WTF

I guess this abbreviation has recently evolved to mean Within The Frame for most in my nearest blogophere, and many others. Within The Frame is a book written by David duChemin, that was very well received for presenting a refreshingly new view on photography – vision driven photography.

I guess this is a very hard topic to follow up for any writer, and to me it’s equally hard to explain why I was not captured to the degree many others were. But firstly, I believe he’s right. You have to see your inner vision to make the pictures you’re really resonate with. So, what’s inner vision, then? How does it look like, is it tangible or is it merely a sense of feeling? I believe it’s different depending on who you ask, and quite probably, many of us wouldn’t even know. I don’t. I have a clue though, that it to me would be to follow my innermost feelings and not paying too much respect to inbound expectations. As soon as expectations come from outside, like in an assignment, it is easy to start “seeing” in terms of how others might feel and think. I believe this is emphasised in the book, that the end result must be a mixture of both visions, your own and those who have expectations from you. It’s about adding your signature. The author kept coming back to making a picture in a way none have ever seen it, not the usual postcard so to say. The emphasis on being unique is of course most important when you have inbound expectations on your work, and you compete with other photographers.

So far, so good. I enjoyed reading about all this, though I could have lived without the technical explanations of how you could use different lenses, settings and techniques to emphasise a certain mode. That’s personal, in my world, what is emphasised in a picture and how that is made. The book became more like a traditional “how to” photo book in that sense, not what I expected. Perhaps, I had too high expectations on the fuzzy side, like reading a book about psychology and finding the reason for my doubts. Not likely to happen, is it? I’m really not sure if I was looking for answers, while reading the book. I’m old enough to understand there are no answers. I believe, however, that a more philosophical view of how we might be reasoning when making our pictures would have been more interesting to me. Maybe a more psychological approach, than philosophical.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m too mixed up in general to get the book in it’s full extent and meaning. Maybe was it to wordy and tired me with the obvious, while I missed the treasures that were hidden behind the lines. What is obvious and what is a treasure, anyway? Sounds like I’m a spoiled kid that wants everything served on a silver plate, I’m not. I was likely not in the mood for the book, because I’m convinced it must have had higher qualities than I found.

A vision