Thoughtful Photography

[Brian C. Miller]

I had popped over to Luminous Landscape, PhaseOne IQ 180 Field Review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/phaseone_iq_180_field_review.shtml), by Mark Dubovoy, and saw something I never thought I would see: "Thoughtful Photography."

Then I read his definition of "thoughtful photography."


1. Mount the camera on the tripod and look through the viewfinder. Because of the custom mask, it is quite easy to decide which lens to use and adjust the camera to properly frame the image.

2. After the camera is locked in position, mount the chosen lens on the camera and connect the PC sync cable.

3. Measure the distance to the key object in the image using the Disto D5. Enter the distance in the HPF ring.

4. Choose a lens aperture, ISO and shutter speed appropriate to the image (guess the exposure).

5. Make a test exposure.

5. Evaluate and confirm framing, focus, leveling and exposure using the tools in the IQ 180 touch screen. Perform any necessary changes or tweaks.

6. Shoot the final image. If not satisfactory, repeat step 5 and shoot again.

(Must ... control ... fist of death! (http://search.dilbert.com/search?w=fist+of+death&x=32&y=9))

Doesn't "thoughtful photography" have anything to do with the image being made?

When I practice "thouthful photography," I think about what I want to photograph. I might travel hither and yon, or I might hang around the house. I think about what should be in the frame, what what is better left out. What does something "say" about a concept? Am I maximizing what I see? What about a different angle? Is the sun in the right position? Am I making something that I find interesting? How does it make me feel? How might it make others feel?

These are some of the things I think about when I make a photograph. How about you?

[Bruce Watson]

I don't pay a lot of attention to LL. Things like this is why. From my point of view, those guys just don't get it. Probably from their point of view, I'm the one that doesn't get it. Who cares? Photography isn't a contest.

[Heroique]

I think many here would share your frustration w/ Mark Dubovoy’s ideas.

The quote below suggests the poor man is very lost indeed:

“The real test of how valuable and desirable all this technology is comes down to whether photographers will be willing to put their hard earned money on the table and buy the device.”

At least he sounds happy.


How might [my photo] make others feel?

The great forgotten question among many photographers. Deserves a thread of its own. For many, photography is an exclusively individual enterprise, and the question above just isn’t that important. If you read a lot of theory-of-late, and believe it, the possibility of communicating “what you mean” is illusory; and self-regard, it would seem, has no better encouragement. Me, I think asking this question can, and will improve one’s photography, and deserves an investment of faith from everyone.

[Sirius Glass]

I think many here would share your frustration w/ Mark Dubovoy’s ideas.

Which leads on to ask, "Why is bandwidth being wasted on this subject???" :eek:

[Marko]

Let's face it, photography is definitely not rocket science, no need to overthink it... ;)

But come to really think of it, I really don't like this recent fad for bitching about what others do or say.

I also think that if they really must exist, threads like this belong to The Lounge. There is already one "complaining thread" going right now, with much more thought and humor invested in the posts than here.

What Bruce said - who cares?

[BrianShaw]

I'm confused by, both, this thread, and its spinoff. The subject has never inpired me to think about it. I'm hoping the comments of others mioght get me thinking something interesting about something I've just never thought about.

[Brian Ellis]

I had popped over to Luminous Landscape, PhaseOne IQ 180 Field Review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/phaseone_iq_180_field_review.shtml), by Mark Dubovoy, and saw something I never thought I would see: "Thoughtful Photography."

Then I read his definition of "thoughtful photography."



(Must ... control ... fist of death! (http://search.dilbert.com/search?w=fist+of+death&x=32&y=9))

Doesn't "thoughtful photography" have anything to do with the image being made?

When I practice "thouthful photography," I think about what I want to photograph. I might travel hither and yon, or I might hang around the house. I think about what should be in the frame, what what is better left out. What does something "say" about a concept? Am I maximizing what I see? What about a different angle? Is the sun in the right position? Am I making something that I find interesting? How does it make me feel? How might it make others feel?

These are some of the things I think about when I make a photograph. How about you?

I think about some of those things when making a photograph. But I don't expect to read about them in product reviews. Or did you miss this sentence at the beginning of the article:

"O.K., now that I have made that disclosure let's proceed with the REVIEW." (my caps)

The article in question is a review of a photography product, i.e. a digital back. It isn't an essay about the thought process involved in making photographs. And in the language you quote he's describing how to use the product that he's reviewing, which is pretty much what reviewers do.

He says that "thoughtful photography" is a term he's using to describe the experience of using the product he's reviewing. It doesn't purport to be a "definition of thoughtful photography" as you claim.

I don't read a review of a photography product expecting to see an essay on hanging around the house or traveling hither and yon or on how a photograph made with the product will make the photographer or others feel or any of the other things you tell us you think about when making a photograph. Do you?

