Contemplative approach, meditation-like qualities and such are often praised by landscape photographers who practice techniques that require careful and time-consuming operations. Setting up a tripod, measuring the light, choosing filters, meticulous framing and focussing etc - going through the whole ritual supposedly helps to concentrate and produce "better" images.
You slow down and get deeper into... what? The technology and the process or your subject and the image in the making? I really wonder about the need to slow down. Is it really help or distraction? (I think the "Is photography getting easier" thread provided some nice insights) Do our images portray the subject or the possibilities and limitations of the process? (e.g. you can depict a landscape in full colour and high resolution using the latest EOS 1Dxx or in a well-crafted 7x17" palladium print - and either can be utterly meaningless.)
My point - it`s a bad idea to expect gaining insights to your subject by practicing complicated phototechnical rituals. This sounds very logical but it took me a couple of years to realise. I think the most important "revelations" about photography, man, nature and their interconnections have struck me when I`m out without a camera, not thinking about apertures, distances and shutter times. In this light, my ultimate goal now is to get to a point where I don`t need to fumble with any tools to get in the shooting mood. Slowing down, stopping by (and staying for dinner if necessary) is a part of the deal - but ideally it has to do with the subject and the technicals get out of the way as much as possible.
So - are these not very original ideas worth anything or did I just have one fine Estonian lager too much? Call me Captain Obvious
I thinnk those are important points Ott. But I don't think it has to be restricted to LF, or even to landscape.
My favorite "action" photographer is Sam Abell. He shoots an ancient Olympus OM-1, and most often a 28mm prime lens. He acknwledges the importance of lightning-fast reflexes for some shots, but for my favorites he uses another approach. He sizes up the evolving action, then places himself and frames the shot- often from a tripod. Then he waits for "the action to come to him" (his words.) His knack is knowing just when to press the shutter release, at the critical moment when the action peaks in just the right place. The end result is a phenominal action shot, taken from a tripod, in a single frame without a motordrive or a pixel.
Ott: I'd prefer to discuss this over an Estonian lager or three , but I spend the greatest amount of time determining how best to portray my subject(s)/scene. The technical portions all take place in under 1-2 minutes (I use a view camera and manual meter).
Everyone works differently, but rather than making a multitude of exposures and editing later, I 'edit' in the field and will normally walk away with only one - rarely two - negatives/chromes. I do all my visual refinement in the field rather than on a lightbox or in Photoshop. That is MY contemplative approach, and it has nothing to do with the tools, and everything to do with how much I 'listen' to the subject/scene (my esoteric way of photographing).
I think every situation calls for a different method. I think your methods are determined by your personality as well. Patience is not my strong suit, so I'll sometimes see something not want to wait and just time my next visit properly for the conditions or burn time doing something else rather than sitting around waiting. If I'm feeling in a relaxed, lazy type mood then I'll sit around and wait for light or conditions.
I also like to improvise. Just go with the flow and enjoy the rhythms of the world around you.
I'm a fan of Sam Abell's work as well. He has some images that just make me go, "How the hell did he do that?" The one with the cowboys branding cows in the foreground with a layered composition in the background doing the same comes to mind. I believe he mentioned pre-visualization when describing that image. To be able to execute a pre-visualized image in a moment of chaos like that is amazing.
You're exactly right on Sam's image that you describe. He set up the shot on his tripod with the general comp, background, etc that he wanted, then waited for the shot to develop. He's got an antelope image from his Lewis & Clark project which is very reminiscent. To slather more compliments on him, he's also go one of a dog in a pickup in Australia which is unbelievable. He was riding along, saw the shot out of the corner of his eye and fired quickly without further thought. Call it both ends of the spectrum- previsualization and lightning reflexes. Who needs a motor drive when you get the shot right the first time!
Very interesting that Sam Abell came up. Lately i`ve been very interested in mixing photojournalistic ways into my nature (well, man and nature) photography. My favourite m.o. at the moment is to take only my 28mm prime, use it handheld (looking for ad hoc camera supports makes you inventive, too ), close up and wide open, if necessary. I know I`ll miss some of the classic photo opportunities but I can afford it - I don`t make a living with photography. Maybe some day I`ll be brave enough to actually shoot portraits in the streets My bookmarks bar in Firefox now has references to Josef Koudelka and Simon Larbalestier. (Google them!)
