Ben Horne wrote:
I knew you would chime in on this thread -- I always appreciate your thoughts, and the points that you raise with your eloquent writing. The third method mention makes a lot of sense, and it is something that I have utilized now that I think about it. It's a bit like puzzle pieces... you can see bits of each element, and it's just a matter of finding the composition or specific subject that threads them together.
In discussing my shooting trips with some non-photographer friends and family, they often ask why I choose to visit the same locations again and again. They will say that I should go somewhere new, and see something different. I then explain to them that I visit these same locations again and again for that very reason -- to see something new, and to see something different -- but within the same location itself. When I'm away from these places, I often think of shots I wish to capture based on my experiences in the past, and that fuels my desire to return.
This is a beautiful photograph Ben. I really can't say anything that hasn't already been said. Print this one BIG, it's made for a gallery.
I've had a photograph floating around in my head for the last few years and no matter how much I hike through Florida, I've yet to find it. Hopefully, I stumble on mine just like you've done here.
On a side note though, this photograph is somewhat a trick on the senses. Viewing the Virgin River in that glow, makes it seem so inviting. Yet, as I've found out in the past, that water is absolutely freezing.
Ben Horne wrote:
I’ve learned that there are two primary methods of “seeing” as a landscape photographer. The first is to wander around — be inspired by what you see, then capture the beauty of nature as you see it. The second is to envision a shot in your mind that was inspired by nature — then intentionally seek that image. I find that many of my photos were created using the second method.
Beautiful Velvia tones and texture in this. It will look great in a large print.
As for the "seeing the image" thing, although it happens from time to time I rarely use the first method anymore. Most of the images I make these days are planned well in advance, sometimes months. When planning a shoot in a place I haven't been before I will spend hours on Google Earth. I will pick all the promising locations and send the GPS data to my SUV. Once there, I can skip the miles and miles of looking around and go to the four or five places I've already picked. I can refine the image there but it has been visualized beforehand. I now also use cloud model data from the Canadian Weather Office - very accurate! I had used this model for years in my astrophotography but now I also use it to make sure I have the best conditions for a shoot. Matter of fact, I was supposed to be on the road to a location today and canceled because of the cloud model. It is that accurate. That model is here with animations: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/astro/clds_vis_e.html
This method has worked very well for me in the last couple of years.
