Coda: On 'Approach'

One thing to take away from the Simone Bossi article is that it's valuable to be sensitive to your own personal or idiosyncratic approach to the work of photographing. Even if you don't agree with Bossi's own approach—and why would you, necessarily? You're not him—it's a worthwhile thing both to think about and to work out for yourself. Which is why I added a few comments about my own experiments in approaching some of these problems.

Gradually or quickly, most photographers work out the specifics of their approach, and most won't be successful unless they take into account their own skills, talents, aptitudes, desires and intentions as they do so. What works for one person might not work for another. What's interesting about the Bossi interview is that it shows him taking an unconventional approach to the problem of photographing architecture, one that goes against some of the more common shared assumptions of the present moment. I was interested, for instance, that he analogizes knowing a building to knowing a person, and that he's noticed that he spends the most time deciding on the first shot, because in his mind and feelings he organizes his first acquaintance with an unfamiliar building similarly to the process of acquainting with a stranger.

I might point out that the 20 or 30 shots he says he takes on an assignment isn't necessarily that little; Walker Evans, while working for the Farm Security Administration, could spend a full day's work exposing six sheets of film. When I worked for Jim Sherwood, he told me that one of his first employers, who was a crusty old guy when Jim was young, would leave the studio to cover a news event and take with him, again, only six sheets of film.

When I young, I did some deliberate work exploring that aspect of approach. I did one exercise where I went photographing taking only one sheet of film with me. It was quite interesting having to decide against "spending" my one shot on various possibilities or opportunities—the demonstrations quickly became one of, how do I personally go about knowing when I'm faced with something I really don't want to miss? (That experiment ended early because it was just too much of a pain.) On another occasion I forced myself to shoot six rolls of 35mm film (for me that was 210 exposures, a lot for me at the time) in one two-hour period. I didn't enjoy the process and I didn't get much out of it. At the time I had a friend who was studying with John Gossage at Maryland, and John, who shot heavily, made process requirements of his students, requiring that they, too, shoot heavily. I was maybe a little too attached to contrarianism at the time, but I ended up reacting against that a little.

I do remember that I always quit photographing when I had at least half a roll of film left. I never wanted to be stuck at the end of the day not being able to take a picture. Just in case I happened across something really good. (This was referred to back in my day as "in case you see Elvis riding a unicorn getting out of a flying saucer" or something along those lines. Elvis had died by that time, but "Elvis sightings" were still a staple meme of tabloid culture. Which struck me as hilarious because, at the peak of the "Elvis sightings," there were 200 professional Elvis impersonators in the U.S.A. But, humans being humans, no one ever put two and two together.)

For me the pace of shooting and the balance between visually exploring and understanding on the one hand and shooting on the other was eventually also wrapped up in the pace of the process I used. I shot 35mm B&W film and developed it myself (rolled it into the cassettes myself too), and in one developing session—I always developed film standing at the kitchen counter next to the sink—I could easily handle three rolls, which for me was one tank's worth. I developed film at the frequency of anything from once a day to once a week, with perhaps once every two or three days as an average. So that was a determinant in the pace of my shooting as well. I didn't want to shoot so much that it overwhelmed my ability to comfortably keep up with the processing.

Digital photographers don't have this built-in brake against overshooting, although that might depend on their own process. For instance, if you're disciplined about your Lightroom procedure as you begin your editing and evaluation, it might interact with and affect your shooting frequency to some degree.

Sadly, I never became nearly as disciplined or as intentional with digital as I was with film. For one thing, I was older, and more jaded and less ambitious, by the time digital came along. For another, I had a hard time taking digital seriously for a long time. (Too long.) The legacy of that attitude, I'm afraid, continues to afflict me, even if the attitude itself is gone.

Also, I became a teacher and writer rather than a photographer. Of course I still photograph, as I have always done, since I was a child, but shifts in one's career focus also probably can't help but affect our working methods. The shift was not entirely up to me, by the way: I got attention and reward for my writing, but I didn't get attention and reward for my photography. Career choices are definitely a mix of our own goals and ambitions with what works for us in the world and what puts bread on our plates and in our pockets. If people had made a fuss over my photographs and paid me for prints, but ignored my writing and never paid me for that, then I'm sure my career "choices" would have veered in a different direction.

But to get back to the subject, in short, I'll say this: I don't think you have to agree with the working methodologies to get insights out of hearing about other photographers' working methodologies.

That's it. That's enough to say.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

A fantastically comfortable ergonomic mouse for PC users. Should be considered incompatible with Mac unless you want to use only default settings. Available in regular and small sizes, right and left hand, and wired and wireless. WARNING to Mac users: Do NOT download USBOverdrive! It broke my computer. But really, for you PC users, you won't believe how easy on your hand this mouse is.

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

And here is a portal to...

