Jay Maisel on 'How to be a better photographer'

[Didereaux]

I have nothing to add other than this is one of the best explanations of how to be a better photographer I have heard, or read in a long time....maybe the best. Maisel is arguably in the class of Cartier-Bresson when it comes to street photography. Just click the SORRY and watch on Vimeo. (Vimeo should be put into a byte grinder and made into digital sausage)

 

[The_Traveler]

He is soooo right.

One of the hurdles that modern photographers face is what we currently think of as a benefit and that is the complexity of our equipment and the flexibility of what we can control.
At least in the area of street photography, complexity and conscious attention to technology is the enemy of quality.
When we were all shooting film, the options were relatively few and we could quickly get the eye hand going and we were able to stop thinking and start listening to our inner voices that says 'look at that.'
We knew the limits and they were simple and we knew what the lab could do - which was relatively little.

Now, we the photographers can do anything, we are able to shoot color and bw and our cameras are more complex than the space shuttle and the hurdle of becoming technically capable to shoot is too great for most people and they decide to do what they can do - which is divert themselves into technical issues that don't require the intuitive and conceptual thought that that really good photography requires.

Get past the thinking about the camera settings and start listening to that little person in your head that sees interesting things in color, arrangement, events.

I think of myself as a pretty competent street shooter and when I go out the bodies are set for the situations that I will encounter so that the changes I have to make at the moment are few.
The most valuable tool a street photographer has is his/her imagination and creativity - the ability to see a shot and capture it.
I may change the aperture or the exposure compensation in advance of shooting specific situations but when I lift the camera to my eye, all I do is frame very quickly and press the button.
If anyone is doing more than that - or even doing that slowly - they will be too involved in camera foreplay to get good pictures.

 

[JerryVenz]

He is soooo right.

One of the hurdles that modern photographers face is what we currently think of as a benefit and that is the complexity of our equipment and the flexibility of what we can control.
At least in the area of street photography, complexity and conscious attention to technology is the enemy of quality.
When we were all shooting film, the options were relatively few and we could quickly get the eye hand going and we were able to stop thinking and start listening to our inner voices that says 'look at that.'
We knew the limits and they were simple and we knew what the lab could do - which was relatively little.

Now, we the photographers can do anything, we are able to shoot color and bw and our cameras are more complex than the space shuttle and the hurdle of becoming technically capable to shoot is too great for most people and they decide to do what they can do - which is divert themselves into technical issues that don't require the intuitive and conceptual thought that that really good photography requires.

Get past the thinking about the camera settings and start listening to that little person in your head that sees interesting things in color, arrangement, events.

I think of myself as a pretty competent street shooter and when I go out the bodies are set for the situations that I will encounter so that the changes I have to make at the moment are few.
The most valuable tool a street photographer has is his/her imagination and creativity - the ability to see a shot and capture it.
I may change the aperture or the exposure compensation in advance of shooting specific situations but when I lift the camera to my eye, all I do is frame very quickly and press the button.
If anyone is doing more than that - or even doing that slowly - they will be too involved in camera foreplay to get good pictures.

Many photographers LOOK but don't SEE (what's right in front of them!). I constantly remind my students to NARROW THEIR VIEW--this applies weather you're doing nature photography or street work.
I often see photographers taking the wide view ( what we call the Master Shot in cinematography ) and within that wide view I'll see 5 or 6 great subjects that they could have highlighted!

Too many photographers have SIGHT but no VISION. My definition of this is the ability to create an image that springs from INSIDE YOUR HEAD--often called pre-visualization. In the world of classic art the painter can create art from his head to canvas in one step. In my world I may be motivated by a change in the weather--say ice-fog or snow has fallen and I immediately SEE IMAGES IN MY HEAD of how all my favorite locations MAY BE AFFECTED by the ice-fog or snow.

None of this has anything to do with the tools we use as photographers. Having done my art for over 40-years--FILM and now DIGITAL--these basics are still the same.

