This is where imposing artificial limitations on yourself comes into benefit. Make a whole bunch of those decisions before you leave the house. Pick JUST ONE CAMERA, and JUST ONE LENS, and JUST ONE FILM. Have an awareness of conditions before you leave so that you don't end up in a fog bank with ISO 25 film and no tripod, for example, or ISO 800 loaded in your medium format on a bright sunny day at noon when you want to shoot portraits and can't speed the shutter up enough to use anything larger than f/22. I found that my several trips to Paris, Rome, Florence, and Mexico City with only a Rolleiflex made me take so much better photos because all the gear fetishism had been dealt with. I was making the best photos I could using what I had to hand, and instead of worrying about "I could do THIS if I had X in my bag" I was just making selective edits before I even clicked the shutter. I was seeing with the tool in my hands, and as it was a very good tool, it got out of my way and let me concentrate on taking good pictures. There's an internal editing process that happens when you take pictures - you edit so much before you even put the camera to your eye, let alone between looking through the viewfinder and actually clicking the shutter. I'm not saying you have to pare down your cameras to just one camera and just one lens (unless you want to - nothing wrong with deciding on a single tool as the best tool to fit your vision). I'd be a raging hypocrite if I did so - I've got a Contax 35mm SLR, a Fuji mirrorless digital (and what, 6 lenses now?), a trio of Rolleiflexes (two 2.8 E models and a Tele), an RZ67 (and five lenses), a Lomo Belair X-6/12, a Lomo LCA 120, a Speed Graphic, a Sinar A1, Sinar F, Sinar Norma 4x5 and 5x7, Canham 5x7, 5x12, 8x10, 14x17, and a bunch of other odds-n-ends - they're all tools that exist for different purposes. I just make conscious choices when I leave the house - if I take the 5x12 with me, for example, I don't also drag along the Rolleiflex, because they're two totally different cameras that require thinking in different ways to use, and switching back and forth between them is going to make mediocre the results from both.Don't take any offense to this, but I think your statement clearly illustrates what the author meant when he said that some photographers learn to see "cumbersome, slow, and inefficient." Now I'm not saying YOU are cumbersome, slow, and inefficient, but what I am saying is that conversations about which format we're going to use, whether we'll use auto exposure, or if we use auto or manual focus is what incapacitates some photographers. I know that I personally suffer from the paralysis that comes from internal arguments that are usually based on gear and equipment. Which body will I'll take, or will I take all three? Which focal length to use? What aperture to set my lens to? And after the shot is made, what saturation setting to I move the slider to? Vignette or no vignette? Should I adjust the curves? Tone the paper, or not?
This is what I think he means when he says "cumbersome, slow, and inefficient."
A lot of what you're talking about here is stuff you'll only learn by fucking it up a LOT, and paying attention to what you did and why it didn't work. It's called learning. I forget who said it, but there's a genius quote out there: "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly". It sounds counterintuitive, but what it means is that anything worth doing is worth LEARNING. And you learn by doing it wrong and trying again, lather, rinse, repeat. Another good photo quote: "my first 10,000 negatives were my worst". Make a LOT of photos, make a LOT of mistakes, and learn from each one of them. Eventually, those things like which aperture to choose, which film, which camera, which lens, will all become second nature and you'll be able to do those things instinctively and can concentrate on the anticipation of the moment, composition, and the other difficult things about taking pictures.Don't take any offense to this, but I think your statement clearly illustrates what the author meant when he said that some photographers learn to see "cumbersome, slow, and inefficient." Now I'm not saying YOU are cumbersome, slow, and inefficient, but what I am saying is that conversations about which format we're going to use, whether we'll use auto exposure, or if we use auto or manual focus is what incapacitates some photographers. I know that I personally suffer from the paralysis that comes from internal arguments that are usually based on gear and equipment. Which body will I'll take, or will I take all three? Which focal length to use? What aperture to set my lens to? And after the shot is made, what saturation setting to I move the slider to? Vignette or no vignette? Should I adjust the curves? Tone the paper, or not?