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Michael Cytrynowicz: "Your Process comments resonate with me, and so do Bossi's. I nearly stopped using digital cameras, except for my iPhone, which I use for taking references (of place, etc.). I have been shooting B&W 35mm film for about a year, now (after a protracted study) focusing on Ilford FP4+ developed in XTOL, trying to go out one or twice a week, shooting a roll each time, and trying to keep a balanced pace between shooting, developing, scanning, ingesting into Lightroom, editing in Photoshop, and printing to matte papers with my Epson P800. I've never been happier, and I definitely don't miss the days of taking hundreds of digital shots. Emphasis on taking shots versus making images. I now use a spotmeter, stop and try to see as much as I can, take my time. And, I've been—Horror!—focusing on a very small range of subjects—trees and bushes. Yeah, Curly's 'One Thing.' In part after reading, years ago, an article you wrote on the German couple's water tower photography. And yes, I try to use good, but not expensive lenses, and my Konica FT-1 and Olympus OM-4 cameras. I feel a burden has lifted, and I don't watch YouTube videos about the latest, heaviest, most megapixelled, anymore. But yeah, process is setting me free."

Colin: "One possible brake against over-shooting? Hard drive space! I have one computer, a 2017 MacBook Pro with 1TB of storage. I had to split my Lightroom catalogue in two a few years ago and I still hate the separation. This limit forces me to at least be pretty severe in editing and deleting and I think does make me think a bit more thoughtful when out photographing."

 

Comments

[Tex Andrews]

Boy, so much to say here. So, in the spirit of things, I'll try not to bloviate too much.

So, as a fine arts repro photographer professionally, I can only say thank the gods for digital. In reaction to the Bossi idea that things shouldn't be too perfect, I'd say that architectural and fine arts repro/cultural heritage photography is just high-falootin' product photography. So, those hairs stuck under the wheels of this giant NamJune Paik video monitor array I just shot and processed have got to be removed in post. & etc. The Bossi stuff I could see is super dreamy and beautiful, reminds me of fashion photography---the kind where you can't really tell what the clothes look like. The photographers at the Getty (and some other museums) strike a better balance, imo, between the beauty of the image and its descriptive purpose.

Then I also think that shooting too much is an internal problem with the photographer. I shoot more images than I did with film to be sure, but I don't go hog wild either. Don't need to, just need to shoot enough to have a little "insurance".

Finally, I found the Gossage comment really fascinating! I met him and spoke with him a number of times when I was doing my MFA at UMD, and I would never have guessed he would say that. The opposite, in fact. Just goes to show ya. Wish I'd met you back then.

[Bruce Bordner]

One exercise to improve your "decisive moment" skills might be skeet (trap?) shooting. You have to think and shoot ahead of the moving target to meet at the right time. I don't know why I thought of this, as I take 5 minutes for one shot of a rock. Hope it's useful to birders...

[Bill Tyler]

Interesting that a Grafmatic film holder holds "only six sheets of film." Coincidence?

[Steve Renwick]

Film holders loaded, heading out with the Sinar tomorrow. Thank you so much for the timely nudge.

[JimH]

My high school art teacher who got me involved. with both photography and sports cars gave me an assignment to help me learn how to “see” a photograph. Pick a location and shoot a roll of film. One of the first tries was in the 2 acre lot of my home. In the process of finding things to photograph, I too pictures of lots of different things. One of those photos was of a stack of broken pieces of marble waiting to be installed as a patio. That photograph still resides in the file of photos I use as my screensaver on my Mac so I see it periodically and it brings back memories about Mr. Wolery. It also started me on what remains the biggest focus of my photography, abstraction around me. Second is documenting what I see. Not a lot of charge in almost 60 years!

[Bill Pearce]

The economical use of materials in a subject that is important to me, not because of any need to be thrifty, but rather a part of my early experience as a photographer where I quickly learned that with film, it was important to get the shot desired rather than the indecisive moments surrounding it.

I was approached by a friend who was the photo editor for a college newspaper, to shoot photos of a NCAA regional basketball game, a sport that held no interest to me and about which I knew less than nothing. In the week leading to the game I looked at game photos in the local paper, and I found out quickly that there were certain shots that were, for some reason quite common. A gaggle of players around a basket with the ball hanging on the rim, guys taking shots and such, showing players actions in the game. I understood that even with a motor drive, which was out of my financial realm, there was no guarantee that I would get the desired result. My only option was to be sure to anticipate the desired shot, and press the button just before it happened.Over the length of my career as a photographer, I continued to apply this technique to my daily work, and I was know as someone that didn't shoot that much film, and later digital. When I was shooting photos of construction work (the very definition of a niche), I could cover a very complicated part of a project with my Hasselblad using but a single 12 exposure roll.

This leave me appalled with today's photographers that shoot a dumpster full of useless exposures because it it generally recognised as "the only way to get the shot." That's something with which I firmly and sometimes loudly disagree.

