How much of what we do in landscape photography really boils down to simply 'being there?'
I think sometimes I am Amazed by what a photographer does when he captures a beautiful scene. Questions like 'how did he Do that or get that shot?' When most of the time couldn't we have simply placed a monkey there with a decent camera in auto mode and gotten something pretty frickin amazing as well?
Of course there are exceptions to this which we catagorize under areas such as incredible vision, creative genius, brilliant composition, etc... But honestly doesn't simply 'being there' still account for the majority of the achievement?
Now being there can obviously involve a lot. Many times you can be at the right place with the 'wrong' weather, etc... This reminds of a one of Marc A.'s threads I was reading in which he said he had spent many nights on some freezing mtn. ridge during the Winter for one particular shot. But the conditions never quite came together.
Sure PS techniques, tweaks, sharpening, blends come into play. I guess I take that a bit for granted since I have been doing it for a while now. However I also realize that no matter how good I am in PS, if I don't have the RAW materials to start with I am wasting my time. This is akin to trying to squeeze juice from a rock.
So what are your thoughts on the matter? Is being there 9/10 of the work in 'Making' a great photo?
And more importantly if this is true then what are the implications for your/my photography?
Derek, this is truly interesting for an open thread on the subject. The subject being what amount of good material is produced more by being out there & just flat trying then overall talent and ability. I see it as a true mixture of both, but weighted toward being out there more then raw talent in a lot of cases. At least this is my insight into many things in life.
As I have mentioned in a few previous posts I spent many years drag racing. As such, I was very hard-core. I raced as often as I possibly could. As a result I won my fair share of races and in the class I ran in for my last 7 years of racing I qualified for every event I attended.
At the same time, I knew a person that had unlimited funds and time on his hands, yet he was a pure "garage racer". He never won anything. He just flat was not out there attacking the situation. I see a lot of those circumstances and situations applying to many things in life, as well as photographic results.
Your comment about one of Marc's outings is a perfect example. Marc has excellent talent, but it IMO takes second place to Marc's unending drive to obtain the best shot possible. He is always out there attacking the elements on that quest to get that shot others will never see. My 2 cents worth.
Yes, very interesting topic indeed. No doubt a lot of an image is being there - determination. That's the same with nearly everything; you don't get anywhere with pure talent, to be the best you have to work hard no matter what it is. That said, what sets a fantastic image apart from a 'just another great view with light', is that 10% of inspiration.
Part of the art of photography is finding the spot, and predicting when it will be at its best - and I don't think most monkeys can do that One of the reasons Marc's work is great is not just that he is super determined to get the best light possible, but he's great at finding relatively new locations. Anyone can find the valley view in Yosemite, but it takes some research, a lot of walking, map reading skills, and intuition to find a new stunning place.
Lastly, for me personally, composition is the most important and fun part of photography. I often roll with the light, letting it tell me where I should look for compositions, rather than waiting for just one specific scene. Though of course I do that often too. I guess what I mean is, for me, to a large extent, it's the composition and other thoughtful twists that make an image really stand out.. so no, a monkey cannot compete with a good photographer
I kind of had some musings along these lines in my latest blog post too, which you might find interesting.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on March 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Yeah,
I can see where you are both coming from. I guess I am playing the devil's advocate a bit in posing this question to the group. The reason is that I think the degree to which f8 and be there contributes to the end product is under estimated by most. When we are in awe of a photo the effort in getting there is overlooked IMO.
Paul, I can relate to your analogy with racing and track time. For me growing up it was surfing and water time. Being good was a by-product of all those hours put in which made one more in tune with the ocean.
Floris, I actually consider finding that great spot part of 'being there.' For me this is really the fun part. It is the hunt or journey in getting there. I think photography for me has been a natural extension of my love of the outdoors and exploring.
Now of course there are other factors such as talent. And if that extra 10% really makes an image sing then 'No' a monkey can't do that. Although a determined monkey who happened upon the right location could get pretty darn close. That is really what I think of all these webcams. As they get higher resolution they have the potential to get as good or better shots than most photographers can achieve. In a good location, lets say an icon, they are 'there' all the time. Of course streaming high res is still a way off. And a monkey doesn't really know how to follow the light as Floris described.