I used to loathe anything connected with "journalism" by default - PJ-s, street shooters, photobloggers... "shallow," I thought. Behold life`s irony: I now work part-time as a journalist. And I`m beginning to see that if the contemplation starts when I set out to take photos, it`s too late. To find a good photograph, I need to have its mood and emotion stored in my brain from before. It`s the feeling of recognition, not novelty or simply awe that makes me pull my camera from the bag. So for me, a read from a great book (think G.G. Marquez, Kafka, Camus etc) or listening to music (Mark Kozelek is my only true hero) is as much a part of my photography as wandering around in the local woods. The act of taking the picture can be a hit and run - my attention span is not that good, you know.
As for equipment - I`ve always wanted to "upgrade" but luckily I`m not very rich. Right now I can`t really think of a single feature that I need to get. I just wish my gear was made like a tank - so I could forget about fretting over getting it destroyed. I want something I could keep using 15 years from now... or so. (the af/mf switch of my beloved 28/2.8 is fixed with duct tape for a couple of months now doesn`t sound tough does it?). Oh and a bit better enlargement potential, too...
Anyway much of this should be solved within a month. We`ll see what I get for my birthday and if I can stay true to the "forget about the technical mambo-jambo" rant after that.
to MG: Should you ever happen to come to Eastern Europe, you`d be welcome to come over and discuss these serious matters. Bear in mind, though, that three beers might not be enough as I have verbose tendencies
the "contemplative/previsualize" approach to taking pictures is best utilized when photographing something that you already know and you are basically just going through the photographic motions to obtain a result that offers little in the way of surprise, discovery or revelation...most people on the planet adopt this approach, not only to photography, but to life in general - they revel and delight in the intellectual and emotional comfort and (supposed) security in clinging to what they already know or, at least, what they think you already know...
in photography, witness the never ending stream of mostly same-o osame-o blazing sunsets/dramatic skies, sweeping dunes, aplenglo-ed craggy peaks, fuzzy rivers, streams and waterfalls, etc....no doubt, all previsualized to a fare-thee-well...
that said, and from my experience, most photographers who have managed to move beyond the obvious seem to share a similar trait - they have learned how to forget everything they know about the techinques of photography so that the techincals become somewhat like breathing...something they do almost without "thinking" or "contemplating", if you will...
witness Abell with his "ancient" olympus and 28mm lens...
and again, for those photogs who have moved beyond photographing the obvious, the advantage of not having to think about technique/equipment is that they can "tune in" and "listen" to the subject at hand without the intervention/interference of any extraneous static...
it is at this point, and only this point, that true photographic vision can emerge...
in photography, witness the never ending stream of mostly same-o osame-o (...)
That's a curious observation from someone who expressly sets out to produce a stream of hundreds and hundreds of the same predictable templatized takes on the same subject matter.
Oh no, here we go again I have no photographic vision because I like to photograph the obvious. Damn, my life as a nature photographer is shattered! Thanks Mark!
Dude I'm over the I've gotta spend hours mulling over a scene, gave that up when I sold the Ebony! I just shoot the ephemeral light as I see fit and use my past experiences to make a pleasing comp and correct exposure. I love shooting this way and I'm having fun at it. It's just exciting! It's what I like to shoot and it has nothing to do with the obvious, I SHOOT what I like. If it's the obvious, oh well.
As in the quote at the bottom on my posts, I'm under the spell of the Mountain!
Ott >>>"Contemplative approach...I really wonder about the need to slow down. Is it really help or distraction?"
I'm not going to address too much of your post as it is nicely vague. One thing is true, being a photographer that is taking a picture of a fleeting atmospheric phenomenon like a sunset, can certainly get in the way with what one would otherwise experience just observing it. Sometimes something fleeting is occuring that I'd really just like to sit and watch like a animal visit that happens into a frame I've already set up. By having to operate with one's gear and the more difficult one's system is, one can end up with a mediocre experience. If something is suddenly happening, my rig had better be ready to go or I'm out of luck. With my tiny Coolpix though, I can and do quickly re-evaluate while absorbing all that is happening and often will be able to get a quick sequence of nice handheld images while things are changing. Regardless, even using a point and shoot camera still gets in the way to some extent.
But now what about the static scene where one might take 15 to 30 minutes or longer to work a scene? Of course this is the more frequent situation and more about what you are thinking about, Ott. Many with small cameras in this situation look, move, snap a shot, and move on. How much chance does their image have in matching the basic aesthetic of my slower approach? Well not much especially the more complicated the scene and foreground. In their case it doesn't matter much does it. Snap shot after all. Heck I do the same thing at times with my digital camera. But to expose a pricy 4x5 sheet that takes time and effort with the hopeful intent of maybe making a large print, I don't want to waste film nor my time.
