photography and drawing
Mike Henley
hobby, and what effect you find drawing has on your photography.
TP
>
>I'm wondering if any of you guys do both photography and drawing as a
>hobby, and what effect you find drawing has on your photography.
I do both drawing and watercolour painting as hobbies, and photography
for a living. My photographic composition has improved considerably
since I did a drawing course earlier this year (or so I am told).
Mark M
"TP" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:cb50h092uq6177ma8...@4ax.com...
Lets see some of your work, TP.
Mike
"Mark M" <mjmo...@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote in message
news:yaVPc.16923$Oi.14539@fed1read04...
were always taught early on in each class. One has to wonder what tp's
photos looked like for all those years before his "drawing" class.
Mark M
"Mike" <ne...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
news:SlVPc.8433$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
My thought exactly. Composition in drawing does indeed cross over in terms
of basic concepts, but these are the same basic concepts that TP has
repeatedly ridiculed when referred to here. TP has always fancied himself a
photographer of such greatness that he holds rights to deride any and all
others. This is especially interesting since he's never had the nerve to
post links to ANYTHING he has ever done with a camera.
That he made "considerable improvements" just this year from a drawing class
is rather funny indeed when placed within the context of his pompous BS.
He continues to be a doofus...
Sabineellen
I believe him. I'm experimenting these days with drawing using a Black Bic pen
on A4 sheets affixed to a cardboard clipboard. I guess i could use pencil
instead, and I had habitually used pencil in the past, till someone suggested
using a Bic pen because you can't erase your mistakes, and therefore it gets
interesting in how attentive you need to be. I don't plan to use colors anytime
soon.
I have not yet had a chance to reflect because I've only done one 10 or 20 mins
session of drawing since i started photography again. But I really want to do
more drawing to supplement photography. I find the two satisfy different needs
in me.
Photography so far has been an outdoors activity for me. I go on photo walks
that last a couple of hours on average and in them I could walk miles, thereby
an exercise and a breath of sun, open space, and fresh air, and I could take
routes i'd not explored so far just to see what could be there. There's a
feeling that you get in your late teens after you leave home and move to
another town, you just find yourself walking places, exploring, sightseeing and
etc. Photography brought back that playful curiosity to me. I had lost it for
many many years.
Drawing seems to be a more absorbing activity. It's highly, highly meditative.
It's almost like I go into a trance when I draw. I don't know what it does for
sure but it seems to do something to my brain. It's almost like smoking, but
even more pleasant. I feel it like a zoning out of time and a strange, warm
trickle in my musculature. Whereas with photography you just look and click,
with drawing you have to look and look and look and look. It's less about the
end results and more about the process. The end result, however good, will be
nothing like a photo. But getting there is a potentially frustrating, but often
very comforting process. Most of the drawing I have done is still life or
inanimate objects. I have not tried anything complex. Years ago I used to be
good enough to do quick portraits that were remarkably good and often amazed
people, but I have lost that as I've not practiced for a long long time.
I really want to get back to drawing as a daily habit and see how it affects
me. I know from past experience that it usually has a tremendous pyshoclogical
effect on me. And I'm sorta curious too, it being a visual act, how it'd affect
my photography.
Sabineellen
Maybe I should say that I'm *willing* to believe him. That'd be more accurate.
Since I don't know yet.
Mark M
"Sabineellen" <sabin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040803211504...@mb-m06.aol.com...
-I never "disbelieved" him.
I just find it amusing that this TP--the pompous idiot who pretends to be an
expert, and who derides any reference to the basics of things like
composition--needed a drawing class before he got complitments about his
photos.
I believe he took a drawing class...
It's just that it once again casts his pretended greatness into an even
deeper pool of bull----.
TP
>
>My thought exactly. Composition in drawing does indeed cross over in terms
>of basic concepts, but these are the same basic concepts that TP has
>repeatedly ridiculed when referred to here.
Complete nonsense. You could not be more wrong.
I have *never* ridiculed the basics, in fact quite the opposite, as I
have always *very strongly recommended* that anyone who wants to go
beyond taking just average snapshots should learn basic technique as a
prerequisite for progressing further.
What I *do* ridicule, and with good reason, is the conspicuous lack of
knowledge of the basics that is so evident in the SI submissions.
Most of the SI contributors have clearly never progressed beyond
taking snapshots, and some never will. A knowledge of the most basic
technique (of exposure, film type, choice of focal length, shutter
speed, aperture and depth of field and the use of camera support)
would improve their work beyond recognition. Once having mastered
these elementary aspects, they might then begin to address the
artistic aspects of their work.
But until they do, "SI" continues to mean "Snapshot International",
which is obviously all the majority of participants aspire to.
The widespread use of automatic cameras and zoom lenses is probably to
blame for the lack of knowledge of basic technique that is amply
demonstrated in the fortnightly "Snapshot International". Anyone who
wants to take photography seriously should start off with a basic
manual focus camera with manual exposure, one or two fixed focal
length lenses and a tripod and learn the basics before even
considering the purchase of an auto-everything SLR. The temptation to
use AF and leave it in "P" mode is always too great. Using a zoom
lens might make things easy, but it teaches nothing about perspective.
As for my drawing and watercolour classes, I am always keen to improve
my photography, and for you or anyone else to ridicule that shows a
lack of vision, one that is of course so evident in so many of your
postings. My livelihood depends on my ability to sell my work and I
have everything to gain from improving my technique. The day I stop
wanting to improve my technique will be the day to start making
funeral arrangements.
TP
>
>I really want to get back to drawing as a daily habit and see how it affects
>me. I know from past experience that it usually has a tremendous pyshoclogical
>effect on me. And I'm sorta curious too, it being a visual act, how it'd affect
>my photography.
Apart from learning another approach to basic composition, one of the
most important things drawing classes have taught me about photography
is the importance of every individual element of the shot. In drawing
or painting, you can use "artist's licence" to subdue or even omit
extraneous detail. In photography, you're stuck with it, and it can
often detract from the subject or scene.
Drawing has made me more aware of extraneous detail and therefore how
to avoid, subdue or even harness it to improve the overall shot.
TP
>
>I just find it amusing that this TP--the pompous idiot who pretends to be an
>expert, and who derides any reference to the basics of things like
>composition--needed a drawing class before he got complitments about his
>photos.
Your arrogance knows no bounds, Mark.
It is a pity that your understanding of composition appears not to
extend beyond fatuous "rules" such as the "rule of thirds", which is
designed only to encourage people with no understanding of composition
to avoid taking the worst kind of snapshots, and therefore deserves
every bit of derision it gets.
As for me being an "expert", I am not, and never will be. At least I
am humble enough to recognise that I can always improve my work, and
tuition is a very productive and enjoyable way of doing just that.
It is a pity (for you and your photography) that you are so set on
deriding the very idea of learning basic technique; such arrogance
means that you think you have no need to improve, when the truth is
that we all do.
Mark M
> "Mark M" <mjmo...@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote:
> >
> >My thought exactly. Composition in drawing does indeed cross over in
terms
> >of basic concepts, but these are the same basic concepts that TP has
> >repeatedly ridiculed when referred to here.
>
>
> Complete nonsense. You could not be more wrong.
>
> I have *never* ridiculed the basics, in fact quite the opposite, as I
> have always *very strongly recommended* that anyone who wants to go
> beyond taking just average snapshots should learn basic technique as a
> prerequisite for progressing further.
>
> What I *do* ridicule, and with good reason, is the conspicuous lack of
> knowledge of the basics that is so evident in the SI submissions.
Perhaps you should raise the bar by making your own masterful submission.
Surely this would once-and-for-all expose the mediocrity of the SI in such a
comparatively obvious manner that all former participants would see their
folly.
