Just looked at the contact sheets, and I took 3 shots of the lifeguard station that day. They were from three completely different angles, so it wasn't a matter of getting many similar but slightly different shots. I remember now that I was walking around the building, thinking that I'd take a bunch, but then I got distracted by a dog (a dalmation against the snow - thought it might look interesting), shot a couple of him, then I was off on something else, and forgot about the lifeguard station after that.
I took 2 rolls in total that day.
Since you asked...
But, I understand what you're saying. I need more discipline sometimes, and I don't mean getting distracted by spotted dogs and the like. And I don't mean on this particular day. I just mean generally when it comes to photography. I just have to figure out when to be disciplined, and when to be spontateous, because (if I may be momentarily immodest) I think that much of my best work is done when I'm being spontaneous. But, I have to learn how to balance the two.
Thanks for the advice and help; it's much appreciated.
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW week #2 - A Canadian Tan Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:24:56 -0800
Hi Frank,
The snow and the sunbather are the two elements that add some special interest to ~this~ shot, ~this~ visit.
If you recall, I asked if you'd read On Being a Photographer. In the book there's a description of just the sort of situation you encountered, although it was on a beach in the summer. The example used was Harry Callahan's photo, Cape Code, which, like your shot of the lifeguard station, is a very simple image. It shows a volleyball net on the beach with the sea in the background. Nothing could be simpler, nor more static. To many people the impression might be that Callahan was wandering around, saw the scene, and made a quick snap. In reality, by looking at the contact sheet (something to be said for contact sheets here, but that's for another time) we find that he shot eleven frames, all from slightly different angles and perspectives.
Now, I don't know how many frames you exposed on the day you took this pic. I don't know if you went to the scene specifically to photograph the station, or if it just happened that you ended up there at that time. I applaud you going back numerous times to photograph the place. That's good. But, I must ask ... how many frames did you expose on the day you made this pic? How many different angles and positions did you try?
I took a workshop with Baron Wolman a few years ago, and he suggested making lots of exposures even if the scene hasn't changed much. After the workshop I met Steve Larson and we went to the santa barbara zoo. There I saw a man holding his young son on his back, so the boy could get enough height to see the elephants marching around in their compound. I took the most mundane point of view, from their back, and shot an entire roll of film of the man and his son. Afterwards I made 5x7 proof prints of every frame, laid them out on the floor so i could see every one of them, and looked them over. The differences between each frame, as you may suspect, were slight - very slight. A small movement in a hand, a tilt of the boy's head, the way the father's fingers interlocked ... you get the idea.
>From that simple exercise of a "nothing" scene, it became clear that not only were some shots way better than others, but that there was a decent photograph in the bunch after all.
OK, on to other things,
Kind Regards from the Depths of Despair,
shel
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
