civlized ku # 2221 / 2221a ~ picturing what you see vs "making" a picture
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 11:14AM 
Vineyard ~ Peru, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Vineyard # 2 ~ Peru, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenIn a previous entry, civilized ku # 2156, I used the following quote by Stephen Shore:
... I was aware that I was imposing an organization that came from me and from what I had learned: it was not really an outgrowth of the scene in front of me ... I asked myself if I could organize the information I wanted to include without relying on an overriding structural principle ... Could I structure the picture in such a way that communicated my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me? ...
Yesterday, while out and about, I came across the scene depicted in the pictures which accompany this entry. After making the vineyard picture with my "normal" 20mm lens (40mmm, 35mm equiv.), I then spent a few more minutes making vineyard # 2 picture with my 45mm lens (90mm, 25mm equiv.). To a certain extent, I made the second picture as a "test" of sorts.
IMO, after viewing the results, the vineyard picture meets Shore's idea of structuring the picture in a way which communicates my experience of standing there, taking in the scene in front of me. While that picture certainly exhibits an overriding structural principle, that structural principle is far less evident than that employed in the making of the vineyard # 2 picture. In the making of Vineyard # 2, I did, in fact, impose an organization that came from me and from what I learned.
In a very real sense, the vineyard picture is much more true to my way of seeing, whereas the vineyard # 2 picture is much more of a "made" picture. The difference between the 2 pictures is, to my eye and sensibilities, all about my picturing MO of being there - as mentioned in the ku # 1441-43 entry. Again, to my eye and sensibilities, it's all about picturing what I see while engaged in the act of seeing.
The other part of this "test" was an attempt to find an answer to the burning question, do I need another lens? Specifically, the 14mm lens on which I have my eye. The answer is quite simply, "no". I need another lens like I need a hole in my head.
The thought that I might need another lens is a vestige of my commercial picturing days wherein I did, in fact, need a rather extensive variety of lens for all of my picture making formats - 35mm, 120mm, 4×5, and 8×10. That need was driven by a wide variety of picture making requirements as dictated by a wide variety of clients and their specific needs. However, those days are gone, although I still have all those cameras and lenses, just in case the need arises - which it still does from time to time.
In the here and now, if I had just 1 lens for my picturing needs, it would be the one I already own - the 20mm lens. It really does meet all of my picturing requirements simply because it fits, quite perfectly, the manner in which I see.
Not that I don't, on occasion, use my 45mm and 17mm lenses. I do, but rarely for making pictures which are part of my ongoing personal vision picturing. While the 17mm lens could be a reasonable substitute for my 20mm lens, the 45mm lens is, picture making wise, a horse of a different color. That said, it just might be that I will use it for a different way of seeing / body of work.
But for now, it's just me and the 20mm lens, as I go on picturing what I see as opposed to making pictures.
Any thoughts / questions on the matter?
Reader Comments (3)
Yes, it's always tempting to "work the scene" and this is often written as the "proper" approach to photography. But in recent years, I've moved towards a more casual approach, photographing a scene / situation as I first see it.
When I say "casual" I don't mean sloppy ... I still take care with some aspects of composition and post-process the better images.
Very interesting. I use a 20mm and a 14-45mm for my MFT Panasonic GF1. What occured to me when reading this post is that with the zoom lens I tend to construct images and "work the scene", but with the 20mm I just snap what's in front of me with much less "organization" involved. The real question then becomes: Is the 20mm a tool that suits my "true vision" better than the 14-45mm, or is it just lazyness...?
Isn`t "picturing what you see" imposing a snapshot aesthetic on what you see? The purest truthful experience is just seeing the scene with your eyes.