The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort.

[Andy K]

An interesting essay.








.
Ps. I should point out this was NOT posted to be anti-digital in any way.

The advice to slow down, take your time, think, is good advice whether in photography or any other endeavour.

 

[boarini2003]

An interesting read, which I agree with. Equipment, although not a forcefully determining factor in the outcome, does change the user's behavior and decisions, which will have an outcome on the final result, whether tiny or big. I find that in photography, equipment can sometimes separate us from the subject and make us complacent. That happens the most in digital, IMO.

 

[anandi]

A good read, thanks.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I agree that thinking before taking a picture is good advice, but most of the author's comments seem to be more applicable to landscape or nature photography (or perhaps his initial discussion of W. H. Jackson tainted my reading). This passage addresses the fact that sometimes a photographer doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a different time of day (or year!):

Okay, there are times when you need to take a lot of images in a very short amount of time. Fires, parades, and weddings come to mind. But good shots are created. They just don't happen by chance. Every bad shot, seen by the public or not, is an indictment against the photographer who created it. It's evidence of the felony of haste, the offence of inattention, the criminal lack of preparation.

I'm not that interested in landscape photography -- I find pictures of people (especially good street photography) to be much more interesting. So yes, thinking about what you're doing is good advice. I guess sometimes the time you have to think gets compressed. Thanks for the link.

 

[RML]

The advice to slow down, <snipsnip> is good advice whether in photography or any other endeavour.

Except in race car driving. 😛

 

[RML]

I find that in photography, equipment can sometimes separate us from the subject and make us complacent. That happens the most in digital, IMO.

This was the same dros the oldtimers told when people showed up with big, black Nikons with motorwinder and 300mm telelenses instead of innocious rangefinders. That was in the days of film, not too long ago.

Yes, a camera, especially a big one can become a barrier between you and the subject but it much depends on how you carry your equipment (no left-right jokes, please!), handle your equipment (no other jokes here either!) and connect with your subject.

 

[bmattock]

An interesting essay.

Ps. I should point out this was NOT posted to be anti-digital in any way.

The advice to slow down, take your time, think, is good advice whether in photography or any other endeavour.

I did not find myself in agreement with the author.

I would agree that deliberation is a good thing in general terms. Deliberation can be done slowly or quickly. The ability to be deliberate and be fast is a product of training, experience, intent, desire, and natural ability.

I move without haste when I can, hastily when I feel I must. I reject notions that there is some amount of time I must spend prior to taking a photo - or a string of them. I am the photographer, I'll decide when the shutter needs tripping.

And sometimes, I find a decent shot taken 'accidentally'. Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[varjag]

I don't think being a good photographer has that much to do with taking your time or not.

Some masters of photography were known "film-wasters", bringing Kodak more annual income than a small 3rd world country. With a compact camera, the technical part of taking process quickly becomes automatic, not interfering much with overall evaluation of the scene. You can filll your "sketchbook" of 36 semi-consciously, all while wandering around looking for better light, angle or arrangement. Even if you don't find any keeper, examining the contacts later, off the site can bring fresh ideas for future.

Editing certainly becomes more important, just due to sheer volume of it. But it is entirely valid approach, and that most small-format shooters don't come up with masterpieces every other day doesn't mean anything. I personally just as skeptical about artistic capabilities of an average large format shooter, as exhibited by multitude of shots of abandoned interiors, boring landscapes or naked women in unnatural poses and unlikely locations.

Sorry for the rant (and no, I never really used high-FPS automatic SLR).

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I would agree that deliberation is a good thing in general terms. Deliberation can be done slowly or quickly. The ability to be deliberate and be fast is a product of training, experience, intent, desire, and natural ability.

Yes. I agree.

 

[Sparrow]

In terms of 135 it’s the element of risk and chance I enjoy, cant think of anything as boring as knowing exactly what I was going to get on the film before it came out of the tank, the serendipity when a speculative shot comes good is what makes it all worthwhile, they should work in oil paint if they need that level of control, photography is the art of the immediate the antipathy of design.