This is what I think he means when he says "cumbersome, slow, and inefficient."
This is where imposing artificial limitations on yourself comes into benefit. Make a whole bunch of those decisions before you leave the house. Pick JUST ONE CAMERA, and JUST ONE LENS, and JUST ONE FILM. Have an awareness of conditions before you leave so that you don't end up in a fog bank with ISO 25 film and no tripod, for example, or ISO 800 loaded in your medium format on a bright sunny day at noon when you want to shoot portraits and can't speed the shutter up enough to use anything larger than f/22. I found that my several trips to Paris, Rome, Florence, and Mexico City with only a Rolleiflex made me take so much better photos because all the gear fetishism had been dealt with. I was making the best photos I could using what I had to hand, and instead of worrying about "I could do THIS if I had X in my bag" I was just making selective edits before I even clicked the shutter. I was seeing with the tool in my hands, and as it was a very good tool, it got out of my way and let me concentrate on taking good pictures. There's an internal editing process that happens when you take pictures - you edit so much before you even put the camera to your eye, let alone between looking through the viewfinder and actually clicking the shutter. I'm not saying you have to pare down your cameras to just one camera and just one lens (unless you want to - nothing wrong with deciding on a single tool as the best tool to fit your vision). I'd be a raging hypocrite if I did so - I've got a Contax 35mm SLR, a Fuji mirrorless digital (and what, 6 lenses now?), a trio of Rolleiflexes (two 2.8 E models and a Tele), an RZ67 (and five lenses), a Lomo Belair X-6/12, a Lomo LCA 120, a Speed Graphic, a Sinar A1, Sinar F, Sinar Norma 4x5 and 5x7, Canham 5x7, 5x12, 8x10, 14x17, and a bunch of other odds-n-ends - they're all tools that exist for different purposes. I just make conscious choices when I leave the house - if I take the 5x12 with me, for example, I don't also drag along the Rolleiflex, because they're two totally different cameras that require thinking in different ways to use, and switching back and forth between them is going to make mediocre the results from both.
A lot of what you're talking about here is stuff you'll only learn by fucking it up a LOT, and paying attention to what you did and why it didn't work. It's called learning.
My biggest character flaw when it comes to learning, has been that I refused to acknowledge my mistakes. And not just mistakes like wrong aperture or shutter speed, I'm talking like personal mistakes, like using "gear fetishism" to fill the void that something like quitting alcohol left. THAT is my biggest issue. I've used the thrill of buying various gear and the resulting adrenaline dump as a replacement for other physical and emotional shortages, and then always end up frustrated when I still can't produce something I am proud of. So for me, "learning to see" isn't just about what I'm photographing right now, it's an all encompassing thing right now.
....like using "gear fetishism" to fill the void that something like quitting alcohol left. THAT is my biggest issue. I've used the thrill of buying various gear and the resulting adrenaline dump as a replacement for other physical and emotional shortages, .....
I assure you, you are not alone in this regard.
It took me a very long time to discover and admit that having too much gear to choose from results in creative constipation. So, I think you're ahead in the game and well on your way to making work that you can and will be pleased with.
Sounds a little like a mid-life crisis when you start to wonder what it's all about. Is this it?My biggest character flaw when it comes to learning, has been that I refused to acknowledge my mistakes. And not just mistakes like wrong aperture or shutter speed, I'm talking like personal mistakes, like using "gear fetishism" to fill the void that something like quitting alcohol left. THAT is my biggest issue. I've used the thrill of buying various gear and the resulting adrenaline dump as a replacement for other physical and emotional shortages, and then always end up frustrated when I still can't produce something I am proud of. So for me, "learning to see" isn't just about what I'm photographing right now, it's an all encompassing thing right now.
if you have't read it, the zen and the art of archery is a pretty good book about photography have fun !
