[matthew]

This summer I've realized that I don't take photos the way I used to.

Since I first started messing around with cameras, my method has always been to go out and see what I can see – pick a location, either out of interest or at random, and photograph what I can find there. I'd make an effort to not expect a certain kind of photograph, as it would limit my creativity and vision once I started taking photos. I've done this for years, with (I think) respectable results.

Over the past year, I've started to work and think in projects and series. I pre-plan my subjects and before I leave the house I will decide how to create the photos that I want to come home with. Serendipity still plays a role in the photos that I take, but I'm thinking in longer arcs and taking photos less often but in more intense bursts. Over the last couple of months I've tried taking my camera out for a random walk, just to see what I could see, and it's never come out of the bag.

Has anyone else changed the patterns of the way they work? Shifts in subjects, techniques, or working methods?

[nia]

Dear Matthew, all I can say, (as someone said too about me) I think I live with my camera... I don't know what will be with my camera, just I live with my camera and if I am lucky and well enough I try to capture... Till today I didn't make any plan or any project... But maybe in the future it could be... Right now I am living the days through my camera...

Have a nice day,
with my love,
nia

[Pavel]

Matthew, working in series is an inspiring idea. I still work with lets go and see what i see. It is a good approach I think and an approach that promotes ability to see and notice. I constantly switch styles, subjects and i keep on trying new techniques. However working in series is a new idea for me and one well worth exploring in parallel wioth what i do now.

[Toad]

Interesting topic. Just back from Iceland. Will reply soon.

[NT73]

Over the last couple of months I've tried taking my camera out for a random walk, just to see what I could see, and it's never come out of the bag.

So does that mean your method is wrong?
Or have you used up your local scene creativity. Maybe you should have a break.
Having said that I do like the projects you used to come up with (for us, and I know they are still open), but my get up and go has got up and is going. :/

[Toad]

Over the last few months, my photography expeditions have become highly specific - either going out with a group of photographers to shoot a particular event or thing - or more recently documenting my Italy and Iceland trips. I occasionally just wander around with a camera - but that has become increasingly rare. When it happens now, even that is more purposeful - i.e. a walk on the beach.

However, when actually taking the photos, my process has changed quite a lot. I try to shoot as fast I can (without autofocus) and worry about the exact composition of the shot during cropping (using exclusively primes and a rangefinder doesn't really support precise crops in-camera anyway). My exposures etc are typically decent right out of the gate, but I tweak the RAW file exposures a bit if required.

I am trying not to take so many pictures of nothing - I try to ask myself why I am taking any particular shot before I take it. Having said that, I have confidence in my photographic intuition, and I know that sometimes my inner eye sees something that my conscious mind does not. When in doubt, I take the shot - sometimes you see something wonderful in an obscure corner of the frame during review.

One thing that has certainly changed a lot in my process is the amount of post-processing that I do - and I suppose the M9 and lenses can be thanked for that. More and more, I am liking the images right out of the camera, and typically, I am only doing straightening and cropping. For some reason, I find almost every image needs to be straightened a bit. Maybe that is an aspect of using a rangefinder as well - but more likely, it is because I am shooting faster and reviewing less. I never chimp with the LCD at all anymore and have the N second review feature turned off completely.

In Iceland, I shot with 2 primes only. I would start with whatever lens I had on and shoot a location completely with that lens. If there was a need to do it, I would then change to the other lens and shoot the whole scene again. Sometimes, I even did a third video pass, if the situation required it.

[matthew]

Nia, I think that living with a camera is a great thing to do. I've tried it occasionally, but could never really manage.

So does that mean your method is wrong?
Or have you used up your local scene creativity. Maybe you should have a break.

I certainly don't want to imply that there's a right or wrong approach, or that the results have some sort of different validity, either then or now – not that I think that's what you're getting at, but I was worried that it might come across that way.