Why won't you do that?
-Because you're a fraud.
> As for my drawing and watercolour classes, I am always keen to improve
> my photography, and for you or anyone else to ridicule that shows a
> lack of vision, one that is of course so evident in so many of your
> postings.
I DIDN'T ridicule the idea of taking a drawing class to gain a sense of
composition. I'm sure I have benefitted from various drawing teaching I've
been exposed to over the years.
What I (and others) found amusing was that it comes from a person (you) that
always talks as though he's FAR beyond these basic principles. Let's face
it, TP, drawing class isn't going to uncover some new mystery of composition
for the SKILLED and SEASONED photographer. It WILL bring to light some VERY
BASIC principles that all novice photogs can start with and benefit
from...but the [self-titled] "great" TP?? -Surely he's beyond all that...
Mark M
> "Mark M" <mjmo...@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote:
> >
> >I just find it amusing that this TP--the pompous idiot who pretends to be
an
> >expert, and who derides any reference to the basics of things like
> >composition--needed a drawing class before he got complitments about his
> >photos.
>
>
> Your arrogance knows no bounds, Mark.
>
> It is a pity that your understanding of composition appears not to
> extend beyond fatuous "rules" such as the "rule of thirds", which is
> designed only to encourage people with no understanding of composition
> to avoid taking the worst kind of snapshots, and therefore deserves
> every bit of derision it gets.
>
> As for me being an "expert", I am not, and never will be.
Hooray for you! That's progress, TP!!
>At least I
> am humble enough to recognise that I can always improve my work, and
> tuition is a very productive and enjoyable way of doing just that.
>
> It is a pity (for you and your photography) that you are so set on
> deriding the very idea of learning basic technique
Ha! Read my reply again.
And perhaps you should take a look at my thread about my first panorama
image.
You've got it backwards, my friend.
I'm all for learning technique basics and beyond.
I just find it amusing that you've accidentally placed youself as apparently
needing this most basic, rudimentary instruction in the most basic aspects
of composition.
It flies in the face of your "let me tell you what's crappy about your
photos" persona which you so "nicely" bestow upon everyone.
; such arrogance
> means that you think you have no need to improve, when the truth is
> that we all do.
Please quote where I disagree with that.
You will find I have not.
I am heartened to hear you speak of your lack of expertise, and your need
for a grasp of the basics.
Mark M
That's great!
Good for you!
TP
>
>Perhaps you should raise the bar by making your own masterful submission.
Sorry, I don't do "Snapshot International".
;-)
Mark M
Neither do I, but neither do I ever ridicule or put down the photos people
submit there, or anywhere else as you do. Critique is fine. Ridicule is
never helpful, and THAT is why you get flack from me, TP.
TP
The credibility of your attempts to claim the moral high ground is
sadly diminished to zero by the foam that drips from your lips.
Get a grip on yourself, Mark. I have no doubt that you are a lot more
intelligent than you appear.
Mark M
If you look back over the long history of my posts, you will find that I
have NEVER ridiculed someone's work that is posted in good faith. We're not
talking about the George Preddy folk of the world, here...those don't count.
:) When people ask for critique here, I'll sometimes post some input, but
it is never mean-spirited. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you
to quote me in context. The only venom you'll hear from me is directed
toward those who DO riducule other's work...or troll...or make wild claims
about themselves or their photography.
You will find that I have NEVER bragged about ANY photographic endeavor or
shot.
Now TP...rather than simply throwing empty "get a grip" type enptiness, look
me up.
When you do, you'll find a distinct lack of photographic ridicule of any
legitimate (non-Preddy-type) work.
Sabineellen
>But until they do, "SI" continues to mean "Snapshot International",
>which is obviously all the majority of participants aspire to.
TP, the SI is first and foremost a recreational activity for most, if not
almost all, participants, and I do feel it ought to remain this way. I think in
the majority of circumstances they (the entries) do show a good grasp of the
basics. I am very willing to believe what you said about drawing improving your
photography because there's a difference between knowing something and fully
appreciating it, and while things such as composition are fairly easy knowledge
to aquire, the immensely attentive process that drawing requires heightens the
appreciation tremendously.
>Anyone who
>wants to take photography seriously should start off with a basic
>manual focus camera with manual exposure, one or two fixed focal
>length lenses and a tripod and learn the basics before even
>considering the purchase of an auto-everything SLR. The temptation to
>use AF and leave it in "P" mode is always too great. Using a zoom
>lens might make things easy, but it teaches nothing about perspective.
TP, I've gone this full circle lately. Owning up to 11 cameras the majority of
which are classics. Personally I don't think now a camera being autofocus is a
problem as long as it has AF lock either by presssing shutter release halfway
or switching to manual after AF. I also don't think auto-exposure is a problem
as long as it has spot metering, exposure lock, and exposure compensation, and
maybe even some scene modes for portrait, action and landscape. You may laugh
at this but I really think it all comes down eventually to the same. It's true
that manual settings give many many more possibilites of aperture and shutter,
but only a handful of these are of relevance to any particular shot. Zoom is
not a problem either. You know, all routes eventually lead to Rome, so why take
the strenuous one. I know, it probably teaches more initially, but there's a
limit to what they teach and after a certain point it just becomes an exercise
in tediousness, and oftentimes auto settings can be trusted and only
occasionally do they need to be overriden. Cameras of course differ in how good
they are in auto mode so a good camera is always good.
I just think the whole manual thing is of little relevance to end result. All
that matters is whether a shot is well composed, and this has nothing to do
with auto or manual, photographically interesting, and this again has nothing
to do with auto or manual, taken at the right moment and from the right
viewpoint, and this again has nothing to do with auto or manual, and
well-exposed and well-focused, which no one will care whether you use AF/MF or
A/M to get it as long as it is.
Dallas
> As for me being an "expert", I am not, and never will be. At least I am
> humble enough to recognise that I can always improve my work, and
> tuition is a very productive and enjoyable way of doing just that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Humble my ass. You can't squirm out of being the biggest prick ever to
have discovered usenet, Polson. Trying to mask your deplorable behaviour
with a "I-have-humility" hatch is simply not going to work here, my
friend.
> It is a pity (for you and your photography) that you are so set on
> deriding the very idea of learning basic technique; such arrogance means
> that you think you have no need to improve, when the truth is that we
> all do.
Do you ever wonder about why it is that people hate you? Doesn't it eat at
you? Don't you just want to apologise and stop trolling the group?
--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.
Dallas
> Apart from learning another approach to basic composition, one of the most
> important things drawing classes have taught me about photography is the
> importance of every individual element of the shot. In drawing or
> painting, you can use "artist's licence" to subdue or even omit extraneous
> detail. In photography, you're stuck with it, and it can often detract
> from the subject or scene.
>
> Drawing has made me more aware of extraneous detail and therefore how to
> avoid, subdue or even harness it to improve the overall shot.
So you do stick men then, eh? Less is more, or so "they" say.
Dallas
If anyone has heretofore doubted who is behind the "campaign" to get the
SI squished, let them wonder no more.
You claim to have absolutely no interest in the activity, yet you seem to
know more about it than anyone else here. You are obsessed with it.
Obsessed to the point where you have had to resort to continuous
bombarding of this forum to have it stopped so that you can continue to
masquerade as the "know-it-all" master photographer from the North of
England who has no place to "walk his talk".
You are a nobody.
Dallas
"They" lied to you. You have no work. What's more you will never be able
to use the internet to promote your imaginary "work" under your own name.
Doesn't that make you feel like a complete twat?
What a shame.
