Blog

Just what is 'Subject' in photography?

On the subject of ‘Subject’

by

If the truth be told, I believe that that well-intentioned piece of advice that they give you about composition (“Fill the frame with the subject”) has done more harm than good in helping people compose better pictures. And the reason for that – as I see it – is simple: failure to define one’s terms. In this case, failure to correctly definine just what we mean by “Subject”. 

 

Few things illustrate what I mean by the above better than the photo that is “the subject” of this post. Let me explain…

What is the subject in this photograph that I made while on one of my Photography Tours to Varanasi? The man? The dog? The garments hung out to dry?

If the subject is the man and/or the dog, what are the garments doing there? If the subject is the garments, what’s the man and dog doing there?

 

It’s evident, isn’t it? Neither the man, the dog, or the garments are THE SUBJECT in themselves!

 

Yet the entire image is complete; there’s nothing extraneous, nothing at all.

To cut a long story short, don’t confuse the individual elements (or, as I call them “points of interest”) in an image for subject. Yes, there *may* be a primary or dominant “point of interest”, but get out of that tendency of mistaking it for subject! You’ll severely hinder not only your ability to see, but also your ability to compose if you do that.

 

Rather than thinking of “filling the frame with with ‘the subject’ “, think in terms of “there should be nothing in the frame that is NOT subject“!

 

What then is “Subject”? Whatever you very, very deliberately put in the frame”. I repeat, there should be nothing in the frame which is NOT SUBJECT!”

And isn’t that part of what composition is, deciding just what to include in the frame?

 

Of course, you still need to figure out what “subject” is, just what to include in the frame and what to exclude. And of course, bring the elements that you do include together in a pleasing manner. That is part of what I teach in my online photography course titled “What a Wonderful World“. Hop over there to see what was The Best Photography Workshop in Mumbai was about before it went global!

 

And that’s that on the subject of “Subject”!

An Offer You Can't Refuse - Photography Masterclass Online - Neville Bulsara's What A Wonderful World

Color Creates The Light (Also, I’m Gonna Make You An Offer You Can’t Refuse)

by

The photograph that is the subject of this post was made towards the end of the monsoons , way back in 2018. I was visiting a friend’s farm, a short distance from Mumbai, and when I entered the living room, I was greeted with a spectacle of warm light filtering in through the windows, casting deep shadows in a room where the predominant color theme was deep browns and reds.

 

And in my mind I went “The Godfather!”

Color Creates The Light

You’ll remember it from the opening scene of the movie, an almost mystical quality to the warm orange light that illuminates the Don’s study. There is a sense of down-to-earth – yet luxurious –  coziness to the Don’s  environment, what with the smooth & soft rendering of the  Eastman Color Negative 100T 5254/7254 film the movie was shot on , accentuated by the very nature of the color that is orange light. But there is also a sinister feel to both the study and the Don himself, a feel brought about by the deep shadows and crushed blacks. You know from the word ‘Go!’ that frivolous business is not the nature of the Don, nor are the matters discussed in his study trivial; that they’re matters related to life and survival. And sometimes Death.

The color palette, the hues, tones, luminance, and saturation  — there’s nothing accidental or random about them; they’re very, very deliberate. Chosen to  trigger very specific emotional responses at the very core of your being, the better to create the mood which underlines the plot and tells a story. From the very first frame, the movie’s director – Francis Ford Copolla  – is using color to manipulate you and your emotions; using “Color to Create The Light” 

 

And you don’t even know that you’re being manipulated!

Ansel Adams  nailed it when he said – and I quote – “You don’t make a photograph just with a camera, you bring to the act of photography all the books you have read, the movies you have seen, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.”

Unfortunately, all that many bring to the making of a photograph is the camera; thankfully I’m not one of them.

 

Coming back to the photograph in this post – as I said, one look at the scene and my mind went “The Godfather”. And so I brought to the making of this photograph the movie I’d seen, my knowledge and understanding of tonalities, color theory and its practice, color psychology and a whole host of things too innumerable to list here. But from start to finish – from my choice of where to place the tones in my camera’s histogram to the final edit where I adjusted the tones and the colors – every thing was directed to a purpose: to create the look-and-feel of a seeing that could have been right out of The Godfather movie, complete with some of the emotions triggered in some of its indoor settings.

 

Color – how to see it, compose with it, lead the eye with it, and how to use it to “Create The Light” is just one of the topics I cover in my Online Photography Masterclass. Which brings us to the second part of the title post.

I'll Make You An Offer You Can't Refuse!

It was Marlon Brando – playing the role of Don Vito Corleone in the movie The Godfather – who delivers that line. Brando’s line occurs when Vito Corleone’s godson Johnny Fontane, played by Al Martino, asks his godfather for a favor. Fontane wants to become a film actor and needs Corleone’s help to secure the role, since he has already been turned down for it by the producer.

 

After Fontane comes crying to his godfather, literally, Corleone tells his godson, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” Later, the film cuts to a very memorable scene in the film producer’s bedroom, where he wakes up next to the head of his own racehorse. No surprise, Fontane gets the part and becomes a movie star.

An offer may seem like a negotiation; however, the offer in “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” really isn’t a gift or an exchange of services but a death threat, which is why “he can’t refuse.” Since mobsters are not known for negotiating, this line recurs throughout The Godfather trilogy in idea or words.

 

Rest assured, the offer I’m gonna make you isn’t a death threat.  But It Is An Offer You Can’t Refuse!  Not if you’re serious about taking your photography to the next level. 

Here’s the deal: head off  to Neville Bulsara’s What A Wonderful World : An Online Photography Masterclass on Visual Awareness, Visual Design, and Composition. Check it out; it’s very unlikely you won’t love it (unless of course you’re happy taking ho-hum photographs!). Check out the “Special Offers” there; it’s an offer you can’t refuse!

And if you do? Excuse me, but I gotta go practice my Don Corelone mannerisms!

The King is dead…

by

It is with mixed feelings that I announce the demise of what was Mumbai’s (India’s, actually!) Best Photography Workshop by far – “The Art Of Seeing” that I launched 12+ years back. I’m glad to say it was a success if ever there was one, going on to teach hundreds of participants who’ve since then realized the old truism, the one that goes that the most important gear in a photographer’s arsenal is the nut two inches behind the camera. I’m glad I played a role – albeit minor – in guiding them to a world where the ability to make a photograph had very little to do with the camera, and a hell of a lot to do with themselves.


