Skip to main content

What's so interesting?

When I photograph, I always ask myself, "what's so interesting about that?"


I thought this was interesting with the gentleman's head. I was going to just shoot the statue but I think this is better.

In this blog, I more or less investigate my fascination about photography.  The camera is just a machine that does not have a mind, and millions of cameras are out there but when this is controlled by a human it takes on a different life as an artistic equipment, if one choose to.




When the photographer asks, "what's so interesting?" This question is really about what the photographer values. It doesn't have to be all that deep but it touches on what makes each one of us different. As artists, all we do is explore that difference.



Here, I surprised myself by using a very shallow depth of field and rendering the background into something abstract. I think a good picture happens when whatever the photographer thought was interesting is clearly communicated to the viewer. And this clarity is mixture of framing, lens selection and all that stuff we teach ourselves in photography. What's so interesting about a blade of grass? I thought this blade isolated in this manner with more jagged background gave an interesting balance between the two. If the background was in focus, then it would've taken attention away from the delicate blade.



What's so interesting about this? Oh you know...



The light bulbs interested me here. And the cool blue and warm pink was extra.

What I like is different than what you may like, so when we photograph, we'll come up with something different. This difference loosely defines style, I think.

I believe, that whatever you may think is interesting, you need to clarify that vision, and use all your resources to get that idea across. That would be a good photograph. You may not like it because of what ever reasons but a clearly stated photo with easy to understand vision is a good photograph.

I used to see other photographers' work and wonder why I couldn't do what they do? We have the same camera, so why not?  The answer is because we are all different. Styles are established when we are comfortable with ourselves enough to say to others "Hey, this is what I thought it was interesting, so there!"




Comments

  1. Belinda WarwickNovember 4, 2010 at 4:53 AM

    Thanks for this insight. I always thought that others were better photographers than me, but after reading this I realise that it's the individual's style and vision that makes their photographs stand out. Now I will go and take what I want to get across instead of tryignt o emulate others work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan ChungNovember 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

    That's great Belinda! We all have our own vision, and that's what we have to hone. Having said that, we can learn by copying others' work too. Mostly technical skills, but a lesson is a lesson.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Large Format ...Slight Return

Took out my Linhof 4x5 field camera out for a spin. Tripod, cable release, focusing cloth, loupe, lightmeter, and film holders! The gang's all here. Linhof Technica III, (circa 1940's) with Fujinon 150mm 5.6 a modern lens design.  Bull Run Park near Manassas VA.The camera is wonderfully made with machined aluminum with German engineering. Like Butter. Working with a 4x5 is a whole different world. It takes long to set up and there are so many things that you can screw up. "Did I cock the shutter? check focus?, meter reading, dark slide out? lock the movements?... There are like 13 different steps that you have to make to take a picture.  So why do it when I can just point my 5d and shoot in easy one two steps?  Reasons may vary, but I do it because of the camera movements. The tilts, swings, shifts. These cameras were made so you can technically control how the image hits the film plane. You can achieve "technically perfect" images, whatever that means. 
5 comments
Read more

Boston: B&W Architecture with Leica Q2M: From a Purist Perspective.

I swear I was going to switch out my black and white ONLY Leica Q2M to a regular Q2 color camera before going to this trip.  I"m glad I didn't.   Oh, before I forget, take a look at my icandy slide shows .  I will be making slideshows that is designed for big screen TV's.  Take a look at this one: Ok, back to the topic on hand.  So one of the most asked question about the Leica Q2M is, 'why limit yourself to just black and white when you can easily convert color photos to BW?'  Very good question.  My answer is,  if you know with certainty you want the best quality BW image possible, you want the dedicated monochrome camera.  Am I being a staunch purist? or is there a practical argument for it? Let's talk about it.  Beacon Street Boston,  MA One of many beautiful architecture on that hill.   First, this camera doesn't have any moire filter on the sensor.  Moire filters are on most color camera sensors to get rid of those annoying repeating patterns that loo
Post a Comment
Read more

Polaroid Negative?

I've been wanting to do color large format for awhile. When there were photo labs around the corner, it wasn't hard to do a E-6 process in a day or two. Now that process has gotten expensive and if you're doing sheet film, its even more pain. So my solution... Polaroid! well technically, it should be called "instant film" since Polaroid is trademarked term. I'm using  Fuji FP 100c45. But here's the twist. I wanted a different look. If I want true colors, I wouldn't bother with the cost of 2 bucks per shot.  I also was fascinated with some surface texture that I saw on polaroids.  I recently came across some sites that talks about turning a polaroid into negatives. Its true that Polariod years ago did have those positive/negative film, but they've discontinued all instant film a couple of years ago.   The process is simple. you take bleach and take off the black stuff on the part that you throw away.  Once the black part is off, you have a negati
5 comments
Read more