My Opera
On attitude
Friday, October 2, 2009 7:41:35 PM
Recently I had to defend my portfolio (most of it can be seen here) and a member of the jury asked me to separate digital photos from those taken on film. I did so, and then I explained the difference in paradigms of shooting on each medium. Not that film was expensive, the mistakes were! I would gladly spend three rolls of Velvia or Portra VC if I knew I had The Photo, but the price of failing was a bit to high to act this way. I had to think a lot more so I killed many ideas in the start. As a result certain subjects or approaches were considered unworthy of photographing. Not anymore on digital and that explains the explosion of diversity seen on Flickr and elswhere.
"But don't you think that rapid and thought-less shooting [common on digital] leaves you with photographs of lesser quality?" the jury asked.
"Perhaps," I answered. "Perhaps that is what happened to me in the first weeks after I made the switch from analogue to digital. But then one has to find a balance between the paradigms of film-like planing or contemplation and high-speed-intuitive action (believed to be common on digital)."
That is not a bad answer, however, it is not an accurate one. What I should answer is the following:
Rapid shooting is just a technique. It has been popular in sports photography for decades (even on film) because it is the only way to ensure a good photograph. It doesn't mean sports photographers are careless, they need this technique. Often they do a lot of thinking and planing in advance (before the competition). They examine the light, camera angles, athletes' motion (etc) and set up their work flow hours before the actual exposure. Then they shoot their thing. This video might be a good example.
Rapid shooting is essential to get a good photograph.
In landscape or fine art photography rapid shooting is often no advantage. No matter what medium (digital or film), photos have to be well composed and properly lit. And there the "film paradigm" is still well practiced on digital.
A technique/medium should not be confused with the attitude! If one has a careless attitude towards the art and photography, one remains ignorant on film as well as on digital. But if one seeks for perfection, the medium doesn't matter.
"But don't you think that rapid and thought-less shooting [common on digital] leaves you with photographs of lesser quality?" the jury asked.
"Perhaps," I answered. "Perhaps that is what happened to me in the first weeks after I made the switch from analogue to digital. But then one has to find a balance between the paradigms of film-like planing or contemplation and high-speed-intuitive action (believed to be common on digital)."
That is not a bad answer, however, it is not an accurate one. What I should answer is the following:
Rapid shooting is just a technique. It has been popular in sports photography for decades (even on film) because it is the only way to ensure a good photograph. It doesn't mean sports photographers are careless, they need this technique. Often they do a lot of thinking and planing in advance (before the competition). They examine the light, camera angles, athletes' motion (etc) and set up their work flow hours before the actual exposure. Then they shoot their thing. This video might be a good example.
Rapid shooting is essential to get a good photograph.
In landscape or fine art photography rapid shooting is often no advantage. No matter what medium (digital or film), photos have to be well composed and properly lit. And there the "film paradigm" is still well practiced on digital.
A technique/medium should not be confused with the attitude! If one has a careless attitude towards the art and photography, one remains ignorant on film as well as on digital. But if one seeks for perfection, the medium doesn't matter.
