Two principal ways to search for a landscape shot (or is your way different?)

[Heroique]

[1] In other words, if I have a mountain that I wanted framed by two particular trees, the lens choice will determine where I put the camera...


[2] I walk the scene to find the best spot to make the photograph, then choose the lens that lets me capture what I’m after from that spot. I don’t know that I’ve ever moved the camera position to accommodate a lens...

These two quotes from a recent thread express very different ways to look for a shot, and it might be worth a poll, enriched w/ your comments, to explore the practical difference.

Is your way of getting the shot like one of these?


— Do the lenses in your bag determine where you walk for a composition (like Vaughn)?


— Or do you find the composition first, then determine if you have the lens that provides a satisfactory angle of view (like Bruce)?

Perhaps your personal approach is a hybrid form — or entirely different?

[Heroique]

Vaughn, that’s helpful to hear what goes through your mind as a shot is being born.

I too will explain a little more about my vote – I chose option #3 due to the frequent scouting I do. That is, when I’m scouting, a scene might strike me with its general appeal (#2), and I will be further drawn to it based on how my three lenses might specifically handle it (#1). For better understanding, I’ll walk up & down the scene – w/ the three lens’ specific angles of view in mind – usually w/ the help of a viewing card. This is the point when my lenses (110/150/240) start fully “controlling” or “narrowing” what I see.

If I like what a lens might do, I’ll return when I think the light will be best…

Now, when I’m out-and-about, just looking around for a shot (not scouting), I do sometimes feel an initial, unconscious impulse to walk into scenes where I think my lenses will “work” (that is, not due to the scene’s general appeal). This started happening after a lot of experience. Without my full awareness, my lenses started conditioning how I “saw the world,” and I would feel my lenses, strangely, guiding or “pulling on” me in a way, much like a divining rod. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to manage this sneaky impulse, because while it might help me find shots on some occasions, it can be a distraction on others. It can help and hinder.

Bringing different lenses on different trips helps me keep things fresh. ;^)

[Vaughn]

Sorry, Heroique, that I deleted my posts -- I was having a hard time organizing my thoughts, going back to the original poll questions, ended up with two different posts, each with edits, and all. I had hoped I deleted them before someone actually saw them. So I will try to post here again, so that others know what you were referring to.

I answered #2, but really I should have gone for the last one. I attempt to "Zen it"...by which I mean I am just There (a Be Here Now, sort of thing). I use the camera to record my experience of the light on the landscape. Thirty-plus years of LF use has helped me not to have to think too much about lenses, film, aperture, et al while I am looking for the image I want to eventually render as a print.

I encourage new photographer to use only one (non-zoom) lens until they have learn, like you mentioned, to see as the lens sees. The qualities of the lens hopefully becomes just another of the many factors that my sub-conscience works with to determine when and where I set the camera up. Occasionally, I end up moving the camera significantly, but most of the time once I set the pod up, it rarely moves more than a few feet before I am ready to expose the film.

The edges of an image defines what is inside the rest of the image. To me, the edges are as important as the center. As part of my process I do not crop, so once I determine what the image should be, the lens choice does drive the camera position. So the idea of choosing a spot to photograph from, then deciding on what lens to use seems odd to me. But perhaps this is not what Bruce was referring to when he said "I walk the scene to find the best spot to make the photograph" -- finding "the best spot" may be finding the image he wants to make.

I do not "scout". That would be 180 degrees from the way I work. As I said, my goal is the Be Here Now, not Come Back Later. But I am always looking at the light, with or without the camera, so all the visual information becomes part of my experience that goes into every image I make.

[rdenney]

I would answer "yes".

Sometimes, I'm looking for a particular relationship between near and far subject material that dictates my spot. I then have to match a lens to it. Other times, I try different lenses (even if just in my mind or using a viewing card) to look for the composition that pleases me from that spot. Usually it's the latter, but when the former is clear in my head, then I'll follow it.

