What would Jesus do?

[pdeeh]

I really felt the need to defend myself against what I think is a significant misunderstanding

However, I do think it is detracting from the general drift of the thread so I'll leave it there, and stick the thread on ignore to remove any temptation to post further.

 

[Hatchetman]

My use of Anglo-American as an epithet is to reinforce the idea that the "mantras" are created from within a peculiarly English and American historical and cultural perspective (mostly a pious and rather stern Judaeo-Christian religious ethic overlaid with a quasi-religious reverence for capitalism).

These are historical accidents and mine is only one interpretation of how such things (such beliefs, such convictions, such mantras) come about.

This appears to be a much clearer and concise statement! I think there is probably a lot of truth to it!

As a rather fervent Roman Catholic I took exception to the inference (maybe imaginary on my part), that the question "what would Jesus do?" is somehow simplistic or serves as a moral crutch for those who lack the intellect to untangle the morality of issues soley from "within." I just wanted to shout out to the crowd, "WOAH! Christian theology is not at all simple or straightforward. Don't paint us all with the same broad brush!" I am not offended, I just felt the moral obligation to raise my hand in disagreement.

What Jesus would do is often very difficult, and most people are not willing to make that sacrifice. Compare to a young student unfamiliar with Ansel Adams -- See this print of Yosemite? Just go do that. Most won't bother to really understand his work. However, those few that do become "Ansel-like" will become better photographers no matter which direction in photography they go after that.

 

[analoguey]

Ironic absence of 'turning the other cheek' ...

 

[NB23]

The real question is "would rabbi do what Jesus would? Let's ask Mouhamad"

 

[4season]

I think 80% of photography is simply showing up with a camera, and being persistent about it: Photograph -> Review/Edit (rinse, lather and repeat).

No point in thinking "What would [famous photographer] do?" until the photographer has a pretty good understanding of the fundamentals. Otherwise they really will just be mimicking the superficial details. Inexperienced photographers may need to train themselves on how to get out of their own way! Their mind's eye sees what it wants to see, but that is often far from what the camera sees.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think Jesus would miraculously create prints from blank paper and they would be some of the most beautiful prints you would ever see.

Probably not. But I dare say he could have made some very nice wooden frames for them!


Steve.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Probably not. But I dare say he could have made some very nice wooden frames for them!


Steve.

Very true Steve!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I always think to myself: "am I going to want to print this?". This can backfire into becoming too selective though... a couple weeks ago, I was walking on the beach with my daughter, it was foggy and there was no horizon, and a fishing boat came by. It was floating in a sea of grey, and my daughter said "take a picture!". I thought the boat would be too small in the frame and decided not to. I've thought about it a dozen times since then and wish I'd listened to her. I would have printed it.

When my girlfriend points out something to photograph, she has seen a good to great composition that I did not see.

 

[Vaughn]

I hope I'm not the only one who has enjoyed the image on the GG so much that I didn't bother recording it on film.

The bigger the better! I do not even notice the image being upside down anymore. In fact, many years ago after a long session under the darkcloth, I stuck my head out and the world seemed upside down! Another time I camped out under the darkcloth on the trail to Lower Yosemite Falls just to listen to the tourists' comments as they walked by (also got a great image, too).

 

[Bill Burk]

What I find interesting in this comment is the "oh I'm sorry I'm inflicting myself on you" self esteem issue. Don't you realize that most people are actually flattered to "model" for you, and like being collaborative in the process of making pictures. Even often the ones that say they aren't.

And if when looking at contact sheets we see the things we could have fixed but didn't because we "didn't want waste any more of their time" we are always sorry.

Seriously, we need to take the time to get it right and the subjects will be more interested and more impressed than by the guy who is rushing around and nervous. Photography of people is a collaborative effort and let them know they are part of the process and they will have fun with it.

You have to make improvements in those extra seconds. And if it looks like you do not know what you are doing, you won't impress anybody.

As far as the implied time limit. There is a specific benefit that the cell-phone camera has given all photographers... The time to take informal portraits in public has been extended. People have gotten used to how long it takes to get the phone ready.

But even if I can't demonstrate the ability to follow this advice myself, I want to back you up. Take time to get it right. I am certain following that simple advice can make the difference between good and great photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

I might get "WWBD" (what would Blansky do) tattooed on my

 

[ME Super]

Ken Rockwell wrote something that sticks in my brain: FART for better pictures. Now that you're all going "eww, disgusting" or laughing your collective butts off, here's a paraphrase of the rest of his explanation:

F - Feel - You feel you want to take a picture of whatever it is. Most people (including me, sometimes), jump straight to T from here and the picture goes flat.
A - Ask yourself what it is about the picture that makes you want to photograph this subject.
R - Refine the picture to emphasize what it is that you want to photograph.
T - Take - finally, take the picture.

 

[Bill Burk]

That would make a better tattoo

 

[markbarendt]

I find it really hard! It's one of main reasons I moved to film - I care about the shot. I find it much more conducive to the mindset Blanksy is talking about.

