The Creative Process

[nray]

Having just been out to Utah for the first time, was a fantastic trip. I took my first 4x5 full sheet shots. (Not the 120 backing). Being with my wife, I was only able to take a handful of photos. I set up at Bryce Canyon for sunset and at the Grand Canyon.

I used my digital camera for the rest and snapped off about 1000 shots, many of which I was very pleased with.

After I got my film back and looked at everything I did, I realized that I was mostly just taking snapshots.

My question is, what is your process for going about and capturing an image?

I guess that is a pretty open ended question that I probably could answer myself: You see a scene along the way, you wonder what it would be like in the morning/evening light, other things pop into your mind like the composition, what film to use? I realize that. I still would like to know what level do you go to when you plan/take a photo?

I want to move beyond the snapshot frame of mind to get the most out of this. I understand a bit about the rumination that can go on for a planned shot, but I just would be very interested to learn of your thinking process in this area.

Hope this makes sense.
Thanks.
Norm Ray

[Paul Metcalf]

As you've found out, it's not the size of the camera/film that dominates what content you include in your image. What process works for one may or may not work for another, you've got to discover your own process yourself. For me, that's been trial and error, and I'm still very much in the trial phase. I hated having hundreds of images in my hand after a photo expedition, hence I dumped 35mm film (with all of it's +/- bracketing opportunities) and gravitated towards the slower and much less prolific large format. I now get only a few rejects rather than hundreds. That helped. Also thinking more like a painter (which I'm not and never have been) where the canvas starts out blank and you make the image you want out of what's in front of you. I do use my digital P&S like you to capture the trip report in case anyone is interested in my trip but that's as far as those images go. Good luck, I think it's an endless journey, which makes it very satisfying to me.

[rdenney]

I started a discussion on the Kiev Report (a forum for the nuts who own Ukrainian cameras) on this very topic when I was planning at trip to the same places half a dozen years ago.

I had already been to Utah many times, and had exactly the same results you did.

In that old discussion, I wondered if the awe I felt at the scene was clouding my responses. The scenery out there is so powerful that I find myself thinking that if I make a technically good photo, everything else will fall into place automatically.

As we have discovered, the natural scene out there is not so powerful that the majesty of it comes through automatically.

So, on that trip in 2002, I tried to be conscious of the awe response, and look past it.

Okay, maybe that worked a little. I got a few shots that I think capture something beyond the norm, but still most of them are just pictures of Utah.

An interesting exercise is to do a Google image search on "Delicate Arch". The result is hundreds of pages of images that all look roughly the same, many of which were made by people thinking they were seeing their viewpoint for the first time. Would I be able to pick mine out of all those at a glance? It turns out, yes. Mine, though just another Delicate Arch shot, was still unique to me and the time I was there.

But it still conveyed nothing about what I was feeling at the time, beyond awe. Therefore, my lesson for that exercise was mere uniqueness wasn't the answer.

The problem is that maybe the awe is so strong that it's all we feel. Maybe we have to become familiar enough with a subject to get past the raw awe and into emotions more subtle and interesting.

I've only been in that part of the country about ten times, so I don't know the answer to that yet. But I did live in San Antonio, and spent many weekends photographing the old missions there. And in the end I did start to see and capture relationships and forms that reflected something a little deeper. Or maybe I just ran out of the normal shots and had to search for something deeper.

I keep thinking of John Bunyan's description of the writing of A Pilgrim's Progress: "As I pulled, it came." That's just an excerpt, but it captures both the simplicity and the mystery of inspiration. One element of it is that whatever it is that needs to be in the photo has to be within us--there has to be something to pull. I don't think I'm ever satisfied that I really have that something.

Rick "thinking perspective is particularly tough in Utah's grand landscapes" Denney

[gevalia]

I have been struggling with the same issues myself. Interestingly enough, I just got back from Utah a week ago.

I am just starting to see what I want to see and feel - not the snappies I often come home with. I can say that for me, it has taken 5 years to get to this point. I forced myself to slow down and enjoy the scene for a while before I even start thinking about camera angle.

I have also started asking myself 1 question before I click the shutter; "Would I like this in 8x10 hanging on my own wall". I've actually walked away a few times after asking this question.

I'm gonna really enjoy this thread.

[Nathan Potter]

Denny and gevalia echo my sentiments. Spectacular scenes of the west overwhelm the senses and initially draw you in to simple documentary type photographs. There is nothing wrong with this but you will find that you want a more personal statement of what is before your eyes. Here is where photography gets more difficult. The internal question arises of where can I go where "no man has gone before" so to speak.

If you are into landscape photography generally, I think you have to study the environment around you, and that takes time. You have to develop an emotional connection to what is there. Do it without a camera at first. Then go away and think about it and frame images in your mind perhaps lying in bed. Go back the next day and maybe repeat the process and do more framing. It's not an easy process. I'll visit a place for several days and not end up with an original image. Then I'll mull it over for a whole year and return with a different view the next year.

Of course there will always be images of opportunity; a confluence of picture elements that suddenly appear and beg for capture. An example occurred for me this past summer in Crown Point Indiana. I was circling the square around the splendid and famous courthouse when at the southwest side (as I recall) I saw an ugly statue of a big bulldog and just above was a sign that read ASSESSOR. Ah, if I could only frame this properly so as to eliminate distracting elements. I immediately thought of one of my favorite photographers, Ted Orland, who is a master of visual puns. But alas I couldn't frame it to my satisfaction.

The answer is that we need to open our mind and see beyond the obvious; but as we tend to be creatures of habit it's a hell of a hard thing to do. As many have said before, great images tell as much about the photographer as they do about the subject.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Mark Barendt]

I have found that each type of camera I've added to my stable has helped me learn more about photography.

I have also found that they are just tools. Larger formats are only of value when I know what I want.

Technically I've been able to hold my own longer than artistically. It has taken years but my artistic style is getting stronger. All that means is, that I know more about what I would like and what I would not like to see on my own wall than I did a few years back.

What I found about grand landscapes, for myself, was simply that all they were really good for is backgrounds.

I want to make photos of a strong subjects. That may be a person or a stand out feature of the landscape but it is almost never the whole grand landscape.

[Heroique]

At risk of heresy and damnation, I’d like to suggest that you try your best NOT to choose the best gear, or most appropriate location, to serve your photographic aims.

Let me explain why this often spins magic for me, and you decide if it makes any sense for you. ;)

When I head into the field, or plan more ambitious photo trips, my critical “strategy” is determining how best to invite scenes I like to photograph to “find me” – an approach, I’ve discovered, that has no relationship – none – with more conscious decisions about “where I’d like to go,“ or “what I’d like to photograph,” or “which camera gear to bring.”

Brief examples: Taking one (and only one) lens w/o worrying about the choice, leaving the trail to explore trackless areas, walking in the direction where I don’t know what I’ll find – and, of course, avoiding spots favored by crowds and tourists. An exception is what many photographers claim about early-morning and early-evening hours. Take their word. These times are conducive to discovering and capturing unique visions. Not sure why. But I do know that it’s more than just the “good light” working for you.

Beyond that exception, it’s liberating to rid my mind and keep it clear of the favorite work and unique styles of admired photographers – especially the famous ones! It’s astonishing how their influence can silently sneak into one’s efforts. (Of course, it’s probably not possible to extinguish all such influence, but I’m convinced you can reduce its impact.)

These quick ideas aren’t for every photographer, or just any location, but over the long term, they’ve added an immense amount of enjoyment to my time in the field, plus plenty of distinctive photos to my portfolio of which I’m proud.

[mrladewig]

You're asking a question as big and wide open as the American West itself.

For me personally photography welled out of other areas of interest. Initially, photography was driven by a desire to show the activities I was doing or sights I've seen. I was rock climbing and climbing the high peaks and mountain biking in the desert and mountains. I loved the place and activity, nature and all of the creatures that one might encounter and I wanted to share that experience and excitement with others.

In my case, I find that the creative process works much better when I'm by myself. I am not as productive when I'm working with others. Its not that I dislike company. I feel rushed or I might skip something I see in order to keep from holding them up. This holds true for my wife (who does not appreciate my slow LF pace) and my photographic peers, many of whom shoot LF. If I'm in that situation, 35mm is just a better way of working (for me).

I need time. I need to be familiar with the place to find what I love most about it. I need to see it in different light. I find the more I develop my skill, the less I'm tied to golden hour light. I still enjoy visiting and shooting at iconic sites, but I can be just as productive in less traveled areas and places just around the corner from home. Because of this, I find that places close to home usually produce better results for me. I'm there more often and have more patience. I observe the land sometimes over many years to get a feel for the place. But I'm fortunate to live in a place surrounded by great scenery.

[Bosaiya]

Photography can be both an art and a craft. You can concentrate on the mechanics at the expense of vision (testing film speeds, etc), you can concentrate on vision at the expense of mechanics (the shot is frought with technical errors but still looks good to you on an emotional level), or you can do both.

Writers write. Photographers photograph. Musicians practice. A writer puts words down on paper whether they are inspired or not, the process of writing is just as important as the output. A photographer takes photographs when the opportunity arises so that they are familiar with their equipment. A musician plays scales over and over again so that the mechanics are second nature.

