Composing on the GG, or not

**N Dhananjay** · 7-Mar-2002, 12:43

I have tried just about every gizmo available to help with this. I'm afraid the GG is what works for me and for a simple reason. Every other gizmo (viewfinder, cutout card etc) - you look THROUGH them. With the GG, you look AT IT. Which is exactly what you do with a print - you look at it. So, looking at the GG is what provides the most direct and spontaneous way to 'visualize' the print for me. Different things may work for different people but this is what works for me. And I don't think it is any less spontaneous than working with any other things. Cold, warm, spontaneous etc are very much a function of your intentions, not materials. You may choose materials to assist your intentions, but materials don't direct intentions. You could use viewfinders in very cold, analytic ways if you wanted to. Cheers, DJ.

**Michael A.Smith** · 7-Mar-2002, 19:31

Adrian,

N. Dhananjay said it so eloquently: Cold, warm, spontaneous etc are very much a function of your intentions, not materials. You may choose materials to assist your intentions, but materials don't direct intentions. You could use viewfinders in very cold, analytic ways if you wanted to.

I'll continue: Spontaneity is a function of who you are not your method of working. Using the ground glass in a creative way leads to discoveries that one can react to spontaneously (or not). Paula and I find that the intensity of the process of using the ground glass as I described above leads to fresh, spontaneous (intuitive, not cerebral) discoveries. Maybe you are simply incapable of using the ground glass that way. The process I described needn't be slow and meditative, although it can be. It can literally happen in a few seconds if your attention is fully focussed. From your description of how you work it appears that your coming to LF from using a 35mm rangefinder has hindered your ability to focus and concentrate your attention. When under the darkcloth there are no distractions. Maybe that experience is simply too intense for you. These comments are not made in the spirit of being critical, but simply as an observation based on your writing in this thread. They are made in the hope that they will be helpful to you.

**violin** · 10-Mar-2002, 06:09

Thanks for your comments Michael, I am very unexperienced in LF, and have really only been "obsessed" by photography for a few years, coming at it from the graphic arts, (I am a graphic designer), so what I do have that helps me is many, many years experience editing and art directing the photographic work of others, I can tell at a glace which photos work and which don't, how to combine to tell a story and even make the best of really bad work.

This I try to do by instinct, simple looking and feeling, so the intense experience which you talk about experienceig on the GG - the moment that make me stop in my tracks - is the very experience I try to remain open to outside of the GG, the rest should be simple, technique is not my particular interest, if the picture is really there then perhaps it doesn't matter too much if its all in focus or whatever.

Anyway, I am perhaps a little unorthodox, but there is room for everyone, no?.

Now let's think about spontenaity, expression through photography and lets go to the bookshelf, pick 10 books of LF and 10 books of 35 or MF, lets look at HCB, at Kerez, ok ok we can find real comlete work in LF Talbot, Aget, but do the sums and we will see that LF does tend to produce colder, less spontaneous art than smaller formats, obviously LF has something else when you can get one ...

Thanks again for your comments I hope that my opinions change and continue to change and evolve, but at the moment I want to look and experience "intensity" "intuitivity" even without the camera, come back another day, or just keep the picture in my nut for a while...

**violin** · 10-Mar-2002, 06:16

Michael

pictures are perhaps better than words (older ones I'm afraid)

http://www.duich.com/adriantylernet/site/index.html

**Michael Chmilar** · 12-Mar-2002, 13:51

My initial posting was an observation on how we each have different ways of working when composing a photograph, based on our past experiences and "habits". I think it led to an interesting discussion.

Michael A. Smith proposed an interesting exercise for exploring a subject, and finding new, interesting, and unexpected photographs of it. I know that Michael teaches workshops on this topic, and I read his response with particular interest.

In Michael's description of the exercise, evaluation of the composition on the ground glass appears to be essential to the process. As one who admits to spending very little time eyeing the GG, I have pondered this for a few days, and would like to raise this question: Is examination of the ground glass image essential to this exercise in finding unexpected images? It may be so, but I'm wondering if anyone has other suggestions for attaining the same goal.

**thomas gage** · 13-Mar-2002, 17:55

i use a linhoff viewer from the master technika, to help establish the camera position...after that, looking at the ground glass is more about sensing the visual energy of shape and line, than it is about any concern with the bounderies of my first picture conception...if the composition doesn't happen quickly, than i move the camera a bit and start over...for me, looking at the world upside down at the ground glass seems to be the most effective way of seeing the composition behind the composition and sometimes takes me to a visual/compositional place that's a total surprize...tg.