let's talk about improvement...

bakemono said:
I think one important thing is to accept your weaknesses and work with your strengths.
For example, I know I will never be a good 'people' or 'street' photographer. I'm extremely introvert and people make me nervous, I don't 'connect' with them. So rather than try and be the next Koudelka I should rather focus on things that I actually have a knack for.
Click to expand...
YES!

It is important to distinguish between the pictures you like from other photographers, and the pictures you want (or can reasonably expect) to take yourself, given your interests, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

Cheers,

R.
 
First - I look at other photographers' pictures, and try to understand why I like the ones I do. That means, I try to figure out what makes them work.

Second - I show my own fotos to other people, and ask for their reactions. I want to find out whether they see what I think is in those pictures.
 
This is a great idea for a thread, and I'm sad that I'm just now getting into it, and that it isn't more popular. It seems Sticky threads are a mixed blessing this way.

Here are a few pix I would like constructive criticism. They are some of my favorite pix of my daughter from recent memory and I think they're pretty good, but I'm always looking for little ways to improve.

Some have said in the past they're too bright. What do you think? All were shot on my Rollei 35, so keep in mind equipment limitations.

#1:
P8231341 by Jeremy Zorns, on Flickr


#2:
P8231336 tight by Jeremy Zorns, on Flickr


#3:
P8231335 by Jeremy Zorns, on Flickr


#4:
P8231323 by Jeremy Zorns, on Flickr
 
Roger Hicks said:
Thinking hard about creating a portfolio -- even if you never ask anyone for a formal critique -- can be an excellent way of improving. Become your own critic: ask yourself what you want to do with your pictures.
If you can't answer that question, or if the answer is "nothing", then it may be quite hard to determine what "improvement" might mean..........
Click to expand...

Roger had some great advice at times. I once had a photo instructor who understood me and my motivation to improve. She threw softballs to some students who needed encouragement, but not me. She would ask me to tell the class:

1) why does this photo exist?
2) what were you trying to accomplish when you made this photo?
3) how well do you thing you accomplished your goal?

Then she would have the class respond to my statements while she only moderated the discussion.

It has been years but I still constantly ask myself those questions.
 
Had not seen this interesting thread before. So many completely contradictory opinions, all expressed with adamant certitude. Makes one think.

Even obvious suggestions like “make sure it is focus” are only true for the person, and the moment, where you actually want it to be in focus.
“Keep the camera level” is only true if that’s what you want to do.
And the general tenor of “try to make something that will resonate with others” is certainly not above suspicion. Why others? Artists, as opposed to commercial photographers, create for themselves, without much, if any, thought to “others”.

Advice on how to “improve your photography”, once you get past remembering to take the lens cap off, gets extremely subjective in a hurry. I’d wager there are as many recognizably great photographs which violate one, or all of, the “rules”, as there are photographs which follow every rule and guideline mentioned here. Guidelines. “Stay inside the guidelines, where it’s safe. Here’s a bullet point list for you.” Hmmm.

If you are not enjoying your results, change something; it’s not that difficult. “Study other photographers, and find one you like, and try to see if you can learn those methods.” Sure, but as Winograd was wont to say, by way of devastatingly succinct criticism, “It’s been done.”
“Develop a style!” Important for commercial photographers, for others, I’m unconvinced. Do you really want to spend your entire creative life doing variations on a theme day after day?Maybe you do. No harm done. (But at least change your default border up now and then. Seriously, the same border for every single photograph? I’ve seen cauliflowers that were more creative. Criminy.)

Technical aspects of photography, like how to use masks in Photoshop, can be learned from others. That’s valuable. Esthetics, on the other hand, as in “what makes a good photograph” that’s tougher, and your own thoughts are likely as good as anyone else’s, as it is so personal. Mostly. Do you want to be a crowd pleaser? What does the crowd know, exactly? They know what they like. And what is that? Mostly what they have been trained to like. The hive mind. There’s money to be made in catering to that. Bump up the contrast, and saturation, and keep the camera level, and you’ll be fine.

Just take a camera, go outside, or inside, and play with it. Use it as a tool to learn to really see what is right in front of you, seeing, Winogrand again, “what things look like when photographed.” Enjoy yourself. Please yourself. You went to high school with these “other people” whose opinion and esthetic judgments we are now told to trust. Hah! Forget that. Trust your muse. That’s my advice.
Anyone taking my advice seriously should reconsider for I’m surely not any good.

