Lesson I learned

<p>A good photograph has less to do with a photographer's skill or technical execution, and much more to do with the light and subject. Without a subject and without the light, there be but blackness.</p>

<p>It took me a decade to learn this one.</p>

<p>V A L. Agreed, but technical skill and knowledge of composition certainly helps also.</p>

<p>Gene, it does indeed. But it's rare that a photo relies mostly on technique to the exclusion of imagery.<br />Thus, I no longer chase ego by pursuing 'skill'.<br />Life happens. If I have a lens aimed in the right place at the right time, a photo happens.</p>

<p><br /><br />I've stopped forcing things.<br />Stopped trying to change them.<br>

I've submitted to the flow.<br />It's as simple as that.</p>

<p>It takes skill to be at the right place, at the right time! And with the right equipment, I must add.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I have a lens aimed in the right place at the right time, a photo happens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Last night I found myself next to 4 TV cameras and about 10 other photographers. We were all in the right place at the right time, and lots of photos happened. The question is, why will the subjects of those photos seek out the photos that I and two or three other guys took, and reject the others?<br>

Yes, some of it is the right place at the right time (and the difference can be a fraction of a second and a fraction of a meter), but some of it is technical skill (and in stress situations, having enough experience for that skill to express itself as an almost automatic reaction), and - if the subject is human - some of it is people skills.</p>

<p>Hi V A L. In a decade you surely learned some skills and made observations that will come to play on the choices of where to point that camera and how to capture the light and process the image. You may choose to minimize those choices along the way. You may even choose to try to ignore the skill you have already acquired. Or try to arrest your ability to adjust to circumstance. But that is a skill you develop with experience. To read the light, to use your instincts effectively, To Observe.</p>

<p>You could go to fully automatic with your camera and processing ... but that is less about going with the flow than than allowing yourself and images to be dictated.<br /> I think that equating skill with chasing ego will impose limits on how effective you find your communication in your final product. That said, i would not take issue with your words. <br /> "I've stopped forcing things.<br />Stopped trying to change them.<br />I've submitted to the flow.<br />It's as simple as that."</p>

<p>Going with the flow is an attractive, perhaps even romanticized stand that appeals to many. It does to me. But there is room for craft and good skills and ego.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Last night I found myself next to 4 TV <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#" target="_blank">cameras</a> and about 10 other photographers. We were all in the right place at the right time, and lots of photos happened. The question is, why will the subjects of those photos seek out the photos that I and two or three other guys took, and reject the others?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really don't know, Tim. Assuming all of you photogs were in the same place and had the same cameras and lenses...</p>

<p>Your camera settings are dictated by the light, so there's not much you can change there. Your white balance, if you were shooting digital is also dictated by the light. About the only two variables left are composition and timing.</p>

<p>I have this (probably totally wrong) picture in my mind of you being at a press conference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />...but some of it is technical skill (and in stress situations, having enough experience for that skill to express itself as an almost automatic reaction),</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But most photographers will go into a given situation and set the same exact settings, won't they?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and - if the subject is human - some of it is people skills.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are we talking basicaly about smiling, or are we talking about being able to start a deep conversation and create common ground within a short period of time?</p>

<p>Val, I will disagree with this one. You may want question your Sensei When working with light it is about learning how light falls, how to modify it and how to read it to exploit it.</p>

<p>Val, If you always carry a camera, you never at the wrong spot.</p>

<p>Since you didn't specify what kind of shots you're talking about, I can tell you it doesn't just happen when you're in a studio with a piece of merchandise the client wants you to make it look like a million dollar item.</p>

<p>However, if it works for you, go for it.</p>

<p>Press photographers used to say, "F/8 and be there". Still skill counts for something. I think that when someone has been good at something for a long time they can take their skill for granted.</p>

<p>Somewhat (or possibly a lot) disagree. Take one scene of a sunset at a beach. That's generally a good subject and light. And yes when a shot was a snapped by a common person, people will say that the picture is nice. Now compare that with a shot from a photographer who knows how to compose, change iso/aperture/shutter speed, use filters, has a tripod, and so on and so on--boom! Skill don't matter? I don't think so.</p>

<p>One could ask, who cares about a sunset at a beach? That's not going to be an insightful or enlightening photo. There's only ten million or so photos of a sunset at a beach. But maybe a thoughtful photo of a certain moment in people's lives, if the moment is captured, how much does the technical stuff matter? It's not like that moment is going to be captured again. As long as the moment is there, maybe that's all that someone really cares about. But who cares about one more sunset at the beach? I can shoot those every night, over and over, and change the settings until it works.</p>