Inspiration is the result of preparation. The more you prepare the more likely you are to seize upon the inspired moment when it makes itself clear. Luck favors those who prepare themselves for its fleeting opportunity. The metaphor may be strained, but if you want to win the raffle you have to buy a ticket. The more tickets you buy the more likely you are to win.

Practice your craft. Set achievable goals. Concentrate on one aspect at a time. Establish good habits. Set yourself up for success. The golden moments are all around you, but if you are too distracted you will not notice them for what they are.

I've been reading a lot of William Mortensen lately. He identifies what he refers to as the three stages of photography:

1) The desire to simply create a recognizable image. (How does this stuff to work?)
2) The aquisition of competence in handling equipment and the reasonable expectation of obtaining an image. (How can I get this stuff to work consistently?)
3) The ability to make a good picture. (Application of sound technique)

At some point it should become self-evident. Once you have cleared away the clutter of the mechanics, once you have gotten over the lust of gear and gadgets, once you no longer have to think about what you're doing and can instead concentrate on why you are doing it, you should reach the zen state you seek.

[Frank_E]

maybe this is the blind leading the blind, because I still feel I have so much to learn but I am comfortable with the progress I have made over the last few years

suspect I will be using different words to simply repeat some of what has already been written

a photography instructor once told me that "if you can't shoot and find an image while at home (in your familiar surroundings) then you also won't be more effective when you are away at that exotic location"

I have found reading about composition and looking at the work of others has helped alot. Those guidelines don't always "kick in" when I am out taking the shot, but the sure help when I am critiquing my shots afterwards. "oh that's what I should have done". Then the next time I remembers some of that learning, just abit, and then the cycle repeats itself. The more you shoot, the more you learn. But you have to be striving to improve.

As others have said, I shoot better when I am alone. Most important for me is to be in a head space ready to take pictures. If I am out there wanting to get a good shot, more often than not it won't happen. If I just "go with my muse" I inevitably will start to see things I wont otherwise see if I am actively looking.

It is an ongoing process....

[Frank_E]

Photography can be both an art and a craft. You can concentrate on the mechanics at the expense of vision (testing film speeds, etc), you can concentrate on vision at the expense of mechanics (the shot is frought with technical errors but still looks good to you on an emotional level), or you can do both.

Writers write. Photographers photograph. Musicians practice. A writer puts words down on paper whether they are inspired or not, the process of writing is just as important as the output. A photographer takes photographs when the opportunity arises so that they are familiar with their equipment. A musician plays scales over and over again so that the mechanics are second nature.

Inspiration is the result of preparation. The more you prepare the more likely you are to seize upon the inspired moment when it makes itself clear. Luck favors those who prepare themselves for its fleeting opportunity. The metaphor may be strained, but if you want to win the raffle you have to buy a ticket. The more tickets you buy the more likely you are to win.

Practice your craft. Set achievable goals. Concentrate on one aspect at a time. Establish good habits. Set yourself up for success. The golden moments are all around you, but if you are too distracted you will not notice them for what they are.

I've been reading a lot of William Mortensen lately. He identifies what he refers to as the three stages of photography:

1) The desire to simply create a recognizable image. (How does this stuff to work?)
2) The aquisition of competence in handling equipment and the reasonable expectation of obtaining an image. (How can I get this stuff to work consistently?)
3) The ability to make a good picture. (Application of sound technique)

At some point it should become self-evident. Once you have cleared away the clutter of the mechanics, once you have gotten over the lust of gear and gadgets, once you no longer have to think about what you're doing and can instead concentrate on why you are doing it, you should reach the zen state you seek.

can I ask which books by Mortensen you have been reading. He is certainly a controversial but interesting character in the world of photography...

[Bill_1856]

What's wrong with Snapshots?

[r.e.]

I used my digital camera for the rest and snapped off about 1000 shots, many of which I was very pleased with.

I think that that sentence tells you everything that you need to know about what went wrong.

[nray]

I think that that sentence tells you everything that you need to know about what went wrong.

That's right and I realize that I didn't have the time to explore more as we were on our tight schedule. I tried my best to compose and make some other adjustments to make a pleasant shot as we moved along. After looking at all the photos, I was pleased with some.

No, there is nothing wrong with snapshots. But I just have a desire to be able to do more than that and I am really enjoying reading the responses of their approaches.

[Donald Miller]

For myself, I found that I made some improvements in my own photography when I departed from photography of "known and identifiable subjects" to the photography of "aspects of form". Those aspects are line, pattern, texture, shape, tonal variance, and color variance. Once I got to that point I began to work on composition which to me means a pleasing and orderly arrangement of those aspects of form. A good place to study composition, for me, was to study the painters whose work has stood the test of time.

