• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Holy Order of Minimalism when shooting casually

Mike Shimwell

New member
Originally posted by Ken Tanaka here

--- taking-off to broader philosophy ......
I am absolutely convinced that the self-consciousness associated with experience and gear wealth is often very deleterious to instinctive creativity and image reflexes, particularly for casual personal work. Internet photo sites tend to stoke this effect by hosting breeding grounds of gear lust and perpetuation of aesthetic clichés and silly digital technique.

I know that the more gear I schlep the worse my casual photography tends to be. I've become very self-aware of this phenomenon and, despite having an embarrassingly enormous inventory of camera gear, I've converted to the Holy Order of Minimalism when shooting casually.

Your back-story on this image being captured with a "borrowed Nikon FM" as "a complete novice" offers yet another testimony to my theory of the inversely proportional relationship between gear/experience and quality of results. Of course it's a pretty leaky theory that would never earn a doctorate. Experience with a camera, particularly with a particular camera, and having good aesthetic sense certainly does have great benefit. But there is much to be said for just returning to capturing what you see rather than worrying about creating aww-worthy images.
...................................


I thought this comment is useful enough and important enough to bear bringing to the front of a thread. I've been there, and I am sure that I am not alone, and also have an embarrasing wealth of camera kit. And yet, I have also converted to Ken's Holy Order - perhaps spontaneously - and tend to carry the simplest kit I can these days. Yes, I miss some picture oportunities, but I gain others. In fact trying to work out what lens to use, or how to frame cleverly etc becames a great hindrance. There are a couple of points that ken makes that I think are really valuable and worthy ofsome consideration:

- 'worrying about creating aww-worthy images' - the internet is a breeding ground for the sort of self important approach that seeks to make, always, the most awesome or amazing images. To the extent that it doesn't matter what you do, the final image is all. I believe this is highly questionable and that one of the keys to photography, and its power and language, is not about the awesome images, but the everyday record what you see work. Yes, even the snapshots that recall a child's smile lighting up their face. Don't try to live up to other peoples expectations!!

- 'Experience with a camera, particularly with a particular camera, and having good aesthetic sense certainly does have great benefit. But there is much to be said for just returning to capturing what you see' - We are surrounded by so much that is worth looking at. I wonder if the continuous desire to create the awesome means we miss the interest and poetry in the everyday. I posted a quote from Todd Papageorge (below) that expressed this much better than I can, but photography's language is not that of creation but that of selecting. Whilst manipulation is certainly not just a digital domain, there is much about the digital world (not just photography) that seems to be seeking to make something, virtually, better than reality:)

- 'I know that the more gear I schlep the worse my casual photography tends to be.' Yes!

- 'Internet photo sites tend to stoke this effect by hosting breeding grounds of gear lust and perpetuation of aesthetic clichés and silly digital technique' Yes, most of the sites that are well known feed on creating gear lust in their viewers and accolytes (the latter description is sometimes applicable if you read the forums). This completely distracts from the task at hand. If something doesn't work then, fo course, change it. but, the nature of the digital beast is that it creates a lust for things that are not helpful and don't add anything of value. Again, this is symptomatic of the digital economy and may hold a few lessons as to some of the reasons for the current economic crisis.

Ken, thanks for your carefully crafted and valuable comment.

Mike



Edited to add Todd Papagoerge's quote:


I think now that, in general—and this includes a lot of what I see in Chelsea even more than what I see from students at Yale—there’s a failure to understand how much richer in surprise and creative possibility the world is for photographers in comparison to their imagination. This is an understanding that an earlier generation of students, and photographers, accepted as a first principle. Now ideas are paramount, and the computer and Photoshop are seen as the engines to stage and digitally coax those ideas into a physical form—typically a very large form. This process is synthetic, and the results, for me, are often emotionally synthetic too.



