or ourselves. And they are often wrong.
But lets go with the introvert/extrovert model for a while, since it seems true of many people, Introverts tend to “live in their head”. This leads to self-awareness, introspection. Extroverts, not so much. They tend to look out more than in. The term is extrospection.
For your inner Geek: intro is Latin for inward. Extro is Latin for outward. Spect is Latin for looking at. So these words are just describing whether we tend to look inward or look outward.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Introspection
An introspective person examines their thoughts, feelings, and actions. They look inward and are self-aware. We (this is me) reflect on our emotions and judgments and feelings.
Ordinarily this is a good trait. Being self-aware lets us see ourselves as others do and work to improve ourselves. We tend to be thoughtful rather than just reactive. As an artist, we tend to seek and practice creativity.
But in our photography, it can slow us down and distract us from what is around us. There can be a tendency to filter what we react to by what we are feeling or concentrating on at the time. If your work is based on what you find in the world around you, this can be a problem.
I had a world respected photographer tell me in a workshop that I think too much. Then later that day as we were showing some work, he said he had never seen that flower viewed like that and he was going to steal the idea. Go figure.
On the other hand, a great photographer Mike Langford said in Better Photography magazine: “Each destination starts with a process of quietly sitting
for a while and absorbing where I am. I genuinely try to feel
what is different about being there, as if it’s my first visit, with no
preconceptions. By being in tune with my emotions and innermost thoughts,
even the most familiar things can be seen and photographed in
a new and different way.” That sounds like a good form of introspection.
Introspection can lead to creatively trying new variations or approaches to what we are doing. It may slow us down and it may blind us to some great shots, but the potential creativity may well be worth it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Extrospection
Extrospection is defined as the observation of things external to one’s mind. This would imply reacting to external stimuli. Many people, especially extroverts, look outward for their stimulus and validation.
Photographers with this view tend to more easily see what is there around them.They abandon preconceived plans and work freely with the reality in front of them. I have quoted Jay Maisel on this many times, but this is exactly what he means by “going out empty”. Don’t go looking for something specific. Instead, see what is there and work with it.
I said above that this is reacting to external stimuli. At least, that is the way it works for me. I think of it as shutting off my mind, at least the critical reasoning parts, and getting into a form of flow state. Shooting becomes instinctive. I’m sure a lot of it is based on experience. The scenes before me trigger the response. Composition becomes part of the instinctive response.
This is a form of mindfulness. The extrospective person is highly aware of their surroundings and ready to work with them without judgment.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Both and
So, which approach is better? Trick question: neither. Both are valuable and can lead to excellent results. Your inherent nature determines which approach you tend to.
But you are not locked in to either one. We can learn to behave in both ways. I have said that I am an introvert and I tend to introspect. Maybe too much. But I have also learned to go out with no judgment and embrace what is there at the moment. It may be harder for me to to “get in the flow” of that, but I can do it.
Both/and thinking says that you can feel more than one thing at a time. That you can hold conflicting thoughts without confusion. It is a realization that life and humans are complicated. They can’t be accurately modeled by one simple label.
When I think I am shooting with no judgment and embracing what is there, I know that that is not literally true. I try to allow myself to react emotionally to the environment, but behind the scenes, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes much more conscious, years of training and examination are guiding what is happening. Decisions about exposure and focal length and composition are being made, I just try not to let them intrude too much on my emotional state.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Do we have to decide?
I see introspection and extrospection as complimentary traits, not conflicting ones. Extrospection lets us be in the moment, to see and react to what is around us, even if it is not what we anticipated. Introspection lets us analyze what we are seeing and maybe take it to a higher level. It seeks to find the essence and answer “what if” questions.
Extrospection helps us find interesting material. Introspection helps us creatively make the best of it. Together, they make our art better.
We are not stuck just blindly following our basic nature. You are not a helpless robot. Part of growing and maturing is to learn to adapt new behaviors. To practice new thought processes. We can learn to expand our thinking. Mindfulness and creativity compliment one another. We can hold and practice both in our mind at the same time. Without breaking anything.
Don’t just react or just think. Do both. At the same time.
Intro or extro. It does not have to be either/or. It can be both/and.
September 2, 2026
How I Use AI
I’m generally very anti-AI, but it is a huge, fast-moving field splintered in lots of directions. Not all are bad. This is a snapshot of how I use AI today.
Traditional argument against AI
The traditional argument against AI is that it takes over our creativity and allows automated generation of scenes. Yes, this is possible and it is being done every day.
For many, it is no longer necessary to locate or create an interesting subject to photograph. Just let the AI agent do it. If you want a purple elephant in that scene, just describe it to your friendly chat bot and it will quickly create several variations to select from. To me, this is fantasy illustration, not photography.
But I’m a photographer. My work is based on reality. Even if I create a fantasy composite, it is built from pieces that actually exist somewhere. Pieces I have found and collected just for this purpose. All of it is my original photography and the combination is my own creative work.
