LF landscape photography NOT a contemplative activity

[tim atherton]

"You wrote "Besides, if I made all that appeal to me in a place like Yosemite Nat. Park, I'd never get more than 20 meters from my room!" And what is wrong with that? As I have said many times before, "It is how one sees not what one sees that makes any photograph interesting." So, if you see so many possibilities that you needn't get more than 20 meters from your room, I'm right impressed. That is the way it should be. Minor White once wrote that if a photographer were fully sesnitized, in a lifetime he/she would not get to the end of the block. There is nothing wrong with photographing Half Dome or the waterfalls, bu there is so much else besides, and yes, much of it is less than 20 meters from your room. Just because a photograph is of something spectacular will not make it a good photograph. I get the feeling that many think otherwise. Or, if that is a bit of an exaggeration (and it may be), they think that a good photograph of something spectacular is always better than a good photograph of something quite ordinary. And so they backback miles and miles to the "special spot" missing the literally millions of opportunities that present themselves along the way."

One of the best things I've seen written in this whole discussion Michael - absolutley spot on.

I also think there is a significant difference between what is being called a contemplative approach and an approach in which one is "aware" (what Michael calls above being fully sensitized).

When you are in a frame of mind in which you are as fully visually aware as possible, then in a way it doesn't matter if you miss that spectacular scene at sunset, because you see so many other things on the way there and back.

I spent all of this summer (and some good time before that) basically photographing the 20m from my door - well, not quite, but the two or three miles that makes up this small isolated city. I never ran out of something to photograph. There was always too much to photogorpah and I know that if I wished I could spend the next several years at least on the same project. As Robert Adams prosaically put it "No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film"

[Paul Butzi]

I think it's a mistake to equate 'slow pace' with 'contemplative'.

If I spend a morning on the beach, and my process is that I just wander where my attention draws me, taking three minutes to make an exposure every fifteen minutes or so - that seems pretty contemplative to me. At that rate, I'd make 4 exposures an hour, or something like 16 exposures in a four hour morning of photography. At that pace, things seem unhurried. 12 minutes out of each hour are spent fiddling with the camera - 48 minutes are spent looking at things. In other words, you're spending 80% of your time *looking* and 20% of your time setting up and making exposures.

Note what happens if it takes you 15 minutes to set up the camera and make an exposure - suddenly, four exposures an hour means that you're spending 100% of your time on setup, and 0% of your time looking. It's hard to be alert and attentive to your surroundings when you're spending 100% of your time on setup.

So what happens is that you end up slowing down the pace. To get back to the 80% looking, you ease up to the point where you take one exposure every hour and a quarter. The results of your four hour foray have been reduced to 3 exposures. It's tough to attend to what's around you when each exposure you make represents 1/3rd of the morning because each exposure represents such a huge investment.

What I've learned, I think, is that it's important to be able to make an exposure quickly and with little effort for two reasons: 1) it leaves more time for 'contemplation', and 2) it lowers the threshold between the impulse to make a photograph and the act of making it.

I've watched LF photographers spend 15 minutes making an exposure - erecting the tripod, unfolding the camera, selecting a lens, adjusting movements, focusing, checking the focus, metering, filling out an exposure record, checking the meter again to make sure the light hasn't changed, checking focus, selecting a film holder, loading it into the camera, checking the meter again, and then finally making an exposure.

I think some folks have a love affair with the idea that LF is *difficult*, as if the very difficulty of it somehow imbues the photograph with some sort of merit. I know that I felt that way when I started LF.

The problem with this view is that it presupposes that what's important is the process of setting up the camera, and that what we point the camera at is of little significance. And it turns out that the opposite is true.

[Bruce Watson]

Michael,

I think you and I are vehemently agreeing. We just work differently, as would be expected since I use a 4x5 and you often use various ULFs that can't easily be transported.

To answer :"If you have made some good pictures with the attitude of "wonder what this will look like" (and I am pleased to read that), that is a contradiction with only exposing the one "best" scene." I can only say that it is *not* a contradiction. Not the way I work. Even with an experimental image, I still work for the one, best, position and angle to make the shot. I did, in the beginning of my LF work, tend toward taking several exposures at different angles. As I gained experience, I learned more what works, and what doesn't work for me. Now, when I can see that something probably isn't going to work, I don't burn the film. Am I missing some good shots? Perhaps. But I use the time I save by not working on questionable shots looking for more interesting scenes to photograph. To me, it seems like a logical trade off.

Taking the one good shot is what makes it "contemplative" for me. Not trying to rush around and get several shots while the sun is rising (or whatever time dependent thing is going on) is what keeps me from feeling "Tuan's complaint" of being time constrained. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how I work.

As to the "what's wrong with never getting more than 20 meters from the door" question, the answer is as you stated. There is nothing wrong with never going far from the door. Unless, like me, you want to see what else is out there!

[Ole Tjugen]

Yes, yes, no, and maybe?

LF photography to me is a contemplative activity. It slows down my snapping, walking spped, and heart beat rate. Sometimes I see situations which will look good as soon as the sun moves over THERE: So I'll leave it until 3pm, 9pm, or next October depending on where I want the sun. I've tried for six years now to get a picture that can only be made in early March or mid-October; ne of these years it's BOUND to be sunny at the right time of year. Hasn't happened yet, but I'll keep on trying.

Sometimes you see the picture, sometimes the promise of a picture. The picture has to be taken there and then, but the promise can be contemplated over for years, if necessary.

Then again, I'm privileged by living in Norway. Last year I caught the "green flash" on film, but since the flash lasts for 20 seconds at htese latitudes I managed to get three shots...

