Usually, when I photograph nature, I take my tripod. Today, I challenged my own idea of using the tripod. I asked myself why do I need the tripod? Do I need long shutter speed because I'm shooting stopped down to f8 or more to get greater depth of focus? No. Is the light level very low? No. Do I need to compose with most precision? No.
I know that I can safely shoot down to 30th or 15th of second if I really brace the camera up to my forehead. I also knew that the park was full of jagged branches, so knocking them out of focus by using an open aperture was a good idea. If the aperture was open that means faster shutter speed, which means... no need for tripod, since I can hand hold.
Shot with 50 1.2L. Worked in Lightroom to get the colors (split toning). Shot at f1.8.
I'm big on capturing the mood. For me, a photograph needs a human emotion to come alive. I also wanted to work on getting an idea across to the viewer. I always think depicting an idea is harder than depicting something that is physically in front of you.
These are glimpse of the things that I saw while I was out. The subject matter is rather ordinary, things that we usually walk right past them without giving too much attention. But honestly, when you enjoy a walk in the woods, aren't these little things that we enjoy also?
This is a strange one. I was trying to get rid of the branches in the shot so I can have a clean shot of a kayak-er but that meant plunging into my own icy death. But I like the way it turned out. Its a different perspective that we're not used to.
Using the proper equipment to express your vision is very important in photography. Sometimes we need the gadgets, sometimes we don't. I personally like to use less equipment.
A tripod would've been absolutely necessary if I wanted to more things in focus or motion blur the water while keeping the rocks in focus. But since I knew what I was going after: extreme angles in composition, shallow depth of field and ability to move freely, I was able to strip down the equipment to bare essentials (camera with one lens) so I can be free of things that get in the way. Besides, I wouldn't have been able to catch this if I was fumbling with a tripod.
A tripod would've been absolutely necessary if I wanted to more things in focus or motion blur the water while keeping the rocks in focus. But since I knew what I was going after: extreme angles in composition, shallow depth of field and ability to move freely, I was able to strip down the equipment to bare essentials (camera with one lens) so I can be free of things that get in the way. Besides, I wouldn't have been able to catch this if I was fumbling with a tripod.
Comments
Post a Comment