The only universally legitimate advice is “Endeavor to be born a creative genius.”

That works.
 
Nice Larry. I also can’t believe I’ve not visited this thread before. I do love maddoc’s Araki quote on page 1 or 2: change cameras. I went out with my usual intentions with a new to me Spotmatic with a 55mm lens. I got a keeper from two streets over from my office. Probably wouldn’t have seen it with a Leica. Out with the Hasselblad I look for completely different things automatically.
 
I can only relate my experience in abandoning photography some 35 years ago. I had begun the question the merits of my personal photography after 12 years of diligent work, wondering if I was doing anything of real significance. I knew it was nothing technical as I was confident in my ability in all the technical aspects. I knew it had nothing to do with equipment. I knew I could do well in the local camera club contests. But I found little of significance in 12 years of photography other than the rare unique stand along image. So I drifted away and a year later sold everything in my darkroom and all my equipment except for a Canon F-1 and a 50mm lens.

For about 15 years I only did family happy snaps. Now I did them well from my prior experience but had no motivation to do anything else.

Then, about 20 years ago, I had developed an interest and was exploring our local history and culture. I did some photos. And, I took my first real photo class, an advanced one about developing your own vision. The instructor hammered me constantly about developing a series and editing it like I was doing an exhibition. Finally, I heeded his advice. I began to see some meaning in what I was doing. Somewhere along that way, I bought my first rangefinder, a ContaxG. It was more convenient but certainly was no watershed moment.

That original series expanded and morphed over the years. I added and deleted photos so the series always remained a compact size and not a collection of not critically edited photos. Along the way, that series and several offshoots led me to realize that a cohesive series had more power than the sum of the individual photos. That original series has spawned a number of other related series. Some are based on small segments of that original from 20 years ago. Some are geographically different such as the Mississippi Delta culture instead of Central Florida. It has been in Cuba for the last 6-7 years. But they have all been similar enough that I could do things like an exhibit showing the commonality of the culture of the my local Negro community with that of Cuba by using photos from both.

Years ago, I concluded that the key was you not only needed to work on cohesive series which was tightly edited. More importantly, one needed to love the subject matter even more than photography. I see that in almost all of the work of the masters.
 
Great posts. I learn something from almost every post in this thread.

I like how this forum is filled with articulate, intelligent people. I think it might have something to do with the fact that the average age here is pretty high. There's lots of life experience I can learn from, without having to learn it all The Hard Way.

Bob, your last few posts have really opened my mind. I'm more than 30 years younger than you, but I can relate to some of the phases you're talking about. Namely, this part:

Bob Michaels said:
For about 15 years I only did family happy snaps. Now I did them well from my prior experience but had no motivation to do anything else.
Click to expand...

I'm in that phase of life now.

Looking back, I started in photography wanting to make art. I got maybe a dozen photos from those first 5 years of photography that are still worth keeping. But the family snaps, which I didn't think much of at the time, I now cherish. Grandparents and great aunts and uncles are all gone now. Now, my own parents are the grandparents and I'm the parent. I'm taking way too many pictures of my daughter, but I just love them, and I'm sure we'll all enjoy them years in the future. Especially since they're preserved on film.

Armed with that experience, I'm focusing on taking good family photos. Unlike your quote above, I DO try to mix in an artsy shot here and there, when the opportunity presents itself.

Along that line of thought, let me share a few of my favorite recent family snaps here:

My daughter is the one closer to the camera:
A Tender Moment by Jeremy, on Flickr


Action shot at the playground!
Action shot by Jeremy, on Flickr


This one has my girlfriend looking at me with an adoring smile, my daughter taking a picture of my girlfriend's daughter, who made this shot with a digital camera. I'm succeeding at least a bit in getting them interested in photography.
We three by Jeremy, on Flickr


Another playground moment. My daughter is on the top, listening in to see if she wants to try to join this clique.
What are THEY doing? by Jeremy, on Flickr


A happy moment between my daughter and my girlfriend's:
Nest Swing Fun by Jeremy, on Flickr


I guess the lesson is that family photos will likely be the most valued ones, years down the road. They don't need to be artsy, but it doesn't hurt either. Lastly, nothing beats a good candid.
 
I've never subscribed to a thread before...this will be my first if I can figure out how.