Derek
Posted by David Senesac on March 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Being there is part of the equation. It depends on where. Being out in the middle of a wheat field in Kansas you might be there but so what. It also depends on the maturity of the subject. For Yosemite Valley icons, the only chance to stand out from the millions of others is to be there in the most optimal special weather or light conditions. Knowing when that might be is key. For many of the remote graphic landform subjects I seek, since no one else has shot them, an ordinary sunny day can be fine. One can go to many of the incredible wildflower locations I've shot and unless you are there during a very narrow period that just occurs every few years, one isn't going to take back anything remarkable. Another part of the equation that you are reflecting on is of course the skill and talent of the photographer. For
Posted by Richard Wong on March 6, 2009 at 2:03 AM
A monkey can get lucky but a photographer builds a collection of images.
Excellent comments here on this subject.
One thing is for sure; anyone who has seen the great work here at NPN & CANP can rest assures it is not by happenstance. There is a lot of hard work, albeit in most cases very enjoyable for most of us, but it does take many hours in the field as well as post processing too. With that said, there is also one heck of a lot of talent here. I know as I visit the site daily and never get tired of viewing the amazing work that many produce. Now, is the fine work a result of talent or the many trips to the field and just by luck right place & right time takes over? Hard to really say overall.
For me, my original thoughts toward the fact that it requires just flat being out there is a key point. Overall, the most talented person will not produce many images sitting in front of the TV, at least the type we are use to seeing here at NPN.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on March 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Paul,
That is exactly what I was getting at with respects to my own photography. I find a direct correlation with the amount of time I spend out in the field and my success rate. Of course just knowing where to go and when is an art in and of itself. Floris illuded to that in describing Marc A.'s committment to being out in the field.
So for me if I am in a rut or my not getting much I have to ask myself this primary question. How much effort I am really putting forth in order to get a decent shot?
Then along with that come all the other variables such as trying something new compositionally, PS techniques, etc... But if I don't go out somewhere interesting in the first place the rest is irrelavant. And yes there are those ultra talented exceptions to the rule who could take a picture of their shoes and make it art. But for the majority of us it takes real work and hours in the field to bring something home we are pleased with.
Now if I could just teach a monkey the rule of thirds....LOL
Very interesting discussion so far. My thoughts are that getting lucky and being in the right place at the right time is - to use David's words - only a small part of the equation. After that comes exposure, composition, and vision to make that right place and right time come to life in a completely different medium. On the other side of the coin, I feel that being in the wrong place at the wrong time can also produce similar results, if there is talent and vision.
Posted by Steve Sieren on March 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
..... .. . If one had a set of monkeys w/ mild animal friendly shock collars, one could leave a camera behind at the composed scene and remotely jolt the little guy to trip the shutter at oppertuned times... .. . .
Thanks all for commenting on my musings. Steve, that is a really funny mental picture.
I was hoping to elicit some feedback whether one agrees or not. And while Greg seems to take the opposite view of things he makes some good points. I have to admit that upon further reflection I do think there is a lot more to it than being somewhere.
I was reminded of a CO wildflower trip into the San Juans I took with a friend who is a talented photographer. First off there was a lot of work in getting there including some gnarly (for us) 4x4 trails. But once there my buddy got sick and when morning light hit all he could do was roll out of the truck and take a 'snap.' While I woke up before dawn finding just the right patch of columbines to shoot low from and still bring in the rest of the scene. Needless to say he was disapointed while I was satisfied with the results.
So while things like composition and vision 'are' important, getting there is still one of the 'most' critical factors for me. It is similar to the definition of success I have heard - "when preparation meets opportunity."
> Now if I could just teach a monkey the rule of thirds....LOL
I belive that any attempt to teach a monkey 'the rule of thirds' is a sure way of obliterating its chances of producing original work. If I were to ever hand a camera to a monkey, I'd definitiely not teach it to produce photographs like (most) humans do. Instead, I'd expect to see a set of images that depictes the monkey's view of the world.
Coming back to the main subject of this thread - It is a given thing in photography that the camera has to be placed in front of the subject being photographed. In almost all cases, this requires the person operating the instrument (photographer) to also be there. If the location is hard to reach a lot of effort may be required. On the other hand, there is no dearth of interesting places that can be accessed without much trouble at all. It all depends on the type of photographs you like to make and the locations where you are likely to find them. I suppose I am fortunate to be able to make my pictures in very easy to-get-to spots.
