sanmich
Mentor
I think that's a very good idea.
Maybe a subforum?
Maybe a subforum?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Decide what you want to photograph -- don't 'drift' and 'just do a bit of everything'. By all means do multiple things, but at least have some idea of what they are.
Decide how you want to photograph things -- Study the work of photographers you admire, and try to work out how they took the pictures they did. Some have even published books with the stories behind individual pictures. Read them.
Cheers,
R.
Decide how you want to photograph things -- Study the work of photographers you admire, and try to work out how they took the pictures they did. Some have even published books with the stories behind individual pictures. Read them.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
This makes the assumption that you can psych yourself into photographing subjects you find boring. Maybe you can -- but why would you bother? Caring about the subject is normally an integral part of taking good pictures.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Mentor
slm
Formerly nextreme
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Interesting assumption, Roger.
Although I suggested nothing of that sort.
I think we can grow to care about certain subjects that are accessible to us, that we ignored in the past because we haven't looked hard enough.
Which is far better than making excuses because one does not have access to the immediately photogenic subjects or scenes.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roland, in my experience, I may not realize what I want to convey in the beginning. But I always know what I have on my hands (sometimes nothing
) when I am editing or post-processing.jayhopkins2001
Newbie
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Can I kick this off with a real elementary example?
Lynn (lynnb) left a comment about one of my gallery photos - he said it was overexposed:
I exposed for the shadows, and the sun was really strong that day - I was not sure how to best handle it. Exposure was (I think) f4 @ 1/250 (Tri-X)
Would could I do to improve that? Stop the lens down more? Change development strategy? (I developed in Rodinal according to the chart.)
UPDATE: I've had additional criticism that I was too far away. Who says that the RFF forum is all sweetness and light!? ("Good capture!") That remark stings - I am well aware that I do not get close enough, and using the 21mm lens at the march only made that worse.
Randy
Randy,
In high contrast light like that, you can reduce contrast by shortening the developing time. The developing times manufacturers recommend are for normal brightness ranges, basically what you get in light that is soft, like in overcast conditions. When the sun casts dark shadows, the range of brightness in the scene is too much for the film to handle when developed to normal contrast.
Try reducing the developing time 30% from normal. You will need to increase exposure one stop when you do this because the film's effective speed drops about a stop from such shortening of the developing time. So, determine correct shadow exposure, increase it a stop, then shoot and drop the developing time 30%.
These are two examples of this. Film was 120 size Tmax 100, developed in Rodinal for 30% less than normal with one stop more exposure than normal.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Will,
Once again, I have simply misunderstood you, and once again, I apologize. It may be down to the fact that today was the monthly Old Folks' Dinner, a (very) liquid lunch at the club d'amitié.
I am sure that you are right that one can grow to care about some of the things that one had never noticed, but I am equally sure that there are other subjects where it would never happen, at least for me. I don't drink coffee and I don't keep cats, for example...
In this context there are, I strongly suspect, two different kinds of photographers. Some find endless fascination in revisiting substantially the same thing. Others need the stimulus of novelty. I live in a very beautiful part of the world, surrounded with history, beautiful buildings, rivers. From my study, I can (just) see a thousand-year-old castle. I can borrow the keys to it whenever I want. But.... after nine years here, I've photographed all this enough. It no longer interests me on a daily or even monthly basis.
Less than an hour's drive away is another centuries-old fortress, much more photogenic, and owned by a friend. Well, an acquaintance: a friend-of-a-friend, whom I know well enough to be on first name terms. There are quite a few pictures of it in the Zeiss 18mm review at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews 18 zeiss.html. But I don't go there more than once a year. Been there; done that.
This may be viewed as a character flaw, but I don't really believe much in those: anything that doesn't hurt anyone else, doesn't qualify as a character flaw in my book. I don't complain that I have too few things to photograph: I just don't bother to photograph the things that don't interest me (or no longer interest me). I can however sympathize very easily with those who do not find visual stimulation in their surroundings.
Cheers,
R.
zauhar
Mentor
Chris, thanks very much, and for the nice examples - that is one thing I have not experimented with and want to try. I will do so soon.
One thing I HAVE tried is stand developing, but I am not sure it would work so well in this situation?
Randy
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Can I kick this off with a real elementary example?
