How can I take a great photo (on purpose) right now?
Mike
I've been reading books and would consider myself a low level, frustrated,
intermediate photographer. I know how to work the dang thing and understand
the rules of composition, blah blah blah.
I'm dying to get a smashing photo that I'd be proud to blow up to 11x14" or
so and put on my own wall. It hasn't happened yet. Invariably, the print
looks washed out (with overly bright skies) or dull (not as vibrant as my
remembrance). I've shot some Velvia and Kodak slide film and am convinced
their colors are much better than print film.
But still...as much as I try, I still can't get a great image. I see that a
lot of the fine shots I see in magazines are painfully staged or patiently
shot with great weather conditions. I'm tired of chasing the perfect
landscape. I want to shoot something right now that I can be happy with.
Any ideas?
The perfect candidate would be something I can shoot with flash in my living
room at any hour, any day. Next best is something outside under normal daily
light.
Please don't lecture me about earning my dues or anything like that. I've
been trying a lot and I'm missing something. If I can get a good idea for a
still life setting or something that has good promise, then I can gnaw on
that for a while. I'm willing to work on it, I'm just tired of mediocre
results.
Tony Spadaro
waiting for the light, it involves seeing the picture in the scene, and
it involves knowing the equipment Cold. Of the three the middle one is
the one that takes the most work, by far.
Still life is harder.
Photography can come fast or it can take forever - it can do both.
I've been at it 34 years and still have a lot more to learn. My
successes have always been pictures of what interested me. I shot the
shots that everyone shoots, but they were never my best and were
frequently poor imitations of better photographers. It finally dawned
on me, that I was not cut out to do those shots that everyone does. Now
I shoot to please ME, I shoot what interests ME, and I shoot what I
want to keep. I usually get at least one shot per day that makes the
effort worthwhile.
Take a look at my website. There is a series called "Objects
Domestics". Originally there were about 50 pictures - most were lost in
a fire. This was the first series I did for myself, and it came out the
way I wanted. At the time I didn't even show these to others. I wanted
to take shots like everyone else took and these didn't fit. I know
better now. It's everyone elses shots that didn't fit - me.
Shoot your own pictures. Perhaps you'll like them more.
--
Photo restoration in peaceful Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New Area 53 The Secrets - Revealed!
The Teleconverter Page & The Night Gallery
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
zeitgeist
>
> I've been getting serious about photography since February of this year.
> I've been reading books and would consider myself a low level, frustrated,
> intermediate photographer. I know how to work the dang thing and understand
> the rules of composition, blah blah blah.
>
> I'm dying to get a smashing photo that I'd be proud to blow up to 11x14" or
> so and put on my own wall. It hasn't happened yet. Invariably, the print
> looks washed out (with overly bright skies) or dull (not as vibrant as my
> remembrance). I've shot some Velvia and Kodak slide film and am convinced
> their colors are much better than print film.
>
> But still...as much as I try, I still can't get a great image. I see that a
> lot of the fine shots I see in magazines are painfully staged or patiently
> shot with great weather conditions. I'm tired of chasing the perfect
> landscape. I want to shoot something right now that I can be happy with.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> The perfect candidate would be something I can shoot with flash in my living
> room at any hour, any day. Next best is something outside under normal daily
> light.
>
> Please don't lecture me about earning my dues or anything like that. I've
> been trying a lot and I'm missing something. If I can get a good idea for a
> still life setting or something that has good promise, then I can gnaw on
> that for a while. I'm willing to work on it, I'm just tired of mediocre
> results.
photography is about capturing light. To short cut the process of
learning to see light, take pictures when the light is just perfect,
sunrise for scenics and sundown for portraits, or learn to find
situations that imitate these two, for portraits that means open shade
etc.
using flash is one of the harder lighting systems to get to deliver nice
images, a point light source and all that. a photographer needs to
know how to shape light as much as a painter has to shape the paint or a
sculpter to shape the rock.
That is why there are softboxes, scrims, reflectors and vignettes.
There are a thousand posts in the z-prophoto mailing list archives at
egroups.com about using all that, also www.zuga.net has some interesting
tutorials on portraiture lighting and posing.
John Stewart
> Any ideas?