If I just have one lens, then I look for the scene that will make use of it. But in so doing, I may miss many other compositions that I would rather photograph. They are apparent to me as I look around, and several times I have wished for a different lens than the one I had.

For me, the important aspect is not the two choices you have presented, but rather the principle of think first before setting up the camera. Once I get the camera set up, I become (often) too committed to my first visualization, and miss others or end up with no time to pursue them. I need to spend more time thinking before I set up.

Rick "who sometimes uses a zoom lens on a DSLR as a 'viewing card'" Denney

[Heroique]

To me, the edges are as important as the center. As part of my process I do not crop, so once I determine what the image should be, the lens choice does drive the camera position.


Other times, I try different lenses (even if just in my mind or using a viewing card) to look for the composition that pleases me from that spot.
...Rick “who sometimes uses a zoom lens on a DSLR as a ‘viewing card' ” Denney

Here’s the viewing card in action for anyone who’s curious.

Helps one determine tripod position. Helps one select the lens.

So useful in cutting your vision down to size, keeping the imagination under control, putting tighter reigns on it – before it gallops away. (I love using it for any of the options above.) I’ve always felt the viewing card has its dangers too: it can monopolize or narrow your attention w/o your awareness that it’s doing so, blinkering you to other ways of seeing a shot. In a phrase, it can eliminate the very complications and distractions that might inspire an even better shot than the one you see!

[Vaughn]

Though I have known of the viewing cards for 30 years or so, I don't bother with them. I have used my fingers occasionally for the same purpose.

I don't mind my imagination galloping, as long as I can keep the trail between the ears (the one rule for riding mules)...:D

Vaughn

Using the viewing card -- I am reminded of a line from An Autobiography of a Yogi; "If you wear shoes, the world is covered with shoe-leather."

[Lenny Eiger]

I see this differently. I am a lover of photohistory. When I look thru my books, it is clear that 90-98% of these folks used one lens and one camera for many years at a time. When you do that, you don't need a viewing card. When I look for something to shoot, I look at what I am looking for, I respond to those areas that are part of my personal aesthetic. I often put the camera down away form the shot and decide where I want to shoot it from, what angle, what I want to include. I don't "choose" a lens. I only carry two. One is the normal lens and the other is a longer one for those places where there is a stream I can't get across, etc. I rarely take the longer one out of the backpack. I put the tripod down where I have decided to and everything fits in. If I want a slightly wider lens, I take a step or two back, for a longer lens, pick up the tripod and move forward.

I would say its a not-so-great thing to have your lens determine your aesthetic. The first week in school they made us all tape our viewfinders so we would stop looking at life thru a little hole. I think its incumbent on us all to understand what interests us in the natural world and get clear about what we are doing photographically. (Not that this is easy.) Then the equipment is just used for recoding one's vision...

For beginners, most of the ones I have taught took shots that were too wide. They end up telling two or three stories instead of one.. The most successful technique I taught was to go ahead and take the shot, then pick up the camera and move forward and take another. Then repeat until the actual image you were looking at is on the screen.

Just my way of doing it... not for everyone.

Lenny

[36cm2]

The most successful technique I taught was to go ahead and take the shot, then pick up the camera and move forward and take another.

I have been forcing myself to do this for several months. It's wonderful advice.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

The poll is useless. And so are answers like 'putting on a longer lens to get closer'. And some don't crop? What? That is so absurd since cropping is your MOST powerful compositional tool. And camera to subject distance is vitally important, although most people still don't know why.

I generally follow the form of photographic craft that I was taught, like, and works for me. Nothing happens without a 'spark of interest'. Then study the subject and light while exploring the near/far, high/low to determine where to place the camera (the major decisions that control perspective and composition). Then determine the angle of view necessary to capture the elements you desire, while monitoring conflicts and edges, and finally select the appropriate lens for that view. Then it's all about whatever 'system' you use to determine the exposure you want and perhaps filtration. Snap the shutter and smile. Don't forget to always thank your subject before you walk off.

