"The Soul of the Camera" recommended book

[tbob]

David DuChemin, a photographer based in Vancouver BC has a new book some of you may find interesting. There is not one discussion of mechanics of taking photos, the intent is all about being a creative person and how to nurture your artistic self. Suits my temperament wholly as I have no interest in the camera/lens used, settings or processing program used when I am looking at someone's work. As irrelevant as the mallets or chisels used building Notre Dame. Mastery of the tools used is a needed but separate process to creating art. David has been refining this line of thought for the last decade and this is his best attempt to date.

Not a cheap book, worth it though.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...-of-the-camera

[Manfred M]

Sounds like a book that I might consider getting. I've seen and like DuChemin's work.

I find that he has hit the nail on the head; the intro says "duChemin believes the majority of our images fall short because they lack soul. And without soul, the images have no ability to resonate with others."

I might not put things quite that way, but feel that images that do not make an emotional connection with the viewer will never be as strong as ones that do, regardless of how technically well done the image is. To me that is the secret all great photographers have discovered and use.

[Cantab]

Trevor, thanks for posting about the book. I had a look at the preview pages of it on Amazon. As you say, it's not inexpensive but looks very enticing.

[Mike Buckley]

While I agree that the book is not inexpensive, I also don't think it's particularly expensive. It's in that middle ground where many books are less expensive and many books are more expensive.

[tbob]

While I agree that the book is not inexpensive, I also don't think it's particularly expensive. It's in that middle ground where many books are less expensive and many books are more expensive.

I tend to agree on the cost. I convinced my wife that it is not expensive relative to other expenses. I pointed out i spend that much on beer to drink on my week off call. This was a mistake as now I am being monitored for beer expenses as she was not aware of this.

[Mike Buckley]

In the end, this will work out to your advantage, Trevor. Better to keep her concentrated on your beer expenses than your camera gear expenses.

[Donald]

As irrelevant as the mallets or chisels used building Notre Dame.

That is as good a way of saying it, as I have seen.

Your better asking:- What going on in his mind?

[TheBigE]

Lately I have been watch David's videos on his channel. I have also read through some of his books and really enjoys his take on everything. He talks on a much more creative level and helps one explore their own creativity. For me, this is really helpful.

I have looked at his Workshops as well - small groups, with time alone to "explore"....while I have not been to many workshops, his view on it is much different and I think refreshing. Not sure I will ever partake in one...it is on the bucket list for now.

[Manfred M]

Trevor - I downloaded the book from Amazon and am about half way through it. Thanks again for making the suggestions.

I find it an interesting read, but not necessarily an easy read. He tackles the challenging side of photography in trying to tell us how to design / create a compelling image and to a large extent stays away from the equipment itself.

I find that at times DuChemin has trouble translating his inherent knowledge and experience on the subject into words. At times, I find trying to figure out what he is getting at is not easy. I also find he relies too much on reading in to what other photographers and artists have said and have written, while ignoring the works other types of creative people and some of the more academic work that has been done on creativity.

Regardless, it gives us a view of one creative person's addresses this aspect of photography and that should be something we photographers should welcome. We should also take care to remember that what works for DuChemin will not necessarily work for us.

Finally two important "take aways" from what he has written:

1. He takes around 100,000 images a year and only a few end up being "great"; and

2. An effective image needs to have a soul.

[Donald]

Now, this is not an artifact of having stroke (because I have the proof of Trevor liking my post) ..... but where has my post gone!

The gist of it was that: a) I agree with DuChemin and b) Trevor's, "As irrelevant as the mallets or chisels used building Notre Dame" was as excellent a way of seeing the issue.

[Cantab]

Finally two important "take aways" from what he has written:

1. He takes around 100,000 images a year and only a few end up being "great";

Yes, I'd also noted the 100,000 images a year and found it somewhat disheartening since I don't remotely take a fraction of that. But one needs to keep trying.

I'm going to order the paper version of the book. Although I have some ebooks, for the most part I hate extensive reading off a screen -- probably a sign of being a luddite.

[Donald]

Yes, I'd also noted the 100,000 images a year and found it somewhat disheartening since I don't remotely take a fraction of that. But one needs to keep trying.

I don't know what he trying to demonstrate by revealing that.

It certainly doesn't make him more likely to be a more creative person.

Those working in film certainly never shot that amount, and even those of us shooting on digital and who still think about the final image, don't shoot amount. I don't get the point he trying to argue.

[Mike Buckley]

Those working in film certainly never shot that amount [100,000 images per year]

I seem to remember reading decades ago when I first got into photography that National Geographic photographers would routinely shoot up to 50 rolls of 36-exposure slide film per day while on assignment, depending of course on the type of assignment. 56 days of doing that would produce 100,000 images.

A recent publication by National Geographic explained that their photographers shoot 20,000 - 60,000 images while on an assignment. Most of them get no more than one or two assignments per year, I think lasting about two months on average.

On the other hand, Mike Nichols photographed their Megatransect project, a 15-month trek through the Congo Basin, and shot "only" 2000 rolls of film. I don't know whether that was roll film, so I don't know the number of exposures.

[Mike Buckley]

Now, this is not an artifact of having stroke (because I have the proof of Trevor liking my post) ..... but where has my post gone!

Blame Trevor.

[tbob]

Blame Trevor.

My fault entirely. I have two threads with the same title. Donald posted to the evil twin. I tried to exorcise it, but I do not have the magic touch (I did use the proper phrases one uses when doing something stupid and hoping to avoid being caught, did not work) I then forgot to contact an admin to have the duplicate thread banished.

Can someone do this, or let me know how I can eradicate the vile thing?

More on the 100,000 images a year. My father was friends with a photographer who shot freelance pictures for the Vancouver Sun newspaper in the late 1960's He would routinely shoot ten to twenty motorized bulk film backs during a professional football game to get one, or even none , published. I think they used to hold 100 frames (I am sure someone here knows), he turned in the film and some poor devil at the newspaper had to process the film , then scan all the images looking for one shot to put on the sports page for the next mornings edition. I am sure he shot more than 100,000 frames a year. And was ecstatic if he got two into the paper in that time frame. And of course; he did not get a cent for the rejects.

[Manfred M]

I don't find the statistic particularly surprising as I remember reading that Ansel Adams was happy when he got around 10 good images a year. I also remember reading that Henri Cartier-Bresson would as part of his daily routine shoot a roll of 36 exposure film every day before breakfast; that works out to over 13,000 images a year.

[Mike Buckley]

I forgot to clarify that of the 20,000 to 60,000 photos a National Geographic photographer shoots on assignment, maybe a dozen will be published.

[Cantab]

Maybe the key to success is to start shooting 100,000 images each year. Perhaps blind chance will ensure that at least one of them will be really good.

But I suppose there's always the possibility of 100,000 duds.

[Manfred M]

My fault entirely. I have two threads with the same title. Donald posted to the evil twin. I tried to exorcise it, but I do not have the magic touch (I did use the proper phrases one uses when doing something stupid and hoping to avoid being caught, did not work) I then forgot to contact an admin to have the duplicate thread banished.

I hadn't noticed the two threads until I read this. I've merged them together, so all the posts are in one place now, including the one that Donald had added to the "orphan" thread.

[Mike Buckley]

But I suppose there's always the possibility of 100,000 duds.

In my case, change possibility to probability and you've got it right.