Jerry W. Venz M.Photog.Cr.CPP

 

[sashbar]

Jerry - vision was what came to my mind immediately. It is all good to walk slowly, but if you have no vision, you will still miss it. In your experience, is vision inherent and to what extent one can develop it?
Also you a re talking about narrowing the view, doesn't it contradict Maisel's idea of being open?
I found that as soon as I start looking for some particular type of street shot, I start missing things, and as long as a wander mindlessly, looking at things, images pop up here and there and it only is a matter of my ability to capture it.

 

[JerryVenz]

Jerry - vision was what came to my mind immediately. It is all good to walk slowly, but if you have no vision, you will still miss it. In your experience, is vision inherent and to what extent one can develop it?
Also you a re talking about narrowing the view, doesn't it contradict Maisel's idea of being open?
I found that as soon as I start looking for some particular type of street shot, I start missing things, and as long as a wander mindlessly, looking at things, images pop up here and there and it only is a matter of my ability to capture it.

Jay's comment on "being open" was more philosophical--"being open to what is in front of you….."

My "narrowing your view" is about Focal Length or Cropping in camera--Using our tools create our vision.

Jerry V.

 

[bribrius]

i didnt get any of the above from this. i watched it. i got

a. look at art
b. dont listen to anyone
c. slow down and see

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that Maisel is assuming a certain level of involvement and experience.

 

[bribrius]

I think that Maisel is assuming a certain level of involvement and experience.

nope. seemed pretty clear to me.

 

[MichaelHenson]

I think that Maisel is assuming a certain level of involvement and experience.

I agree. My primary creative "foundation" is music. I've played, studied, been involved in music since before I can remember (my mother is a phenomenal musician that introduced me to it at an early age). I've watched hours of interviews with musicians and performers talking in much the same vein as Maisel in this video and there's always an assumed level of experience and ability. You can't tell someone that's just picking up a guitar to just "___insert whatever piece of advice here___" if they don't understand how the guitar works, how to make a note and how the strings, pick/fingers, etc. work together to create music. The problem is that so many creative individuals come across interviews like this, assume it's talking to them as a newbie, and start sharing art (in whatever form) that's not good. COUNTLESS videos on YouTube support this.

In order to apply the advice of an accomplished artist (in whichever medium you choose) you have to have a working knowledge of the technical aspects of that particular art. People approaching a video like this one without having a level of involvement and experience behind the camera are going to go out and create substandard photos. They may stumble upon the occasional one that people like but they aren't going to know why and their consistency in capturing something meaningful is going to be random at best.

 

[Didereaux]

I think that Maisel is assuming a certain level of involvement and experience.

I agree. My primary creative "foundation" is music. I've played, studied, been involved in music since before I can remember (my mother is a phenomenal musician that introduced me to it at an early age). I've watched hours of interviews with musicians and performers talking in much the same vein as Maisel in this video and there's always an assumed level of experience and ability. You can't tell someone that's just picking up a guitar to just "___insert whatever piece of advice here___" if they don't understand how the guitar works, how to make a note and how the strings, pick/fingers, etc. work together to create music. The problem is that so many creative individuals come across interviews like this, assume it's talking to them as a newbie, and start sharing art (in whatever form) that's not good. COUNTLESS videos on YouTube support this.

In order to apply the advice of an accomplished artist (in whichever medium you choose) you have to have a working knowledge of the technical aspects of that particular art. People approaching a video like this one without having a level of involvement and experience behind the camera are going to go out and create substandard photos. They may stumble upon the occasional one that people like but they aren't going to know why and their consistency in capturing something meaningful is going to be random at best.

You might well do yourself a favor and research, then come back and comment. Bet you would answer differently. Start with teh Charlie Rose interview (on Youtube). Bresson refused to evven print his own pictures. He learned enough about his camera to focus, and expose properly and that was as far as he would go. NO, there are many approaches to photography, from the extreme technical of Adms, to the extreme non-technical of Bresson.