TP
>
>TP, the SI is first and foremost a recreational activity for most, if not
>almost all, participants, and I do feel it ought to remain this way.
There is no chance it will change, as long as it continues as a mutual
admiration society for banal, mediocre and incompetent snapshottery.
>I think in
>the majority of circumstances they (the entries) do show a good grasp of the
>basics.
Then we will have to disagree.
>I am very willing to believe what you said about drawing improving your
>photography because there's a difference between knowing something and fully
>appreciating it, and while things such as composition are fairly easy knowledge
>to aquire, the immensely attentive process that drawing requires heightens the
>appreciation tremendously.
Exactly so.
>>Anyone who
>>wants to take photography seriously should start off with a basic
>>manual focus camera with manual exposure, one or two fixed focal
>>length lenses and a tripod and learn the basics before even
>>considering the purchase of an auto-everything SLR. The temptation to
>>use AF and leave it in "P" mode is always too great. Using a zoom
>>lens might make things easy, but it teaches nothing about perspective.
>
>TP, I've gone this full circle lately. Owning up to 11 cameras the majority of
>which are classics. Personally I don't think now a camera being autofocus is a
>problem as long as it has AF lock either by presssing shutter release halfway
>or switching to manual after AF. I also don't think auto-exposure is a problem
>as long as it has spot metering, exposure lock, and exposure compensation, and
>maybe even some scene modes for portrait, action and landscape. You may laugh
>at this but I really think it all comes down eventually to the same.
If a reasonably well exposed, well focused snapshot is all you aspire
to, an auto-everything camera is just fine.
But auto-everything cameras don't teach you the basics of shooting
film. Almost any fool can pick up an auto-everything camera and
produce a mediocre snapshot, as the SI proves every two weeks. But
*choosing* focal length, critical focusing, depth of field and thereby
aperture and shutter speed is not something you learn to do with a
camera set to program.
It is the understanding and control of these aspects of a shot that
raises it above mediocre snapshot status, and the SI shows little or
no evidence of such ability among the participants. There seems to be
a lack of appreciation and understanding of what raises a good
photograph way above a merely competent snapshot.
>that manual settings give many many more possibilites of aperture and shutter,
>but only a handful of these are of relevance to any particular shot.
If you insert the prefix "snap" before the last word of your last
sentence, you would be correct. But it is those possibilities, so
often ignored by snapshooters, that make the colossal difference
between a mediocre snapshot and an outstanding portrait, landscape or
architectural shot.
>Zoom is
>not a problem either. You know, all routes eventually lead to Rome, so why take
>the strenuous one. I know, it probably teaches more initially, but there's a
>limit to what they teach and after a certain point it just becomes an exercise
>in tediousness, and oftentimes auto settings can be trusted and only
>occasionally do they need to be overriden. Cameras of course differ in how good
>they are in auto mode so a good camera is always good.
No, a good auto camera is always mediocre. In the right hands, it can
be made to produce results that people notice, but people who simply
trust to luck and the judgement of the camera's exposure meter and AF
system only produce outstanding results by pure chance, and rarely.
Once again, the SI has shown this, time after time after time.
>I just think the whole manual thing is of little relevance to end result. All
>that matters is whether a shot is well composed, and this has nothing to do
>with auto or manual, photographically interesting, and this again has nothing
>to do with auto or manual, taken at the right moment and from the right
>viewpoint, and this again has nothing to do with auto or manual, and
>well-exposed and well-focused, which no one will care whether you use AF/MF or
>A/M to get it as long as it is.
Thank you for illustrating my point so eloquently.
Sabineellen
>>TP, the SI is first and foremost a recreational activity for most, if not
>>almost all, participants, and I do feel it ought to remain this way.
>
>There is no chance it will change, as long as it continues as a mutual
>admiration society for banal, mediocre and incompetent snapshottery.
>
>>I think in
>>the majority of circumstances they (the entries) do show a good grasp of the
>>basics.
>
>Then we will have to disagree.
"the war on terror involves saddam hussein because of the nature of saddam
hussein, the history of saddam hussein, and his willingness to terrorize
himself."
George W Bush, grand rapids michigan, 29 january 03
"Can we please have a President who is able to say what he means? I know that I
will never agree with the President, but it would be nice if I knew what we
were disagreeing about."
Yes TP, it would be nice if I know what we're disagreeing about. I think if you
join the commentary on the shootin with specific observations on each shot as
many of us do it would be quite helpful, and many will take your point that
it's "incompetent" more seriously. I don't think not having the time would be
an excuse as you obviously take more than would be required in arguing with
others about all sorts of things.
>
>If a reasonably well exposed, well focused snapshot is all you aspire
>to, an auto-everything camera is just fine.
>
>But auto-everything cameras don't teach you the basics of shooting
>film. Almost any fool can pick up an auto-everything camera and
>produce a mediocre snapshot, as the SI proves every two weeks. But
>*choosing* focal length, critical focusing, depth of field and thereby
>aperture and shutter speed is not something you learn to do with a
>camera set to program.
>
>It is the understanding and control of these aspects of a shot that
>raises it above mediocre snapshot status, and the SI shows little or
>no evidence of such ability among the participants. There seems to be
>a lack of appreciation and understanding of what raises a good
>photograph way above a merely competent snapshot.
TP where do you draw the line between a good photograph and a merely competent
snapshot? I see that you're placing a big emphasis on learning, and while I
agree that learning is always good, there's a certain point beyond which the
basics had been learnt and even mastered and the insistence on manual becomes
an exercise in tediousness. There are many many shots for which having to set
each and every setting manually is of no benefit. Most cameras that a hobbyist
or an enthausiast will own will allow control over a certain setting when
required to achieve a certain aesthetic. Having to do each and every setting
manually is oftentimes unnecessary.
>But it is those possibilities, so
>often ignored by snapshooters, that make the colossal difference
>between a mediocre snapshot and an outstanding portrait, landscape or
>architectural shot.
Let's be specific here. What is it about the technicalities that would make a
mediocre snapshot an oustanding portrait, landscape or architectural shot? I
see no reason why I can't exercise creative control over a certain setting and
leave those that don't concern me to automation.
Mike Schuler
which I worked through 15 years ago in architecture school. If I
recall correctly, it is about "seeing" objectively rather than
subjectively - what an eye really looks like versus how we assume it
looks, for example. It might be a good way of improving compositions,
since photography is often about doing things quickly.
I haven't drawn freehand for years and rarely even draft by hand
anymore, but I may try it out to see if it helps.
mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in message news:<6005702b.04080...@posting.google.com>...
Alan Browne
> I've been meaning to re-read "Drawing on the Right side of The Brain"
> which I worked through 15 years ago in architecture school. If I
> recall correctly, it is about "seeing" objectively rather than
> subjectively - what an eye really looks like versus how we assume it
> looks, for example. It might be a good way of improving compositions,
> since photography is often about doing things quickly.
An essential artists book... I meant to steal my mother's copy
when I visited her a few weeks ago, but forgot (left brain
problem?). I gave her that book a couple decades + ago when she
was doing her B.Sc in Arts.
For photogrpahy the value of that book would be particulalry
useful in the abstraction view of subjects.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
TP
>
>Yes TP, it would be nice if I know what we're disagreeing about. I think if you
>join the commentary on the shootin with specific observations on each shot as
>many of us do it would be quite helpful, and many will take your point that
>it's "incompetent" more seriously.
I feel under no obligation to be "helpful" to people who don't take
photography seriously. I think it's fair that only those who take
part in the SI should make detailed comments. I have no intention of
taking part in the charade, so I keep my comments general.
>I don't think not having the time would be
>an excuse as you obviously take more than would be required in arguing with
>others about all sorts of things.
