urban ku # 108 ~ consider this
Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 11:11AM 
Elk with rack in repose on a foggy morning • click to embiggenStephen Shore, in an interview on Conscientious, talks about how the expense of shooting with an 8×10 camera - currently about $22.00 per exposure for film, processing and a contact sheet - made him "... decide what I really wanted to photograph and how I wanted to structure the picture ... This was a powerful learning experience. I began to learn what I really wanted."
When asked about digital picturing, he said, "I see digital as a two-sided phenomenon. The fact that pictures are free can lead to greater spontaneity. As I watch people photograph (with film), I often see a hesitation, an inhibition, in their process. I don't see this as much with digital. There seems to be a greater freedom and lack of restraint ... The other side of this lack of restraint is greater indiscriminancy. Here's a tautology: as one considers one's pictures less, one produces fewer truly considered pictures."
So, I have a question for you (all of you - come on, chime in. Don't be shy). How 'considered' are your pictures? Do you shoot lots and then edit? or, Do you tend to 'get it right' with a minimum of fuss and fidget?
If you are a consider-er (and I assume everybody considers something), what you do you consider most? What to picture? How to picture?
I am curious about this because, I have always been one who 'considers'.
Reader Comments (12)
Digital allows me to do a combination of the two methods. My photographs are 'considered', although not to the depth of an large format image. But as I consider my setups, digital allows me to continue exploring slight variations of the original considered setup. Sometimes the variations turn out better than the original.
If I shot large format, I think I would probably miss out on some of those improved variations.
Andy Frazer
Well I shoot large format 95% of the time. I consider my images in depth. I look for the variations and decide on the best variation before releasing the shutter. Very rarely do I miss my mark.
Even when shooting digitally, I do not assume the scattergun approach which is so prevelant today, because it is free. Take 1000 hope for the best.
same here as Jim and Andy...I shoot digital and my cinemascapes are done in one take at one angle...I may shoot 3 or 4 of the frame that my character is in for different postures, but that's it.
I want to add that considering is not the same as cumbersome. Without thought given to the "mechanics of the medium", I am allowed to focus more on the creative aspects.
I thoght about this carefully - there are 3 ways my digital differs from my film capture, all relating to variation. For slower work (main landscape) I take a lot of variations of exposure and framing. All small changes to try and nail it. For moving fast I use digital to bracket everything. For quick shooting (action, people etc) I use it to capture everything that looks half promising.
At none of these points do I spend any less time considering what I shoot. For landscapes I can take an hour figuring out where to put the tripod. I increase the number of shots to try and up the number of keepers.
Where I use the DSLR in place of larger formats it also helps compensate for the much less precise viewfinding.
that shot is great by the way...were you as close to those antlers as it looks and did you get permission or just hop the fence into a pen of wild animals with enormous antlers?
The things most considered are not how many frames or even such things as which camera.
The "considered" are issues like "to which city shall I go?" or "shall I take a tripod?" or "shall I take the dog along?" or "shall I walk or drive?"
The thing digital does for me, besides freeing me from spotting the ungodly amount of dust even a pro processor can get on film, is free me up in my creativity. I don't worry about frames shot because they are essentially free and exposure is a snap. I'm freed to explore and take pictures I don't think will work just to see if they will. I've taken over 11 thousand exposures in the last 2 years. I would never have done that on film and would never have learned as much as I have. I don't know if that is a lot of frames or not compared to other artists, but I consider myself a consider-er. I consider the visual structure of the my photo and I consider what "out there" I relate to and its visual and emotional and sometimes intellectual impact. Most of that happens on a non-verbal level when I'm shooting so it doesn't feel like considering all the time. My verbal considering happen when I'm not shooting.
I was definitely a 'slower' shooter when I shot film. I took my time to make sure technique was right, or as close to 'right' as I could get it. Now that I shoot digitally, I feel more free to experiment with varying exposures, etc....but whether film or dig, I still try to allow for the same amount of 'consideration' when it comes to subject and composition.
As one who is older than most of your readers, I'm still in full pursuit of a life in photography, I started in 35mm, graduated to view cameras, and added digital in 2001. How considered an image, huh? I kina' feel that every image is considered, but in a very different way depending on what camera I have in front of my face. I still love the "slow motion" of the view camera, but I also love the freedom of a camera "at hand" ready to respond. When you've been shooting for more than 45 years, the shooting is more considered than ever no matter the recording device.
P'taker
What I really love about digital photography are the means of control one has immediately after making the photograph.Notonly in a tecnical sense, but also in composition, content and use of colour. Still I think it is very important to make a as Mark calls it a considered photograph.
For one reason I'me very glad that I learned to do photography on film. It always forced me to previsualize the image. It's a skill that many of the young starting photographers are often lacking.
I remember making a phototravel through Ireland for two months, making images everyday. Every night I wrote down what I thought I had been shooting that specific day. When I was back home, after developing films and making contactsheets, it often turned out to be that many photo's fitted quite precisely to their specific description.
This is a fascinating and varied set of responses. For myself, until recently, I would have said that I'm definitely of the "considered" inclination, despite my use of a digital camera. That's just my way of engaging the landscape. But I've started a project involving close-ups of horses, and there I really appreciate the advantages of autofocus and digital capture. With constantly moving subjects, most images end up being edited out on later viewing. So in my case, it depends on subject.