 

[MichaelHenson]

You might well do yourself a favor and research, then come back and comment. Bet you would answer differently. Start with teh Charlie Rose interview (on Youtube). Bresson refused to evven print his own pictures. He learned enough about his camera to focus, and expose properly and that was as far as he would go. NO, there are many approaches to photography, from the extreme technical of Adms, to the extreme non-technical of Bresson.

Pretty sure nothing I said excluded anyone, regardless of ability or technical expertise...I've appreciated a lot of comments I've seen you make and you obviously are very knowledgeable but your assumption that my (and Lew's) comments are based on ignorance or lack of knowledge is something I have to respectfully disagree with. Masters of an art form tend to not focus on the basics when they are discussing their art form. Instead they focus on the inspiration...the intangibles (generally...granted, there will always be exceptions to the rule so please don't take this as a blanket statement)...That's what I took away from the video above. Someone reknowned for his vision and the art he produces talking about some of the "intangibles" that have helped him achieve what he has...Your comment above proves that, in photography, there is an absolute minimum level of ability/technical knowledge required.

Just because he didn't specifically call it out in his sub-3:00 minute video doesn't mean that he isn't assuming at leas the minimum...

Assumptions and comments like this make me want to do myself a favor and stop posting on forums like this....

 

[bribrius]

i watched the video twice . It seems rather clear to me. Not even sure what the problem is . You guys are making this way more than it is. you could sit down and have a cup of coffee with the guy and pretty much stay right on point. spinning it, changing it, putting you somehow in the same group with the guy is all b.s.

He said what he said. cut and dry. It really wasn't that complicated. No hidden messages. How lew even got on his spiel of his perceived level of street shooting and whatever else b.s. i haven't a clue. watched the video and tried to block out the b.s. "certain level of experience"

really? step in line, step in line. There is plenty of room.

 

[MichaelHenson]

Wow. This thread's gone all kinds of haywire. God forbid someone talk about something not "directly discussed in the video" and discuss some of the other aspects of becoming a better photographer (as the title of this thread says). Let's just call it B.S., call people's opinions and ideas regarding photography and, specifically, the genre of street photography B.S., let's call someone's experiences and opinions regarding the video posted B.S. if it doesn't align with ours, tell them to go "do some research" and come back when we're all drinking the same Kool-Aid.

It's a shame. This is a genre of photography that thrills me and I looked forward to a discussion regarding some of the philosophies driving it, a discussion about Maisel and his approach, and some practical points that I can implement the next time I go out shooting. Rather, I got what I described above...whatever.

 

[Didereaux]

You might well do yourself a favor and research, then come back and comment. Bet you would answer differently. Start with teh Charlie Rose interview (on Youtube). Bresson refused to evven print his own pictures. He learned enough about his camera to focus, and expose properly and that was as far as he would go. NO, there are many approaches to photography, from the extreme technical of Adms, to the extreme non-technical of Bresson.

Pretty sure nothing I said excluded anyone, regardless of ability or technical expertise...I've appreciated a lot of comments I've seen you make and you obviously are very knowledgeable but your assumption that my (and Lew's) comments are based on ignorance or lack of knowledge is something I have to respectfully disagree with. Masters of an art form tend to not focus on the basics when they are discussing their art form. Instead they focus on the inspiration...the intangibles (generally...granted, there will always be exceptions to the rule so please don't take this as a blanket statement)...That's what I took away from the video above. Someone reknowned for his vision and the art he produces talking about some of the "intangibles" that have helped him achieve what he has...Your comment above proves that, in photography, there is an absolute minimum level of ability/technical knowledge required.

Just because he didn't specifically call it out in his sub-3:00 minute video doesn't mean that he isn't assuming at leas the minimum...

Assumptions and comments like this make me want to do myself a favor and stop posting on forums like this....

...and with all that I agree with...except your assumption that I assumed your ignorance. No such thing was intended.

 

[The_Traveler]

i haven't a clue..

agreed.

because you, right now, can't use what he said.