What would Jesus do?

[Sirius Glass]

What would Jesus do if he were here? Shoot film.

 

[NedL]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

When I smile at someone on the street (or especially my family) and ask to take a picture of them for my own purposes, I am every bit a professional as I can be.

I feel pressure to take no more than an implied reasonable length of time to get the shot and wave that I am finished. So I will sometimes take a proper exposure with everything else up in the air, just to avoid prolonging the torture.

This may be where wet plate photographers have the advantage. Their process is slow at the sitting so the pace is different. (And while I admire those who take their time, I just now realized it won't work for me because I always work fast).

I agree there are times I might ask, can I take 10 more seconds to change something to make this better (and where it works I will do this).

It always helps to critique with an eye to remove distractions. "Next time I'll make sure there isn't a tree growing out of her head".

But as I work, I don't think so much how my result will compare to those I admire. Instead, I sense their presence as I do something they might have done.

 

[Steve Smith]

Just looking through a viewfinder helps for me. I often look at a scene and think "that looks interesting" I lift up the camera and look then put it down thinking "no it doesn't".


Steve.

 

[tomfrh]

We don't.

We can though apply the "what would ..." principle to any camera.

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.

 

[analoguey]

Just looking through a viewfinder helps for me. I often look at a scene and think "that looks interesting" I lift up the camera and look then put it down thinking "no it doesn't".


Steve.

^ yup.
Also, inevitably, if shooting 35mm or Digital, I know that either I or subject (if not Still life) moved.

It's good to know the process that someone followed and arrive at one such process for yourself. Shooting differently helps evaluate if your process works for most situations.

Of course, it depends on your persona. If you're individualistic and a figure it on the way type, more likely to arrive at a process on your own. If you like following a by the book workflow, someone who does/did that might help sort you out.

No one size fits all.

 

[pdeeh]

Why do we need to always be better than the guy with a camera phone?

Snap shots are fun. The records they supply are valuable, and the memories they can trigger can often be joyful.

I am careful when I shoot snap shots, but only to the extent that a good snap shot is better than a lousy one.

But I am always open to inspiration, and when I see something that looks like I might get something better out of it, I go for it.

But thanks for the interesting thread idea. From now, if I see a good portrait opportunity, I'll just mumble to myself: "What would blanksy do"?

[my emphasis added]

Well, quite!

The "Christian mantra" is not much different from similar mantras: "You must always do your best", "If a thing is worth doing it's worth doing well", "Nothing is worth having that isn't worked hard for" "Learn the rules before you break the rules" and so on ... statements that people seem to treat as eternal verities or fundamental truths about Yuman Nature. I'm not referring to what gets called "the Golden rule", by the way.

Striving, deferring to "experts" or role-models and so on are just social constructions. Choosing to model one's life and actions on the slogans I mention (and similar ones) doesn't imply a moral superiority to those who don't ... that they are often trotted out by people whose culture is Anglo-American is not unexpected, of course.

I expect there'll be a chorus of negative reaction to what I've said, but then people are rarely grateful for having their core beliefs challenged ...

 

[Nodda Duma]

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

I can't really do that so I just make do with what I'm capable of. My mantra for composing pictures is "what would make a nice print?" and sometimes "what would my wife like to see?" and finally "what would others think looks good". Which I currently consider because I'm trying to get better at composing pictures. Learning to be a better photographer and all that.

 

[Hatchetman]

[my emphasis added]

Well, quite!

The "Christian mantra" is not much different from similar mantras:

Loving your enemy is quite a radical concept.

 

[pdeeh]

I didn't say it wasn't, or indeed that it might not be a good thing. You may have misunderstood what I was driving at.

 

[Hatchetman]

you compared Jesus' teachings to common trite platitudes such as "always do your best." That is the part of your post I take exception with. His teachings, or those attributed to him, are often quite radical and might even strike some as bizarre and quite opposed to human nature. It is insulting to insinuate that those who follow the teachings of "experts" (in your words), are naive or ignorant, unable to think for themselves. When learning photography I studied what "experts" had to say on the matter before willy-nilly throwing chemicals together and hoping things would turn out via "my way." That doesn't mean I have a "moral superiority."

