I spent this morning photographing musical instruments. I wasn’t primarily interested in capturing what is sometimes referred to as a record image of the instrument, which is an image that captures the best possible view of the subject to show the viewer what the thing looks like in reality.
Rather, what I wanted to do was to capture something that I would like to see as an image. And that ‘something’ is the riddle of photography.
It’s a bit like archery – there’s a kind of summing up of what is the right thing to do, and then a click and let go.
But unlike archery, the photographer has to make a mental translation of the image from the 3D image he can see in the viewfinder to the 2D image as it will appear on the page.
Still, you can’t just go on thinking and thinking – your hands get tired and your mind gets tired, so there is a tension in the coming together of the thoughts and the vision and the click of the shutter.
And it has to be like that – you can’t go on beating your brow and agonizing over taking a photograph – click and let go.
This clarinet is a good example of the ‘problem’, and these are the running thoughts I had as I was photographing it.
How much of the clarinet do I want to show?
If I photograph the whole length of the instrument, it is going to make a photograph of a long, skinny object, so most of the frame will be devoid of anything at all?
Should I have it running from top left or top right? What difference will that make to the way a viewer feels about the shot?
If I shoot it against a dark background, will that capture the luxuriousness of the instrument, which is what I want?