There is a certain amount of scenic fatigue, certainly; I need to get out and do something different. But that's not the whole story, because when I went to Ottawa and Chicago (two years ago for one, fifteen months for the other) I was quite happy to wander around and see what I could see, with results that I still like today. My three more recent trips to New York were entirely based around two projects, with the partial exception of some tourist snaps on my first trip. (It was my honeymoon, after all. )


Robert, it's good to have you back. It's a big jump from SLRs to rangefinders, but how much of the change in your working methods is because of the change in camera gear, and how much of the change in camera gear was possible because of the change in your methods? I suspect that it's always something of a chicken-and-egg thing (a false conundrum: eggs were being laid by amphibians long before chickens came along) as I've had a hard hard time sorting out the cause and effect of my own shift toward film, but I'm always curious about how the mechanical equipment and personal vision interact.

[nia]

Nia, I think that living with a camera is a great thing to do. I've tried it occasionally, but could never really manage.

So does that mean your method is wrong?
Or have you used up your local scene creativity. Maybe you should have a break.

I certainly don't want to imply that there's a right or wrong approach, or that the results have some sort of different validity, either then or now – not that I think that's what you're getting at, but I was worried that it might come across that way.

There is a certain amount of scenic fatigue, certainly; I need to get out and do something different. But that's not the whole story, because when I went to Ottawa and Chicago (two years ago for one, fifteen months for the other) I was quite happy to wander around and see what I could see, with results that I still like today. My three more recent trips to New York were entirely based around two projects, with the partial exception of some tourist snaps on my first trip. (It was my honeymoon, after all. )


Robert, it's good to have you back. It's a big jump from SLRs to rangefinders, but how much of the change in your working methods is because of the change in camera gear, and how much of the change in camera gear was possible because of the change in your methods? I suspect that it's always something of a chicken-and-egg thing (a false conundrum: eggs were being laid by amphibians long before chickens came along) as I've had a hard hard time sorting out the cause and effect of my own shift toward film, but I'm always curious about how the mechanical equipment and personal vision interact.

Dear Matthew, I don't know how it works or how I manage this... Can you believe this, when we were in Devizes, we walked everyday on the same walking path to the center of town. And everytime I took pictures, my husband was asking me, "Nia, haven't you taken pictures in here?"... Yes, but everyday there is a new touches for my camera... Even you know I always take Istanbul and Bosphorus' pictures... but they are all being different. Another point too (about me) if I make a plan for example, I decide that "I would take only cats"... I can't see any cat.... yes. I know it is strange... In Bournemouth I wanted to make a video record for the seagulls' screaming... and whenever I tried to do it, they stopped!!!!! So I gave up.... (I know these kind of projects needs to be patient and to be professional, and I am just an amateur one and not patient one too)

Thank you once again, it's been a very interesting topic, I like to read you all.
with my love,
nia

[Zig]

Really nice subject for a thread, both in terms of general musings and also seeing how all of us think.
(Quick divergence: good to see Rob and Nia back...looking forward to some detail about where you both visited!)