Film does provide certain constraints. It is one of the reasons I came back to film too.

I can though, and do now, apply the lessons learned with any camera.

Film gave me that gift.

 

[Cropline]

Thanks, but it's not the grass huts that are the issue. Or the castles or the rocks or the sunsets......

It's that we need to try to do "grass huts" in ways they've never been done before. Put our stamp on them.

I think you got that.

I generally agree with you but you need to realize that not everyone thinks like you, nor do they have to. That person simply isn't at your level and obviously don't care to be at this point. How would your life be if you had to fit every one elses mold?

 

[blansky]

I generally agree with you but you need to realize that not everyone thinks like you, nor do they have to. That person simply isn't at your level and obviously don't care to be at this point. How would your life be if you had to fit every one elses mold?

I agree, but the point of discussions is to exchange ideas. How or if we absorb them is always up to us.

 

[Bill Burk]

I generally agree with you but you need to realize that not everyone thinks like you, nor do they have to. That person simply isn't at your level and obviously don't care to be at this point. How would your life be if you had to fit every one elses mold?

I disagree with your assessment of nbagno's ability and motivation. Look at the gallery shot Street Portrait - Japan Town, San Francisco- that shot has only one distracting detail which may be cropped out when matting the print for presentation if nbagno wants to show a very effective portrait.

And that San Francisco China Town Shop would not have looked better in 30 seconds, so there are times when you need to shoot fast, and times when you will improve a picture by taking just a little more time.

blansky is talking about improving the shots that you can, generally offering helpful suggestions we can all take or leave as we feel the advice is relevant.

 

[Cropline]

......

Looking through the gallery a couple days ago was a snapshot of an attractive girl in a campy hat and glasses, which the photographer came upon and was intrigued by. My comment was to the effect, if it’s worth shooting, it’s worth controlling the elements. It’s worth the extra 10 seconds to nail the shot. Now I’m not picking on him because this is something every one of us has done. The “oh well who cares, it’s just a snapshot”.

But what if we walked around with our cameras with the mindset of, What would Ansel do? Or what would HCB do? Or what would Karsh do? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about copying them, I’m talking about the state of mind of getting it right, to the best of our ability every time we look through the viewfinder. No excuses..........

I disagree with your assessment of nbagno's ability and motivation.........

From a purely conversational and philosophic POV, I agree w/blansky, as was suggested. Those things need to be considered. At the same point in time, we know nothing about that other photographer and where they are or what their skill endeavor may be. My point specifically is that if everyone has done the same thing-at some point-we really can't hold that against them. Having someone else not accept practical advice don't prevent us from becoming better. I was addressing the viewers mentality-which was telling- and the fact they weren't prepared or concerned enough to receive it. Like many things in life, it's up to each individual to want to improve.

 

[Bill Burk]

I enjoyed sharing with the scouts the other day... this sentiment from Baden-Powell... "If you have been foolish, there is no law that says you have to stay that way." He was talking about drugs and alcohol, but the thought could be applied to our photography and the tendency to skip a step... taking the time to organize the picture.

Maybe I'll meet nbagno one day, and then we can talk about it.

Meanwhile, I know blansky's suggestion will be hard for me to follow. There will likely be some back and forth as I figure out where I want to be.

 

[blansky]

From a purely conversational and philosophic POV, I agree w/blansky, as was suggested. Those things need to be considered. At the same point in time, we know nothing about that other photographer and where they are or what their skill endeavor may be. My point specifically is that if everyone has done the same thing-at some point-we really can't hold that against them. Having someone else not accept practical advice don't prevent us from becoming better. I was addressing the viewers mentality-which was telling- and the fact they weren't prepared or concerned enough to receive it. Like many things in life, it's up to each individual to want to improve.

I think part of the point of this thread was about that when I saw the picture in question, I just thought back to all the times, I kicked myself for doing the same thing when I started out. And even 40 years later I can look at a portrait I did in a controlled setting and going, shit, why didn't I fix that piece of hair, or why didn't fix the clasp on the necklace or why didn't I move one person slightly to the left.

And the point is, number one, learning to see that stuff when we are nervous in front of our subjects, and taking the time to see the other elements, and secondly to have the confidence to take it slow, and getting away from the feeling we are imposing on their time.

So the "what would?????do, is to sort of a mindset to pretend we are them at the time of shooting(Ansel HCB, Karsh or whomever), and just taking our time, like they would (in most circumstances). But I guarantee every photographer who ever lived, has looked at any picture he ever took and said, damn, I wish I'd fixed this or that or printed it slightly differently.