I often do spend a lot of effort figuring out exactly where my lens ends up. Am I a perfectionist about that? Absolutely. And I mean after otherwise setting up and focusing up on a frame, I'm quick to consider ways to make it better. Always thinking about geometries and the nature of the light both of what I see on the ground glass and what I see just looking at the scene. So am often moving even the wide lens fractions of an inch up, down, left, and right or picking the whole tripod up and replanting it on more fertile ground. I'll stick my head out and look at the way backlit light on vegetation changes ever so slightly as I move a little bit this way and that. Years ago with my 35mm, that was the way I worked. And today with 4x5 the same holds true. It is true sometimes I'll plunk down the tripod. My focus from the last image works well with this next one. I look at the scene on the groundglass and it looks good. I take my head out and wonder if moving has any benefits, then think not. I shove in a holder, expose the sheet and move on smiling.
Do I need to enter some kind of special contemplation state and frame of mind. No not at all. I've looked at landscapes for two dozen years and have become very skilled at it quickly and efficiently thus work right out of learned habit. When I'm at a wonderful location, I'm excited and happy to be a landscape photographer. Wow! Over the years I've evolved, learned, changed of course hopefully for the better, but in the heat of the work, it just flows out.
Discussion
13 repliesContemplative approach, meditation-like qualities and such are often praised by landscape photographers who practice techniques that require careful and time-consuming operations. Setting up a tripod, measuring the light, choosing filters, meticulous framing and focussing etc - going through the whole ritual supposedly helps to concentrate and produce "better" images.
You slow down and get deeper into... what? The technology and the process or your subject and the image in the making? I really wonder about the need to slow down. Is it really help or distraction? (I think the "Is photography getting easier" thread provided some nice insights) Do our images portray the subject or the possibilities and limitations of the process? (e.g. you can depict a landscape in full colour and high resolution using the latest EOS 1Dxx or in a well-crafted 7x17" palladium print - and either can be utterly meaningless.)
My point - it`s a bad idea to expect gaining insights to your subject by practicing complicated phototechnical rituals. This sounds very logical but it took me a couple of years to realise. I think the most important "revelations" about photography, man, nature and their interconnections have struck me when I`m out without a camera, not thinking about apertures, distances and shutter times. In this light, my ultimate goal now is to get to a point where I don`t need to fumble with any tools to get in the shooting mood. Slowing down, stopping by (and staying for dinner
So - are these not very original ideas worth anything or did I just have one fine Estonian lager too much? Call me Captain Obvious
Ott, take a look at this article. I think it speaks to what you're saying here.
Guy
My favorite "action" photographer is Sam Abell. He shoots an ancient Olympus OM-1, and most often a 28mm prime lens. He acknwledges the importance of lightning-fast reflexes for some shots, but for my favorites he uses another approach. He sizes up the evolving action, then places himself and frames the shot- often from a tripod. Then he waits for "the action to come to him" (his words.) His knack is knowing just when to press the shutter release, at the critical moment when the action peaks in just the right place. The end result is a phenominal action shot, taken from a tripod, in a single frame without a motordrive or a pixel.
Contemplative pays.
Everyone works differently, but rather than making a multitude of exposures and editing later, I 'edit' in the field and will normally walk away with only one - rarely two - negatives/chromes. I do all my visual refinement in the field rather than on a lightbox or in Photoshop. That is MY contemplative approach, and it has nothing to do with the tools, and everything to do with how much I 'listen' to the subject/scene (my esoteric way of photographing).
I also like to improvise. Just go with the flow and enjoy the rhythms of the world around you.
I'm a fan of Sam Abell's work as well. He has some images that just make me go, "How the hell did he do that?" The one with the cowboys branding cows in the foreground with a layered composition in the background doing the same comes to mind. I believe he mentioned pre-visualization when describing that image. To be able to execute a pre-visualized image in a moment of chaos like that is amazing.
I used to loathe anything connected with "journalism" by default - PJ-s, street shooters, photobloggers... "shallow," I thought. Behold life`s irony: I now work part-time as a journalist. And I`m beginning to see that if the contemplation starts when I set out to take photos, it`s too late. To find a good photograph, I need to have its mood and emotion stored in my brain from before. It`s the feeling of recognition, not novelty or simply awe that makes me pull my camera from the bag. So for me, a read from a great book (think G.G. Marquez, Kafka, Camus etc) or listening to music (Mark Kozelek is my only true hero) is as much a part of my photography as wandering around in the local woods. The act of taking the picture can be a hit and run - my attention span is not that good, you know.
