Vision and Direction - More than just a Snapshot.

[TheBigE]

*** A bit of a rambling posts of my reflection of 2016 (You have been warned) ***

This is something I have been pondering over the Holiday season - How do I improve, what do I feel my limitations are regarding photography. I know the adage of practice, practice, practice is important. I am not trying to subvert this concept, but rather take a serious review of my work and try to find some accountable actions - whether it be based on subjective or objective rationale.

It is such a difficult task to evaluate and see what is missing. On one hand, you post photos on FB and all friends and family are very appreciative and have great comments on my photos. At first this can sustain one, but after awhile one tends to evaluate their work deeper. This is currently where I fall...at least in my opinion.

This last year I have tried to maintain a Portfolio of my work. That is the best of the best as I see it. This is very subjective overall, but for me these represent the best of what I have accomplished so far since starting down this road.

I look at this body of work and realize - perhaps being too critical on my self - that they are just snapshots. I sometimes feel that having all this equipment, lessons, and extra focus is no different than someone with a iPhone just snapping away photos. (Full Disclaimer - I am fully aware that the type of camera you use whether it be iPhone or DSLR can take great photos). This is just how I view some of what I have done, I can see progress from starting until today - but I still fall back into this feeling of "snapshots"

In thinking deeper - I am finding that the need for direction and vision is required. Make a photograph and not accept a snapshot. I see some of the greats, they have a vision of what they want and then they go and make a photograph with direction. I guess that is what I see is lacking in my work and direction. I feel I need to make photographs and not snapshots. I realize more and more that all of this comes with vision and direction.

I will continue to try and focus on the basics, but also try to have a vision of a Photograph...one image....one capture...that is a Photograph and not snapshot.

I welcome thoughts or remarks....no specific question here from me, but more of a collection of my thoughts gathered and perhaps others have felt the same way....

[/End of Ramble]

Regards
Erik

[Mike Buckley]

Great thinking, Erik! Three thoughts come immediately to mind, though I look forward to learning other ideas as well:

You mentioned that you can see progress. Note the characteristics in your images that indicate progress and make a point of including those characteristics or variations of those characteristics in future images.

Think of a particular style of image that would emotionally excite you to see whether you or someone else makes it. Make a point of making images in that style while also making a point of improving upon them. The idea behind this is that if you enjoy doing a particular style of photography, it might be easier for you to consciously attend to the details that will improve your photography.

Occasionally review your website, perhaps two or three times each year. Cull the images each time. Note the deficiencies in the photographs you remove and be sure to exclude those deficiencies in future photos you make.

[DanK]

Erik,

I agree with Mike's points. I was going to start with his second point. One of the things I found helpful early on was to choose a few genres of photography and focus primarily on those. I continued to do many different types of photography, but I had just a few that I really worked on.

My main genre for several years was macro--both bugs and flowers--and it was early in that time that I stumbled on a very good piece of advice from Scott Kelby. He was writing about flower photography, but the advice applies to many different genres, and your comments about 'snapshots' reminded me. He wrote that one of the secrets to interesting flower photography is finding a point of view that is different from someone just looking at the flower--which is to say, different from a snapshot. The difference may be position, isolation of the subject, some other aspect of composition, lighting, or whatever.

For an illustration, I'll pick a genre at which I am still just a beginner: architectural photography. I recently posted this shot of rooftops in the old port in Bergen:



Most of the pictures I took there were, well, just snapshots when I looked at them more closely. This one I think isn't. I made the roof lines the subject of the photo, rather than the street-level features. I used a slightly long lens (75mm, the longest I had with me) to compress the scene. I more or less followed the 'suggestion of thirds.' Regardless of whether you think it is a good image in the end, it isn't just a snapshot.

My other suggestion is not to rely on friends and family for criticism. Unless yours are much different from mine, most of them will be of no help whatever in this respect. I usually end up explaining to them what is wrong with an image, not the other way around. Find other photographers who can give you criticisms and suggestions. This forum is excellent for that purpose. I also belong to a camera club and make a point of entering images in their competitions because I get excellent criticisms. For example, the next one is going to be judged by a very good night photographer. I am entering two night photographs that I am almost certain will not win because it's an opportunity to have someone who is much better at that genre criticize what I did.