Sure, things have to change, but photography-as-illustration, even sublime illustration, seems to me an uninteresting direction for the medium to be tracking now, particularly at such a difficult time in the general American culture. All in all, I think that there’s as much real discovery and excitement in the digital videos that my students at Yale are making as there is in the still photography I see either there or in New York, perhaps because the video camera, like the 35 mm camera 30 years ago, can be carried everywhere, and locks onto the shifting contradictions and beauties of the world more directly and unselfconsciously than many photographers now seem to feel still photography can, or should, do.


Tod Papageorge, Bomb Magazine
 

Rachel Foster

New member
This is a very timely and appreciated discussion. I recently posted some photos of mine that I know are good--not "aww worthy" but good--on another photo forum as a test. This forum allows anonymous ratings by numbers only. The photos were rated very badly. The thing is I now know enough to appreciate how worthless these ratings are. How many new photographers have twisted themselves inside out and gone astray trying to please such anonymous bashers? or anonymous "wows" by people who don't know a thing about photography or art?

These photo fora should come with warning labels!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My sudden impulses have produced worthier images than my studied and planned shoots. however, the keep rate of my casual shooting is far lower than my planned work. If I take pictures in the studio I expect that 1-2 in 5 will be worth delivering. For casual work it's only 1 in 100-500 but then it's much more powerful. In the studio, it's the picture taken, "just over there, turn now move towards me yes, snap and far better than all the planned images.

Being "formal" closes many doors of creativity.

Asher

As for creating pictures by building them in photoshop or the wet darkroom that's what the greats did but they already were well on their way to what they intended in the first place.
 

Nigel Allan

Member
My sudden impulses have produced worthier images than my studied and planned shoots. however, the keep rate of my casual shooting is far lower than my planned work. If I take pictures in the studio I expect that 1-2 in 5 will be worth delivering. For casual work it's only 1 in 100-500 but then it's much more powerful. In the studio, it's the picture taken, "just over there, turn now move towards me yes, snap and far better than all the planned images.

Being "formal" closes many doors of creativity.

Asher

As for creating pictures by building them in photoshop or the wet darkroom that's what the greats did but they already were well on their way to what they intended in the first place.


I understand the sentiment, Asher, but I doubt you have a 1 in 100-500 strike rate for keepers. I am sure your strike rate is much better than this unless you are firing off at random at 5FPS in a scattergun approach
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I understand the sentiment, Asher, but I doubt you have a 1 in 100-500 strike rate for keepers. I am sure your strike rate is much better than this unless you are firing off at random at 5FPS in a scattergun approach
Yes, but that's the feeling of not always doing stellar work one would like to save.In the streets, one has a total freedom to sample and learn about everything. Then something remarkable comes along. Could be a shadow or some paint spilled or a new muse appearing.

Asher
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
I think we should perhaps separate the idea of casual from unimportant photography.

Asher is right, walking around we have the opportunity to sample much, and much may not be worth saving, but I think there is a case for making pictures that are not always 'stellar' . Apart from anything else we will be more likely to be ready when the 'stellar' moment presents itself. In this context the moment is given and not created as it would be in the studio.

There is another thread running at the moment where being familiar with your equipment is part of the theme, so that you learn to frame in the lens' 'space'. Ken recently suggested shooting with only disposable cameras for a couple of months as a way of improving your photography - again a simplifying of kit to allow you to conventrate on seeing and then to photograph what you see.

I have a lot of equipment that doesn't get much use because I actually like taking pictures with just one lens at a time and this usually a 35 or a 50. It doesn't really matter what camera I'm using (there, I've admitted it).

Mike
 

Jim Galli

Member
Been a while since this discussion was active, but I thought to add yet one more point of view. My point of view in fact.

From time to time I run across this attitude of the piety of one camera one lens monk like asceticism. It all sounds very romantic and worthy, but here's why it won't work for yours truly (assuming you care.....in which case you must be really bored).

The really worthy photos are few and far between. I've gotten lucky a few times but mostly, I make painfully ordinary photographs. The bottom line is, in the meantime, between the moonrise hernandes and whatever else is important, if I'm not having some fun.........I'll probably be off revving a flathead V8 or some such. I've got a pretty short attention span.

So to keep it fun, I buy stuff. Then I play with it to see how it works, what it can do. This month it's a Konica Hexar AF. What an incredibly sweet little camera that is! Gorgeous! And the negatives (yes virginia, it's a 2 stager), oh my! I was looking at 11X enlargements today and it's among the best (if not the best) 35mm cameras I've ever seen. Already planning a shoot out with a Yashica Electro 35 to see which one is best.

In short, the photographs probably aren't going to make my name a household word, but I'm having a hell of a good time. And yes, I've got way too much crap. Way! But while the president is busy turning a dollar into 55 cents, why not have the money tied up in something fun.

AzureForestS.jpg

We is stoned out here in the forest of AZURE
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Jim,
My original suggestions toward taking a minimalist approach toward photography was predicated on a strategy of refocusing one's attentions toward the end product -- creating photographs -- and away from the cloud of endless distractions that a constantly changing wardrobe of camera gadgets creates. It is anything but "monk like asceticism" [sp]; it's an extremely productive strategy. This is not to necessarily suggest limiting the tools one owns, just limiting the tools you use for a job.

It's clear from your remarks and your images that what you use is more important to your enjoyment of photography than what you produce. This is not meant as a criticism, but rather a statement of self-evidence. You're certainly in the majority as I'm sure that most male hobbyists get most of their photographic enjoyment similarly.

But,again, I offered my original suggestions (in another thread) toward those who feel that their photographic results sucked despite spending copiously on gadgetry.

Here's a terrific "case study" for those interested in such a strategy. Henry Wessel is, in my opinion, one of the finest photographers of our time. (Some of his work at the Rena Bransten Gallery.) In 2007 KQED Arts profiled Wessel. Take a moment to read the article and, more importantly, watch the video. (Sorry, it's Real Media only.) Wessel presents an excellent, but by no means unusual in my experience, example of putting, and keeping, tools behind the lens.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jim,
My original suggestions toward taking a minimalist approach toward photography was predicated on a strategy of refocusing one's attentions toward the end product -- creating photographs -- and away from the cloud of endless distractions that a constantly changing wardrobe of camera gadgets creates. It is anything but "monk like asceticism" [sp]; it's an extremely productive strategy. This is not to necessarily suggest limiting the tools one owns, just limiting the tools you use for a job.

It's clear from your remarks and your images that what you use is more important to your enjoyment of photography than what you produce. This is not meant as a criticism, but rather a statement of self-evidence. You're certainly in the majority as I'm sure that most male hobbyists get most of their photographic enjoyment similarly.

Ken,

Ignore Jim's open admissions of lensism! It's a way of hm being rather modest about his photography. Just visit his pages. Although he'll compare 4 lenses, each with a slightly different soft focus effect, the pictures he takes are outstanding in their own right. In fact, he can do just as well with his truly remarkable $hitpipe lens, actually made from a sewer pipe and some glass pieces. Picasso has an eye for the ladies but was still a great painter. Jim, likewise is enchanted by the exotic parts of his artistic world, the classic early 20th century lenses! Frankly, as much as I admire Jim's choice of lenses I prefer to toast (with good French wine, of course), Pcasso's choice of women.

Asher
 

Mike Bailey

pro member
Minimalism is great, but the flip side of it is that it can be used as an excuse for plain bad photography no matter how you look at it.

Mike
 

Jim Galli

Member
Thanks Ken and Asher. Actually, in the sense that Ken describes minimalism being devoid of gadgetry, my methods are perhaps more minimalistic than most. I have limited myself to a light tight wooden box with the simplest of lenses on a board in the front, and a sheet of film at the back. My only gadget is the light meter.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Thanks Ken and Asher. Actually, in the sense that Ken describes minimalism being devoid of gadgetry, my methods are perhaps more minimalistic than most. I have limited myself to a light tight wooden box with the simplest of lenses on a board in the front, and a sheet of film at the back. My only gadget is the light meter.

