Your approach to photography is...
Dallas
How do you approach a photographic subject? Obviously certain subjects
require a variation in approach, but what I am getting at is the
methodology you use to make an image, any image.
Do you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I'd like to record that?" Or do
you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I wonder how I can make that look
different or better in a photograph?"
Also, when you are involved in taking an image that's important to you,
what element of the process do you pay most attention to?
I think for me, the joy of photography is in trying to make something
ordinary look extraordinary. When taking portraits my hope is to capture
not so much a faithful rendition of the person being photographed, but
more a look into their souls. What it is that makes them the person they
are.
I was just looking at the photographs taken by Mark Seliger of Bon Jovi in
the booklet for their latest album (This left feels right). There are some
truly beautiful portraits of all the band members in the booklet and all
of them are shot candidly with what appears to be ambient light. The
approach he's used I think epitomises the type of results I aspire to
achieve.
--
"If I had a photograph of you,
I wouldn't spend my life just wishing"
~A Flock of Seagulls (circa 1982)
www.dallasdahms.com
Joseph Kewfi
> you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I wonder how I can make that look
> different or better in a photograph?"
Both. Some things I just want to record to keep a physical memory of, others
I want to interpret the scene from an artistic point of view.
> Also, when you are involved in taking an image that's important to you,
> what element of the process do you pay most attention to?
Composition is most important apect of successful photography.
"Dallas" <dal...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.17....@imageunlimitedwings.co.za...
Lewis Lang
>From: "Dallas" dal...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za
>Date: Sat, Apr 17, 2004 10:25 AM
>Message-id: <pan.2004.04.17....@imageunlimitedwings.co.za>
>
>...probably what makes your pictures turn out the way they do.
>
>How do you approach a photographic subject?
I walk up to them and say hello ;-).
Obviously certain subjects
>require a variation in approach, but what I am getting at is the
>methodology you use to make an image, any image.
>
Its different every time. The only thing that remains the same is that it is
different ;-). Approach depends on subject, even with a series based on a theme
I regard each shot as a brand new opportunity/approach to make a different
statement.
>Do you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I'd like to record that?" Or do
>you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I wonder how I can make that look
>different or better in a photograph?"
>
One, both and neither. What is it? What do I want to be able to say about it?
What can I do (change, wait, etc.) to the subject to make it come out like the
idea in my mind or even better. When I see a subject it has my name written all
over it. I'm exploring new territory but simultaneously there is a recognition
that there, or somewhere in there is a "Lewis Lang picture". Its like claiming
a continent or recognizing a friend or a loved one amongst a crowd. Something
is immediately identifiable. You have a rapport with it. It draws you to it.
Then you find out either then or a shortwhile or long afterwards what it is
that has drawn you to that subject. I literally see my name on the subject
("this is (or could be) a Lewis Lang shot"). Maybe its a juxtaposition. Maybe
its a compositional element. Maybe its the person's character/persona. Maybe
its all those and/or something indescribable/unnamable at the moment. But
something is there and I know its mine. Its my "territory." Then I usually get
an idea from what's in front of me (if I don't already have a general or
specific idea in mid for the shot indiviidually and/or in a series of shots on
a theme(s). Then its "hello" (then I walk up to the subject and say hello),
unless its a tree (rare) then I might be tempted to sit on the subject ;-).
>Also, when you are involved in taking an image that's important to you,
>what element of the process do you pay most attention to?
>
My own awareness and what I respond to. For a portrait it could be their face,
an expression, body language, etc. I look for poetry (something with meaning
and/or something that grabs at me with a visceral emotional response). There
could be poetry in the way they hold a jacket or the juxtaposition of two or
more symbolic elements or any number of things that I respond to but the
response must be there - otherwise its just graphic desing photo decor,
"recordography" or dry symbolic conceptualism.
>I think for me, the joy of photography is in trying to make something
>ordinary look extraordinary.
