Herschel Mair
asks:
Could you concieve of a situation where technical knowledge could impair the taking of a good photograph.
Or
Is it possible that one can know too much, to the extent that it dulls one's perception of the subject or prevents one getting close enough to the essence of the subject.
Never! This question closely parallels rhetoric espoused by religious fundamentalists directing their ire toward science. Science I might add does not seek to unravel and demystify the universe but rather to sweep away myths, and those that are driven to science are not (or should not be!) cynics but rather driven by passion to discover the world around them.
Perhaps because one is thinking more about the technical issues than the subject's issues?
See that's the thing, in the learning stage, the technology seems kinda hard and occupies a lot of thought, but when the experimentation is done, when the discoveries are made THEN it becomes 'knowledge' - innate and complicit in the creative process and not a thing apart.
Who here thinks about walking when they're doing it? It was kinda hard in the early days .. VERY frustrating, and it seemed such a difficult thing to do - almost not worth the effort. Once it was mastered though it was integrated into what we do and became just 'walking'
I wonder how, once I know about the rule of thirds, do I NOT think about it when composing a picture.
precisely :)
Can one "NOT" think about it and compose naturally once you've been taught it?
It's a somewhat recursive question.
Here in Oz we have a lot of poisonous snakes. When I went to Canada I found myself to be amusing to the locals when I was walking in forested areas as I was always looking at the ground - I wasn't conscious I was looking out for snakes, I *knew* there was little to fear there from such things and I also knew I shoulda been more worried about looking about for bears (!) But it was ingrained and whether conscious or not ('why you looking at the ground'? they'd ask) .. it was just something I did.
Set the camera to my eye and I compose, think 'better' - 'best' then hit the shutter release. Am I scrolling through my list of do's and don'ts - no. Probably subconsciously I am, but that area of the mind is a mystery and one left to its own devices .. it usually gets things right better than my ego ;)
My humble opinion is that you can't choose to remove it from the equation so you must choose to act with it or against it. but one way or another there's no way to go back to totally free, fully intuitive composition.
Maybe.
but is this the aesthetic 'rules' we're discussing, or the technical rules? I don't have a lot of time for aesthetic 'rules'. They're different for everyone anyway.. Eastern placement of subject is different for Western placement. 2 people in a room shooting she same subject will rarely compose exactly the same. they are driven by their own aesthetic, their own creativity.
I'm of course talking about those who've gone beyond the 'oh that looks pretty' <snap!> stage and have learned to 'see' what is in front of them. To each of us, beauty presents its self differently.
Yes, I constantly chop the tops off heads, lop off legs, squeeze out and arm - but no one ever asks for the missing anatomy, they look at the eyes (oh the eyes!) or the curve of the neck (oh, such a neck!) or the faint hint of a smile moments away and they like what they see and what is not their, what was eliminated is utterly redundant. All that I try to leave is the essence
k