Edit: figured it out, and maybe I lied...looks like i have subscribed to 4 threads before, but I don't ever remember seeing notifications.


Will enjoy this one with morning coffees.
 
This is something I've thought a lot about. A few things my favorite photographers have said in interviews come to mind. Rosalind Fox Solomon, when asked what she did to improve her work, said that she doesn't think she's gotten better over the years. She does say she had critiques early on from Lisette Model, which surely helped refine her work, but I often think that the greats in photography, herself included, (and to me, Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, Arbus, etc), were so honest with themselves and brave from the start that they almost immediately started making great work, then hitting different strides over the course of their careers.

Mark Steinmetz in an interview advises that, if you like Eggleston, go out and photograph like Eggleston (or whoever your hero is), your photos won't come out like his anyway and eventually you will get bored. Through this process hopefully you will learn something about yourself, what interests you and how you see the world.

The technical aspects of photography seem straightforward to learn, like anything else, with repetition and curiosity you will get better. The hard part is making an interesting photograph. I think it's a very rare thing and maybe something that cannot be learned. Or at least I hope it can't, because that would mean that there are rules to what makes an interesting photograph, and it's far more interesting that there aren't any. It's a yes or no thing. Either the photo works or it doesn't.

If I were to teach a photography class I think I would spend a short amount of time on the technical aspects, maybe just enough so the pictures will succeed somewhat as far as exposure goes. Then I would try and force the idea of what makes a "good picture" out of everyones mind. Forget about straight horizons, rule of thirds, getting closer, all of it! I would try and teach how to photograph without thinking, and instead shooting with an empty mind and reacting to the physical sensation you get from the world. Maybe a good assignment would be to shoot 30 rolls in a week.

I've heard Tod Papageorge say that "if your photos aren't good enough you aren't reading enough". That's how I think of improving the non-technical parts of your photography. You have to cultivate yourself and that will be reflected in how you see the world. What you read, the films you watch, the music you listen to, it's all brought back in to your photos.

For those interested, here are some interviews that came to mind:

Rosalind Fox Solomon on Magic Hour podcast (which is very good)
Interview with Mark Steinmetz - Flashes
Mark Steinmetz - LENS
Mark Steinmetz - Normal Vision
Henry Wessel - Seeing without recognizing
Winogrand at Rice University
 
I haven't listened to these yet, but my photo mentor/teacher (who was a student of Minor White) taped interviews with Minor White, Alfred Stieglitz, and some others... They are on reel to reel and I have briefly listened to the Minor White but the audio is so bad it's hard to listen to. Hopefully the others are better. I should dig these out of storage. Surely there is some wisdom within these interviews.
 
You can't solve a problem without identifying it. Similarly, you cannot improve something without identifying what it is lacking. You need to step back and take a serious objective look at your work and identify its weakness. Otherwise you will end up trying to fix something that is not broken.

Looking at other's photos and determining what specifically it is that you like about them. Now you will realize that everyone's style does not suit everyone's eye. So find photos you like and analyze what aspect of them appeals to you.

BTW, realize we are surrounded constantly by some really good photos. Don't bother with Flicker or your contemporaries work. Simply look at a high quality magazine. Try Rolling Stone or any back issue of Life. Don't ignore the ads. There is some incredibly good photography there.

Just don't go stabbing at shadows in the dark hoping something good will come of it. That will just lead you to frustration.
 
photography is many things to many folks. as such, i would never dream to offer advise on 'photography' as a whole. what i can do is share my own, personal lessons as a photojournalist and documentary photographer. i will leave the business end of it out as this doesn't seem the objective here.

as someone who photographs people almost exclusively, the most powerful element has proven to be ACCESS. not lenses. not films. not sensors. not megapixels. access.

learning to develop trust, knowledge and empathy has done more for my photography than anything i have purchased, studied or emulated. making and maintaining relationships, often without a camera in my hand, has become paramount. having the trust and cooperation of the people i photograph makes for great images. allowing them to be an equal partner in the exchange and caring about them has entirely changed my photography. more so than anything i could have purchased.

in my humble opinion, this is the barrier for most photographers in the particular niche i occupy.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I can only relate my experience in abandoning photography some 35 years ago. I had begun the question the merits of my personal photography after 12 years of diligent work, wondering if I was doing anything of real significance. I knew it was nothing technical as I was confident in my ability in all the technical aspects. I knew it had nothing to do with equipment. I knew I could do well in the local camera club contests. But I found little of significance in 12 years of photography other than the rare unique stand along image. So I drifted away and a year later sold everything in my darkroom and all my equipment except for a Canon F-1 and a 50mm lens.