Sure, you can teach a monkey the rule of thirds (that's me). But what would really be difficult is teaching him when to break that rule.
Warren
Posted by Lon Overacker on March 8, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Derek,
Great topic and one which someone could spend a lot of time on. I hope to be brief... :-)
"f8 and be there contributes to the end product is under estimated by most"
With all due respect, isn't it rather obvious that one has to "be there" to create an image? It's like saying if you're not in the kitchen, you can't cook, or if you're not on a golf course, you can't get a hole in one.
I think what you're really meaning to say, and you've said as much already, is that you think you are more successful and have better chances of producing good work, the longer you're out there, OR the more immersed you are in the environment. Interestingly enough I recently had a email discussion with Dietrich on this very subject. I think he feels as you do Derek.
Aside from the obvious responses mentioned already, the photographer has the ability to "create" something that is in front of the camera and not just capture it. Composition and all the technical aspects can be used to create something that is uniquely yours and not just a "monkey" shot.
While I would agree that my frame of mind is much different when I'm out in the middle of nowhere, miles from another person or "hand of man," I don't necessarily need that to create art. While it is a distraction to shoot from the side of the road and have cars and trucks whizzing by.... I'm still focused and "zoned in" to the scene at hand. I see beauty, light, lines, form, color, etc. etc. and honestly it doesn't matter to me if I'm in my backyard, 30min from the house or hundreds of miles away, 11,000ft up in the Sierra.
You can put a monkey in my backyard but I can guarentee you he won't capture the same thing I would. Yes, there's complete merit in being in the right place at the right time, but don't sell yourself short looking for external reasons - beauty is where you find it and what you make of what's in front of you. I doesn't matter if a Sierra wave is floating overhead, or if you're socked in with freezing rain, clouds and fog at Tunnel View.
Hope that makes sense.
Lon
ps. I'm thinking you overlooked this, but technically by copying the images to your smugmug site, you violated some copyrights.... It's the stuff that we as photographers are always concerned about. I know you wanted to illustrate your point, but.....
Sorry, don't mean to be anal... but thought I should bring that to your attention.
Posted by David Senesac on March 9, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Another facet of your question is that the more one is in the field working, the more one potentially given effort and subject value, can learn something about the subjects, locations, and the way to use one's equipment to be successful. Over time one builds up experience and knowledge that can be of considerable advantage towards improvement and success. The value each photographer gains from field experience varies greatly and depends much on their experience, skills, effort to learn, and knowledge. Equipment skills can plateau out while skills of reading and putting to use natural sciences never ends.
Lon, I think Dietrich and I are thinking along the same lines. Yes, I agree that it is obvious one can't take a shot unless they are there. But that is really the point for me. Unless I get off my bu## more and go somewhere which has the potential to inspire nothing is going to happen. Now for some that may be as close as their backyard. And since I live a mile form the coast it can happen that close to home for me as well.
All I am really saying is more I go the better the odds become. And that part of the formula for me is the key right now. That sometimes means getting skunked more than I would want to learn and study an area of interest. f8 and be there has many faces to it. It is the journey, the hunt and the discovery that really makes the capture that much more enjoyable for me.
Anyway I also think we go through different phases in our photography. If lines, form and texture are one's thing then one may not have to go far at all. However if snow covered redwoods are what gets one going then it is going to take some significant work and planning to hit the conditions just right.
David, I think you have described very well the thing that I am getting at. Greater experience in the field offers a significant advantage in improving one's chances for success.
I do know some photographers who I consider *very* artistic. And it 'seems' like for them it doesn't take as much to come back with incredible results no matter where they go. I know for me it takes more work to get inspired which then can result in capturing something I like.
BTW Lon, thanks for the heads up on the frame grabs. I guess I didn't think about it much since they are such low rez video images. I'll probably go ahead and delete them away though. I wish there was a static place for those things one could point to just as a reference.
Thanks again all for your perspective even if different from my own.
Thanks for the response - this is a great discussion.
I do understand what you're saying and I think David touched on it as well. And back to my cooking and golf analogies, if you don't burn a few cakes, you'll never become a better baker, and if you don't play golf or go to the range, you'll never drop any strokes.