The Art Of Seeing Workshop that I launched was literally a path-breaking one in India, given that all – and I mean ALL – photography workshops in India prior to mine focused solely on the technical issues of photography, totally ignoring the creative and artistic side of it. Since then, I’m glad to see that other players have begun to teach their version of The Art Of Seeing as part of their offerings. It’s satisfying to know I brought about a change in the way photography was viewed – or at least taught – in this country.


But all good things must come to an end, as does my Art Of Seeing Workshop as of today. I’m done with it.

 

Only to replace it with something else. Something Better. Something Global, available Wherever You Are!

 

It is with great pleasure that I announce the launch of  a new Online Photography Masterclass , one unlike any other. A Photography Masterclass on Visual Awareness, Visual Design & Composition. 

 

It’s aptly called “Neville Bulsara’s What A Wonderful World”.  I look forward to having you on board there, and helping you see – and photograph the world as you’ve never seen it before! 

 

The king is dead, long live the King!

Photography Workshop Varanasi Photography Workshop India Photography Tour Varanasi

Day #1 Update – Varanasi Photography Workshop

by

(For starters, apologies for missing the daily updates. As they say, the days were just packed!)

 

Picking up from where I left in my previous post – my flight finally left Mumbai at 1:15 p.m., touching down in Varanasi at around close to four. Peter meanwhile had written in saying that he’d grabbed lunch at one of the Lonely Planet recommended joints not too far from the ghats, and was quite – and I’m quoting him here – ‘Overwhelmed’…

I presume he was speaking about the sheer crush of people and the chaos (and not the food) that are part and parcel of Varanasi! 😂

“The trick is not to get overwhelmed because you won’t know what to shoot / point your lens at then. Don’t even think ‘I need to shoot’, because you won’t know where to begin. Just sit, observe and let the impressions and rhythm of the place wash over you. Let it tell you what of it and how to photograph it.”

My advise to him was – as it is to anyone else who find themselves overwhelmed with the visual and other chaos of a place is simply this: “The trick is not to get overwhelmed because you won’t know what to shoot / point your lens at then. Don’t even think ‘I need to shoot’, because you won’t know where to begin. Just sit, observe and let the impressions and rhythm of the place wash over you. Let it tell you what of it and how to photograph it.”

 

The ride from the airport to the hotel was a breeze, well, most of it at least. Travel time between the airport and city has been considerably reduced thanks to road-widening and several flyovers. Traffic in the city is another matter altogether; it took me as much as fifteen minutes to clear a stretch of road measuring just fifty meters or so, but then, that’s Varanasi for you – some things never change, and one really can’t expect the oldest continuously inhabited place on the planet to change much. And before I forget, let me add that I had to let go my cab and walk the last quarter of a kilometer to the hotel thanks to a roadblock the cops decided to enforce that day, the “better to manage traffic”; Hah!, as if that’s possible in Varanasi!

Got into the hotel at 5:35, met Peter in the lobby. Checked in, got up to my room and was down again in a few minutes, my camera gear in tow. Both Peter and I were putting up in the same hotel, strategically chosen as it was just a five or so minute walk from the ghats, which is where we were now headed for the evening aarti (worship ceremony) of the river Ganges.

 

No sooner had we reached the ghats that we met up with Aparna (a past-participant of my Art Of Seeing Photography Workshop) from Mumbai. Aparna – who was there with some of her friends – has an ancestral house in Varanasi, and on hearing that Peter and I were visiting, was kind enough to extend us an invite to dinner, one which was gracefully accepted. Some small – and not-so-small – talk followed; notable among the latter was Aparna pointing to the full-moon cresting the horizon and remarking “Tonight’s a full-moon, but there’s no way – what with both the scale of the aarti ceremony and the tonal contrast – that one can photograph it with the aarti...”

We agreed to meet up after the ceremony was over, and I guided Peter to a few spots from where I knew he’d get the photographs that matter. Looking around and giving him a run-down of what to expect and what to keep his eyes peeled out for, I suddenly blinked. Hard. And then I go “You know Pete, maybe we can’t photograph both together, but I do think we can photograph one in the context of the other…”

 

“Tonight’s a full-moon, but there’s no way – what with both the scale of the aarti ceremony and the tonal contrast – that one can photograph it with the aarti…”

Well Aparna, this one’s for you! 😊

The rest of the photographic part of the evening was spent in meeting up with the rest of our workshop participants – Tom and Sabrina,  both from Germany – and photographing the aarti ceremony.

I’d decided that I’d be shooting  with my Canon EOS 5,  tonight; given the coverage of the lens (100-400) I restricted myself to making some close-up story-telling images of the ceremony, as well as the people attending them. Image thumbnails are cropped; click on an image to see it large.

We wrapped up the evening with a boat ride to Kedar Ghat from where we headed to Aparna’s home for a delicious dinner and outstanding hospitality. I’d planned to call it an early night, but that was not to be; it was close to ten (or was it later?) by the time we got back to our hotel – the next day was going to be a long one!

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Varanasi Photography Tour Varanasi Photography Workshop

Varanasi Photography Workshop Update: Going, going, gone!

by

So here I am on Day #1 of The Gathering Of The Seers – Varanasi Photography Workshop, and I think this image says it all.

No, I’m not in Varanasi yet, this photograph is from a previous trip to Varanasi that I just decided to dig out of my archives. Is it apt? You bet!

For those unfamiliar with hindu religious customs, this is a photo of a religious ceremony in remembrance of the dead. It’s one of the innumerable sights that one is likely to come across along the river ghats.

So why am I posting this, and now? Well, I’m stuck at the airport in Mumbai what with my Air India flight to Varanasi now standing delayed by three frigging hours! The original flight time was 10:30, then pushed to 11:20, then 12:40, and now stands at 1:30. Owing to crew being unavailable before that if you please!

Well, I’m never going to fly AI again ever. But if you ask me, the ailing airline that AI is, I really think it’s gonna join the ranks of the also-ran soon. I think the airline is a gone case – going, going, soon to be gone!

On a lighter note, Peter from Mumbai has reached Varanasi, and messaged me to say that the cab driver at the airport tried to talk him into sampling Banarasi paan, and offered to take him shopping for sarees within minutes of Pete hopping into that-there cab! Ah, Varanasi! How I love thee!

Well that’s it for now, more updates to come. And that image – – apt, don’t you think?

Varanasi: Long Time, No See

by

Yep, as the title says. Put it down to family commitments, but it’s been a while. Well, that’s going to change over the next few days as that most incredible of location beckons!

