Photography is a visual medium, so it stands to reason that any problem with sight will have a detrimental effect on the quality of photos taken, right? Well maybe…. I’ll admit I’ve not put a lot of thought into this, but it occurred to me that there may be various areas where seeing things differently to ‘sighties’ may be advantageous.
I’ll start with a personal example of what I’m talking about – I have retinitis pigmentosa, an eye disease that narrows your visual field through a gradual loss of peripheral vision. Admittedly this does cause several problems of its own where photography is concerned in that I can’t drive to exotic locations for landscapes, and if I do manage to get there there’s always a danger that I’ll trip over something & possibly damage my camera, but if we play devil’s advocate it could also be argued that I naturally frame everything I see. There’s no need for me to hold my fingers up in front of my face as a makeshift frame to show the composition as it’s naturally there anyway, and any distracting peripherals aren’t distracting to me as I don’t see them at all.
From various articles I’ve read, the key to black & white photography is all in the tones & contrast. With normal vision, colour makes this harder to visualise – i.e. “is that deep red lighter or darker than the blue next to it?” As I see in colour myself, I’m only guessing, but I suspect I could more easily differentiate between tonal values if everything was seen in greyscale, so there could be an advantage to not having any colour vision.
For sight that is blurry or patchy, there could be a natural leaning towards colour & overall form, without getting clogged up in the details of the scene. This in itself would help with general composition, and may also help to spot opportunities for good abstract photography that a fully sighted peer might not notice without some experimentation in focus & depth of field.
I’m sure there are other examples, but as I’m no expert on visual impairment (or photography for that matter), I’m struggling to think of anything specific. As a more general argument, it could be said that photography is a means of portraying something beautiful or interesting that you as a photographer see in a particular scene, from a perspective that others may miss. If you naturally see things differently anyway, surely you’re part-way there?
If you are interested in joining our mailing list, please submit your email below. 
![[brighton]](http://blog.blindphotographers.org/wp-content/cache/rss_image_cache_7/[brighton]_250x250.jpg)
“As a more general argument, it could be said that photography is a means of portraying something beautiful or interesting that you as a photographer see in a particular scene, from a perspective that others may miss.”
That is what makes photography from people who have a visual imparement so interesting and inspiring because they see things differently their images have a different feel.
@Lifephoto, thank you.
No problem @timobrien very much welcome. Great post!
Sorry, my site through the viewfinder is going very far south on me. I can find no advantage. Sure, I can do some things through photoshop that work, but, I can’t get sharp images. I can take garbage images and make them really different through manipulation. That is not what I have ever done. I like a crisp focus on any camera. I just can’t see a crisp image any more. Not blind, but, the glasses I just got do not work any longer. Any suggestions?
Are you sure it is the camera? Can others use the viewfinder properly? Otherwise, I am not sure.
Sorry to hear that crotograper – If you do have severe focus problems, then maybe it’s a case of playing to your strengths – looking for bold larger shapes rather than minute details, and prioritising contrast whether it’s colour or B&W. With relation to the post, that’s what I was arguing – not that we’re out & out better photographers in every respect, but that we see images differently & may capture something that a fully sighted person may overlook.