Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Damage & Getting the Shot (was Best way to see dust in the lens?)

Subject: [OM] Damage & Getting the Shot (was Best way to see dust in the lens?)
From: "Rich" <deepkeel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 05:36:39 -0700
Dan wrote,
>Working fast/moving is important to get the shot

Sometimes.  Working fast and/or moving are just two of many ways to "get the
shot"... think of Ansel Adams' slow, contemplative work with awkward, heavy,
large format gear.  In some cases, however, even he worked fast to get the
shot, such as "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941:

http://www.geh.org/taschen/htmlsrc15/m197400820001_ful.html#topofimage

He was driving down the highway, saw the scene, pulled over and set up as
fast as he could in fast fading light.  Not his normal technique, but all
his years of experience paid off.  He knew his equipment well and did a
quick mental exposure calculation.  Notice the reflected light off the
buildings & esp. the tombstones.

Most of my photos are purposely taken in rather slow fashion, when possible.
I try not to hurry, not so much to save the equipment, although that is
important to me, as to get the the best composition, level horizon, sharp
focus, etc.  I was shocked when I got back my prints from this year's
highland games.  I cut off the feet of way too many people.  Argh!  I
thought I had mastered that, but many of my shots were somewhat hurried in
trying to "capture the moment," and the feet just didn't  quite make it in
the frame.  The one instance where I felt I largely succeeded in "working
fast" was standing alone, the only photographer out on the field, in front
of thousands, as the Simon Fraser pipe band marched, playing, straight at
me.  My heart was pounding.  Almost every piper in the front row was looking
right at me (or so it seemed), and I was sure some judge or official would
rush over and order me to leave immediately and never come back.  My uncle
later calmly remarked, "They are used to that everywhere they go."  Well,
heck, I just may do it again next year with another lens and/or film just to
compare results!  I won't feel so rushed & scared next time. 28mm up close &
personal (gulp), or 300 with 2x from the end of the field (easier on the
heart).

Another way to "get the shot" is to just raise your camera and "snap"
whatever presents itself to your eye.  Yuk.  This seems to be the technique
of the bulk of the P&S crowd.  "Good enough."

There were two great photo articles in Sunday's Seattle Times.  The first
was about a local gal who photographs pregnant women.  Story details how she
came to this subject through her education in photography.  She mentions one
photography class she was in where the men were all enthusiastic while
snapping shots of women in lace stockings, etc., but seemed to fail to see
the beauty of a completely nude woman against a stark white background, a
"picture" of beautiful forms which just grabbed her.  She was obviously
tuned in to other aspects of the situation than the men.  She LISTENS to the
women she photographs, and listens & observes the interactions between the
women and their husbands/partners if the men are present (sometimes included
in the photos) during the session.  This to me is a "zen" thing.  When I'm
out of doors, I "tune in" to what's going on:  the weather, light,
situation... and try to incorporate that into each of my photographs.  I ask
myself what's interesting about this scene?  How can I compose, focus, etc.
to get the "truth" or essence of it captured best?  Awareness.  I'm not
explaining this well, and I'm way better at this with my eye & head than I
am so far with photo technique, choice of lenses, filters, etc.  But it's a
major aspect of how I "get my shot."

Another way to "get the shot" is to visualize it and then MAKE it happen
(sort of what I did with the pipers - I wanted a head-on shot of THAT front
row of THAT band in action - I swallowed hard and went for it).  The other
article in the paper was about Galen Rowell, and featured among others his
most famous photo, that of the Rainbow over the (Dalai Lama's) Potala
Palace, Lhasa, Tibet:

http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.tibet/aa0019pic.html

He saw the rainbow off to one side of the scene, the palace off to the
other, hurried out of the truck grabbing pounds of camera gear, and took off
RUNNING out of sight, to the amusement of his traveling companions, who took
their snapshots from where they were.  He took insurance shots along the
way, but finally arrived at a spot where the rainbow ended right ON the roof
of the palace, thus MAKING the shot he visualized when he first viewed the
scene.

Yet another way: Rowell spent days in some cases at one spot, or returning
to one spot time after time, ala Ansel Adams, waiting for the right shot to
present itself.  This brings to mind the photographer (forget the name) in
Alaska who got the shot of the brown bear catching a salmon jumping past.
That shot took eight days of patience (and courage) at one spot.  Remember
that adage about "luck" being when preparation meets opportunity (also
applies to Adam's shot of Hernandez, N.M.)?

Another way:  around people, wait for an interesting interaction or facial
expression, etc.  I do this at family get togethers, parties.  I compose &
prefocus on a person or group, then wait patiently until something
interesting happens.  A facial expression changes dramatically.  Someone
gives a hug.  Two people become engaged in deep conversation.  Oftentimes,
people don't want to be photographed, or at least not more than a quick
snapshot.

Damage?  I would willingly risk damaging or even sacrificing a lens or body
in the process of getting a once-in-a-lifetime photograph.  sssssssss


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz