tregoures Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Moderator: if you feel the need to move this post, please go ahead. I just don't know where to post it except here. I found this link on a very equipment oriented site http://www.cameraquest.com/improve.htm I found it very funny and nicely written. But then I started to think about Ansel Adams and John Schaefer books. They made me understand that the world of photography was not only made of snapshots. How photojournalism profoudly affected the way people imagined war in the mid-1800s, how the first landscape photographers enabled people to satisfy their curiosity about the world: "The achievment of the early landscape photographers seem the more remarkable when you consider the condition under which they were forced to work. In addition to cameras and lenses, a portable darkroom tent also had to be carried into the field. It usually required sevral animals to transport all the equipment. Glass plates were prepared on site, exposed, and immediately developed. If the negative was satisfactory, the glass plate had to be dried and wrapped securely for the long trip home; breakage was a constant danger. Yet out of this era came images that have never been surpassed" J. Schaefer, Basic techniques of photography, page 15. Well my point here is that maybe we should slow down a little, take more time, (disable all the automations as Stephen Gandy says), feel the life around us... before tripping the shutter (BTW digital cameras don't help since it does not cost anything, no film, no development, to take a picture anymore). Our pictures should improve. Just a thought. Cheers. P.S. The chapter モThe Language of Photographyヤ of Basic Thechiques of Photography, Book 1, and モThe Expressive Photographic Printヤ of Basic Thechiques of Photography, Book 2 from P. Schaefer are worth reading to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 When there were fewer photographers about, they had, for want of a better word, more exposure. The fact that, by nature of the effort involved to obtain photos, they had to be far more didicated as photographers probably helped ensure that those of lesser talent fell by the wayside. With the proliferation of cheap afforable technology, and the massive 'flood' of photography bombarded at us from all angles, we are probably less likely to be aware of those whose work is of comparable quality to 'the pioneers', but I would hazard that there is probably more good photography occurring now than then, purely because of those numbers - of course there is also far more poor photography too. Woods for the trees kind of situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think the key is to give some thought to your photography. The forerunner of mindless autofocus was mindless fixed focus. If you take a person that has always used a fixed-focus (oops, "focus free") camera and give them an autofocus autoexposure camera, they'll probably have better shots than ever before. Surely not as good as they COULD be, but those autofocus features don't hold them back- it's the lack of thought in the first place. So sure, someone that wants to improve their photography should learn all about focusing and exposure, manual and auto, but just sticking to manual everything won't do the trick by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 There's a tendency in small, self-selecting groups to consider themselves an elite and to come to believe that their views have greater validity than those of the majority. This is certainly true when it comes to photography. It may be humiliating that Uncle Jack's digital pictures are more highly esteemed than your artistic efforts with a manual [insert name of camera here] but it may just be that Uncle Jack's snapshots are more relevant to the viewers than your artistic [select type of photography here]. Personally, I'm really impressed with many of the pictures I see from casual snapshotters. The content is the thing and modern technology is giving more people than ever the chance to make images of the things they're interested in.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike butler Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Although I don't believe in the blast-away-and-hope-something-works approach to photography, I don't think slowing down and abandoning technology is necessarily the answer, either. For me, photography has some parallels to golf. When the club feels great in my hands and everything is right in my head, things start to soar. It's a rhythm thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think new technology helps to make better photos. I bought lots of old film cameras and lenses thinking I would improve by learning from what has come before, but really what I needed to work on (and still do) is the content and the motivation of a photo. The technology is no longer my concern, but to use what you can use is a good idea, methinks. Generally, digital is cheaper and therefore frees me up to express what I need to explore. Slowing down is a very good idea though, I will try it. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickhilker Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 When shooting medium format transparencies that cost nearly $2 each for the film and developing, you can be sure I'm very careful when I click the shutter -- maybe too careful sometimes. If digital could equal the quality of image I get, I'd happily make the switch, not considering the investment in bodies and lenses I'd lose. However, until that day comes, the discipline imposed by cost considerations has made me, I think, a better photographer by keeping the question, "why am I making this picture?" in mind. Admittedly, this approach keeps me from doing a lot experimentation that might just yield a serendipity or two. But, it fits in well with my habit of pre-visualization and so I guess I'm stuck with it for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_ob Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Dick 'When shooting medium format transparencies that cost nearly $2 each for the film and developing, you can be sure I'm very careful when I click the shutter -- maybe too careful sometimes.' The frame price will never ever improve your picts, no matter how high or low it is. Mass shooting will also leave one's main empty if it was with single shooting. I have 36 frames for months in my camera so what is the price. But 'nearly' each frame is GOOD. I think that secret of improvment is in talent and hard work away from equipment. If photography is practeced as filling time after regular work, it will always be that and never ever more. It is possible to get fortune shoot but to be more succesful relates to consistency of everything connecting with photography. I love my cameras, lenses, ..., but in producing any of my picture I can say that technology work (or involvment) is about 0.1 percent of time summ spent on making photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickhilker Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 "I think that secret of improvment is in talent and hard work away from equipment. " I wasn't suggesting, Daniel, that there was necessarily a correlation between the cost per frame and the quality of the output, but rather that it tends to make me more discriminating when I make the exposure. That in itself, I feel, does lead to a higher percentage of good shots. I don't think your statement was meant to exclude the "nuts and bolts" of photography, was it? I agree with what you suggest as far as concentrating our development on the aesthetic aspects of the art, rather than the mechanics. However the two are so closely integrated that we always have to keep both in mind or one of them will suffer. Artistic talent without competent execution will be "love's labor lost." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now