Dan

[Thlayle]

I like your ramble. I relate to it in terms of my own evolving efforts at photography. When I first set out with a DSLR four years ago, I was driven by the idea I would rise above the snapshot. At this point, I am always reflecting on what it is that I bring to the final result, so I think that is that vision and direction you speak of.

I see lots of great suggestions so far. I find that any way I can immerse myself in photography--through my own efforts and looking at the work that others are doing--helps me along to developing style, direction and yes: vision.

I found that jumping into a history of photography course through Coursera was definitely worthwhile.

But mostly I like the idea that "these roads don't move..." (with thanks to Ben Gibbard and Jay Farrar for the Jack Kerouac tribute!)

[Manfred M]

Erik - the fact that you are thinking about it and looking back over your work with a critical eye suggests to me you are evolving into photography in a fairly normal way. Your statements suggest that you are recognizing issues with your previous work that you had not been able to see before. It is a road that many of us here at CiC will recognize, as we have come down it as well.

I think the second part of your thoughts dealing with moving from a snapshot to a photograph are also an important part of the photographic journey. A snapshot, even a "good one", implies spontaneity, rather a thoughtful, planned and deliberate approach to image making. I find that there is a second issue with snapshots as well, and it the person behind the camera is too busy looking at the subject to see the whole scene. A photographer goes about taking a picture in a manner almost diametrically opposed to this approach - taking a photograph is a deliberate and planned act, where the impact of the subject, as well as the foreground, middle ground and background are considered.

My final thought is Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous quote (made in the film photography days); "Your first 10 000 images are your worst". Some people feel in the digital era, that the 10 000 image threshold is likely more like 100 000. Cartier-Bresson said "photographs" not "snapshots", so I feel that the latter should not count towards this total...

[Thlayle]

My final thought is Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous quote (made in the film photography days); "Your first 10 000 images are your worst". Some people feel in the digital era, that the 10 000 image threshold is likely more like 100 000. Cartier-Bresson said "photographs" not "snapshots", so I feel that the latter should not count towards this total...

Ah. I was hoping I was through the worst already! My Canon frame counter reset quite a while ago at 10,000.

[Mike Buckley]

Cartier-Bresson said "photographs" not "snapshots", so I feel that the latter should not count towards this total...

He typically used the term, snapshot, to help describe the type of photo by making the distinction between portraiture and reportage (snapshots), not to make the distinction commonly used today about the quality of the photo. He called his own photos snapshots.

He also said after his first 25 years of looking through the viewfinder that he was still an amateur though no longer a dilletante.

[Manfred M]

He typically used the term, snapshot, to help describe the type of photo by making the distinction between portraiture and reportage (snapshots), not to make the distinction commonly used today about the quality of the photo. He called his own photos snapshots.

He also said after his first 25 years of looking through the viewfinder that he was still an amateur though no longer a dilletante.

I think we owe today's definition of the snapshot very much to Kodak's marketing department that wanted to move more film, cameras and photo processing and so encourage people to make lots of shots that they and their immediate friends and family would enjoy. That strategy worked very well for them and they moved a lot of product and people made lots of good (but mostly mediocre) images.

Cartier-Bresson was in many ways the "classical" photographer as he handed his films off to his favourite lab and let them worry about the details. He was the polar opposite of photographers like Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh who were closely involved from shot to final print. So far as I recall, he only ever admitted to cropping one image and claims that his shots were not set up (although many people don't quite believe him).

Photographic language use / definition has evolved. When I look at the works of the classical photo journalists like Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa or WeeGee, I would have to suggest that they took "snap shots" in the classic sense - well composed and technically well photographed, given the conditions that they were shooting under and the equipment that they were using. Vivian Maier, Gary Weinograd and Diane Arbus could certainly be described as snapshot shooters as well...

[rpcrowe]

I have mentioned this previously but, will state my belief again:

I think that there is a percentage of photographers who have benefited from "seeing" millions upon millions of images throughout their lives (television, books, movies, magazines, newspapers, billboard ads, etc., etc.) and who start shooting very good to excellent images as soon as they pick up a camera. I have seen images shot by young children that seem to be well on their way to becoming excellent photographers.