And to some extent, you're correct in saying that getting out there more often will "improve your odds." But if I may, let me offer some food for thought. Does getting out there more often improve your odds of catching the subject matter in optimal conditions? Or do every time you go out are you trying to improve? I don't mean to be harsh, but getting back to your monkey premis.... if you went to the same location on the Monterey coast every single day for a year to the same spot and took the same picture... I have no doubt that you will, by pure randomness, capture some phenomenol images. You've acheived at least one goal by getting out there more often, but did you improve your photography? If, on the other hand, you go out to the same spot everyday and make mental or paper notes about what ss, aperture or focal length produces the best results, or simply go out and watch the light, turning 360deg making notes of when the best light is for any subject in your view... then you can begin to really improve your odds of taking - I'm sorry, creating better images.
I'm guessing just about everyone has gone through this. I know I did. When I was shooting 35mm (way before digital, Pong and Pac-man...) I use to burn thru rolls of film like digital shooters today go thru SD cards and shutter activations. Don't tell anyone, but I use to count how many "A," "B," "C," and trash images I got per roll. That got pretty stupid after a while. What if I was witnessing a phenomenal event and I shot a whole roll because the sky was on fire. Every image was great - and just like the other one, so how did I know if I was improving and making better photographs. I didn't.
Then came along 4x5. I won't get in to all the reasons why I enjoy it, or how it changed (and improved my photography,) because shooting large format is not a destination. Photography is a journey. And like you're saying, it does take practice. It does encompass many, many things including, and perhaps most importantly, your approach. Every time you go out, make a point to either learn something new about the technical aspects, or simply observe and learn what attracts you to the subjects in the environment you're in.
Great discussion. I have to agree with Lon on many of his points. Would a monkey know its in the right place and at the right time? Of course, compelling scenes help to make a compelling image. But its about how well we see our subject matter and then transfer that vision to film (or your digital sensor). Part of the enjoyment I derive from my photography is thinking about locations that I want to photograph and trying to figure out when the best conditions will be present at that location. You can visit many compelling locations, but they don't look so good if the light is flat or harsh. The flip side of that is many could be present when conditions are perfect, but not recognize it as perfect, or not have the ability to transfer their vision of the scene to make a compelling image. Thanks to everyone for sharing comments to this interesting discussion. Best Regards.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on March 11, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I was hoping to spark some interesting discussion on the subject as it had been on my mind after two recent visits to Yosemite. I think all made good points. And because photography is both art and science I know ppl will have different perspectives on the matter.
In a way I think all have shared some common thought processes. For most it is a matter of degree to which 'f8 and be there' is a factor. And in the end it may vary from shot to shot. 100 tourists can pour out of a bus at Tunnel View, Glacier Point, etc... at the right time. While all may not agree that a monkey could take a good shot, I think we realize the potential is there if one were to stuble upon the right place at the right time.
Michael, I think studying an area of interest and then catching it is when it is 'On' is one of the big pay offs for me. As I now switch gears from Winter to wildflower season I am thinking just that - where do I want to be and when?
And to Lon's point about seeing things a little differently, looking for new compositions, exposures, etc... when one goes out to the same place it is important - Basically thinking above and beyond a monkey! Well for some of us it is a stretch, myself included. But that is one of the ways we learn. It reminds me of a quote from Galen Rowell I heard which goes something like "If you don't think it is something you could imagine hanging on your wall then why take the shot?" Basically thinking about composition and all the other elements before machine gunning off a bunch of images.
Derek,
Looking at the images you have posted in the past, I think your thought process does show through in your photography. Don't sell yourself short. I very much agree that slowing down the composition process has helped my photography. As I transitioned from digital to primarily 4x5, I've found it forces me to think more about each composition. But that same process can be applied to whatever format you chose to shoot. Because we are blessed with so many good locations, its some times hard to know where to start. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Best Regards. Michael
Is it in the geometry of a natural rock, or a flower or a leaf or a landscape?
Is it in a garment you bought because you like the design?
Is it in a detailed map made by a 18th century cartographer?
Is it in the naive drawings of primitive civilisation, or an uneducated person?
Is it in a masterpiece piano piece?
=> It is probably difficult to answer. It's in the eye of the beholder, it's education and sensibility. It might even be difficult to agree on the definition of art.
I'm not going to try. All that art has to do is move me. How does it do that?
When I criticise photos on this nature forum, I do not give points to what I think are
descriptive photos, i.e. photos that just show a scenery without trying to steer me
into something more.