Packing (“packing-shacking” as the Delhiites would put it) here for The Gathering Of The Seers 2018 – Varanasi Photography Workshop; begins tommorow. Four amazing days packed with photographing at the most amazing place on the planet, photo-review sessions, discussions and tips galore on tips and techniques on the Art and Science of Travel Photography, Photo-editing, and Visual Storytelling!

Watch this space for daily updates and photos!

Photography Tour Hampi

The Making Of “Lost City – Hampi”

by

As I repeatedly say in my Art Of Seeing Photography Workshop, “Remember this: you’re not making documentary images (unless that’s your goal). You’re communicating your FEELINGS!”

 

It was a relatively overcast day in Hampi when I shot the image. With the promise of rain quite apparent, I decided to leave the DSLR behind in the guesthouse and instead chose to explore the place with my Panasonic point-and-shoot. And when I landed up here, there wasn’t enough contrast in the scene. And so I let the history of the place wash over me, and what kept coming to mind was the “Lost City” bit.

 

I saw, I felt, I visualized, I shot – keeping in mind what I wanted to convey. The rest was a matter of the science and art of post-processing, dictated by what my heart kept telling me: “How do you make it seem like one is transported back in time to a Lost City?”

 

Here’s the before-after:

 

And to those who think it’s all about image-editing software and the camera, I’ll steal a leaf from Mr. Miyagi’s book (The Original Karate Kid movie, skip to 29 seconds into the video): “Photography & Editing here (tapping my head). Photography & Editing here (taping my heart). Photography & Editing never here (indicates finger used to click mouse button), never here (pointing to image editing software), and never here (pointing to camera).”

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Varanasi Photography Workshop Varanasi Photography Tour

The Gathering Of The Seers 2018 – Varanasi

by

VARANASI PHOTOGRAPHY WORKSHOP

The Gathering
Of
The Seers 2018

Begins in

Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds

The Gathering Of The Seers, 2018
Varanasi Photography Workshop

One location. Countless photographic opportunities. One mentor. Packed with learning. Eight Art of Seeing Workshop Participants. Fancy being one of them?

 

A 4-day guided, mentored photography conclave (exclusive to participants of my Art Of Seeing Photography Workshop) to the oldest, continuously inhabited place on the planet. Packed with daily photo-walks, discussions, lectures, invaluable tips,  image editing and review sessions and priceless travel photography and story-telling insights, this is an unrivaled opportunity for participants of The Art of Seeing Photography Workshop to put all their learning to the test and  further their artistic journey.

Where & When

Where: Another planet.
Because Varanasi is just that!

When:
December 22nd- 25th, 2018


Costs

₹ 12,000/-
(for Art of Seeing Workshop Participants only; if you aren't one, you can avail of this special price by attending The Art Of Seeing Workshop)
Includes cost of tuition, guided walks, and one boat ride. Costs do not include your travel, accommodation, meals, refreshments, laundry, or your bribe-the-local-politician-to-get-out-of-jail-free card.

Typical Itinerary

Day 1 – December 22nd: Arrive in Varanasi on the 22nd (or earlier). We meet up in the suite of your mentor at 4 pm for an introductory discussion about the evening shoot and tips on how to go about the process of photographing the Ganga Aarti. Head to the river ghats by around five, making photographs of the throngs of people there. Familiarize yourself with the location and vantage points before the ceremony begins. Evening photography of the ceremony followed by discussion of the evening session and a prelude to the next morning’s shoot over dinner at El-cheapo Varanasi Bhojan Bhandar (I’m sure there’s one by that name!); each-one-pay-for-somebody-else; what a great way to grab your dinner for free!

 

Day 2 – December 23rd: Converge at our designated meet-up point before dawn.  Make images of arriving pilgrims before taking a boat ride (four pax per boat), photographing the river and the worshipers along its banks. Then we’ll have a walk along a section of the ghats before returning to our respective hotels / hole-in-the-wall pads for breakfast. Later, meet up at your mentor’s suite for image-reviews and editing, followed by a presentation on Travel Photography and the Art of  Visual Storytelling. Break for lunch, meet up after that for a walk around the streets of Varanasi. The evening sees us photographing the worship ceremony again; you’ll be more prepared now what with the previous evening’s experience and all the stuff you’ll have learned today. Discussion over dinner regarding lessons learned and experience gleaned.

 

Day 3 – December 24th: Repeat first sentence from Day 1 above. We’ll spend the morning exploring and photographing the length of the ghats on foot, photographing activities as they unfold there – a very different point-of-view (as you know, I don’t use that term interchangeably with ‘Perspective’!) from the previous day’s shoot from the boat. Break for breakfast by the time the sun gets harsh. Make your way back to your mentor’s suite for more image reviews and editing. Break for lunch, then more editing and reviews until 4 pm.

 

I then “cry ‘havoc’, and let slip the seers” (with due apologies to old Julius C. You are literally on your own for the evening aarti today; alone as in you receive no tips from me from this moment. Not only do you have to rely on your own instincts, but there’s an additional challenge: I want you to photograph the aarti so that it’s something more than an aarti! Now how on earth do you do that? That’s up to you, but I’ll have slipped in a few pointers before I cry havoc!

 

Day 4 – December 25th: Your assignments for today are twofold, and stem from two observations of mine. (a) In this day and age , of places there are a glut of photographs, of place there are few. And (b) in an age where everything has been photographed, the only unique thing you can bring to photographing a place is your self. So I’ll cry havoc again, and let loose the seers. Walk the ghats, take a boat ride. Or maybe just sit and observe. Whatever be your choice – your images – no matter how few – should reflect you and your feelings. They should begin to be uniquely You!

 

Over lunch we discuss your impressions , feelings and learning and discoveries; the image reviews of today are left for once we get back to Mumbai. We end at 4 PM, the workshop’s at a close. But for you it’s a new beginning….

 

I once casually remarked that Seeing is just the beginning. The camera is just a tool to begin to see. For those willing, it can take one further…

 

Ready to go from Seeing to Being? If so, email me at info @ stopsoflight.com now! Seats are limited, and are strictly on a first-come-first-served basis.

 

(Again, please note that this particular workshop is available only  to my Art Of Seeing Workshop participants)

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
What Bruce Lee Can Teach You About Photography

What You Can Learn About Photography From Bruce Lee

by

If Bruce Lee had been alive today, and had he visited many of the several groups and pages(thankfully, not all!)  dedicated to Photography on Facebook, he’d have killed himself.

