|
Forum: General Photography
01-28-2019, 05:13 PM
|
| |
I think the problem is the word "equivalence"; as mentioned in the original post, we are never really talking about true equivalence, but as soon as we use the word, even when we acknowledge the limitations, someone will be offended.
I get the point of the original post, and can state that I used a similar technique in limited instances to learn from. I like to think that the appropriate word is trying to achieve "similar" results and then defining how "similar" a user is going for. I think to some extant we all learn photography because we wanted to create specific looks that were similar to a photograph we've seen before. I would argue that "simularity" is what sets examples that reinforce the theories that determine what our images will look like from focal length, to aperture, to shutter speed, etc. And in that regard, I would say that there is a "need" for similitude for every photographer, but perhaps for many photographers that need has long past. I would also argue that some of us just do this subconsciously.
Regardless, it is an interesting topic, and I as a bit of a hack at times, I can identify with people on many sides of this debate. My most recent foray into an exercise striving for "equivalence" was when I traveled to Iceland with a major objective of shooting the Aurora (Northern Lights). I had an idea of what I needed to do, but having no real idea of how dynamic they were, I studied many example photographs here, on Flickr, on other forums (Canon and Nikon) to get a feel for what people were doing to get the shots they got. i.e. I studied focal lengths (keeping in mind sensor size), apertures, iso's, and shutter speeds mostly to get an idea of what my FOV should be and where to start from in terms of exposure value. I needed to know what to do to get something similar to what I had seen recognizing that I wasn't too aware of how much time I would have to experiment once I was in the environment shooting.
Did I really need to do that and need to focus on getting similarity? Once I was in the field, I didn't need it. It did get me a start, but I quickly learned what I was doing and diverged quickly into what the lights were giving me. All I needed was a start, and the reality was that once I got started and shooting, where I finished was often quite different than what I studied. But, it was sure fun, and I am glad I studied beforehand.
The reality of it all, is that we are talking about inspiration and how far we might go to mimic our inspiration. Nothing wrong with any of it.
|
