Coincidences, synchronicities or just cool s#!+ that accidentally appeared in your pic!

[Bill C]

Consider all of the happy-chance photos posted to this thread. For each of those good outcomes, where the photographer was happy with what "fell into" his or her picture, I guarantee there were thousands and thousands where those same photographers were not at all happy for what "fell into" their photos. One winner out of many thousands of duds.

 

Whoa there! Now I can't speak for everyone, but with the sort of shot that I posted, that's not one in a thousand; I could have been doing that every dozen shots or so. Maybe one in 20, with the extra misses mainly due to an "unphotogenic" arrangement of the cars or I didn't keep them in the frame.

 

These are not the "top fuels" beegeedee mentioned, but somewhat close; a top fuel dragster is about the fastest accelerating human-carrying machine there is - they can top 100 MPH in the first 60 feet, so not easy to keep in the frame. (Drag info at - Don Long Builds The Old Master)

 

FWIW, a pro motorsport shooter is not gonna do much of this sort of thing due to the hit-or-miss nature. They need reliable shots of everyone, so they'll be loading their own light onto the scene when they need it. For me, I was just playing with a small-sensor camera that I brought along - this was just a way to get some shots that you would normally consider beyond the design-capability of the camera.

[PapaTango]

I have a doltish finger. It is often stupid, slow, and clumsy--ever more so when commanded to dexterous execution of movement. Brain says 'now' and finger lingers... :p

 

Politely, I am relating that there was never a career for me as a fighter pilot, surgeon, race car driver, or world class gamer. This includes Pong. Nothing about this has anything to do with fine motor control--I can solder wires the gauge of a human hair, and draw in pen and ink architectural renderings that meet HABS standards and are in the LOC. But timing? Meh. My rationalization is that I was born without a 'sports gene' and lack not only interest in such things, but cannot deal with spherical objects moving at speed.

 

Instead and perhaps as compensation I have been gifted with serendipity. This may seem a contradiction--but some people are statistically luckier than others. Fact, and indisputable because I read it on the internet. As to photography, I simply cannot count the times I missed the shot by mere milliseconds. Gawd Bless that Fickle Frenchman and all his brethren. Maybe I should buy an old Leica and see if that is my magic bullet. I have bought pretty much everything else to no avail. :oops:

 

I am not able to conjure up any Kant, Jung, Playdoh, or other pile-osopher. Freidrich N. seems to have taken his meds, and Derrida today presents as incomprehensible rubbish (as usual). Nothing profound by Susan Sontag, and Vicki G. is derelict in whispering any overwrought pseudointellectual monographs in my ear. This I do know, however. A substantial number of my best and most interesting compositions were given to me by serendipity. Often they were not even recognized as worthy of the finger motion until mining negatives or files much later (serendipity redux).

 

In the past 20 years I have learned the language of one educated beyond my native intelligence. I can use it with a similar cohort to imply that there was some intent to my image--that a measured madness, vicarious vision, and thematic theosophy exists to explain what is contained within the image. Honestly though, I am a fraud. All of that aforementioned male bovine excrement is an expected accompaniment to art. I have an overwhelming suspicion that the 'great words of great photographers' may also be of the same wheelbarrow mix of apologetic rhetoric. Serendipity is my friend and muse! :eek:

[dcstep]

This Thread seems to have two veins, "accidental elements in a shot" and "the role of chance in a shot."

 

It was by chance that I saw the couple below, as I was riding on a tour bus in Paris:

 

Waiting for...the photographer? by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

The shot wasn't staged or planned, but I was on the look out for "something" that would be interesting to shoot. I'd set my camera for the conditions and had it at the ready.

 

Saturday, after hours of looking for a harrier on prior days, a Cooper's hawk popped up in front of me, in an unsuspected place. I'll spend hours trying to get one particular bird and then another pops up, by accident, and I grab the shot.

 

Cooper's Hawk - In Flight by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

What I find myself doing is investing time and being prepared, with a target in mind, but as often as not, I end up shooting something else. I make a point of getting out in the best light that I can find, but I often go out in less than ideal conditions. It's important to be ready for whatever might present itself, but theirs a large element of "chance" in my photography, whether it's wildlife or street. Time truding through the woods or walking the streets, yields opportunities. I think that good photographers "see" more opportunities because they're looking for them and they've experienced them in that past and know the importance of being ready. Yes, chance is a big element, but investing the time needed to allow chance to happen is important. The longer the odds, the more time you need to plan on investing, when seeking a specific result.

[Glenn McCreery]

I stopped my car while on the way to a golf course near Driggs, Idaho, when I spotted two bull moose in a field squaring off, so I quickly grabbed my camera and telephoto lens to photograph them. All of a sudden, one of the moose decided that he had had enough, or perhaps that a female was in a nearby field, and jumped over a cattle fence. When I show the photo to people, no one yet has claimed to have seen a bull moose (or even a cow moose) jump over a cattle fence. (I was late to the golf match, but one must have their priorities.) I guess that the lesson is to always have a camera handy for when the unexpected event occurrs. Edited October 19, 2017 by Glenn McCreery

[JDMvW]

I was surprised to find a UFO in one of my Cairo pictures, shown here with blowup of object

The path followed by the flying saucer strangely paralleled the flight path from the airport.

GAF 500 Slide [Muhammed Ali<Ibn Tulun]

[Julie H]

David, Glenn, and JDMvW, while I very much enjoy your stories and your pictures, it's my reading of the OP and thus the topic of the thread, that what he meant was stuff that you found to be in your pictures that you did not see at the time you pressed the shutter release. See:

something that was caught in a picture that was not planned, maybe not even noticed until post processing.

 

In other words, those things that you look at in a print or on your monitor and have never seen before. It got in there in spite of you, not because of you.

 

Not that it matters if the discussion changes ... I'm enjoying the conversation as it is going, but I guess I want to make sense out of my previous comment that was responding to the OP, not to the lucky surprise that a good photographer will knowingly and capably be able to respond to (as above).

Edited October 20, 2017 by Julie H

[Norma Desmond]

David, Glenn, and JDMvW, while I very much enjoy your stories and your pictures, it's my reading of the OP and thus the topic of the thread, that what he meant was stuff that you found to be in your pictures that you did not see at the time you pressed the shutter release.

This was not my understanding. One of the main reasons it's not my understanding is the OP's photo itself. It's impossible he didn't see that waiter in his photo until he started post-processing it. He didn't plan for the waiter to walk into the frame, but I'm pretty sure he would have seen it as he pressed the shutter.

surprised by something that was caught in a picture that was not planned, maybe not even noticed until post processing.

Seems to me the OP is talking about any impacting unplanned thing that happens when a picture is taken and that everyone who's posted here understands that and has given examples of it. The operative term in the second clause is "maybe." This suggests that a subset of what he's talking about are things that are not noticed until post processing.

Not that it matters

Agreed.

[Julie H]

unplanned thing that happens when a picture is taken

Then we're talking about every photograph ever taken. Nobody plans the material that's in his/her photographs. They just "came that way."

[Norma Desmond]

It might help to consider the concept of degree here. Life is not always all or nothing. I give the OP credit enough to know what photography entails. And yet I think he and the rest of us are clever enough to know what is meant when someone singles out "the unplanned" thing that can impact a photo, like the difference between a waiter unexpectedly walking into your frame on the one hand and people happening to be in a restaurant when you photograph them on the other. Photos don't necessarily "come that way." I have planned situations that only came that way because I set them up that way. Edited October 20, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Julie H]

fred, there are many realms unknown to you. it takes time to learn and perceive nonphysical ones.

Hmm ...

Julie, it's clear to me you don't understand the concept of degree.

Lots of clearness going on here.

I have planned situations that only came that way because I set them up that way.

Every "thing" that you "set ... up that way" came the way it was. It's material, it's aspect, its attitude, its color, its texture, the way it takes the light, etc. etc.

[Norma Desmond]

Everything came that way. Maybe, but it wasn't put together that way. Photographers position, frame, and juxtapose things. That's planning, as opposed to a waiter walking into a frame, which is unplanned.

 

You'd have to make clear why you're quoting the OP's statement about the nonphysical in this context. I don't get its relevance to this part of the conversation.

 

I had already retracted the "Julie, it's clear to me" phrase.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Norma Desmond]

In the "goals" thread, you bemoaned the lack of participation by others beside yourself in the Philosophy forum. Given the nitpickiness and irrelevance to actual photography of our little back and forth here, it's not that hard to understand the disinterest others show in the threads you lead. And it's why I'm dropping out of this conversation right now. Don't necessarily blame silence on the silents.

[JDMvW]

stuff that you found to be in your pictures that you did not see at the time you pressed the shutter release. :

 

and that was exactly the case. I didn't see the ufo until years later.

[Sandy Vongries]

Except for the most simple, uncluttered fields of view, many photos offer interesting or even transcendent secondary images that can be mined. A great many of us, even those who are deliberately aware of the background, are focused on the primary subject, and how background details impact that. in another kind of shooting it is called "target hypnosis."

[Julie H]

I didn't see the ufo until years later.

Thanks for the clarification, JDM.

 

A great many of us, even those who are deliberately aware of the background, are focused on the primary subject, and how background details impact that. in another kind of shooting it is called "target hypnosis."

I don't agree with that. What you focus on is not what you see in the item-by-item sense: rather you focus on, you shoot what you feel about what you see.

 

I think that what you see, in the literal sense (i.e. could report from memory) is almost irrelevant to whether or not you take a picture and I strongly doubt that you could ever tell me what it is that you see or saw item-by-item before, during, or after shooting. It's your intentional and intense attention to your feeling about where your eye is "at" that makes you a good (or bad) photographer. You plan your eye (you move, you zoom, you stop and start); you shoot your feelings ... when you're sure of them, not when you're doubtful, or surprised, or imitating or otherwise faking it. You know that the good photograph is Here! Now!

 

When/if I feel that same, sure Here! Now! feeling "captured" in the resulting image, then I believe that I made that picture — and it was not made by chance. This, even though I probably couldn't tell you most of what "things" are in it with any detail.

 

Note how different this is from Kelsey's (author of the book from the OP) interpretation. He and many others think of photographs as sort of instant paintings. But a painter starts with/from his feelings and then tries to embody them. He moves his material, not his eye.

...........

[gordonjb]

I was standing at the top of this stairway, intrigued by the lines and structure and working on using the right amount of camera motion to get the blurred look that I envisioned would work best. A woman wearing a red leather jacket and black pants began to descend the stairway and I took several frames with a slow shutter vertical pan. The woman's jacket tying in with the red brick and her pants syncing with the black uprights in the rail is what makes this photo. The other frames without the woman are boring. The set up for the shot was intentional the woman walking into my frame was happenstance.

 

[Julie H]

The set up for the shot was intentional

You mean the placement of your eye? If so, I agree. If you mean that anything else was intentional, I would disagree. Everything in that picture is "happenstance" except for Gordon J. Bowbrick ©.

[Sanford]

Above photo reminds me of this one. The guy actually apologized for "messing up my photo". I told him he made the photo.

[tomspielman]

 

At some point before I developed the film, the film door on the back of my Yashica TLR was knocked slightly open. It's possible it was never closed all the way. The green cloud and streak underneath the street lights on the right was the result. A similar but sharper streak appeared in a daylight shot, - which I don't like but still looks kind of cool.