[Brian C. Miller]

He says that "thoughtful photography" is a term he's using to describe the experience of using the product he's reviewing. It doesn't purport to be a "definition of thoughtful photography" as you claim. Of course you didn't mention the fact that this is a product review. From your message one would think this is an essay on making a photograph or the things one should consider when making a photograph. And that isn't at all what it is.

As a matter of fact, in the first sentence, "PhaseOne IQ 180 Field Review" should have been a dead giveaway that the source of the quote was a product review. You weren't really confused about that, were you?

The "On Photography" section of the forum is exactly the place to discuss things like this. What is "thoughtful photography" to you? Is it nothing more than setting up the camera and making a good exposure? Or is there more to it than that? Is there any philosophy of photography at all in your life? Why persue "art" if there is no philosophy behind what is produced? Without philosophy, doesn't art devolve into some kind of repetetive psychosis? Why touch brush and paint to canvas? Why bang on a rock with hammer and chisel? Why load up a cumbersome box and expose film?

The basis of what we do is the art of communication. We are trying to communicate an idea from noggin A to noggin B. Our medium of artistic expression is photography. If we are choosing to express something, thinking about the final product should be de rigueur.

[paulr]

Read it in context. It's his dumb name for a method of working with a technical camera that is much simpler than what he's been able to do in the past. The idea being, he's thinking less about nuts and bolts so he can think more about substantive things.

[Brian K]

I guess in a day and age when photography for many requires no thought thanks to automation, giving thought to a photograph at the time of capture is a novel idea and worth notice......

[BrianShaw]

I guess in a day and age when photography for many requires no thought thanks to automation, giving thought to a photograph at the time of capture is a novel idea and worth notice......

Interesting comment, and largely true. I chuckle every time i see someone with a camera shooting 50 frames to capture (possibly) that which may of us would only shoot 2 or 3 frames.

But for many people, like a bunch who hang out on this forum, the "thoughful" part is rather intuitive. Sure it gets done but not fussed over. Perhaps this is a situation where it is obvious how different people thinka nd express themselves. As an insightful but "private" person I tend to think but not hash intuitive ideas out loud. Others think and express themselves mer, ummm... expressively.

[Brian Ellis]

As a matter of fact, in the first sentence, "PhaseOne IQ 180 Field Review" should have been a dead giveaway that the source of the quote was a product review. You weren't really confused about that, were you?

The "On Photography" section of the forum is exactly the place to discuss things like this. What is "thoughtful photography" to you? Is it nothing more than setting up the camera and making a good exposure? Or is there more to it than that? Is there any philosophy of photography at all in your life? Why persue "art" if there is no philosophy behind what is produced? Without philosophy, doesn't art devolve into some kind of repetetive psychosis? Why touch brush and paint to canvas? Why bang on a rock with hammer and chisel? Why load up a cumbersome box and expose film?

The basis of what we do is the art of communication. We are trying to communicate an idea from noggin A to noggin B. Our medium of artistic expression is photography. If we are choosing to express something, thinking about the final product should be de rigueur.

Did you actually read my message? Of course I wasn't confused that it was product review since I pointed that out to you. I thought you were confused since you seemed to expect to find an essay on what one should consider in making a photograph in a product review. And I said nothing about discussing "thoughtful photography" in the "On Photography" section of this forum so I don't know what your point is with that.

I have no problem with discussing what should go through one's mind when making a photograph if you like those sorts of discussions. My problem with your message was that you incorrectly described what the reviewer of a product meant by "thoughtful photography" and used your incorrect description as a launching point from which to to disparage the reviewer (and, by implication, the product being reviewed as in "look guys, here's what these digital people think of as 'thoughtful photography' ").

[paulr]

The guy's point seems reasonable to me. He's talking specifically about what a nuissance framing and focussing used to be with a medium format technical camera—much more so than with a 4x5 or 8x10 (his observation, not mine—I have yet to use a tech camera). He's found that this new back of gear let's him streamline the process and spend less time fussing over a tiny ground glass, a sliding camera back, an ultra-powerful focussing loupe, etc. etc.

[Richard M. Coda]

A little off topic, but I took a workshop 11 years ago where Mark was in attendance. This was back when he was doing 8x10 color and making his own color carbon transfer prints. The thing that struck me about him back then was that he was a perfectionist. He explained his metering routing to me and it blew my mind. Seeing him say "guess the exposure" makes me wonder what has happened to him. ???

[paulr]

Seeing him say "guess the exposure" makes me wonder what has happened to him. ???

I imagine that he cares about the results, not about how he gets there. And that with this particular back, with its high dynamic range, he can get the exposure he wants with one or two guesses more quickly than he can through elaborate metering.