There is also a percentage of photographers who have not benefited from exposure to those millions of images who (POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF LACK OF INTEREST) will never become decent photographers. My daughter is an example of this latter group. If there is something in the image that attracts her interest, then (to her) it is a good image. I remember her bringing home a series of images of dog running around an outdoor restaurant on the French Riviera. The shots were out of focus and fuzzy. Some only showed the tail of the dog. But, these were the images she showed people when she got home because she had a story about the dog...

The rest of us, who are neither born photographers nor intrinsically unable to see a decent image; range in between those extremes. With training some can become very good photographers while others can climb to become mediocre shutter clickers.

The difference is the ability to "see" or just "look at" images combined with an interest in creating interesting or good images...

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Erik. I looked at your linked portfolio and would say it is not full of snapshots. When I look at the gallery overall, my impression of the photographer is "this guy likes shape and color". Every image that you chose for that gallery have one or both of those characteristics. So whether by design or not, you have developed a personal style.

IMO what separates the images from "snapshots" is that you have done a good job of isolating your subject and excluding distractions that don't support the chosen subject. That is a very basic concept of photography, i.e. isolating the subject thereby focusing the viewer's attention where you want it to be. On the other hand, a true snapshot is a photo taken by a person who sees something of interest but captures the world all around it as part of the image. Whether you did it at time of capture or with PP, you clearly demonstrate a grasp of the concept.

Personally I think you are over complicating things. You demonstrate a "good eye" for recognizing opportunities. With that as a foundation you simply need to continue to improve technical skills and composition to isolate what your eye has noticed. By studying your own and other people's work, both good and bad, you can learn a lot. If you like an image, why? How can I do that? If you don't like an image, again why? What could/would you do differently?

We all learn differently. Presumably you know yourself well enough to know what works for you. If it's books, read books. If you prefer visual, visit galleries, watch videos, look at books, etc. If you like interacting with other people, continue with forums, join a local club, find someone near your home to shoot with, etc.

I look forward to seeing the continuation of your personal journey via your contributions to CiC.

[kristent]

I wonder if you are grappling with the question of "is it Art?" or when is it just another shot. When does a photo become Art? a question all serious photographers/arts must wrestle with at some point. Other questions might be: Does the image convey/evoke strong emotion to you? Does the image reveal a story? Good mechanics are very important but the elevation you seem to be seeking is a little harder to grasp, as we all know. If you haven't done so already, I recommend finding an experienced teacher and taking his/her class. In these usually small classes, you not only study what made photos Art for The Greats, but it allows you to have a group give you immediate/personal critique and suggestions of improving your work to the level you would like it to be. These types of classes are safe (if you have a good teacher) and extremely helpful. You have a creative mind - have fun expanding that creativity!

[TheBigE]

Great thinking, Erik! Three thoughts come immediately to mind, though I look forward to learning other ideas as well:

You mentioned that you can see progress. Note the characteristics in your images that indicate progress and make a point of including those characteristics or variations of those characteristics in future images.

Think of a particular style of image that would emotionally excite you to see whether you or someone else makes it. Make a point of making images in that style while also making a point of improving upon them. The idea behind this is that if you enjoy doing a particular style of photography, it might be easier for you to consciously attend to the details that will improve your photography.
ell
Occasionally review your website, perhaps two or three times each year. Cull the images each time. Note the deficiencies in the photographs you remove and be sure to exclude those deficiencies in future photos you make.

Great thoughts Mike - good idea to take note of the improvements and keep those in place going forward. I am not sure exactly the particular style that excites me at this moment, still venturing through the landscape to find my niche.

My Portfolio itself is a evolving group of images in the 8+ Months of keeping the portfolio it has changed dramatically. Each time I finish a set of photos, I ask myself if something is portfolio worthy. If it is, what is coming out of the collection. This exercise has helped me realize to me what makes a great photo.

Regarding the other images - well - they are just that other images. I have contemplated making them private...this is still up in the air as I decide how best to optimize my website. Thanks again for you feedback.

[TheBigE]

Erik,

I agree with Mike's points. I was going to start with his second point. One of the things I found helpful early on was to choose a few genres of photography and focus primarily on those. I continued to do many different types of photography, but I had just a few that I really worked on.

