Thanks Jim for an interesting and thought proving read.
One of the joys of photography is the happy surprise. That last minute shot that might work, and which I make without much conviction. The best received picture form a recent set I made was one such shot. On the other hand, I grew tired of performing arts photography when I came to the conclusion that I had arrived at the point of being able to get the shot that "worked", without too much effort. I had the angles and timing all mapped out in advance.
Some of my best performing arts photography was made in desperate situations. A modern dance production comes to mind, where the stage lighting was in the form of a 60 Watt light bulb carried by the dancers. Every ounce, and more of my experience was needed to get the results that I had to produce for the press release. Those pictures had much more "soul" than usual.
I do a lot of architectural photography now. I plan and research beforehand. I want to be there when the important exteriors are not in deep shadow, of have cars and other clutter spoiling the shot. For the interiors, I try to list the interesting things inside, which I might want to photograph; that unusual pulpit or column capital. Can I use a tripod, or will it be a compromise with my monopod method, or even high ISO hand holding. I want the right gear in my camera bag.
For an architectural shoot there are several "standard" shots I want, and which are needed to tell the story. I will always do a down the aisle square on shot, and a bit of camera movement backwards and forwards is all I need. I will do a horizontal and vertical shot as it is not always certain which is the better shot. Once I have got the pre-planned or previsualised shots out of the way, I usually spend some time experimenting on shots that "might work"
I use technical previsualization to decide if I need to do a HDR set, when the lighting range is way beyond my sensors capability. I know I need to use at least 1/125 to freeze a ballet dancer in motion. I enjoy working with shift lenses, and I have a good Idea of how they alter the image if I use diagonal shift rather than the usual vertical shift. I know the problems that my 24PC will create if I am too close to the subject and use vertical shift.
The great thing about digital is that we can take one or one thousand frames at the same cost. Experimenting costs nothing but time. Even when I shot film, I shot far more than an inexperienced photographer would shoot as for a professional performing arts shoot, film was a minor cost, compared to a session failure.
Yes, looking at the contact prints of the "greats" like Bresson and André Kertész is illuminating. We cut through a lot of art critisism bullshit, to discover that the decisive moment was one frame amongst 35 near misses or outright failures. We discover Bresson cropped the hell out of some frames to produce an iconic shot. The guy jumping over a puddle comes to mind.
I came to know that this sort of shot was easy and predictable when sombody else was doing a solo.
A happy accident. I saw this curious bus country shelter as I was passing by and stopped the car to take a shot.
A last minute, might work" shot
