At 06:07 7/22/01, Tris Schuler wrote:
Maybe you've an excellent eye and steady hand. I'm an old fart and sloppy
by habit. <g>
Tris
Thanks, but it's not something that came naturally and still has many
flaws. Studied others' methods and gained experience doing it in the past
(learning from prior mistakes). Steady hand? It's not that steady, but
did have a very sturdy tripod on solid pavement and used a cable release.
:-)
At 11:39 7/22/01, Henrik Dahl wrote:
Isn't there an element of luck in almost all photography that's not studio
stillebens? The few shots of my own I can call good, is often composed by
1) a sudden idea or sight and 2) sheer luck.
On http://homepage.mac.com/hdahl100/PhotoAlbum.html there's a picture I
named Marrakesh street. I like it because of the blurred man on the
bicycle. Without him it would be a very boring shot. I was just lucky he
came by.
The great challenge in photography (IMHO) is capturing the exact right
moment. and to me at least thats always 800ck.
You have some very interesting photographs. They have a simplicity of
subject in them not found in most of mine. The "Berb Walking" is a classic
demonstration of how photography is a subtractive endeavor (principle of
simplicity). A painter adds oils to a canvas to create an image. A
photographer uses various methods to subtract undesired, irrelevant and
distracting elements from the "real world" to create an image.
At 12:18 7/22/01, Tris Schuler wrote:
The idea is to anticipate the right moment and to have the insight and
foresight to position your camera for the best view when that moment
comes. Luck always plays a part in human endeavors, no doubt about that.
But when it comes to interesting pictures I'd far faster place my
confidence in an experienced eye, a steady hand . . . and a motor drive. <g>
Cartier-Bresson called this the "decisive moment" and he was a master at it
using a pre-war Leica. I realize you mentiond this in jest . . . a motor
drive in "continuous" might capture it, but IMO it's timing. That takes
practice to develop the skill (I know all too well). A Winder 2 has about
0.4 seconds between frames during which the "moment" can occur. The motor
drive can cut this in half with some bodies, but there's still the time
gap. My attempts to use a Winder 2 in "continuous" never worked well and
had inconsistent results. If it works consistently for someone else then
go for it.
"One Shot Charlie" photographed sports for the New York Daily News during
the '40's, '50's and '60's. He gained the moniker for how little film he
used. The large format camera for his baseball coverage used sheet film
and had a lens that looked like a howitzer. Lady Luck is an important
element; it's knowing how to increase the odds of her smiling in your
direction and knowing what to do when she does that counts.
Went to a friend's wedding last month. The OM-1n and OM-2s were tied up
with other films, so I loaded some B/W+400 in different body and put a
potato masher flash on it to create a PJ effect . . . something different
from the color negative shot by everyone else. These two show critical
timing. Weddings are loaded with important images that have only one shot
at it, then it's gone forever. The scans were done from small proofs on a
dirt cheap flat-bed which has some pincushion distortion. Should have used
Tri-X. Read the camera used at the bottom (knob wind and a tiny viewfinder
with an RF spot). OM content: the potato masher was a BG2 with a T-32 in
Normal Auto; ran the BG-2's PC cord to the PC socket on the camera back.
http://johnlind.tripod.com/zi/gallery/contax31.html
http://johnlind.tripod.com/zi/gallery/contax32.html
The lucky part? I got the timing right. The knowledge part? Had an idea
where to stand, got there in advance (of everyone else), and paid most
attention to deciding beforehand when to consciously release the shutter
(to compensate for reaction time and camera lag).
BTW, using B/W is an idea for those attending weddings who want to create
something different (not as the official photog). In retrospect, Tri-X,
maybe without the K2 filter (increased contrast slightly), might work
better. When using a "potato masher" keep in mind which way the shadows
will fall. They will be in the photogaphs (it's part of the PJ
"look"). Select point of view and compose accordingly.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|