vesam1

 

<p>If you do not happen to get it right in camera you can:</p>

<ul>

<li>crank brightness up, increase contrast</li>

<li>add some fill light</li>

<li>use exposure to compensate if photo becomes too light</li>

</ul>

<p>White balance plays critical role, adjustment makes the picture look funny if it is "off".<br>

But basically getting this (or any) look is much about light. Not even about exposing correctly in camera, but knowing when to shoot (as others have stated already).<br>

If I would strive regularly some look I would make custom camera profile for it. </p>

 

 

Even as I think pre-visualizion is important I would think control to be more in how you handle the media / situation when things are not working as you would have expeced. When lighting changes or there is not enough room for the shot etc., how to work with things to get results that please you.

This reminds me of so called "Lazlo effect", that, in my understanding, bears name of the photographer who presented results the effect quite skillfully in fred miranda forums (galleries: http://www.pictures-by-lazlo.com/ ). I could not find the original posts describing the method but quick googling yielded this:

 

http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/36/3776.html?1101868616

<p>>> "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." <<

</p>

 

<p>

In my experience the rules of composition apply on how we look at the picture. Inventing and <i>making</i> a picture is very different process of <i>viewing</i> one.

</p>

 

<p>

The composition classes I have taken telated to painting etc. did not concentrate much on studying painings etc. but rather had e series of exercises for us to see how things are build and how the desicions affect the result.

</p>

 

<p>

The few photogaprhy oriented composition classes I have had have concentrated mostly on studying pictures and nitpicking on how to find some rules in them (and sometimes stretching the rule to fit it in). (Taking a look in to the vast selection of composition artiles in internet the most have no take on what to do when you are about to take the photo).

</p>

 

<p>

Building a picture that fits in certain, more or less arbitrary rule set makes photography and <i>deed or performance</i>, rather than a media of <i>expression</i>. The theatres are full of bad movies that meet the criteria of good story on paper (even to an extent on which page on the script a certain event is introduced), but still fail to impress us. I see its the same with photography: photo build to meet rules of composition (or how we look at pictures) is not neccessarily intresting one as there is no expression in the rule it self. (Even as Aunt Tilly would have been better off not having her daughters head in the middle of the photo).

</p>

 

<p>

In essence: photography is about the <i>relation of</i> you <i>the photographer and the subject</i>: not between you and the rules of composition. (In the same way how your walking is result of your interaction with the environment and not with the rules of gravity - you can't get anywhere walking on those rules).

</p>

This subject pops up form time to time. This time I wanted to contribute an answer / though and see what sticks...

 

As with terminology it is not always easy to remember that in Caribbean culture the concept of soul can be quite different from the one coming form christian western background. (As some times you can read suggestions how to prove that they are wrong by taking a photo: "here you see it did not go away" or "now as I have it I'll take few more photos"). Thus forcing that sort of belief in to more familiar framework does not neccessarily exlain much. (Well, maybe this did not explain it either but hpefully the next thought).

 

Maybe the soul stealing superstitions build up in a similar that we some times relate to photos in extreme cases. For example being afraid that a child molester takes a photo of a child in school concert: him having the photo does not actually hurt the subject but the thought is still very unpleasant. (Naturally it can be reassoned that the photo can lead to something more serious later on, which I don't deny at all, but the first emotional response is not connected to that logic).

 

Perhaps there wold be a better and less disturbing example: if my co worker would take a photo of me and use it as a darts target I would not be too happy. If I would not know he does so it would not hurt me at all. Hearing whats going on with my photo and darts would make me feel very uneasy even though its not at least physical threat to me (working with him would propably not be a bliss after that though).

 

So, I'm not saying these people are afraid that you would use their photos to play darts, but thats an example on how in western cultures we (or maybe just I?) sometimes feel that a photo can give some sort of control over a person, even when not publicized.