DoMeBo photographers...do you find pictures, arrange them, or both?

I like "finding" photos better than arranging them. Go for a walk in the park or whatever---there may be some pictures out there. You choose how to frame, expose, etc., but the elements were in place. Sometimes you have to be surreptitious about it, like not scaring away an animal or letting people know you're taking a picture. Maybe we should carry a camera at all times? I was out walking and noticed my shadow...here's the full size that I cropped for my avatar.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...hots016E-1.jpg

Other times I take the camera and I don't trip the shutter once. Then I leave it at home and find things I could photograph. :oops:

I know people who prefer to arrange elements. You can control the lighting, maybe move things around, even set up a studio. It can be fun to do that but often (for me) the results can feel contrived, artificial. Plus, I feel like I need to do something more spectacular; after all, I can manipulate as long as I want, so if it isn't Dali Atomicus maybe I've failed.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/...s/daliatom.jpg

Here's a shot I made yesterday that I like...not that it compares to the above.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...s/IMG_0024.jpg

Do you gravitate toward finding pictures or arranging them?

Finding - 99.9% of the time. When I do arrange them, they usually suck. Perhaps with the exception of my smurf shots.

I sometimes arrange for a still life. Mostly for "How to" or "How I did it" type things..... Travel pictures are usually a bit arranged by getting people in the shot or a motorcycle in the best place to get the shot...

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7...ogroadl.th.jpg

I prefer to go to a target rich environment and just see what comes up. The guys I hang around with frown pretty strongly on arranging things; no dragging gnarly sticks into the setting or sprinkling leaves about. It's absolutely forbidden to photoshop elements into the picture as well. The only exception would be to remove man-made things that shouldn't be there, such as jet contrails or bullet holes and graffiti in the rockart.

For the gingerbread house in my Photography class thread it was just sitting there. I did spin the thing around so I could use exterior sunlight through the window for better exposure though. I'm also currently reading a book where the author admits to occasionally "helping the photo along." There was a picture of a child in a yellow slicker mailing a letter at an oldish looking house somewhere in England. He comes clean that the kid is really his son and he told him to put on his yellow rain slick jacket and act like he was mailing a brochure he had in his pocket.

So sounds like there's really no rule AGAINST it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyberhwk

For the gingerbread house in my Photography class thread it was just sitting there. I did spin the thing around so I could use exterior sunlight through the window for better exposure though. I'm also currently reading a book where the author admits to occasionally "helping the photo along." There was a picture of a child in a yellow slicker mailing a letter at an oldish looking house somewhere in England. He comes clean that the kid is really his son and he told him to put on his yellow rain slick jacket and act like he was mailing a brochure he had in his pocket.

So sounds like there's really no rule AGAINST it.

---

In most cases I don't think there is. One exception would be in reporting. E.g. remember when OJ Simpson's picture was printed darker for the cover of Time (?), which some thought made him look more guilty?

A little fact that was brought back to me recently: color depends on light reflected off the subject. If you think OJ's skin is the color of something---say, milk chocolate---what you really mean is "under normal lighting conditions." He's going to look different in bright sunlight and different in a dimly lit room. So what's "normal?"

We manipulate a lot of things: framing, exposure, ISO, focal length.... I gave up on a photo the other day. I was in the park and I wanted to show people at a picnic table, trees, etc. and it was a nice natural scene. Running through that area is a cement storm runoff, kinda like a large manmade creek that sits empty except when it rains. Some kids had scrawled colorful graffiti on the concrete. I couldn't fit it all in with the wide-angle...I couldn't manipulate it enough to get the shot I wanted. But it would have been more manipulation to send kids down there to make the graffiti.

I think everybody draws a different line. Artistic license affords you some of that.

Occasionally I'll adjust things. If I'm taking a picture of a building, and there's a distracting small object in view that's easy to move, then I'll move it out of view. then replace it when I've finished.

I see it, I shoot it. Back in editing I'll adjust contrast, color saturation, sharpness, and crop when necessary, maybe from landscape to portrait or vice versa if the image works better that way. But I shoot what grabs my eye and try to get the framing right with the zoom.

I got the platinum artistic license so I can shoot the image and print it as is
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...blue/test1.jpg or endlessly fool with it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...blue/test2.jpg color enhanced

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...blue/test3.jpg contrast enhanced

these are just examples of an image captured from a car window at 50 mph and cropped.

