The Santa Fe Workshops recently started offering mentorships with a select group of professional photographers. It is a brilliant concept, for photographers who want to work in depth or have a consultation with a particular professional photographer. (Check it out http://www.santafeworkshops.com/mentorships/).
I recently had a one-hour conversation with Deigh Bates (http://deighlight.wordpress.com/) about his photography. I thought I was an interesting choice for him as a Mentor since he is primarily a landscape photographer and I am primarily a people photographer. But he was looking for a different perspective outside the nature crowd. And, I certainly have a different perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and it got me thinking about a number of topics.
One of which is … tripods. I rarely use a tripod, except when it is absolutely necessary.
Nature photographers tend to gasp when I say that they use the tripod too much or that depth of field is not that important. Tripods are limiting and people tend to get stuck photographing from whatever height and angle in which they set it up. I find that people do not experiment with creative angles, such laying on the ground and shooting upwards, or getting up higher than their tripod can reach, or experimenting with different tilts of the camera. I find that people just get stuck in “shoulds” when that tripod is set up.
And, one of those “shoulds” is that most everything should be in-focus. This “should” extends far beyond nature photography. It appears to be primarily a concern for western-culture photographers. I am not exactly sure where it comes from since the early photography is quite dreamy; I think it has to do with the advent of instantmatic cameras like the Brownie (I would love to have your thoughts on this). Of course, not all nature photography is f/16 and beyond; plenty of photographers experiment with “selective” focus but primarily with flowers and details and water. And, there are some spectacular nature photographers like William Neill http://www.williamneill.com/ and Eddie Soloway http://www.eddiesoloway.com/, who push their imagery into new directions. I just would like to see more emerging nature photographers let go of conventional moorings and experiment A LOT. Goggle “bokeh” and start photographing what you imagine, not just what you see.
I will have more to say about my conversation with Deigh in future posts because I think he has an extraordinarily open mind. And, he photographs almost every day in his environs (that beats my commitment to photography!). His dedication and photography are exemplatory! I applaud him.
A final word about tripods: Yes, I rarely use a tripod; however, I know intimately that it is not enough to up the ISO on the camera (a digital photography crutch); sometimes I REALLY need the tripod to avoid camera shake and occasionally for a particular depth-of-field that I cannot get handholding the image… just like I used to shoot with film. 95% hand-held, and 5% tripod.
© nevada wier 2009 Rajasthan, India
Nevada Wier Photography 
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 9, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Gary McJimsey
Color, Light, Action, Pattern. I heard those words somewhere. I can get the color, light & pattern on a tripod but the action is harder to do; it can be done but just harder. I can not disagree with you Nevada as you have proven to me; get in close with a wide angle, fill the frame, don’t crop the image after clicking, get the d… thing off auto (which I do not use), etc. However, as I get older that camera and pro glass is getting heavier and the tripod is so tempting; even for selective focus and panning. Plus I like to do those HRD and pano images; think I’ll buy a new carbon fiber tripod. Love your stuff Nevada.
August 3, 2009 at 6:41 am
R Thomas Berner
I’ve set both of my Nikons to auto ISO and put the maximum at 1600. Between New Mexico’s great light and the ability to reduce noise should it occur, I’m happy with that setting. However, I have put a note on my tripod to turn off auto ISO when using the tripod. It seems to me that auto ISO is fine for documentary work, but not for tripod work.
August 2, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Clint Whitmer
With digital overtaking film resolution, the argument for sharper images is intensified. I feel the American perception (snapshot shooters of babies et al) is that out of focus is a bad image. We seem to have a low tolerance for “Art” on any level. Since there are few patrons, little “Art” is produced. Hence, the norm has a small middle with few allowed to operate outside its boundaries. To get mainstream acceptance (Dali comes to mind) may not ever happen in ones lifetime if ever. Perfection rules in exposure, focusing, subject, lens, camera, and name of photographer. Certain names can do no wrong. Try making an Adams print from one of his negatives. Can’t be done. He manipulated them in the printing process. Most later Adams books are photos of existing original images. But it was ok for him to do this. My last project has soft images from the lens I used. I wanted that to blunt the intensity of the subject, and it resulted in those images in a newspaper with the heading “Oil (drilling) can be beautiful.” No hard focus here. Just great images. So, maybe Leica or Zeiss-Ikon lenses are not totally necessary. I see the Holga is still available in designer colors, no less. Just remember to keep those portraits sharp and don’t forget the hair on the mane of my horse.