It's all about composition, and technical mastery is just a tool to achieve that end.
It can be as simple as using perspective or the rule of thirds to give an impression
of size, movement, or moment, etc.
It can be by breaking generally accepted rules to achieve an emotional response.
I actually will give more credits to that approach. It's the difference between corporate
art (aka well controlled recipie), and cutting edge.
On the cutting edge, you exploit accepted rules and break it enough to stir new emotions
or discomfort, but not enough that you are just disconected. You are in a state of virtuose,
because you achieved a deeper understanding of your media.
To give an example: Jazz by introducing the blue note was a revolution. Modern experimental music is a failure, by breaking too fast with standards it becomes noise to most. These composers are just smelling their own smug (south park reference).
To get back to photos:
- The webcams are descriptive: zero points.
- A classic photographer would reframe to emphasize something to focus on, giving a reason for that shot in the first place. One point.
- A virtuose will go a step further, in an original direction. He will manage for example to show you something, ie a reason for the photo, but in an unusual way. Two points.
- Somebody trying to go too far or not with a keen enough sense of standards to know how to break them the right way, will generate a photo that will look like a random photo. Back to zero points.
Honestly in nature photography there's a lot of great 1-point photos. They showcase technical mastery, gear quality, or the subject's own beauty. They make good framing, like a nice map, an old garment, etc. They are art in some way... BUT they are not original "art". Attaching your name on it brings no extra interrest.
For example, Ansel, Doisneau etc. have brought photography a new level, with a specific style, sensitivity. Of course, now they're part of the standards. You can copy the style but that becomes like following standards. Perfection will yield you just 1 point, maybe 1.5 points.
A monkey can score from zero to 2 points, by accident. It will depend on how I feel when I see the photo it took. If it repeats 2 point photos multiple time, I'll start thinking that the monkey is a genious and it'll earn my respect.
When I compose, I try to aim for 1.5 points to get some respect, and at least score a lot of 1 point pics... :)
Discussion
20 repliesAfter viewing todays webcam from Tioga Pass I couldn't help but ask myself this question. Take a look at a couple frame grabs in question:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/7491241_PmFzs#485759328_UwvGf-A-LB
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/7491241_PmFzs#485804154_X9VNG-A-LB
How much of what we do in landscape photography really boils down to simply 'being there?'
I think sometimes I am Amazed by what a photographer does when he captures a beautiful scene. Questions like 'how did he Do that or get that shot?' When most of the time couldn't we have simply placed a monkey there with a decent camera in auto mode and gotten something pretty frickin amazing as well?
Of course there are exceptions to this which we catagorize under areas such as incredible vision, creative genius, brilliant composition, etc... But honestly doesn't simply 'being there' still account for the majority of the achievement?
Now being there can obviously involve a lot. Many times you can be at the right place with the 'wrong' weather, etc... This reminds of a one of Marc A.'s threads I was reading in which he said he had spent many nights on some freezing mtn. ridge during the Winter for one particular shot. But the conditions never quite came together.
Sure PS techniques, tweaks, sharpening, blends come into play. I guess I take that a bit for granted since I have been doing it for a while now. However I also realize that no matter how good I am in PS, if I don't have the RAW materials to start with I am wasting my time. This is akin to trying to squeeze juice from a rock.
So what are your thoughts on the matter? Is being there 9/10 of the work in 'Making' a great photo?
And more importantly if this is true then what are the implications for your/my photography?
Derek
As I have mentioned in a few previous posts I spent many years drag racing. As such, I was very hard-core. I raced as often as I possibly could. As a result I won my fair share of races and in the class I ran in for my last 7 years of racing I qualified for every event I attended.
At the same time, I knew a person that had unlimited funds and time on his hands, yet he was a pure "garage racer". He never won anything. He just flat was not out there attacking the situation. I see a lot of those circumstances and situations applying to many things in life, as well as photographic results.
Your comment about one of Marc's outings is a perfect example. Marc has excellent talent, but it IMO takes second place to Marc's unending drive to obtain the best shot possible. He is always out there attacking the elements on that quest to get that shot others will never see. My 2 cents worth.