 

[blansky]

When I smile at someone on the street (or especially my family) and ask to take a picture of them for my own purposes, I am every bit a professional as I can be.

I feel pressure to take no more than an implied reasonable length of time to get the shot and wave that I am finished. So I will sometimes take a proper exposure with everything else up in the air, just to avoid prolonging the torture.

This may be where wet plate photographers have the advantage. Their process is slow at the sitting so the pace is different. (And while I admire those who take their time, I just now realized it won't work for me because I always work fast).

I agree there are times I might ask, can I take 10 more seconds to change something to make this better (and where it works I will do this).

It always helps to critique with an eye to remove distractions. "Next time I'll make sure there isn't a tree growing out of her head".

But as I work, I don't think so much how my result will compare to those I admire. Instead, I sense their presence as I do something they might have done.

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.

 

[jovo]

Like the 'rules' that photographers are urged to follow before breaking, the platitudes and adages cited above remain popular because, in general, they work. As humans, we don't come with assembly instructions or directions. We learn what helps us to live successfully from the time honored experiences of our elders and ancestors. As children, we are all naive and ignorant and unable to think for ourselves with the clarity of wisdom. It's the maturing of those characteristics that our families, society, culture and religion seek to impart and instill for the good of the order. Not moral superiority....just greater success at living.

 

[MDR]

Jesus was great at making selfies proves lies in turin So basically we should all print on canvas to mimic Jesus.

Following a teacher is not a bad thing but at the end of the process one should find one's own voice and if one is lucky surpass the teacher.

 

[blansky]

Some may be taking my statement of "what would???? do" and listing an iconic landscape, street and portrait photographer, as a bit too literal. Pick your poison, pick your photographer. My intent was that it's helpful to have that little voice in the back of our heads when we take out our camera, to stop and take the time to get it right.

Obviously not every situation gives us time. But we all know in a lot of cases, we could have done "one more" to fix this or that. Or be could have asked the subject to do this or that again to nail what we know we missed in the first shot.

My point in using the icons is that in most cases I'm pretty sure they would have had the confidence to do that, where we may not have. They would have mentally demanded of themselves to get the damn thing down on film properly. Because kicking our ass around the darkroom after looking at a contact sheet and yelling "son of a bitch, why the hell didn't I do another one and fix that", wears thin after a while. But we just didn't want to, for whatever reason, nail the damn shot.

It's like leaving the bar alone, when all we had to do is walk up and talk to the girl. And after a lot of going home alone, we finally say fuck it, this time I'm gonna talk to her.

What would George Clooney do?

There was once a study I read that was about the number one motivation in human behavior and it came down to two choices, the seeking of pleasure, or the freedom from pain. A lot of people thought is was the seeking of pleasure in things like love, possessions etc but in reality, the number one motivation is really the freedom from pain.

It controls almost every choice we make.

So in this context it's not about the the pleasure we get from a great print that is motivating us, it's the freedom from the pain we feel when we don't have to get outside our comfort zone, to ask strangers to let us photograph them, or take one more picture this way or that way, or stop for a second to fix the background.

In the George Clooney example the freedom from the pain of rejection was stronger than the pleasure we'd get from the connection to the attractive girl. And to overcome that , we have to fight our way or use mental tricks on ourselves to say, damn it, I'm gonna do it because now the pain of no connection (and going home alone again) is stronger than the pleasure of not being rejected.

In other words, the pain of not getting the print I want, is stronger than the pleasure I get from not forcing myself to ask for for one more shot. ( or 10)

 

[baachitraka]

Sometimes focusing heavily on the foreground can lead to blind spot on the background. I may consider chanting this mantra every time I compose.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I think if you need to ask the question, then the answer is obvious: Punt.

If you're looking for a RIGHT answer then you must look within . That's where all right answers are.