I sincerely believe that AI cannot think or feel. It has no soul. It cannot appreciate what it generates. By my somewhat biased definition, this invalidates it from being art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
It’s just a technology
But let’s not forget that it is not a living entity and it is not magic. It is just technology. It is software running in a data center. The people who build it don’t understand how it works and why it does some of the things it does, but still, it is technology.
Almost any technology has the potential to help us in some positive way, if it is used appropriately. This is true from the printing press to nuclear energy to AI.
With AI, though, we are in a very immature early phase. Everybody is running around saying “Oh, look at this!”, without considering what it means or where it leads. AI is a large field. It is hard to make blanket statements about it.
The hype told you AI would change everything overnight. The reality is slower, messier, and far more expensive than anyone admitted.
The AI Coder, Medium
Photography technology history
Photography has progressed through several generations of technology changes without being destroyed.
The original hard-core photographers had to mix their chemicals, coat glass plates, expose them in their heavy 8×10 view cameras, then rush to their tent to develop them. You had to really want to do it.
But then coated film was developed. The field opened up to many more people. We could shoot all we wanted – all we could afford, anyway, drop them at the photo store, and get prints back in a few days. Small “walkabout” cameras like Leica exploited the new, smaller film and became hits. The. world was more convenient, film and lenses kept getting better, and things were generally pretty good. We no longer had to suffer to be a photographer.
But then someone (Kodak, as it turns out) came along and created digital cameras. No more film. No more waiting for prints. It started as a crude technology but quickly grew to dominate photography. It is all I use and I wouldn’t go back. I know for sure that I got the image and real-time histograms are something I would not give up. Even film purists would generally agree that digital has surpassed film in resolution. A side effect is that now everyone is a photographer, and photography tends to lose its identity as an art.
At every stage, the old-time purists declared that the new technology would ruin photography. Actually, it just kept getting better. I believe some parts of AI will be like this and some won’t.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In camera
Unless you are shooting a manual camera, there is a lot of “AI-like” technology embedded in your camera. I’m referring to things that can take over creative decisions from the artist. Remember, AI is a large field. There are a lot of small, focused applications of the technology.
Going way back before AI was named, Nikon developed a multi-segment metering system, and its exposure system was “trained” using thousands of properly exposed images taken with the matrix. That is basically the definition of AI. At this point, matrix metering may be based on actual AI technology. I don’t know. It works very well and keeps getting better. I have trusted the Nikon matrix metering system for many years. But I monitor it, and if I disagree, I override it. This is a key.
Or look at the focusing systems in our cameras. They have grown to hundreds of sensors that can work singly or cooperatively together to achieve near perfect focus. I very rarely focus manually. Some of the systems can “look at” the entire scene and decide what the focus point should be. And some recognize eyes and focus on them. And some track moving objects and predict where to focus at the moment the shutter is pressed. These relieve the photographer of some tedious manual control that requires a lot of practice to get right.
I’m not necessarily saying this is literally AI, but that is a matter of definition. It is an example of technology that can automate manual work for us, allowing us to make the creative decisions. This is good technology. But it is important for a photographer to be vigilant and always ready to override the technology when it goes against our creative idea.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In post-processing
Probably the main area where we would recognize AI being used is in post processing. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop are the main tools I am familiar with so that is all I will discuss. This is not a tutorial on using AI tools, so I will only point out some of the features I use.
One reason Lightroom Classic has almost completely replaced Photoshop for me is the ever more sophisticated masking tools. These allow me to manipulate images more precisely and the AI features save significant time in applying them.
Sky and subject masking have been around quite a while, but their algorithms are getting much better (AI training?). Have you used the new Landscape masking tool? It is a fast way to create several masks isolating various parts of a scene, like foliage or mountains or architecture.
Automatic people masking can be a real aide. It gives specific control to create individual masks for a wide set of features, down to selecting only the whites of the eyes.
Something I fought for a long time but am starting to warm up to is the distraction removal features. It occasionally does a fast and decent job of removing people. The reflection removal is occasionally awesome. And I have been known to take an image into Photoshop just to use its wire and cable removal tool.
I confess to very often using the Auto exposure correction button in Lightroom Classic. It gives a quick starting point. I always change the settings, maybe undo it completely, but I like to see what it thinks should be done. Often it will push the image in the direction I want to go.
Another one I have a love/hate relationship with is Healing. I don’t find that it works well in general, but occasionally it saves a lot of time.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Who is in charge?
Who is in the role of artist? That is the point of all of this. I only use targeted tools that I allow to operate on parts of my image under my supervision. When they work, they are significant time savers. For instance, using the sky selection tool saves me a lot of time consuming, non-creative work. I do not consider that it replaces any of my creative judgment. None of these do anything I could not do myself. They just do it faster, freeing me to spend more time making creative decisions.
Well, the reflection removal is something I probably could not do myself. Maybe that makes it too much AI incursion.
These are examples of the power of AI in post processing. The tool set seems to be getting better all the time, and I appreciate many of them. It is a welcome productivity boost.
But in all cases, I only use AI as a labor-saving device and a multiplier for my creative effort. It does grunt work faster than I can. I do not give it a prompt to create a purple elephant in my image. I will not allow it to create significant imagery itself. If I did not photograph it or create it, I will not use it.