A change in gear has invariably determined both what and how I shoot...yet that change has been driven by what I like to shoot: as you say, Matthew, the egg/chicken phenomenon.
Time was, all I did was monochrome landscapes, which drove my switch from Nikon 35mm to Bronica 6x4.5 then Pentax 6x7: indeed, the patterns I learnt at that time largely govern both landscape shooting(a staid, "thirds"-style wideangled shot with lots of lead-lines) and any image at all(metering, finding the "average-grey" reflectivity areas, hyperfocal length).
Mind you, the switch from medium-format and manual film, to largely-automatic digital, had two main consequences:
Firstly, the autofocus telephoto: ...whoopeee...!..whizz-click and a whole new world of people and things, along with that mad compression of perspective...all a new toy for me, who had used a 45mm wideangle on a 67 format system.
Secondly: Laziness. I mean come on: rewritable digital media with massive storage, multi-segment metering, autofocus...my reliance on these dulls my edge even to this day.
On that point, a pattern I'd like to re-adopt would be to somehow limit my shots to just 10 a card(!), as I'd sure really think about the shot en entière before rattling away in hope then just making do.
Things that don't change: One oddly unchanged technique I have is to shoot landscapes primarily in vertical format(much more depth and movement for me somehow).....another unchangeable as far as I'm concerned is that I MUST have an optical viewfinder( I just cannot abide having my eye actually away from the image I'm seeing...heck, even putting the mirror up freaks me out, and like Toad I don't even see the need for review screen let alone having live view)
There are kit-driven things that have made a huge difference, yet others that have made none: my poor Tamron 90mm macro rarely sees the light of day....yet the Zeiss has practically ensured I'll never buy a Canon lens unless I one day get a mad urge to shoot niche stuff that requires a very long telephoto. My point being that the excellent Tamron couldn't carry off a raft of macros, as I just haven't the internal heart or vision for them, nor do I readily "see" shots in that sort of focal length...I'd rather use a wideangle for a portrait, tell you the truth. If the Zeiss 21 had not even existed, I'd still have to have a wide somewhere between 16 and 24mm, however.
I think one long-term change that has happened overall, is that when I first began shooting, I chose landscapes partly because I had no desire whatsoever to see a human being in the shot; now, however, I seem to have engaged much more with including humans, as if I've moved from the "pictorially representational" to something more suggestive, symbolic and universal...a kind of move from the subjective to the objective, so to speak.

[Toad]

Robert, it's good to have you back. It's a big jump from SLRs to rangefinders, but how much of the change in your working methods is because of the change in camera gear, and how much of the change in camera gear was possible because of the change in your methods? I suspect that it's always something of a chicken-and-egg thing (a false conundrum: eggs were being laid by amphibians long before chickens came along) as I've had a hard hard time sorting out the cause and effect of my own shift toward film, but I'm always curious about how the mechanical equipment and personal vision interact.

Good point. I agree with you that my recent choices in gear are part of a personal evolution away from complexity and bulk to simplicity and portability. In that sense, the chicken (me) has hatched the egg. However, having gone the whole nine yards to a manual focus camera and only 2 primes (OK - I still technically own the 90s but that is just lack of time - not lack of sales commitment), now the egg is starting to influence the chicken. I am forced to slow down and observe more. I can't depend on the camera to do it all itself anymore - I have to zoom with my feet and forget about chasing fast moving targets with the autofocus whirring happily along in pursuit.

I think that I am happier this way, and my Italy / Iceland shots are reflecting the change (both in hardware and in attitude). I still miss autofocus though.

(Quick divergence: good to see Rob and Nia back...looking forward to some detail about where you both visited!)

Iceland is truly amazing - like no place I have ever been. The only things missing from the landscape are pterodactyls. I took 1371 still photos and 133 video clips of varying lengths. Of the still photos, I have about 125 that I think are smashing and about as many again in second takes or with very similar subject matter that didn't quite make the "A" group. That is based on a fairly quick review only, and there may well be a lot of gold to be panned in the remainder yet. I haven't reviewed the video clips yet, but they primarily fall into 3 thematic groups, so there should be a trio of videos hiding in there somewhere.

On that point, a pattern I'd like to re-adopt would be to somehow limit my shots to just 10 a card(!), as I'd sure really think about the shot en entière before rattling away in hope then just making do.

I agree with you on that one. Less is more. My shooting ratio (keepers / shots taken) when I used film was much higher than with digital - possibly because each shot cost me money. When I was backpacking in Iceland and couldn't charge my single camera battery for 6 days, all the while in the midst of incredible landscapes, I was hugely more selective about what I photographed and the results show that clearly.

...another unchangeable as far as I'm concerned is that I MUST have an optical viewfinder( I just cannot abide having my eye actually away from the image I'm seeing...heck, even putting the mirror up freaks me out, and like Toad I don't even see the need for review screen let alone having live view)

Amen Brother Zig. I will never own another camera without a proper viewfinder.

