On 5/27/2011 8:17 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose, I don't mean to be critical,
Leave for a few days - and get SchnozzPunked! :-)
> I really don't, but I know you would and
> have done the same for me.
But of course, Cheri! You know I would, although perhaps for different things.
> The Hetch Hetchy photos, as well as the waterfalls photos,
They are all images of the same place, Hetch Hetchy, just sorted into
categories as an experiment. More, and mostly much
more familiar, waterfalls to come, in Yosemite Valley.
> have the sense of you "mailing it in." These are more "record shots" as
> well as "Kodak Photo Spot" shots than something that feels inspired or
> inspiring.
I can't really disagree with you, in general. I could plead that I was starting
to suffer from the altitude sickness
that would lay me low on the hike back, before I finally threw up the water I'd
been drinking, lay down on a rock for a
few minutes, then stared to feel much better. But really, I'm not sure I would
have come up with anything better to your
eye, just more of them. ;-)
Other than feeling slightly poorly as we approached the big falls, I don't feel
I did anything differently than usual,
shooting what I saw, from straight scenics to tiny still-life, flowers, dead
trees, etc. The place is photographically
sort of a cliche, great big granite thingies sticking out of water, water
falling off their tops and seeping out through
them, wildflowers, etc.
A gorgeous place to be looking and hiking, but images of it don't necessarily
convey the feeling of being there. Could
also be at least in part a matter of taste. A number of listees visit cities
and post images of streets, buildings, and
so on. Although such places often afford more opportunities for odd
juxtapositions, human made oddities, etc. that I
enjoy, I am often bored between those by the 'urban scenics' (Yes, my only book
so far is of Brooklyn, I don't claim to
be consistent.)
> The compositions are stilted
Hmmm, not sure I agree. One is presented with views along the trail that can't
be altered without some bushwhacking,
which was not part of the agenda. I generally had the choice of doing straight
shots or trying to be cute with odd
angles, etc. I consciously tried something different, and following some
standard advice, by composing to have waterfall
and dead tree echo each others' curve, but don't find the result anything
special.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Yosemite/Yosemite_2011/Hetch_Hetchy/General&image=_MG_0161ia60.jpg>
I do think the tree growing on a ledge on an otherwise barren granite monolith
is unusual and pretty good. I do wish I'd
been there just a few minutes earlier, if the light caught more of the tree
without lighting the rock. Still, folks
wandering through the thumbnails didn't sample it.
did you look at all the images? It's subtle, so looks like nothing in a
thumbnail. Only 8 views of this one so far, and
3-4 have now been me.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Yosemite/Yosemite_2011/Hetch_Hetchy/General&image=_MG_0193ia80.jpg>
This one I think might be quite good as a print properly framed.
I went a little nuts trying to find something original to do with the dam. The
water shooting out, catching sunlight is
quite impressive in person, but catching that in a still image isn't trivial. I
even have a couple taken horizontally,
as though the water is shooting up. I even did a B&W - that should tell you how
desperate I was. :-) I also took some
'video snaps' that might work better, but don't know how to display them to
good effect.
> and the overall package of shots was substantially touristy. Not bad, mind
> you, but I felt like I was sitting through Uncle
> Fred's slide show of his trip to the mountains, except we didn't have any
> popcorn and ice-cream. I probably would have been OK if I had a bowl of
> popcorn.
Here, I think we differ. I take 'record shots' to mean what I think of as
travelogue shots. And I happily cop to most of
these being exactly that. To me, shots recording travel to beautiful and/or
interesting places, even less than
interesting looking places, are an important part of my memory and social
memory for me and those those who were there.
When I look back at the rather parsimonious number of shots recording some of
my past, taken by a young man concerned
with film/processing costs, my regret is not taking more shots, even if the
subjects weren't great and the images
weren't very original or ever likely to be art.
I just can't believe, for example, how few shots I took of Havasu Canyon I took
back in '69. Only so many subjects and
angles in a narrow canyon using only a 50mm lens. I did get most of what I
would want. Still, would another roll have
broken the bank? Perhaps I thought I'd be back come day. Hasn't happened,
almost certainly won't happen - and one of the
most photogenic things there fell down a few years later.
So yes, I do attempt to create something original, perhaps true art when I'm
out photographing the world, but I don't
let that keep me from recording my journey, as well. And as Henri C-B said,
"It's seldom you make a great picture. You
have to milk the cow quite a lot and get plenty milk to make a little cheese.
Hmm?" With almost zero marginal cost, why
not take a lot of shots?
As to why post as many as I did, that's for Carol and me and those we will show
and tell them to. As to Uncle Fred's
slide show, I hope he was at least good at light, color, etc. even if the
subjects and composition were boring. :-) I
went to some trouble to get light, shadow, tonal range, etc. right in very
contrasty situations. Look at the detail in
the falls in direct light, usually with some detail to keep the deep shadows
from being blank. I don't think there's
aver been a slide film that would do that.
> The mid-day lighting didn't help. I recognize that, so it isn't just you (or
> me).
Actually, I thought we were there at a pretty good time for light, for most
shots. Earlier in the day, Wapama Falls and
most of the others are in direct light, and the images I've found on the web
are often really bright and flat. Post
could improve most all of them, but not to anything like artistic. I liked that
I had shadow and side light to work with
on much of the falling water.
> You were also using a new camera which means that you were exploring camera
> capabilities and new shooting options
Thanks for making excuses for me, but really, the 60D for stills isn't much
different in use than my first DSLR, the
300D or even, other than crop factor, the 5D. There are IQ differences, but
they wouldn't show at these sizes, anyway.