You make a keen point, Jim. Primitivism, while not directly synonymous to minimalistic technique, is certainly a close cousin. Keen point, indeed.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
I thought I would drop back in here witha couple fo points and any thoughts that arrive in the process:)

First, there was no intent to suggest some sort of monk like asceticism or piety. Both Ken and I have admitted to having far more than one camera and one lens - and may well have more again in due course... - but concerned a reduction in the amount of gear carried for any particular job or time spent taking pictures. For me this has happened as I found myself thinking too much about what equipment to use rather than seeing and shooting. At one point in the summer I was carrying two 35mm bodies - one with colour film and one with black and white, one 35mm lens and one 50. At one place I stopped the car to make a few exposures and then struggled with the decisions. Silly I know, and in the end I took the colour picture with both bodies and the black and white picture with both bodies, but the process would have been easier, and the result possibly better, had I just had one or the other. So, this is some thoughts about the most effective way for me to work at present. In other circumstances I might take several lenses along, but that would be for a different purpose.

There is no piety in this - it is not a matter of righteousness:) - but I do have a concern that the internet and photo magazines (in the UK at least) encourage everyone to seek to make amazing photos all the time and to be masters of many trades, Most of us can't do this and in trying we forget the simple see it, feel it, make the picture. For some people that may require lots of image processing and for others non, but I suspect that it's the only way to become consistent in your work (I'm avoiding saying to develop your style here!).

If you can't carry the kit without being worried or aware of what it cost then it's probably going to hinder you. If you feel self conscious with a 1Ds3 or M9 hanging around your neck it will affect your behaviour and how you see. When all is said and done it's the same tool as a Bessa, or an AE-1 or Jim's wooden box.

It's not an excuse for bad photography any more than carrying everything including the kitchen sink is. It's just some thoughts about how to avoid some of the problems that can get in the way of good photography:)

Maybe more later!

Mike

Mike
 

Brian Patterson

New member
Is minimalism all there is? I love it and other forms of photography equally. All the great proven styles are perpetual sources of inspiration and when I tire of one, simply pick up another and try my hand at it.

The challenge of capturing a great image is preparedness, I believe, and explains how many shooters grab the unimaginable simply because they were ready. No skill, per se - just being in the moment.

I have managed to minimalize my kit, though, and it has been easier to use as a result. After weaning myself from older primes and a few consumer zooms, I'm shooting with a classic, almost minimalist, collection: 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, 16-85 VR Nikkor, 70-200/2.8 VR and 10.5 Fisheye Nikkor. And I often times will grab just one of them to work with and spend a few hours exploring appropriate environs for images. Gets me closer to each one - that's my idea of minimalist photography.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sometimes, Alain, 'nothing' is more attractive than the over-Photoshopped vomit I see in some UK 'photography' magazines. Just my opinion. No one has to agree :)

Nigel,

I'm beginning to think that photoshopping might be an addiction!

It provides easy remuneration in allowing us to become god-like, creating what never existed and making silk-purses from any sows ear. In fact, PS has many of the elements of witchcraft. We have brews for making any acne-faced teenager look like prince charming! Hardly any other activity gives the user the feeling of being so competent in being creative and deceitful at the same time!

The solution is to take better photographs and simplify one's dependencies.

Asher
 

Nigel Allan

Member
Nigel,

I'm beginning to think that photoshopping might be an addiction!

It provides easy remuneration in allowing us to become god-like, creating what never existed and making silk-purses from any sows ear. In fact, PS has many of the elements of witchcraft. We have brews for making any acne-faced teenager look like prince charming! Hardly any other activity gives the user the feeling of being so competent in being creative and deceitful at the same time!

The solution is to take better photographs and simplify one's dependencies.