It’s more about observing / noticing the he things that interest you and figuring out how to make them "look good". comes by practice and noticing how painter and sculptors and architect / artists of the ages made stuff look good ( how they built what they made ) and translating their knowledge and knowhow that you have somehow absorbed through immersion into what you noticed / observed... I’m sure as a policeman you are trained in noticing things.. it’s the same sort of thing. You do something enough it becomes second nature.. and if it looks good to you that’s all that matters.
if you have't read it, the zen and the art of archery is a pretty good book about photography
have fun !
Once one has decided what image to make -- one decides what tools to use, and all the other decisions fall into place. Craft services creativity.
One can not blame the tools (or the photographic process) if one can't decide on what images to make.
I always go 'ouch' when I hear this. So wrong. About 95% of my images are outside of the 'magic hours'. Well, the 'magic hours' under the redwoods happens to be 10am to 2pm, so I guess I hit those all the time. Civilized hours. And of course there are far more 'non-magic' hours than magic hours, so far more opportunity to make images during the non-magic hours. So staticacally, your statement is incorrect.If you go out during magic hour, you'll regularly see and shoot better shots than during the midday. It's hard to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
We don't have Redwoods here in NJ. But I understand your point. However, it is easier to find better light during the magic hour. They don't call it the magic hour for nothing.I always go 'ouch' when I hear this. So wrong. About 95% of my images are outside of the 'magic hours'. Well, the 'magic hours' under the redwoods happens to be 10am to 2pm, so I guess I hit those all the time. Civilized hours. And of course there are far more 'non-magic' hours than magic hours, so far more opportunity to make images during the non-magic hours. So staticacally, your statement is incorrect.
The whole idea of learning to 'see' is to always be seeing. To watch the light as it is, to watch what it becomes, and perhaps interact with it by borrowing a few photons. In Death Valley I am out there all day long, perhaps shifting location in mid-afternoon and photographing until the light sweetly dies. There are always "better" shots...use PhotoShop for the silk purses...
8x10 platinum/palladium print, Death Valley, somewhere outside the magic hours
Ditto what Vaughn said about "magic hour". Sure, it's great, but learning to see is all about understanding the light you have and making something out of it. If you're taking lousy pictures at high noon on a sunny day, you're not paying attention to the light you have and using it to shape your subjects. Yes, it's strong, it's directional, and it's contrasty. But those are all things that can be made to work together to create great images. Strong, directional, contrasty light gives drama! It lends itself to creating geometric abstractions. It's not bad, it's just not soft, directionless portrait lighting. It's not f2.8 light, it's f22 light, but that's ok. That's why lenses have more than one aperture and shutters have more than one speed.If you go out during magic hour, you'll regularly see and shoot better shots than during the midday. It's hard to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Zen and the art of archery is a book that Georges Braque the painter gave HCB in the 1950's. I don't think it taught HCB anything, but reaffirmed what he was already doing. A great book to read if you haven't already read which will take your photography onto a different level.
My wife gets frustrated with me some times, when I stop, move around, look at something several ways, and then decide there isn't a photo there that I want, so no shutter ends up being released.
When that happens, I don't even think about settings, and often don't think about lens choice. Some times the camera doesn't even come to my eye.
Of course, you can get great shots at noon. My point was directed to someone who said they can't get inspired or see great shots. So I suggested magic hour so they can learn what great light looks like and start taking some pictures that they will feel proud of. Let them learn by seeing what great light looks like. Then they can apply what they learned to other times. You have to walk before you can run.Ditto what Vaughn said about "magic hour". Sure, it's great, but learning to see is all about understanding the light you have and making something out of it. If you're taking lousy pictures at high noon on a sunny day, you're not paying attention to the light you have and using it to shape your subjects. Yes, it's strong, it's directional, and it's contrasty. But those are all things that can be made to work together to create great images. Strong, directional, contrasty light gives drama! It lends itself to creating geometric abstractions. It's not bad, it's just not soft, directionless portrait lighting. It's not f2.8 light, it's f22 light, but that's ok. That's why lenses have more than one aperture and shutters have more than one speed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?