Crossing

Photo taken yesterday, 5-26-05 at around 6:30 PM.

Saw this guy walking his dog from far away so I set up my tripod and waited for him to enter the part of the frame I wanted him to be in. Took 4 consecutive shots of him walking across my field of vision - this is the only one that worked.

I tell you guys my methodology for this shot because I think it teaches a lesson: it's good to get it out of your head that photography is always at its root spontaneous. The inspiration came for this shot, but that doesn't mean I only took one shot and that this moment was the product of it. I think that intelligence should follow inspiration: how can I best get what I need, knowing the limitations of my abilities and of my camera? Intelligence takes the guess-work out of the equation. You need the eye to see it, but the technical ability to pull off the shot.

So when people say that I'm lucky to have captured such moments, I say that luck has little to do with it. I went to the beach on this day specifically because I saw the clouds in the sky 2 hours beforehand, and knew some crazy shit was going to go down (and if not, hey, I love the beach). Get it out of your head that luck is such a big part of the equation. You do need to be at the right place at the right time, but being there at the right place at the right time, in my opinion, is more a function of using your brain than anything like luck.

To believe that I am lucky to have captured these moments is lazy - because it attributes these moments to external circumstance rather than internal drive. Every photo I took in my portfolio is there because I decided to take photos at that time, there because I decided to take the photo even if I was nervous or doubtful. And for every one photo that makes it into my DA gallery, there must be a hundred photos that are either failures or just didn't make the final cut. Again, intelligent shooting takes the guesswork out of catching moments.

My commentary above is not to imply that this is a good photo. Whether it is a good photo or a bad photo is irrelevant to the importance of what I'm trying to say here: namely that regardless of your artistic vision, it is lost on you if you do not know the technical function behind the use of your camera, and if you aren't fast enough with your camera to capture the significance of the moment while it happens. I've missed so many great moments just because I was fiddling around with my camera and didn't know how to get it to do what I wanted it to do: since then I've really hammered down on trying to learn the basics.

I used to wonder why my piano always lagged behind my photography work (done piano 11 years, photography 5): at the end of the day it is this - for me, the practicing of piano is not as enjoyable as the ultimate reward of playing the finished piece. What this means is that I practice less. But when I'm taking photos - hot damn - just taking the photos gives me a rush. It makes my day. Learning about photography by reading books and looking at other peoples' work makes my day. If you don't have the same drive to learn - simply because you want to learn - then you will always be limited as a photographer.

Here are two books that can really give you a great overview of photography; they should help you get started if you really want to seriously get into this field. You can read reviews on Amazon; I was gonna link there but a happy face appears in the link.

Photography (8th Edition), by Barbara Upton - this one is supposed to be the cream of the crop in terms of learning photography. It should have everything you need to get started.

Understanding Exposure, by Bryan Peterson - also cream of the crop. This one is to help you understand what a good exposure is, and how to achieve it.

That is all. Feel free to ignore this advice; your mileage may vary. However, if it is at all useful for even one person then hot dandy!

Gotta read more Foucault. Man oh man, do I hate Foucault!

- Chui