jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Does anybody here besides me often have the experience of finding pictures in your "take" that you like, but which come as a complete surprise to you?
I mean, I used to try to give lip service to the whole Ansel Adams para-mystical concept of "previsualizing" -- the notion that if you're a good photographer, you can glimpse a scene and visualize exactly what your final image will look like, right down to the developing adjustments and darkroom techniques required.
Sounded impressive when I was an impressionable teenager, but I could never really get it to work. The more I tried to previsualize, the more I wound up with obvious, cliched, stilted pictures that I didn't like. Eventually I blundered into a working method that depends on my immersing myself in whatever I'm trying to photograph so that (while I try to be reasonably thoughtful about exposure and focusing and all) the actual decision to take a picture happens mostly on instinct, with no real thought. The main reason I gravitated toward rangefinder cameras was that they're "transparent" enough to facilitate this approach.
What got me thinking about all this was seeing this little picture, which jumped out at me when I was editing my shots from a museum opening the other night:
Nothing earth-shaking, but I liked it: the way it's basically a black-and-white picture varied only by a few colorful accents; the empty geometric space humanized by the mimes' forms; the expression and gesture; and especially the way the diagonal light pattern on the wall subtly sets the girls apart from their surroundings.
I would have been quite happy to give myself a pat on the back for catching and framing this little moment so nicely -- except that I have no recollection at all of having shot the dratted thing!
I remember encountering the mimes (who had been engaged to give a "French Quarter" touch to a touring show from the New Orleans Museum of Art), I remember following them around, and I remember that I took pictures of them -- but not what pictures. If I didn't always keep a pretty firm grip on my R-D 1, you might be able to convince me that someone had pinched it briefly, arranged the picture of the mimes, snapped it, and then sneaked the camera back into my possession.
Not that I feel in any way guilty about this. "Luck counts!" is about the closest thing I have to a photographic motto. And while depending on happy accidents is a bit stressful when you're trying to shoot professionally, I do get a kick out of being surprised by finding pictures that turned out better than anything I could have planned in advance. Seeing a picture like this makes me feel pretty much the same way I do when I make a "slop shot" playing pool -- a bit guilty, but also a bit delighted. (Good thing nobody can make you "call the pocket" in photography!)
Anybody else have any thoughts/examples on this? Do you get your best results by pre-planning every detail of your pictures? Do you try to plan your shots, but stay flexible enough to take advantage of the unexpected? Or do you, like me, just sort of "zone out" while photographing, and hope to be pleasantly surprised when you see the results?
I mean, I used to try to give lip service to the whole Ansel Adams para-mystical concept of "previsualizing" -- the notion that if you're a good photographer, you can glimpse a scene and visualize exactly what your final image will look like, right down to the developing adjustments and darkroom techniques required.
Sounded impressive when I was an impressionable teenager, but I could never really get it to work. The more I tried to previsualize, the more I wound up with obvious, cliched, stilted pictures that I didn't like. Eventually I blundered into a working method that depends on my immersing myself in whatever I'm trying to photograph so that (while I try to be reasonably thoughtful about exposure and focusing and all) the actual decision to take a picture happens mostly on instinct, with no real thought. The main reason I gravitated toward rangefinder cameras was that they're "transparent" enough to facilitate this approach.
What got me thinking about all this was seeing this little picture, which jumped out at me when I was editing my shots from a museum opening the other night:
Nothing earth-shaking, but I liked it: the way it's basically a black-and-white picture varied only by a few colorful accents; the empty geometric space humanized by the mimes' forms; the expression and gesture; and especially the way the diagonal light pattern on the wall subtly sets the girls apart from their surroundings.
I would have been quite happy to give myself a pat on the back for catching and framing this little moment so nicely -- except that I have no recollection at all of having shot the dratted thing!
I remember encountering the mimes (who had been engaged to give a "French Quarter" touch to a touring show from the New Orleans Museum of Art), I remember following them around, and I remember that I took pictures of them -- but not what pictures. If I didn't always keep a pretty firm grip on my R-D 1, you might be able to convince me that someone had pinched it briefly, arranged the picture of the mimes, snapped it, and then sneaked the camera back into my possession.
Not that I feel in any way guilty about this. "Luck counts!" is about the closest thing I have to a photographic motto. And while depending on happy accidents is a bit stressful when you're trying to shoot professionally, I do get a kick out of being surprised by finding pictures that turned out better than anything I could have planned in advance. Seeing a picture like this makes me feel pretty much the same way I do when I make a "slop shot" playing pool -- a bit guilty, but also a bit delighted. (Good thing nobody can make you "call the pocket" in photography!)