 

 

But before that he’d have shaken his head  in dismay and repeated those immortal words of his; words that go:

In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by this classical mess”

Lee felt (and rightly so!) that human beings possess an innate ability to defend themselves, and that the role of training in the martial arts was simply to better it. What he observed, however, was what he termed “a Classical Mess” ; an over-emphasis on styles, technique, kata (form or a set of movements), rules, and methods. These led to an ossification – a literal stagnation – in not only the martial arts themselves but also in the ability of practitioners to effectively deal with self-defence situations. This “Classical Mess” blunted the proverbial edge, rather than sharpening it. The “Classical Mess” – or rather, those who adhered to it and failed to see beyond it – led to an enslavement; it took away from a  practitioner the freedom to truly express themselves in the moment. It made slaves of people.

 

Bruce summed up this phenomenon – and those afflicted by it – as  “A Once Fluid Man, Crammed and Distorted by this Classical Mess”.

 

Now you may wonder what this has to with Photography. As I said I’m there on Facebook, browsing through these groups. And mentally repeatedly stabbing myself in the chest with a knife. A whole bloody eighty plus percent of the posts (or, replies to the original post) are about the camera, related gear, exposure and EXIF details, techniques, rules, post-processing techniques… essentially ONE BIG CLASSICAL MESS!

 

It makes me want to puke. I suspect Bruce would have felt the same way.

 

The fact is this: Each and every one of those individuals crammed and distorted by the classical mess (of the camera, gear, exposure and EXIF details, techniques, rules etc.) was a once fluid individual. As were you.

 

We all were. As children.

 

Think of how fascinating and so-full-of-things-waiting-to-be-discovered everything around you was. Everything was fresh and new, worthy of exploration. And think back of how effortlessly you expressed it by drawing things with pencil and paper…

 

And you lost your ability to effectively express yourself.

 

Blame it in no small measure on the classical mess that crammed and distorted us as part of growing up. Because that’s exactly what happened.

 

And then something that could have changed the lives of all those who’d  happened: you bought a camera. It really could have been a life-changing experience; to quote Dorthea Lange, “The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”

 

It really could have been a game-changer,  akin to giving a child pencil and paper so it can express its impressions of the world around it. Literally, for that is exactly what a camera is – a tool to help you express your impressions of the world around you. But…

 

Rather than pay attention to the world around oneself, one instead chose to pay more attention to the width of the pencil, the whiteness of the paper, the eraser, how sharp and pointy the pencil is, etc. Sounds ridiculous? It is, ain’t it? But that’s exactly what eighty percent of those posts I talked about earlier are dealing with. Camera, gear, focal length, exposure,  EXIF, technique…. all that is the bloody pencil and paper; you’ve made that the focus rather than the world around you!

It’s (camera , technique etc.)…only a means to an end, a method which is indispensable to my work. There lies the sum total of my interest in it. Getting hooked on technicalities is the way to get lost. It’s a pitfall to be avoided, and a major problem with amateur photographers who believe technique does it all. You can take a superb picture without any technique to speak of, whereas highly technical photographers are rarely relevant if ever.” ~ Yann Arthrus Bertrand


You could just sum it up as  “A Once Fluid Man, Crammed and Distorted by that Classical Mess” that is the camera, gear, EXIF, technique etc.

By this time, it’s quite likely that what I’ve said so far may have gotten quite a few (of the 80% fame) folks’ backs up, and that they’re probably going “WTF?! Yes, I do pay a lot of attention to the camera, gear, exposure, technique, and EXIF. But that doesn’t mean I’m crammed and distorted! I am looking at the world around me, AND BY GOD, I AM EXPRESSING MYSELF!!!”

Are they? Expressing themselves? I don’t think they are, at least from what I see of their images. What I see is not original vision. What I see is not Composition. What I see are mere copies of what people saw before them – the same things, shot in the same way, composed along similar lines.

I don’t see True Composition which is the Strongest Way Of Seeing. What I see are mere copies of Compositions. What I see is not true self-expression, what I see is the visual equivalent of mouthing what someone else has expressed before.

And I’m not surprised. It’s just another offshoot of that Classical Mess; this one goes under the names “The Rule of Thirds” & “The Golden Ratio”. Another manifestation of this self-defeating Classical Mess is the tendency to follow in the footsteps of those who’ve gone before (which isn’t a bad thing in itself when you’re starting off), but failing to strike off on your own path subsequently. Translate that as “Oh, I’m inspired by Steve McCurry’s style so I’ll shoot like Steve McCurry!”

Of course, one has no idea of what really drives Steve McCurry (or anyone else one chooses to emulate), so all one ends up with are often unsuccessful copies of work that try to look like  Steve McCurry’s.

Where’s the Self-expression? Sorry, but I don’t see much of it.

Bruce had several things to say about “Self-expression”,  one of them being:

“Unless you overcome [the tendency to adhere to] style, method, or technique, you will never be able to truly express yourself. If you’re stuck on style, you’re expressing that style. If stuck on method or technique, you can only express that method or technique. But that is not self-expression; true self-expression is to have No Style as Style.”

 

Another hindrance to effective self-expression is the desire to impress others. And while the need to be appreciated is a very fundamental human desire, it’s beeing taken to ridiculous lengths on social media. The “I’ll like your picture and I’ll follow you in the hope that you’ll like my picture and you’ll follow me back” thingie that we see on so many photography groups, forums and platforms such as Instagram is but a manifestation of this. And it really does hamper self-expression no end. Bruce summed it up in the first 42 seconds of this video interview of his…

 

At this stage, you’re probably wondering how one can go about “Honestly expressing themselves”? And, just what is this thing called “Self-expression”? Bruce had this to say regarding the first question:

Always be yourself; express yourself; have faith in yourself. When I look around, I always learn something and that is to be always yourself, and to express yourself, to have faith in yourself. Do not go out and look for a successful personality and duplicate it. Start from the very root of your being, which is “how can I be me?”


There you go again, that emphasis on “Self”. How does one honestly express oneself? How can you be You? By not attempting to ad nauseam duplicate a successful personality, technique, method or style! How can you be You? By stopping to try to impress others! How can you be You? By believing in yourself more than the camera or technique or style or whatever…


Unfortunately, the general drift of that 80%  of posts I spoke of earlier indicates that the camera is everything. Self is nothing. People are oh-so-confident of the camera. And oh-so-lacking in confidence in themselves, in the role they play in the image making process. At best, their idea of the role they play is limited to their choice of Exposure.