> rather than actually seeking the "different" which you are so good at. Maybe
> we all are a bit spoiled.
> Your previous Yosemite gallery is so good, that these photos stood out to me
> in their starkness.
Awwwww . . . Two compliments in one place, I'm going all gooey. ;-) As to the
older Yosemite gallery, ( which I need
to finish!), it was all shot with OMs on film, so you would of course prefer
it. ;-) Whether I've done as well there
this year, I don't yet know, but will be letting you judge. The truth is that,
however beautiful Hetch Hetchy is, it's
basically a big, open bowl, with nowhere near the grandeur, complexity, variety
and subtlety of Yosemite Valley. I know
I have at least a few images this year there that I think are rather good, but
what others will think of them, I can't
yet know. And again, a handful of video snaps that I like.
> As harsh as this sounds,
Doesn't seem unfair to me, even if we differ on a couple of points.
> please understand that there is a broader issue
> here. I'm using your photographs as the illustration for this problem which
> I also suffer and suffer to a great extent. How do you go back and
> rephotograph something with an all-new inspiration after having successfully
> created what may be the pinnicle of your life's work?
Maybe you don't. Find something different to photograph. With much of nature,
though, there's always differences in
weather and light to add variety. Will I ever make a better image of this
particular water and marsh?
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2009/MtDesert/Misc&image=_MG_7928ia.jpg>
Probably not. Bob has visited it far more often than I, and I'll bet hasn't
topped that one. But I go by, stop to enjoy
it,usually take a couple of shots, and move on to find something I haven't
nailed yet. But really, it's not me, it's
Mother Nature who did all that stuff in the sky when I happened along. Hmmm,
maybe I'll try cloning out the foliage,
upper right one day.
On the same theme, we've all seen many, many images of half dome reflected in
mirror lake. When the weather was bad.
some rain out of an overcast so low we couldn't even tell half dome was above
us, I kept my OM-4 dry and my eyes open.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite/pages/02043022.htm>
I have images from that exact place this year that are totally different. As
good? Never. Good enough, I'm not sure yet.
> We're delaying our Colorado trip due to scheduling issues, but how do I go
> back to a spot and come up with an all new fresh approach without just
> plagerising previous work or losing interest and taking "I was here" pictures?
I don't know how much of this angst is personality and how much driven by being
a pro and needing salable images.
Either way, it sounds to me like too much self induced pressure. Vacation is
supposed to be fun. Photography needs to be
fun at least some of the time, or it will get stale from tension and rigidity.
How about trying to almost exactly
duplicate a couple of images that didn't quite live up to their promise last
time? Even if you don't improve them, maybe
you will learn something from the small differences.
"Waste" a few frames on a game or some sort of silliness. You gotta be loose,
eyes open and wandering, not firmly fixed
on some preset goal, if you want to see something new.
> One method I was going to use for myself was through limiting my options and
> extensively using just B&W with a couple of focal-lengths. This would force
> me to see the world not for just what it is, but for how I want to represent
> it.
The aesthetic approach has worked for various folks throughout history. It
seems you are drawn to it and have tried
variations before. Have they worked? Maybe try the opposite. Drop a 10-15x zoom
on a digital and let your vision decide
how to capture the world, rather than some pre-defined concept.
> There is a fine line, though to all this. When I look through the
> viewfinder, I ask myself "Have I seen this picture before?" If the answer is
> yes, then I try something different.
Ah, what a great way to keep film/processing costs down! :-)
> The risk, however, is not capturing anything because every shot is a rerun.
> There are only so many ways the photograph the valley from the tunnel view
> overlook.
That just seem to be too tough for me. If I enjoy taking an image I and others
have taken before, perhaps hope I'll make
it a little better than before, what's wrong with that. We sat at that spot for
some time. I took some shots I have
taken before, although not in digital, and several exploring other angles.
Maybe none of them will be worth showing, but
so what? I had fun. I also enjoyed watching all the other folks swarming about
taking pictures. Folks using phonecams
next to folks with huge lenses worth more than some of the cars there.
I also enjoy watching all the people who pose with hats on and the sun directly
in their faces, often enough with pretty
decent cameras. Once in a while, you see someone with a little digicam posing
subjects in open shade and paying
attention to the background, but not often.
Last time there, the weather was very different. Turn away from the valley
vista, go telephoto, and I got this shot,
which I quite like. I'll bet images like this are less than 0.0001% of those
taken from that spot.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Yosemite/Yosemite_2002&image=020428-29_22.jpg>
Looks too green today. May be time to rescan and process it to display with
this year's sunny day version. If I take
only two focal lengths, I don't get this shot.
> I suspect that you were either rushed or not feeling the greatest on this
> trip. You captured "pretty pictures", or maybe "pictures of a pretty place",
> but they lacked the "pretty pictures of a pretty place" aspect or anything
> that caused me to come to a screeching halt.
As you say, I was not at my physical peak that day. Those shots are almost all
from one day. Still, I think it's a tough
place to do that much different with, at least for me. I'll bet, though, that
this structure looks different in my
version than in all but a handful of other shots.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Yosemite/Yosemite_2011/Hetch_Hetchy/General&image=_MG_0056corcr2iam.jpg>
And when have you seen a photo of a Red-tailed Moose before, even if I didn't
take it. :-)
> I'm only bringing this up because of the broader issue.
No worries. These are things many of us struggle with, and more interesting to
me than threads about 4WD vehicles.
Fortunately, I still have a lot to learn - even about photography. :-)
> A Critical Schnozz
Been there, Got The T-Shirt Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