Part of the art of photography is finding the spot, and predicting when it will be at its best - and I don't think most monkeys can do that
Lastly, for me personally, composition is the most important and fun part of photography. I often roll with the light, letting it tell me where I should look for compositions, rather than waiting for just one specific scene. Though of course I do that often too. I guess what I mean is, for me, to a large extent, it's the composition and other thoughtful twists that make an image really stand out.. so no, a monkey cannot compete with a good photographer
I kind of had some musings along these lines in my latest blog post too, which you might find interesting.
I can see where you are both coming from. I guess I am playing the devil's advocate a bit in posing this question to the group. The reason is that I think the degree to which f8 and be there contributes to the end product is under estimated by most. When we are in awe of a photo the effort in getting there is overlooked IMO.
Paul, I can relate to your analogy with racing and track time. For me growing up it was surfing and water time. Being good was a by-product of all those hours put in which made one more in tune with the ocean.
Floris, I actually consider finding that great spot part of 'being there.' For me this is really the fun part. It is the hunt or journey in getting there. I think photography for me has been a natural extension of my love of the outdoors and exploring.
Now of course there are other factors such as talent. And if that extra 10% really makes an image sing then 'No' a monkey can't do that. Although a determined monkey who happened upon the right location could get pretty darn close. That is really what I think of all these webcams. As they get higher resolution they have the potential to get as good or better shots than most photographers can achieve. In a good location, lets say an icon, they are 'there' all the time. Of course streaming high res is still a way off. And a monkey doesn't really know how to follow the light as Floris described.
Derek
One thing is for sure; anyone who has seen the great work here at NPN & CANP can rest assures it is not by happenstance. There is a lot of hard work, albeit in most cases very enjoyable for most of us, but it does take many hours in the field as well as post processing too. With that said, there is also one heck of a lot of talent here. I know as I visit the site daily and never get tired of viewing the amazing work that many produce. Now, is the fine work a result of talent or the many trips to the field and just by luck right place & right time takes over? Hard to really say overall.
For me, my original thoughts toward the fact that it requires just flat being out there is a key point. Overall, the most talented person will not produce many images sitting in front of the TV, at least the type we are use to seeing here at NPN.
That is exactly what I was getting at with respects to my own photography. I find a direct correlation with the amount of time I spend out in the field and my success rate. Of course just knowing where to go and when is an art in and of itself. Floris illuded to that in describing Marc A.'s committment to being out in the field.
So for me if I am in a rut or my not getting much I have to ask myself this primary question. How much effort I am really putting forth in order to get a decent shot?
Then along with that come all the other variables such as trying something new compositionally, PS techniques, etc... But if I don't go out somewhere interesting in the first place the rest is irrelavant. And yes there are those ultra talented exceptions to the rule who could take a picture of their shoes and make it art. But for the majority of us it takes real work and hours in the field to bring something home we are pleased with.
Now if I could just teach a monkey the rule of thirds....LOL
Derek
No monkeys were harmed in this thougtht
I was hoping to elicit some feedback whether one agrees or not. And while Greg seems to take the opposite view of things he makes some good points. I have to admit that upon further reflection I do think there is a lot more to it than being somewhere.
I was reminded of a CO wildflower trip into the San Juans I took with a friend who is a talented photographer. First off there was a lot of work in getting there including some gnarly (for us) 4x4 trails. But once there my buddy got sick and when morning light hit all he could do was roll out of the truck and take a 'snap.' While I woke up before dawn finding just the right patch of columbines to shoot low from and still bring in the rest of the scene. Needless to say he was disapointed while I was satisfied with the results.
So while things like composition and vision 'are' important, getting there is still one of the 'most' critical factors for me. It is similar to the definition of success I have heard - "when preparation meets opportunity."
Derek
I belive that any attempt to teach a monkey 'the rule of thirds' is a sure way of obliterating its chances of producing original work. If I were to ever hand a camera to a monkey, I'd definitiely not teach it to produce photographs like (most) humans do. Instead, I'd expect to see a set of images that depictes the monkey's view of the world.
Coming back to the main subject of this thread - It is a given thing in photography that the camera has to be placed in front of the subject being photographed. In almost all cases, this requires the person operating the instrument (photographer) to also be there. If the location is hard to reach a lot of effort may be required. On the other hand, there is no dearth of interesting places that can be accessed without much trouble at all. It all depends on the type of photographs you like to make and the locations where you are likely to find them. I suppose I am fortunate to be able to make my pictures in very easy to-get-to spots.
