minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I'm glad to see you here. You could help us all with your artist's perspective, given what you do with your photography.

Yours is a very interesting approach, and I recognize it! My cousin, who does watercolor, pen and ink and cut-paper art does something similar. She doesn't know a thing about photography and has a cheap P&S, but when we are together she can find some awesome compositions I just don't see. She is gleaning and gathering raw materials for her "real" art.

I know about those photos in one's head. Sometimes my photo travel buddy and I agree to put down the cameras take pictures with our eyes for a while.

Thanks for sharing an interesting and unique perspective.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Linda, I tend to wander around until something catches my attention. There are a variety of reasons that that will happen, but once it does, it means I've got work to do. I think of composition, framing, depth of field, etc. At that point, the technical aspect begins to make its was into the activity. Choice of lens, exposure, range of light, post processing steps which will bring out the character of the scene to match my visual interpretation of what I'm presented.

I guess both halves work well together. Having a background in engineering, the technical side does a lot of analysis which helps the other half accomplish the vision. Both halves work to make sure neither gets the upper hand.
--Bob

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for your detailed response, SS. Very enjoyable!

So interesting to read that your methodical covering of all angles gets you into the groove and has built your confidence.

What I related to most was your mention of capturing the memory. I had several near-misses with shots the first summer I followed an eagle family with my bridge camera, and became a bit frustrated.

I was so much happier when I realized how fortunate I was to just have the incredible experience of seeing. Now into my third summer of shooting an eagle couple raise their young, I know when to pull the camera away from my face and just be in awe :)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

That's wonderful to have such a balanced, successful approach. Thank you very much for participating, Bob!

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Havin' been bawn in New Yawk Sitty I got nuttin' against woykin' a scene. :mrgreen: (Hey I'm woykin' heah! I'm WOYKIN' heah!) :lol: (So "exploring" works too. :twisted: )

Okay, so all of the responses so far are very interesting. No two are alike, proving once again that no two humans are exactly alike. I think I'm a "wader-inner;" wade in and shoot. But 30-odd years of working professionally may (may!) have developed my eye such that maybe I see things that I don't even know I saw until I see them in the picture. There's a story about a LIFE staffer (can't remember who) who was assigned to make some pictures in a fishing village. He shot his film and sent it in. His editor called, emoting about the "fantastic birds!" Huh? What birds? Turned out there was a pod of pelicans on the surface of the harbor that, just as he tripped his shutter exploded into the air for some reason. He swore he never saw them, but there's the question: did his instinct kick in just at the moment the birds took flight?

I do pay attention to composition. I instinctively switch from vertical (portrait) to horizontal (landscape) and back. I crop in the camera. I do explore a subject, more so now than in film days because, seriously, it is FREE! When shooting film, especially if not on assignment, I was always mindful of the cost of the roll and the processing. That's a double-edged thing; you may need to think more about the shot if you're concerned about cost, but you may shoot a lot of dreck if you're not. (Ansel Adams used to send students out with a view camera and a single sheet of film as an exercise in learning to truly see.) But I don't think I spend a lot of time walking around looking for the angle, but again there's all those years of being on assignment when time was money and the client and the art director want to get the furshlugginer shot and move on, so I developed a working style of getting the furshlugginer shot and moving on. I dunno; maybe that makes me a hack. :? I do not think the picture is finished until it has been worked over in Post.

When I was woykin' I was using all manual cameras, manual focus, light meters, yada yada. Nowadays the default on my camera is Aperture Priority with a somewhat floating ISO (usually capped at 800 unless I'm doing something in Available Dark :-D ). I truly hate the thought of a missed shot because I didn't have the right settings on the camera. I have no qualms about using auto-pretty-much-everything. I have nothing to prove. I also cannot for the life of me understand the contention (I sometimes hear) that somehow "manual is more creative." Huh? Because you have "total control." Huh? Well, whatever floats your boat. :shock:

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for your extensive, entertaining and informative viewpoint, Chuck. I enjoyed tremendously!

From your comments I realized I also instinctively switch from horizontal to vertical aspect. I sometimes suggest to newbies in Photo Gallery (usually regarding flowers), because I can see how easily one would not think of that if they don't have experience.

I also like your "nothing to prove" comment re manual mode. I might have to steal that one day, just as I intend to steal from a newsletter I have, re pp and raw: "It's either you or the manufacturer."
:thumbup:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Yes, I've noticed that a lot of folks seem to have trouble figuring out which way to hold the camera, which you might think is intuitive but maybe not so much. Lately I've been seeing a lot of smart phone videos made in the vertical orientation, which always strikes me as not intuitive. But there are no hard-and-fast rules. "They" used to say that the vertical frame was "active" and the horizontal "passive," or restful or something. I don't think about it much; I believe I just know which way it should go, but then I will sometimes discover in post that the real picture is a vertical cropped out here, or a square, or something. I get into trouble once in a while because I was trained to crop in the camera, so I don't always have the room I would like, which is another excellent reason to "take another." When in doubt I'll try framing a scene both ways, or think of it as square. I rarely print so I don't worry too much about aspect ratios. Most of the printing I've done recently has been in making up Mixbooks (love 'em! :D ), and I can paginate them any crazy way I want. :thumbup:

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

R[quote=Singing Swan]I think I approach my photography much differently than some. I do a lot of reference shots that I can use later in artwork or design. I point my camera at a lot of nonsensical things, but when you want to know just how a flower looks or a skirt as it twirls around a person, then it's very helpful to have that at hand. I am also a big fan of being able to make 20, 50, 100 shots of something just to cover every angle or because I can't find the right setting until shot 35 and half have to be deleted, but it's cheap. And allowing myself that kind of practice over the years improves my confidence when I need to get the shot NOW!!!

Xxxxxxx

Nice to hear from another multi-media artist! A lot of my images start out as "reference shots" for sketches, paintings, engravings" ...and some envisioned as having the where-with-all of a magnum opus sometimes wind up in that more utilitarian category as well.
Time and perspective work in wondrous ways!
Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

:-P

Big Stopper Loc: London

First of all, there are some deep and meaningful posts in this topic you've started and they are mostly too cerebral for me to even consider contributing.

I've never thought too deeply about my photography and it's only very recently (two years or so) that I've taken it seriously. I'm not sure either that what I do is art - well, I don't see it that way.

Sometimes and this is rare, I take my camera with me with no specific purpose in mind. I might go for a walk with my wife, take a few shots and I am generally disappointed with the results and more often than not I end up deleting anything I've taken.

Where I am more successful is when I have a specific idea in mind - seascapes, long exposures, portraits of grand children. Then I am more focused, I have spent time considering what I am trying to achieve and I have prepared accordingly. I have the right equipment with me (unless I've inadvertently left it at home) and the results are much better. With the seascapes for instance I do find myself in "that moment." I will generally set myself up where I think I can see a good shot - mainly working with lines and then work with the light and movement of the water. I am constantly looking for a potentially better angle/placement/composition and adjust accordingly.

Linda, I am so with you when it comes to camera settings - I shot a load of photos the other day and only afterwards realised that the lens was still in manual focus and focused from the previous day!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for your contribution to this topic, Luggerbugs! Fascinating to read your processes. I greatly appreciate your time and input.

As for inadvertently leaving a lens on manual focus, when I first got my 10-18 mm, I didn't notice that it wasn't auto-focusing "properly" (it was still on manual from an earlier shoot) because it's the first lens I've owned that you can't hear the focus motor :)