Confidence to shoot ‘nothingness’
I was talking to Dave, one of the participants of my April workshop about ‘nothingness’. Dave agreed with me that it’s very easy for most photographers to point their camera at a well known land mark to make an image, when really, it’s not the object that is the main point of interest, but the interplay of light, shape and tone that is what makes a photograph work. Dave finished off his email by saying a lot of photographers don’t have the ‘confidence to shoot nothingness’.
I’ve certainly seen that on some of my trips. I give someone a beautiful beach like Scarista on Harris to photograph and they struggle with it. I’ve had comments like ‘there’s nothing here’ and also one participant who told me they did not want to go back to the location because they’d seen the beach and there was nothing there.
My feelings are that if there’s nothing there, then it’s really a reflection on how open we are to what we’re being presented with. I often feel we just need to work at it or look at the location in a different way, or walk a few more yards and then we will find something that will work for us.
I love space, texture, light. In the image above of Scarista, the main point of focus for me was the moving clouds and so for me, using a beach with less demanding shapes and textures was ideal because it would not distract.
I feel my images have become more simplistic over time. Simple is good, simple is effective and it’s a great lesson in being able to break a scene down into its main components. I feel I understand a landscape and also the image process better when I work with simple locations.
But I’m sure that for some people, they feel intimidated by the space. It is also not for the person who feels that there should be something of note. Some people simply feel that a photograph should be about a land mark, like Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Mount Everest, when really, it can simply work because we’re playing with texture, shade and tone.
I wonder if you find minimalist landscapes something you wouldn’t consider shooting and if so, why you wouldn’t shoot them?
I think the reason I generally haven’t shot minimalist landscapes is that it has taken time, practice, and building of skill and the eye to spot a minimalist subject that actually works. Identifying the shapes and so forth. As nothing more than a super keen amateur (but a hard working one to try and make it more than that) my initial good photos were full of clutter and stuff, that made the photo interesting. But as time has past, I feel I have the confidence to take a more simple photo now.
A good example from my perspective was a recent full moon over the English Channel. Usually I’d slap a wide lens on, get the pier and the streaming lights in, and some other stuff. This time I shot with a telephoto and concentrated on the moon, and its reflection on the sea.
The result:
a.) One of my favourite photos taken this year
b.) here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4756753541/
Will I only shoot like this? No, I like the more intricate landscapes with details and so forth, but I do feel I understand light and the shapes that form a composition much more naturally now that I can make a minimalistic landscape work.
Vicky
Comment by lilserenity — 13 July, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Hello Bruce, I have been thinking a bit since our email conversation and I think the confidence part only forms part of the equazion. I think the other big part is that the verbatim is more of a consideration than the untangible naunces we discussed (time,tone,mood,the elements, contrasts, suggestion etc). Then its probably a case of confidence that a photo cant just be about such naunces alone. Another part is the pre-visualisation, that “feeling” we discussed on Eigg when you just “know” a photograph is there. Not sure how easy it is to learn that one.
d
Comment by DavidLangan — 14 July, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
I have been considering this for days now. The image of Solas posted on July 9 titled “Light, Shape and Tone” sort of started my thinking and then this posting has more fully engaged it. I love that Solas image. It may be my favorite.
The question isn’t would I or wouldn’t I shoot minimalist landscapes. It is, do I see the image in a minimalist landscape? Being new to photography I usually do not see images. Bruce has stated numerous times that his skill has changed (matured) over the years. Most people do not pursue photography fully (I don’t) so it takes longer to develop a visual eye or it may never develop as I so often feel. It would be nice if we could all say photography is a pursuit but for some we are standing still.
Would I shoot a minimalist landscape? I will as soon as I can get to one. I have read that we should learn to leave out of a photo what doesn’t add to it. I may do the reverse. Leave out everything and then add only what does add to it.
Thanks for the help. Hopefully it will lead to taking better photographs.
Gary
Comment by Gary James — 16 July, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Gary, you said something in your post – “I will as soon as I can get to one” Often minimal landscapes are deceptive as there could be allsorts of clutter and objects just outside the frame. Minimal landscapes are all around us. For example, when I head down to the beach in Aberdeen and shooting out to sea just yards behind me is Pizza Hut, cinemas etc. Its the ultimate distillation process.
D
Comment by DavidLangan — 17 July, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
David, I agree with your comment. That is how I know my vision is not well developed. When I look at my local environment little is interesting to me. I have a friend that is new to photography also. She is always saying there is nothing interesting here to shoot. I always say there is but cannot see them. Other places seem so photogenic. However, I am sure that view really has more to do with familiarity than one place being more photogenic than another (though some places are).
All places have tones, shapes and light. So while there are no domestic mountain ranges here these 3 things exist in abundance. I need to develop vision to see them and skill to take the image I see. So getting to a minimalist landscape has less to do with location and more about seeing. That is why it is so hard.
Gary
Comment by Gary James — 17 July, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Hi David & Gary,
David – I love your input here. That’s a great example – a massive Pizza Hut on the beach and you managed to extract it. I think good photography is being able to ignore parts of the landscape and home right into one central theme.
I often find participants on workshops will walk right past some amazing part of the landscape, like someone walking through a forest declaring in a loud voice ‘there’s no animals here!’, they’re literally walking through the landscape with their eyes wide shut.