Compared to the regulars on this newsgroup, I spend very, very little
time here, and only when I am using my computer for something else.
There was a time when I spent a lot of time picking the brains of some
expert photographers who used to post here. They are all long gone,
thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years,
a process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still
exchange emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime
soon, at least while the SI continues.
>TP where do you draw the line between a good photograph and a merely competent
>snapshot? I see that you're placing a big emphasis on learning, and while I
>agree that learning is always good, there's a certain point beyond which the
>basics had been learnt and even mastered and the insistence on manual becomes
>an exercise in tediousness. There are many many shots for which having to set
>each and every setting manually is of no benefit. Most cameras that a hobbyist
>or an enthausiast will own will allow control over a certain setting when
>required to achieve a certain aesthetic. Having to do each and every setting
>manually is oftentimes unnecessary.
If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
that you want. If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
yourself a photographer, that's all.
>>But it is those possibilities, so
>>often ignored by snapshooters, that make the colossal difference
>>between a mediocre snapshot and an outstanding portrait, landscape or
>>architectural shot.
>
>Let's be specific here. What is it about the technicalities that would make a
>mediocre snapshot an oustanding portrait, landscape or architectural shot? I
>see no reason why I can't exercise creative control over a certain setting and
>leave those that don't concern me to automation.
You see no reason? Then I see no reason to reply.
What would be the point, when you have already made clear that your
attitude and approach are not those of someone who takes photography
seriously? Your auto camera, your SI and this dumbed down news group
appear to suit you perfectly, so don't even think about trying to give
an impression that you have any intention of changing.
Mark M
> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
> There was a time when I spent a lot of time picking the brains of some
> expert photographers who used to post here. They are all long gone,
> thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years,
> a process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still
> exchange emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime
> soon, at least while the SI continues.
And who are these "expert photographers" who left due to the SI?
TP
Do try reading posts before you reply to them.
I know you like to appear dumb but you really are wasting so much time
replying to posts you haven't read.
Sabineellen
>thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years,
>a process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still
>exchange emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime
>soon, at least while the SI continues.
What bugs you so much about the SI? I'm amazed that you blame it for causing
anyone to flee this group. Those who aren't interested can just ignore it's
clearly marked [SI] threads. So you think those people you say won't return
while the SI continues have no problem with the torrent of spam and trolling?
>
>If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
>and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
>that you want.
If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature then
you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in terms of
focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough when
necessary for some creative control aspect.
>If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
>automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
>any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
>then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
>yourself a photographer, that's all.
>
I don't see using manual controls as any achievement. I don't think a mark of a
"photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera. I care most
about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you photographs?
Mark M
OK...
Who are these expert photographers who won't be returning while the SI
continues?
TP
>If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature then
>you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in terms of
>focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough when
>necessary for some creative control aspect.
Yeah, right.
>I don't see using manual controls as any achievement. I don't think a mark of a
>"photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera. I care most
>about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
>photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you photographs?
Yeah, right.
Alan Browne
> Yeah, right.
About as meaningful as your photography.
Sabineellen
>> >
>> >"TP" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> >news:rid2h0h2c625rudls...@4ax.com...
>> >> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
>> >
>> >> There was a time when I spent a lot of time picking the brains of some
>> >> expert photographers who used to post here. They are all long gone,
>> >> thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years,
>> >> a process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still
>> >> exchange emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime
>> >> soon, at least while the SI continues.
>> >
>> >And who are these "expert photographers" who left due to the SI?
>>
>>
>> Do try reading posts before you reply to them.
>>
>> I know you like to appear dumb but you really are wasting so much time
>> replying to posts you haven't read.
>
>OK...
>
>Who are these expert photographers who won't be returning while the SI
>continues?
>
Haha. Gotta admire Mark's simple persistence in asking the question. Surely
didn't get fooled by TP's obvious evasiveness here.
Yes, TP. It's a simple question. Who are those "expert photographers" whose
brains you used to pick and who have all gone thanks to the "Snapshot
Irrelevant", and who "won't be returning here anytime soon, at least while the
SI continues"?
You ought to know; you "still exchange emails with them".
Let me guess how you're gonna avoid answering this one; you want to protect
their privacy or some excuse like that?
"Ha! I say Ha!" - from Streetcar Named Desire applies here.
Sabineellen
>>photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you photographs?
>
>Yeah, right.
I think the mark of a photographer is his photographs. Where are your
photographs?
Sabineellen
>
>"Ha! I say Ha!" - from Streetcar Named Desire applies here.
>
Obligatory Elaboration - gotta be uttered in a Southern (Louisiana) accent :
"Stanley Kowalski: Take a look at yourself here in a worn-out Mardi Gras
outfit, rented for 50 cents from some rag-picker. And with a crazy crown on.
Now what kind of a queen do you think you are? Do you know that I've been on to
you from the start, and not once did you pull the wool over this boy's eyes?
You come in here and you sprinkle the place with powder and you spray perfume
and you stick a paper lantern over the light bulb - and, lo and behold, the
place has turned to Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile, sitting on your
throne, swilling down my liquor. And do you know what I say? Ha ha! Do you hear
me? Ha ha ha! "
Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire
Mark M
> >and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
> >that you want.
>
> If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature
then
> you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in
terms of
> focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough
when
> necessary for some creative control aspect.
I don't agree with this.
There are a lot of situations where the smartest cameras will not get it
right at all without manual.
There are plenty of examples.
For example...Shooting multiple shots for a panorama MUST use manual to
maintain exposures that don't vary in either DOF or exposure rendition.
Or... Forcing small apertures and higher shutter speeds using flash to
either heighten DOF or freeze motion...or isolate a suject creating a dark
background.
This must be done using manual if you want to control both motion and DOF.
Or... Sunny settings where camera meters are notoriously fooled, and one
must set exposure manually. Simply using exposure compensation gives away
control of either aperture or shutter.
> >If you aspire to be merely the operator of an
> >automatic camera that makes creative decisions for you (and that means
> >any of the camera settings, because they are all creative decisions),
> >then an auto-everything camera is perfect for you. Just don't call
> >yourself a photographer, that's all.
> >
>
> I don't see using manual controls as any achievement.
It is an "achievement" to the extent that one can consistently force the
shot they intended, vs. what the camera hands you.
>I don't think a mark of a
> "photographer" is someone who's an operator of a manual camera.
I agree there.
Many types of photography just don't work well with all manual settings
(like AF in sports, wildlife action, etc.)
>I care most
> about content and composition. I think the mark of a photographer is his
> photographs. How he got them does not matter.
But how one shoots and utilizes full control may well determine if he "gets"
them as he *envisioned, vs. the hap-hazard results of camera-brain-reliance.
Don't misunderstand my point... I think a smart camera is very useful and
helpful for tons of shots. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of
mastering manual shooting--at least in terms of shutter and aperture
controls, and focus in certain situations.
>Where are you photographs?
He'll never show them to you.
He's afraid to. I guess I don't blame him after the way he shoots his mouth
off about how crappy other people's photos are. Once you do that, you just
set yourself up for ridicule when/if you post your shots.
Mark M
"Mark M" <mjmo...@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote in message
news:IHbQc.23908$Oi.12706@fed1read04...
> > >If you use manual control for long enough, it becomes second nature,
> > >and almost all auto control just gets in the way of making the shot
> > >that you want.
> >
> > If you use manual controls for long enough and it becomes second nature
> then
> > you realize that most often a good camera will get it right either in
> terms of
> > focus or exposure, and that overriding a certain setting is easy enough
> when
> > necessary for some creative control aspect.
>
> I don't agree with this.
That should have read, "I don't *entirely* agree with this.