[wfwhitaker]

Contemplative and stressful are not mutually exclusive terms. The big camera does encourage me to approach the subject differently than I would with a small camera. Certain elements common to all photography, however, are definitely stress-inducing.

Regards,

[e]

Interesting thread. The more I think about contemplation in regards to photography the less I think it has meaning for me, except before or after the fact. When Minor White speaks of "sensitising" the photographer I assume he is talking about what his teacher(G.I.Gurdjieff) meant by being fully awake to life...in contrast to the normal human condition of daily activity called by some the waking sleep...and by others...just asleep. The LF camera by its very nature as well as other instruments of the arts seem to be connectors... bridging a gap to a higher place of enhanced perception that is not of access to the person in the normal workings of the daily survival struggle. This feature alone is a lifeline for the artist...or else their life would be devoid of a of rich and deep perception and creativity. I think there are two ways this occurs to the artist. The first is through the trials and struggle of dealing with the physical, emotional and intellectual realities of the camera leading to.. through excessivly hard work.. an act of higher perception through exaustion and intense energy expenditure. The second way is to be in harmony and ultimate balance with the inner and outer realities and the doing of a meditative/slow act... of being the human photographer with no concern for success...the success has already manifested through the harmony and universal balance achieved.The doing is enough. This is more easily accomplished with music as it takes place all at the same time..the creation and the execution...with the performer at least...and then it is gone! With any visual art it is more problamatical though not insurmountable. The act of photography can be a spiritual action on many levels. This makes the camera the key... when taken in a certain way...leading to the inner realities of the of the real person...in a active and silent way.

[Guy Tal]

Interesting. I'd say this has more to do with the type of person you are and the reason for making images in the first place. If the light is changing fast and I willl likely not "catch" it in time, I put the camera aside, take a deep breath and watch the light show unfold. If I can predict the defining moment in time to make an image, I will attempt to capture it. Both experiences are contempletive, and both have something to do with choice of camera. The other part is just me - I'd rather witness a beautiful moment and not get anything on film than get frustrated over technicalities if I can't capture it. I'd be a lot more frustrated with a tiny piece of film that doesn't stand a chance of reproducing and communicating the experience to my viewers.

Guy

[Steve J Murray]

Very interesting thread! I love all the different points made already. For me "seeing" and "finding" the image I want to isolate and photograph is and has always been more of a "trance state." I tune out all thought and become purely visual in my mind. Its not really contemplation, because I'm not "thinking" in the usual manner. Thoughts are only intruders, distractions. Stress is an intrusion also. This is more meditative then, maybe. Setting up the camera and the mechanics of taking the picture I am still pretty much on auto-pilot. I try not to "think" until I am all done for the day. I don't contemplate much until I have the finished print to gaze at. That I enjoy immensely. Does anyone else do it this way?

[Al W]

QT,

If you feel you need to be shooting on the fly as the light changes, sounds like you might be ready for a press camera with a sports finder and a graphmatic. I don't shoot that much color or landscape, I do shoot downtown a lot. I've shot a whole box of 25 B&W in an hours time without much effort. Seems like you could do ok with a changing scene.

Hand held with a mono pod or chain pod is a lot of fun. Sometimes you just need to put film through the camera to pull yourself out of time consuming ruts. What you're describing is the difference between left an right brain thinking. You're so wrapped up with your camera that you don't have time for your art, so now you want a camera you can shoot without all the thinking and fiddling. I tend to find the shot I take with a few seconds of setup to be the one I like best at the end of the day. The ones I spend a lot of time on are never as wonderful as they seemed at the time. With a press camera I have an LF image of the ones I like.

[Michael Chmilar]

Just to add a few more "thinking points":

When shooting with a more "convenient" format, it can be easy to fall into the trap of shooting "coverage". ie. you try to shoot as many angles, focal lengths, and so on, as you can. You end up with a lot of interesting and "nice" shots, but nothing that really stands out. The problem is that you don't take a little time to "see" and evaluate the subject. Occasionally, you do end up with a great photo that results from experimenting.

Similarly, with the convenient format, you may stop too often, to shoot something moderately interesting, and miss a good spot. Another "coverage" mistake.

I find that the large format gear encourages me to spend a little more time evaluating the subject before I reach for the camera. As Hogarth says, "walk[ing] the scene".

I think that I have made at least a few photos using every process described so far: the mad rush to unpack and setup as the light/scene changes; setting up well in advance of an anticipated shot, and waiting; finding a subject which is "exactly ready", and taking many shots, moving the camera and changing lenses, because there is ample time to do so; returning to a well known subject at different times; setting up, evaluating, moving (without exposing), re-evaluating, make more "adjustments", and truly contemplating the subject (and maybe walking away without making the shot - although I'll usually take a shot anyway, since I've gone to so much trouble).

And, from each of these experiences, I have sometimes been rewarded with (what I consider) a successful shot, and sometimes not.

And sometimes the shot I would have "bet money on" is a loser, and the random "I don't think this will work, but I'll burn a sheet of film" is a winner.

And, even when I am rushed, I think I still manage to squeeze at least a little "contemplation" into the process, but I would agree that the term "contemplation" is either overemphasized, or not the correct term to use. I really like Michael A. Smith's phrase "contemplative alertness".

The situation often dictates how you will approach it. The trick is to find the best balance of creative and technical requirements at the time.

In the end, even if I'm not enjoying myself in the process (too cold, too hot, had to get up too early, pack too heavy, spending too much money, travelling too far, I'm wasting my time), I find that I am enjoying myself in the process!