Yes, you can spray and pray, and sometime, but not all, get the perfect shot, but doing that is like an amateur poker player going to the local casino expecting to win big.

Like everything else in photography, music, writing, race car driving, being a pilot, or a mob hitman, these things all require one of two things. First, loads of very expensive equipment, or years of practice. Everyone wants to spend money, but few want to work to improve their skills. Have you not advised a photographer that when asked if they would do well with a "better camera" that they could buy one but the better result would come with what would be essentially be free, working on their technique?

In Jr. High, a teacher advised that any good story needs to have a moral to it. The moral to this story is those guys that causes jaws to hang open because the only used six sheets of film were not just weirdos, but guys that had chosen to work on techniques. But in the days when one shot sheet film, carrying around lots of film was a hassle. either a heavy plywood box called a plate holder that held many full film holders, or boxes of film and a changing bag. As photographers, they most likely made a choice to make the job easier.

And this is what is wrong with digital, it is an excuse to be a photographer without studying the subject and practicing. It's like the people that gave piano recitals where all they did was load rolls into a player piano. Ultimately, the art of photography will suffer.

Sorry for the length of this.

[William Andrew Lewis]

One of my favorite projects in the digital era is to take one lens and then go out and say "I have one roll of film today" and shoot a maximum of 36 exposures. There are plenty of times when I don't artificially limit myself but I've found the percentage of keepers on those kinds of projects is higher than otherwise.

[Bill Tyler]

About mice that are easy on your hands - your mileage may vary. I've tried various mice that are supposed to be ergonomic, and most have not fit well with my hand. A few have been definitively less comfortable with extended use. I'm not going to name names, because others have found such mice work well for them. It's a matter of individual fit.

[Mike Ferron]

What comes to me is the proper amount of frames to have on hand is 12. 6x6 and a roll of 120 is perfect. 24 is too many and one is just not enough though I often just shoot one if using the 4x5.

[Rick]

Even though I started with digital (albeit a Fuji E510 in 2006) and have never developed my own film (though I shoot a fair amount of it) I find the longer I have been making photos the more deliberate my approach has become. I loath loading up hundreds of photos into Lightroom and winnowing them down, and I'm at the point where I know what I like to take pictures of and how I like to take them.

Years ago I spent some time shooting with an old Voigtlander Bessa 1 shooting 6x9, which I think informed my subsequent approach to shooting digital. The routine of -wind film-compose-check rangefinder-set focus-estimate or check exposure-set aperture-set shutter speed-cock shutter (don't cock the shutter before setting the shutter speed!)-then finally press shutter button, along with the limitation of 8 frames
per roll of 120 film, made me very discerning in what I shot, but also gave me an appreciation for the process of slowing down and visualizing what I wanted in and out of a scene.

And despite trying a few times over the years to work with presets -both made by me or others- and even shoot jpegs I seem to have to spend ever more time with each individual shot in Lightroom before I'm prepared to release it into the world (whether via print of screen).

[Rick]

I used to use the evoluent mouse a lot, it really helped with the carpal tunnel syndrome I used to get with normal mice. (Mice? is that plural still correct in the context of computers? It sounds wrong somehow!)

[Michael Cytrynowicz]

Mike, another benefit of shooting less - when I scan 18 negs (because I will sometimes cut a roll in half) or 36, and I go through the process of scanning it - first lower resolution via SilverFast and an Epson V700, then higher resolution via a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and Vuescan - I realize the time involved makes me look at all things I did wrong in most images. Focus, background, Composition, whatnot. I am trying to get the habit of adding notes to negs that_might_ have made good images, and what I could have done... 18 or 36 at a time, this can work. Two or 300 hundred? It made me look for the "best" ones, ignore most others, and learn very little.

[Hugh]

“ Spray and Pray” is a cliche. Limiting the number of exposures you take is laziness, either at the taking stage, or at the editing stage. I’ve done the “12 sheets of large format film to last a weekend” thing, and I’ve shot 19 rolls of BW 35mm film in a day, processed it the next day, and printed the following day.

There’s a place for both approaches, but I think you progress faster by being productive, not by imposing artificial limits.

[Michael J. Perini]

I think you are 'right on' on this one. One of the things that has always interested me about photography is how many different ways photographers find to approach essentially similar things. There is always something to learn, as you say 'whether you agree or not'.
It is always good to consider different approaches.
Thanks

[richardl]

follow the guide that has gotten where you want to get

[Michael Cytrynowicz]

To me, Less is More at this juncture. Shooting 19 rolls of BW film in a day, processing and printing, may work for you, great, not for me. I do take exception to my option being called lazy, and I don't equate speed and volume with "being productive". I winder how many good ones you really got, or what you learned in the middle of all this frenzy. But then again, your way, my way, no name calling. OK