As for equipment - I`ve always wanted to "upgrade" but luckily I`m not very rich. Right now I can`t really think of a single feature that I need to get. I just wish my gear was made like a tank - so I could forget about fretting over getting it destroyed. I want something I could keep using 15 years from now... or so. (the af/mf switch of my beloved 28/2.8 is fixed with duct tape for a couple of months now
Anyway much of this should be solved within a month. We`ll see what I get for my birthday and if I can stay true to the "forget about the technical mambo-jambo" rant after that.
to MG: Should you ever happen to come to Eastern Europe, you`d be welcome to come over and discuss these serious matters. Bear in mind, though, that three beers might not be enough as I have verbose tendencies
the "contemplative/previsualize" approach to taking pictures is best utilized when photographing something that you already know and you are basically just going through the photographic motions to obtain a result that offers little in the way of surprise, discovery or revelation...most people on the planet adopt this approach, not only to photography, but to life in general - they revel and delight in the intellectual and emotional comfort and (supposed) security in clinging to what they already know or, at least, what they think you already know...
in photography, witness the never ending stream of mostly same-o osame-o blazing sunsets/dramatic skies, sweeping dunes, aplenglo-ed craggy peaks, fuzzy rivers, streams and waterfalls, etc....no doubt, all previsualized to a fare-thee-well...
that said, and from my experience, most photographers who have managed to move beyond the obvious seem to share a similar trait - they have learned how to forget everything they know about the techinques of photography so that the techincals become somewhat like breathing...something they do almost without "thinking" or "contemplating", if you will...
witness Abell with his "ancient" olympus and 28mm lens...
and again, for those photogs who have moved beyond photographing the obvious, the advantage of not having to think about technique/equipment is that they can "tune in" and "listen" to the subject at hand without the intervention/interference of any extraneous static...
it is at this point, and only this point, that true photographic vision can emerge...
That's a curious observation from someone who expressly sets out to produce a stream of hundreds and hundreds of the same predictable templatized takes on the same subject matter.
Guy
Dude I'm over the I've gotta spend hours mulling over a scene, gave that up when I sold the Ebony! I just shoot the ephemeral light as I see fit and use my past experiences to make a pleasing comp and correct exposure. I love shooting this way and I'm having fun at it. It's just exciting! It's what I like to shoot and it has nothing to do with the obvious, I SHOOT what I like. If it's the obvious, oh well.
As in the quote at the bottom on my posts, I'm under the spell of the Mountain!
Guy
I'm not going to address too much of your post as it is nicely vague. One thing is true, being a photographer that is taking a picture of a fleeting atmospheric phenomenon like a sunset, can certainly get in the way with what one would otherwise experience just observing it. Sometimes something fleeting is occuring that I'd really just like to sit and watch like a animal visit that happens into a frame I've already set up. By having to operate with one's gear and the more difficult one's system is, one can end up with a mediocre experience. If something is suddenly happening, my rig had better be ready to go or I'm out of luck. With my tiny Coolpix though, I can and do quickly re-evaluate while absorbing all that is happening and often will be able to get a quick sequence of nice handheld images while things are changing. Regardless, even using a point and shoot camera still gets in the way to some extent.
But now what about the static scene where one might take 15 to 30 minutes or longer to work a scene? Of course this is the more frequent situation and more about what you are thinking about, Ott. Many with small cameras in this situation look, move, snap a shot, and move on. How much chance does their image have in matching the basic aesthetic of my slower approach? Well not much especially the more complicated the scene and foreground. In their case it doesn't matter much does it. Snap shot after all. Heck I do the same thing at times with my digital camera. But to expose a pricy 4x5 sheet that takes time and effort with the hopeful intent of maybe making a large print, I don't want to waste film nor my time.
I often do spend a lot of effort figuring out exactly where my lens ends up. Am I a perfectionist about that? Absolutely. And I mean after otherwise setting up and focusing up on a frame, I'm quick to consider ways to make it better. Always thinking about geometries and the nature of the light both of what I see on the ground glass and what I see just looking at the scene. So am often moving even the wide lens fractions of an inch up, down, left, and right or picking the whole tripod up and replanting it on more fertile ground. I'll stick my head out and look at the way backlit light on vegetation changes ever so slightly as I move a little bit this way and that. Years ago with my 35mm, that was the way I worked. And today with 4x5 the same holds true. It is true sometimes I'll plunk down the tripod. My focus from the last image works well with this next one. I look at the scene on the groundglass and it looks good. I take my head out and wonder if moving has any benefits, then think not. I shove in a holder, expose the sheet and move on smiling.
Do I need to enter some kind of special contemplation state and frame of mind. No not at all. I've looked at landscapes for two dozen years and have become very skilled at it quickly and efficiently thus work right out of learned habit. When I'm at a wonderful location, I'm excited and happy to be a landscape photographer. Wow! Over the years I've evolved, learned, changed of course hopefully for the better, but in the heat of the work, it just flows out.
...David