Several of my images that illustrate this are attached.

Donald Miller

[Jim Becia]

Having just been out to Utah for the first time, was a fantastic trip. I took my first 4x5 full sheet shots. (Not the 120 backing). Being with my wife, I was only able to take a handful of photos. I set up at Bryce Canyon for sunset and at the Grand Canyon.

I used my digital camera for the rest and snapped off about 1000 shots, many of which I was very pleased with.

After I got my film back and looked at everything I did, I realized that I was mostly just taking snapshots.

My question is, what is your process for going about and capturing an image?

I guess that is a pretty open ended question that I probably could answer myself: You see a scene along the way, you wonder what it would be like in the morning/evening light, other things pop into your mind like the composition, what film to use? I realize that. I still would like to know what level do you go to when you plan/take a photo?

I want to move beyond the snapshot frame of mind to get the most out of this. I understand a bit about the rumination that can go on for a planned shot, but I just would be very interested to learn of your thinking process in this area.

Hope this makes sense.
Thanks.
Norm Ray

Norm,

I think a first time trip to an area like Utah will result in exactly what happened to you. Specially when travelling on a tight schedule. I worked in Zion almost 20 years ago. I started to return there and southern Utah on a regular basis (sometimes 3 and 4 times a year) about 10 years ago. I found (and this is my opinion only) that my work improved and the images I captured were more interesting (at least to me.) Getting to know an area is half the battle. Sometimes I go with expectations for a certain type of image (and sometimes it happens), other times I go and just walk and hike and "let it come to me." Most importantly, enjoy yourself out there. I have found that even when I've had a terrible photographic trip (anywhere), it still is the best thing in the world to me. I will return again and again to the same areas. That's the one way I get better images. Jim Becia

[Donald Miller]

What's wrong with Snapshots?

There's nothing inherently wrong with snapshots. They serve a purpose if you have a problem falling asleep.

Donald Miller

[Bosaiya]

can I ask which books by Mortensen you have been reading. He is certainly a controversial but interesting character in the world of photography...

Mortensen On The Negative mostly, but I have a lot of his books. As someone who dislikes Ansel Adams and most f/64-style purist photography I find Mortensen to be a welcome breath of fresh air. He had quite the sense of humor and sharp wit and was not above using irony and sarcasm as effective (at least to me) teaching methods.

[Frank_E]

For myself, I found that I made some improvements in my own photography when I departed from photography of "known and identifiable subjects" to the photography of "aspects of form". Those aspects are line, pattern, texture, shape, tonal variance, and color variance. Once I got to that point I began to work on composition which to me means a pleasing and orderly arrangement of those aspects of form. A good place to study composition, for me, was to study the painters whose work has stood the test of time.

Several of my images that illustrate this are attached.

Donald Miller

Donald, I really like your images...

[r.e.]

My question is, what is your process for going about and capturing an image?

With the caveat that different people have different approaches...

My photography changed for the better when I decided that I wanted to make images instead of capturing them. This meant that I needed to start making photographs with an objective in mind and that I had to work out a process that would help achieve that objective. I had to stop being more or less passive and start being purposeful/intentional.

The other day I was looking at Richard Avedon's series on the American West. It doesn't matter whether you like Avedon or not, I just want to point out something about how he did this series. He got rid of a bunch of variables. He used a single background, a single format, a single lens (I suspect) and a single emulsion. The only thing that was left was Avedon, the person he was photographing and their interaction. If Avedon had a strong suit, apart from compositional skills, it was the psyhology of interaction. He eliminated everthiing that could get in the way of his objective, which was to present his vision of America. He made 17,000 images during this project, which means that he photographed several hundred people. From those, he edited, presumably pretty ruthlessly, selecting the photographs that got him where he wanted to go.

The point that I want to make about Avedon is that he had a fairly clear idea before he embarked on this series about where he was going and how to get there. No doubt he went down various cul de sacs along the way, and perhaps he even took a few detours, but he went into the project with a lot of issues, especially technical issues, decided in advance. One of the by-products, perhaps quite intentional, is that the consistency in his approach to background, format, etc, provided an organizing principle and coherence that runs through the series and guides the viewer in his or her appreciation (or condemnation) of the work.

I think that Avedon must have put a great deal of thought into what he wanted from this series and how he was going to execute it. The end result looks so simple, at least technically, but I suspect that getting there took a lot of effort. If he were alive today, perhaps he would say "A lot of my decisions were driven by the fact that we were travelling and we had only so much time", but even if his approach was driven in part by practical decisions, he used those decisions in a way that supports the photographs as a series.

