p.2 #1 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Why is this still necessary today? If the idea originates in your mind and the prompts are created with great motifs and perfect lighting at your desk, then you can simply skip this mundane technical step.
p.2 #2 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
For me they go together. I enjoy learning techniques, being outside not really knowing what I might see. Sometimes the results are good and sometimes not so much but the enjoyment of the entire experience keeps me going.
p.2 #3 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Why is this still necessary today? If the idea originates in your mind and the prompts are created with great motifs and perfect lighting at your desk, then you can simply skip this mundane technical step.
p.2 #4 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
For me, the part of the experience that is meaningful has little to do with the camera part. It is absorbing the view and thinking about what I want to shoot. A combination of being present in that moment and pre-visualization of the image that I want.
Getting the image is equally as satisfying. In general, if I have a strong feeling about the shooting experience itself, it is because the gear got in the way of the shot or failed in some way…AF sticking on the wrong spot, wrong filter on lens….
If I have strong positive feelings about the gear, it is almost always after the fact: wow! That 135 really made the beautiful bokeh that I wanted. Wow! Every single frame of the whale jumping is focused exactly where I wanted it to be.
p.2 #5 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Jman13 wrote:
Not sure if sarcasm.
Not at all. Those were my thoughts on Roaming Scott's statement:
"I guess in my case, I find the mechanical bits of photography rather dull, and my excitement comes from a combination of seeing good light on an interesting subject with my eyes and internalizing what kind of photo it could turn out to be in the end. My creative process involves two steps...one in my mind before the shutter button, and one behind my desk when I get back home."
A positive side effect would be that one would no longer have to waste time on sharpness and decentering tests.😉
p.2 #6 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Grenache wrote:
For me, the part of the experience that is meaningful has little to do with the camera part. It is absorbing the view and thinking about what I want to shoot. A combination of being present in that moment and pre-visualization of the image that I want.
Jim
As silly as it may sound, I take a lot of my creative inspiration from John Mayer. He's talked about the repetition required to have the instrument fade away as a tool and have it be a blank canvas on which to actualize the patterns in his mind. He no longer "plays the guitar", and the guitar itself isn't particularly important. It's more about seeing the music in his mind and it comes out automatically in the way in which he is visualizing. His playing "form" is simply akin to our processing...bending a note is just a slider to him
p.2 #7 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I want to add a couple of things to what I wrote earlier.
Someone mentioned heightened awareness while photographing, and I think this is true to an extent — though it might also be heightened focus on a narrower range of things at the expense of noticing other aspects. At times, after focusing intensely on making a photograph and finishing that, it is almost like the sound comes back on in the world after I ignored it while thinking visually. (In my experience, this is similar to what has been called the “flow” experience that we have when engaged in highly focused activities such as rock climbing, musical performance, etc.).
Also, I cannot divorce the experience of making photography from the post-processing stage. I’m just starting when I click the shutter in the field, and I don’t feel like making the exposure is remotely close to the totality of the experience. In fact, after I make that exposure, I often more or less forget about it until I come back to the file to work on it in post.
Regarding gear and the potential pleasure of using it, that doesn’t really resonate for me. Gear is simply tools, and while good tools and deep familiarity with them are critical, ideally the tool stuff more or less goes on auto-pilot and/or disappears from my conscious thought. (This is also similar to musical performance, where operating the instrument becomes so intuitive and automatic that it gets little conscious thought, freeing the mind to focus on the music as music.)
p.2 #8 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I guess I would ask the question "If the experience is not rewarding to you, then why are you doing this?".
I'm very much on the side of the experience matters the most to me. My photographic habits today are very much based on having been a large format photographer before the digital revolution. I think it matters that I also rarely do this on commission. I'm not a volume shooter and am comfortable not taking any images on an outing. That's definitely a carryover from the LF days and today when I'm out with friends they often remind me to take multiple shots with different settings since image files don't cost. Like, gdanmitchell, the photograph for me is the entire process, seeing, capturing, processing, printing. I enjoy processing quite a bit and as my skills in the computer have mostly caught up to my darkroom skills I will spend a significant amount of time with one or two images.
p.2 #9 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
There is hardly anything I can add after the two posts above that well express my feelings.
I like doing photography because of the "photographer's eye" that it helps to develop, the pleasure of converting the raw files into images that bring joy (from time to time), and revisiting some memories from the past when looking at the old pictures. The process - actual act of taking a picture typically doesn't take much time (can be seconds) and doesn't involve much thinking, I rely on my instincts. The post-processing can be long and sometimes torturous - but to me this is the more important stage that can make an impressive picture or produce an ugly one.
p.2 #10 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I really enjoy being out there, love shooting, observing, and I really do like a lot of what I capture (I think I'm decent). My challenge it that it is beyond difficult to actually grab an image that doesn't look like just another iteration of some other really good shot that I've taken before (or seen someone else take before). Even when I look at the images of those considered to be "top" nature photographers, a lot of what I see that is impressive is more due to their ability to go to really amazing places with amazing subjects. Once you understand the technical side (assuming you have an "eye"), it's being in the proverbial right place at the right time that is the actual difference maker. At least is seems that way to me.
Note: I feel like I should add...I HATE post-processing so I make every attempt to get things as close to what I want when I take the picture. As much as I love being outside...I go bonkers when I'm stuck inside. It's definitely not helpful for me, but...oh well.
p.2 #11 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
DWOfPaul wrote:
When taking photos for yourself, do you find yourself prioritizing getting the photo or the experience of getting the photo?
For example, do you find yourself gravitating towards superzooms that let you capture a larger variety of photos quicker, or do you prefer sticking with a few MF primes because you enjoy the experience better, even if you miss some photo opportunities along the way? Similarly, on the camera side, do you prefer a larger camera with better AF, higher FPS, and more features, or a smaller, lighter, and more portable camera?
I dont really think about it like that
I avoid super zooms but have used happily at times. Definitely not willing to give up the flexibility of zooms since they are excellent but also I do a lot of macro. And macro lenses tend to be primes.
Definitely prefer zooms on landscape although I used to use primes. Of course zooms can be better than primes, as well. Primes tend to be available having faster apertures for low light, I use them for that occasionally too
p.2 #12 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
DWOfPaul wrote:
When taking photos for yourself, do you find yourself prioritizing getting the photo or the experience of getting the photo?
For example, do you find yourself gravitating towards superzooms that let you capture a larger variety of photos quicker, or do you prefer sticking with a few MF primes because you enjoy the experience better, even if you miss some photo opportunities along the way? Similarly, on the camera side, do you prefer a larger camera with better AF, higher FPS, and more features, or a smaller, lighter, and more portable camera?
Not really sure exactly what "experience of getting the photo" means.
Big camera for shooting, small camera for carrying.
When they say "experience" does that mean actually taking the photo or walking around with camera or fiddling with it?
p.2 #13 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
KankRat wrote:
Big camera for shooting, small camera for carrying.
Just taking pictures indoors all the time gets boring after a while, I think. And what's the point of carrying a camera around if not to take pictures?
p.2 #14 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I don’t do it for the money so personally it’s 80/20 experience / results. Coming home with great images from memorable trips is very satisfying.
Having a part in dogs getting rescued or funds being raised for great causes partly through my photos is gratifying. Having a niece tell me it saved the day having wedding shots when their hired “pro” screwed them over was priceless.
For someone with GAS - photography is a pretty good hobby and very engaging pursuit.
p.2 #15 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I just shoot for fun. So to make it fun, the camera needs to be nice to use. There is no reason to use the camera if it beomces a pain. The "experience" of using the equipment, thus, becomes part of the process. If the photos are good in the end it just adds to the overall satisfaction.
It is a bit like people drawing or doing other crafts like sewing, furniture, sculpting, whatever. One thing doing it for money, another doing it for hobby.
As such, the ergonomics and tactile experience of the equipment becomes part of the overall experience. Think of it like this: if you are flying from A to B, the aim is to get to B. You can do that in economy or you can do that in first class and everything in between. It is pointless paying for anything more than economy but I know what everyone would do if money was no object. Yet on some flights you have to get an economy on a turboprop as that's the only option.
p.2 #17 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Maybe a different way to think about it is that the best gear in a shoot allows you to forget about the gear…basically to be confident that it will deliver.
Ironically, that does not mean that the gear doesn’t add to the experience. It instead means that it enables the experience NOT to be about the gear.
I would rather think about the gear prior to purchase than while I am shooting.
p.2 #19 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
Taken together, the questions here attempt to convince readers that you can use 'superzooms' (an oxymoron for many, no one needs to call their prime lenses 'superprimes') mounted on larger, more lavishly featured, more rapid AF with multi-frame shooting capability cameras that miss fewer photo opps, and of images with greater variety. Or not. The questions are trying to get you to agree with the premise.
That's a lot of words to put in someone's mouth, inside a false dichotomy with obvious category errors. You see the framing here, I trust. The boosting, the positivity. Besides the implied negativity of the alternative, we have several critical 'suggest words' for the opposite camera/lens usage being set up here: 'few' (less impressive), 'miss' (obviously a bag thing), 'sticking with' (being a anti-progress Luddite).
This textual analysis method is called 'fisking', a very valuable technique used to break down text, and to cut through the poorly separated and poorly clarified concepts being expressed. Once you break down the errors of logic and overlaps in categories, it all settles out. Look for the value-laden terms first, they lead you to the hidden agenda and the biases.
fisking:
Comprehensive Deconstruction: Unlike a summary, fisking addresses the specific details, allowing for a line-by-line rebuttal.
Exposes Inconsistencies: By breaking down the argument into smaller parts, it becomes easier to spot logical fallacies or direct contradictions between different parts of the text.
Contextual Analysis: It allows for the insertion of counter-arguments, facts, or data immediately following a questionable statement, making the critique highly targeted.
p.2 #20 · Getting the photo vs the experience of getting the photo
I don’t see this as an argument. This is a gear forum and most here take some level of pleasure with the gear they use and upgrade, etc. If that enhances your experience then great.
And as some have mentioned that’s just one part of the process and some prefer to enjoy post processing a good photo over the shooting experience. I don’t think there is an argument to be win or lost here. It’s all fairly personal at an individual level.