What a Bloody Classical Mess!

 

Fast forward to 1:00 in the above video and you find Bruce saying “You have to become one with the punch“.  Repeat, “You have to become one with the punch.” Extrapolate that to the camera and it reads “You have to become one with the camera“.   I take it even further in my Art of Seeing Photography Workshop where I say that “You, your gear, and the object of perception — all these have to become One” — more on that later, but for now I’ll say this: If you have no idea, no clue of Your Role, where you as an individual stand (not physically!) in the image making process, if you put the camera above yourself, how on earth do you expect to effectively express yourself?


The question remains: What do we mean when we use the term “My Self”, and how can I express myself? I’ll answer that in just a minute, but before that a two-minute clip from Bruce Lee’s Enter The Dragon… trust me, it’s related! Or maybe, it’s the same thing!

 

For those who missed the movie, the above clip from Enter The Dragon has Bruce excusing himself from a Mr. Braithwaite who’s come a calling to seek Lee’s help in busting what the British Government in Hogkong suspects to be a drug-running operation by a certain Mr. Han. At this point Lee excuses himself to attend to his student who’s just arrived. The clip above shows the exchange between Lee and his student.

One thing I find highly pertinent here is the section between 0:20 and 0:30 in this clip. Put simply…

We need Emotional Content!"

 
That, and the exchange between 1:00 and 1:27 that goes as follows…

Lee: “How did it feel to you?”

Student: “Let me think…”

Lee: “Don’t think! Feel…”

 

It’s now that we can talk about that elusive “Self” and “Self-expression!” Bruce mentions these terms, but does little to elaborate further on their nature, and how they are connected with the Martial Arts. Or any Art for that matter. And remember, Photography is an Art. What I’m gonna do hence is shed some light on this topic from my Art of Seeing Workshop.

 

I’m not going to go into the philosophical aspects of the term “Self” here. Rather, I’m going to deal with it in terms of plain psychology. And I’m going to do it using the simplest terms and examples possible.

 

You. Who are you? Or rather, what is your idea of who you are? No, I’m not looking for the “I am a human being”, or, “I’m male / female, my name is so-and-so and I’m so many years of age  and…” stuff. You could start with that, but I’m looking for a more composite / “whole” answer to that question. Who, are you? What is your notion of yourself?

 

And if you really think about it, you’ll realize that your idea of who you are – your idea of your self – is nothing but a bunch of ideas; ideas that were either foisted on you from childhood or, ideas that you developed on your own.  Everything that can be described is an idea. Everything that can be named is an idea. Your name – it was foisted on you. You identify with it. Your gender? The term male/female was foisted on you (yes, foisted!  What if the person who first coined  the terms male and female had flipped them around? What if that person had used the term “male” to describe the “female” of the species (and vice-versa)? So what if he / she // she /he (puns very much intended!) had done that? You’d still be who you are, but your identification with the term would have been different, right? Because the term – the description – is an idea!). Notions of what’s acceptable and what’s not were foisted on you. So on and so forth. And some notions aka ideas, you developed.

Your idea of who you are – your idea of yourself – is nothing but a bunch of ideas. Or to put it a fashion that’s more pertinent to what Bruce Lee could have taught you about photography: You – your idea of who you are  — is nothing but the sum total of the experience of your life!

 The whole damn game? About Martial Arts? About Photography? About any Art? About Life itself?  It’s about experiencing.

And the only way you experience things is via feelings.

And I’ll prove it to you.

You don’t remember a car. You remember the ride. Either how smooth it was, or, how rough it was.

You don’t remember the seats. You remember how soft they were, or how hard they were.

You don’t remember the transmission. You remember how smooth it was, or how hard it was.

You don’t remember a thing for the sake of a thing. You remember  the experience of it. You don’t remember the thing, you remember your impression of it.  How it felt, not how it was!

Ergo, if you haven’t felt it, you haven’t experienced it. Period.

Every experience gives you an idea. Of  who / what you are. Or,  who / what you are not.

You – psychologically speaking – you, are nothing but the sum total of your experiences. You, are nothing but the sum total of what you’ve felt in the past and are currently feeling. Because experiencing is nothing but feeling.That, is You. That is your idea of “Self”.

 

And what of “Self-expression”?

 

Art has been defined as “Self-expression”. Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Martial Arts, Photography… any art is just that: Self-expression. An expression of your self. And You are nothing but the sum total of your experiences which are nothing but feelings.

 

Art is an expression of your feelings. Or as I like to call it, “Art is an Expression of Your Impressions”. Which is why one of the many  tips I give in my Art of Seeing Photography Workshop is “Don’t shoot what it looks like; shoot what it feels like!”

 

Go back and watch that last video again. Hear what Bruce had to say, read what I have to write about what he meant. I cannot overemphasize the role of feeling in Photography. It’s the  key to self-expression. Bruce Lee could teach you a lot about photography!

 

Now, fast-forward to 1:13 in the last clip, and watch through till 1:47. And what do we have Bruce saying?

It is like a finger, pointing away to the moon…

Don’t concentrate on the finger, or you’ll miss all that Heavenly Glory!”

 

Towards the early bit of this post, I quoted Dorthea Lange:  “The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”

 

It (the camera) essentially is a great tool to help you look at the world and rediscover it with the freshness of the vision of a child. It’s a great tool to help you discover yourself. It’s a great tool to help you express yourself. It’s literally “the finger pointing away to the moon...”

 

And instead of looking at all that Heavenly Glory, you’ve been concentrating on the finger that is the camera, technique, method, exif, style…

What A Bloody Classical Mess!

Do you see how everything is connected? How everything Bruce said is about the Art that is Photography?  Do you see what Bruce Lee can teach you about photography? IF you’re willing to learn, that is!

 

Some – and I know it will be a very small percentage of readers – may. Most won’t and will go “Hey man, this is way too esoteric, way too philosophical. You’re just drawing parallels. Photography is just about the camera, the light, exposure and the nut behind the camera who determines the exposure. And I’ve studied the Masters Of Photography (and liked the quotes by them put up by people on Facebook and other forums),  and nowhere have I heard of the nonsense I’m reading here! And what on earth is the photograph at the top of this post — the one of a disabled person who is really going somewhere,  zipping past a cab driver resting against his cab and looking on, incredulity writ large on his face — have to do with this post?”