I understand your point, and think it's very often correct...just that there
are exceptions.
Sabineellen
>helpful for tons of shots. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of
>mastering manual shooting--at least in terms of shutter and aperture
>controls, and focus in certain situations.
>
Sure, i wouldn't either. I just wouldn't discount the usefulness of automation,
as TP seems to suggest, or that it's an indicator of a mediocre snapshot rather
than an oustanding photographer at work.
Interestingly, I have never stitched a panorama, I rarely use flash, and I'm
comfortable enough overriding the automatic settings indicated in the
viewfinder if i disagree with the camera's internal meter. My point is that
most often the camera gets it right that there's no reason to be ashamed about
using it in A mode.
TP
>My point is that
>most often the camera gets it right that there's no reason to be ashamed about
>using it in A mode.
Define "the camera gets it right". What is "right" about it?
David Dyer-Bennet
> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
>>
>>Yes TP, it would be nice if I know what we're disagreeing about. I
>>think if you join the commentary on the shootin with specific
>>observations on each shot as many of us do it would be quite
>>helpful, and many will take your point that it's "incompetent" more
>>seriously.
>
> I feel under no obligation to be "helpful" to people who don't take
> photography seriously. I think it's fair that only those who take
> part in the SI should make detailed comments. I have no intention
> of taking part in the charade, so I keep my comments general.
You certainly shouldn't do things you perceive as wasting your time.
On the other hand, you probably shouldn't assume everybody will agree
with you, either.
Especially for relative beginners, comments from even moderately
experienced photographers can be very useful. And I find trying to
explain what I do and do not like about a photograph to be valuable to
me as a photographer, anyway. (No, I've haven't yet done it on an SI
photo here, so don't waste your time looking.)
Of course, if you consider the SI to be a "charade" or a complete
waste of time, then of course it makes sense that you wouldn't want to
waste time or space on it. If, as it seems, you feel that way, feel
free not to talk about the SI.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
I had read your entire post, and didn't remember your indicating who
these alleged expert leavers were. I went back and re-read your post
to double check. You make no reference to who these people are.
So, to put it gently, what the hell are you trying to pull here?
Alan Browne
> So, to put it gently, what the hell are you trying to pull here?
The wool over your eyes? He has no substantiation (like his
photographs) and is just grandstanding.
Sabineellen
>Define "the camera gets it right". What is "right" about it?
>
"Right" to me oftentimes just means like the eye saw it. If I need to alter
depth of field or shutter for some "creative" effect then I still can.
TP
>
>"Right" to me oftentimes just means like the eye saw it. If I need to alter
>depth of field or shutter for some "creative" effect then I still can.
I thought so. You haven't the faintest idea.
Sabineellen
>>"Right" to me oftentimes just means like the eye saw it. If I need to alter
>>depth of field or shutter for some "creative" effect then I still can.
>
>
>I thought so. You haven't the faintest idea.
>
Would you want to elaborate?
Mark M
"Sabineellen" <sabin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040804182305...@mb-m14.aol.com...
I suspect he doesn't know how to elaborate.
TP
Not really. You need to learn the huge differences between what the
human eye sees and what a camera records. You need to learn what the
huge differences are between a shot made with lens used at full
aperture (wide open) and stopped down. You need to know the
differences between shots made with fast and slow shutter speeds.
You will find all this in a book on the basics of photography. It is
so basic that just every book on basic photography ever published will
tell you what these differences are, and how they can be used
creatively. So go buy a book, and read, and learn. And if you like
what you see, it might just encourage you to start making the
transition from being a snapshotter to being a photographer.
On the other hand, it might not, because of your apparent negative
attitude towards learning and knowledge.
Sabineellen
>>
>>Would you want to elaborate?
>
>
>Not really. You need to learn the huge differences between what the
>human eye sees and what a camera records. You need to learn what the
>huge differences are between a shot made with lens used at full
>aperture (wide open) and stopped down. You need to know the
>differences between shots made with fast and slow shutter speeds.
>
>You will find all this in a book on the basics of photography. It is
>so basic that just every book on basic photography ever published will
>tell you what these differences are, and how they can be used
>creatively. So go buy a book, and read, and learn. And if you like
>what you see, it might just encourage you to start making the
>transition from being a snapshotter to being a photographer.
>
>On the other hand, it might not, because of your apparent negative
>attitude towards learning and knowledge.
>
Typical TP. Typical TP trite reply. I'm even starting to consider writing a web
script to automate the generation of your humdrum responses.
R.Schenck
Lets stick with this for a moment.
Would a person who is just pointing a shooting and gets an incredible
photo (by whatever standard one wishes too apply) be an 'incredible
photographer'?
Is someone who has expert technical knowledge and makes an otherwise
uninteresting 'scene' very interesting by using the utmost of their
abilities on matters of shutter speed, film type, (er, and what else
exactly are the auto cameras removing?) then an interesting photographer?
What if they come out with crap pictures? But they use 'perfect'
technique (understanding of course that thats a bit of a debateble term
term in itself)? Are they good photographers?
To take it to its most extreme, aren't people trying to push 'oopshots'
as an art? An oopshot (ooops, i mistakenly took a shot) can happen when
a primed camera gets the trigger tapped accidentaly and what not. Is
that art?
Well, its probable that one could argue that its an abstract sort of art.
But, even if that photo is really compelling, does that make the
photographer a compelling photographer?
Anyway, the SI is the primary reason that I post to this group at all,
just in case there were any question.
R.Schenck
Says the guy who wont participate and would rather complain. 'Go buy a
book' 'e says. Then what are you here for any way? Why not note what
would've improved a shot thats been entered into the SI? Why discuss it
at all if all you can say is ' its crap, I woulda done better'. Hell, go
ahead, say that, but then follow it up with -how-. Or do you just like
being a blowhard?
>
>
R.Schenck
> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
>>
>>I really want to get back to drawing as a daily habit and see how it
>>affects me. I know from past experience that it usually has a
>>tremendous pyshoclogical effect on me. And I'm sorta curious too, it
>>being a visual act, how it'd affect my photography.
>
>
> Apart from learning another approach to basic composition, one of the
> most important things drawing classes have taught me about photography
> is the importance of every individual element of the shot. In drawing
> or painting, you can use "artist's licence" to subdue or even omit
> extraneous detail. In photography, you're stuck with it, and it can
> often detract from the subject or scene.
>
> Drawing has made me more aware of extraneous detail and therefore how
> to avoid, subdue or even harness it to improve the overall shot.
>
>
See,-that- is a 'constructive comment'.
Mark M
Ken Nadvornick
> >TP, the SI is first and foremost a recreational activity for most, if not
> >almost all, participants, and I do feel it ought to remain this way.
And "TP" responded:
> There is no chance it will change, as long as it continues as a mutual
> admiration society for banal, mediocre and incompetent snapshottery.
Now Tony,
Up until this exchange you were doing fine. You wisely refrained from
falling into your old habit of denigrating *all* SI submissions across the
board, referring instead to "most" and "the majority" when offering your
latest unsubstantiated criticisms. You are still having problems in the
extreme offering any sort of follow-up details, but that I've come to expect
and so am not surprised.
The above response to Mike, however, now comes perilously close to violating
the Prime Directive. So I ask: Is your intention to include *my* "Entrances
and Exits" submission in your above description?
If this is not your intention, please say so, because that's not how it
sounds to me. (And I offer my apologies for so judging it.)
But if it is so intended, then you and I are fated to have another very
good discussion regarding your already demonstrated "banal, mediocre and
incompetent" abilities with respect to the seeing of photographs and the
forming of intellectually legible and coherent responses to them.
(However, it looks as if I may have to wait my turn in line this time...)
Ken
P.S. Geez Tony, FWIW I don't think I've *ever* run across anyone as
effectively self-destructive as you. Don't you ever look in the mirror and
wonder why it is you provoke such unbridled animosity in others? It's not
normal, you know.
I sincerely tried to have a constructive and mutually enjoyable conversation
with you. Asked for your advice. Gave you every benefit of the doubt.
Treated you with deference, courtesy and respect. And asked that others not
do the opposite. The result? You continued to characterize my previous SI
submission as "crap" and, most importantly, continued to refuse to give even
the slightest hint as to *why* you held that opinion. A single short
sentence would have sufficed. But no. It was almost as if you felt I
wasn't worthy of even that tiny amount of your reciprocal attention. You
preferred instead to create yet one more anti-TP voice in what has become a
huge roar of the crowd.
Regardless of your response (or non-response) to this, you and I both know
that people's fundamental personalities are fixed early in life and don't
change much from one context or venue to the next. If someone provokes
venom in one, he or she likely also does in others as well. I don't know
how old you may be, but I do know that life is *exceedingly* short. Maybe
you need to look into that mirror again and ask yourself if this latest NG
thread is a microcosm of how you want to spend the remainder of yours...
Sabineellen
>>
>
>Lets stick with this for a moment.
>
Yeah let's stick with that, it's interesting.
>Would a person who is just pointing a shooting and gets an incredible
>photo (by whatever standard one wishes too apply) be an 'incredible
>photographer'?
>
>Is someone who has expert technical knowledge and makes an otherwise
>uninteresting 'scene' very interesting by using the utmost of their
>abilities on matters of shutter speed, film type, (er, and what else
>exactly are the auto cameras removing?) then an interesting photographer?
>What if they come out with crap pictures? But they use 'perfect'
>technique (understanding of course that thats a bit of a debateble term
>term in itself)? Are they good photographers?
>
I think the better photographer is the one who comes out with better
photographs regardless of what he uses or how he uses it. Equipment and
technique, IMHO, are just means to an end, technological and technical tools,
but no more than that.
>To take it to its most extreme, aren't people trying to push 'oopshots'
>as an art? An oopshot (ooops, i mistakenly took a shot) can happen when
>a primed camera gets the trigger tapped accidentaly and what not. Is
>that art?
>
>Well, its probable that one could argue that its an abstract sort of art.
>But, even if that photo is really compelling, does that make the
>photographer a compelling photographer?
>
What I know is that when looking at legendary photographers all that remains as
a testimony to their talent and craft are their photographs.
TP
>
>What I know is that when looking at legendary photographers all that remains as
>a testimony to their talent and craft are their photographs.
Presumably it has never even occurred to you that "legendary"
photographers don't use auto-everything cameras.
Sabineellen
>>
>>What I know is that when looking at legendary photographers all that remains
>as
>>a testimony to their talent and craft are their photographs.
>
>
>Presumably it has never even occurred to you that "legendary"
>photographers don't use auto-everything cameras.
Regardless. If it's a good photo, it doesn't matter what you used.
Sabineellen
>>Presumably it has never even occurred to you that "legendary"
>>photographers don't use auto-everything cameras
TP you're making it sound like manual photography is some mystrerious voodoo
that's only accessible to some folks. What exactly do you do with the focus
ring other than focusing? What exactly do you do with aperture other than
choosing DOF? what exactly do you do with shutter other than freezing or
animating motion? what exactly do you do with combinations of both other than
stepwize reciprocating them to get the effect of either while having a correct
exposure?
The way I see it, having an eye for form and event, for content and composition
matters most; that's where i believe the art lies.
Dallas
> I feel under no obligation to be "helpful" to people who don't take
> photography seriously. I think it's fair that only those who take part in
> the SI should make detailed comments. I have no intention of taking part
> in the charade, so I keep my comments general.
I dare say that anybody who has come to this group, regardless of their
ability, has at some point taken photography seriously. They certainly
don't need your derision, so keep it to yourself.
> Compared to the regulars on this newsgroup, I spend very, very little time
> here, and only when I am using my computer for something else.
>
> There was a time when I spent a lot of time picking the brains of some
> expert photographers who used to post here. They are all long gone,
> thanks to the dumbing down of this newsgroup over the last two years, a
> process that was accelerated by the Snapshot Irrelevant. I still exchange
> emails with them, but they won't be returning here anytime soon, at least
> while the SI continues.
So why, oh why, do you continue to plague this group with your dumbed down
personality?
Let me guess: you don't have to explain anything to anyone, let alone us
incompetent bastards on a dumbed down newsgroup. R-iiiight....
--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.
TP
>
>Regardless. If it's a good photo, it doesn't matter what you used.
The depth of your ignorance is absolutely breathtaking.
No wonder you think your Fuji p+s zoom is so "good".
TP
>
>TP you're making it sound like manual photography is some mystrerious voodoo
>that's only accessible to some folks.
Accessible to all, understood by very, very few.
Sabineellen
>>
>>TP you're making it sound like manual photography is some mystrerious voodoo
>>that's only accessible to some folks.
>
>
>Accessible to all, understood by very, very few.
>
Typical TP trite reply.
Ken Nadvornick
> >TP you're making it sound like manual photography is some mystrerious
voodoo
> >that's only accessible to some folks.
And "TP" responded:
> Accessible to all, understood by very, very few.
Oh for crying out loud... You *do* need a reality check, my friend.
Someone needs to knock you up side of your noggin to shake loose a few
cobwebs.
"...understood by very, very, few." Good lord. You've got to be kidding.
If that's not the most self-serving comedy I've ever heard... Maybe we
should all start slaughtering sacrificial chickens immediately prior to
releasing the camera shutter as well...
And by the way, why haven't you responded to my post from yesterday, Tony.
This time all that's required of you is a simple "Yes" or "No" follow-up.
That's a Y-E-S or a N-O, both followed by the Enter key. Four or three
keystrokes, respectively, with absolutely no intellectual footwork required.
Can you do it, Tony? I think you can...
Ken
raining mirrors
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> said:
> Mike Schuler wrote:
>
>> I've been meaning to re-read "Drawing on the Right side of The Brain"
>> which I worked through 15 years ago in architecture school. If I
>> recall correctly, it is about "seeing" objectively rather than
>> subjectively - what an eye really looks like versus how we assume it
>> looks, for example. It might be a good way of improving compositions,
>> since photography is often about doing things quickly.
>
> An essential artists book... I meant to steal my mother's copy when I
> visited her a few weeks ago, but forgot (left brain problem?). I gave
> her that book a couple decades + ago when she was doing her B.Sc in
> Arts.
>
> For photogrpahy the value of that book would be particulalry useful in
> the abstraction view of subjects.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
I restarted drawing with exactly that book, though german translation
and had a lot of fun running through the exercises. There is a new
workbook now, which includes more examples for practicing. With the
last edition, Betty Edwards changed some of the practices. I had the
chance to compare the last two editions.
i can't really say that drawing in itself changed my personal way of
photography, which is definitly more infuenced by various sports, which
require seeing as a major part in the learning process.
cheers
Sabineellen
>I restarted drawing with exactly that book, though german translation
>and had a lot of fun running through the exercises. There is a new
>workbook now, which includes more examples for practicing. With the
>last edition, Betty Edwards changed some of the practices. I had the
>chance to compare the last two editions.
>
I liked drawing on the artist within much better than drawing on the right side
of the brain. Another great book is Drawing Problems and Solutions by Trudy
Friend. Those are two very good drawing books I've come across.
>i can't really say that drawing in itself changed my personal way of
>photography, which is definitly more infuenced by various sports, which
>require seeing as a major part in the learning process.