 

[Vaughn]

Just looking through a viewfinder helps for me. I often look at a scene and think "that looks interesting" I lift up the camera and look then put it down thinking "no it doesn't". Steve.

Using a LF camera, it is good to learn this without looking at the GG. I have to decide if it is worth taking the camera pack off my back and then set up the 8x10. Can the time and effort to do so be better spent on a better image? Then once set up, I compose the best possible image and ask myself if the image is worth exposing a sheet or two of costly film (and the time to develop it!) Occasionally I decide that it is not and tear down the equipment and go on my way. But each time I look at the GG is a learning experience.

 

[pdeeh]

you compared Jesus' teachings to common trite platitudes such as "always do your best." That is the part of your post I take exception with. His teachings, or those attributed to him, are often quite radical and might even strike some as bizarre and quite opposed to human nature. It is insulting to insinuate that those who follow the teachings of "experts" (in your words), are naive or ignorant, unable to think for themselves. When learning photography I studied what "experts" had to say on the matter before willy-nilly throwing chemicals together and hoping things would turn out via "my way." That doesn't mean I have a "moral superiority."

I haven't made any of the statements or implications that you have attributed to me. None.

If you choose to draw unintended inferences and then take offence at them, that is entirely your prerogative, of course.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Why do we need to always be better than the guy with a camera phone?

Snap shots are fun. The records they supply are valuable, and the memories they can trigger can often be joyful.

I am careful when I shoot snap shots, but only to the extent that a good snap shot is better than a lousy one.

But I am always open to inspiration, and when I see something that looks like I might get something better out of it, I go for it.

But thanks for the interesting thread idea. From now, if I see a good portrait opportunity, I'll just mumble to myself: "What would blanksy do"?

because we make fun of him

 

[Hatchetman]

If you choose to draw unintended inferences and then take offence at them, that is entirely your prerogative, of course.

You, in fact, predicted offense would be taken in your post! I just wanted to clarify some things. Not all anglo americans are simpletons who defer to "experts" and rely on trite mantras and then claim moral superiority. That's how read your post. Maybe I AM a simpleton!

 

[blansky]

Using a LF camera, it is good to learn this without looking at the GG. I have to decide if it is worth taking the camera pack off my back and then set up the 8x10. Can the time and effort to do so be better spent on a better image? Then once set up, I compose the best possible image and ask myself if the image is worth exposing a sheet or two of costly film (and the time to develop it!) Occasionally I decide that it is not and tear down the equipment and go on my way. But each time I look at the GG is a learning experience.

And an interesting thing about a ground glass is that often it looks better than the scene. Just the nature of the glass adds a look that is often missing in the neg/print.

I always noticed that even on my Hasselblad.

 

[BrianShaw]

And an interesting thing about a ground glass is that often it looks better than the scene. Just the nature of the glass adds a look that is often missing in the neg/print.

I always noticed that even on my Hasselblad.

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.

 

[pdeeh]

You, in fact, predicted offense would be taken in your post! I just wanted to clarify some things. Not all anglo americans are simpletons who defer to "experts" and rely on trite mantras and then claim moral superiority. That's how read your post. Maybe I AM a simpleton!

No, to be clear, I predicted that there would be negative responses. I did not predict or expect offence to be taken. Nor did I suggest that anyone is a simpleton (many people are uninformed or naive or prefer not to think too hard, but that doesn't make them stupid or indeed "simpletons"). Nor, by the way, did I attack the basis of Christian belief, deny the creator-god, or undermine the possibility that Jesus existed as an historical person.

blansky in his OP used the phrase "what would Jesus do" and referred to "the mantras some Christians have". This strikes me as carrying about the same observational weight as my own comments, and thus I'm equally puzzled as to why you are not taking offence at the OP as well as my posts.

However ...

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.

I've read plenty of your posts at APUG and you are clearly not a simpleton. But the impression I get is that on this occasion, you are stabbing away at my post in an effort to be offended rather than making an effort to understand what I am suggesting. Of course that is only my impression.

 

[BrianShaw]

I knew this would happen eventually. Aaaargh.