 

[clarence]

I take out the tripod for my deliberate landscape days, and keep the 25mm C-V lens for my spontaneous street-shooting days. Bill's right: they're both photography, and I think we must admit that photography is neither only extreme spontaneity or extreme artifice.

Can't we all just get along?

Clarence

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I personally just as skeptical about artistic capabilities of an average large format shooter, as exhibited by multitude of shots of abandoned interiors, boring landscapes or naked women in unnatural poses and unlikely locations.

^That made me chuckle.

 

[Sparrow]

Clarence

No criticism intended, the essay was an interesting view and a valid method, but so are blind chance and a good shredder, each to their own!

 

[ywenz]

For event coverage, taking your time for each image is a bad thing, which would result in bad coverage of an event.

 

[jonasv]

For event coverage, taking your time for each image is a bad thing, which would result in bad coverage of an event.

Agreed. I hate it when someone takes a valid example (landscape photography) and draws invalid conclusions by generalising (all kinds of photography).

Furthermore I agree with Bill and Jon: I think what matters is choice. We can do it like the did in the 19th century, or we can do it like it's done in the 21st century. They didn't used to have that choice. The fact that 9 out of 10 photographers nowadays choose the easy way is not a bad thing, it's a freedom we have acquired.

Can you say William Klein is a bad photographer? For "Life is Good and Good for You in New York: Trance Witness Revels" he raged through the city, and commented he didn't want to wait a split-second, he had to do his 'thing' before the trance wore off and he could think normal again.

Or Robert Frank, who took 28,000 pictures in less than two years for his book "The Americans". Is that not one of the all-time great photography books?

 

[payasam]

Brokers for bourses. Deliberation is one thing for landscapes, another for portraits, and so on. Sometimes, when the horse has bolted, it can mean zero. At the same time, we much accept that with experience, a form of deliberation can become automatic and thus fast: action without conscious thought.

 

[Sparrow]

With respect, I don’t think “deliberation” can be automatic, it must be reasoned and calculated

 

[Bertram2]

Quote
but I'd hazard a guess that at least half of the images we see on "photo" websites are posted by photographers who have never in their lives intentionally composed an image. Sure, they've framed a lot of them, thousands perhaps (some seem to wear this like a badge of honor), but the composition was just what happened to be in front of the lens then the shutter was pressed
Quote end

Actually his estimation is not too tough, I find the percentage even higher.
One cannot learn it just by pointing to the object and shooting, and checking later if one likes it or not. What still does not say the pic is good btw, the photogs judgement relates only to his personal perception.

To slow down is not a virtue which can stand alone and it certainly has it's limits but especially for the learning process it is unavoidable.
Taking time means to think about the pic one wants to have, KNOW how the pic shall look later and to apply carefully all the basic technical and esthetical elements one has learned before to get exactly the intended result.

After one has learned to apply all that many stuff much of it is done in a reflex, like driving a car, and then the process of taking pics gets accelerated again, automatically. And the better someone has learned his theoretical and his practical lessons, the faster he will get.

One remark about slowing down, in general:
Going to a place three times until the light is finally "right" for the intented result proves that somebody has learned his lessons well, no doubt about it.
But for me the good people shooters are the real kings, they have learned their lessons so well that they are able to do it all automatically: See the photo, make it ready in your head, shoot, all during the very short time the pic is there
These folks are the F1 drivers among the photogs IMO.

bertram

 

[bmattock]

With respect, I don’t think “deliberation” can be automatic, it must be reasoned and calculated

Oh, on the contrary! Deliberation can be pre-programmed, if you will. It all comes down to intent and will, I think. In fact, 'deliberate' means intending to do something.

With photography, it can be the same; if conditions X, Y, and Z come together, I will compose, focus, and fire. My deliberating was done before I ever picked up a camera that day.

"Reasoned and calculated," yes. But it can be done ahead of time for certain situations, I believe.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Jocko]

The author has certainly chosen a bad example to support his ideas. By his own account, Jackson's "deliberation" was not based on artistic judgement but simply reflected the lack of adequate transport and the need to make his own photographic materials. It sounds less deliberation than sheer inconvenience.

Ian