There are a couple of suggestions I can give you Gary, that may help you;
1. Refine your search for good locations. Start with a wide net: a large beach, and then get onto the beach, go for a walk. This will reduce your search to a much narrower part of the beach, then look at objects that have been washed up on the beach, this will reduce your search even further. Once you find something on the beach, a small log, a couple of pebbles, etc, stop and now start to work with that tiny segment of the beach.
Like all problems, looking at the bigger picture will only make the whole thing impossible to deal with. Reducing, refining, getting into one small part of the landscape will allow you to focus on that, and that alone.
2. Set your camera to one focal length. For most landscapes, wide angles tend to be used for most shots, so go for something like 24mm on full frame and 16mm (or there abouts) on APS. Tape the zoom ring in place so you can’t shift it.
This will make you ‘work your location’ by wandering around more, viewing through the viewfinder different vantage points.
3. Roam, stop, look through the view finder, try different heights – even get down onto your belly to see it from a crabs perspective.
Often I feel people just get to a location and stand on the edges of it and look into the entire thing and go ‘what do I shoot?’. You only find something of interest if you keep moving and start to look more for foreground interest.
Gary, one last thing, you said :
“Bruce has stated numerous times that his skill has changed (matured) over the years. Most people do not pursue photography fully (I don’t) so it takes longer to develop a visual eye or it may never develop as I so often feel.”
I didn’t pursue photography fully (as a profession anyway) for a long time, and even now, that I am fully professional, I still don’t get to shoot a lot. There is a lot of downtime between shoots, admin, office duties, paying people, researching places, business meetings, having a normal life. I do feel that there’s an assumption that shooting all the time improves your skill, but I don’t think so. You can shoot carelessly all the time and learn nothing, as I feel a lot of ’snappers’ do.
We all have our learning curves, and sometimes I feel some people simply need to be ’shown the way’ or given a push in the right direction and then they’re off…. others will never get it. I’ve seen both these kinds of people on my trips for instance and it’s very interesting to see that some people can learn, others had it in them but didn’t know, and others will never have an aptitude for it. I don’t know what this means, but I would suggest you need to ‘fall in love’ with a place and repeat visits to it. You’ll see new things every time, and sometimes nothing at all.
I often come home from trips with nothing to show. It’s just part of photography that you don’t always get, but I do think there’s something to be learned from this also. Be kind to yourself :-)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 18 July, 2010 @ 9:18 am
The other point is something we discussed recently – that shooting “nothingness” almost certainly means shooting the anonymous landscape. More often than not my “nothingness” photographs are shots looking out to sea from the beach. They could quite literally be taken anywhere around any coast almost anywhere in the world. My recent shots could quite easily have been taken on a remote beach on an uninhabited island off Scotland,s West Coast, instead it was taken on one of Scotland’s busiest beaches with a roller coaster and a TGI Fridays (and lots more) about 100 yards behind me. The idea of “remote” and “wilderness” is purely suggestive, an ideal.
I also completely agree with the tips Bruce has given when arriving on location. Arrive at a location and continually discard options until you have you arrive at the essence of what you want to achieve (bearing in mind that there is more than the physical terra firma to think about).
D
Comment by DavidLangan — 18 July, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Yes, I think we always seem to feel we have to go somewhere obviously spectacular to make ‘wilderness’ shots. It certainly helps, but it’s not the final word on the matter.
So we have the anonymous landscape and also the obvious landscape too.
I completely agree about the beach scenes. I live not far away from portobello beach and it’s often cluttered with visitors, dogs, children with ice creams. I cycle past it each day on my daily cycle and the beach often has something new to show me. If I wanted to, I could make portobello beach a study for a long time.
Perhaps if you’re struggling with visualisation, focusing on one landscape and going back a lot at different times, different seasons is worth a go.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 18 July, 2010 @ 11:50 am
I think for me if the photo is going to be of “nothing” then it has to have soft detail. I see a lot of photos of nothing with sharp detail in the nothing, and all it does is draw your eye to detail that is not building to anything. I have plenty of these kind of shots in my collection :P
If the photo has no particular subject or subjects that are the heroes of the photo, then I think soft tone works much better. The eye is drawn to detail, so if there’s detail there, it better be interesting detail.
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 19 July, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
Hi Bruce:
What a great post. Over the last few years I feel as though I’ve gravitated more towards shooting nothingness. I find it more of a challenge to find a landscape without identifiable landmarks and create an image that highlights the texture, patterns and light falling on the scene. Being from the Seattle area, there are some pretty recognizable mountains within an hours drive from home. Rainier has been photographed so frequently, I find that it can be a challenge to create an image that looks original and unique. While I try to create a unique view of the mountain on each visit, it is usually in looking at the landscape and light when I get most inspired. I seem to get out and shoot more if I go with the intention to shoot nothingness. Nothingness, for me is a close as a four block walk to the beach and Puget Sound at sunset.
Comment by Rob — 22 July, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Hi Rob,
I’ve been thinking about ‘nothingness’ the past few days. I think, in some ways, it’s much easier to photograph because we’re dealing with just form, light and shade. With photographs of definable landmarks, we’re caught by the limitations and (often) the fact that these places have been photographed so extensively, that it’s hard to see something new in it.
Glad you liked the post :-)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 22 July, 2010 @ 10:15 pm