>
>cheers
what sports?
use...@imagenoir.com
>I'm wondering if any of you guys do both photography and drawing as a
>hobby,
Yep. That said, it's been a long time since I've done any serious
drawing on a regular basis. The drawing I've been doing lately has been
while helping a friend learn how to draw.
> and what effect you find drawing has on your photography.
Hard to say, as I was drawing long before I took up photography. It
certainly makes me appreciate the importance of balancing light & shade,
tonal subtleties, etc.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Organizer
news:gtn5h0p3dun3j6fs6...@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) stated that:
>
> >I'm wondering if any of you guys do both photography and drawing as a
> >hobby,
>
> Yep. That said, it's been a long time since I've done any serious
> drawing on a regular basis. The drawing I've been doing lately has been
> while helping a friend learn how to draw.
>
> > and what effect you find drawing has on your photography.
>
> Hard to say, as I was drawing long before I took up photography. It
> certainly makes me appreciate the importance of balancing light & shade,
> tonal subtleties, etc.
You're so full of shit Lionel. <holds nose> :)
use...@imagenoir.com
that:
>sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) on 04 Aug 2004 posted
>
>>> I think the mark of a photographer is his
>>>>photographs. How he got them does not matter. Where are you
>>>>photographs?
>>>
>>>Yeah, right.
>>
>> I think the mark of a photographer is his photographs. Where are your
>> photographs?
>>
>
>Lets stick with this for a moment.
>
>Would a person who is just pointing a shooting and gets an incredible
>photo (by whatever standard one wishes too apply) be an 'incredible
>photographer'?
No, just lucky. IMO, an 'incredible photographer' is someone who can
*consistantly* create incredible photographs.
>Is someone who has expert technical knowledge and makes an otherwise
>uninteresting 'scene' very interesting by using the utmost of their
>abilities on matters of shutter speed, film type, (er, and what else
>exactly are the auto cameras removing?) then an interesting photographer?
>What if they come out with crap pictures? But they use 'perfect'
>technique (understanding of course that thats a bit of a debateble term
>term in itself)? Are they good photographers?
Yes, but not necessarily 'incredible' or 'brilliant'. To me, the
difference is between photography as documentation, & photography as
art.
use...@imagenoir.com
photographers didn't have auto-everything cameras available to them at
the time that they made their reputations.
use...@imagenoir.com
>sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
Oh bullshit. I learned photography on manual cameras in my teens, & it
isn't all /that/ difficult. Hell, I currently own two fully manual film
bodies. I could go back to shooting full manual today, but I won't,
because it's too damn slow for the kind of photography that I do. 99% of
the time, semi-auto modes do exactly what I would've done if I were
shooting manually anyway.
use...@imagenoir.com
that:
>I've been meaning to re-read "Drawing on the Right side of The Brain"
>which I worked through 15 years ago in architecture school. If I
>recall correctly, it is about "seeing" objectively rather than
>subjectively - what an eye really looks like versus how we assume it
>looks, for example. It might be a good way of improving compositions,
>since photography is often about doing things quickly.
<nods> I've found that the biggest difference between drawing &
photography is that with one you create the composition, & with the
other you have to be able to quickly detect a composition that's already
there.
>I haven't drawn freehand for years and rarely even draft by hand
>anymore, but I may try it out to see if it helps.
Hi Mike,
Try sketching using black & white artists chalks on mid-toned paper.
When I was learning drawing, I found that it taught me a lot about
balancing light & shade, & especially creating a sense of depth.
use...@imagenoir.com
that:
Where's some of *your* work, Steve? Prove that you have even a tenth of
my skill, & I might actually care about your comments. Until then, I'll
just continue to laugh at your impotent whining.
Tony Parkinson
their own lunchtimes (or at least think they are, when they can remember
their name)
--
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it
in a fruit salad
TP
>
>Oh bullshit. I learned photography on manual cameras in my teens, & it
>isn't all /that/ difficult. Hell, I currently own two fully manual film
>bodies.
So you're one of the few.
Ken Nadvornick
> >Oh bullshit. I learned photography on manual cameras in my teens, & it
> >isn't all /that/ difficult. Hell, I currently own two fully manual film
> >bodies.
And "TP" responded:
> So you're one of the few.
Hey Tony... <grin>
Guess what?
I own and actively use two Nikon F2's, seven manual Nikkors, a Vivitar 292
flash (none of that dang TTL for me!), a Kodak Retina Ia (great lens), a
Yashica MAT-124G TLR and a Wista rosewood 4x5 field w/210mm f/5.6 Schneider
lens in Copal shutter. And I often eschew the use of camera-integrated
light meters, preferring instead to use my trusty handheld Sekonic L-398
Studio Deluxe (analog) or Pentax Spotmeter V (analog, recommended by Ron
Wisner) OR just my eyes - it's not really very difficult, you know.
Hell, I even trip the Copal shutter using an **air bulb** pneumatic
release!! AND, for bonus credit, when in the field working all of the above
are usually to be found mounted securely atop an ancient, but still
rock-solid, Star-D Professional aluminum tripod. Except for the 4x5, which
is mounted on a Zone VI heavy-duty wooden tripod fully capable of supporting
up to an 11x14 field camera.
In fact, possibly my most technologically advanced photographic accessory is
my darkroom water faucet - a Hass Intellifaucet K250. (Worth it's weight in
gold, too.)
But camera-wise, not a single piece of automation to be found as far as the
eye can see! I don't understand how you *can't* like me!
So again, *now* will you answer my original post (the one asking if you're
once again shotgun ridiculing my SI submission without any additional
forthcoming edification) 'yes' or 'no?'
It won't hurt, Tony. Promise.
(I think I'm starting to have fun here...)
Your new friend,
Ken
raining mirrors
> what sports?
Aikido, Iaido, whitewater kayaking and climbing for the bigger part...
especially aikido and iaido require a lot of visual attention on
details, on seeing the imporant part of the body movement. whitewater
kayaking requires instant judgment of rapidly flowing water from an
normally unusual point of view. all these sports are a school of
attention and learning how to see details, as is photography. both,
sports and photography require attention on the moment and on the
process of doing, one shortterm the other longterm.
Bandicoot
news:ba91h09m25ljkpbm0...@4ax.com...
> "Mark M" <mjmo...@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps you should raise the bar by making your own masterful submission.
>
>
> Sorry, I don't do "Snapshot International".
>
> ;-)
>
Wish you would. It might quieten some things down a bit!
Peter
Bandicoot
news:yaVPc.16923$Oi.14539@fed1read04...
>I'm wondering if any of you guys do both photography and drawing as a
>
I photograph professionally, and paint (badly) for fun. My mother is an
artist and so I grew up with painting, and I'm sure that helped my
compositional sense in terms of placement of objects but also of colour
balance, light and shade, and so on.
Now I still paint, but not as often as I'd like. I'm certain that it does
improve my photography, but I'm not sure I could define how...
My photography teaching quite often includes groups that are interested in
both painting and photography, and sometimes I find myself introducing
photography to people who are complete beginners, but are already
experienced painters. The standard of work they produce almost from the
outset is always impressive. Learning technicalities is, after all, not so
hard: it's the 'artistic' elements that take the longest to master, and that
make the biggest difference to the end result. Since painting and drawing
force one to concentrate on those aspects, they must be beneficial.
Peter
PS - now here's a genuinely OT idea for a shoot-in gallery: a page for the
paintings and drawings of those of us photographers that do both! Might
actually be rather interesting to see, and cast interesting light on some
people's photographic styles. Plus, with any luck it might cause the
troll's head to explode... P.
