Visit without a camera first

[Q.G.]

But looking to see if something strikes you as photographic or not is already a particular 'focus', an approach of a situation with a definite intention.
A focus that can (but by no means must) make you blind to other aspects of the situation, which could change your understanding of where you are, which will then find its way into how you would represent it in a photo.

You need to embrace fully and understand to decide if something strikes you as something that is worth capturing and sharing, and to decide why and what it is that makes a place, a situation etc. worth that. And that's not just about visual impressions.

But you're right that these things do not need to be mutually exclusive. But it can help to go somewhere with photography not even at the back of your mind.

 

[guitstik]

What if Henri Cartier-Bresson had not had a camera with him at the moment the "man jumped over the puddle", would we have that photograph now?

 

[Q.G.]

To quote a tennis ace from an already not so recent past: "Are you serious?!"

 

[clayne]

There's another aspect though: sometimes we have to just put the camera down and enjoying seeing without it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are many situations where photographic considerations could very well get in the way of fully appreciating a place or event. For those, it's best not to be tempted by a camera immediately at hand.

Sometimes it is just best not to make a visual record.

I find that my photographs are better if I open my eyes and look before I photograph!

I can usually have a camera with me and not have a problem finding the "best" compositions the first time I see a scene. I will some times not shoot the photograph and come back with a different format or film to achieve what I want.

Carrying a camera, does not change what I see.

Steve

 

[Steve Smith]

Weather permitting, you could keep a camera in the trunk of your car.

Except that some of us don't use our cars all the time.

Tonight I walked up to the balloon fiesta

Steve.

 

[markbarendt]

If I'm just walking about I have a tendency to get distracted and lose the "inspiration/vision/magic" on a lot of shots if I have to go more than a few steps to get the camera.

Having any camera handy allows me to quickly frame up to see if a shot "works", and if so, I can catch my idea instantly.

Even if I need a different format or time of day or weather or something else to make the shot special I at least have the idea on film.

Film is cheap, great ideas are priceless.

 

[Q.G.]

Are great ideas that ephemeral, that you can't come back next day, next week, next year even?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are great ideas that ephemeral, that you can't come back next day, next week, next year even?

Only if the decisive moment is missed.

 

[mabman]

How much money did that "Moonrise" shot make? Humm...............

Recently I read "Accounts on the making of 'Moonrise, Hernandez'". Alan Ross' comment on that page makes the point that AA drove down that highway regularly, so he would have at least known the potential of the shot that could be taken if the light was right.

So, that may be a combination of the 2 approaches - he was familiar with the scenery without a camera (while driving), but he had his camera with him when the light *was* right (he was shooting somewhere else and on his way home).

 

[guitstik]

I can not put the camera down, I am the camera. I see everything as a potential photograph and judge instantly if it fits my criteria for what I am looking to capture. I have a Polaroid in my minds eye and it gets filed away for a later date when I can take the picture. There are some ops that are once in a life time and do not come around again and those are the times I try to be prepared for.

The most expensive camera is worthless if you don't have it with you to catch that one shot. The best camera is the one you have with you.

 

[Worker 11811]

Except that some of us don't use our cars all the time.

Okay, okay! Put it in the saddlebag on the back of your Harley. I ain't picky.

 

[Q.G.]

Only if the decisive moment is missed.

Ah! That mythical Decisive Moment.
How does that find in with ideas?

 

[Vaughn]

I attempt to be aware of where I am, with or without a camera. I can not ignore that fact that I have my camera with me (hard to ignore an 8x10), in fact having it with me makes me more aware of my surroundings. It is not that I narrow my focus and concentrate on just photographing...but instead it is the unimportant background "noise" that drops away. So I am more likely to discover something than to miss something when using the camera.

Because I use LF under the Redwoods and use f/stops of 45 and 64 routinely (15 sec+ exposures), any wind or slightest breeze can stop a shot. Over the years I have come to notice the slightest of breezes -- too light to even move a fern. During the exposure I listen for sounds of any breeze coming through the trees, and find that the silence is filled with noise.

So for me, no, leaving the camera behind would not serve any purpose for me. I'd be able to go farther faster without the 60 pounds of gear, but I would not experience any more.

Vaughn

PS...there are times at the end of a long day hiking with the 8x10 and the light has died down: I have a couple miles to get back to the car, I am tired hungry and thirsty -- I am going to have my head down and keep my feet moving until I get back to the car. A good photograph would have to trip me and whack me along side the head to get my attention. Though a few times I will stop, perhaps on a log where I can get the weight of the pack off my shoulders, and admire the view for awhile.

 

[Lanline]

I don't understand why some people habitually wear a camera around their necks and hunt around like a freaking tourist. That would make me feel compelled to shoot and it would get annoying very quickly. I prefer to do my editing up front and take as few shots as I can stand.... rather than spend a lot of time and money and wind up with a Winogrand drawer.

Every now and then, I take a "low end" camera with me like an XA, just to go through the motions and document some future opportunities.

Why not simply take a camera with you and refrain from using it until you see something that truly feels important.

I always try to keep some camera with me, just in case I spot something that is photo worthy. I can go 6 months lugging a camera and never take a shot (of my day to day travels) but I feel better knowing it's there if I need it.

 

[ntenny]

Well, I got bitten by failure to carry a camera this morning: I got up, went out of the room for breakfast, happened to look out the door onto a hallway balcony and saw a really lovely post-sunrise view of lifting fog over downtown Xi'an, with the sun nicely muted behind a clump of cloud. I turned around, went back into the room, got my camera, came back out, and had lost the shot because the clump of cloud had broken up and the sun was blowing out the view.

It wouldn't have been the most intellectually significant photograph ever, or anything, but it was a moment of light that was worth capturing, and if I'd had my camera in hand instead of twenty feet away behind a locked door I woulda captured it!

So I'm sticking with "carry a camera all the time" as a winning principle. I can't remember a time when I've had a camera with me and later said to myself "gee, I wish I hadn't been able to take that picture!"

-NT

 

[clayne]

Nathan, could you not have just appreciated the moment on it's own, for what it was? Why the imperative to document it photographically?

 

[guitstik]

The "imperative" is that, as photographers, we do SEE. Tell me that as a photographer that you don't perceive the world differently, tell me that you are not more aware of your surroundings than the regular population. As a photographer we experience the world in a way that the majority never do. We see the sun rise and how it filters through the early morning fog as the first rays set the autumnal leaves on fire. As a photographer, we see the butterfly as it flits from branch to leaf blending in and disappearing. It is the way WE perceive the world that we interact with because of the camera that we are compelled to photograph it so that we may share OUR vision with others. In essence, it is because we "see" that we have a camera with us so that others may "see" as well.

 

[markbarendt]

Are great ideas that ephemeral, that you can't come back next day, next week, next year even?

No, but in this thread we are essentially talking about scouting and when I'm scouting the volume of ideas can be pretty high.

"Never memorize what you can look up in books." Einstein

I'd rather not memorize ideas for shots that I can look up on film.

When scouting I also don't care much about nailing the perfect shot, just getting the idea.

Only if the decisive moment is missed.

Hopefully, if I'm in a situation where a decisive moment for a given subject is possible I've already done my homework.

I doubt AA was just scouting when he shot Moonrise.

I believe HCB, once he mastered his locale, camera, and style, knew exactly the type of shot he wanted and exactly how to get it and exactly where it was likely to happen.

 

[ntenny]

Nathan, could you not have just appreciated the moment on it's own, for what it was? Why the imperative to document it photographically?

Do you feel like it's an either/or? I guess for me the imperative to do this sort of "documentary" photography is an outgrowth of appreciating the moment on its own. If it hadn't been a pleasure to see, I wouldn't have wanted to take the picture.

As to "why photos" in the first place...I dunno, but I think that's a bigger question than this thread.

-NT

 

[Joe Lipka]

I am prone to scout locations, just walk around a bit until I figure out what I want to photograph, how I plan to photograph it and more importantly, what I am going to do with it when I am finished. Just as big on preconception as previsualization. I guess that's because I am a scenic photographer favoring architecture and landscapes. If I was a street photographer, a camera would be permanently attached to one hand.

The Editor's comments in LensWork #90 are related to this topic, about what gets photographed. You don't have to buy the issue, I think you can download it with a sample of issue #90. It's a good complement to this thread.

 

[Q.G.]

The "imperative" is that, as photographers, we do SEE. Tell me that as a photographer that you don't perceive the world differently, tell me that you are not more aware of your surroundings than the regular population. As a photographer we experience the world in a way that the majority never do. [...]

Exactly. But not what you think.


As people, human beings, we see.
When we look at things as photographers, we begin to ignore (i.e. not see) lots of things. Cameras are better blinkers than even the best blinkers.

So allow yourself now and again to immerse yourself fully in a situation, and experience it for what it is, and not just 'see' it as a photo-op.

You'll not only grow to be a(n even) better person when you do, but (lo and behold) a better photographer too. Because you will be more in touch with what you may or may not want to capture.
So, to paraphase: photographers have nothing to lose but their blinkers. They have a world to win.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ah! That mythical Decisive Moment.
How does that find in with ideas?

Grasshopper you have much to learn ...

There is a decisive moment. Try reading more at this website instead of poking holes.

In the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies, if you have to come back a week or two later, the water flow at many waterfalls will have decreased.

There are many other examples, but I will leave that as an exercise for the student to figure out.

Grasshopper, if you seek, you will learn.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

Decisive moment...

Well, I have a pet thesis that almost all successful photography arises from two strongly opposing motives : (1) to convey timelessness and perhaps immortality; or, (2) to convey a decisive moment.

Some photographers' work fits quite tidily into one of these two camps; e.g. the journalistic photography of HCB and Capa et al seems very consistent with (2). On the contrary, the landscapes of AA and the still lifes of Edward Weston are consistent with (1).

 

[clayne]

Sorry, hate to break it to you, Sirius, but waterfalls, rocks, and trees have nothing to do with decisive moments. Anyways, the term itself is so overloaded these days that it's beginning to lose it's meaning. Not to mention, it's trend factor is making it a bit vapid in general.