You're asking for advice, but don't want to be "lectured" about paying your
dues... Patience! Patience!
And you havbe only been "serious" about photography since February, but now
consider yourself a low-level intermediate photographer.
You have two EARS but only one MOUTH. There's a reason for that.
I'd suggest you ask to be lectured, as some of the people who would do you
this kindness have been photographing for many years, but still consider
themselves intermediate photographers.
There ain't no free lunch!
John
Karen Simmons
> "Award-winning nature photographer Jim Brandenburg gave himself a
> challenge: for ninety days between the autumnal equinox and the winter
> solstice, he would take only one photograph each day. This exquisite
> book is the result of that bold and immensely personal project. Through
> the accompanying essay Brandenburg shares his innermost thoughts and
> passions as he witnesses the cycle of nature near his home in the
> northwoods of Minnesota."
>
> The photos in this book are amazing samples of what can be done in any
> neighborhood. What a way to train the eye!!!
I love this book. My husband got it for me for Christmas and I've
looked at it dozens of times since. It's an amazing example of what a
skilled and talented photographer can do when he wants to.
Karen
Tom Hickson
Take a look at this reference:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1559716711/thewildlifezoneA/104-0209623-5997529
"Award-winning nature photographer Jim Brandenburg gave himself a
challenge: for ninety days between the autumnal equinox and the winter
solstice, he would take only one photograph each day. This exquisite
book is the result of that bold and immensely personal project. Through
the accompanying essay Brandenburg shares his innermost thoughts and
passions as he witnesses the cycle of nature near his home in the
northwoods of Minnesota."
The photos in this book are amazing samples of what can be done in any
neighborhood. What a way to train the eye!!!
Tom
PS: I'm not a book salesman.
Gord Jeoffroy
<mazdance...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>I've been reading books and would consider myself a low level, frustrated,
I'll side with the others on the book thing, despite owning enough
that I could open a library. You don't LEARN anything until you take a
picture according to "the rules," look at it, and say "gee, the book
was wrong; that would've been better over/underexposed,
lower/higher/more to the left, and using a longer/shorter lens."
Theory is no substitute for experience, and neither comes cheap.
>so and put on my own wall. It hasn't happened yet. Invariably, the print
>looks washed out (with overly bright skies) or dull (not as vibrant as my
>remembrance).
A lot of dramatic skies in "pro" shots are the result of graduated
filters on the cameras or graduate printers in the lab. A lot of
vibrant colours in "pro" shots are the result of getting intimate with
the particular emulsions and learning to "see" which setting works
best with which film.
Also, unless you're using the BEST lab (and even then...), NEVER judge
the quality of your photography from the quality of your prints. This
is arguably half the reason people shoot slides when they can.
>But still...as much as I try, I still can't get a great image. I see that a
>lot of the fine shots I see in magazines are painfully staged or patiently
>shot with great weather conditions.
SOME of the fine shots happen this way. Many of them also happen as
the result of knowing the subject and the film and the equipment. Many
of them also happen through circumstance ("f/8 and be there") or
through behind-the-scenes expertise ("I exposed for the shadows, so I
need you to print for the highlights, but you have to dodge the
forehead and burn-in the mouth, and also I'd like the background a
little more out of focus, but the eyes really could use an unsharp
mask and I want all but one of the catchlights 'touched out").
--Gord
Spam is the devil's tool.
To reply by e-mail, remove the underscore from my address.
David Park
truly unexciting, no matter how many books I read on composition or technique.
As it happens, by best photos have always appeared more or less by accident.
For example, I was taking candids at a friend's pool party one day. Toward the
end of things, when people were out of the water, I noticed that the wind had
lined up the very colorful pool toys (those styrofoam noodle things and some
others) in a pleasing fashion, so I grabbed a quick shot without much thought
about composition. The result was beautifully abstract, and hangs on my wall to
this day.
In short, keep your camera handy and your eyes open. You never know when you'll
see something worth photographing.
David
dj...@columbia.edu
Mike wrote:
> I've been getting serious about photography since February of this year.
> I've been reading books and would consider myself a low level, frustrated,
> intermediate photographer. I know how to work the dang thing and understand
> the rules of composition, blah blah blah.
