Pain vs. Pleasure - Making a Great Photograph

[Ed K.]

How do you place your priorities when it comes to making a great photograph?

Subject / content is all that matters? The way you did it, the technique? Does it matter to you whether the technique was arduous or easy? Do you care more about making the photograph than looking at it or showing it? I'm suspect that there is a spectrum in the answers around here.

Recently, I've been looking a lot to my own work. Some of my favorite images to look at were the most simple and often easy to do. And for all the pains of techniques, as in printing techniques, the simple AZO contact print just has something about it that gets my juices going if it's the right shot. Sure, the salt prints, pt trials, and lightjets have their qualities, but the lowly contact print just works so well. I look at the prints from my R2400 and even like some of them a lot, other than worry about their longevity. The contact is just plain simple and modest, and it takes less time and costs less than just about anything else to do if all goes well. In the time it takes to curve and print a decent 8.5x11 inkjet, a dozen 8x10 contacts could be in the wash sometimes - and no scanning! ( sigh, but dust is a problem ).

It seems that the "holy grail" of photography is so often wrapped up in endless puttering around with very arduous techniques, from carbon prints through some masochistic gum over platinum and of course, real photogravure. Beautiful stuff, especially when done by masters of it - no argument there, yet so often the master's photographs are just plain boring to anyone other than a photography buff who gasps at their marvelous technique.

How do you place your priorities in this? What's your favorite approach to it lately? The hard way, or the simple way?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Most of my favorite photographs, and the ones I feel best define my vision, were made very spontaneously with little or no planning. I was just in one of my favorite environments, at the right time, and noticed a photographic opportunity. After making these "found" photographs, I continue with my photographing, and usually don't think about them again until I'm examining film back from the lab. Almost always, the photographs I carefully plan ahead of time fall far short of my aspirations. There have been several times I've returned to the same location again and again, only to return without a decent photograph.

For me, the most productive way to photograph is just to get into this spontaneous mindframe where I'm seeing and reacting, to become one with the landscape. Like most other things in life, trying too hard will only mess things up. A lot of photographers have this idea that if they put a lot more energy into producing a photograph that it's somehow better. Viewers of the photograph only see the end result, so the energy required to produce the negative or transparency is totally irrelevant.

[John Kasaian]

Content, content, and content ;-)

[Eric James]

Serendipity has been defined as searching for a needle in a haystack and coming up with the farmer's daughter.

I'm pretty new to LFP and I find that I idealize it - I hope to capture the “farmer's daughter” of images when I pull out the big rig; so if the light isn't ideal, or if I don't have a particular project in mind, I tend to leave the heavy pack behind and head out with a Nikon body and two or three or my favorite lenses. Now, a year into LFP, my favorite new images still come from a 35mm cartridge - thanks mostly to searching for “needles” with the Nikon much more frequently. I want to make the transition but I always have an excuse: too many dogs to exercise; chance of rain; too much altitude gain; LF tripod too heavy - out comes the FM3a and off we go. “Arduous technique” be damned - lady luck is my guide, but the damn Nikon slut is still too easy.

[Jay DeFehr]

My short answer is; I'll let you know when I make a great photograph. Closer to home, I'll say that working with people is the part that excites me most, and I consider that aspect the most important part of my technique. When I connect with my subject in a meaningful way that is evident in the photograph, I feel very fulfilled and inspired. The tech stuff is meaningless to me, beyond my ability to work without allowing it to distract me. A successful image made with a large camera and contact printed on Azo is no more or less precious to me than one made with a 35mm P&S and printed on VC enlarging paper. Each requires mastery of technique and a unique approach, and each has its place in my heart.

Jay

[Patrik Roseen]

I started out doing LF photography because I was amazed of the photographs made with these type of cameras...based on the flexibility of swing, tilt, shift etc. I was attracted to the analog technology, looking for a few quality shots instead of multiple shots of varying quality.
When I acquired my first gear and set out to take pictures I learned that the weight and size slowed me down...So these days I put very high demands on myself and my pictures...I only want to make really good pictures so content/quality becomes even more important as the logistics increase, looking for the right perspective, scenery and light.
I have a 35mm gear and also a very nice Mamiya MF gear which I could use more often, but the thrill is not simply there! I guess many people also choose to do lots of advanced things in their darkrooms because it excites them...and knowing that you can if you must is rewarding.

For those who feel that they would like to do more LF-photography, but have problems lugging the equipment outside I can recommend still photography indoors.
If you feel guilty not using your large and sometimes expensive equipment this could make you feel better ;-) Another way is to shoot 4x5" handheld if you have the gear for it.
So to conclude: I don't want to produce pictures...I enjoy LF photography.