I don’t arrange photos all that often, but I see no shame in doing so. This attitude probably comes from my background in film/video, where things are usually completely made up, arranged, and in all other ways fake. The end justifies the means.
Just setting the aperture and shutter speed is, in a way, staging a photograph. A camera’s depth of field can be made to be much, much narrower than a human’s eye. Motion blur is the same thing.

Take a look:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...banez_Bass.jpg
Only final touch was the long shutter and deliberate overexposure.
I also wore all white:
http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...h_IMG_0008.jpg
Then I put a big white board behind me:
http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...h_IMG_0016.jpg


These fishing hooks?
http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...shingHooks.jpg
Carefully arranged by me prior to the shot. (The graininess was a happy accident.)

Nose to nose?
http://s49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...ious_Raven.jpg
Not staged, but it probably could have been. How would that affect the photo?

Just to say it, I am in no way suggesting that I am making rules. The guys I hang out with feel that their shots should be an accurate depiction of a place, the way it is, in nature. That way, if you go there, it will look the same to you, when you see it in real life. The shots, therefore, should be journalisticaly accurate. There's nothing morally wrong with manipulating a shot. There's a certain charm in the Dali shot, considering it took something like 19 tries (with attendant floor moppings, and cat catchings) to get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chacoguy420

Just to say it, I am in no way suggesting that I am making rules. The guys I hang out with feel that their shots should be an accurate depiction of a place, the way it is, in nature. That way, if you go there, it will look the same to you, when you see it in real life. The shots, therefore, should be journalisticaly accurate. There's nothing morally wrong with manipulating a shot. There's a certain charm in the Dali shot, considering it took something like 19 tries (with attendant floor moppings, and cat catchings) to get it right.

---

I hope my post didn't appear to imply otherwise.

IIRC Ansel Adams would lug around all that heavy equipment, set up...and if the light wasn't right, he'd pack it all up at the end of the day without taking a single picture. I think there's something to be said for both approaches. I know some feel they aren't playing fair with the viewer if they manipulate it too much. Others feel like the truly spectacular (read: out of the ordinary) will require loads of manipulation.

I was curious b/c I know an art teacher and we had a discussion similar to this. Her idea was to pose items, like a still life painting, work on positioning the light or getting that certain pose, that sort of thing. I'm way lazy, don't know the rules, and find that there's some great stuff out there if you can find it but you have to keep your eyes open and be patient.

I've made a few images over the years that I really like. Most of them I "found." But for beginners especially, it may be valuable to pose things just to keep in practice, experiment, become familiar with the camera, and so on. That way when they *do* stumble across something really good, they'll have already developed the technical expertise to bring their vision to life.


Just my two cents :-)

Almost 100% found. With the exception of maybe a bouquet of flowers that I might tweak. I also do almost no editing after the fact beyond occasionally cropping.

Also, I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong with creating/arranging and editing, but it's just not me. I'm into found shots, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lobotomyboy63

IIRC Ansel Adams would lug around all that heavy equipment, set up...and if the light wasn't right, he'd pack it all up at the end of the day without taking a single picture.

---

Adams wasn't above manipulating his images. Here's an un-retouched version of one of his famous photos:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ams-LP-533.jpg

The nature of my work requires me to do both. Since I come from a photojournalism background, I enjoy the hunt and the sixth sense involved in being ready, in the right place, at the right time, to get the photo. That's the thrill of PJ: it's a constant game of prediction. However, I also do a lot of portraiture and some fine art work, so in that case, I'm setting work up. I definitely feel more natural at PJ, but I enjoy exercising the more controlling side of my brain, too. It's all fun, and I could not limit myself to one type of photography or another.

I shoot both ways, but "found" shots are the majority. Often I will be after a certain image and find better along the way. When the searched for shot doesn't pan out, I usually have found another as nice while waiting. Sunrises, for example. Often I may have chosen a poor vantage point and miss a great shot, so I look for another.
Still lifes, flowers, etc. are to me, almost always a "set-up", even if it is just adjusting for light or background.
In my view, these things are what keeps my shots from being just snapshots.

I do both but really all photos are 'arranged'. You do choose the framing, you choose when to press the shutter. (me, it is usually a moment too late).


It is quite satisfying to come up with an idea for an image in your head and then figure out to make that image happen. Pre production, production, post-production.