Over the weekend I did some scanning and worked on a photo
project. One thing that I noticed as I dug through 20 years of
slides is that prior to Digital, a lot of my images are quite
dreadful. What I thought was good is now pedestrian. In
reality, I probably only took two to three "portfolio grade"
pictures per year. You've already seen most of them. In the
past three years, since going digital, I've shot more "portfolio
grade" images each year than all the previous years combined.
Much of that is through sheer quantity. But another aspect is
the instant-feedback. Looking at the instant-review provides a
rather crude "hey moron!" moment to you. What looked fantastic
in the viewfinder yields a stark reminder as to why you're still
flying a desk for a living. Right away you know that the idea
stunk up the show. How many slides I've thrown away because I
didn't catch the errant branch, slanted horizon, or lopsided
composition. A quick "chimp" will yield greater feedback to
photography improvement than nearly anything else. Chimps are
not just for exposure!
What about the tool itself? I'd suggest that my old OM-2S is
capable of better images than my digitals, but in reality it's
more a situation of what is more appropriate for a given
purpose. The E-1 might lack some of the "resolution" and
"detail" of some other digital cameras, but it's the rare 35mm
film image that even comes close to matching it.
Shutter-vibration, the archilies' heal of the OM series, has bit
more images than I ever care to admit. I like to wax poetic
about the OM's, but I'm reminded every time I use one just why
it is that they aren't my primary axes anymore. They still
serve a purpose, but usually only when it is advantageous to use
it.
I was looking at some Grand Canyon pictures taken exactly two
years ago. The Velvia slides have a "depth" to them the digital
images don't. It's subtle, but there. The digital images are
sharper, but the film images just possess a "yummy" look to
them. So many of my old pictures had the same lovely
tonalities, but something else made the entire image lame.
During my several years of B&W shooting, I also grew so much as
a photographer. I recognize this self-imposed limitation as a
critical part of my growth. It'll take me a couple years,
though, before I revisit those negatives in digital form.
One doesn't shoot 20,000 pictures in a year without doing some
growing. It's inevitable. But at the same time, I've
discovered that for my own artistic expression that I've
exhausted my old thoughts and visions. Finally, I'm starting to
get the urge to break free from the bonds of my photographic
history and express myself in new uncharted territories. This
is exciting and refreshing. Just as Bill Barber has
rediscovered photography through pin-hole cameras, I'm seeking a
look which is both unique and refreshing--putting the emphasis
on form and shape, light and dark and eye-flow. I want the
picture to be "music to the eyes". An experience, not just
something to "look at" but to draw you in with your emotional
being.
This is my goal for 2007--to create and implement this new
"vision" and to have a gallery showing of it by year's end. This
is both attainable and reasonable. My travel plans will be
influenced by this as well as other aspects of my personal and
professional life. Meanwhile, I must not look down on my
previous work because it doesn't fit my new current vision.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|