It Doesn't Take Much

Okay, this may be a bit extreme, but it's the best example I had on hand to get my point across. It's just two twigs sticking out of the snow, no shadows, and hardly any texture. I suppose I could have deleted the one on the right; then all that would be left is why. (Forgive me for the double puns. It's late and I'm in a silly mood.)

Maybe it’s all the hours I’ve spent in Zen meditation. Maybe it’s just a personality quirk. Whatever the reason, I’m drawn to compositions that are minimalist—that contain only what they need to be successful and no more.

Exactly what an image needs to be successful is where the art and mystery come in. Who’s to say, other than the photographer who’s doing the framing and cropping? Viewers can judge whether they like an image or not and whether there are other elements that could have been left out, but normally they have no way to know what was left  out to begin with. But you the photographer do. In  fact, in these days of auto-everything cameras it’s one of the few yet most important decisions you have left.

This preference of mine for paring an image down to its bare essentials is simply that: a preference. It’s by no means the only or best way to shoot. Still, I can’t help but believe that until you can recognize what’s basic you’ll have a hard time recognizing what’s superfluous or distracting. To put it another way, until you’re clear on what you’re trying to say, you won’t know what words to use to say it.

It shouldn’t surprise you that this minimalist mindset extends to my choice of equipment as well: one camera, one lens. These days it’s generally a 35mm f/2, which translates to a 50mm-equivalent in APS-C format. Sure it limits my options; that’s the point. When I’m aware of what I can’t do it’s easier to focus on what I can.

Even on those infrequent occasions when I use a zoom, the focal lengths I gravitate to are no wider than 28mm and no longer than 70mm. (These are the actual marked focal lengths. There’s a 1.5X crop factor on APS-C. I’m a lot more liberal in my selection of focal lengths when I’m shooting professionally.) There’s no particular value judgment involved here. It’s just a simple fact.  I could certainly produce photos with a different range of focal lengths, but they would be different types of photos.

So the question I suggest you ask yourself is this: What’s fundamental to your photography? What’s the bare minimum you need to be in your groove? Can you recognize the minimum elements it takes to get the maximum impact in your photographs? If not, the one bit of consolation I can offer is that nothing is hidden. It’s all there for the finding. You just have to practice being able to see it or imagine it. Open your eyes and you help others open theirs as well.

Comments

[Wolfgang Lonien]

Good post, and an awesome photo.

For me, it's kind of a double take: I'm a people photographer, so for inside I'd prefer something with an EFL of 85mm - since that focal length isn't available from a fixed focal length lens in the Olympus system, I just bought the 50 macro, which equals 100mm on FF.

For outside, I'm discovering that I'M using some 35mm EFL most of the time. Didn't like this focal length much when I was younger, but now I love it. Sadly, that focal length also isn't available in a fixed lens for Olympus, so I have to stick to the standard zoom for this (14-42mm equals 28-84mm, and at 17-18mm and at f=5.6 it's wonderful).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Tim]

Funny you should say that. Minimalist is one of my favourite ideas too - I got photos of a `y'-shaped twig on the ground and a stick in the snow a couple of months ago.

My daily-photo excursions are all one lens at a time - it might be the 17-50mm f/2.8, or it could be the lensbaby, but it's one lens per excursion.

Quandary, though: much as I love the results of paring a scene down to one simple elegant thing, it takes a lot of discipline/concentration to get in the mindset for finding that one thing.

[Gordon Lewis]

>>it takes a lot of discipline/concentration to get in the mindset for finding that one thing.<<

Man-up, Tim. A little discipline and concentration never hurt anybody. ;-)

[John]

>>it takes a lot of discipline/concentration to get in the mindset for finding that one thing.<<

As Gordon said - a little discipline and concentration never hurt anyone. But, you could also just allow yourself to be open with no expectations and let the "universe" tell you what's on offer today. I used to go out looking for a particular shot, or with some"plan" in mind of what i wanted to shoot, but invariably came back with something completely different. Now, I just GO and see what's on the menu today. I'm constantly surprised and delighted.

[Clayton Ravsten]

It's an old cliche, but less is more. One camera, one lens and my work seems to improve dramatically. In my case, too much gear seems to complicate things and the work suffers.

[JMR]

If you were so tired, how come you were able to articulate such difficult and fundamental questions? ;-) I guess you were feeling silly after all.

I agree with the general thrust of your article. However, I have always hesitated in using "minimalist" to describe simple looking images that have impact and expression. Rather, I would go with simplicity and "simplifying," because I think minimalism is more a style and way of approaching art and photography. I learned an old adage from my camera club about photography and it went like this: simplicity without monotony, variety without confusion. How does one achieve this?

Well, now I will get silly and let your great blog and the readers answer that one. I think you have answered that in part by describing how we translate what we see as a process and not a simple act of pressing the shutter once in a while. Good article.

[ken ross]

Would have been helpful for you to point your readers to Harry Callahan's very similar pictures done many years ago. It demonstrates the long ART history of photography that exists that many digital newbies are unaware of.

[Gordon Lewis]

For the benefit of any digital newbies who are inspired to search for photographs by Harry Callahan, Ken Ross is NOT referring to "Dirty Harry" Callahan, the fictional police detective from San Francisco, played on screen by Clint Eastwood.

[Nacho]

G, thanks so much for the great post. Fantastic set of questions at the end.

I tend to see minimalist compositions also from a mindfulness perspective.

Thanks again!

N