>
> I'm dying to get a smashing photo that I'd be proud to blow up to 11x14" or
> so and put on my own wall. It hasn't happened yet. Invariably, the print
> looks washed out (with overly bright skies) or dull (not as vibrant as my
> remembrance). I've shot some Velvia and Kodak slide film and am convinced
> their colors are much better than print film.
>
> But still...as much as I try, I still can't get a great image. I see that a
> lot of the fine shots I see in magazines are painfully staged or patiently
Mikesphoto
writes:
>In short, keep your camera handy and your eyes open. You never know when
>you'll
>see something worth photographing.
One of my ribbon winning shots was of a display of tomatos At Farmer's Market
in Hollywood, CA area. I was walking down the aisle and got a grab shot of
this display. Nothing but tomatos and shot straight down filling the frame.
Took all of about 10 seconds as I was walking by.
Mike Babcock
Mike's Photo
Jim Coe
Few people really see when they look - even intermediate photographers.
When you get better at seeing, you'll start "connecting" with certain
unexpected things and their lighting conditions and their feelings. You'll
get excited in a deep way and that will get into your images. And you won't
need to think about it at all.
Photography is not an intellectual excercise nor a literary one. The media
are light time and soul, not words and thoughts. Attenuate your jabbering
mind (we all have one) and amplify your eyes instead.
Of course, if you're having technical problems (like getting good prints),
you'll have to think your way through those. You aren't "intermediate" until
you can do the mechanics without them distracting you from the real work.
--jim coe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like creative photography?
http://www.everydaymagic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mike" <mazdance...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:XSB15.25080$hp4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
trevor
The best way is to give yourself all the help you can.
1) concentrate on subjects which (a) interest or excite you
and / or (b) you have lots of intimate knowledge of (eg a
bike enthusiast would probably take GREAT pics of a
gleaming harley - I might well fail to get as good a pic -
even if I was a more experienced photographer.
2) As someone already said - shoot when the light is right -
how do you know - easy - when the subject looks best. Most
subjects look bad (photographically) in direct midday sun -
poor modelling (3d effect), harsh flat colours, and too
much difference between highlights and lowlights (high
contrast). So the nearer the equator you are - the nearer
to dusk and dawn you need to shoot. (OK thats not a fixed
law for everyone - just a good starting point for Mike.
3) 'Good' pictures are subjective. No picture ever got
universal approval - not even those taken by the top names.
So shoot what pleases YOU.
4) Learn from others.
(a) Good pics are every where - in magazines, galleries,
books, the web, etc etc - look at the pics you like - as
well as at the one's you don't like. Colleges encourage
their students to make a scrapbook of other peoples
pictures - make notes in the book. Figure out the pros and
cons of each picture - try to figure out how the
photographer made it (ask if necessary) - then try to
reproduce the picture yourself - learn through trying to
copy.(actually impossibly - you can only ever imitate - but
it's a good learning technique)
(b) join a camera club - either locally - or virtually over
the web. discuss pictures and specific problems with other
people.
Finally - keep being impatient - it shows frustration and
commitment. As soon as you accept your failings - you will
compromise your results. Remember - right up until the day
he died - Van Gogh never believed he made one single good
painting.
Sorry the answers a bit long - but you brought out
the "teacher" in me.
regards Trevor
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Russell Smithers
But would highlight the point about camera clubs for being
usefull, ive been in several over the years, I expect ive learn't
more than I might admit from camera clubs.
I also learn't when the judges were talking out of their
bottoms. But thats another story.
The net has also been very helpfull.
Just take pictures of what you like, in lighting that is good,
and learn the best way to use your equipment in different
circumstances for what you like.
You might also get better at pictures you don't normaly take
when you have to take them, by getting good at what you like
and then appreciating new subject matter when it is presented
to you.
Hope that last paragraph makes sense.
Russ.
trevor wrote in message <1c23668a...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com>...
Tony Parkinson
message news:8ir0ld$fji$5...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> I also learn't when the judges were talking out of their
> bottoms. But thats another story.
>
trevor
raises the spectre of the dreaded judges. Still it is true
that you can expand your ideas of what constitutes a good
picture by lookign at others work and listening to others
talk about it. The very act of agreeing or disagreeing
with their opinions is what helps expand or re-define your
own view of photography.