PKR
Veteran
...indeed.
And I just ordered a copy, "used like new" after checking out his website and images.
Looking forward to reading it.
I'm sure you know about "pre-visualization" as it might apply to the Zone System and placing Zone values in an exposure / processing scheme? But, the real pre-visualization, to my mind, is in taking a large three dimensional space and being able to translate it, in your noodle, into a small two dimensional space.
Polaroids were used for this before the LCD screen in a camera became an aid. But, the process of being able to do it in your head is a giant step in the process of seeing. When you get it down, you can often evaluate a scene or subject for it's photographic potential quickly. Over time, you will find consistencies in your choices. This is realizing what you really like visually. Sometimes it's pretty surprising. Looking at a lot of art (paintings) helped me figure a few things out. For instance, I find I'm attracted to low horizon lines in subjects. If I'm traveling to a place that has that geo feature, I get excited about going. I actually imagine things I might see featuring a low, open view horizon. Oceans and lakes often have these these features mixed with other stuff I like.
A young, very talented, photographer who is the son of a close friend, is getting his visual thing together. He's out of college and already has a number of good commercial projects completed... enough to pay the rent for a while, while he looks for more work. His photographic style is kind of classic composition with a freedom of sticking a camera in great spots and working quickly. He told me of his battle with "horizon control". When you have just a moment to compose and capture, you have to get it right quickly. He says, he sees it as a big problem for newer photographers. A perfect scene can be spoiled by a non horizontal horizon, unless that's what you want. Mix that kind of technical stuff in with pre-visualization and think about what it takes to process it.
My hobby, aside from making photos, is math. After a few months of playing with Analytical Geometry, I found I could visualize forms in my head and rotate them. I also noticed better pattern recognition when surveying a potential photo subject. Maybe it's just me, but that kind of thing may be worth a look.
Make some pictures you like, don't worry about anyone else liking them.. unless your being paid to make them. And that restricts your freedom.
Best, pkr
emraphoto
Veteran
I spent 2 weeks in the middle east, a few years back, with a full kit of Nikon pro bodies, lenses, bgan system, batteries, chargers, flash units and so on strapped to my back. It was absurd... everything I submitted to wire/clients was shot on 1 point and shoot on top of it. Epiphany time!
This past weekend I shot assignment work. Took one mirrorless, phone and it all fit in my jacket. No fumbling about, no bag to lug around. I felt like I was there just to enjoy the event.
robert blu
quiet photographer
PKR
Veteran
The kind of visual training needed for drawing and painting is often lacking in many photographers. One thing necessary for drawing is to really study your subject and the light falling on it. Painters make great photographers. HCB and Jay Maisel come to mind. The light is, pretty much, most of what matters in defining a form.
PKR
Veteran
John, in thinking back, packing all that stuff around took a toll on my energy available for the days photo work. Had I been smarter and more confident, I would have had a lot more energy to devote to my client's projects. I once climbed a 300 Ft construction crane for a photo. I hauled a camera bag up that ladder. One camera and one lens would have done the job.. just stupid.
These days I think I could do almost everything with an X100 and a small dslr with a decent zoom. A couple of good speed lights for lighting. The whole thing would fit in a shoe box sans the tripod, stands and light modifiers.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
PKR
Veteran
I packed a bag with 2 F3 motors and 4 lenses. With Kodachrome I double shot everything and separated the film into 2 lab runs. I never had a problem with Kodak's processing. But, did hear a story or two over the years of problem runs.
An F3 with an MD4 attached is a heavy object. I had two, and used them both up top. One with a 35 would have done it.
The 8-10 lenses along with a third body with a Polaroid back, plus a lot of film, don't fit into a camera bag. If you've seen the carts that airport Sky Caps use, I filled one with my gear when traveling. My clothing fit into a medium duffel bag. All else was camera gear in equipment cases. Think about being in an airport with all that expensive stuff.. needing to use the head. What do you do with the gear? Who can you trust it to?
PKR
Veteran
One last thought..
"Photography is a medium in which the ideas of others are easily borrowed, but to hack off a piece of the territory that is one’s own, a visual area which constantly refers to ones own enterprise, doesn’t often happen. But there is no doubt, when we look at a Diane Arbus, or an imitation of Arbus, we know what we are seeing. I would rather be a mediocre pioneer than an excellent imitator."
Ralph Gibson
"Photography is a medium in which the ideas of others are easily borrowed, but to hack off a piece of the territory that is one’s own, a visual area which constantly refers to ones own enterprise, doesn’t often happen. But there is no doubt, when we look at a Diane Arbus, or an imitation of Arbus, we know what we are seeing. I would rather be a mediocre pioneer than an excellent imitator."
