The Creative 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.