[poco]

I used to bracket a lot more the first couple years of shooting LF, but noticed that the few keepers were usually of shots I'd only exposed a single sheet on. It became an obvious pattern and a true mystery until I thought about it and realized I tended to bracket in direct proportion to the difficulty of the shot. If the shot took a lot of thought and effort to set up, I tended to bracket more, just to make sure I nailed it. But those were also the more forced and contrived shots and usually turned out to be garbage.

These days I see difficulty of set-up as a warning sign.

[Matt Miller]

What's your favorite approach to it lately? The hard way, or the simple way?

My time for photography is very limited. Because of this, I try to keep it as simple as possible. In 8x10, I use one film, one developer, one lens, and contact print only on azo or ziatype 95% of the time. The simplicity of technique enables me to spend much more time concentrating on my subject and exploring my vision. It's the act of photographing that I love the most, it's the seeing that thrills me. I don't want the darkroom work to feel tedious, so I have simplified it as much as possible.

[otzi]

I often find that a spontainious find? when captured can often exceed the hoped for image from a view once seen but revisited time and again with equipment in the hope that the perfect? conditions will repeat themselves. They never do. So in desperation the shot is taken but it's never the same or as captivating as that magic moment that cought you by surprise. Very often empty handed.

[Mike H.]

I'm with Jay De Fehr. When we make a great photograph, you all will be the first to know. For right now, give me pain if that is the sign of the "great photograph" path. I've already had too much pleasure without making one.

[Bruce Watson]

Content, content, and content ;-)
Agreed.

[David Martin]

Almost always, the photographs I carefully plan ahead of time fall far short of my aspirations.

I think I have somewhere between two and six photographs that I envisioned, planned and shot, and came back exactly as I intended or better. They are definite keepers.

Of the rest, I find planning does help. Being in the right place at the right time can be the result of chance or knowing what time of day/type of shot you want to get.

I have a list of locations to shoot, knowing when and how to get the best (IMO) from them. I also like found shots, but normally find shots to plan.

..d

[paulr]

For me, the most productive way to photograph is just to get into this spontaneous mindframe where I'm seeing and reacting, to become one with the landscape. Like most other things in life, trying too hard will only mess things up. A lot of photographers have this idea that if they put a lot more energy into producing a photograph that it's somehow better. Viewers of the photograph only see the end result, so the energy required to produce the negative or transparency is totally irrelevant.

i couldn't have said it better.

if you find a way to bottle that minframe, i'll be first in line.

[bruce terry]

Since I only need to please myself and not others, my for-the-fun-of-it PRIORITIES pursuing the "great photograph" are certainly different from those who have a reputation to develop or maintain: I work in only 8x10, kept the equipment SIMPLE, print only ziatypes, and have found on this narrow track I see better and fuss less.

VISUALIZATION seems the key, and I've never gotten a good image I didn't first see clearly in my head. The rest of it - setting up, framing, focusing, exposing, developing, even printing, is simply workmanlike follow-up. "Great" 8x10 images? Maybe three in eight years?

[Patrik Roseen]

Being the d**l's Advocate:
So what are you all saying: "I keep it simple ...and have not yet made any great photographs?"

Well, what do we mean by a 'great photograph'...for me it means fulfilling what I previsualized. And this does not stop at the time of exposure, it continues through development of film until the photograph is enlarged and framed. And for me this process starts in the library reading all the photobooks available, understanding how to achieve certain effects...not for the process alone but for the resulting photograph. It also means you need to practice this for it to work out the way you want it.

And as I said before...the content becomes more and more important ofcourse, but I would never say that content is everything.
Choose the 'wrong' MultiGrade-filter for your contact print and you will see. Choose the right one and imagine what extra qualities you could add by also using other techniques.

I also think that pain and pleasure live together. I assume that nature photographers who backpack several days into unkown territory to bring back wonderful photographs for us to enjoy also do it for the experience and tell the story of how difficult it was to make a certain photograph. They planned this journey for months, asking for advice how to best workout the exposure time (of several minutes) when the sun is rapidly rising from total darkness (as seen lately on this forum), working out their procedures and films to use under different circumstances etc...and they bring back great photographs! Ofcourse they will also tell you that the 'right moment' was only there for a short period of time...but the point is ...they were there in that moment and ready for it.

I admit I am a beginner in LF...but I have ambitions ;-)

[bruce terry]

Still, a bad photograph will always be....bad. I often succeed in making a good image bad but I've never been able to make a bad image good, no matter how much fun I have trying.

