You wrote this in reply to my post #29 on the previous page:
When you look through the viewfinder, you decide what would be in the frame, you compose and arrange things, you decide where your subject would be in the frame, you decide to frame horizontally or vertically, use shallow dof or long etc... you make all these decisions, even if its in fraction of a second. But what has happened is that by taking that picture you have tried to communicate something, and used the space in the frame and what was visible through it.
Hm - I don't quite see why anyone who has practiced shooting from the hip can't make these decisions just as well. Naturally, I have to be able to have a reasonably good idea of what my camera is going to see. That takes some practice, and over time, that's by no means an unattainable goal.
Horizontal or vertical - if I have enough time to decide, I can do that too (just as in a normal shooting mode).
Shallow or deep dof - that's possible too if you have an AF-capable camera, if you have a precise understanding of how AF works and how you can program it. By the way, practically any conservative manual RF shooter would make this decision beforehand - so there's no fundamental capability difference either (except that this user would be limited to zone focusing).
The
decision to communicate a certain content - to actually record an image or not - still remains with the photographer. I will only shoot scenes that appear worthwhile, and will not press the shutter unless something interesting comes my way. Just because my camera might be capable of shooting long, continuous series doesn't mean it makes sense to constantly use that feature.
That was photography on a personal level. When you shoot from the hip, what happens is that you simply aim at what you perceive to be something interesting and you shoot. you might have an idea of what it would look like, but that is not the same as seeing everything through the VF... What has happened is that you have simply allowed the camera to interpret the scene for you, you have disconnected yourself from the scene. Hence most hip shots look impersonal and detached because its not through 'your' vision that we see that world, but through the eyes of the machine -the camera.
With all due respect, but I beg to differ.
Anything I shoot, whether FTH or not,
is a personal statement. The differences between the two modes of operation are only in the yield that I obtain. FTH shooting does indeed produce more shots that are garbage. No problem, I'll always edit my shots after the fact, and I'm sure you'll agree that the more ruthless the editing, the better the overall quality of the remaining shots. BTW, there's nothing wrong with including cropping and verticals correction in the editing workflow (I often leave some tolerance areas around my actual subject for this kind of editing).
As to whether these
shots look personal or impersonal - that will always depend on the photographer's intentions.
One thing is for sure: My shots will always have a certain look - my look. This is because even in FTH shooting, I decide to press the shutter. The camera is only a tool which mechanically follows my instructions.
Sure, if I don't know what I'm doing, my shots will be garbage. And because that risk is real indeed, I started FTH shooting using a DSLR, where burning hiundreds of pictures doesn't hurt. Would I have started on this endeavour with a film camera, I would have to budget for a lot of film. That's a financial, not an artistic decision.
It doesn't matter if the pictures feature eye contact with the photographer or even an obvious connection between subject and photographer - all that counts is that I have made a decision to take a certain photograph. If that decision was justified, you as a viewer will be able to see that in the picture: The picture will show something noteworthy. Every viewer is capable of deciding if a picture 'works' or if it doesn't - completely independently of the shooting technique used.
Ebino's post #39:
There is also the issue of are you a good photographer or an editor, you can shoot a lot FTH and then skillfully edit later, but would you still feel good about those photos and be proud of them? I think these are issues that you have to deal with if you take photography seriously and raise above the common lax amateur circles.
Shooting and editing are two sides of the same coin. To separate one from the other would be having an overly narrow view of photography. I don't know of any competent photographer who isn't a ruthless image editor. I can only be proud of my pictures if tehy are well shot, ruthlessly selected
and well edited. Completing all these stages might not make me a pro, but omitting any one of these stages will certainly make me a dillettante.