In this episode of The Perceptive Photographer, I’m exploring why photography is never truly objective. I mean, why is it that two photographers standing in the same place, at the same time, will always see something different? This has always been one of the things that has always fascinated me about photography.

Same moment.

Different photographs.

That difference has very little to do with gear or technical skill and everything to do with perception and intention.

It’s easy to think of photography as a record of reality. After all, the camera captures what’s in front of it. But the camera doesn’t decide where to stand, what to include, or when the moment matters.

Those decisions belong to the photographer.

Every photograph is shaped by our choices, such as what we notice, what we ignore, and what we respond to. We are not recording the world as it is. We’re always interpreting and reinterpreting it.

Over time, we learn to recognize specific patterns of light, gesture, shape, or mood. And those things that begin to stand out to us, we repeat again and again. Our emotional state plays a role as well. When I’m calm and present, I tend to notice quieter moments. When I’m rushed or distracted, my images often reflect that.

In the end, I think we eventually learn that we don’t photograph what’s there. We photograph what we notice.

Once we accept that there’s no “right” way to see a scene, the pressure to match someone else’s image or expectation disappears.

The next time you’re out photographing, pause before you raise the camera. Notice what’s pulling your attention and what you’re leaving behind. You might be surprised by what you find in the viewfinder.

In this episode, I begin by asking photographers to consider not what a photograph shows, but how it is encountered. I frame the conversation around two different modes of looking one being relational and the other transitional.

Transitional viewing describes photographs that move a viewer forward. The image is read quickly, its meaning largely resolved, and attention shifts to what comes next. I think you often find this in the pace of social media scrolling, editorial sequencing, or maybe a portfolio review. The goal of those works is momentum and clarity. Those concepts are prioritized. In these contexts, the photograph functions as part of a flow rather than a place to stay.

Relational viewing asks something different of the viewer. I talk about photographs that unfold over time and resist immediate understanding. Meaning develops as we come back again and again returning to familiarity and learning via duration. The images becomes something a viewer forms a relationship with rather than something they pass through.

As I explain in this episode, this distinction matters because viewing is not neutral. As photographers, we are always shaping the conditions under which our work is seen. So in the end, episode 566 ask you to consider whether your photographs are designed for movement, for staying, or for something in between.

I am so excited for this episode of In Conversation, where the amazing Rachel Demy joins me to discuss the periphery in photography. I have known Rachel for years, and we had such a great conversation. I was thinking about our conversation over the past few weeks and how to introduce you to Rachel’s work. I think that one of the hallmarks of her latest work is that it isn’t loud. It unfolds quietly, asking you to slow down and look again. Her photographs sit somewhere between studied observation and intuition, where mood, atmosphere, gesture, and restraint become actors in the image.

I love how her work shifts as you spend time with it. The tension of attentiveness moves to a sense of patience.

In this conversation, we start with the topic of the periphery in photography and go down a rabbit hole. Both of us agree that peripheral is not just a biology, but a way of being present while making photographs. We talk about how photography isn’t only about what we choose to place inside the frame, but also about what exists just beyond it. That awareness, at the time of photographing or in processing, of the unseen can shape the image, adding emotional and psychological depth.

For Rachel, watching Richard Mosse’s film Broken Specter challenged her perception and became a catalyst for thinking differently about how we see, how we feel space, and how expanded awareness can influence photographic work.

Of course, with any conversation, we dug into how we are trained to think, what inspires us, what worries us about our practice, and how we sometimes have to let go and surrender to the process and path we are on. Trust the seeing. Trusting our intuition,

I really enjoyed the insights I got from listening to her talk about how intuition becomes especially pronounced in her night photography. Working in darkness heightens awareness and taps into what she described as an “animal vision. In those moments, we become less analytical and more responsive, guided by feeling, rhythm, and an embodied sense of presence.

We also touched on creative dormancy, with both of us hitting long periods of slow work development. It was a reminder that pauses, rest, and reflection are not failures of creativity, but essential parts of its rhythm.

Rachel’s perspective on photography and creativity is thoughtful, generous, and deeply felt, and our conversation was filled with genuine insights and discoveries. I am so looking forward to the next one.

You can connect with Rachel on social media at @racheldemy, on her website www.racheldemy.com, or explore her book Between Everywhere: On the Road with Death Cab for Cutie.