<p>Virtually everyone has a point-and-shoot these days, including almost every person in my group that have been doing hiking lately. And yet they've always wanted me to make it to a hike to take pictures, I suppose because they realize that when other people take pictures, they don't come back with good ones. I take pictures photojournalistic style when hiking, but I still put thoughts on making good compositions and exposures.</p>

<p>Of course when it's about "photo vs no photo," I'd rather have something than nothing. But on my wedding day, if I have the money, I will spend more for a better photographer.</p>

<p>Don't forget <strong>patience</strong>. I spent two full days this week photographing this subject at five different locations on the James River. Just as it was turning into the Appomattox River, there was the shot. Lighting was <strong>not</strong> perfect -- hazy, cloudy day. That's a U.S. Army barge carrying a U.S. Air Force C-17 fuselage between, Fort Eustis, VA and Fort Lee, VA.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.willdaniel.com/stuff/WJD_1585.jpg"></a> <img src="http://www.willdaniel.com/stuff/WJD_1585.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<p>Well, it's a funny thing. Always good to go back and look at earlier work and see where you are and where you were, as it can be surprising. 10 years is not a long time when you take the long view. Titian used to turn his paintings toward the wall when he completed them and then look at them a year or two later so he could properly evaluate them and decide whether they were indeed finished, keepers, or failures. He was able to see them fresh and new. It was the same painting, but he wasn't the same Titian.</p>

<p>V A L......you might want to read Tao of Photography:Seeing Beyond Seeing</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Photography-Seeing-Beyond/dp/1580081940">http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Photography-Seeing-Beyond/dp/1580081940</a></p>

<p>excellent explanation of how technique and "seeing" relate to each other. It's basic premise is that technique (or as described in the book.....a state of constant discrimination) is labelled as "Little Understanding" and Seeing is "Great Understanding" (or as the book says....constructive nature of photography, or "wander in the Great Void). You need both, but once technique is learned, it is put into it's place.....as Little. Constant discrimination is very constrictive. It limits possibilities before you can even pursue them. Wandering in the Great Void is freer in it's nature. It opens up everything as a possibilty. It's the Greater value.</p>

<p>Of course, that's my badly worded interpretation of the book......but it gives you an idea.</p>

<p>I can be more cynical than you. It isn't about photography at all. It's all in the post-processing (:</p>

<p>I have to say I disagree, <br>

its fair to say that light is the most important factor in photography, but its kinda similar to saying water is the most important factor for life. </p>

<p>Both statements are true to an extent, but its not just about what and where you find it, its how you manipulate and work with what you find.</p>

<p>Thomas,</p>

<p>Thanks for the book recommendation. That one has been on my list to buy for several years now. I think I thumbed through it once in the store, and it looked like it had some good advice.</p>

<p>It's like Galen Rowell once said: You may see A way to photograph a scene. But once you unlock yourself from a certain perspective, a certain lens, or what have you, you start seeing other possibilities. All too often, we "lock and load" with our perceptual faculties.</p>

<p>Hmmmmm... this is a very interesting conversation. My skills seem to have taken a long vacation this summer. Many of my photos, mostly nature and wildlife, have turned out terrible this year compared to last, with similar settings, similar situations and all the same equipment. I seem to keep churning out one over exposure after another even though I keep dialing down my exposure compensation. I have studied the settings of photos I took last year that are similar to ones I took this year, with similar lighting conditions. The settings are about the same and I am quite frustrated at this point. I've even tried two different cameras of the same model so I doubt it is my equipment. Maybe I'm just having an off year with metering in 2009.</p>

<p>Hmmmmm... this is a very interesting conversation. My skills seem to have taken a long vacation this summer. Many of my photos, mostly nature and wildlife, have turned out terrible this year compared to last, with similar settings, similar situations and all the same equipment. I seem to keep churning out one over exposure after another even though I keep dialing down my exposure compensation. I have studied the settings of photos I took last year that are similar to ones I took this year, with similar lighting conditions. The settings are about the same and I am quite frustrated at this point. I've even tried two different cameras of the same model so I doubt it is my equipment. Maybe I'm just having an off year with metering in 2009.</p>

I note that the word Imagination is missing from your hypothesis. I might argue that both technical skill and light/subject will lead to you winning the wrong game.

<p>I see this polarised opinion of VALs as being somewhat false, with respect.</p>

<p>Yes of course life flows and yes of course you can't force things to happen, and you just have to accept and allow.</p>

<p>But if you do happen to be there in that moment that you feel compelled to capture then the ability to translate your personal response into an image has a lot to do with the months and years that you've dedicated to making your photographic tools an extension of yourself - ie through developing skills.</p>