Technology can be good, but it can run out of control. My position now is that AI is good if it can help me get my creative work done easier. But I keep a tight control on who is the creative artist and what is the tool.
The future?
This is a point in time report. The world of AI is large and fast moving. I can’t predict what will happen in a year or 2. Will I break down and start using generative AI, or will I stand my ground, or will photography as we know it disappear?
My guess is I will keep my current arms-length position but will enjoy lots of new AI-powered tools. It will be an interesting ride.
July 1, 2026
Mindless
I have said before that my shooting style is intuitive. Let me put a slightly different spin on it and say that, in a way, it is mindless.
Mushin
The idea comes from the Zen concept called mu shin. Literally it describes nothingness of the mind. You free your mind of all thoughts and assumptions and let your subconscious react.
The philosophy is a basis of a lot of Japanese art and martial art. Takuan Soho, an accomplished swordsman, and a Zen Buddhist monk, suggests that during a fight, a swordsman should not focus on himself or the opponent, but he should allow his subconscious to take over. An analogy is riding a bike. Once you learn it sufficiently, you do it unconsciously.
I believe there is a parallel concept for photography.
Note, I am not a Zen Buddhist. I am a Christian. I do not follow Zen as a religious or spiritual practice. But there is quite a bit of worldly wisdom wrapped up in their philosophy.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Practiced
An objection stated against mushin is that if you go into a fight without training and expect your mind to control you, you’re going to get beaten up. That seems like a “duh”. Of course that is true.
Implicit in the description of mushin is that it is based on lots of training and practice. Practice, repetition, exercise, over and over until it is automatic. Only then can your responses become automatic and mindless.
Do you remember learning to ride a bike? You crashed a lot at first. But after a few times you “get” it. Suddenly you can’t even remember why you were falling back then. With more practice it really does become an unconscious skill. As a matter of fact, if you are riding and you conscious try to think about riding the bike, you might get unsteady. The conscious mind is interfering with the unconscious skill.
I believe this is the essence of what is being described by mushin. It is a type of meditation, but not like we usually think of meditation. We are letting our mind control our body. It is a type of trust in the skill you have developed and a flow state. We are willing to let go of most conscious thought.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Photography
I have heard many photographers describe this in various ways. I experience it myself a lot of the time. Just being out, wandering, camera in hand, letting creativity flow, trusting my skill and experience to make the shot without giving it much conscious attention. This is joy to me.
Here are a few statements by other photographers that I think are saying similar things.
Quotes
“I enjoy the quiet moments when my mind is completely focused, when I am absorbed, when I am connected with my subject, immersed in my surroundings, fully in the moment. I guess it’s a form of meditation.” – Suzanne Nelson, Better Photography Magazine
“Mindfulness: if you suddenly realize it and say to yourself, ‘Wow! This is an amazing experience!’ — poof, you’re out of it. When you’re in it, you’re just BEING, but when you begin thinking about it, it’s gone.” Gary Buzzard, Medium. (Gary is a Zen practitioner)
“Sometimes our unconscious minds work better than our conscious minds.” Harold Davis
“A creative starts at the bottom of a circle, gains experience, and moves through an education of their craft. It’s when you move beyond that and start going back down the circle, forgetting everything that you’ve learned, that you come back to a place where you’re trusting your instincts and your unconscious voice.” Chris Brown
“I just focus on what’s in front of me and follow my intuition and let it evolve on its own.” Julieanne Kost
“Get to the point where you’re just there, and you’re actually letting it just flow thru you.” Ian Spalter
“Don’t overthink things in front of you. If it moves you, shoot it; if it’s fun, shoot it; if you’ve never seen it before, shoot it.” Jay Maisel
“Try to go out empty and let your images fill you up.” Jay Maisel
“Photography by wandering around: exploring without specific goals or expectations in mind, taking a slow pace, seeking to see beyond the most obvious features of a landscape, and enjoying the process regardless of the results.” Sarah Marino
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Trust it
There is a lot of good accumulated wisdom in those quotes. I was encouraged that it was easy to find so many people I respect basically saying to follow our instincts. They all seem to be describing a mushin state.
This is not thoughtless and it’s not being trapped in ruts of automatic behavior. We learn to let go and don’t try to force the outcome. Mindlessness is not ignorance. Quite the contrary, it is built on extensive training and practice to the point where our subconscious is so educated that it can take over and direct our actions without needing direct attention by our conscious mind. Like riding a bike.
In photography, this is a kind of equivalent of a flow state, where we are so engaged in the moment that there is nothing else. And in photography, I believe that allowing ourselves to operate in this instinctive manner is a direct connection to our inherent vision and style. What we do subconsciously should be a more honest expression of what we see and feel than if we are overthinking making the image.
Let the process play out. See where it goes. Trust our instincts. Believe that the skills we have built will form the image. Let our subconscious run. And enjoy the ride.
Our photography is not defined by some obscure Japanese Zen term like mushin. But it is comforting to see smart people in different disciplines coming to similar conclusions about important things.
June 3, 2026