Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: My OM gears bring me a lot of fun #9

Subject: [OM] Re: My OM gears bring me a lot of fun #9
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:06:15 -0700
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> Yes, I've been noticing that digital is so compositionally
>> restrictive.  :-)
>>     
> When I wrote that, I knew I was going to get a response from our
> 5D owners.  :)
>   
OK, I have responses, but not because of the 5D. I think what you are 
talking about would apply to any digicam.
> We laugh and joke about it, but I'm actually considering that
> there might be some truth to Chuck's statement.  But not in a
> physical way, but in some deep phsycological way.
I thought only Walt was allowed to make up those kind of words. :-)
>  When shooting
> film (especially large-format) you tend to work the image more
> PRIOR to pushing the shutter.  We paid much more attention to
> details before hand and got things right.  With digital, we have
> FREEDOM!!!!  Freedom to shoot as much as we want and from every
> imaginable angle.  Although we might happen upon a better
> compositon, usually it is by chance--we're not sweating the
> details.
>   
When you say 'you' and 'we' here, the implication is that it applies to 
all of us. I don't think that's true. I've never shot large format, in 
the sense you mean it, hardly any MF and none in decades. So any shot I 
carefully set up was done with a camera very like the digital ones I now 
mostly use.

As I've said before, with digital, I certainly do often take more shots 
in any given situation than I did with film. But for me, it seems the 
percentage of keepers is about the same, which means more keepers. 
That's a problem in itself, but one I'm happy to have. I still look 
through the viewfinder at a lot of possible shots and decline to push 
the button when it just isn't right.

And I'm still amazed at how many times I still take only a shot or two 
of a subject that I think will be great. I think I even tend to take 
fewer shots then, when I know I "got it" than when I"m not sure of the 
subject and shot, but want to make it work. GeeBee's series of misty 
landscapes reminded me of a subject I shot in Mexico last December. I 
looked at it again and was amazed that I'd only taken one shot each of 
two different fl/framings. Looking at other shots from the same, very 
out of the way area, I recalled spending some time setting up each shot, 
moving around to try different angles and focal lengths and their effect 
on foreground/background relationships, light, etc. I remember wanting 
to take more shots, but not finding any others as good as those already 
taken. So much more than with film, I can see that the framing and 
exposure are ok and move on.

Sorry bunkie, it ain't the camera's fault in my book.
> Let me illustrate:  Last year when Joel and I were up in the
> Porcupines, we both photographed the same "shot".  I was
> perfectly happy snapping shot after shot with the E-1, basically
> shooting like a drunken sailor.  
Sounds like a personal problem. Caffeine related? Needed to go potty (or 
already gone? ;-) ?
> Meanwhile, Joel setup his
> tripod on the edge of the cliff and didn't budge except for an
> inch or two for an entire hour.  I got a lot of great shots--but
> he got THE SHOT.  Recently, I went back through some 'chromes
> from previous trips.  Believe it or not, I got THE SHOT with
> film, whereas I blew it with digital.  Unfortunately, my film
> shot was lacking for other reasons, but the composition was
> nailed.
>   
Sounds like another personal, possibly 'phsycological', problem. The 
idea of "The Shot", the perfect capture of the subject, seems to me to 
be inherently flawed. It's the nature of things that nothing is perfect. 
Look close enough and you will always find a flaw. You illustrate it 
yourself; the "perfect shot' on film was flawed in other ways. The 
solution is at least partly internal, in you relationship to your work. 
At least that's how it is for me.
> Back before digital, my mode of operation was substantially
> different.  Was I better photographer back then?  Yes and no. 
> Technically I am a far better photographer today.  Artistically,
> I think most of what I produce today is junk. I have to slow
> down and revisit the old way of shooting. Digital is liberating
> in so many aspects, but it is also a detriment to the creative
> process.  
Now you're talking, and I'm not referring to content, but to pronouns. 
All first person. I can't know what's true for you and don't react to 
implicit accusations about what is true for me, so I can listen to your 
thoughts and feelings. I am moved to comment from my own perfectionism. 
Michaelangelo kept journals. They are full of disappointment, suffering 
and self loathing for failing to manage to create in material form the 
forms and images he saw in his head. He saw the works that others still 
see as masterpieces beyond compare as failures.

My best is more than good enough. It's not Michaelangelo, nor Ansel, 
nor..., but it's mine. Failing to understand and live that truth makes 
my life painful and I lose the wonderful opportunity to enjoy my own 
work. When I post images and get comments that they could be better, I 
can take them to heart and be hurt emotionally. Or I can look at the 
image again in light of what was said and see how I feel about it. If I 
agree, I can find my own way to change it. If not, I then have a deeper 
understanding of how the image is my own, having compared an other's 
ideas of how it looks best to my own. To the extent that I project my 
perfectionism onto the creations of others, I miss the opportunity to 
enjoy, be moved my and learn from them.
> Instead of preplanning the image, I know that I can "fix it in post".
>   
How about both? Preplanning is important, and knowing what can be done 
in post is part of that process for me. I take a fair number of shots 
that I wouldn't if I wasn't seeing in my head the post post image. Look 
at the way Ansel Adams reinvented many of his iconic shots over the 
years. He may have planned a shot for years, scouting out the best spot 
to take it from, then waiting months or years for the right light, 
season, weather, etc. Ill bet if you asked him which of the many 
versions he made was the perfect one, he'd have asid he hadn't made it 
yet. And he still hasn't. IMHO, you are a bit too hard on yourself. You 
take a lot of glorious images.
> To summarize my thoughts on this:  Digital Photography is to
> visual artistic expression what a Midi Sequencer is to Jazz.
>   
I still think the result is not the fault of the tool. It may be the 
wrong tool for the job, or have been used wrong, but it didn't choose 
itself or operate itself.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz