Over the last year, I've been paying attention to how other people's images affect me, and I started to recognize a certain pattern in what I tend to enjoy looking at. Nothing so straightforward as, "I like cat pictures", or " I like flower pictures", but rather images with a certain "feel" to them that can involve, really, any subject matter that comes down the pike. I'm especially drawn to shots that came about accidentally, images that came out not as expected or intended, but have a certain draw despite this - in some cases, they end up delivering an emotive punch that would be lacking in a more technically perfect, planned shot. There are also point-the-camera-and-see-what-happens or "what if?" kind of shots. All of them, happy accidents.
In my own work lately, I've tried to apply the "what if" principle more often; today's post pic is an example of one of my "what if I threw everything out of focus" experiments [since it's a Lensbaby shot, there's already a fair bit of defocus built into the exercise, but that time I let everything fall just short of the "sweet spot"]. Admittedly, much of the time such experimentation yields nothing special; but when you come up with that one shot out of a hundred it's pure, joyful serendipity. I much prefer to let the camera show me what it sees, than to force it to keep only to my own vision - boy, does that sound unbearably pompous. Ok, I've been sitting here trying to think of another way to put it, but really that's exactly what goes on with "happy accident" shots, I'll have to risk the pomposity: those images that work best (work best for me), are those where I've stepped back from full control over the camera, the setting, the subject, the light, and let a little (or a lot) of chance into the mix.
But if the exercise is deliberate, how serendipitous is the result, really? Still pretty much so, I think - accidents aren't necessarily about waiting around for something to happen, you can certainly foster the environment to encourage it well enough. So what I would like to do, for 2009's SoFoBoMo, is to spend the month working on fostering an environment (or in this case, a technique) that will help me discover 35 photographic serendipities.
The technique I want to work on is double exposure. Real, honest-to-goodness, in-camera double exposure. I say "in-camera" because I could - and I'm not suggesting it's a sort of comedown, it's simply another way to achieve a similar effect - overlay two shots in Photoshop, fiddle with various settings, and hey presto! produce a double exposure-like image. But while there is some chance involved in such a technique - choosing the images to overlay, happening on a setting I like - the exercise involves far more deliberation than I think would allow the result to be characterized as serendipitous. But in-camera fits the bill neatly - given that I shoot Canon digital, I'm pretty much on my own with regard to any magic that might have come boxed with the camera model - I know some Nikons have an image overlay feature, but no such thing exists in the cameras I have. I'll need to set the camera to bulb and hold a black card over the lens between exposing the two parts of the full exposure. I've been thinking over how to streamline the process, and it will definitely be challenging (details of which I'll mention in later posts as I go along). Unlike a film camera, I won't be able to take a picture and just refrain from advancing the film, and then recompose a second exposure later, as much "later" as I want.; but rather, because the shutter will be open the entire time, it will be important to set up each shot so that the full exposure is not very long at all, ideally no more than half a minute. That certainly imposes a certain level of constraint on the types of shots I can aim for. But I'm hoping the process will yield a bumper crop of surprise - and surprisingly effective - images.
Certainly this current project idea will involve a learning curve and a hefty dose of chance in the outcome, two aspects that might threaten to sink the whole endeavor completely. By not following a more familiar route, I risk making my experience with this project less relaxed and enjoyable, and less successful, ultimately. I worry, not so much that the project isn't worthy enough to pursue, but that the SoFoBoMo time constraints are an awful fit for it (I've been working on the technique lately, and the results have not been consistently encouraging). It is possible that while the basic idea of "serendipity" will not change, I may need to modify my methods and expectations along the way.
You said: "I much prefer to let the camera show me what it sees, than to force it to keep only to my own vision - boy, does that sound unbearably pompous."
ReplyDeleteWell I don’t think that it does (sound pompous).
I feel very strongly that the great magic of a camera is the lack of fidelity of which it is capable. In fact, it is this lack of fidelity that I pursue … when I take a picture I hope to make things look like they don’t. I’m a low-fidelity photographer. This partly explains my lack of interest in the tediously detailed, 'tack-sharp' shots (insect macros, water splashes, meticulous landscapes, pimped portraits) that so dominate the online photo communities. They strive to make pictures that are more realistic than real life. I much prefer pictures that are less realistic. It’s a paradox I suppose; more detail equals less communication, and vice-versa. Less is more, in other words.
The ‘happy accident’ aspect comes from the unpredictability of the process of low-fidelity photography. One may know approximately what is likely to happen, probably partly from instinct and partly from trial-and-error (e.g. Alexey Titarenko’s deliberate camera movement), but those glorious surprises, these serendipities, still happen for me nearly every time. I nearly always find a shot or two that ambushes me. It’s just the greatest thrill in photography.
LoFi, happy accidents, Low Brow...I think the key is experimenting. I'm pretty sure that's how we as people who take pictures grow.I have nothing against sharpness and what not...just the consistent excessive use of it. I played around with double/triple exposures a few weeks ago. It was the full moon, warm, breezy, and I wanted to be outside in it. So I took the cam out and started playing. It was fun.
ReplyDelete