When I go out with only a wide angle lens, and force myself to look for shots that work using wide glass, I set a goal of sorts. There is a target. If I decide to narrow that target and say, I want only wide shots that include the color green, I have an even more narrow target. As you keep moving this idea forward, you can end up with something very tightly focused. For me, that provides the best incentive to work hard. I know that I have a reason and a purpose.
I must admit I had a different paradigm in mind when I clicked on the title - the article being totally different than my expectations.
I do believe that goal setting in photography, writing, playing the piano and living is one of the most important things we humans can do. It helps us form possibilities and opens us to opportunities.
Scott's article, however, had a different theme, at least it seemed to me. He is advocating very specific goals in place when going out to shoot. He eschews the "I let my camera see what it sees" argument as being a good one, but not for him. That's fine. I don't really buy into that "camera sees" statement at all. The camera sees nothing. It has no discernible taste nor the ability to make choices.
Scott's advice is almost totally different than what I give my students, and I wanted to address it here. NOTE: It isn't wrong, it is different... that much has to be understood before moving on. If we ever get to a point where there is only one way of doing something, I will simply move on to that WalMart Greeter position I have always coveted.
I do not advise my students to approach something like a 'walk around' or personal shoot with too many pre-conceptions. They can be devastating to the creative vision... locking away whimsy and serendipity, and presenting challenges that prevent other images from being made.
I used to do it that way. I would have a model and I would see, say, a long row of columns with her in a lit area. We would get in the car and drive to where I thought the columns would be. The situation would not be what I wanted, so I would struggle to get that shot I had in my head. Waiting for the crowds, or having to give up on the lit area. So many compromises and so many shots waiting there to be taken, but I hadn't seen them as I was so totally concentrating on an arbitrary decision I made earlier at the studio.
I don't do that anymore. I take the model and try to clear my head of too many pre-conceived notions of the details of the shot, but open myself to the emotion of the shot. I think light and motion and impact and emotion and connection... not what lens I have or what colors I will be using.
I love the immediacy of the creativity. It allows me to let the world come to me, instead of me to the world... with my expectations of it.
To me, the goal is to get an emotional shot, NOT to get a shot with my 20-35MM L... I don't care what I use to get the shot that means something to me... I just want the shot.
I learned to 'see' like a lens. Transferring the physical 3-D world to my little piece of film or sensor is second nature to me. I am more interested in the non-physical attributes of gesture, light, emotion and connection.
Now, before anyone thinks I am against having well constructed, concepted and produced shots... NOPE. Not at all. That is a bit different than a 'walk around' and non-conceived shoot.
Most of my work involves having a pretty good idea of what I want to do. Or need to do, when a client has specific expectations and directions.
However, when I go out with my camera to be a photographer on my own terms, I want, indeed I expect serendipity, whimsy, luck and a dash of crazy to be with me.
Scott's notion that photographers who don't want to shoot without specific goals are fearing failure may apply to some photographers, but not to all. A goal of coming back with something special and inspiring could be enough for many. And that doesn't mean a fear of failure, it may mean an openness to possibilities, and purely a love of the still image.
To me, a goal that is too tight, or specific, or with arbitrary parameters is far more stifling than a goal of opportunity and openness.
No comments:
Post a Comment