Musical and Photographic Parallels

I’m reading an interview with Phil Ramone (musician, producer and engineer) in which he’s asked what a good recording is. His response:

“I think it’s important to stop worrying about the technology and make sure that you capture the event in its primary state.”

Later in the interview, he says,

“I think you can never, ever fix a lot of the things that people think they can fix.”

He is, of course, talking about the recording of music, but this philosophy can be applied equally to photography in two very important points:

• Above all else, get the shot [take]
• Get absolutely as much right in the camera [on tape] as possible

This all sounds simple enough, but it’s an important aspect of the creative effort. It requires a good working knowledge of your equipment, as well as a good working knowledge of the craft. Take the time to learn what all the buttons and knobs on your gear do, and when to use what setting. Practice by recording everything you see, and concentrate on your techniques. What you capture the first time is generally the best — subsequent “takes” or constant reshoots seldom carry the spontaneity and emotion of the initial moment. They’re seldom the best work of the recordist/photographer or the performer/subject. Ramone goes on to make another crucial point:

“If you have ten records that you think are the best records you’ve ever heard, sort out what is in them.”

The same, again, can be said of a photograph. What makes Ansel Adams’ Half Dome such an incredible image? What’s in there? Equally important, both in a photograph and in a musical recording, what’s not in there? As many photographs as recordings are ruined by trying to throw too much into the pot. The subject is muddied by too much fluff and stuff.