I am playing with shooting more freely and am exploring ICM. I realize moving the lens/camera with a moving or non-moving subject at slow shutter of 1/30 or less brings interesting results but also find keepers after experimenting with MANY more shots than usual.
I shot small not so controllable point and shoots for years without worrying about perfectionism. In fact loved to push the cameras’limits hoping for some serendipitous and weird or artful effects I could never plan for or control. Having become a big fan of Saul Leiter’s painterly portfolios I’ve long been drawn by what I call that school of work even though I can’t say I’ve ever mastered it. So I deeply appreciate your take on things in this post even though eventually I invested in fairly expensive dslrs and mirrorless cameras because I could. And also curious to take advantage of their strengths for certain kinds of photography, much of which could be called perhaps necessary documentation. And admit being enamored of a particular lens I have which does produce remarkably sharp clear images in most situations as I have become more skilled using it. But really is it art? Or perhaps”artful” is a better word. Anyway I shall continue to follow your posts with interest and for inspiration.
Part of the reason I went to shooting nearly all my personal work on film six years ago was to get away from the “easy perfectionism” that digital provided. You could literally shoot without ever looking through the eye piece and probably come away with something usable, in sharp focus, well composed. Shooting film requires more intention, more thoughtfulness but, perhaps most importantly, more forgiveness.
Of course, I have caught myself looking at buying my first digital SLR body in 15+ years recently so maybe I’m just a poseur.
One thing more, I realize, concerning Leiter: if we think about the concept "archetypes of possibility," then we have to think of what is actually possible in photography at the certain time and place. I think too many of us believe that what we see as fashionable is actually what's only possible; everything else is merely experimentation without foundation, merely throwaways. I don't see it that way. Experimentation is the guide to overcoming the (socially negotiated, aesthetically manipulated) limitations of what's appropriate (according to whom?) And think about what becomes fashionable over time: that's why it's called an "avant garde:" what comes before is nebulous and weird because it has no context, no exposition. But once it has a glossary and a syntax, it becomes fashionable: why are Basquiat's paintings worth millions now, but the man died a pauper, virtually? Van Gogh?
It's a hard won battle to find your own way, and it's a very lonely path. But it has to be done. Or else, put yr head down and enter the cattle prod: good luck keeping yr head!
I bought my first camera in August 2022, and I'm barely two years into my photographic life. For roughly 20 months I've fought between "sharp, fast" and "embrace the errors." But even only after 20 months, I'm experiencing something of a revelation: when I try to force the camera to do something virtually impossible (crisp contrast on a blindingly hazy sunny day in a green, grassy field), or when I try to think too much about what I'm doing (settings, especially), I end up missing the shot I want and making a mess of something I wanted in the first place but couldn't get because of the conditions. In other words, I was investing so much energy into manipulating the circumstances instead of embracing them.
This became evident in my evaluations. I shoot digital, exclusively (by choice, and by environmental limitations). First, I tried really hard to make my images look analog, but the dynamic range, even tho smaller than digital, caused so many issues that my images began to look like plastic: I was trying to turn lead into gold. If I wanted analog photos, why not shoot film?
Then, I began to notice something peculiar: when I subjected myself to the light, worked within its limitations, the images, tho never sharp or crisp or clean, so to speak, began to embody a soul to them, something with spirit: I learned to be a humble servant of chance circumstance. This is when I discovered that the "circles of confusion" and a shallow depth of field in low light (especially) created a wondrous smoky smudge of charcoal streaks and veils in my images, and this changed everything. I began to slow everything down. I began making counterintuitive decisions about metering, shutter speed, white balance. Everything. This is when I began to see what I wanted to see: not through the eye of the lens, but through the soul of my own eyes.
Some call it "mistake." But being a slave to 18% gray means being a slave to the sales pitch. Maybe it was my timidity at the beginning ("what if I break my camera's CPU? or burn out the sensor?!") That kind of thinking led me to some less-than-honest imagery: I was shooting what I thought was necessary to stand side by side with the big guns. It wasn't until I felt my way through the light that I began to dance with it, take what I could get, and make images of what I was seeing (and experiencing) NOW.
If you want to shoot the Taj Mahal, go to Agra. Don't push the slider into the vicinity of Uttar Pradesh: you'll only be disappointed.
Great post. Especially timely with today's release of the SL3 which has me salivating. I laughed out loud at this line: "stick a crappy old manual focus prime of inappropriate focal length on whatever camera you have." Every time I step outside with my TLR my focal length seems inappropriate but I always seem to come back with something.
Big fan of Saul Leiter, and I agree with the suggestions to loosen up and embrace the limitations of particular gear. I'm a big fan of turning off autofocus and experimenting with just the right amount (ie, lack) of focus using the aperture. Or simply trying to focus manually and embracing some of the inevitable softness. Lots of great ideas here.
I love this reminder...and also the Sol Leiter selections.
Thanks for the nudge to loosen up!
I am playing with shooting more freely and am exploring ICM. I realize moving the lens/camera with a moving or non-moving subject at slow shutter of 1/30 or less brings interesting results but also find keepers after experimenting with MANY more shots than usual.
I shot small not so controllable point and shoots for years without worrying about perfectionism. In fact loved to push the cameras’limits hoping for some serendipitous and weird or artful effects I could never plan for or control. Having become a big fan of Saul Leiter’s painterly portfolios I’ve long been drawn by what I call that school of work even though I can’t say I’ve ever mastered it. So I deeply appreciate your take on things in this post even though eventually I invested in fairly expensive dslrs and mirrorless cameras because I could. And also curious to take advantage of their strengths for certain kinds of photography, much of which could be called perhaps necessary documentation. And admit being enamored of a particular lens I have which does produce remarkably sharp clear images in most situations as I have become more skilled using it. But really is it art? Or perhaps”artful” is a better word. Anyway I shall continue to follow your posts with interest and for inspiration.
Fantastic read. Thank you so much. I should use my Holga more often :)
Part of the reason I went to shooting nearly all my personal work on film six years ago was to get away from the “easy perfectionism” that digital provided. You could literally shoot without ever looking through the eye piece and probably come away with something usable, in sharp focus, well composed. Shooting film requires more intention, more thoughtfulness but, perhaps most importantly, more forgiveness.
Of course, I have caught myself looking at buying my first digital SLR body in 15+ years recently so maybe I’m just a poseur.
One thing more, I realize, concerning Leiter: if we think about the concept "archetypes of possibility," then we have to think of what is actually possible in photography at the certain time and place. I think too many of us believe that what we see as fashionable is actually what's only possible; everything else is merely experimentation without foundation, merely throwaways. I don't see it that way. Experimentation is the guide to overcoming the (socially negotiated, aesthetically manipulated) limitations of what's appropriate (according to whom?) And think about what becomes fashionable over time: that's why it's called an "avant garde:" what comes before is nebulous and weird because it has no context, no exposition. But once it has a glossary and a syntax, it becomes fashionable: why are Basquiat's paintings worth millions now, but the man died a pauper, virtually? Van Gogh?
It's a hard won battle to find your own way, and it's a very lonely path. But it has to be done. Or else, put yr head down and enter the cattle prod: good luck keeping yr head!
Sol is my soul in so many ways...
I bought my first camera in August 2022, and I'm barely two years into my photographic life. For roughly 20 months I've fought between "sharp, fast" and "embrace the errors." But even only after 20 months, I'm experiencing something of a revelation: when I try to force the camera to do something virtually impossible (crisp contrast on a blindingly hazy sunny day in a green, grassy field), or when I try to think too much about what I'm doing (settings, especially), I end up missing the shot I want and making a mess of something I wanted in the first place but couldn't get because of the conditions. In other words, I was investing so much energy into manipulating the circumstances instead of embracing them.
This became evident in my evaluations. I shoot digital, exclusively (by choice, and by environmental limitations). First, I tried really hard to make my images look analog, but the dynamic range, even tho smaller than digital, caused so many issues that my images began to look like plastic: I was trying to turn lead into gold. If I wanted analog photos, why not shoot film?
Then, I began to notice something peculiar: when I subjected myself to the light, worked within its limitations, the images, tho never sharp or crisp or clean, so to speak, began to embody a soul to them, something with spirit: I learned to be a humble servant of chance circumstance. This is when I discovered that the "circles of confusion" and a shallow depth of field in low light (especially) created a wondrous smoky smudge of charcoal streaks and veils in my images, and this changed everything. I began to slow everything down. I began making counterintuitive decisions about metering, shutter speed, white balance. Everything. This is when I began to see what I wanted to see: not through the eye of the lens, but through the soul of my own eyes.
Some call it "mistake." But being a slave to 18% gray means being a slave to the sales pitch. Maybe it was my timidity at the beginning ("what if I break my camera's CPU? or burn out the sensor?!") That kind of thinking led me to some less-than-honest imagery: I was shooting what I thought was necessary to stand side by side with the big guns. It wasn't until I felt my way through the light that I began to dance with it, take what I could get, and make images of what I was seeing (and experiencing) NOW.
If you want to shoot the Taj Mahal, go to Agra. Don't push the slider into the vicinity of Uttar Pradesh: you'll only be disappointed.
Great post. Especially timely with today's release of the SL3 which has me salivating. I laughed out loud at this line: "stick a crappy old manual focus prime of inappropriate focal length on whatever camera you have." Every time I step outside with my TLR my focal length seems inappropriate but I always seem to come back with something.
Great post. I've recently been drawn to producing less "literal" in favor of "painterly". So much more rewarding for me.
good advice!
Big fan of Saul Leiter, and I agree with the suggestions to loosen up and embrace the limitations of particular gear. I'm a big fan of turning off autofocus and experimenting with just the right amount (ie, lack) of focus using the aperture. Or simply trying to focus manually and embracing some of the inevitable softness. Lots of great ideas here.
Yup! Put some art in it! Maybe impressionism of some sorts. Nice little write-up!
Just got an adapter for my old dslr lenses so I can use them on my mirrorless. Gonna try this and see what I'm able to do. This is gonna be fun!