There has no doubt been many types of fonts, on paper and on-screen, as well as swathes of server space, employed in discussing the following. Anyway, here's my contribution.
1. You manipulatively juxtapose any object(s) - animal,vegetable,mineral - at a location, vis-a-vis aspects of that location (form, colour, light, shadow) and, using natural light and/or your light(s), make technical adjustments (unless preset), frame it and capture it.
2. You come across a personally pleasing juxtaposition of any object(s) - animal,vegetable,mineral - at a location, vis-a-vis aspects of that location (form, colour, light, shadow) or, indeed, the location itself and, using natural light and/or your light(s), make technical adjustments (unless preset), frame it and capture it.
3. You wait, hoping to see a personally pleasing juxtaposition of any object(s) - animal,vegetable,mineral - at a location, vis-a-vis aspects of that location (form, colour, light, shadow) or, indeed, the latter alone and, using natural light and/or your light(s), make technical adjustments (unless preset), frame it and capture it.
From beginners to those with a high level of technical skill and/or artistic, visionary ability as well as the linguistic fluidity to describe how you go about it, perhaps as an aid to improvement for others, your modus operandus, let's face it, falls into one, if not scaling proportions, of these 3. IMHO of course.
Is there also philosophical merit in discussing which of the 3 has greater intrinsic value for artistry and creativeness?
Number [1] would seem to get the vote on that score, insofar as you have done all the work - natural light aside perhaps.
However, the value of "seeing" and the related elements of composition -form, colour, light, shadow - ranks high in judging the final outcome so that links more with [2] or a ratio (60/40) with [3].
And what about linking the m.o. of those revered names from the photographic "canon", living or dead, with one or more categories?
Could a certain European, Leica toting person dismissive of [1] as quoted from a book - "Manufactured or staged photography does not concern me." - be linked more with [2] or with [3]?
Does another of his quotes help - "To take photographs means to recognise, simultaneously and within a fraction of a second, both the fact itself and the rigorous organisation of visually perceived forms that give it meaning." ?
And - sorry about the 'e' - there is a quote from one Andre Breton: "...put himself in a state of grace with chance, so that something might happen, so that someone might drop in."
All due respect, as they say, and a wish for even a fraction of that ability, but perusing the pages within screams out a high percentage of: right time, right place.
It has been said that you make your own luck.
Perhaps there ought to be a 4th category.
4. J.F.