August 3, 2009 at 11:05 am
nevada wier
Clint: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think the public is used to seeing artistic imagery in many forms; they just don’t expect, nor want, it coming out of their point-and-shoot cameras! Some of the most innovative imagery is found in fashion magazines. They are always pushing creativity in lighting, selective focus, and wackiness. And, some of the highest priced commercials are small art films. So no wonder they appreciate your fine imagery. nv
July 5, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Stacy Baird
Focus has been my focus this year, so pardon the rambling comment (without a particular conclusion). As I read about the Canon 5D MkII in anticipation of my purchase, all the thrill was (and continues to be) about the video capability (which is impressive) and particularly about the ability to get the depth of field of great lenses, wide open irises and the large sensor. It made me think about some differences in how focus and image sharpness is handled in motion pictures as compared to still photography. Certainly in video sharp focus is critical, but from my observation (and this is a wild generalization) depth of field is more religiously used (and visually appealing in that medium, except in a John Ford or Orson Welles film) than in still photography – use of the out of focus portion of the frame to tell story, the use of rack-focusing – and motion blur is not only tolerated (inherent), but a design factor. Dunno – much of what you are doing now visually has always felt to me like a frame-grab from a motion picture.
Random note 2: When I was about 10, I used my dad’s Canon Canonet. My best friend’s father was beginning to experiment with Cibachrome and asked if I wanted him to print anything for me. I gave him three slides – he printed them all and his only comment when asked what he thought was – not very sharp. He was a blunt guy (still is) – Many of my photos were soft (because I needed glasses but didn’t realize it for 9 more years). His was one of those comments that really stuck – influencing me all my life – good images are sharp!
Note 3 – more on the notion of quality in general, but applicable to focus and sharpness – a few years ago I shot a short film entirely on Mini-DV with a little Sony video camera. Heavy editing and lots of, shall we say, continuity issues. It was shot over 9 months with evolving lighting, locations, etc. A real mish-mash of image quality. Several of my friends in the film industry (particularly two, a great video editor and a wonderful film Producer) were very moved by the film and all of the real pros, without exception, observed in response to my concern about the ‘uneven quality’ – people are getting used to it, guerrilla film making, low quality home movies (and now, I would add, iPhone photography) has changed sensibility. Art is art.
Final note, and here’s why ‘focus’ has been my focus this year: I recently was in Hokkaido photographing birds for the first time – in preparing, reading every book and blog, all the comments about sharp focus on the eyes – sharp focus on the eyes is critical in people photography, but they (bird photographers) are obsessed! It is a good rule to follow (so much more follows when the eyes are sharp, but that is rarely discussed).
So I’m not there yet, letting go of my obsession with sharp (since age 10), but sharpness is overrated. And Art is Art.
July 6, 2009 at 9:48 am
nevada wier
Wonderful post Stacey. While I was watching Wimbledon yesterday my good friend and even better photographer, Marc Romanelli, made me watch all the commercial (I normally fast forward through them). Many of them were brilliantly filmed with a high level of creative focusing. and then, back to Wimbledon, we were in awe at the sharpness of HD TV and the extreme depth of field. “Video”, said Marc, “that is why filmmakers like to work with film”.
Since I think we can be photographing so much more than what we see, then it is important to use creative selective focus.
However, I don’t mean to imply that I like blurry images. What is in focus should be sharp, tack sharp!
June 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Robert Koen
I attended Nevada’s recent workshop in Venice Beach and ever since then my head has been spinning (in a good way). Nevada is a great teacher and has given me so many ideas that I’m exploring.