Lynn (lynnb) left a comment about one of my gallery photos - he said it was overexposed:
I exposed for the shadows, and the sun was really strong that day - I was not sure how to best handle it. Exposure was (I think) f4 @ 1/250 (Tri-X)
Would could I do to improve that? Stop the lens down more? Change development strategy? (I developed in Rodinal according to the chart.)
UPDATE: I've had additional criticism that I was too far away. Who says that the RFF forum is all sweetness and light!? ("Good capture!") That remark stings - I am well aware that I do not get close enough, and using the 21mm lens at the march only made that worse.
Randy
Hi Randy,
I would have exposed and developed this image exactly as you did...
Why less exposure/development if your subject is fine?
It would be a dull image in case of shorter development: you'd have less pronounced direct sun on the buildings, but at a much worse price: lower contrast on your real subject...
A photograph or a print doesn't require all parts of it inside a normal tonal range always: some parts can be, sometimes, a lot more important than others... Why show better buildings under direct sun (read, with more detail) when what matters and what you're showing is happening on the shades exclusively?
I'd even prefer the image with a bit more contrast on the subject... That's where dynamism is required...
Cheers,
Juan
gdmcclintock
Well-known
In the photograph of the protest, the photographer is photographing from the sidelines. There is not enough engagement with the subject to make the photograph memorable.
zauhar
Mentor
That's the biggest issue - getting "close". Two elements to that:
1) Psychology. You have to be willing to "confront" the subject. In this case it would also mean mingling with cops acting as "escorts" who were on all sides of people in the march.
2) Skill. The crowd was moving surprisingly fast, and to get a shot from the best angle (in front) means backing up quickly.
So getting memorable photos is difficult. I am currently struggling with both of these issues.
Randy
sreed2006
Well-known
Here is an example of an image that was effectively ignored. I was driving through South Texas and was heartbroken at the condition of the rangeland in this particular area. I stopped and took this image. I only had a 50mm focal length and couldn't get everything in the frame I wanted, so I took two frames and later stitched them together in CS4.
I suspect I may have been better off depicting the dry conditions with several seperate images in a series. They could have shown more detail. #1 I didn't think of that at the time. #2 I didn't have access to the private property. ( I was shooting over a fence) #3 I was traveling on business, and couldn't devote time for more invloved reportage. That's my story - what do you say?
About 8 years ago, my morning commute to work was on a freeway that was almost always crowded, with frequent bumper-to-bumper slowdowns. One night a snowstorm had come through. As I was driving to work the next morning, there was 1 other car on my side of the freeway. I thought, "This will make a great picture - no cars on the road!" So, I took a picture through the windshield.
The picture was of a road covered with snow and one car off in the distance. Totally pointless and boring.
I saw the lack of a traffic jam and no cars as something amazing.
The camera did not record that at all.
When I saw your picture of the barren land in Texas, I was reminded of that picture I took. Perhaps you know how this rangeland really should look - but having never seen the land, I don't have a clue, and what I see is just apparently a barren field with a windmill. There's no recorded context of what ought to be there instead.
I saw some 'before' and 'after' pictures of a tropical island that had been stripped clean of trees by a hurricane. The before shot had lots of large trees on a hill. The after shot showed a barren hill. That was impressive, and the context was right there for comparison.
So, that is my critique of your rangeland photo. Hope that it helps.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Your opinion... But it can be questionable... If true, no memorable photographs would exist done with 50mm lenses... (And above...)
Photographs are memorable not because of engagement with the subject, but because of content, no matter where the photographer shoots from.
Again, you can "be there" with a 28 or 25 and get boring photographs.
About improvement: I found interesting a good photographer once said he didn't use to look through camera too much: almost never... Just for an instant: while shooting... I find looking at reality without camera, means a lot more than I used to think...
Cheers,
Juan
gdmcclintock
Well-known
My opinion concerns the photograph in question. In general, memorable photographs engage the subject, and this engagement is revealed by the content.
charjohncarter
Mentor
All good points, number 3 is close to me. I really like shots that are snapshots, BUT the photographer goes to a "higher gear" to make them excellent technically. Even if they are mundane; the technical excellence brings to a different level.
It reminds me of how Chaucer in the 'Canterbury Tales' used high English to describe something of low value. And he would mix high and low English is bawdy stories like 'the Miller's Tale' Maybe for the present (1968-2011) it would be combining 'ying and yang.' This isn't a good example but I took this snapshot 25 years ago, and for fun I went back and tried with cropping, etc. to bring it to another level. It didn't work but you get the idea:
Well, I tried,