Topic: Photography and Life - Add or Subtract?

[Late Developer]

I stumbled across this blog the other evening as I was browsing Flipboard on my commute home.  It's worth the read, IMO.  See what you think?

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2015/08/17/photography-and-life-is-about-subtraction-not-addition/

[zapsnaps]

I sorta get this - but it's not for me. I'm an adder.

While I appreciate aesthetic subtraction as an idea, I get bored. I need to 'add' to avoid that. I can get bored half-way through a roll of 36 and want to use another type of film. Sometimes I want to shoot a model in colour, sometimes in mono. Depends on the model and the set. I agree that Dicky Avedon did tremendous portraits in front of a white background - that was his Big Idea - but I dont want to limit myself to copying his aesthetic. Nudes look best in B&W, don't they? But I have a shoot lined up where the model is going to wear gold leaf as body art. So that will need to be in colour.

I think the decision process in image creation is an important part of how I snap. Using a 35mm prime lens & 135 HP5 for everything would eliminate many of the options in my tool box. So when planning for the gold shoot, I will decide if I want to shoot 135 and blast away, hoping that 1 will come out, or if I should use MF and coax each shot out of the model. Will I have time to do a few Polaroids as well? Would that increase the chance of creating a keeper, or interrupt the workflow?

If I had to give all my cameras away to friends, I could manage with the R8 and 2 lenses. (Am I the only FW on here who admits to having more cameras than friends?) I'd be happy with the R8. I'll never part with it. But I would battle. It would (nearly) always have the wrong film in it. Or it would be too heavy. Or I'd want a square MF. And I'd miss the Polaroids. So be subtracting all the other gear, I'd be subtracting opportunities, too. And adding heartache about how I would like to have taken the shot with another rig, using another film, on another day, with different light, perhaps with a different model.

Where I to become a monk, I think I would try to subtract. But then few monks shoot models liberally rolled in gold leaf. So put me down as an adder.

[Late Developer]

Some interesting thoughts, Zapsnaps.

I think the reason the article struck a chord with me is that, over the last few years, I've started to crave simplicity, peace and a bit of time to think. 

I don't imagine I'll be distributing cameras to all and sundry like some photographic Santa Claus anytime soon but I have started looking at my cameras and thinking about which ones I would keep and which I could dispense with.  Too much choice is not always a good thing.

The more I look at work by those photographers I like most, the more I conclude that the reason I like them is that they have made an obvious effort to simplify their work to the point where the "message" they're attempting to convey is easily understood.  If you look through the FWers ranks, the most stand-out photos posted tend to be those where the frame is uncluttered.  There's a place, of course, for busy backgrounds and, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to avoid them - e.g. street photography / city scenes.  Sometimes, busyness and fuss is the desired end result.

However, I can't think of many successful fine art photographers who mish-mash styles, formats and media.  It's different for commercial photographers who are shooting to someone else's brief but many of those have an identifiable style - often linked to simplicity.  I'm not sure if any others are doing any of this kind of navel-gazing but I think de-cluttering (generally) will of benefit to me.

[Terry]

All composition is about elimination of the unnecessary.  Call me a cynic, but most of what I read on the net is recycled old theory.  Less is indeed more and to give is better than to receive. 

[charles binns]

I agreed with alot of what he said even if, to be honest, I didn't care for the way he said it.  Less is always more and one of the reasons I prefer my holgas to my DSLR is that I don't like being distracted by buttons or profiles. 

I was struck by the following comment though

"I try to be less active on social media. At the moment I am down to just Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Google+." 

Maybe I am being cynical and jaded but that sounded to me like "Look at me, I'm a 'streettog' (WTF???) whose artistic integrity is too pure for the interweb, which is why I am broadcasting this on the biggest social media sites on the planet."

Street photographers, eh!  Give 'em an iPhone and they think they're Vivian Meier's love child.

[Terry]

Oh no!  More rumors about Vivian Maier's love life!!!!  My favorite recent experience of a street photographer was watching a guy attempting to take a discreet candid with his i-pad.

[scapevision]

hate street photographers

[Peter84]

Too much choice is not always a good thing.

Did you know that a study from a couple of year ago with choices of salad dressing made exactly that point. The more choices we have the more unhappier we seem te get....

Another quote: "Having limits in our photography gives us true freedom"

I totally get that too. Four years ago I started my bachelor of the built enviroment studies and as an assignment we had to design our dreamhouse a la the sky is the limit, no restrictions. The results were not to inspiring. After came  a more "design within these rules" sort of assigment and because space and form were much more limited, students started to be much more creative within the preset confinements and the more clever ideas and designs saw light of day as you tend to go deeper and because there is less choice the happier you'll be with the result.

As for extracting things, from time to time I suffer from massive GAS-attacks and I don't mean the ones rennies were made for. But that is because I'm too curious. How will that camera handle, what images will it give with this lens, how will this film look when shot this or that way or developed  surtain ways. I haven't found one thing that I would like to do with photography yet, maybe one day, like the author of that piece, I will. But then again maybe exploring that much will give you something to extract....

[Late Developer]

Peter, I am 110% with you on the above.

When shopping - for anything - I will go into an almost trance-like state if faced with more than a couple of viable options.  I'm more than capable of making a decision but I like to have a fairly strong brief or set of requirements before I even start looking at stuff.   

Same with work.  If my boss gives me carte blanche to come up with "something", I struggle occasionally to make a coherent stab at it.  I'd much rather have at lease some constraints to work to, or against which to push if I don't think they're sensible / reasonable.  I doubt there are many people who are sufficiently creative to be able to genuinely "think outside of the box".

I have been prone to GAS attacks, too.  Mine tend to be fulfilment of owning something I lusted after in the 70's / 80's but couldn't afford.  I think the time's coming rapidly for me to consolidate.

[Peter84]

exactly, without pressure no diamonds!

[zapsnaps]

Some interesting points. I love 'Vivian Maier's love child'!

Just to clarify my position. My style is lots of cameras - clean backgrounds.

One of the things I really like about this site is that I can often guess on the weekend thread who took the photo, and I'm sure many others can too. They have developed a style, almost a signature, of seeing. But many of them use different cameras (notwithstanding our famous contributors, some recognised, who only use one camera). They have used a variety of cameras in different situations, conditions and with different subjects, to create, consciously or not, their look. And I really respect that. It's about creating a picture, rather than showing off the gear. But developing a distinctive style has to be far easier if you only use one camera, to shoot one person, against a white backdrop (back to Dicky again). Using different tools to achieve the same look has got to be more of a challenge, in it's own way, so perhaps we should respect that even more.

[scapevision]

same subject and background is not a style, is it?

[Indofunk]

I disagree with most of what he says. However, one thing I liked: how he removes (makes private) one photo a day from his Flickr feed. I think I'll start doing that. There's a lot of CRAP from my early days of "hey, I just got a DSLR! Look at what I can do!"

Anyways, I wish he'd applied his theory of subtraction to the number of words in his article. Could have easily been said with about 1/4 of the words he used. Much less, even.

[Indofunk]

Come to think of it, 100% less words would have been ideal

[jharr]

I agree with Satish. I only made it about 2/3 of the way through the article. He made his point in the first few sentences and then just prattled on about how much better it would be if there were "less".

As far as the idea goes, I think I agree that a simpler life is, well... simpler. I don't know if you can necessarily get from "simpler" to "better" in any general sense. Maybe if you narrow it down to specifically photography, then you might get a bit closer. This is really a very "first world" sort of philosophy because when we say "simpler", we still have all of our basic needs being met. We are talking about a luxurious hobby for which we have the time and resources in abundance. So while I might subscribe to his philosophy about photography, he loses me when he tries to generalize it.

[Indofunk]

I agree that his philosophy only applies to "first world problems". I mean, how can you have less if you already have nothing? Anyways, good to keep in mind in terms of GAS and oversharing, but other than that, a pretty bunk theory.

[hookstrapped]

I disagree with most of what he says. However, one thing I liked: how he removes (makes private) one photo a day from his Flickr feed. I think I'll start doing that. There's a lot of CRAP from my early days of "hey, I just got a DSLR! Look at what I can do!"

Anyways, I wish he'd applied his theory of subtraction to the number of words in his article. Could have easily been said with about 1/4 of the words he used. Much less, even.

I couldn't read it because he's Eric Kim, the dude from petapixel who has wasted minutes from my life already and I have to draw the line somewhere. 

[Indofunk]

I disagree with most of what he says. However, one thing I liked: how he removes (makes private) one photo a day from his Flickr feed. I think I'll start doing that. There's a lot of CRAP from my early days of "hey, I just got a DSLR! Look at what I can do!"

Anyways, I wish he'd applied his theory of subtraction to the number of words in his article. Could have easily been said with about 1/4 of the words he used. Much less, even.

I couldn't read it because he's Eric Kim, the dude from petapixel who has wasted minutes from my life already and I have to draw the line somewhere.

I should have looked at the name first. That would have definitely saved me 3-4 minutes.

[Francois]

Like all in life, the thing is to strike a balance between things.
For me, I like getting a good deal on some oddball photo gear. I love the fine mechanical engineering that goes into the cameras. Everything is a very sensual process.
Then, there's the cameras I love shooting with. This is where the list shrinks like if it was hit by some mysterious ray from a cheezy sci-fi flick.
When I look back, there's maybe 5 cameras that I just adore. That's a good way to simplify things.
I used to carry around a whole bunch of lenses... now I usually just have the one on the camera.
I discovered that I don't really miss that much in the process.
And composition wise, it's definitely wabi-sabi for me.

As for Eric Kim, this guy does one thing that always amazes me: I wonder how the heck he manages to approach people to take their portraits so easily!