[Henry Larson]

I use only 3 lens 1.Rodenstock 550mm 2.Rodenstock 180mm and 3. Graflex 135mm.
I always pre-think where I am going bfore I leave home.
When I arrive at the general site and before I set up my camera, Sinar F, I use my cutout composing card to get a sense of what I want to shoot.
Then I set up the camera, choose the lens, and go through my regular proceedures for making an image.
I have foun that this way of doing has stood me in good stead for 40+ years.

[Heroique]

I put the tripod down where I have decided to and everything fits in. If I want a slightly wider lens, I take a step or two back, for a longer lens, pick up the tripod and move forward...

I suspect the armchair photographers will object to this. “Moving the camera changes your perspective!” I hear them shouting. “You’ve just altered your perspective & lost your shot!”

Usually, they’re shouting a cold (intellectual) fact about perspective, while remaining oblivious to how experienced field photographers manage limitations to get the shot. Next, they attribute the field photographer’s success to uninformed luck, not working knowledge.

[Vaughn]

The poll is useless. And so are answers like 'putting on a longer lens to get closer'. And some don't crop? What? That is so absurd since cropping is your MOST powerful compositional tool. And camera to subject distance is vitally important, although most people still don't know why...

Nothing is useless if it creates interesting and useful communication!

I do not crop negatives. But of course I do crop -- I just do it with the camera. If the image will not fit onto the entire piece of film, I move on to the next image. There is no shortage of great images! It is all a matter of seeing them.

Vaughn

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Vaughn,

I didn't mean cropping as in cutting negs with scissors! I meant, of course, doing it in post-processing, the enlarger stage or the matting and framing room.

[Vaughn]

That is what I assumed you meant, Jeffrery -- but I still do not do any post-processing cropping. I contact print showing the rebate as my artistic process.

Vaughn

[David_Senesac]

Two principal ways to search for a landscape shot (or is your way different?) How do you find your composition?

Well I'm not going to answer the question as intended because it ignores more important up front issues of finding landscapes.

Much depends on the situation as there are many types of landscapes and what works in one environment may not in another. For instance my approach in a dim deep redwood forest is much different than say in the Sierra timberline country. A given in the question is this ought to be about places one has not previously visited. Thus places one is approaching freshly. In most cases I do more homework about where I am visiting than probably 99% of the rest of you. Things are different for me today than before the Internet. I already have decades of experience out in landscapes so understand light at different times of day, at different orientations, and in different weather.

Before the Internet, I would go to a big university library, analyze topographic maps, analyze geological maps, maybe visit the USGS in Menlo Park not far from where I live, go down to book stores and look for current guide books. One of the most important issues is knowing what time of year to go when a location is most aesthetic. With a topo map and simple tools like a protractor, I can work out all the perspective views of my different lenses. So know what lens to already have on my 4x5 before I get up at dawn to ramble out 2 miles to some lake for a morning shot. In mountainous landscapes, I can calculate with some geometry and trig what can be seen in various locations and what cannot due to blocking elements like ridges.

Typical was my first visit to Utah canyon country 16 years ago, a 3-week road trip. When I drove out there in my Subaru, I had a tall stack of topo maps and books. After reaching the Colorado Plateau, sometimes I came upon things I had not expected like the geology or formations and just set out to ramble about. Then if possible would visit a local place where I might buy additional maps to analyze in evenings. Other times I saw areas, I already expected to be productive at and then ventured out and indeed sometimes brought back nice images and other times it was a dry well.

Landscapes are vast and enormous. Without some way to focus where one rambles about looking, one is going to waste a lot of time. If all one does is read usual guide books and or drive along paved highways looking about, one is going to miss most of the goods. There are a great many non-paved dirt roads in the West. My first trip was very productive. A few years later on a 2-weeker with another viewcamera photographer we really killed it with even better results. What I learned on the first trip really let me focus in on the best places during the second trip. Experience is gold if applied. We nailed quite a lot of material no other photographers before or since have ever seen. The proof of our success is in our images, many of which are on our websites.

Likewise in the Sierra I analyze maps etc per above. Today with the Internet things are considerable different. There are many photographs available for those that know where to look. Much more than simple going on Google Images and searching for those that think small. There are also many web boards and other informational sites about visiting various public lands and parks. Do your homework. By far the most important tool today once one has narrowed down an area and are looking for a focus is Google Earth. If you don't know understand why then you are asleep.

[Vaughn]

...We nailed quite a lot of material no other photographers before or since have ever seen. The proof of our success is in our images, many of which are on our websites.

...If you don't know understand why then you are asleep.

Nice work, David! And that arch, wow! I have never seen that before!

A little satire there, of course. But if I am asleep, then you are blinded by planning. And of course, neither it true. You have a way to approach the landscape that works for you, but that does not make it the best and only way to approach the landscape. For example I do not see the landscape as "goods" to be found and captured (nailed). I prefer to ramble and "waste" my time. That is the reason I am there.

I hiked a few miles up a popular canyon in Death Valley with the 8x10. I met a digital photographer and when I mentioned that it was my first time in that particular canyon he ask why I did not scout first, instead of carrying 60 lbs of equipment into an unknown place. I thought it was an odd question, but only because "scouting" itself seems so odd to me and the way I work.

While it is possible to return to a place at the same season and time, and find similar light, I will not be the same person tomorrow as I am right now. I will take a different image tomorrow than I would today...even of the same place, in the same light and with the same camera/lens/film. I am recording photographically my experience I am having with the light reflected off the landscape - not the experience I had the last time I was there, nor the experience I planned of having through prior research.

[Heroique]

Half-way through David’s post, I was under the impression it was partly satire. Then it struck me that maybe it wasn’t satire at all. I had to read it a second time to help me decide. Well, maybe it isn’t satire, but I’ve been fooled before.

The part about libraries, maps, protractors, trigonometry, and geometry to determine the correct lens before seeing the actual landscape – well, never mind about all that – perhaps Vaughn’s remark about being “blinded by planning” is all I would say, too. But then a bit later, David also recommends, it seems, spontaneity: “Forget the guide books,” “Leave the paved roads,” etc.

For now, I’ll only add that no other post in this forum has made me feel such a mixture of extreme annoyance & deep gratitude. It’s certainly a worthwhile read, and I’m still trying to sort it out!

[Vaughn]

Actually he said to forget the "usual guidebooks" (italics are mine). And I would have been fine with most of what he wrote if he had left off that last paragraph.


There are many photographs available for those that know where to look.

There are an infinite number of photographs available for those who know how to look (I prefer "to See"). And the most important tool is an open mind, not Goggle Earth.

But he does seem open to chance (rambling, as he put it), and makes an important point about the value of experiencing an area, "Experience is gold..."

[John Jarosz]

I don't think I make my best photographs the first time I'm at a location. My better stuff comes after I'm used to a place, maybe by my 3rd visit. And I don't have to photograph on the first 2 visits. I think I need time to process the images in my head.

John

[Brian Ellis]

Two principal ways to search for a landscape shot (or is your way different?) How do you find your composition?

Well I'm not going to answer the question as intended because it ignores more important up front issues of finding landscapes.

Much depends on the situation as there are many types of landscapes and what works in one environment may not in another. For instance my approach in a dim deep redwood forest is much different than say in the Sierra timberline country. A given in the question is this ought to be about places one has not previously visited. Thus places one is approaching freshly. In most cases I do more homework about where I am visiting than probably 99% of the rest of you. Things are different for me today than before the Internet. I already have decades of experience out in landscapes so understand light at different times of day, at different orientations, and in different weather.

Before the Internet, I would go to a big university library, analyze topographic maps, analyze geological maps, maybe visit the USGS in Menlo Park not far from where I live, go down to book stores and look for current guide books. One of the most important issues is knowing what time of year to go when a location is most aesthetic. With a topo map and simple tools like a protractor, I can work out all the perspective views of my different lenses. So know what lens to already have on my 4x5 before I get up at dawn to ramble out 2 miles to some lake for a morning shot. In mountainous landscapes, I can calculate with some geometry and trig what can be seen in various locations and what cannot due to blocking elements like ridges.

Typical was my first visit to Utah canyon country 16 years ago, a 3-week road trip. When I drove out there in my Subaru, I had a tall stack of topo maps and books. After reaching the Colorado Plateau, sometimes I came upon things I had not expected like the geology or formations and just set out to ramble about. Then if possible would visit a local place where I might buy additional maps to analyze in evenings. Other times I saw areas, I already expected to be productive at and then ventured out and indeed sometimes brought back nice images and other times it was a dry well.

Landscapes are vast and enormous. Without some way to focus where one rambles about looking, one is going to waste a lot of time. If all one does is read usual guide books and or drive along paved highways looking about, one is going to miss most of the goods. There are a great many non-paved dirt roads in the West. My first trip was very productive. A few years later on a 2-weeker with another viewcamera photographer we really killed it with even better results. What I learned on the first trip really let me focus in on the best places during the second trip. Experience is gold if applied. We nailed quite a lot of material no other photographers before or since have ever seen. The proof of our success is in our images, many of which are on our websites.

Likewise in the Sierra I analyze maps etc per above. Today with the Internet things are considerable different. There are many photographs available for those that know where to look. Much more than simple going on Google Images and searching for those that think small. There are also many web boards and other informational sites about visiting various public lands and parks. Do your homework. By far the most important tool today once one has narrowed down an area and are looking for a focus is Google Earth. If you don't know understand why then you are asleep.

If I thought it was necessary or even desirable to do all this stuff in order to make satisfying photographs I'd forget photography and take up bowling. One of the pleasures of photography for me is, to use your phrase, wasting a lot of time rambling around and looking.

[Mark Stahlke]

I do some or even a lot of the same things Mr. Senesac does. I love pouring over topo maps, guide books, and Google Earth. I'll admit to having used a protractor to help me choose lens kits for different trips. Once I get to my destination, I start wandering around looking for nice compositions.

In my case, this sort of armchair scouting goes beyond photography. It's a way to "be there" mentally when I can't "be there" physically.

[Vaughn]

I don't think I make my best photographs the first time I'm at a location. My better stuff comes after I'm used to a place, maybe by my 3rd visit. And I don't have to photograph on the first 2 visits. I think I need time to process the images in my head.

John

One of my most successful photo trips was hitch-hiking around New Zealand for 3 months with a Indian knock-off of a Deardorff Special (4x5). It had a massive light leak on the back where the metal met the wood and I came home with only a couple printable negatives. But I photographed and had printed those negs in my head as I walked for hours between rides, and tramped in the wilds those 3 months.

The light leak gave me the reason and the desire to save up enough money for a better, lighter 4x5 camera, a mountain bike and the airplane ticket (took 5 years) to return for a 5 month bike-tour. I used the previous trip's experience with the light and the landscape to make a good solid portfolio on that second trip (actually it was my third trip -- I went to university there for a year, but that was before I started to photograph).

When life gives you lemons and you don't have any sugar, just pucker up and enjoy it!

Vaughn

[rdenney]

I don't think I make my best photographs the first time I'm at a location. My better stuff comes after I'm used to a place, maybe by my 3rd visit. And I don't have to photograph on the first 2 visits. I think I need time to process the images in my head.

That is absolutely true for me. If the subject is magnificent, then I'm blinded by awe on the first few visits. I have to get past that before I can see relationships that will translate to two dimensions.

But even after getting past the awe, I have come to the conclusion that I don't know what makes a good photograph. I post images that I like and they get ignored by people here, and I see images posted that don't interest me at all and they draw rave reviews. I like the photos I make, so I'll have to live with that.

I do try to visualize the outcome when I point the camera. The more I think about that, the more likely I am to avoid making another dull photo. If I can't turn the scene before me into a print I like in my head, then I doubt I'll be able to later on. Making the picture even so is just depending on luck. I'm not that lucky. My best photos are the ones that were clear to me when I pointed the camera. My big mistake often is that I don't allow that clarity to form. It does not usually just suddenly appear.

When I lived in Texas, I spent several years making large-format photos of the San Antonio Missions, which interested me as a subject. I don't think in all that time I made more than 50 photographs of that subject, but I spent many weekends in and around those missions and pondering them. I think those 50 photos are among my best work, but I rather doubt that viewpoint is contagious.

My photos in Utah are mostly smaller formats, and my best work out there is in 35mm. With the 4x5 camera, I never really allowed myself to wait until the right photo was in my head before setting up the camera. I think that's a huge key. With 35mm, I wander along and wait for the composition to come to me. With large format, I'm setting up the camera before I've really waited enough. Maybe with another few decades of practice, I'll get the hang of it.

Vaughn's description of how he does things works for me. David's does not. I usually have those maps (I'm a civil engineer--maps are my life), but I don't scout photos using maps. I scout photos using my eyes, at least when I don't get in my own way.

Rick "whose first free weekend in months is rainy--maybe will fire up the scanner and go back to those missions" Denney

[Lenny Eiger]

I think there are some questions that come before this one. The first might be "what are you doing out there?" I don't mean to go too esoteric, the question is what kind of images are you trying to make. Many people express the idea that they need to "get the shot". Within a commercial perspective this is the only thing that makes sense, of course. However, within the context of fine art, these images pale against those where the photographer shot with presence, understanding and appreciation. I state emphatically that there is no "shot".

Years ago I was a pretty good kayaker. We have a lot of great whitewater in Northern CA. After many years of kayaking I was doing Class 5 rivers. The difference between a great run or a rapid and making an error at this level come down to inches on a fast flowing river and errors can come with serious consequences. Of course, you can't fight powerful water, you have to move with it. It's a matter of "align with the forces of nature, or die." Melodrama aside, getting on a river after a week of working at one's work back in the city is an exercise of very quickly getting in tune with natural world. If you can't do it, you better not get on the river, take a day off and try again tomorrow. When you are successful, you get the feeling that you are on this earth and unlike some people who seem so out of touch, that just maybe you actually belong here.

Recently, I realized that it was the same reason that I photograph. When I am out with my camera, I go into a state where am hyper-aware. I notice things I would not usually notice. Not just the tree but the texture of the tree. Under those leaves, there's a skull from a bird that has passed. I see ants. I do my best to get in tune with the actual nature of the place where I am photographing. I appreciate the complexity of things, the scale of things and, in some small measure the magnificence.

Planning a trip or not planning a trip doesn't matter much to me. Some folks have their camping gear all packed, or have a list so they don't forget anything, and others are less organized. I do think that some times it takes a couple of times visiting somewhere to get to the real nature of a place. Or maybe it takes us more than once to really relax, and begin to see. However, going somewhere with a preconceived notion of the photograph might keep you from seeing the truly magical thing that is happening right in front of you.

I would say that photography is all about relationship. When you look at a series of photographs from someone what you get to see is how they interacted with their world. Those that take a picture of some "thing", instead of their feelings about it, will come back with less than what is possible. Without even a sense of wonder in the image, we are usually left wanting. Getting in tune makes all the difference in the world.