Warren
Great topic and one which someone could spend a lot of time on. I hope to be brief... :-)
"f8 and be there contributes to the end product is under estimated by most"
With all due respect, isn't it rather obvious that one has to "be there" to create an image? It's like saying if you're not in the kitchen, you can't cook, or if you're not on a golf course, you can't get a hole in one.
I think what you're really meaning to say, and you've said as much already, is that you think you are more successful and have better chances of producing good work, the longer you're out there, OR the more immersed you are in the environment. Interestingly enough I recently had a email discussion with Dietrich on this very subject. I think he feels as you do Derek.
Aside from the obvious responses mentioned already, the photographer has the ability to "create" something that is in front of the camera and not just capture it. Composition and all the technical aspects can be used to create something that is uniquely yours and not just a "monkey" shot.
While I would agree that my frame of mind is much different when I'm out in the middle of nowhere, miles from another person or "hand of man," I don't necessarily need that to create art. While it is a distraction to shoot from the side of the road and have cars and trucks whizzing by.... I'm still focused and "zoned in" to the scene at hand. I see beauty, light, lines, form, color, etc. etc. and honestly it doesn't matter to me if I'm in my backyard, 30min from the house or hundreds of miles away, 11,000ft up in the Sierra.
You can put a monkey in my backyard but I can guarentee you he won't capture the same thing I would. Yes, there's complete merit in being in the right place at the right time, but don't sell yourself short looking for external reasons - beauty is where you find it and what you make of what's in front of you. I doesn't matter if a Sierra wave is floating overhead, or if you're socked in with freezing rain, clouds and fog at Tunnel View.
Hope that makes sense.
Lon
ps. I'm thinking you overlooked this, but technically by copying the images to your smugmug site, you violated some copyrights.... It's the stuff that we as photographers are always concerned about. I know you wanted to illustrate your point, but.....
Sorry, don't mean to be anal... but thought I should bring that to your attention.
All I am really saying is more I go the better the odds become. And that part of the formula for me is the key right now. That sometimes means getting skunked more than I would want to learn and study an area of interest. f8 and be there has many faces to it. It is the journey, the hunt and the discovery that really makes the capture that much more enjoyable for me.
Anyway I also think we go through different phases in our photography. If lines, form and texture are one's thing then one may not have to go far at all. However if snow covered redwoods are what gets one going then it is going to take some significant work and planning to hit the conditions just right.
David, I think you have described very well the thing that I am getting at. Greater experience in the field offers a significant advantage in improving one's chances for success.
I do know some photographers who I consider *very* artistic. And it 'seems' like for them it doesn't take as much to come back with incredible results no matter where they go. I know for me it takes more work to get inspired which then can result in capturing something I like.
BTW Lon, thanks for the heads up on the frame grabs. I guess I didn't think about it much since they are such low rez video images. I'll probably go ahead and delete them away though. I wish there was a static place for those things one could point to just as a reference.
Thanks again all for your perspective even if different from my own.
- Derek
Thanks for the response - this is a great discussion.
I do understand what you're saying and I think David touched on it as well. And back to my cooking and golf analogies, if you don't burn a few cakes, you'll never become a better baker, and if you don't play golf or go to the range, you'll never drop any strokes.
And to some extent, you're correct in saying that getting out there more often will "improve your odds." But if I may, let me offer some food for thought. Does getting out there more often improve your odds of catching the subject matter in optimal conditions? Or do every time you go out are you trying to improve? I don't mean to be harsh, but getting back to your monkey premis.... if you went to the same location on the Monterey coast every single day for a year to the same spot and took the same picture... I have no doubt that you will, by pure randomness, capture some phenomenol images. You've acheived at least one goal by getting out there more often, but did you improve your photography? If, on the other hand, you go out to the same spot everyday and make mental or paper notes about what ss, aperture or focal length produces the best results, or simply go out and watch the light, turning 360deg making notes of when the best light is for any subject in your view... then you can begin to really improve your odds of taking - I'm sorry, creating better images.
I'm guessing just about everyone has gone through this. I know I did. When I was shooting 35mm (way before digital, Pong and Pac-man...) I use to burn thru rolls of film like digital shooters today go thru SD cards and shutter activations. Don't tell anyone, but I use to count how many "A," "B," "C," and trash images I got per roll. That got pretty stupid after a while. What if I was witnessing a phenomenal event and I shot a whole roll because the sky was on fire. Every image was great - and just like the other one, so how did I know if I was improving and making better photographs. I didn't.
