Status Quo?

Status Quo?
Originally uploaded by TSHolen

It's been christmas eve. Here in Norway we open our presents in the evening and not the morning after. Weird? Well, sucks to be you, having to wait and all ! I realize that the time when the presents meant everything is long gone by now. Of course I am truly grateful for the stuff I got (some truly awesome things, thanks everyone!), but somehow it seems that my anticipations and expectations were far greater for the reactions the gifts I gave caused.

If you're not into photography or long texts of b.s. I suggest you stop here. Come back next time I post something..!

So this is it. One semester - half of the first year at my BA Photography is done. I have made some work that I am truly proud of (as Vince proposes I will not pass judgement of the mere quality of the work, but regardless of that I can very well choose to be proud of it). It was different, the course that is, than what I expected. I though I would have someone tell me that if you put light from this and this direction that would make good light for a portrait. I'll come back to this some other time.

I am considering different things:
- I just make a jump for it and spend the ridiculous £3k for the lens I have been wanting more than almost any other thing the last two years. A question to be asked here is whether it is probable that this lens will indeed help my photography or whether it'll only make me rely on the lens to create the ompfh in my pictures. Well this is a bigger discussion I'll come back to later. The thing is; I've been wanting this lens for so long, I'm just stuck with the obsession. I mean really if what happens is that I buy it, try it and find it doesn't add anything (indeed it only limits me to use that special effect all the time) and I wind up selling it again, that'd be really good. I'd have been there, done that. And the stupid unproductive lust for this lens would stop (there's actually a specific term that exists for just this).

- I give up all the focus on equipment and start doing photography with some stupidly basic camera that I loath (like canon starter DSLRs; 450d etc). Truly talented people, in any branch of art, are by no means limited by the tools they use. It's in fact easy to point out a truly talented photographer by the fact that he never mentions what camera he uses, and also that he might as well have painted, but found that photography was simpler or something. In terms of music, these are the people who could make a hit song out of a plastic cup and a rubber band (Timbaland actually made a song this way, never released it as far as I know though).

In some respects it is arguable that photography is a form of art where equipment is of significance in the process of making the artworks. The equipment leave a fingerprint if you will. A great person once said (well not so great, as far as I know, this has come out of my own imagination) that in photography as opposed to painting and drawing we empower the camera, lens and film to do decisions for us. When you draw you have to make every line in the picture, in photography you mainly have to decide which lines you want to include. To do another analogy; photography is like driving a car when drawing is like walking. The two are hardly comparable as means of transportation, speedwise anyways. No doubt would it in most circumstances be easier to drive a car - it simply moves faster, _that is_ granted you know how to drive the car. No matter how superior the car might be in terms of speed it is also obvious that the car would not move very well without a driver. And also a different car fits a different need. This means that while we should not rely on the camera, lens and film to create the picture for us, we can (and should) choose whatever is most suitable for our needs. And here comes another question, can one really know what is best (most suitable) equipment without trying everything?

My thing, - or what I like the most about photography is shallow depth of field. There are a number of reasons for this:
- Shallow depth of field is one of the most powerful tools in photography. For me it represents something that we cannot replicate with our eyes, something that is not easily replicated in paintings or drawings, simply because it is an optical phenomena. To a certain degree I feel it helps rid the camera of its 'never lies' reputation.
- Also I believe that it is when a lens is used wide open (at max aperture) it's true characteristics are shown. The lens fingerprint becomes evident, be it good or bad.
- Choosing what is in focus in the picture in turn directs what we as viewers focus our attention to. This means that it is easy to pick something out of a scene to make the viewer pay attention to it.
- The bokeh. This word originates from a Japanese word for out of focus. It has been interpreted and made into different meanings, but often bokeh now refers to how a spot of light is rendered as a bright, round dot when out of focus. While this is a fascinating effect, it is more an invited biproduct of the shallow depth of field than a main motif for me.

This is my comfort zone. This is what I do. I have been asked to do two important things during this course so far. One is: 'Learn to develop your ideas creatively'. The other is: 'Step out of your comfort zone'.
I think the only thing I have been able to really learn about photography (that exceeds what I've learned from my obsession) this far, is to try and have an idea behind the pictures. And I have been working so hard against it. I mean read a couple of these posts and you'll see it, simple as that. Still I believe it is the most valuable thing I've picked up this far.

I think my goal for next term will be to step out of my comfort zone. Try and do some 'stopped down' shots and try not to care about the equipment. It's gonna be hard for me, but it's the only way I'll learn more I believe.

And sorry for the horrendously long post, I had a lot to say. In fact I'm not sure if I'm even finished on this topic yet.