|
By: Gene BradfordSimplicity in form and execution. No statements, only suggestions. Gentle assumptions without rabid ownership of the ideas presented. All of these are important aspects of photography as I perceive it. What applies to me, does not apply to others though. The scenes I shoot are initially presented for my own private enjoyment so they might well have no meaning for others. This is fine if that be the case. The act of shooting any given scene is an act of manipulation. In most cases I find that I'm manipulating the instant in order to garner approval from the hypothetical viewer. This "future" thinking can interfere with the "present" actions however. The simplicity of the scene is complicated by this act of manipulating it. The scene will never be the same again. Once recorded on film or chip, it's there for the foreseeable future with no chance of a "redo". How is this contradiction then resolved? How can I present what first attracted me without significantly altering important aspects of it? The guiding force, in my case, is to record the given scene as honestly and straightforward as I'm capable of doing. The only means of accomplishing this is by setting aside "self" and letting instinct take over. Of course there are unavoidable mechanical factors such as knowing my equipment and how to operate it. Under these circumstances, it's virtually impossible to not include a part of my personality in my images. To minimize this impact, I normally attempt to record the scene with a minimum of adjustments to the equipment. My "Light" series is a good example of this. I used the recommended F-stops, shutter speeds and white balance the camera "suggested" in each instance. While one of these images is obviously "posed", the act of posing doesn't negate the method I used in capturing that image. By contrast and the above definition, the "Falls" series is a group of "manipulated" images. I adjusted the shutter speed to blur the falling water. I adjusted the focus and the F-stop to get the desired depth of field. While achieving my goal of capturing what attracted me, I also "manipulated" the resulting images. Does this make the "Light" series a better group of images than the "Falls" series? In my own opinion, no, it doesn't. But is it truly my opinion which matters? Have I taken these images for my own exclusive enjoyment? Obviously not, or I wouldn't have put them in my gallery here on Photo-Genesis. I wanted to show the world something I felt was making a statement of some sort. Whether it be a statement of beauty or a statement of conscience doesn't matter. I was asking for the viewer's approval in the sense that I wanted them to see the images, comprehend what I was "saying" through them and if not agree with me, at least acknowledge that I had a right to my own point of view. Did I accomplish this? From the feedback I've received on these images, "Yes" would be the answer. But should that affirmative response be the guiding force for taking future images? Or should the motivating factor be to record scenes for the mere act of recording them? Whether anyone ever views them or not? The only reply I can give to the last two questions is: "You find yourself in a winding maze of tunnels, with no way out." Copyright © 2004 - Gene Bradford & Photo-Genesis.net |