Rachel's River, a struggle to photograph there. An edited experimental blog!

Asher, I'm not even ready to begin working on the technicals. I am so far from nailing the composition of this thing that even if I had the most amazing camera/lenses/equipment in the world it won't do it.

I go to this park system with my camera at least three times a week, every week. (This is what makes me get that exercise my physician keeps harping on.) I often press the shutter fewer than five times. Whatever is shootable in this river, I am not seeing it.

For what it's worth, possibly the best shot I've gotten here is just upstream a bit at a different part of the river (with the Rebel). This one is among the better, but still lacking for me.

I'm afraid my last post might be misunderstood.

Re technical points: My ability to "see" this river --- and I refer only to this river --- is so lacking that no amount of technical expertise or photoshop magic could make what I'm producing worth while. The composition is so far out of whack that it would be like trying "to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

Portraits, still lifes, other scenics: on those things I'm avidly soaking up as much as I can as to how to use the camera and post-process it.

This river? Either I need an epiphany or .... something.

Rachel Foster said:

I'm afraid my last post might be misunderstood.

Re technical points: My ability to "see" this river --- and I refer only to this river --- is so lacking that no amount of technical expertise or photoshop magic could make what I'm producing worth while. The composition is so far out of whack that it would be like trying "to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

Portraits, still lifes, other scenics: on those things I'm avidly soaking up as much as I can as to how to use the camera and post-process it.

This river? Either I need an epiphany or .... something.

Click to expand...

Hi Rachel,

The river? It's there inside of you. From all I have seen its simply that you look at parts of things otside. That's why the zoom lens is so very bad. Trust me that's the simply the worst thing to own until one can see. A wide angle lens will allow you to go, take one picture (or maybe a few more) and come back to look at them. That's all you need to do! Eventually it will open up to you. The reason that most people cannot see is that they notice trees and a rock, not the scene.

It's really not that hard. It's more a matter of unlearning the zoom lens which is a long pipe excluding the context and sweep of things, how one shape and tone plays off another.

For sports, the FBI, newsfolk and wildlife photographers it's important to use zooms. They are more often looking for particular facts and phenomena. We're not!

We are more interested lin relationships between visual elements, gestalt and context, irrespective of detail.

For art, however, everyone would benefit from a year with one lens! So I beg you to not give up on the river as it has not beaten you. Rather you have used the wrong tools. First the x1.6 factor of your previous camera lost you the wider view of your lenses. Next you did not gfo wide enough anyway.

Just let the view you like go in the camera. Afterwards you can see if any magic's arrived there. Then, if you like the picture, you will get all the help you need.

Asher

Well, shooting with the 24-105 for a while can't hurt, can it? I'll give it a shot (no pun intended!).