"What on earth was I thinking?" Did you ever have one of those days when what you shot just didn't come close to capturing what you wanted?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sometimes the execution just doesn't come up to the vision. I was looking for a white house or other structure in the shadows on the earth near sunset, but with the sun still hitting the clouds high above. That is (in case you still don't know what I mean), I wanted something bright below (beaming out of the shadows) that could offer a counterpoint to something bright above, where the sun was still shining. The moon would have been my first choice, and I was waiting for it on the day I took this shot, but this is what I got while waiting for it.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14978254"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p>Obviously I failed. I don't think that the idea was flawed, but this effort sure came up short. No amount of post processing is going to save this one. If I ever pull it off, I will have to start all over. (If anyone wants to try to salvage it, however, please be my guest.)<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>It was the second failure in a row, speaking of post processing now. Here is what I first tried to make of it in post:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14978212"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p>If there was a good post-processing option, I didn't find it. I finally settled on this bit of fluff for the evening when the moon finally did make an appearance:<br /> <br /><a href="/photo/15309893&size=lg"> <strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p>which quickly morphed in post into <a href="/photo/15309395&size=md"><em><strong>this bit of silliness</strong></em>.</a></p>

<p>I had already amused myself with <a href="/photo/15143972"><em><strong>th</strong></em></a>is while waiting for the moon to make its appearance. Oh, well, one does want to go back home with something. I knew that I didn't have anything.</p>

<p>Maybe someone else has had the same (or a similar) idea that failed, perhaps one that they are still striving for.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Is anyone else willing to share the results of a failed shoot?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Member69643]

<p>Mine have mostly been with nudes. My wife will occasionally pose for me, but we often do it in the woods. Far away from home. On at least three occasions I had battery or other camera failure.</p>

<p>I thought I had a great idea for a contest here on p.net, something to do with shadows or Halloween or some such. I shot the concept on an entire roll of film, but that failed miserably. I'll post it if I can ever find the digital version I ended up with.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Mine have mostly been with nudes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Patrick, there are no failed nude shoots. The worst that can happen is that you forget to take photos.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My wife will occasionally pose for me, but we often do it in the woods.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You make my point.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<blockquote>

<p>My wife will occasionally pose for me, but we often do it in the woods.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

As a wildlife photographer, I'm surprised at the couples that seem to think that "the woods" is a private place. I blunder up with my 500mm lens and they demand to know what "I've been doing." I'll say, "Nothing but wildlife" and they think I'm trying to be funny. The woods are crawling with photographers these days.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There are many ways for a shoot to fail. Mine failed in terms of accomplishing what I hoped to accomplish. I think that one thing that one can hope to get from some failures is experience as to how to better succeed in the future. If that sounds like a cliché, well, I guess that it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The woods are crawling with photographers these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I don't run into many photographers on the ridgecrests of the Appalachians. The trails there are mostly animal trails--good for winter hiking, when people are scarce anyway. Where one does find people is usually closer to parking areas and trailheads--at least in the type of country where I hike.</p>

<p>Good weather brings everybody and his brother out into some pretty remote areas--largely, I think, as a result of population pressures in the East. An amazing number of hikers are carrying some pretty sophisticated gear these days.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Of course, I have experienced numerous times where I didn't captured what I wanted. Not only days, but weeks going to far away places and coming back with next to nothing in terms of photos. It is in fact a little like fly fishing or big game hunting, but sometimes they, the fish or the game, don't really agree participating in the event. But in all cases, the mere fact to be out there, actively exploring the place brings you satisfaction, that goes far beyond numbering the catches when you are back homes. And you might have learned something too.</p>

<p>By the way I actually like your "bit of silliness". </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Anders. I personally didn't care for some of my own silliness above. I would delete a few lines of yesterday's post at 1:32 p.m. if I could--maybe that entire entry. It certainly did nothing to advance the thread--and the thread reads well enough (better!) without it.</p>

<p>As for silliness in general, I have certainly demonstrated that I can do more than <a href="/photo/14861893&size=lg">my share of it<em>-</em></a>-not that it's all that terrible. It is sometimes just so. . . silly. When I think that I am being funny (or, worse, clever) is precisely when I should shut up. I don't know why I have to keep learning that over and over.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you and I are caught in<br>

a laboratory without a science — <em>Adrienne Rich</em> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Another take on this would be those days when I come too close to what I wanted and realize that what I wanted was kind

of dull. Some accident and surprise is always welcome!

 

Seriously, though, I was recently in Yosemite. Don't normally bother with landscape photos. Wanted to try my hand at it

and see what I'd come up with. While I loved taking the pictures, I came home with nothing much. But taking photos

slowed me down and felt it helped me appreciate Yosemite and look at things carefully. So I was fine with not getting

great photos because I got a lot just by taking them.

[Norman 202]

@Lannie try fishing. Less pretentious but more rewarding

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Why, Norman, I <em>am</em> fishing! Now look what I've caught--a troll!</p>

<p>If I find that I sometimes get snared in my own net, well, there's poetic justice there. I am not troubled by it.</p>

<p>Fishing. . . . How very banal!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I started by referring to capturing less than I intended or expected.</p>

<p>Then there are those on PN who have a knack for capturing <em>mo</em>re than they intended. Look at this glorious example from the work of Jack McRitchie:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18235054"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

(Be sure to view the photo in the large size.)<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My take on Jack's work is that he tends to capture pretty much just what he wants to capture. I think in many cases there's an opening for "more" to be added by viewers. If there is more in the case of the link you provided, some of that is provided by the title, for better or worse.</p>