My main genre for several years was macro--both bugs and flowers--and it was early in that time that I stumbled on a very good piece of advice from Scott Kelby. He was writing about flower photography, but the advice applies to many different genres, and your comments about 'snapshots' reminded me. He wrote that one of the secrets to interesting flower photography is finding a point of view that is different from someone just looking at the flower--which is to say, different from a snapshot. The difference may be position, isolation of the subject, some other aspect of composition, lighting, or whatever.

For an illustration, I'll pick a genre at which I am still just a beginner: architectural photography. I recently posted this shot of rooftops in the old port in Bergen:



Most of the pictures I took there were, well, just snapshots when I looked at them more closely. This one I think isn't. I made the roof lines the subject of the photo, rather than the street-level features. I used a slightly long lens (75mm, the longest I had with me) to compress the scene. I more or less followed the 'suggestion of thirds.' Regardless of whether you think it is a good image in the end, it isn't just a snapshot.

My other suggestion is not to rely on friends and family for criticism. Unless yours are much different from mine, most of them will be of no help whatever in this respect. I usually end up explaining to them what is wrong with an image, not the other way around. Find other photographers who can give you criticisms and suggestions. This forum is excellent for that purpose. I also belong to a camera club and make a point of entering images in their competitions because I get excellent criticisms. For example, the next one is going to be judged by a very good night photographer. I am entering two night photographs that I am almost certain will not win because it's an opportunity to have someone who is much better at that genre criticize what I did.

Dan

Dan - First off great image, for me it really works and I like the Geometry, color and composition.

I find myself more and more taking the advice of Scott Kelby as you have indicated - find a different viewpoint. Sometimes Direction and Vision may imply a timeframe, but I think it can also be a short time frame. Before raising the camera to the eye - take a moment and look - what is the subject, is there a viewpoint that adds to the overall result?

My family and friends are no different than yours - as I said they are going to be happy with a Pretty Picture....I may look at it in more detail and artistically and not be as happy. Do not get me wrong - I enjoy sharing it with them and receiving their Praise but as I said in my OP this only goes so far...I will try posting more on the CiC Forum for feedback - for the ones I have done so far it has been a great help.

I also find that providing feedback on other photos is a great way to help strengthen your creative mind and ultimately improve your photography.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[TheBigE]

I like your ramble. I relate to it in terms of my own evolving efforts at photography. When I first set out with a DSLR four years ago, I was driven by the idea I would rise above the snapshot. At this point, I am always reflecting on what it is that I bring to the final result, so I think that is that vision and direction you speak of.

I see lots of great suggestions so far. I find that any way I can immerse myself in photography--through my own efforts and looking at the work that others are doing--helps me along to developing style, direction and yes: vision.

I found that jumping into a history of photography course through Coursera was definitely worthwhile.

But mostly I like the idea that "these roads don't move..." (with thanks to Ben Gibbard and Jay Farrar for the Jack Kerouac tribute!)

Randy - Great input and thoughts. Recently I have been reading more of David DuChemin - from his blog, to books and his Email Vision Collection. It is very informative and provides a great perspective by looking at his work. He is great at providing his thought process and Vision. I will take a look at the course as well in Coursera - a better understanding of the history can only be helpful

Thanks for you feedback.

[TheBigE]

Erik - the fact that you are thinking about it and looking back over your work with a critical eye suggests to me you are evolving into photography in a fairly normal way. Your statements suggest that you are recognizing issues with your previous work that you had not been able to see before. It is a road that many of us here at CiC will recognize, as we have come down it as well.

I think the second part of your thoughts dealing with moving from a snapshot to a photograph are also an important part of the photographic journey. A snapshot, even a "good one", implies spontaneity, rather a thoughtful, planned and deliberate approach to image making. I find that there is a second issue with snapshots as well, and it the person behind the camera is too busy looking at the subject to see the whole scene. A photographer goes about taking a picture in a manner almost diametrically opposed to this approach - taking a photograph is a deliberate and planned act, where the impact of the subject, as well as the foreground, middle ground and background are considered.

My final thought is Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous quote (made in the film photography days); "Your first 10 000 images are your worst". Some people feel in the digital era, that the 10 000 image threshold is likely more like 100 000. Cartier-Bresson said "photographs" not "snapshots", so I feel that the latter should not count towards this total...

Manfred - thanks and good to hear that I am proceeding down a semi "known" path. Perhaps I am hitting the milestones that many have already encountered.

