SeaRubi
Explorer
Trevor, my apologies - not angry, just a bit frustrated. If it's worth discussing, to me, it's worth discussing passionately! This often comes across online as anger when it should be considered "spirited". :sombrero:
Photography can stand for many things! It needn't just be art. Documentary photographs need only a good exposure and reasonable framing. Making a factual account of the world through photographs doesn't require imagination. They could be technically sound images with great exposures, but does that make it a great image?
I think that, perhaps like my own trajectory, there's a point when any person who's serious about photography moves from a basis of looking to capture pretty images and duplicating trendy techniques (HDR, anyone?) toward a basis of creating images through the techniques of visualization. Having a technical proficiency with the equipment of your choice and control over the medium is, of course, a prerequisite. But, to boil photography down to a system of technical mastery is severely limiting. This is what I felt you're trying to say with your treatment of light and an intense focus on the physicality of the camera as device. To me, the camera is a construct - an extension. As I get better, my familiarity with the physics of the device allow my "inner eye" to use the camera as the construct. I call this "inner eye" the soul - that's the spiritual part of the medium, for me. It represents how I see and visualize the world, which is different and unique to all of us as individuals.
While many people are indeed practicing with the camera, I feel that most are failing to also practice and develop the process of visualization. These mental processes also take time to mature, as I have read repeatedly, and as I am finding after several years of shooting. Like the familiarity of camera equipment, the process of visualization should become second-nature in how one approaches photography. It seems very important in my opinion that the photographer is advancing their level of skill on each of these paths in parallel. At some point, the photographer's skill level in each area meets and intersects and begins working together to create images that are true to his mental image, as opposed to fumbling with controls, or being confronted with results that have no bearing on what he was attempting to achieve.
The best part about visualization is that it does not require even one snap of the shutter. I try to practice this where ever I go by looking at a scene and planning inside my head what elements would create a good image. I practice photography every day, most of the day, with no camera at all. Most of the time I find nothing in that image that stirs any emotion. It merely is a pretty image. Or, for me, likely just an ugly one with no real context or purpose.
To be better I've enjoyed using a wide variety of different cameras. I really like finding old throw-away 35mm. The last two I received were Vivitar models - no flash, no meter, fixed aperture. In an attempt to be as stealth as possible, I painted it a dark gray color and used it to shoot 2 rolls of film at a political demonstration on Wall Street. It is amazing how close you can get to people with them having no idea you're even holding a camera! I took several shots while briefly pausing in my stride, angled up at various people shouting. I held it high over my head pointing down into the crowd. I shot crouched down low looking up at protesters and attempting to capture them mid-shout with the sign wavering over their heads. It was one of the best times I've ever had taking pictures.
In terms of skill, one of the things I have been trying to do for the past 6 months or so is to take my light meter with me as I commute on the buses and trains. I'll look at a scene and try to guess what exposure values will work best for the scene, and then I meter it. I'm finding that training my eye in this way has made some very dramatic differences not only in my results, but in my ability to capture shots as they happen.
Incidentally, I tried doing this initially from the basis of reading a scene in my head with EV, but I'm generally off, and I still haven't memorized the tables to be able to convert EV into normal exposure values. My first attempt was to think in the Zone System, but after reducing that training to 35mm roll film to adjusting up or down a couple stops for the exposure only, it didn't seem very useful for my purposes and usual method of capturing images on the go. I don't process my film, and any desire to do so is centered on convenience and limiting cost.
After the move to California, I've begun a new project snapping photographs of empty seats. The images, to me, are horrific. They look plain, but it's what they represent to me when I took them. Abandonment. Loneliness. Isolation. Depression. Waking up on the R in Queens. I see all of those things in my photographs. It's tough to keep snapping these, but I do enjoy comparing how different devices interpret the scene when I attempt to shoot them as "straight" as possible. No funky camera tricks - just straight angles and a good enough exposure. These last endeavors on a personal level are disturbing images, and it's forced me to reconcile many events that have transpired in the past 18 months. I doubt any of them are great shots. But the power of the medium is now painfully obvious to me. This is the nature of what I'm trying to convey - it's not just about the shot. It's about what the shot means and how the viewer interacts with it - even if the viewer is only the photographer.
cheers,
-ike