 

What does that image have to do with what Bruce Lee can teach you about photography? if you can feel, connect, experience all I’ve written here, it’s got everything to do with Bruce Lee and photography. If you can’t, well, tough luck! Ask me. Nicely. And maybe I’ll explain it. :)

 

As for the guys who’ve studied (or, should I say “read”?) the words of the Masters Of Photography (and “liked” them on Facebook of course!)….

 

I’m sure they’ll nod their heads in the affirmative if I mention Ansel Adams…

 

The guy who they’re so familiar with. Or rather, familiar with what he said about photography…

 

That famous quote “You don’t take a photograph; you make a photograph”…

 

Know what, guys? That sentence of his is a very small part of what he said in the same breath!

 

What Ansel Adams said – in toto –  is this:

“You don’t take a photograph; you make a photograph. And you bring to the making of a photgraph all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.”

Ansel Adams

 

Sounds very nice! Definitely worth rattling off to impress people and garner a couple of hundred likes on Facebook, I’d  think! But what on earth does it mean??? 

Simply this:

“You bring to the making of a photograph the sum total of the experience of your life, which,  is nothing but what you feel, which – in turn – is your idea of You. Ergo, You bring YOURSELF to the making of a photograph. No more, no less!”

 

Heck, Ansel Adams literally  “pointed a finger at the moon” when he said what he did in that other famous quote of his; the one that goes “There are always at least two people in every photograph: The Photographer, and The Viewer”.  Unfortunately, many remain too busy “concentrating on the proverbial finger” and end up “missing all the heavenly glory” that is the essence of that quote by Adams.

As luck would have it, what many bring to the making of a photograph is just the camera, rules, exposure, light, technique,  the compositions of others,  what everybody else is pointing the camera at , their desire to impress others, and other tripe. And they do that throughout their lives. The result? They end up taking photographs, not making them…

 

What a Bloody Classical Mess!

 

Trust me when I say this: There is a hell of a lot that you can learn about Photography from the words of Bruce Lee. And from Ansel Adams. And from Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa and all the great photographers. There’s a lot you can learn about photography from a child for chrissake!

 

Very little, and I mean very little, has to do with the camera. A hell of a lot has to do with You! And your ability to make sense of it is a function of how much you can break out of that classical mess!

 

It can get confusing at times, but that comes with the territory. Not everything is true. Or pertinent. What do you keep, and what do you discard? Simple, again…

Absorb what is useful. Discard what is not.”

Bruce Lee

 

One last piece of advice, it may sound very confusing. Contradictory almost…

 

At the end of the day, no words – and I mean no words – can come close to describing what the real experience of Seeing, of just Being in that Proverbial Zone where You, your gear and the Object of Perception are not separate, but One Unfied Whole. It is literally an In-sight that is Indescribable; there are no words that can do justice to that feeling.

 

And that is when you’ll truly, truly understand all that is said and written here in this post – and hopefully, more! Till then it’s just intellectual, not feeling. Useful, but not “It”.

 

And when you get “It” – forget the camera and the rest of that classical mess – you’ll truly realize that what Bruce said, what Adams said, what all the Greats said, all that is written and said here…

 

All of it is also just another finger pointing to the moon! All that Heavenly Glory? It’s YOU!

 

Photography Begins and Ends with YOU! ‘Nuff said!

Varanasi Photography Tour India Photography Tour

It Really Wasn’t So Red (Or, “How Do You Really – to quote Ansel Adams – Make A Photograph?”)

by

the making of

"It Really Wasn't so Red"

(or, "How Do You Really- to quote Ansel Adams -

'Make a Photograph' )"

It Really Wasn't So Red
(Or, "How do you really Make a Photograph?)

Perhaps the most famous of all photography quotes is the one by Ansel Adams, the one that goes “You don’t take a photograph, you make a photograph.” Now, the internet is full of famous photography quotes and sayings, and this famous  Ansel Adams quote tops the list. If you ask me, it’s also the least understood of all photography quotes out there.

 

I should know; been there, parroted words I understood little – if anything – of, and appeared all knowledgeable and wise while doing so. Oh, the follies of youth!

 

I first came across that quotation by Ansel Adams in the nineties, when the internet just about came into India. I’d signed up for what was then the first photography forum on the net, and that’s where I encountered it, I think. And on reading it I went “Oh yes! What that means is that the camera takes a photograph, but it is the photographer that makes the photograph, and this he/she does by exposing correctly and composing well!” In hindsight, that was my ego speaking (along with tons of inexperience!); given that I was bloody good at nailing my exposures (I used to shoot on transparency films then, and that really needed a certain mastery over exposure) and was fairly good at composing a photograph — or so I thought!

 

As I said, that quote by Ansel Adams is the least understood of all photography quotes out there. And the most misunderstood! It’s been twenty-five years since then, and I still find that quote being brandished around on forums, mostly by over-eager photographers trying to impress others, and yes, I plead guilty to the charge of being one too at one point of time. Oh, the follies of youth!  Woe the imprudence of inexperience!

So How Do You Really 'Make a Photograph'?

So how does one really “make a photograph”? Ansel Adams’ famous quote (the complete one, which I reproduce further down in this post) actually lists four elements that one brings to “the act of making a photograph”. But before I get to them, let me narrate a few “stories”, vital as they are to understanding both how this image was made, as well as understanding how any photograph should be made! And yes, I promise to keep each short; a few lines at best, a few paragraphs at worst.

 

What’s a story? Nothing but the retelling of an experience; here I go retelling a few of mine.

Story #1: It was Varanasi. And It Really Wasn't So Red

OK, yellow-red actually. Or red-yellow, whatever you wish to call it. But I wanted to make the photograph look that way. And therein lies the tale. Several actually.

First things first – where this image was made. Or rather taken I should say. Making a photograph – in its entirety – is another matter, one which I’ll cover further on in this post. So yeah, regarding where this was taken… Varanasi it was, and that is central to the  the making of this photograph as you’ll see. Three days after Christmas of 2016, and there I was on a private photography tour to Varanasi & Rajasthan. And as all good visitors to Varanasi are wont, the evening saw as at the banks of the river Ganges, waiting to witness the spectacle that is the Ganga aarti.

Now if you’ve been to Varanasi and witnessed the Ganga aarti, you’ll know that the ghats – at that time of the day – are illuminated by mixed-lighting, mostly tungsten in nature. This renders images – whether on film or digital – as quite orangeish- yellow. Not a nice yellow really, it’s quite a jaundiced yellow as you can see in these images of the Ganga aarti at Varanasi to be found on Google. It’s precisely to overcome these types of horrible color casts that film manufacturers came up with films suitable for various types of lighting; Tungsten Balanced Film for example, mitigates the orangeish-yellow cast when shooting under tungsten / halogen lighting conditions, rendering colors as more ‘natural’.