Anybody else have any thoughts/examples on this? Do you get your best results by pre-planning every detail of your pictures? Do you try to plan your shots, but stay flexible enough to take advantage of the unexpected? Or do you, like me, just sort of "zone out" while photographing, and hope to be pleasantly surprised when you see the results?
[Technical data, for those who like that sort of thing: Epson R-D 1, 35/1.2 Nokton, EI 1600, 1/350 @ f/1.2. Results enhanced slightly by Photoshop and considerably by blind luck.]
Last edited:
R
Rodinal Addict
Guest
I'd rather be lucky than smart.
FrankS
Registered User
Interesting post, thanks!
I think that there are as many different ways to approach photography as there are photographers. Some are planners and pre-visualizers, and som aren't. What works best for a particular photographer depends on their individual personality. I'm similar to you, I like to just go with the flow, immerse myself into it, to lose myself, to simply be in the moment.
Luck favours the prepared.
I think that there are as many different ways to approach photography as there are photographers. Some are planners and pre-visualizers, and som aren't. What works best for a particular photographer depends on their individual personality. I'm similar to you, I like to just go with the flow, immerse myself into it, to lose myself, to simply be in the moment.
Luck favours the prepared.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
jlw said:I would have been quite happy to give myself a pat on the back for catching and framing this little moment so nicely -- except that I have no recollection at all of having shot the dratted thing!
That's Right...because while you were busy at the snackbar I grabbed your camera that was just sitting there and took that great shot...
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I have a pretty good idea what the shot should look like but don't pre-plan every detail...I feel that "I got lucky" when they turn out super great...
Opportunity and experience do sometimes hang-out together...
Opportunity and experience do sometimes hang-out together...
amateriat
We're all light!
I usually have some sort of idea of what will "work" in a given image, but this usually serves as a guide, rather than a rigid set of rules or requirements. A bit more like basketball than ballet...unless you're working within the controlled confines of the studio, too many "surprises" tend to crop up in the moment to go by a tight mental script.
BTW, that's a lovely image.
- Barrett
BTW, that's a lovely image.
- Barrett
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Previsualizing and ramming an exposure chart into your head helps you to get the picture when your instincts lock onto it.
steamer
Well-known
I'm not so formal about the whole thing, it's more like "Oh, like that, wonder how it'll look on film." Of course I have some idea how it will look, but I always enjoy seeing what develops and the little happy accidents, etc. Also off topic, it's just my hang up but I don't like mimes, have not liked them since I was a child.
Last edited:
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
My favourite photo's off a roll are usually the ones I forget that I've taken.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
"Just go with the Flow. Be water my friend ." - Bruce Lee
That's the way I do better.. and I believe that is what happen to you... simple instinct.
Let it go.. used more and more. Man and Machina as one...
Don´t thing, just shoot it!
It's Zen....
Fantastic photo.. trully deserves a big one on your Hall of Fame!
That's the way I do better.. and I believe that is what happen to you... simple instinct.
Let it go.. used more and more. Man and Machina as one...
Don´t thing, just shoot it!
It's Zen....
Fantastic photo.. trully deserves a big one on your Hall of Fame!
R
RML
Guest
Good shot! When I saw it, I liked it right there and then.
Just a few days ago I had a similar thing. My little girl wanted to shoot some photos with my R-D1 while we were on our way home from school. When she saw the first shot she was disappointed because it didn't look like anything she had in her mind. The second shot same thing. Then I explained a bit about how we focus on a small part of the larger picture and "see" it big, but that a camera with a fixed lens can only see the whole picture. And then the small part remains small. Another shot later and she was more happy as it looked much more like what she had "pre-visualised".
Then I asked her to look at a small scene and think how it would look as a photo. I took the shot and showed it to her. She was amazed about how it looked. Nothing like she ever thought up in her head.
I told her about Winogrand, who took photos to see how the things would look like as a photo. She can relate to Winogrand's view.
Just a few days ago I had a similar thing. My little girl wanted to shoot some photos with my R-D1 while we were on our way home from school. When she saw the first shot she was disappointed because it didn't look like anything she had in her mind. The second shot same thing. Then I explained a bit about how we focus on a small part of the larger picture and "see" it big, but that a camera with a fixed lens can only see the whole picture. And then the small part remains small. Another shot later and she was more happy as it looked much more like what she had "pre-visualised".
Then I asked her to look at a small scene and think how it would look as a photo. I took the shot and showed it to her. She was amazed about how it looked. Nothing like she ever thought up in her head.
I told her about Winogrand, who took photos to see how the things would look like as a photo. She can relate to Winogrand's view.