Just my 2cents

Lenny

[David_Senesac]

As noted it isn't always that I plan and make a considerable upfront effort. There are a great many situations and I could write a few chapters in a book on how to approach a few types I know well personally. For some landscape subject types planning, has little value. For instance looking for isolated intimate landscapes of colorful fall aspens against blue sky images. Beyond visiting groves, one simply has to ramble about visually hunting. Also there are many times when like others I'm just driving down some unfamiliar road where I have made no plans, see things of interest, then get out and ramble about some like anyone of you. Especially local areas when I can always return at my convenience at times conditions, weather, and light is optimum.

However if I have time to plan, especially if visiting more distant areas that take considerable time and effort, where I know planning etc may be beneficial, then I am likely to do so. Mountainous and irregular topographic areas are obviously at the top of the list of places where that may be true. I could give many examples even on images at my website. For instance in my Gallery B a couple examples at:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/gallery_b.html

First below is one of those gallery images of some forested alpine lakes in Desolation Wilderness with Lake Tahoe in the background. Before I backpacked into that area, I calculated that exact spot would have a view of those lakes and a section of the famous lake down canyon in the background. I went there one afternoon, spent a little time sizing up the exact unblocked tripod spot, exposed a sheet of Provia, then moved on to the next subject I had planned. Simply hiking into that basin miles across, visually looking about, and rambling about up and down over strenuous verticals would be ridiculously inefficient wasting otherwise productive time I might be taking other shots.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/07-BB2-3.jpg

Second below is an image of Golden Throne in Capitol Reef National Park from a location probably no humans have ever been near because it is a topographic puzzle to reach without having to negotiate terrain only fit for serious rock climbers. There are vast areas with worthwhile never photographed places in The West often in areas well away from paved roads where viewpoints are not easy to reach for a number of reasons. My own work has barely scratched the surface and I'm getting too old to ever make much of a dent.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/05-L25-4.jpg

[Vaughn]

David -- you posted the same image of the lake twice, instead of the Golder Throne. Looking forward to seeing it!

Vaughn

[Heroique]

I state emphatically that there is no “shot.” ...I would say that photography is all about relationship.

Nice, Lenny – and when the relationship is born, the real shot finally appears, ready for the ground glass. Kind of like Vaughn’s version of “seeing.”


Also there are many times when like others I'm just driving down some unfamiliar road where I have made no plans, see things of interest, then get out and ramble about some like anyone of you...

Thanks for the thoughtful clarifications, David. It doesn’t sound like the power of “let things happen” escapes you entirely. Better, it sounds like you’re an advocate of “Chance favors the prepared mind” w/ the greater emphasis on “prepared.” It’s a state of mind I’m often in.

[Preston]

I let the composition determine which lens I use. If I can't make it work with the stable of lenses at my disposal, I won't make an exposure.

On occassion, I will adjust the camera's position after choosing a lens that will get me close to what I want.

--P

[mdm]

I think there are some questions that come before this one.

Lenny

I agree 100%. Part of it is knowing what what YOU want to produce from what you have before you, because many many people are making photographs that they think others will like or that will make them a good photographer or that will make them the way they percieve that they should be.

Paul Caponigro sayes somewhere in an interview that to make a good photograph you must work on yourself and how you percieve the world.

[patrickjames]

Scouting, Topo maps? Planning? Bleh. Just go. Find something that visually interests you and make an image.

One of the reasons I do photography is for the discovery. Seeing new things. When I am out on a road trip I just go where my nose points me. Always works out great. Happenstance cannot be planned.

[Greg Miller]

Topo maps aren't very useful here in the heavily forested East for finding view points with big scenic views. But what they are good for, when combined with knowing the position of the sun, is knowing when to hike to a scenic view spot. Why hike for hours, days, or weeks, to shoot a mountain or geologic feature with boring and flat front lighting? Better to plan the trip for when side, 3/4, or back-lighting will yield a more dimensional image that reveals the interesting undulations in the topography.

But that's just for the big scenes. There are thousands of more intimates scenes everywhere to find when just out exploring with no specific subject in mind.