Ralph Gibson
kevin m
Veteran
I'm a long-standing member here, but mostly a lurker and not a participant nowadays, and after reading all the responses here I think the reasons why I lurk more than I participate are relevant to this thread.
First of all, asking for critical feedback on the artistic merit of a given photograph is not something an internet forum is readily capable of doing. Like the windshield of an automobile, our screens keep us from engaging completely with the people we are 'connected' to through them. The range of acceptable communication is very limited, which is why so much of the 'feedback' for a photo ends up being nothing more than inoffensive platitudes; anything else would simply result in a flame war.
Secondly, as to the relationship between gear and art, I think this quote regarding technology is apt:
"Technology is neither good nor bad. Neither is it neutral."
It's a tongue-in-cheek way of stating the idea that the gear doesn't matter, except when it does. The answer as to whether the gear ever "matters" or not is always it depends. It depends on you, the person with the gear in your hands. If you don't have a clear idea of what it is you want, then the question "what gear" is forever unanswerable, and a gear-centric forum such as this one is apt to do nothing but contribute to a dithering sense of indecision.
In defense of a forum dedicated to a particular type of camera, I think many of us first picked up a rangefinder because we did know what we wanted: We wanted an elemental, compact, quiet camera that helped us get closer to our subject and remain unobtrusive. The downside of the "rangefinder experience," as it relates to the attempt to produce better photography, though, is that the jewel-like quality of much of the gear (I'm looking at you, Leica) is a temptation to a fetishism that can take your eye off of your true goal.
I don't remember who posted the video link of Barney Kessel talking about his guitar, but thanks for that. As he first begins to talk, he sounds like yet another gear-obsessed guy, but it quickly becomes clear that he has a reason for the particular gear-related points he makes, and they always go back him knowing what he wants, and how this or that particular feature helps him achieve it. He ends with the best point of all: "I don't have to think about the guitar at all, I can get on with thinking about the music." That's IT, right there. If you know what you WANT, but your gear is stopping you from reaching that goal, THEN you need to (temporarily) make gear your focus. It absolutely goes without saying that knowing what you want always comes first. There is no "chicken or egg" riddle here: gear choice is ALWAYS predicated upon what you want to do/say/achieve. You cannot answer the second question without answering the first.
For me, I quit shooting for hire at the same time I purchased an iPhone, and my opinion is that cell-phone cameras are not only the logical extension of Barnack's original idea, but an improvement on it. I only realized in hindsight how often my original impulse of "I see a picture here!" was snuffed out due to the gear being somewhere other than on my person. That impulse of knowing that "there's a picture here" and doing your best in that very moment to find it is so far ahead of any question of megapixels, sharpness and the like as to render the latter terms nearly absurd. (For an excellent example of this idea, see Sally Mann's book, Hold Still, pp. 120-126 in which she "knew" there was a picture of her son, Emmett, to be had in the water near their home, but had to work for weeks to achieve it. She posts no few than TEN mediocre images she shot with an 8x10 view camera in waist-deep water before she reaches her "eureka" moment with this image):
Lastly, it's entirely possible to enjoy shooting mediocre pictures with a high-quality piece of gear that satisfies through some combination of factors such as tactile pleasure, nostalgia, etc.. I don't think anyone can, or should, fault anyone for taking pleasure like that. But if someone posts a mis-focused, poorly composed, badly-lit image then claims the "magic bokeh" of their lens makes it a keeper, that needs to be called out both in the interest of the general body of forum knowledge, and for the sake of the immortal picture-snapping soul of the fool making such a claim.
First of all, asking for critical feedback on the artistic merit of a given photograph is not something an internet forum is readily capable of doing. Like the windshield of an automobile, our screens keep us from engaging completely with the people we are 'connected' to through them. The range of acceptable communication is very limited, which is why so much of the 'feedback' for a photo ends up being nothing more than inoffensive platitudes; anything else would simply result in a flame war.
Secondly, as to the relationship between gear and art, I think this quote regarding technology is apt:
"Technology is neither good nor bad. Neither is it neutral."
It's a tongue-in-cheek way of stating the idea that the gear doesn't matter, except when it does. The answer as to whether the gear ever "matters" or not is always it depends. It depends on you, the person with the gear in your hands. If you don't have a clear idea of what it is you want, then the question "what gear" is forever unanswerable, and a gear-centric forum such as this one is apt to do nothing but contribute to a dithering sense of indecision.
