I've already told how I enjoyed taking pictures with a compact autofocus, the Olympus Mju: II. After using it extensively between 1998 and 2000, I bought my first SLR in 2000: a Canon 500N, public housing sold with two broken bottles and 28-80mm 80-200mm. After 6 months ago, when I went to a thrift shop photo rue Jean Jaurès in Brest, I swapped my two zoom lenses a 50mm f/1.8 cons, and then later I swapped all cons an old OM-10 with a 50mm f/1.4.
is this set, unfortunately in bad condition, I carried around in Venice in the summer of 2002, charged wi ...
In December 2003 and January 2004, I participated in the creation of a piece Theatre as an assistant to the staging. In fact, my job was limited to acquiring a Complete book knowledge of the author, and to be present at every moment of rehearsal.
Sitting all ranks of red velvet sofas, I was bored very often ... I had in my pocket and my second Mju: II (the one I use still) responsible for Reala.
Recently Kirk Tuck has released yet another great post on his blog dedicated to photography. He explains to summarize that by acquiring a technical expert and requirements, we eventually replace the reality of things that we photograph a reality technique based on technical criteria (sharpness, blur the background, rule of thirds, exposure, modeling , etc.). So we are moving away gradually from what initially caught our eye and our unconscious, that part of reality barely palpable and difficult to reproduce when thinking too much before shooting.
Hence, Kirk Tuck develops a perspective interesting fashion devices come cheap, he thinks, in response to the search of a photograph spontaneous and without the possibility of technical complications, your eye sees something, click! once it's in the box. But in fact, we need to degrade the quality of our equipment to maintain our responsiveness to reality? Probably not.
What is needed is that the passion for the hardware is not an obstacle, but a multiplicity of ways to access the same result: preserving the way we look at things, even when we have no device to the eyes. Because the quality of a photo is not in the subject, but look who is on the subject. He is to return part of subjective reality.
Recently, I was developing my film more, persuaded to do nothing good. And then gradually I started to walk in my archives, more later ... and I found images I liked. Images that I captured spontaneously, at a time when I knew absolutely nothing about photo technique. Like images above, which are by no perfect or exemplary. They express a part of subjective reality seizure at two different times of my life. This necessarily subjective reality continues today in the way I look at my photographic subjects. So why stop everything, while everything continues?
The subjects are there, inexhaustible, the scope of an eye.
0 comments:
Post a Comment