More than half the time shooting 4x5 black and white, my method was to guess the exposure, shoot, and then meter afterwards to check myself. This proved much faster in most circumstances than metering first. I didn't have to worry about the light changing, a helicopter invading the sky, the wind picking up, etc. etc...

He's talking about the same thing, but is able to dispense with the meter entirely because the screen on the back lets him check the exposure directly.

[Mark Sawyer]

...and I imagine the histogram tells him more than the meter.

I'd agree that he was talking more about the the process-level thought process than the heart/mind/soul thought process. Both have their place.

[Brian K]

Having read the article all I can say is that his process still sounds a hell of a lot more complicated than it should be, and if he's having to give that much thought to the process then it's taking away from the thought that the image itself should have. The very fact that he's writing a camera review shows that his priorities are still hardware oriented.

I've played piano for nearly 40 years and don't consider myself a musician or even a piano player. Because unless it's a piece of music that I've played a million times I still have to think about the technique. I still see notes, a musician hears notes. It's a quantum difference.

For the most part all of my camera systems have become point and shoot for me, at least on the technical end. I use "sunny 16" and experience for most of my exposures.
To me photography works best when you can just see the image without having to think about it too much. It becomes instinctual or intuitive.

[rdenney]

I still see notes, a musician hears notes. It's a quantum difference.

You are overstating this. A musician translates from the written note (or, more correctly, the written phrase) and hears the execution as they execute it. They do not waste conscious thought on such things as "that note is the second line of the treble clef, which is a G. And a G is the white key between the two black keys in the group of three. And this note is marked forte, and is market with a legato articulation. So, strike that key softly and leave your finger down until the next note is struck..."

But then you can read a sentence aloud without thinking "first inhale. Then observe the characters on the page. If the first phoneme is 'th' followed by 'e', place the tongue on the roof of the mouth and exhale a hum through it, and then spread the mouth wide and shallow and hum through that, spending approximately 1/4 second..."

The reason you don't is because you can look at the words on the page and hear the sentence spoken aloud, as you speak it. The mechanics are handled sub-consciously.

It does not take a superior musician to do this, just as reading aloud requires no more than a second-grade skill.

The better the musician, the bigger the chunk of music they can stuff into a buffer to be executed without reading in detail. But even this is a skill of practice--practice playing unfamiliar rather than familiar music.

As photographers, the application of technique during photography is not a performance skill as is music. It does not have to be fluid. We have time--usually. It does have to be subservient to our artistic goals, and that is the same as with music. That's why I took a music lesson (not a tuba lesson) from a violinist, some years ago, and the first thing he had me play was "twinkle, twinkle, little star".

Rick "who makes both music and photography harder than it needs to be" Denney

[Mark Sawyer]

I still see notes, a musician hears notes. It's a quantum difference.


You are overstating this.

Not really. When I photograph, I not only see the subject, I see tonal gradations in grey, and I see intensities of light. I honestly do. And I think a lot of other photographers do too, especially in the LF black-and-white crowd. We could hardly help it! And someone new to it would still meter to see what the "zone spread" is. Same thing... :)

[Brian K]

You are overstating this. A musician translates from the written note (or, more correctly, the written phrase) and hears the execution as they execute it. They do not waste conscious thought on such things as "that note is the second line of the treble clef, which is a G. And a G is the white key between the two black keys in the group of three. And this note is marked forte, and is market with a legato articulation. So, strike that key softly and leave your finger down until the next note is struck..."

But then you can read a sentence aloud without thinking "first inhale. Then observe the characters on the page. If the first phoneme is 'th' followed by 'e', place the tongue on the roof of the mouth and exhale a hum through it, and then spread the mouth wide and shallow and hum through that, spending approximately 1/4 second..."

The reason you don't is because you can look at the words on the page and hear the sentence spoken aloud, as you speak it. The mechanics are handled sub-consciously.

It does not take a superior musician to do this, just as reading aloud requires no more than a second-grade skill.

The better the musician, the bigger the chunk of music they can stuff into a buffer to be executed without reading in detail. But even this is a skill of practice--practice playing unfamiliar rather than familiar music.

As photographers, the application of technique during photography is not a performance skill as is music. It does not have to be fluid. We have time--usually. It does have to be subservient to our artistic goals, and that is the same as with music. That's why I took a music lesson (not a tuba lesson) from a violinist, some years ago, and the first thing he had me play was "twinkle, twinkle, little star".

Rick "who makes both music and photography harder than it needs to be" Denney

Rick I used to date a concert pianist, trained at the highest levels in Russia and at Julliard, when she looked at written music she heard it as music, when she heard music she could just write it down verbatim or just play it verbatim. It's a different level of musical ability than most people can understand. And that's why I considered her a musician and myself not much more than a guy who owns a piano.