Alan Browne
<snort> What a pompous asshole you are TP. There is no great
mystery to manual exposure or manual focus.
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Alan Browne
> Maybe we
> should all start slaughtering sacrificial chickens immediately prior to
> releasing the camera shutter as well...
<shhh> TP guards that technique very jealously.
Alan Browne
The point I was aluding to was that (as Mike pointed out) as
photographers (at least me) tend to see subjects over the
components of form.
Alan Browne
> Yeah, but there are a few "photographers" posting here who are legends in
> their own lunchtimes (or at least think they are, when they can remember
> their name)
TP doesn't post at all so that premise doesn't seem to hold much
water.
Mark M
"Ken Nadvornick" <registe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ncHQc.1741$721....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
I don't think he knows how.
TP
>> ;-)
>
>Wish you would. It might quieten some things down a bit!
I doubt that very much ... more like pouring
kerosene on the flames, I would think!
Anyway, I'm away tomorrow for a well-earned
holiday, two whole weeks without a camera!
You see, I don't do snapshots ...
;-)
Tony Parkinson
news:cpLQc.13286$Gl6.9...@weber.videotron.net...
> Tony Parkinson wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but there are a few "photographers" posting here who are legends
in
> > their own lunchtimes (or at least think they are, when they can remember
> > their name)
>
> TP doesn't post at all so that premise doesn't seem to hold much
> water.
>
Though we have had our misunderstandings in the past I really don't want to
fall out with either yourself or Tony, so please leave me out of your
squabbles
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cpLQc.13286$Gl6.9...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Tony Parkinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, but there are a few "photographers" posting here who are legends
>
> in
>
>>>their own lunchtimes (or at least think they are, when they can remember
>>>their name)
>>
>>TP doesn't post at all so that premise doesn't seem to hold much
>>water.
>>
>
> Alan, that wasn't who I was referring to, and well you know it.
> Though we have had our misunderstandings in the past I really don't want to
> fall out with either yourself or Tony, so please leave me out of your
> squabbles
Apologies Tony. When you used the phrase "legend in his own
lunchtime" I thought you were talking about the person who fit
the description most aptly.
Cheers,
Alan
Tony Parkinson
>
> Apologies Tony. When you used the phrase "legend in his own
> lunchtime" I thought you were talking about the person who fit
> the description most aptly.
>
lunchtime since he doesn't seem to know who he is
;^)
Ken Nadvornick
> I doubt that very much ... more like pouring
> kerosene on the flames, I would think!
>
> Anyway, I'm away tomorrow for a well-earned
> holiday, two whole weeks without a camera!
>
> You see, I don't do snapshots ...
No, Tony. I don't see, actually.
And therein lies the core of your credibility problem. You *say* that your
photographic efforts are supremely in advance of those offered by everyone
else. And you somehow extrapolate from this premise that you then are
justified in arrogantly and publicly ridiculing (the working definition here
being "rudely critical, but without substantive, supportive content")
everyone else's efforts. And that you should somehow be completely immune
in doing so.
Yet how do I, or anyone else, know that you too aren't merely producing
nothing more than "snapshots" which, through *your* eyes, you consider to be
masterful works of art? In other words, that you aren't guilty of the very
offense with which you are so knee-jerk quick to accuse others of
committing?
There's an old saying that goes: "A guilty dog smells his own sh*t first."
And I have yet to see any of your superior efforts, Tony - the existence of
which would serve to instantly silence your roaring crowd of detractors. In
fact, for you to triumphantly display a small retrospective of your
finely-honed images for all the world to see would be, I think, an
absolutely *huge* exclamation point by you. Conversely, having this card -
if it in fact exists - up your sleeve, waiting to be played but not playing
it, would be the height of self-destructive foolishness on your part.
So your behavior has now finally convinced me that I must agree with Peter's
excellent suggestion. Why not simply post a submission to the SI? The
worst that could happen is no worse than what you are enduring - and will
continue to endure - right now. The downside potential is minimal, while
the upside potential is enormous. And I, for one, will give you a public
promise right here (and archived in Google) that, were you to do so, I would
give you a completely honest and constructive (read: non-rude) appraisal,
**including the reasoning behind my opinions,** of my reaction to it. After
all I've said, I could do no less. And would not want to.
And if you still can't bring yourself to do this, yet still wonder who it is
carrying around that can of kerosene, I suggest another solitary trip to
that mirror of yours.
And finally (for now), one's personal integrity, being dependent as it is
upon others, can take a lifetime to build, but only a short time to lose.
Unfortunately, yours is now such with me that I don't believe for a moment
that you are voluntarily "away tomorrow for a well-earned holiday." You may
or may not be actually leaving for somewhere, but only you know the true
reasons why.
Telling everyone you've gone, then standing under a roaring crowd while
desperately covering your eyes and ears with your hands makes you invisible
only to yourself.
Ken
Dallas
> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
>>
>>TP you're making it sound like manual photography is some mystrerious
>>voodoo that's only accessible to some folks.
>
>
> Accessible to all, understood by very, very few.
<yawn>
On Polson's tombstone will read the following inscription:
Here lies Tony Polson (a.k.a. ,insert as many as you like>)
He was one of the VERY FEW who understood what shutterspeeds and aperture
do in the realm of photography.
--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.
William Graham
when I was in the Navy my early twenties....I was trying to remember the
other day how I managed without a built-in light meter.....I guess I just
used my old Weston, or guessed at the exposures, and then sent the film back
to my dad at home, where he did any necessary corrections in his
darkroom......
Sabineellen
>Anyway, I'm away tomorrow for a well-earned
>holiday, two whole weeks without a camera!
>
>You see, I don't do snapshots ...
>
>;-)
I can't possibly imagine you producing any interesting images given how much
you seem to dislike photography outside your working hours. And your working
hours photography doesn't seem to have instilled the love of it in you. You're
probably are a bored "cheese" photographer, you know, the kind that absolutely
hates kids and wishes he could shoot em with a gunshot but gotta pretend nice
and wave a teddy while smiling unconvincingly whenever they cried 'cos your
appearance scared them.
Mike Schuler
would help one expand his or her visualization skills. I've seen
references to the Zen of Photography (or something similarly titled)
and may check it out for ideas. Any other suggestions?
Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:<ev9Qc.44299$lW3.2...@wagner.videotron.net>...
TP
TP
>>Anyway, I'm away tomorrow for a well-earned
>>holiday, two whole weeks without a camera!
>>
>>You see, I don't do snapshots ...
>>
>>;-)
>
>I can't possibly imagine you producing any interesting images
True. It is certainly difficult to produce images without a camera.
However, I will have my easel and watercolours with me, which will be
a welcome change.
Alan Browne
An example of TP's "dodging and burning" technique.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote ...
>
>>Apologies Tony. When you used the phrase "legend in his own
>>lunchtime" I thought you were talking about the person who fit
>>the description most aptly.
>>
>
> I was, but on reflection, I doubt that Mr Henley will know when it's
> lunchtime since he doesn't seem to know who he is
Clever boy. But everyone else thought you meant TP.
Brian C. Baird
says...
So you're a crappy painter too?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Bandicoot
[Chuckles.] I've a trip coming up too, but since landscapes are my
business, I can't really imagine travelling anywhere and not taking a
camera - too expensive! Besides, it is nice to be able to make my travel
tax deductible...
But I will take a small paintbox too. And the camera won't get in the way
of me testing the wine, and trying the waters (I'll be based in a spa town).
Peter
Sabineellen
>
>[Chuckles.] I've a trip coming up too, but since landscapes are my
>business, I can't really imagine travelling anywhere and not taking a
>camera - too expensiv
What camera will you be taking?