<p>Appreciating Jack's work as I do, I'd challenge the word "glorious" in describing this photo or his work in general. It seems almost the antithesis of Jack's sensibility and intent, which is so humble and yet extraordinary. Glory, IMO, implies beauty, fame, and honor, none of which seem terribly pertinent to Jack's work. The photo referenced, to me, is cinematic in a very easygoing, un-self-conscious way. It's also, as is so much of Jack's work, observed and candid. Candid, not just in the sense of not posed but in the even more important sense of being frank. Straight talk (which is what Jack's photos often accomplish) can be revelatory, in great part, because we're so not used to it.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I didn't take seriously the title or my own augmentations on the theme of crime. That is just imagination building any one of a number of possible narratives based on the photo--a bit of nonsensical fluff and banter.</p>

<p>In talking about Jack capturing pretty much what he goes after, you are probably right most of the time. In that particular photo, however, I think that he might have been a bit surprised by how it developed. Expressions can change so fast, after all, and I suspect that it was largely fortuitous that the expressions developed the way they did just as Jack was raising the camera and snapping the shutter. Perhaps Jack will weigh in and let us know how much of that he saw when he decided to shoot the cops entering the area, or the woman--or both. The guy on the left? He is striding pretty fast. It looks to me like he just walked in on the action.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Lannie, for me, this is a case where the "facts" of how this particular photo came to be aren't that important to me. Jack's

photos tend to speak to me in a certain way. What seems important are my perceptions of them as opposed to the reality

of how they came to be. I'm well aware that accidents happen and that when shooting somewhat in the moment, no one

controls expressions or who walks into or almost out of the frame. And what I get from Jack's photos is a sense of the real

world where stuff does happen like that. That's why they seem so frank.to me. I am quite sure he is not wanting to be in

complete control of all his shots. Somehow, I think photography and art are often beyond confirmations from the artist or

photographer, in that it's more about what is shown than what is known.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Lanny, could you explain in your own words the meaning of "Image Language" as you understand it? </p>

<p>It might help you to better judge your images instead of describing them with vague terms as "silly", whatever that means. That word sounds adorable coming from an Aunt from Minnes-o-o-o-ta-ah, but confuses me in a discussion on photography.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Tim, I have never read about image language, although I see that Noam Chomsky and some notable others have written about it. Perhaps I should try to come up to speed in that area, but at present I know nothing. I am sitting here wondering, however, about how grammar and syntax (and thus tense) would function in such a language. So far, however, that question arises out of context, and so I have no idea how meaningful a question it is.</p>

<p>As for "silly," I was referring to a title I used, not to the image itself. I'm sorry that I did not make that clear.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I think you've sized up Jack McRitchie's work very well. I don't really have anything to add.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Somehow, I think photography and art are often beyond confirmations from the artist or photographer, in that it's more about what is shown than what is known.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you on that, Fred, especially since you have left an out for hard cases or exceptions with "often."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I find that the less idea I have of what I want before a shot, the more chance of success. Every time.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>As for "silly," I was referring to a title I used, not to the image itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="/photo/15309395&size=md" rel="nofollow"><em><strong>this bit of silliness</strong></em>.</a></p>

<p>That's from your linked image of a moon and clouds shot that is not titled with the word "silly". Why would you call it silly? If you had command of image language as you do of the English language you wouldn't be using those words to describe your work. It's kinda' like if you have to ask, you don't have the capacity to understand the answer.</p>

<p>Calling your images silly is like hitting yourself and then debating and asking anyone in this thread whether you should apologize to yourself. If you know it's wrong to hit yourself, why do you care what we think? You already know right from wrong. That's a given, so what's the point of this thread?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>steve mareno, your statement, "I find that the less idea I have of what I want before a shot, the more chance of success. Every time," <em>is</em> an idea. There was a whole school of art based on that idea.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Photography is basically a snap shot of the photographer's consciousness.</p>

<p>Lanny, when you read my words did you pick up on an admonishing tone and attitude?</p>

<p>Is it different from your style of writing and phrasing in these exchanges? I can see it.</p>

<p>I bet you hear a voice when you read the words written in this thread which is each contributor's consciousness communicated within a short period of time. That's why words get more attention than pictures especially here in these forums.</p>

<p>Is it your voice you hear from all those writing a response? Probably not, because you note an authoritative but terse attitude in the way I'm addressing you. Just like you picked up on Norman's "go fishing" and deemed him a troll. It's not a familiar voice now that it is in your head, but it is a representation of a person's conscious state of mind writing the response.</p>

<p>That is what a photo represents. The conscious state of a photographer's mind at a given time about what they want the viewer to see. That's a form of image language only it's not through words but light & dark shapes composed within the limitations of a rectangular frame even further punctuating the focused state of mind of the photographer.</p>

<p>Do you think an image can convey what I just said to you and what would it look like? How do you connect pictures with words?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it your voice you hear from all those writing a response? Probably not, because you note an authoritative but terse attitude in the way I'm addressing you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, the photo I was referencing said "Celestial Wardrobe Malfunction" as <a href="/photo/14861893&size=lg"><em><strong>the title.</strong></em></a>(That was in a response to Anders Hingels.) That was at least one of the photos whose caption I considered silly, at least. There may be others.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, the photo I was referencing said "Celestial Wardrobe Malfunction" as the title.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Out of all that I wrote above all you have to address is a freakin' title to a photo?</p>

<p>I don't know what planet you're on at the moment. So much for communication.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Tim, what is your point? To "admonish" me in an "authoritative" tone?</p>

<p>What is there to communicate about?</p>

<p>I repeat: I have not said that my photos themselves were or are silly, rather that some of the captions are (or can be from time to time). If I felt really bad about the titles, however, I would change them. Obviously, this is not an issue that I plan to lose a lot of sleep over.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>