Digital cameras, of course, have no film. Their sensors, however, are designed to see along the lines of what film did. Put simply, just as each type of film was ‘balanced’ to a certain lighting condition, so can your camera at any given point of time. This is achieved via the “White Balance” setting on digital cameras.

Now I could have set the White Balance on my camera to Tungsten or Auto, both of which would have “normalized” the colors and gotten rid of color casts. But that would have been quite… conformist. But I didn’t want it that way, I wanted it red. So I underexposed the shot a bit, saturating the colors as a result. In post-processing I added more red, because that’s how I wanted it.

Put simply – and this is only thus far – I brought to the making of this photograph my experience of lighting, film, exposure, and post-processing. But wait, that doesn’t explain why I chose red, and there’s more I brought to the making of this photograph…

Story #2: It Wasn't So Grainy

Look at the photograph in detail and you’ll see it’s quite grainy. Grain is a throwback to the days of film; it is nothing but the appearance of random optical texture of processed photographic film due to the presence of small particles of a metallic silver, or dye clouds, developed from light-sensitive silver halide that have received enough light. It is an optical effect, the magnitude of which (amount of grain) depends on both the film stock (make, age, and batch number) and the definition (magnification/distance) at which it is observed.

Now film grain was a given in the early days of photography; films then were quite grainy, which is to say that grain was quite visible. As film technology developed, the emphasis changed to developing film with finer and finer grain (making grain less noticeable). Another thing worth noting is that the concept of film grain is intrinsically tied to the sensitivity of film; the more sensitive to light (higher ISO) the film was, the more susceptible it was to the increased appearance of grain.

Grain was also a by-product of film being “pushed” – a process of exposing a film at an ISO higher than its rated one (for example shooting ISO 100 film at ISO 400, mostly done in poor lighting conditions to mitigate the effects of camera shake). This would effectively under-expose the film, which would then be compensated for in the chemical darkroom by overdeveloping it (a process known as push-processing). This invariably resulted in the pushed film displaying more grain that it would have if rated – and developed – at its normal specifications

The image sensor in digital cameras isn’t susceptible to grain, lacking as it does the presence of any light-sensitive silver halide. Digital sensors do however manifest digital noise – unwanted (well, mostly!) visual distortions that look looks like tiny colored pixels or specks in a photograph, and sometimes resembles the grain that you may see in film photography. Much like the early films, early digital sensors were exceptionally prone to noise, and just as it was with film, the noise was more manifest at higher ISO ratings. With technology, the focus has been to reduce the amount of noise (just as it was with reducing grain in film); the cameras of today display very little – if any – noise at exceptionally high ISO settings.

When I took this shot, I had bumped up the ISO on my decade plus old camera up quite a bit. As such, there was manifest noise / grain in the image. But it wasn’t so damn grainy! Now I could have easily cleaned up that noise in post-processing (as is the norm), but I actually chose to – and you’ll forgive the pun – go against the grain and actually add more noise / grain to the image. Tons of it actually!

 

It wasn’t so grainy, but I wanted it to be so! Why on earth would one choose to add more noise / grain to an image, when it’s more “acceptable” to reduce noise?? The reasons for that call for a telling of the next story, and the ones after that.

Story #3: I want my... I want my... I want my NGMs!

As a child of the sixties, I grew up on a learning and entertainment diet that mostly comprised of books, magazines, radio, and the occasional movie. Television in India was a state-run single-channel affair; to say that most of the programs they beamed back then were drab would be putting it kindly. Things be as they may, color televisions happened in India, and the first color program that was beamed was MTV! I’m talking mid-eighties here, FYI.

There was that number in the late eighties, one by the British Rock Band Dire Straits – Money For Nothing. And there’s a line in there that goes “I want my… I want my… I want my MTV!”

I, wanted my NGMs – National Geographic Magazines. Of old. I grew up on them. And the photographs had character. Of place, of people, and of the photographers. The colors weren’t over the top, but they had a characteristic warmth to them (see this, this, and this for examples). Almost red, mostly (it depended on the film used, and that in turn was dictated by location and story). Yes, the warmth had to do with the light in some measure, but mostly it was a characteristic of the films of the time.

 

And, they were grainy. It gave them a certain rawness of character, a roughness of sorts. No smooth-as-silk-oh-we’re-so-polished stuff, those-there photographs – their grain – were reflective of life itself, shorn of pretense. They were as real as Life can be.

 

IMHO, they were far better than the images of today.

 

I wanted my NGMs of old. But those are not the only reasons I decided to add red and grain in the making of this photograph. There’s more to the tale, yet another story.

Story #4: Sucker for Color plus Sucker for Contrast equals a 'Slideshooter'

I love color. And contrast. And the standard print (negative) films I started shooting with in the mid-nineties just didn’t reproduce them as I wanted them to. Which led to me shooting on slide (transparency) film. Which led me to really have to master exposure. And when you really managed to expose a frame just right with transparency film, the results were nothing short of magical.

Oh, the colors! Oh, the contrast! They were to die for! Of course, each film had its own unique characteristics in the way they rendered colors, contrast, and grain, but all said and done, they were magical.

Drawn as I am to warm colors (I want my NGMs, remember?) and low to medium-high contrast, it was a given that I’d gravitate to those transparency films that exhibited these characteristics. Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Ektachrome VS (Very Saturated) were my standard choice, with an occasional dabbling in Fujichrome Velvia (which actually was more suited for green vegetation, had tremendous contrast, very deep blacks, and boasted incredibly fine grain).

Now the thing with transparency film was What You Shot Was What You Got! Unlike negative (print) film where errors in exposure or unwanted color-casts could be compensated for in the printing phase, the only thing that could be ‘compensated’ for in the development phase with transparency films was deliberate (or at times, accidental) pushing or pulling at the time the film was loaded into the camera. If you’d pushed (rated the film at a higher ISO at the time of loading it), the resulting underexposure had to be compensated by over-processing; if you’d pulled (rated the film at a lower ISO), the resulting over-exposure had to compensated for by under-processing. Either way, if you’d pushed or pulled film, this had to be communicated to the development lab in advance; there was no fixing things post that if you were shooting on transparency film.