In defense of a forum dedicated to a particular type of camera, I think many of us first picked up a rangefinder because we did know what we wanted: We wanted an elemental, compact, quiet camera that helped us get closer to our subject and remain unobtrusive. The downside of the "rangefinder experience," as it relates to the attempt to produce better photography, though, is that the jewel-like quality of much of the gear (I'm looking at you, Leica) is a temptation to a fetishism that can take your eye off of your true goal.
I don't remember who posted the video link of Barney Kessel talking about his guitar, but thanks for that. As he first begins to talk, he sounds like yet another gear-obsessed guy, but it quickly becomes clear that he has a reason for the particular gear-related points he makes, and they always go back him knowing what he wants, and how this or that particular feature helps him achieve it. He ends with the best point of all: "I don't have to think about the guitar at all, I can get on with thinking about the music." That's IT, right there. If you know what you WANT, but your gear is stopping you from reaching that goal, THEN you need to (temporarily) make gear your focus. It absolutely goes without saying that knowing what you want always comes first. There is no "chicken or egg" riddle here: gear choice is ALWAYS predicated upon what you want to do/say/achieve. You cannot answer the second question without answering the first.
For me, I quit shooting for hire at the same time I purchased an iPhone, and my opinion is that cell-phone cameras are not only the logical extension of Barnack's original idea, but an improvement on it. I only realized in hindsight how often my original impulse of "I see a picture here!" was snuffed out due to the gear being somewhere other than on my person. That impulse of knowing that "there's a picture here" and doing your best in that very moment to find it is so far ahead of any question of megapixels, sharpness and the like as to render the latter terms nearly absurd. (For an excellent example of this idea, see Sally Mann's book, Hold Still, pp. 120-126 in which she "knew" there was a picture of her son, Emmett, to be had in the water near their home, but had to work for weeks to achieve it. She posts no few than TEN mediocre images she shot with an 8x10 view camera in waist-deep water before she reaches her "eureka" moment with this image):
Lastly, it's entirely possible to enjoy shooting mediocre pictures with a high-quality piece of gear that satisfies through some combination of factors such as tactile pleasure, nostalgia, etc.. I don't think anyone can, or should, fault anyone for taking pleasure like that. But if someone posts a mis-focused, poorly composed, badly-lit image then claims the "magic bokeh" of their lens makes it a keeper, that needs to be called out both in the interest of the general body of forum knowledge, and for the sake of the immortal picture-snapping soul of the fool making such a claim.
Last edited:
robert blu
quiet photographer
Well said Kevin!
robert
robert
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Likely to start a flame war as, based on images posted here, there appears to be a significant subset of members who post "mis-focused, poorly composed, badly-lit image then claims the "magic bokeh" of their lens makes it a keeper." The thread "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" is just one example of many, but you could easily pick any of the dedicated lens threads.
PKR
Veteran
Re: icebear's workshop experience.
Something that just occurred to me that others may have caught..
Icebear chose to spend, what is likely, a significant amount of his photo money on improving his work.. with no guarantee that it would happen. That being, the workshop fee plus food and logging for a few days in NYC. Not inexpensive. That money could likely have bought him some expensive lens or a new high end camera. I think he said he uses Leica cameras, so more likely a lens.
How many on here would take that risk in lieu of a shiny new photo thing? Given the crowd here, I don't think many. I didn't read through the $3000 thread but, I'll bet few if any mentioned spending on anything but hardware.
When beginning in photography, I learned from taking a lot of pictures, studying art and working as an assistant. I was very lucky in landing assistant jobs. My first was working for a NatGeo photographer in Europe. My second, lasting two years, was working for Irving Penn's former studio manager. Both were enlightening to say the least. One of my first really good commercial jobs was one I got from an Art Director I met as an assistant.
Today, these kinds of jobs are rare. I've interviewed many photo students wanting to work in the photo business. Most had no idea as to the kind of photography I did. They didn't take the time to look. A few laughed at coming to work at 7am to prep for a 9am shoot.
I think for serious photographers, wanting to improve, the workshop thing is a great option. Most of the good ones require that a portfolio of work be shown. I know from talking with Bill Allard that he rejects many for a couple of reasons. One, that their work isn't up to snuff. And the other, that it's so good that they wouldn't benefit from his workshop.
Some of you who are serious and have both the money and time might consider this option. But, if you don't have the resources, the path to seeing is still open through doing a lot of work and looking at a bit of Art. Most of those teaching these workshops got there by doing it that way.
Something that just occurred to me that others may have caught..
Icebear chose to spend, what is likely, a significant amount of his photo money on improving his work.. with no guarantee that it would happen. That being, the workshop fee plus food and logging for a few days in NYC. Not inexpensive. That money could likely have bought him some expensive lens or a new high end camera. I think he said he uses Leica cameras, so more likely a lens.
How many on here would take that risk in lieu of a shiny new photo thing? Given the crowd here, I don't think many. I didn't read through the $3000 thread but, I'll bet few if any mentioned spending on anything but hardware.
When beginning in photography, I learned from taking a lot of pictures, studying art and working as an assistant. I was very lucky in landing assistant jobs. My first was working for a NatGeo photographer in Europe. My second, lasting two years, was working for Irving Penn's former studio manager. Both were enlightening to say the least. One of my first really good commercial jobs was one I got from an Art Director I met as an assistant.
Today, these kinds of jobs are rare. I've interviewed many photo students wanting to work in the photo business. Most had no idea as to the kind of photography I did. They didn't take the time to look. A few laughed at coming to work at 7am to prep for a 9am shoot.
I think for serious photographers, wanting to improve, the workshop thing is a great option. Most of the good ones require that a portfolio of work be shown. I know from talking with Bill Allard that he rejects many for a couple of reasons. One, that their work isn't up to snuff. And the other, that it's so good that they wouldn't benefit from his workshop.
Some of you who are serious and have both the money and time might consider this option. But, if you don't have the resources, the path to seeing is still open through doing a lot of work and looking at a bit of Art. Most of those teaching these workshops got there by doing it that way.
back alley
IMAGES
i took lots of classes when i first started out in photography.
read everything i could get my hands on (pre-internet).
took endless amounts of photos, pre darkroom...(cost me a small fortune)
spent hours on the streets of nyc...
had a really good time!
read everything i could get my hands on (pre-internet).
took endless amounts of photos, pre darkroom...(cost me a small fortune)
spent hours on the streets of nyc...
had a really good time!
PKR
Veteran
The text below is from David Harvey's instagram page. I thought it was really telling in what goes into making "some" photos. Photo work isn't always difficult, but much can be. Harvey is up to the task, with talent to spare.
"davidalanharveyAhhhh Brazil. It’s summertime, it’s Carnaval. I havn’t been to Rio nor Salvador during Carnaval for I think 3 years. Well it takes that long to recover! Seriously Carnaval is a full time job especially if you are trying to cover it for a magazine like NatGeo which I’ve done a couple of times. Sure it’s exciting, sensuous, fun, yet if you must get pro pictures it’s 4-5 non-stop, no sleep, food on the run, days and nights. Why hard work? To get in the middle of anything and be able to shoot requires diplomacy, press passes, ability to slip and slide working in tight spaces and incredible situational awareness. Still it’s exhilarating if you can get in and get out with a picture. It’s what magazine photographers live for. Yet this process is not what any new assistant is expecting. Not what my students think assignments are really like. When you see a picture in a magazine you imagine that somehow the photographer was just magically in the right spot. It’s all about access access and access. Seemingly simple , every picture shown here required special permission to shoot. For sure I’ll go back to Carnaval next year. I’m ready for the process all over again. Besides my Carioca friends will disown me if I don’t show up soon. Always special thanks to @roberta.tavares.146 and @dan.immel.photos"
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfTdgNJglI1/?hl=en&taken-by=davidalanharvey
My note: By "situational awareness" , I take that to mean in many places you might get banged on the head for your expensive camera gear, among other less dangerous situations.
c
"davidalanharveyAhhhh Brazil. It’s summertime, it’s Carnaval. I havn’t been to Rio nor Salvador during Carnaval for I think 3 years. Well it takes that long to recover! Seriously Carnaval is a full time job especially if you are trying to cover it for a magazine like NatGeo which I’ve done a couple of times. Sure it’s exciting, sensuous, fun, yet if you must get pro pictures it’s 4-5 non-stop, no sleep, food on the run, days and nights. Why hard work? To get in the middle of anything and be able to shoot requires diplomacy, press passes, ability to slip and slide working in tight spaces and incredible situational awareness. Still it’s exhilarating if you can get in and get out with a picture. It’s what magazine photographers live for. Yet this process is not what any new assistant is expecting. Not what my students think assignments are really like. When you see a picture in a magazine you imagine that somehow the photographer was just magically in the right spot. It’s all about access access and access. Seemingly simple , every picture shown here required special permission to shoot. For sure I’ll go back to Carnaval next year. I’m ready for the process all over again. Besides my Carioca friends will disown me if I don’t show up soon. Always special thanks to @roberta.tavares.146 and @dan.immel.photos"
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfTdgNJglI1/?hl=en&taken-by=davidalanharvey
My note: By "situational awareness" , I take that to mean in many places you might get banged on the head for your expensive camera gear, among other less dangerous situations.
c
Thank you for posting this... love his photos and nice to hear a little of the process he has to go through. That said, it is important for us amateurs to not let the lack of access or being on assignment stop us from making our own style of photographs. The regular world that we see every day has plenty of content to make great photos from.