One of the reasons, IMHO, the great unwashed general public seldom considers a photograph "art" is that we all keep too much of our bad junk floating around instead of throwing it away. We are our enemy.

[tim atherton]

Well, what do we mean by a 'great photograph'...for me it means fulfilling what I previsualized.

So if you pre-visualised it, at what point exactly did you visualise it...? :D

[Patrik Roseen]

So if you pre-visualised it, at what point exactly did you visualise it...? :D

Well it must have been...at the time I said:... "Let there be light...." ?

[tim atherton]

Okay - maybe God can do that, but visualizing something isn't taking the picture...

"VISUALIZE: to see or form a mental image of."

So where or how exactly do you pre-visualize it? Where do you do this thing that precedes forming a mental image of the picture? Enquiring minds would like to know

[Patrik Roseen]

Tim, since you need to know...

Could it be that in some cases the process of forming a mental image starts by actually imagining a certain TYPE of photograph one would like to create and that this is the stage of pre-visualization, rather than visualizing what a certain scenery would look like as a final photograph/print.

Sort of being inspired by other photographs...triggering that thrilling feeling of 'this is what I will set out to photograph today'...: Waves rolling in, splashing against the rocks by the seaside, short exposure to freeze the furious water in that crushing moment, lots of contrast to really make the white of the splash stand out against the solid black rocks...the sun at zenit, no disturbing vegetation,...
Now where do I find that scenery, what is the weather like, when should I be there - ah it's just right...

The visualization starts AT the scene, before the film is to be exposed to light.

To really conclude the pre-visualization requires that the development, printing etc is done in such away that it is in harmony with the pre-visualized TYPE of photograph formed as a mental image!

This can actually be very inspiring. On a gloomy day another TYPE of photograph can be 'pre-visualized'...and off you go. Great isn't it! ;-)

[paulr]

Well, what do we mean by a 'great photograph'...for me it means fulfilling what I previsualized.

That suggests you're a genius of visualization.

In my experience, great photographs rarely come from preconceived ideas of any kind. Even the early pundits of previsualization (is there such thing as postvisualization??) admited late in life that they never actully worked that way ... it was just a trendy thing to talk about back in the f64 days.

If you're really asking what is great ... that's something no two people ever agree completely on. I'd suggest it involves a work in some way transcending itself as a physical object, and in some way transcending what's being depicted. Great also suggests importance--ability to influence what comes next culturally or art historically. None of this has anything to do with what anyone previsualized, or how much anyone martyred themselves.

[tim atherton]

[QUOTE=Patrik Roseen]Tim, since you need to know...

Could it be that in some cases the process of forming a mental image starts by actually imagining a certain TYPE of photograph one would like to create and that this is the stage of pre-visualization, rather than visualizing what a certain scenery would look like as a final photograph/print

Sort of being inspired by other photographs...triggering that thrilling feeling of 'this is what I will set out to photograph today'...: Waves rolling in, splashing against the rocks by the seaside, short exposure to freeze the furious water in that crushing moment, lots of contrast to really make the white of the splash stand out against the solid black rocks...the sun at zenit, no disturbing vegetation,...
Now where do I find that scenery, what is the weather like, when should I be there - ah it's just right...

Hmm - I thought that was imagination... :-)

To really conclude the pre-visualization requires that the development, printing etc is done in such away that it is in harmony with the pre-visualized TYPE of photograph formed as a mental image!

or it could just be that the term "pre-visualization" is really a bunch of hokem snake salesman stuff - a fancy (and in fact meaningless) word made up and applied to something that is just plain common sense in order to make it sound special and sell something.

I understand cows have a series of stomachs to allow them of pre-digest their food before actually digesting it?.... perhaps a good analogy?

I still can't quite envisage in what part of our brain or mental process we can "pre-visualizes" something before we visualize it :confused:

[tim atherton]

To really conclude the pre-visualization requires that the development, printing etc is done in such away that it is in harmony with the pre-visualized TYPE of photograph formed as a mental image!

So what about the number of rather successful first rate photographers who basically use one film, one developer with standard development (and sometimes even only one f stop in one case - f64) - they apparently don't really need to pre-visualize at all?

I think that comes down to imagination. For example Tri-X @200 in D23 develped straight and all the rest is down to how good the imagination/content is

[Marko]

Content, content, and content ;-)

If content is king, then form must be the queen. :D

[Patrik Roseen]

Oh great...I'm in my first 'wordfight' on this forum!

This is certainly not anything I had pre-visualized ;-)

[tim atherton]

ahh - you stepped into the line of fire between the zoneistas and the neo-modernists...

[paulr]

ahh - you stepped into the line of fire between the zoneistas and the neo-modernists...

which is a silly line of fire ... it seems like the most quoted of the zoneistas crossed the line and became neo-modernistas half a century ago.

[tim atherton]

ahh - but the ones that remain are like those aged Japanese soldiers who straggle out of the jungle not realising it was all over years ago... :D

[Patrik Roseen]

Tim, I see your point and I hope you can see mine, and I am stepping out of the war-zone.
If you look closely at what I said you will notice two things - 1) I talk about my own view of a great photograph judging my own personal portfolio...I want to see if I can learn to master LF and I'm not suggesting I will change the world by my photographs...yet ;-)

2) I also said: "...starts by actually imagining a certain TYPE of photograph ... this is the stage of pre-visualization"
So yes call it imagination if you wish...that's more or less what I did. (And I am not bound to any '-stas' or '-ists')

As for using only one developer, one film, etc...maybe I'm not there yet, I do not want to say that 'this is the only way I intend to create photographs from now on' . I'm still experimenting and allowing myself be inspired by other photographs and techniques I see. And there are lots of them which I intend to try because I have seen how different the same exposure comes out on paper etc.

Anyone who has made 'stills' also knows that it starts by imagining what one wants to achieve and that one also has quite a good chance of actually accomplishing this...so photography is not always to be fighting natural forces...and please be open to experiment!

And my whole point was to say that: "Hey, if you do not think your photographs are great, than why do you not do something about it?"

See you in another thread Tim...until then Thanks!

[Ed K.]

Ah, so for many the photographic part happens before or during clicking the shutter; arranging that part of it? Could we say that there are some who are more at being a "shooter", others who are more holistic, and well, some who are more at being a "printer"? Does the photo "live" separate from the print?

It would of course matter whether one is a pictorialist / representational artist, expressionist, technician, documentarian or who knows what else. Could the initial intent make keen differences in point of view? To capture the scene as is, or to augment or refine the image of it somehow?

Do your photographs exist for you independent of their displayed medium and its qualities, or is the image more universal and able to thrive in any medium? So, is the great photograph this super survivor of any medium, or is it more the sum of its parts?

[bruce terry]

"Do your photographs exist for you independent of their displayed medium and its qualities, or is the image more universal and able to thrive in any medium? So, is the great photograph this super survivor of any medium, or is it more the sum of its parts?"

Ed K - Back in the thread I waxed-forth about visualization being THE IT, the rest of the process merely technical. Wrong. You're dead-on. I must agree the "great" photograph isn't, until it is on paper and the sum of ALL it's parts....the medium....all priorities number one.

[Michael Daily]

Matt's approach speaks to me. In grad school in the early 70's, we were told (and also we taught): one camera, one film, and one paper (from Ansel Adams and E. Weston.) The paper is the most limiting factor. My subject, camera, and mood are all independent variables which interact/interfere with the others. For that reason I have to keep it simple, otherwise I just waste time, money, and resources--all of which I have too little. E. Weston: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing" (Not technique.)
Michael

[Patrik Roseen]

...one camera, one film, and one paper (from Ansel Adams and E. Weston.)
Well, with the risk of entering yet another mine-field...
According to the essay of Terence Pitts, Uncompricing Passion-the life and art of E.Weston, Weston actually did use several different papers:
"...once back in the United States he had dropped platinum and palladium papers...the papers he first adopted were still fairly warm in tone and...soft surface... In march 1930...while using glossy paper, he immediately made up his mind to switch to a truly glossy paper. Although he realized...having to reprint his entire portfolio, he considered this a logical step in his quest for 'photographic beauty'."

[paulr]

Sure, Weston stopped using platinum and palladium when they were no longer available, and he ocasionally switched to new things as he discovered something he liked better. But in general he wasn't the guy with a million choices at any moment. At any given point in his career he might have a lens or two, a print size or two, a printing paper or two. His attention was reserved for the important stuff.

[Ralph Barker]

Patrik - kaboom! ;)

Personally, I like to select the film, developer, and often even the paper and print developer based on the requirements of the image(s) I have in mind for the specific subject. To me, using only one film/developer combination amounts to shoe-horning all subject matter into the same treatment. Like saying all music must be 4/4.

[Ed K.]

Patrik - kaboom! ;)

Personally, I like to select the film, developer, and often even the paper and print developer based on the requirements of the image(s) I have in mind for the specific subject. To me, using only one film/developer combination amounts to shoe-horning all subject matter into the same treatment. Like saying all music must be 4/4.

Brief digression - Ralph - kaboom indeed - band or marching music! Most western music is 4/4, and that is just how one scores it - it is possible to score the equivalent of anything else you want in a 4/4 time signature; however then it is just difficult to read the music. Rests and ties make as much difference as notes themselves. Just because someone likes one thing does not mean it is 4/4. They could be stuck on pieces in super locranian minor in 21/8 with a break in 5 and a vamp in neopolitan major. It takes time to hone that part too. Whether it is better or not is of course another story, if there really is anything like better or worse, no? As you are the moderator, naturally, you can kaboom me too...

Back to topic - you guys are bringing up all great stuff.

[jnanian]

i'm for happy accidents.
content is nice, but sometimes
there is something that happens
when you least expect it, and a smile is
brought to your face. i'm not for all the techical-stuff,
i just like making pictures whichever way it happens.

-john

[Eric Leppanen]

My goal in LF photography is to make fascinating and provocative prints for wall display, mostly in my house. I have no commercial ambitions. I shoot mostly 8x10 (both color and B&W) because of the awesome technical quality I can achieve, as well as the potential for contact prints. My subjects are usually landscapes and architecture. So far my subject interpretations have been fairly literal, although I am starting to experiment with abstraction.

When I started into serious photography about seven years ago, I thought I would derive extra satisfaction from photographs that were arduous to obtain, but this has not been the case. A good photograph speaks for itself, and how it was obtained can make for a good story but otherwise doesn’t seem to matter much. If the viewer (be they friends, family or just myself) is drawn into the work, that’s all that really matters. Ultimately it is the result that counts.

So far, maybe 20% of my most prized photographs were the result of unplanned, spontaneous encounters. The remainder are usually shots that I previously scouted, then returned to under more ideal conditions (better time-of-day, time-of-year, weather, etc.). But even pre-scouted shots are subject to serendipity. Often an initial set of photographs will further provoke my creative juices, and I’ll identify an even better set of compositions that I’ll want to reshoot. Sometimes, particularly when shooting color, tonal and color renditions and separations may record differently on film than I originally envisioned, often to the betterment of the photograph. For this reason I’ll sometime photograph a subject with multiple color emulsions or development times so I can choose the one with the most interesting interpretation. Pre-visualization provides a compositional starting point, but usually gets superseded by the considerations listed above.

A separate, major issue I have encountered is ensuring proper wall display of a photograph. One can use exotic techniques, papers, processes, etc., but if the print isn’t properly displayed and illuminated, all such considerations come to naught. Most home wall locations are not well lit, so installing proper track-type lighting (mounted on the frame, wall or ceiling) is essential.

As for print types, I am currently having a digital B&W print done using Epson K3 inks and the new Crane Museo Silver Rag paper, to see how it compares with my conventional enlarger and contact prints. There is nothing like a contact print, but there is also nothing like having digital controls. My Lightjet/Chromira color prints have been quite good, but I sometimes wish these printers were sharper, so I’ll probably experiment with the K3 inks with Silver Rag and even newer papers (or possibly the new Canon printers) to see if I can get a sharper “dye transfer-like” look.

[Patrik Roseen]

Patrik - kaboom! ;)

Personally, I like to select the film, developer, and often even the paper and print developer based on the requirements of the image(s) I have in mind for the specific subject. To me, using only one film/developer combination amounts to shoe-horning all subject matter into the same treatment. Like saying all music must be 4/4.

Thanks Ralph for bringing your troops to the front and firing the big gun!
I could hear the Jazz music from a distance ... but what took you so long?
I hope you did not accidently shoot me in the back. ;-)

[Ralph Barker]

. . . I hope you did not accidently shoot me in the back. ;-)
Not to worry, Patrik. I try to be more attentive than the more famous hunters. ;)

[Paul Coppin]

I don't make great photographs - that's somebody else's judgement. I do try to capture what's in my mind's eye, but frankly, IMO, I suck at it most of the time. Others have occasionally been more generous. Many of my photos that I like the best, are actually lousy photos by most standards.

[Ron Marshall]

Paul, as long as you are happy with your photos, why worry. Unless you would like to sell them.

I sometimes look at photo books at the local library, which thankfully has a great selection, and try to appreciate each photo, and hopefully learn something from them, even ones which I don't initially enjoy. Some of my best ideas have come from images that initially didn't catch my attention, but when out shooting made me aware of an alternate way of approaching a subject, to see a possible image in a scene that I may have otherwise overlooked, or not thought likely to work.

I'm don't try to copy the work of others, but to abstract things helpful to me in achieving what I want to do with my photography.

[John Kasaian]

What's your favorite approach to it lately? The hard way, or the simple way?

Shoot 8x10 and its always "The hard way" ;-)