I'm planning a photographic project at the moment and I'm having a hell of a time getting the objective and the methodology clear in my head. It isn't easy, but for me it is essential. The project is going to take about a year, and I don't want to find myself in the field with a camera trying to figure out what I'm going to photograph and why.

The only other comment that I'd make is that Donald Miller's comments strike me as spot on, not just as a training exercise, but as a goal.

[Bosaiya]

He got rid of a bunch of variables. He used a single background, a single format, a single lens (I suspect) and a single emulsion. The only thing that was left was Avedon, the person he was photographing and their interaction. He eliminated everthiing that could get in the way of his objective, which was to present his vision of America.

That would be Step Three of Mortensen's Three Step approach to photography.

[r.e.]

From Laura Wilson's book Avedon at Work: 17,000 negatives, 725 people, 123 final photographs. In case anyone wants to have a look at the series, all of Avedon's work is now on-line: www.richardavedon.com

[Donald Miller]

Donald, I really like your images...

Thank you, I am happy that you enjoyed them.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

[Bruce Watson]

What works for me probably won't work for you. But it might. So here goes.

When I make a trip for something like this, I make it a photography trip. That means that I schedule a lot of time, and I take just the 5x4 camera. Leave the snap-shooter at home. The less you use a snap-shooter, the less you think like a snap-shooter. And the less rushed you are, the better. I can't photograph with an LF camera on a deadline. I just can't. It doesn't work that way.

When you are out with the camera, you'll find some scenes that are interesting. You have to learn to assess them. Will it make a good photograph? Will it speak to you? Is it worth burning film on? The way I make these decisions is to walk the scene without the camera. Find that perfect spot from which to make the photograph. What are you including? What are you excluding? Why? This process can take quite a while. Sometimes it takes just seconds. It depends -- but on what I have no idea.

Don't be afraid to walk away from a scene. There are remarkably pretty scenes that just aren't photogenic. If you don't know what that means, practice, practice, practice. Also, don't be afraid to setup on a scene and evaluate it on the ground glass. Just because you setup on the scene doesn't mean you have to make a photograph. Far from it -- again, don't be afraid to walk away.

All that said, the more you photograph with an LF camera, the better you get at photographing with an LF camera. So you do have to burn some film. Otherwise you'll never learn how to look at a scene and decide whether or not it's worth burning film to capture it. Tossing negatives in the trash is still one of the best educational experiences available for a photographer. Really. I'm not kidding.

[Richard M. Coda]

I had this very discussion with a friend via his blog a few days ago. He's fairly new to LF photography and he travels a lot to "western" destinations. He's finding that he is not completely happy with the great majority of his images, especially landscapes. He has found that he has more fun and has a higher percentage of "keepers" when he does still lifes and portraits. I have almost 30 years on him (in LF photography, not age – he's got me there by at least a few years). I told him that when I was younger and starting out in LF I shot mainly landscapes. I liked a lot of the images I made, but I found myself getting bored of landscapes. Now, I do a lot of "urban" photography... architectural abstracts, abstracts in general, and most recently... color. It somehow "excites" me more. That said, as I approach 50 next year, I have found myself yearning to do some landscapes. ????

[Michael Roberts]

Just got back from Utah, and will be going again in a few weeks....I will address the OP's questions, but a small digression to relate my newbie first trip to Utah, about four years ago. What first drew me there was the slot canyons. Of course, along the way there is Arches NP, Canyonlands NP, Monument Valley, Valley of the Gods, etc., etc. Came back with 54 color trannies. Turned them in at my local lab to be developed, and they returned them exactly the way I turned them in. I opened the box while standing in the store....and exposed all of the film, again. They were very nice about it--they replaced the film.

I suggest you study the digital pics you got that you liked and try to distinguish what makes them better than the discards/deletes. Then try to transfer what you learn to the LF camera. My guess is composition and quality of light are going to have a lot to do with it.

I second Bruce's suggestion to really study the potential scene before setting up and photographing. I often use a card cut-out to frame a scene before set the camera up. This also helps in pre-selecting the lens length. Another, perhaps obvious point, is that even LF cameras are not stereo. A scene that looks good to your eyes, may not hold up as well in monovision--so try closing one eye when looking at the scene and see if it is still compelling--or does it go flat?

Near-far compositions are good to keep in mind with the grand landscapes--can you find an interesting juniper or stump or clump of wildflowers to put in the foreground?

And of course time of day, time of year, atmospheric conditions. My best photo hands down from Utah came at Monument Valley when the sun broke through underneath dark clouds just before sunset.....