How interesting. I too find a wrong lens often gives surpisingly interesting shots.
Or a wrong shooting angle, or a click at the wrong moment ... I though I missed the good one but the unexpected one turns out to be better.
How bored if our life is as exactly as planed.
I guess that is why I rarely find "good" pictures from commercial shots. ... it is all well planned, but lack of artistic surprise.
I think you have a point, in fact I'm sure that you do.
This didn't use to be the case back when; I see it more a result of the digital age and too much pre-and post-production value added, just like the tax, and to the same result: top-heavy productions.
If you have a look at Vogues of then and now, this is very clearly seen. Where photographers flew by the seat of their pants, there was inevitably surprise, both ways. But the point is, nobody stopped the flow of the moment to consult a bloody monitor before taking the next step in the 'construction' of the same, single image. It was about reality, albeit with lots of Max Factor, but I'd rather too much of Maxie any day to plastic, a 'look' which I sort of see as already starting to be a bit démodé, as it were.
Then think of the poor model: first she has to tune to the photographer, whom she may never have met before, then to what he wants from what she gives, which lets her fine-tune the rest of what she feels is wanted from her. Was a time snappers and muses worked almost exclusively together; now, they seldom see the same person twice. You need only consider Bailey and Shrimpton, Donovan and Celia Hammond (after her time working with Parkinson), John Cowan and Jill Kennington; it rolls on and on, and I was no different either. That way, people developed a photo-shorthand, where the snapper moved his foot and the girl instantly knew the style to which he hinted. You can't do that with total strangers, the mechanism doesn't exist. Only knowing someone well brings that ease of fruitful co-operation. (In my own case, bring in an AD and he might as well have shot the thing himself.) It was bad enough having to stop for film, but at least that let you do twelve or thirty-six more shots uninterrupted. Work tethered, and who knows how often you might have to pause for 'consultation'; you may not even be given the flow of a length of film. How does either model or snapper maintain continuity and enthusiasm? I would never have fitted the mould.
But that's the professional world; for the amateur the stakes are something quite different.
Rob C
