aimcompute wrote:
>> My .02$ worth. It's probably semantics,
>> but to say that an image is already
>> there and the photograph composes itself,
>> is akin to saying the notes are
>> already there and music composes itself.
>> Really? If you're not composing
>> why look through the viewfinder?
I'm not saying a photographer doesn't see well. Photographers see
exceptionally well. But the process is one of _recognition_, what Szarkowski
once called "a matter of hand and eye."
The process of shooting is See, shoot, see, shoot, see, shoot,
not:
See, hesitate while you ponder whether it might be a good "composition,"
examine the viewfinder, evaluate, examine the edges, apply the rule of
thirds, evaluate again, move to the right to exclude telephone wires, shoot.
That might be the way it is with view camera photography (although I know
some awfully quick view camera shooters <g>) but it's not a native way of
working for 35mm photography. Or, if that's too bold a claim, I'll just say
it doesn't result in the kind of work I personally happen to admire the
most. Naturally, any individual is welcome to do whatever they wish with
their own cameras. I'm only talking about the tendencies I've noticed or
read about or heard about from photographers who have demonstrably
accomplished great 35mm work.
If I can put this briefly, my advice would be: don't diddle. It doesn't
help. Practice with your* camera responsibly enough so that you can use it
quickly, and then just take pictures of what interests or attracts you or
has meaning to you.
Deliberate, ruminative composition has its place, of course, and many people
take pictures they like of static objects using tripods and taking as much
time as any view camera photographer. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
that (in states where it's legal <g>). However, I usually try to push people
who love that sort of thing towards view cameras. You can get a gorgeous new
Wista 4x5 for only $850 from Badger Graphics (2/3rds of what the same camera
costs at B&H), and the best lenses on the planet IMHO are the Rodenstock
Apo-Sironar-S lenses, and if you want to see beautiful transparencies of
flowers, you haven't lived until you've seen one that's 20 square inches.
And the pure pleasure of deliberating over a groundglass image will beat
looking through any 35mm viewfinder ever made, _nolo contendre_.
--Mike
* generic "you," not necessarily anybody here personally.
-
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.
