Light and shadows
For me photography is all about the search for light and shadows. How to capture it, to evoke it, to show it. For instance, in the woods I find framing hard, because of the clustering of all the trees and the absense of a clear focal point. Shadows of trees or branches on the other hand can form beautiful subjects. I find the shadow details in digital photography very difficult and I make the shadows much darker to loose much of those captured details.
I still think it is hard to find the holy grail for me. Darker or brighter. Avoiding blown highlights, but not much mid grey either.
So this is no musing about what application or tool to do the job for me. And I am not discussing any processing method either, although tips and insights are of course always welcome.
It is more about what direction to go. I consiously compose in traditional 2:3 format since I am so familiair with it. I tried 4:3 and 1:1, but 2:3 is still what I like and how I see. I carefully frame everything I want within that format, although mostly unconsiously. I use shadows as lines to structure the composition, but I still like to keep it simple. That is why I keep coming back to the same places.
Last weekend I saw the work of photographer John Marrocco that reminded me of my own work. He too focusses on simple subjects, form and factor. Not the event itself is the pinnacle of our photography, but the subject becomes the event. Events are not always there and you can’t always be in time for events, but subjects are everywhere.
All photographs by Wouter Brandsma
It fascinates me what causes us to have ways of seeing; I too always come back to 2:3; sometimes 1:1 works for me, never 4:3 or 5:7 4:5 or 16:9. I like panoramas and make them, but somehow they just don’t seem to me like, well, photographs! They are someting else: a panoramic representation of reality.
A photograph for me is 2:3; I see the world that way. But why? Is it some deep fact about neuropsychology — unlikely. Is it just that I was brought up on 35mm slide shows, and photographs of Cartier Bresson et al?
If it’s just the latter, it’s amazing how such early exposure can so deeply, and it seems unchangeably affect how we see an interpret the world — at a simple perceptual level, not just a complicated interpretive one.
Now I don’t mind trying to see things differently. But when it simply doesn’t work for me I keep it as it is. I see the 2:3 format now 27 years and it is how I want to see it.
Interesting topic. In my search for a film camera I’ve been looking at various proportions and thinking about my own work and subjects, taking a step back with unfocused eyes to see what draws me most. I like 6×6 a lot, but more and more I am drawn to 6×7. It has a bit more room to breathe while still holding in a sense of structure and boundary. For some reason, I can’t get into the 3×2 image. I don’t seem to see that way. Getting even wider I like true panoramics a lot.
Over this past weekend I took my Olympus E30 out for a shoot. It allows me to use different proportions and it was a great way to work through this question. Again, I kept returning to 6×7.
But I don’t think there are hard and fast rules. It’s a matter of subject matter and personal vision.
I particularly like #2 above.
I agree with you Andrew that it is all a personal and very subject matter. It has all to do with with how you see and they way you want to see things.
And I certainly don’t believe in rules either.
Hello Wouter Brandsma,
“i lke it medium” and that means 6×9 (2:3), 6×7 (2:3,5), 6×6 (1:1) and 6×4,5 (4:3) thats what i prefer…the most time…and sometimes not…
Good luck to you
titus
I never used medium format so I can personally not have an opinion on that. I tried 4:3 and 1:1 on my cameras, but always return to 2:3. I guess I wouldn’t mind working with a 6×9 medium format camera for landscapes.
Cheers
Hello,
if you are interested, try to work with a Holga, Diana or an old fashioned Pentacon Six. It can be funny, serious and means to go back to the roots of Photography.
Good luck, titus
I might have a different camera to work with soon, although it will still be 2:3. But it is a simple camera with great image quality.
Do you think about a dp-1 ?
We’ll see soon Titus.
The second shot rocks!
I have no opinion on format. To each his own.
I rarely have no opinion. Perhaps it was an opinion after all.
You mean, you rarely have an opinion. But then again I never noticed that. I think you have a strong opinion about Italian stallions
No I meant I rarely have no opinion… as in I have an opinion about everything… and I must make it know… even if people do not want to hear about it. That’s what I meant.
It’s true however that I feel particularly opinionated about Italian stallions. You got me there. Can’t deny that.
Sorry, my interpretation Nathalie. Although I never had the idea that you are without any opinion. And because of the Italions stallions I never saw a post about Texas oil riggers (unless you count the Dalles gay scene in too).
LOVE the Edge & Composition of this series Wouter
Will Your Next Canera be Digital or Analog ?
Either way its All in Good Fun
Best to You – H
Thank you Helen. It will be a digital camera and I can use it for some time while the owner familiarize herself with here M8.
Oh Silly
You mean Cam
How absurd to play soooooo mysterious
I had the M8 got kind of got bored with the homogenized cleanness to it
but the Files are soooo much better to play with than the Rd1
Best _h
I personally think both cameras are very interesting Helen and I believe Cam will love the M8. And the best for here, the R-D1 will be here second camera. Love your film work in the meantime. Absolutely gorgeous.
And I do know what you mean with the cleanness. That is why I try to roughen my photos more and more and push them harder. It is not that I want to make it look like film, but I do want to remove the look of digital.