I wouldn't even know how to do that (make something ordinary look
extraordinary)! For me everything that I respond to whether considered ordinary
or extraordinary is for me... well, extraordinary. As I said before I have to
have a rapport/be able to relate with either the subject and/or some shot
element(s) that are drawing me in to the shot possibility to say that "this
shot is mine." And it is. Others might have been able to see it or not if they
were there with me. But, likeclass, I know it when I see it. There's either a
shot element with a possiblity (that can hopefully be built up into a full
fledged shot, a full shot that I can make/take with very little interference on
my part, or nothing. Its all about your own unique active seeing. Its vision.
And vision goes well beyond surface styling. A filter, a lens, a technique,
etc. is just a special effect, there has to actually be something you want to
express about the subject, whether you see the subject as ordinary,
extraordinary, a combination of both or neither. Most people never get beyond
the gimmicks then wonder why their photography looks like everyone else's.
That's because they are not expressing themselves and their views/response
about the subject and/or the world, they're just expressing how well a filter
or a lens or a technique works. Sadly enough, with photography one can subsist
with this low level because of the "eye candy factor" - most/many people will
always want to see a pretty picture just as "Polly wants another cracker", but
it feeds their eyes and not their souls. True photographery is not imagery, it
expresses the soul (deepest desires/observations/convictions) of the person(s)
who make(s) it. If you were to do in writing what you did in photography with
the "techno-gimmicky eye candy mentality" you and your work would be shunned
and rightfully so. Many people are willing to look at a pretty picture of a
purple sunset, but having to read inane drivel that in effect says "look how
pretty this purple sunset is" would get a "so what" and "why are you wasting my
time with this crap?" response. There has to be more there than just the
obvious, well seen in photography has to be more than just seen clearly but
seen deeply and with the power of emotion or meaning or both, otherwise its
worse than purple prose and worse than Muzak since it doesn't interpret but
merely records. And recording without thought, without emotion is just
emptiness. A camera is a pointing device and always points back to the
sensibilities of the one who has pointed it. Pretty scenes in photography are
a dime a dozen, or so many $s per royalty free stock CD ;-). Pretty ain't
enough. Not for me. Its nice, like an ice cream cone once in a while, but it
ain't no soul food. Once the flavor is gone its gone. There's nothing
lingering/satisfying on repeated viewings. There has to be something deep and
genuine and "lasting" there both in the scene/subject and the seeing that will
sustain the heart and the mind for more than just one viewing. Impact is not
enough. Eye candy is not enough. A photo can be pretty but not "just pretty"
for me. There has to be something more there. Even if I can't name it at the
time, at least I can point to it with my camera and bring it out in the subject
through observation, posing, waiting, etc. I need "more than pretty." Imake
photographs not picture bimbos (or mimbos, to be equal opportunity about it
;-)). Extraordinary (and ordinary and much more) begins where pretty and
gimmickry leaves off.
When taking portraits my hope is to capture
>not so much a faithful rendition of the person being photographed, but
>more a look into their souls. What it is that makes them the person they
>are.
>
When taking portraits my main hope is to not run out of film before I'm done.
But my portraits are as much about an essence of the subject as they are about
responding to my own soul's essence/response to how _I_ see the subject. I want
to show both their character/persona and mine, and many times, fortunately for
me ;-), I'm able to accomplish this. But it is definitely my vision of them,
though what I see in them (the subject(s) is usually there in them, I am
bringing out my own response to them and morphing them into my own vision, so
really its (my portraits are - whether candid, symbolic/posed or a combination
of both) a fusion of elements of them and me. You may see their
laughter/smile/humor or seriousness or persona/cjaracter/etc. but you will also
very much get a strong sense that they are being seen in this particular way by
the intertwining or overlaying of my response/vision to them. Visit my website
for examples from the candid to the symbolic/iconographic that combines
elements of them (my subjects) and my own vision/take on them in my
portraiture.
>I was just looking at the photographs taken by Mark Seliger of Bon Jovi
>in
>the booklet for their latest album (This left feels right).
"This left feels right" is the title of their album?
There are some
>truly beautiful portraits of all the band members in the booklet and all
>of them are shot candidly with what appears to be ambient light. The
>approach he's used I think epitomises the type of results I aspire to
>achieve.