DavidH
Overweight and over here
jlw said:
That is a great shot - fascinating and unusual and well taken.
I like to shoot on instinct - running an 'ansel' is fine if taking pictures of a mountain - it isn't going anywhere - but the rest of the world tends to be in a constant state of flux.
That's why I also like simple cameras and negative film - something that I can instinctively use - so that the composition is key not the compromise of dynamic range.
I am often pleasantly surprised at how well a shot worked...but mainly because those successful ones contrast so greatly with the rest of the chaff.
The more I shoot, the better the results on 'instinct'.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Zen vs Zone
Zen vs Zone
Thank you for this post. I recently finished reading "The Artless Art", about Henri Cartier Bresson, in which the author explored the philosophic background to HCB's art. It seems he was deeply influenced by the book "Zen and the Art of Archery", and seemed to have adapted some of the aspects of Zen to his style of photography, which amounted to an almost instinctive openness to the world around him.
About as far removed from Adams' premeditated approach as one can get. Yet both artists were able to achieve success in their particular endeavors. I suppose the subject matter demands the type of approach to be taken. I can't see taking a premeditated, Zone-like approach to street photography, for instance; neither would a shoot--from-the-hip approach work as well in landscape photography.
JLW, I think you've found a working method that seems to suit your subject matter and personality; that's perhaps the hardest thing to do. Go with it. You've helped remind us that it does little to copy the methods of others, as if to do so will automatically guarantee success; what's important is that we connect with our heart - that's the hardest thing to do, the internal part of photography that happens between our two ears.
~Joe
Zen vs Zone
Thank you for this post. I recently finished reading "The Artless Art", about Henri Cartier Bresson, in which the author explored the philosophic background to HCB's art. It seems he was deeply influenced by the book "Zen and the Art of Archery", and seemed to have adapted some of the aspects of Zen to his style of photography, which amounted to an almost instinctive openness to the world around him.
About as far removed from Adams' premeditated approach as one can get. Yet both artists were able to achieve success in their particular endeavors. I suppose the subject matter demands the type of approach to be taken. I can't see taking a premeditated, Zone-like approach to street photography, for instance; neither would a shoot--from-the-hip approach work as well in landscape photography.
JLW, I think you've found a working method that seems to suit your subject matter and personality; that's perhaps the hardest thing to do. Go with it. You've helped remind us that it does little to copy the methods of others, as if to do so will automatically guarantee success; what's important is that we connect with our heart - that's the hardest thing to do, the internal part of photography that happens between our two ears.
~Joe
lewis44
Well-known
I usually shoot what I like and then hope I like what I shoot. Been doing this for 50 years and my rule of thumb is if I get one good shot per roll I'm a happy man. For awhile I tried to make a living at it, but what I will or won't do always got in the way, so I just try and please myself.
Randy
Randy
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
If I feel, just after I've pressed the shutter, that the picture will be good, it usually is good. Since my pictures are mostly of people, and because many are taken in low light, there are surprises. So far the pleasant surprises have out-numbered the unpleasant ones, but that may change.
Just yesterday I shot a half dozen frames with a 55 mm lens -- and then discovered that the turret finder was set to 100 mm. I had felt that something was wrong but hadn't done anything about it. I set the distance more than once for parallax correction but didn't check for focal length before all else. Six photos with too much rubbish all around.
Just yesterday I shot a half dozen frames with a 55 mm lens -- and then discovered that the turret finder was set to 100 mm. I had felt that something was wrong but hadn't done anything about it. I set the distance more than once for parallax correction but didn't check for focal length before all else. Six photos with too much rubbish all around.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
JoeV said:
While I've also read that Cartier-Bresson tried to work instinctively, you can see from his photos that he also tried to put himself into situations in which his instinct would have something on which to operate! (Or to quote another Frenchman, Louis Pasteur: "Chance favors the prepared mind.")
For example, if you look at the famous picture ("Behind the Garre St. Lazare"?) of the man leaping over the puddle, mirroring the action seen in a poster on the wall behind -- well, it's easy to imagine HCB prowling around, noticing the poster, the huge puddle and the planks, and realizing that sooner or later somebody was going to try to leap over that puddle. From there it was just a matter of waiting for a chance to let his instinct work.
That's usually my own downfall with this instinct-driven technique: Often I just hope to be lucky, rather than working hard to create an opportunity to be lucky!
Good commentary! It's the surprises like that that make it all so satisfying. Love the shot.
DougK
This space left blank
Great shot, jlw! I find that if I go out shooting with a preconceived notion of what I want to shoot, my shots look either forced or boring. If I just go out, look around, and shoot what I see, I get better shots.