I think one long-term change that has happened overall, is that when I first began shooting, I chose landscapes partly because I had no desire whatsoever to see a human being in the shot; now, however, I seem to have engaged much more with including humans, as if I've moved from the "pictorially representational" to something more suggestive, symbolic and universal...a kind of move from the subjective to the objective, so to speak.

That has also been my recent pattern - and in that, I think that you have been an influence on me.

[matthew]

Another point too (about me) if I make a plan for example, I decide that "I would take only cats"... I can't see any cat.... yes. I know it is strange... In Bournemouth I wanted to make a video record for the seagulls' screaming... and whenever I tried to do it, they stopped!!!!! So I gave up....

I can completely believe that. Manhattan, the core of New York City, is defined by its very strong street grid that puts cross-streets really close together. All of the taxis accelerate hard to the next red light, where their brakes squeal as the jam to a halt, and they spend the whole time in between honking at each other. That combines with the tall buildings and lack of trees or grass to create a sound that's very distinctively New York. Capturing it with my audio recorder was one of my secondary goals for my last trip, and every time I took it out all of the cabbies drove like meek little ducklings.

On that point, a pattern I'd like to re-adopt would be to somehow limit my shots to just 10 a card(!), as I'd sure really think about the shot en entière before rattling away in hope then just making do.

I once tried to only take one photo per day. That didn't last very long. :/

I have to agree with the correlation between digital and… well, "sloppiness" isn't the right connotation, so I'll say "imprecision". When I use a digital camera I'm much more likely to take three identical photos than I am to just take one and move on. On the other hand, I've recently started a project that I couldn't do with my film equipment and have had tremendous success – in my own mind, at least – by treating my D700 very similarly to my GX680. I even happened to be using a manual focus lens.

…another unchangeable as far as I'm concerned is that I MUST have an optical viewfinder( I just cannot abide having my eye actually away from the image I'm seeing...heck, even putting the mirror up freaks me out….

That's one of those different ways of working that would never occur to me. If my camera is on a tripod, I'm almost never looking through the viewfinder when I take a photo, and I probably shoot blind with my P&S about 60% of the time.

However, having gone the whole nine yards to a manual focus camera and only 2 primes (OK - I still technically own the 90s but that is just lack of time - not lack of sales commitment), now the egg is starting to influence the chicken. I am forced to slow down and observe more. I can't depend on the camera to do it all itself anymore - I have to zoom with my feet and forget about chasing fast moving targets with the autofocus whirring happily along in pursuit.

I think that I am happier this way, and my Italy / Iceland shots are reflecting the change (both in hardware and in attitude). I still miss autofocus though.

I continue to be impressed by, and a little jealous of, your ability to simplify. The best I've been able to do is hypothetically wean myself down to three cameras, but I'd really miss the fourth one.


A random thought that I've had: I wonder what would annoy me more - hanging out with a photographer who's just like I was two years ago, or with one who's just like me now?

[Toad]

However, having gone the whole nine yards to a manual focus camera and only 2 primes (OK - I still technically own the 90s but that is just lack of time - not lack of sales commitment), now the egg is starting to influence the chicken. I am forced to slow down and observe more. I can't depend on the camera to do it all itself anymore - I have to zoom with my feet and forget about chasing fast moving targets with the autofocus whirring happily along in pursuit.

I think that I am happier this way, and my Italy / Iceland shots are reflecting the change (both in hardware and in attitude). I still miss autofocus though.

I continue to be impressed by, and a little jealous of, your ability to simplify. The best I've been able to do is hypothetically wean myself down to three cameras, but I'd really miss the fourth one.


A random thought that I've had: I wonder what would annoy me more - hanging out with a photographer who's just like I was two years ago, or with one who's just like me now?

Well, for what it'a worth, the photographers that do hang out with me tend to accept my maniacal thrust towards simplification, but they argue it with me ad infinitum...

I'm fortunate in that they seem to accept it as a *valid* choice even if they don't see themselves ever going that way. Fair enough.