One of the most useful things I learned in the many many workshops I've taken over the years is not necessarily the technical stuff, it was actually the ability to watch how the teachers/instructors worked with the subjects and the environment. I've probably taken at least 30 different seminars/workshops all by professionals, and it was eye opening. How they talked, engaged the subjects, let them know it was collaborative, how they set up, how they approached a blank canvas and laid down the elements.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think part of the point of this thread was about that when I saw the picture in question, I just thought back to all the times, I kicked myself for doing the same thing when I started out. And even 40 years later I can look at a portrait I did in a controlled setting and going, shit, why didn't I fix that piece of hair, or why didn't fix the clasp on the necklace or why didn't I move one person slightly to the left.

How about you get out a little me and see something new?

 

[Cropline]

I think part of the point of this thread was about that when I saw the picture in question, I just thought back to all the times, I kicked myself for doing the same thing when I started out. And even 40 years later I can look at a portrait I did in a controlled setting and going, shit, why didn't I fix that piece of hair, or why didn't fix the clasp on the necklace or why didn't I move one person slightly to the left.

And the point is, number one, learning to see that stuff when we are nervous in front of our subjects, and taking the time to see the other elements, and secondly to have the confidence to take it slow, and getting away from the feeling we are imposing on their time.

So the "what would?????do, is to sort of a mindset to pretend we are them at the time of shooting(Ansel HCB, Karsh or whomever), and just taking our time, like they would (in most circumstances). But I guarantee every photographer who ever lived, has looked at any picture he ever took and said, damn, I wish I'd fixed this or that or printed it slightly differently.

One of the most useful things I learned in the many many workshops I've taken over the years is not necessarily the technical stuff, it was actually the ability to watch how the teachers/instructors worked with the subjects and the environment. I've probably taken at least 30 different seminars/workshops all by professionals, and it was eye opening. How they talked, engaged the subjects, let them know it was collaborative, how they set up, how they approached a blank canvas and laid down the elements.

None of us here are perfect, we'd agree. Looking back and noticing changes that needed to be made shows your progression. Anything a person wants to truly be proficient at is a lifelong endeavor. Even prodigious photographers like Ansel Adams had to grow and face challenges. In one of the articles I read on him in the past, he made a statement that even he had some images he would have made correction to.

In my case, my emphasis has been on creating my best work possible. Composition, exposure, lighting, posing, color harmony , other small details within the frame, along with customer expression through interaction is much of what I consider when creating images. I had this mentality early on but it still takes time to grow and improve. Not slow, not fast, but proficient through repetition. Offering some vast number of images from a 1 hr. session like many of todays portrait photographers seems distorted to me.

The photograph is always a record of what we did, right or wrong. We couldn't agree more on that.

This thread has another element for me along w/what you stated: We can lead a horse to water but we can't make them drink. I will share advice and ideas with those willing to receive it.Those that don't want to learn, I don't waste time on or let impact me.

 

[markbarendt]

How they talked, engaged the subjects, let them know it was collaborative,

This statement demonstrates several very important points.

1 - That the taking of any photo is actually worth real effort; to the photographer and the audience.

When shooting we don't necessarily know which shots are going to be important.

For example I was going through some of my dad's old photos looking for a few to blow up. While I'm glad to have the collection, the struggles with focus and exposure on many of the shots, relegated a significant number of great compositions to the reject pile. I didn't toss them but they aren't going to be seen much either.

An extra second or two of attention and thought could have made many of these shots truly exceptional instead of also-rans.

2 - That photography can follow a myriad of specialized paths.

In this specific case the subject is aware of the photographer. The WW__D question implied there leans toward "What would Yousuf Karsh or George Hurrell or Jose Villa do?"

"What would Ansel do?" and "What would HCB do?" are a very different questions in style, but that difference does not indicate a change in importance.

 

[blansky]

This statement demonstrates several very important points.

1 - That the taking of any photo is actually worth real effort; to the photographer and the audience.

When shooting we don't necessarily know which shots are going to be important.

For example I was going through some of my dad's old photos looking for a few to blow up. While I'm glad to have the collection, the struggles with focus and exposure on many of the shots, relegated a significant number of great compositions to the reject pile. I didn't toss them but they aren't going to be seen much either.

An extra second or two of attention and thought could have made many of these shots truly exceptional instead of also-rans.

2 - That photography can follow a myriad of specialized paths.

In this specific case the subject is aware of the photographer. The WW__D question implied there leans toward "What would Yousuf Karsh or George Hurrell or Jose Villa do?"

"What would Ansel do?" and "What would HCB do?" are a very different questions in style, but that difference does not indicate a change in importance.

Yeah, and obviously some street photography isn't collaborative, but in reality we don't know completely. You see a kid playing, and say hey do that again, you see a sailor and a girl celebrating on the street following the Japanese surrender, you say give her a kiss.....etc etc.

My point is photographers sometimes have the mistaken belief that they are doing something, or taking something (besides their soul of course) from the subject. But if they engage in a certain way, they can let the subject know this is a collaborative exercise, and in doing so, the subject will almost always be receptive, fun, and join in the process. And this leads to way better pictures, more time spent, and even helps the photographer come out of their shell as well. He realizes that hey, people like this as much as me.

 

[blockend]

Tastes in photography, like everything else, should develop.