I’ve photographed wildlife from a young age in South Africa, and I’m heading to the Kruger National Park in about 2 weeks. There are so many boring wildlife photographs out there, so the two things I will try on this trip:
1) Photograph without a tripod (and with slow shutter speeds)
2) Photograph closer up with a wide angle lens – either I’ll be eaten by a lion, or I’ll be back with some great images!
Keep up your blog from your 18% grey room.
June 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm
nevada wier
Don’t you dare get eaten!
Have a great time Robert. Also remember panning, photographing in very low light, and working with selective focus.
Color. Light. Action. Pattern!
nv (blogging from the Greyroom)
June 21, 2009 at 6:26 am
Jeffrey Chapman
I had a wonderful conversation last night at dinner with David duChemin, Joe McNally and Syl Arena in which we discussed focus quite a bit, including joking that it becomes less important as our eyes age (making it more difficult to focus). The reality is that focus is obviously over-rated. A bad photo with perfect focus is still a bad photo. Technique won’t cover for a lack of vision.
June 21, 2009 at 1:39 pm
nevada wier
Now that is good dinner company! My eyes are at the low end of the gene pool. Without autofocusing lenses I couldn’t photograph. I would miss every image trying to focus whatever it was that I wanted to be in focus.
June 24, 2009 at 8:23 pm
dennis lenenhan
Remember Monet, late in life
August 9, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Gary McJimsey
Maybe today you need auto focus but remember you did it before auto focus was a big deal.
August 9, 2009 at 9:49 pm
nevada wier
Gary: To be honest… I’m not sure I could accurately focus a lens now. My eyes are so bad (one contact is for far, one is for near, and my third eyes can’t wear contacts)… that I really don’t see all that much in focus. I bless autofocus lenses because otherwise I’m not sure I would be photographing. nv
June 19, 2009 at 8:35 am
deighb
I have been thinking about tripods since our discussion and again since your posting yesterday. I just read a study about in which American and Chinese students were asked to focus on a picture and the investigator tracked where their eyes went and 90% of the time the Americans focused on the primary subject in the picture, like a horse, while the Chinese did just the opposite and their eyes roamed about the whole thing after first looking at the horse for a bit. Would be interesting to see how other cultures repsond in such a test.
I also wonder about the iconic images we see of photographers – the primary one that comes to mind is of Ansel Adams and that big camera and tripod on the roof of his car – sort of defined everything for generations of landscape photograhers. Also remember the f64 club.
Thanks for your comments/posting — been fun without my tripod for part of the time.
June 19, 2009 at 10:43 am
nevada wier
Deigh: Thanks so much for your comment. I am not surprised to hear about this study and I have to find it. I was recently teaching a workshop at Venice Beach (wacky place!) and talked about how I notice what I’m interested in and then immediately ignore it to start looking all around “it” is to find the problems, see what has to be eliminated or included, and think about how to include these elements in a creative way. My main subject is ignored quite a bit during these nano-seconds. (ah ha! I was Chinese in a past life … someone once told me that). And, yes, the landscape large format camera photographers cemented the “f/22 and be there” (and they are gorgeous photographs).
June 18, 2009 at 11:24 am
JeffreyChapman
An out of focus image is often the result of poor technique. As a result we’re obsessed with having our images in focus in order to prove the merits of our skills. It’s a foolish compromise of technical skill over vision.
I love that line “start photographing what you imagine, not just what you see.” It’s so true.
June 18, 2009 at 6:22 pm
nevada wier
Jeffrey: Thank you for your comment. Ah, I see your point. However, I think it goes deeper than just honing our skills. I do think it has to do with trying to photograph exactly what we see in fantastic light and enhancing what the eye sees.
That is not an unworthy endeavor: I do try to do that all the time! It is essential for photojournalists to do just this. Yet, for nature photographers, the bar is now raised so much higher. It is equally important to photograph using all our senses (all 10 ten senses… I’ll write about that later) and utilize the creative imperfections of our sensor, the creative optics of our lenses, and the surreal reality of just being alive.
Also, I can’t help but muse that it is a cultural imperative. We (Americans) like our world in focus! Agree? Disagree?