For about 15 years I only did family happy snaps. Now I did them well from my prior experience but had no motivation to do anything else.

Then, about 20 years ago, I had developed an interest and was exploring our local history and culture. I did some photos. And, I took my first real photo class, an advanced one about developing your own vision. The instructor hammered me constantly about developing a series and editing it like I was doing an exhibition. Finally, I heeded his advice. I began to see some meaning in what I was doing. Somewhere along that way, I bought my first rangefinder, a ContaxG. It was more convenient but certainly was no watershed moment.

That original series expanded and morphed over the years. I added and deleted photos so the series always remained a compact size and not a collection of not critically edited photos. Along the way, that series and several offshoots led me to realize that a cohesive series had more power than the sum of the individual photos. That original series has spawned a number of other related series. Some are based on small segments of that original from 20 years ago. Some are geographically different such as the Mississippi Delta culture instead of Central Florida. It has been in Cuba for the last 6-7 years. But they have all been similar enough that I could do things like an exhibit showing the commonality of the culture of the my local Negro community with that of Cuba by using photos from both.

Years ago, I concluded that the key was you not only needed to work on cohesive series which was tightly edited. More importantly, one needed to love the subject matter even more than photography. I see that in almost all of the work of the masters.
Click to expand...

"Years ago, I concluded that the key was you not only needed to work on cohesive series which was tightly edited. More importantly, one needed to love the subject matter even more than photography. I see that in almost all of the work of the masters."

amen
 
I want to post about a different aspect of "improvement" - not the technical stuff, but the artistic stuff. In my signature (below) I have linked some articles I had published on developing style and mood in image making. Sadly the second one has gone missing from Steve Huff's site somehow but the other two are there. It contains some ideas on how at least I improved my own work.

I think it all depends on what you are setting out to achieve. And I suppose that means you need to have (or develop) a goal for your photography as this provides the means of measuring yourself against something that is meaningful.

As for me I adhere to a more artistic interpretation of photography and in pursuit of this, I try to live by a few simple things ideas photographically speaking....

1. I mainly make images I like - not so much what I think others might like. Though if they do its a big bonus.

2. I mainly try to make images that "grab the eye". To a significant extent this is about the "rules" of composition etc but ultimately it means having an image that is in some way beautiful and interesting. And ultimately that means developing an eye for a good image. If you cant see it you will seldom capture it - except through pure dumb luck, which thankfully also happens from time to time.

5. I treat my images as raw material. Since moving over to digital it has facilitated me undertaking post processing. My advice would be ever be afraid to improve images in post if you can. Even if you are shooting film you might consider how you can do this in a darkroom through enhanced printing. If you do not know how to post process - learn. The goal is to make good images not to be a purist and always do it all in camera unless you specifically are setting out to do that as part of your image making discipline. If shooting digital this probably means shooting in RAW or if shooting analogue it means scanning as tiff images as both formats keep more of the image information intact so your end result in principle can be better.

Here are a few examples from the street. Conventionally they would be regarded as bad photos (blurry, not sharp, too dark etc) but I like them as they capture a feeling. And if you work on the viewers feelings then as far as I am concerned that is probably going to be OK art.

Dark Street by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Cafe Study 15 - Reworked and Reimagined by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Cold City Day, Cold City Street by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
It's a solitary business. Bob has great advice on this page. It's all about the individual and what he or she sees and what they find matters. In this sense likes on instagram and flickr can be very destructive. Even the thumbnails of the RFF Gallery can have a similar effect. Many photographs must be printed to come to life. That is a different sort of photography that the internet is not necessarily a good introduction to. Competitions will also distort your approach, and camera clubs and the advice of well-meaning co-enthusiasts. So you look at what you like and do more and more precisely what you want and ignore more than 95% of advice. Every now and then you read or hear or listen to something that resonates, and that's where you'll learn a little more from others.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I can only relate my experience in abandoning photography some 35 years ago. I had begun the question the merits of my personal photography after 12 years of diligent work, wondering if I was doing anything of real significance. I knew it was nothing technical as I was confident in my ability in all the technical aspects. I knew it had nothing to do with equipment. I knew I could do well in the local camera club contests. But I found little of significance in 12 years of photography other than the rare unique stand along image. So I drifted away and a year later sold everything in my darkroom and all my equipment except for a Canon F-1 and a 50mm lens.

