[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You must now find a better word for
> what we do, if not "compose." We *never*
> deliberately point the camera at something
> and just shoot. We always look thought the
> viewfinder, if for no other reason than
> to see what's there.
Please leave me out of your "we" category, for there have been
many times that I've made a photograph without looking through
the viewfinder, or with very little thought to the actual
composition. When street shooting I've often set the lens to
particular aperture that will give me the DOF I need for the
area in which I'll be shooting, set the shutter speed to
whatever's appropriate, and shoot as I see something
interesting, and often not even putting the camera to my eye -
sometimes shooting from the hip, or at chest height, or moving
the camera quickly "into" a scene. I let things flow, and see
what happens. What could be more Zen than the free flow of
consciousness into the scene as it dynamically unfolds before
me?
> Once our noses press into the camera,
> we begin to "edit" the scene, if not
> compose. We eliminate everything that
> does not, as you suggest "compose
> itself."
Shooting as I described, the scene does compose itself. While I
suspect it's not exactly what Mike was describing, I do
understand how a scene can create its own composition. There
used to be a group of kids in the neighborhood where I had my
darkroom. Frequently I'd go out with a 20mm or 35mm lens and
watch them play and ham it up for the camera. Things would
happen quickly - there were about eight kids, and they were very
energetic. There was no time to compose anything when they were
playing, and trying to force a composition on such random
activity would certainly diminish the energy that I caught on
film. Rather, I just pointed the camera at their group and let
things happen. Wide lenses with good DOF handled the
composition, Tri-X handled the shutter speed.
> > Lots of potentially honest photographs
> > are ruined by intentional "composition." >>
>
> Way too philosophical for me.
Clearly. I see you as a photographer that needs and works with
structure. Structure is important to you, but not everyone sees
things the same way.
> We hover over a flower for its detail,
> or stand and contemplate designs in a
> bridge pylon.
Or we move the camera over the flower to get a sweep of bright
color against the dark grass or the brown of the soil, the
detail being less important than the concept.
> But we *never* just point and shoot,
> at least not we "serious" photographers.
I'm not serious about photography, then? Just because I see
things differently than you, or are, perhaps, sometimes more
experimental, does not make me any less of a "serious"
photographer - although there are times when I don't take my
images very seriously. After all, fun and joy and freedom are
also part of the photographic experience. Without that freedom
to think "outside the frame lines", many wonderful images would
never have been created. One that comes to mind, although not
quite as experimental as I've described, is Erwitt's portrait of
the cellist, Pablo Cassals. The photo is a beautiful study of
light and place - and Cassals was nowhere near the scene. Have
you ever done a portrait without the subject in the picture?
> *You* seem to think acts of deliberation
> are wasteful, or even destructive.
While I'd not characterize Mike's comments in quite that way,
I'd have to say that there are times when too much
deliberation, can destroy a photograph - or a musical
composition, or a poem ... any sort of art and creative
experience lends itself to a free flowing, stream of
consciousness approach.
> Some of us find the act of composition
> peaceful, inspiring even, the act of
> editing or composing being in and of
> itself most times cathartic, serene,
> Zen.
Not to piss on your tranquility, for I certainly appreciate the
approach you've described, and feel as you do when carefully
composing and waiting for the ideal moment to release the
shutter, but that's only one approach. Going with a flow that
you seem unable to grasp or understand, is as viable and
pleasant and serene as the way you shoot.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The difference between a good photograph
and a great photograph is subtleties."
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
