Life is much simpler when there are no choices. Just when I'd decided that it was 3:2 for me I get sucked in by the variable aspect ratio options that non-DSLRs offer. Influenced by looking at panoramic pictures the other day and at square format shots in the Tim Hetherington documentary and a Fay Godwin book since then I set off for a wander round the wood with a camera set to shoot 16:9.Bizarrely the first pictures I made in this format were in portrait orientation. It seemed to suit the tree trunks. I even cropped them narrower on the PC. I can imagine a series of such pictures. So having imagined it I'll abandon the idea before taking it further. Having had the idea is enough...
Then I used the non-DSLR low to the ground, using the rear screen for composing and the in built virtual horizon to level the camera. It's in situations like this that these smaller cameras are more functional than DSLRs. Sure saves neck ache. A flipout touch-screen for selecting the focus point would have been even better. Close up work with small cameras seems easy too.
I kept messing about at ground level in this letter-box format before switching to 1:1 for something I saw. Whether I gave up too easily or whether there wasn't a picture there in the first place I'm not sure. I do know that there are times when trying to find the picture becomes futile. When things click you work the scene for some time then everything gels. Other times you try all the angles and it just seems to get worse and worse.
I stuck with the square frame for a while. Trying hard not to always use it with a centrally located subject. It's a difficult ratio to work with. One that some people seem to be attuned to in the way that I feel at ease with 3:2 - which I have heard called too wide. For flat landscapes such as those which surround me the even wider 16:9 ratio seems to work quite well. It allows the elimination of too much empty sky and stresses the flatness while still allowing details to be seen.
For all this experimentation the picture I like best from the short session was made in 3:2 ratio. A big limitation of small cameras which rely on electronic screens is their small batteries. Although it had read fully charged when I set out the damned thing died on me in no time. So it was a good job I'd slung a big heavy DSLR over the other shoulder. Even if it did have a 105mm lens on it.
Why do I like this picture best? It's got less to do with the aspect ratio than the content, which should always be the case. Too much time can be wasted playing around with technical aspects when it's subject matter that trumps them every time. There was an element of luck involved too. In fact I didn't notice the bee on the flower I'd focused on until I got the file on the computer. But it's the bee that makes the picture, although it's not its subject - which is the modern farmed landscape with it's monoculture practices, 'tramlines' and electricity pylons.
There was a video tutorial about composition posted on TalkPhotography the other day which almost got me annoyed. It was all sound advice for making pictures with immediate impact. Fine for journalistic or editorial use. get in close, fill the frame, isolate the subject and all that jazz. That'll make stunning pictures with a high 'wow factor' quotient all right. But that sort of picture is all too easily forgotten. I prefer to look at, and try to make (although they are far more difficult to make than punchy pictures), pictures which need time to come to terms with, which are sometimes visually complex, pictures in which the subject might not be what is in the picture but which the picture refers to or illustrates obliquely. Not that I succeed very often.
More pics.
No comments:
Post a Comment