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
It's easy to talk about gear because all photographers use a camera. However, we may different in philosophy and approach.
PKR
Veteran
No question about it. I completely agree. But, something most non pros don't realize or see is the "deadline" ... with an editor or client seeing a daily feed and giving direction and often PRESSURE to get certain images in the limited event time (no sleep).
It was a really big deal, in the 80's, when Burk Uzzle (in his contracts) had the balls to demand that he was given 8 hours to sleep each night in the clients scheduling. Many of us working in multiple cities/locations during a two week project were expected to work 8-10 hours get on a plane, fly half way across the country and, be ready to perform at 7am the next day. A few days of this, with hard work and no sleep, and you're a zombie; forgetting things and not getting the best pictures for a client. When working for design firms, doing annual report photography, I was sometimes directed by a corporate mid manager who knew nothing about photography, scheduling my flights so the most air miles would accrue for the corporate account.. this means indirect flights when direct flights were available. Many of these people were openly angry at the amount of money I was being paid by the day. They thought it was absurd and equal to what their CEO was earning. They didn't realize that this money was project based and we photographers, with some notable exceptions, didn't earn that kind of money every day.
Harvey is good at giving insight into the working photo world. It's often, not pretty. As an accomplished amateur, I wouldn't be envious of most pro photographers. It's like sausage, once you've been to the sausage factory, your opinion of sausage may be different.
http://www.burkuzzle.com/
Read this John! Burk, a former member and president of Magnum, helped all working photographers.
From Bill Pierce's column.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0104/nutsandbolts.htm
x
roscoetuff
Well-known
I agree with those citations that the internet isn't necessarily conducive to the sort of deeply personal engagement that a fair review might involve. Many of us are not open to ideas about our images any more than folks commenting are willing to offer them. There is in fact an anti-personal thing about this medium that rather limits its prospects.
So gear and technique... I think these discussions have been helpful for us newbies. Are they ever helpful to those far along the path? I have my doubts. At some point, the craft of photography is learned or at least learned sufficiently to soothe the photographer's appetite for the agony of learning. Learning is a hard thing and never really complete no matter the field.
There's a site for the Cottswold's Monochrome group that once posted the focus of their presented photos by photographers as an opportunity to describe the intention and interest in the photo... which would tend to keep in on a positive keel. There have also been cites I've been on where the comment box had hard coded the name of the commenter followed by "suggests".... as a way of seeking to soften the tone. That said, the most formative moments in my life were those where I was shamed, challenged and inspired to respond. Did I like it at the time? Absolutely not. But that's the path of progress.
So gear and technique... I think these discussions have been helpful for us newbies. Are they ever helpful to those far along the path? I have my doubts. At some point, the craft of photography is learned or at least learned sufficiently to soothe the photographer's appetite for the agony of learning. Learning is a hard thing and never really complete no matter the field.
There's a site for the Cottswold's Monochrome group that once posted the focus of their presented photos by photographers as an opportunity to describe the intention and interest in the photo... which would tend to keep in on a positive keel. There have also been cites I've been on where the comment box had hard coded the name of the commenter followed by "suggests".... as a way of seeking to soften the tone. That said, the most formative moments in my life were those where I was shamed, challenged and inspired to respond. Did I like it at the time? Absolutely not. But that's the path of progress.
PKR
Veteran
I wouldn't give much weight to anonymous comments about your work. Unless you know the critic, know the critics background and work, the opinion is of little value I think.
I've found that even people paying good money for a print aren't seriously complementing the artist. Some, often are just buying an image because it reminds them of something. A sculptor friend sold a large piece for big money ($50k I recall). It was big enough that it had to be shipped on a flatbed rail car. The buyer told my friend that the sculpture reminded him of his first oil well that "came in".
https://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/
x
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Very true. I sell a lot of my work to people for that reason. A lot of my Indiana landscape photos sell to people who grew up here and had to move away to find work. My photos of barns and cornfields remind them of 'home.'
I once sold a photo of a carnival ride to a woman who wanted to give it to her husband as a 5th anniversary gift. When they began dating, they kissed for the first time on the ride in the photo she bought.
I don't really care why anyone buys my work. I get paid either way, and the money makes it possible for me to continue my work. I don't think its a bad thing, though, that someone buys my work because it reminds them of something important to them like a first kiss or growing up in the midwest. In fact, I think I've succeeded as an artist if I can connect with people like that.