Panorama Camera

I spent a week at the cabin and this year where it was within 6 degrees of 0 rather than -30, so the photography was more prolific this time round.  I did a lot of shooting with a cheap plastic camera with a binary output of N or P and loved both the process and the product of shooting with this camera.  In the past year I have noticed that I seem most drawn to the images I have made with the simplest of cameras, almost as though electricity becomes a confounded factor in the gather of light.  I had never really shot with this negative format before and I was really interested to see how it would impact the negative and inform on the sense of the image.  I enjoy the more expansive horizon without the peripheral distortion of the wide angle lens and I found it was a great format to really sweep me into an image.  I also enjoyed how the aspect ratio did tend to add some dynamism into otherwise boring subjects.  The other thing I found really interesting after viewing the images is that I think these dimensions seem to create a more visually realistic image than any focal length I have ever used.  I am going to track down other Pan users to get their thoughts on this matter.  Here are some images from this trip.

I can't wait to use the camera more often and to get into the darkroom to print these.

Questions you ask about an image

I am curious about the questions that people ask themselves when they view an image.  I dislike answering the mundane, the how and the where, because I find far too often people focus on these anciliary issues.  I also am curious as to why many people go to such lengths to avoid discussing images, insecurity, lack of awareness... The first thing I usually ask is how the image makes me feel and from there I move to why does it make me feel this way.  Then I consider how the elements in the image work together to create this feeling.  Then I wonder why the photographer made that image in that manner.  I look at how unified the image is and then for other thngs like tension and balance.  I look for punctums and studiums, and I also listen for any sounds the image evokes.  Heavily detailed images or often noisy with restaurant chatter, where some images are so still they are utterly silent as though framed in sound absorbing boards.  I figure that once and image is presented that the photographer feels it is finished and it isn't my place to comment on areas for improvement.
Critiquing an image cna be a powerful learning tool, and often I will look what I can fold into my own work and vision.  I think I will critique images here as a learning experience.

Frequented Locale

Originally uploaded by PaulaRussell

I have really only been involved in the greater-than-aesthetics aspect of photography for about 3 years. I can still remember the feeling upon figuring out the interplay between aperture and shutter speed, or when I saw the first of one of my really blurry images, or when I exposed a wind-whipped shoreline for 30 seconds. And much of that figuring out, aside from the shoreline, has happened in the Guelph Arboretum. I love having a space that I return to regularly. It is the first place I go when I have any new piece of equipment, or a new idea, or a major change in the weather. Perhaps it functions as a baseline or a foundation, regardless it has been invaluable to follow my growth. It also forces me to try to make different images from a familiar subject, which I think is one of the most valuable tools. Here are a few images of the boardwalk in the arboretum that I have taken over the last few years.

Originally uploaded by PaulaRussell

Originally uploaded by PaulaRussell

Originally uploaded by PaulaRussell

Trophy Hunting v. Immersion approaches to photography

So Darwin Wiggitt in the recent issue of OPC wrote about these two different approaches for photographing.  I guess he has observed these in his own shooting as well as when he participates and/or leads workshops.  Trophy hunters go in hard to grab the big shot - I guess things like the first bits of light streaming beyond the horizon, or the hot highlights rolling off the snowcapped peaks.  These images tend to be assertively, if not aggressively, coloured, and are often authentic renderings of the physical aspects of a scene.  Shooters of this ilk march into a new environment, shoot quickly and often, and come out with the big pictures, or what I would rather call the pretty pictures.  Immersion shooters spend their time feeling an environment waiting for the interesting or compelling elements to rise above the visual clutter.  They often work more slowly, produce fewer images, and would rather linger in that environment than moving on to a new one.  Wiggitt suggests that the trophy hunters are more likely to produce the award winning cover images, while the immersion approach is more conducive to producing cohesive and engaging sets of images.  He also suggests, based on his experience, that men tend to gravitate towards trophy hunting while women tend to immerse themselves in their surroundings.

I am definitively and happily an immersion shooter.  Those pretty things, the first bits of winter dawn light that skates across a frozen lake, the glint of the setting sun off an ancient glacier, or the easy interactions of heavy shadows and rolling hills, well those things I would rather look at than photograph.  When a moment is time dependent, I would rather experience it than attempt to control and capture it with my camera.  I would rather find subjects wherever I am, in whatever light I find myself, and with whatever weather might happen to be there.  Sure there are areas I return to in certain types of light or weather, but usually I just go with what it is on the day I am going.  I would also rather feel an environment, wait until my eyes, mind, and heart adjust to the surroundings, which is when I find you notice the really important elements.  I also think photography is about what you are responding to, what the image means, and what you are trying to comment on, than it is about one off images.  

Anyway, it was an interesting read.  I do not think gender predisposes you to one approach or another.  I think too often we reward the big prize before we see the bigger picture.  Again, it does not make me as a photographer or the my photographs any better or worse than someone else, it just makes me working in a way that I know I prefer.