Asher

Hear, hear...and I think this brings us neatly back to the genesis of this discussion - reliance on a good 'eye' more than equipment, post processing or any other crutch to make our pictures appear better than they are.

IMHO a good or strong image is independent of the equipment used or post processing required. Sure, some equipment and processing can enhance what is already there (for example some images simply cannot be done without a long telephoto or high FPS, or even burning in during PP), but we mustn't substitute strong images with 'fluff' to make things appear better than they are.

Here endeth my sermon
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
IMHO a good or strong image is independent of the equipment used or post processing required.

That's right, Nigel. Equipment (and software) facilitates but the mind's eye creates.

Of course that's not universally true. I can think of many excellent images by renowned photographers that were essentially created through optical and/or dry/wet darkroom chicanery. But the difference between such creations and much of the dreadful stuff we see on the Web is that premeditation drives the creation of most fine images.

Amateurs and hobbyists, in contrast, often try to make something visually meaningful from image manure by wandering through digital effects and manipulations. It doesn't work that way, although they may create something that pleases their (mercifully untrained) eyes. In the end, though, I suppose that self-entertainment is the true destination for the vast majority of photographic endeavors.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In the end, though, I suppose that self-entertainment is the true destination for the vast majority of photographic endeavors.
I think, Ken, you've pointed to one of the critical boundaries that would-be artists must cross. Because art most often works by expressing a concept in a physical form to be shared, successful artists must learn to break through a self-entertainment barrier, so that the experience of what they achieve can become communal. Essentially they craft an arrow, aim and use their energy and sight to send their entertaining imagination beyond their own personal space. This I have called the "Arc of Intent". The first real-world experience of the physical work, (outside of their own imagination), is their own. That is the "quality control step" before shipping it out to the world.

I think we agree that, unlike aimless experimenting with effects, much of the best art is driven by an engine of "directed creativity" that has the properties of openness to new ideas, self-education, exploration, imagination and originality. To be successful, of course, creativity has to be attached to an ability to frame a concept. This in turn needs to be driven by a developed power a demanding and expressive volition. Finally, skill is essential to materialize that concept into a package that can be delivered to the world and still "work" at some agreeable level.

So, in my proposed and imaginary "Arc of Intent" paradigm, the shaft of that arrow is the energized, directed and materialized concept. That's what's missing in most of what we see, just aimless volition to rearrange things and essentially sensorbate in a small personal sphere of self-entertainment.

Asher
 

Nigel Allan

Member
That's right, Nigel. Equipment (and software) facilitates but the mind's eye creates.

Of course that's not universally true. I can think of many excellent images by renowned photographers that were essentially created through optical and/or dry/wet darkroom chicanery. But the difference between such creations and much of the dreadful stuff we see on the Web is that premeditation drives the creation of most fine images.

Amateurs and hobbyists, in contrast, often try to make something visually meaningful from image manure by wandering through digital effects and manipulations. It doesn't work that way, although they may create something that pleases their (mercifully untrained) eyes. In the end, though, I suppose that self-entertainment is the true destination for the vast majority of photographic endeavors.

I agree and I think the key here is the word premeditation as opposed to 'post-meditation' or trying to manipulate the jpeg or raw file to 'squeeze' as much imagery and 'content' out of it as possible to compensate for an initially inconsequential vision, compostion and framing.

Interesting you use the words 'self-entertainment' the describe the type of image we seem to recognise collectively in these photo magazines and on the web: I called it vomit but I nearly also called it masturbation, but refrained in case it was too strong a word for this thread, but self-entertainment is essentially masturbation whereas 'art' is more akin to real sex where one can reach out and excite someone else not just yourself :) Happy New Year :)
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
I do it for the fun/pleasure of it. Sometimes to share, sometimes to please myself and often times just to make sure I have not lost the ' art '.

Enjoy yourselves the coming year and for many years to come ( the way it pleases you ).

Regards.
 
Top