Then came along 4x5. I won't get in to all the reasons why I enjoy it, or how it changed (and improved my photography,) because shooting large format is not a destination. Photography is a journey. And like you're saying, it does take practice. It does encompass many, many things including, and perhaps most importantly, your approach. Every time you go out, make a point to either learn something new about the technical aspects, or simply observe and learn what attracts you to the subjects in the environment you're in.
Whew... end of sermon. Calling Dr. Phil... Oprah?
Just go have fun. Don't sweat the small stuff.
Lon
In a way I think all have shared some common thought processes. For most it is a matter of degree to which 'f8 and be there' is a factor. And in the end it may vary from shot to shot. 100 tourists can pour out of a bus at Tunnel View, Glacier Point, etc... at the right time. While all may not agree that a monkey could take a good shot, I think we realize the potential is there if one were to stuble upon the right place at the right time.
Michael, I think studying an area of interest and then catching it is when it is 'On' is one of the big pay offs for me. As I now switch gears from Winter to wildflower season I am thinking just that - where do I want to be and when?
And to Lon's point about seeing things a little differently, looking for new compositions, exposures, etc... when one goes out to the same place it is important - Basically thinking above and beyond a monkey! Well for some of us it is a stretch, myself included. But that is one of the ways we learn.
Derek
Looking at the images you have posted in the past, I think your thought process does show through in your photography. Don't sell yourself short. I very much agree that slowing down the composition process has helped my photography. As I transitioned from digital to primarily 4x5, I've found it forces me to think more about each composition. But that same process can be applied to whatever format you chose to shoot. Because we are blessed with so many good locations, its some times hard to know where to start. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Best Regards. Michael
Is it in the geometry of a natural rock, or a flower or a leaf or a landscape?
Is it in a garment you bought because you like the design?
Is it in a detailed map made by a 18th century cartographer?
Is it in the naive drawings of primitive civilisation, or an uneducated person?
Is it in a masterpiece piano piece?
=> It is probably difficult to answer. It's in the eye of the beholder, it's education and sensibility. It might even be difficult to agree on the definition of art.
I'm not going to try. All that art has to do is move me. How does it do that?
When I criticise photos on this nature forum, I do not give points to what I think are
descriptive photos, i.e. photos that just show a scenery without trying to steer me
into something more.
It's all about composition, and technical mastery is just a tool to achieve that end.
It can be as simple as using perspective or the rule of thirds to give an impression
of size, movement, or moment, etc.
It can be by breaking generally accepted rules to achieve an emotional response.
I actually will give more credits to that approach. It's the difference between corporate
art (aka well controlled recipie), and cutting edge.
On the cutting edge, you exploit accepted rules and break it enough to stir new emotions
or discomfort, but not enough that you are just disconected. You are in a state of virtuose,
because you achieved a deeper understanding of your media.
To give an example: Jazz by introducing the blue note was a revolution. Modern experimental music is a failure, by breaking too fast with standards it becomes noise to most. These composers are just smelling their own smug (south park reference).
To get back to photos:
- The webcams are descriptive: zero points.
- A classic photographer would reframe to emphasize something to focus on, giving a reason for that shot in the first place. One point.
- A virtuose will go a step further, in an original direction. He will manage for example to show you something, ie a reason for the photo, but in an unusual way. Two points.
- Somebody trying to go too far or not with a keen enough sense of standards to know how to break them the right way, will generate a photo that will look like a random photo. Back to zero points.
Honestly in nature photography there's a lot of great 1-point photos. They showcase technical mastery, gear quality, or the subject's own beauty. They make good framing, like a nice map, an old garment, etc. They are art in some way... BUT they are not original "art". Attaching your name on it brings no extra interrest.
For example, Ansel, Doisneau etc. have brought photography a new level, with a specific style, sensitivity. Of course, now they're part of the standards. You can copy the style but that becomes like following standards. Perfection will yield you just 1 point, maybe 1.5 points.
A monkey can score from zero to 2 points, by accident. It will depend on how I feel when I see the photo it took. If it repeats 2 point photos multiple time, I'll start thinking that the monkey is a genious and it'll earn my respect.
When I compose, I try to aim for 1.5 points to get some respect, and at least score a lot of 1 point pics... :)