For about 15 years I only did family happy snaps. Now I did them well from my prior experience but had no motivation to do anything else.

Then, about 20 years ago, I had developed an interest and was exploring our local history and culture. I did some photos. And, I took my first real photo class, an advanced one about developing your own vision. The instructor hammered me constantly about developing a series and editing it like I was doing an exhibition. Finally, I heeded his advice. I began to see some meaning in what I was doing. Somewhere along that way, I bought my first rangefinder, a ContaxG. It was more convenient but certainly was no watershed moment.

That original series expanded and morphed over the years. I added and deleted photos so the series always remained a compact size and not a collection of not critically edited photos. Along the way, that series and several offshoots led me to realize that a cohesive series had more power than the sum of the individual photos. That original series has spawned a number of other related series. Some are based on small segments of that original from 20 years ago. Some are geographically different such as the Mississippi Delta culture instead of Central Florida. It has been in Cuba for the last 6-7 years. But they have all been similar enough that I could do things like an exhibit showing the commonality of the culture of the my local Negro community with that of Cuba by using photos from both.

Years ago, I concluded that the key was you not only needed to work on cohesive series which was tightly edited. More importantly, one needed to love the subject matter even more than photography. I see that in almost all of the work of the masters.
Click to expand...

This is great advice! I really find that if I edit say, 3 images together in one frame, it has more impact and people respond to it more. It tells a "story". Perhaps we should be filmmakers also. I also think it's important to have a "theory" behind what you're doing.

Recently I've thought that I've become too into "gear" and technical aspects as you said, and want to focus on more "artistic" aspects of photography. I want to get lost in the image. I'm trying to find different techniques to do so, so thanks for your advice here.
 
Yes, I think there is way too much focus on "sharpness" in images as the overall trend for photographers, achieving the best edge to edge sharpness, least chromatic aberration, best contrast. However blurry images can invoke a "feel" and many professional photographers go for an "ethereal" look through various means to invoke the nostalgic quality especially inherent in film, which I really like.

I like those pictures, may I ask how you achieved those effects, particularly the "scratched lens" look around the person in the 3rd image?

peterm1 said:
I want to post about a different aspect of "improvement" - not the technical stuff, but the artistic stuff. In my signature (below) I have linked some articles I had published on developing style and mood in image making. Sadly the second one has gone missing from Steve Huff's site somehow but the other two are there. It contains some ideas on how at least I improved my own work.

I think it all depends on what you are setting out to achieve. And I suppose that means you need to have (or develop) a goal for your photography as this provides the means of measuring yourself against something that is meaningful.

As for me I adhere to a more artistic interpretation of photography and in pursuit of this, I try to live by a few simple things ideas photographically speaking....

1. I mainly make images I like - not so much what I think others might like. Though if they do its a big bonus.

2. I mainly try to make images that "grab the eye". To a significant extent this is about the "rules" of composition etc but ultimately it means having an image that is in some way beautiful and interesting. And ultimately that means developing an eye for a good image. If you cant see it you will seldom capture it - except through pure dumb luck, which thankfully also happens from time to time.

5. I treat my images as raw material. Since moving over to digital it has facilitated me undertaking post processing. My advice would be ever be afraid to improve images in post if you can. Even if you are shooting film you might consider how you can do this in a darkroom through enhanced printing. If you do not know how to post process - learn. The goal is to make good images not to be a purist and always do it all in camera unless you specifically are setting out to do that as part of your image making discipline. If shooting digital this probably means shooting in RAW or if shooting analogue it means scanning as tiff images as both formats keep more of the image information intact so your end result in principle can be better.

Here are a few examples from the street. Conventionally they would be regarded as bad photos (blurry, not sharp, too dark etc) but I like them as they capture a feeling. And if you work on the viewers feelings then as far as I am concerned that is probably going to be OK art.


Dark Street by Life in Shadows, on Flickr


Cafe Study 15 - Reworked and Reimagined by Life in Shadows, on Flickr


Cold City Day, Cold City Street by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top