Put simply, we T-Rex’s from the film age – especially those shooting on transparencies – literally brought to the exposed frame our choices of color, grain, contrast, exposure et al… things that went into ‘making a photograph’. Of course, nowadays we bring Digital Editing tools to the process.

But that’s still not the half of what you really bring to the making of a photograph! There are still more stories, two to be precise!

Story #5: Of Varanasi, Shiva, a Hymn, and Shiva's Dance'

It was Varanasi, remember? And it wasn’t so red, nor so grainy. But then…

 

Varanasi – according to Hindu legend – is Shiva’s city, and while the evening aarti is primarily devoted to the river Ganga, part of the ceremony involves the worship of Shiva. Shiva – as one of the trinity of the three primary gods (the other two being Bhrama & Vishnu) in the hindu pantheon, is symbolic of both destruction and regeneration. Things come of him, and are destroyed by him in turn, so that the Rhythm Of The Cosmos is maintained ad infinitum.

While – according to hindu belief ( and there are psychological & philosophical reasons that drive those beliefs, btw) – the other gods actively participate in the affairs of humans in varying degrees, Shiva mostly stands aloof. He does not participate, merely choosing to observe. Until circumstances dictate that he intervene. And when he does, he manifests as Rudra (The Howler), Virabhadra, or Mahakali; all leave behind destruction in their wake, all result in transformation.

Transformation – whether physical, mental or spiritual – is anything but a passive process. It is both energetic in itself and calls for tremendous energy. Transformation is violent (think Newton’s First Law Of Motion). Transformation is active, transformation is arousing and moves to action…

Speaking of destruction, transformation, arousing and moving to action — associated with the legend of Shiva is a hymn known as “Shiv Tandava Stotra”. Describe as it does Shiva’s power and beauty, the ninth and tenth quatrains of this hymn conclude with lists of Shiva’s epithets as destroyer, even the destroyer of death itself. Alliteration and onomatopoeia create roiling waves of resounding beauty in this example of Hindu devotional poetry.

While there are many performances of this hymn to be found on the net, the most energetic and awe-inspiring rendition I’ve heard is the one that forms part of the Ganga aarti along a  ghat where this photograph was taken; it comes closest to describing the Tandava – The Dance Of Endless Destruction & Regeneration that Shiva (as Natraja – The Lord Of Dance) dances in his role both as The Destroyer & Regenerator. Shiva’s Tandava is not an event; it is an endless, on-going process. It is The Very Rhythm Of The Cosmos itself!

The photograph in this post – call it chance maybe, was taken during the recitation of the Shiv Tandava Stotra.

Transformation, Destruction, Energy, Energetic, Violence, Active, Arousing & Moving to Action... all these are some of the emotions and feelings both triggered by and associated with The Color Red!

The Red Belongs There In That Image, That's Why I Wanted - and Made - It So Red!

Shiva is also described – and portrayed – as a disruptor; one could say he’s the original maverick! While all the other gods (and mankind) have their rules and codes of conduct which they strictly adhere to, Shiva stands out like a sore thumb, seemingly mocking the artificiality of rules, laws, and all societal constructs. While the other gods – and mankind – deck themselves with expensive clothing and jewelry, Shiva just wraps an animal hide around his waist. While the other gods and men seek engagement with society, Shiva prefers the solitude of high mountain peaks and forests. While the other gods and men seek to have a beautiful roof over their heads, Shiva spends the night in charnel houses and crematoriums. While the other gods and men seek and surround themselves with things they like while avoiding things and people they dislike, Shiva is surrounded by society’s rejects.

Shiva goes against the established practice. Shiva does not conform, he goes against the grain! While the other gods and mankind seek smoothness and polish, he is rough and course.

 

Kind of reminds you of grain / noise in a picture,  don’t you think?

Shiva – a worshiper of his would say – is akin to the the very essence of film: silver halide that sometimes manifests as grain in an image. Shiva – one could say – is akin to the very nature of digital sensors:  statistical quantum fluctuations that manifest as noise. Grain / noise – like Shiva – may not always be visible, but it’s there!

 

And that’s why I added more grain to the image. Because – what with the location being Varanasi, Shiva’s omnipresence, courseness, roughness , being the very essense of things manifest etc.,  the grain  belonged there!

Story #6: Back to Ansel Adams' Quote. Or, How do you Really "Make A Photograph"?

Towards the beginning of this post I stated that Ansel Adams’ quote is probably the most misunderstood of all the famous photography quotes out there. The reason, I believe, is two-fold: (a) The quote that is mostly thrown around is a fragment; incomplete, not giving any clue of what Adams was referring to, and (b) as and when the quote was reproduced in its entirety, many people fail to realize the sheer depth of its scope.

 

So what is the quote in its entirety? What did Ansel Adams have to say about making a photograph? This:

We don't take a photograph, we make a photograph. And we don't make a photograph just with a camera, we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved."

Ansel Adams

Sounds very good. Definitely worth brandishing in forums and seeming to appear all wise. But what does it really mean?  As I like to put it,  it simply means this:

WE BRING TO THE ACT OF PHOTOGRAPHY -TO THE MAKING OF A PHOTOGRAPH (AND EVERYTHING AS A MATTER OF FACT) THE SUM TOTAL OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR LIFE!

It’s that simple, it really is. What you need to bring to making a photograph is yourself. Your beliefs, your likes, your dislikes… everything you’ve experienced! Now I could have said this right at the beginning, that this is what Ansel Adams’ quote means. I could have skipped narrating those experiences of mine. But it’s quite possible then that you wouldn’t have understood the scope and depth of just how much of oneself one can – and if needed – should bring to the act of photography and the making of a photograph!

So how much of oneself should one bring to the making of a photograph? That totally depends on you. I personally bring a lot of myself to the process, and consciously at that. How much you choose to is up to you.

 

If the truth be said, one is subconsciously always bringing a little bit of oneself to the making of a photograph; even if all that one is [seemingly] bringing is the camera and knowledge of things technical, one is bringing a dominant (albeit mistaken / incomplete) belief (i.e. oneself if you think about it) that it’s the camera that makes an image. One is bringing oneself even then, but an extremely little bit I’d say. Really not done, and it won’t get you far.

 

By the way, do you know what one of my favorite photography quotes is? It’s one by a photographer who’s influenced my photography the most. Quite relevant – extremely so, actually – to this post. it goes:

All you have to do is Live, and Life will give you the pictures"

Henri Cartier-Bresson
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email