As I think more about Snapshot analogy - I am realizing that I do agree with your statement that it implies spontaneity. While there is a time element implied, I think that a Photograph (as in my term) that requires direction and vision can also be relatively quick. Rather than lifting the camera to one eye immediately - take a moment and review what is in front of you, decide what the subject is of your photograph and then gather the image. This alone can be quick and implies vision and direction.

I do not want to begin to think that I need to spend days scouting a location, prepping for the shot, envisioning the results and finally collecting the image.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Manfred M]

Manfred - thanks and good to hear that I am proceeding down a semi "known" path. Perhaps I am hitting the milestones that many have already encountered.

As I think more about Snapshot analogy - I am realizing that I do agree with your statement that it implies spontaneity. While there is a time element implied, I think that a Photograph (as in my term) that requires direction and vision can also be relatively quick. Rather than lifting the camera to one eye immediately - take a moment and review what is in front of you, decide what the subject is of your photograph and then gather the image. This alone can be quick and implies vision and direction.

I do not want to begin to think that I need to spend days scouting a location, prepping for the shot, envisioning the results and finally collecting the image.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Let's get back to Henri Cartier-Bresson's work flow and equipment. He shot the rangefinder Leica III and later on the M3 and pretty well exclusively shot with f/ 50mm Summincron lens. He preset his camera for zone focus and preset his shutter speed. All he had to do is lift his camera to his eye and press the shutter release. No worrying about zoom, focusing, etc.

In other words he pre-planned his camera setup and when he saw the opportunity all he had to do was frame the shot and press the shutter release. That was the only spontaneity in getting his shot. Wandering around or just standing there waiting for the "event" to occur was effectively part of his plan. Knowing the area and what might happen in it is really part of the plan.

This is a far cry from the carefully lit and set up studio shots of Karsh. I have seen some of his field work, and just like Ansel Adams, he used a large view camera. Spontaneity is probably the farthest thing from my mind when I think shooting a view camera.

There is nothing wrong with scouting a location and then prepping and planning the shot. I have made quite a few successful images that way because I was looking for a particular event; snow on the ground, the sun in a particular spot, the moment that the sun goes down where I get a scene that it is lit by the last rays of the sun, the refracted light from the sky and artificial light sources all working together to get me the shot I wanted to get. I've had to return to the same site several times, because something went wrong and I could not get the shot I planned for.

I've also wandered around city streets looking for the types of shots Cartier-Bresson took and use essential the same technique. I've had to use gaffer's tape on my lenses focus ring and zoom ring to lock in my settings.

Practicing these different approaches has made me a better photographer. Pushing into areas where I was not 100% comfortable helped improve my technique and my composition. Often, but by no means 100% of the time, I do come back with the shot I planned to take.

[TheBigE]

....
The difference is the ability to "see" or just "look at" images combined with an interest in creating interesting or good images...

Great story and thought Richard - I think this a true statement above - but one can also work to build that ability to "see" the images and create a compelling story/image/photograph. Basically this is to you last point where if we work at it, with some training we can become Very Good Photographers.

I guess that is the stage in which I have reached - realizing that more work is needed and this works needs to have a bit of Vision and Direction.

[TheBigE]

Hi, Erik. I looked at your linked portfolio and would say it is not full of snapshots. When I look at the gallery overall, my impression of the photographer is "this guy likes shape and color". Every image that you chose for that gallery have one or both of those characteristics. So whether by design or not, you have developed a personal style.

IMO what separates the images from "snapshots" is that you have done a good job of isolating your subject and excluding distractions that don't support the chosen subject. That is a very basic concept of photography, i.e. isolating the subject thereby focusing the viewer's attention where you want it to be. On the other hand, a true snapshot is a photo taken by a person who sees something of interest but captures the world all around it as part of the image. Whether you did it at time of capture or with PP, you clearly demonstrate a grasp of the concept.

Personally I think you are over complicating things. You demonstrate a "good eye" for recognizing opportunities. With that as a foundation you simply need to continue to improve technical skills and composition to isolate what your eye has noticed. By studying your own and other people's work, both good and bad, you can learn a lot. If you like an image, why? How can I do that? If you don't like an image, again why? What could/would you do differently?