>
I like both approaches to musician photography from the extremely
posed/surrealistc color collage Sgt. Pepper-type portraits, to the more
classical (but slightly off kilter/lyrical) group photo of Tom Petty and The
Heartbreakers on their CD "Echo" to the more candid shots you will usually find
inside a CD's booklet of the artist(s), though much of the standard "in the
studio, one large soft box to the side, subdued brown (or fill in the color)
seemless background have the artist stare into the camera" type commercial
portrait photography really bores me... alot - its recordography/eye candy to
me (unless it goes beyond that and expresses something more than just a posed
subject staring into/away from the camera).
>--
>"If I had a photograph of you,
>I wouldn't spend my life just wishing"
>~A Flock of Seagulls (circa 1982)
>www.dallasdahms.com
>
Flock of sea gulls, reminds me of Stings' "All This Time", one of my favorite
songs,... sigh...
This post is...
© 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and electrons) Reserved
...and is 99.9999999999999999999999% fat free, except where prohibited by
law...
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Tony Parkinson
> >
> >How do you approach a photographic subject?
>
> I walk up to them and say hello ;-).
>
> Obviously certain subjects
> >require a variation in approach, but what I am getting at is the
> >methodology you use to make an image, any image.
>
> Its different every time.
>
instead of "Hello"
;^)
--
Good Judgement Comes From Experience.
Experience Comes From Bad Judgement
Lewis Lang
>From: "Tony Parkinson" nospamne...@photoshot.com
>Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2004 2:20 AM
>Message-id: <c5t6n4$l2c$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote ...
>> >
>> >How do you approach a photographic subject?
>>
>> I walk up to them and say hello ;-).
>>
>> Obviously certain subjects
>> >require a variation in approach, but what I am getting at is the
>> >methodology you use to make an image, any image.
>>
>> Its different every time.
>>
>Yeah, sometimes you have to say "Bonjour", "Guten Morgen" or "Buongiorno"
>instead of "Hello"
>
>;^)
...or "yo, Adrienne!"
Deathwalker
"Dallas" <dal...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.17....@imageunlimitedwings.co.za...
>
> How do you approach a photographic subject? Obviously certain subjects
> require a variation in approach, but what I am getting at is the
> methodology you use to make an image, any image.
>
> Do you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I'd like to record that?" Or do
> you look at a scene and think, "Gee, I wonder how I can make that look
> different or better in a photograph?"
>
> Also, when you are involved in taking an image that's important to you,
> what element of the process do you pay most attention to?
>
> I think for me, the joy of photography is in trying to make something
> ordinary look extraordinary.
My ex girlfriend should be a great photographer. She was an expert of
making something out of nothing.
Alan Browne
>
> My ex girlfriend should be a great photographer. She was an expert of
> making something out of nothing.
In the vein of
"Just got married. Encylcopedia for sale. Wife knows f***ing everything."
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Bandicoot
news:5RUhc.1139$gE4.10...@news-text.cableinet.net...
[SNIP]
> My ex girlfriend should be a great photographer. She was an
> expert of making something out of nothing.
>
That sounds like rather an embarrassing admission....
Peter
Mike
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:10826873...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
LMAO !!!!!!!!
Thanks I needed that.
TP
Things could be worse - at least she made *something* out of nothing!
;-)
David Littlewood
Deathwalker <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uknospam> writes
--
David Littlewood
Alan Browne
>> My ex girlfriend should be a great photographer. She was an expert of
>> making something out of nothing.
>>
>>
> A free alternative to Viagra?
;-)
Michael Scarpitti
Shoot first and answer questions only under duress...
Deathwalker
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:YZ9ic.46316$HF5.6...@wagner.videotron.net...
> David Littlewood wrote:
>
> >> My ex girlfriend should be a great photographer. She was an expert of
> >> making something out of nothing.
> >>
> >>
> > A free alternative to Viagra?
>
> ;-)
>
actually that was probably the one thing she didn't complain about. Its
life outside of the bedroom.
Alan Browne
....we don't really want to know...
street shooter
I want my photography to be real. I seek to impart my perception of
the truth at that moment that I press the shutter. Of course, that
makes it real only in terms of my own sense of reality. I like strong
visual compositions, but really every element of a photograph must
work together to achieve success.
Michael