We all learn differently. Presumably you know yourself well enough to know what works for you. If it's books, read books. If you prefer visual, visit galleries, watch videos, look at books, etc. If you like interacting with other people, continue with forums, join a local club, find someone near your home to shoot with, etc.

I look forward to seeing the continuation of your personal journey via your contributions to CiC.

Thanks Dan for the feedback, it means and helps a great deal. I said it in the OP - I maybe over critical on myself - I think this is the case for many who strive to improve. If we never see fault in what we do, we become complacent and not move forward.

I pressed the Shutter Button close to 8000 times in 2016. Of those only 14 made the list as "Portfolio" type work. Further to that I want to drill down to my top 10 of 2016. I think this is a useful exercise and helps with the questions you mention above - Why do I like Image? What was good? Bad?...etc

This is such a critical part of the process - yet as in my case it has also driven me to sometime be too critical on my work. Sorta a Catch-22.

Thanks for your feedback

[TheBigE]

I wonder if you are grappling with the question of "is it Art?" or when is it just another shot. When does a photo become Art? a question all serious photographers/arts must wrestle with at some point. Other questions might be: Does the image convey/evoke strong emotion to you? Does the image reveal a story? Good mechanics are very important but the elevation you seem to be seeking is a little harder to grasp, as we all know. If you haven't done so already, I recommend finding an experienced teacher and taking his/her class. In these usually small classes, you not only study what made photos Art for The Greats, but it allows you to have a group give you immediate/personal critique and suggestions of improving your work to the level you would like it to be. These types of classes are safe (if you have a good teacher) and extremely helpful. You have a creative mind - have fun expanding that creativity!

Great point Kris - I think internally that is the question - have I created Art or just a shot. This in of itself is very subjective. Reaching that goal is difficult sometimes when one feels that they are on a plateau. In the beginning there is visible improvement in ones photography....but after a point, the improvements require more focused work and attention...and frankly fewer and father between. There is much more of a requirement to look inward and evaluate ones level. This is tough...

To your questions about training - I fully agree. I recently tried to align with a local photographer, but it did not work out. I continue to take online courses and try to attend workshops. These have been invaluable this year.

[TheBigE]

Let's get back to Henri Cartier-Bresson's work flow and equipment. He shot the rangefinder Leica III and later on the M3 and pretty well exclusively shot with f/ 50mm Summincron lens. He preset his camera for zone focus and preset his shutter speed. All he had to do is lift his camera to his eye and press the shutter release. No worrying about zoom, focusing, etc.

In other words he pre-planned his camera setup and when he saw the opportunity all he had to do was frame the shot and press the shutter release. That was the only spontaneity in getting his shot. Wandering around or just standing there waiting for the "event" to occur was effectively part of his plan. Knowing the area and what might happen in it is really part of the plan.

This is a far cry from the carefully lit and set up studio shots of Karsh. I have seen some of his field work, and just like Ansel Adams, he used a large view camera. Spontaneity is probably the farthest thing from my mind when I think shooting a view camera.

There is nothing wrong with scouting a location and then prepping and planning the shot. I have made quite a few successful images that way because I was looking for a particular event; snow on the ground, the sun in a particular spot, the moment that the sun goes down where I get a scene that it is lit by the last rays of the sun, the refracted light from the sky and artificial light sources all working together to get me the shot I wanted to get. I've had to return to the same site several times, because something went wrong and I could not get the shot I planned for.

I've also wandered around city streets looking for the types of shots Cartier-Bresson took and use essential the same technique. I've had to use gaffer's tape on my lenses focus ring and zoom ring to lock in my settings.

Practicing these different approaches has made me a better photographer. Pushing into areas where I was not 100% comfortable helped improve my technique and my composition. Often, but by no means 100% of the time, I do come back with the shot I planned to take.

Manfred - good points. For me (perhaps as an Engineer by training) I quickly can fall into a case where I need direction and Vision and over analyze. Thereby taking up time and over planning if you will.

You examples are great examples that Vision and Direction can come in many forms - and not necessarily tied to a long time. I read many articles of people spending days preparing, hiking into a site and getting that perfect image. It is just as important to realize, as Henri Cartier-Bresson, that just being prepared and having an idea of life in front of you is also vision and direction.