Jump to content

I need wisdom from Leica photographers on shooting as much as I can


georges

Recommended Posts

Georges, The principles of art apply here. During my younger days I spent many years studying a Korean art. Since there were not many Korean books available, I read a lot of Chinese and Japanese ones. I ended up having a lot of book knowledge!

 

A short book: German author Eugen Herrigel (pre-WW2 visitor to Japan) "Zen in the Art of Archery" (A delightful book, well worth reading. They wouldn't let him shoot a target for a long time, he had to practice the basics ad nauseum, until they decided he was ready.)

Numerous others.

 

Some books say that it takes 100,000 repititions before you can begin to understand a technique. This tends to separate the Western viewpoint from the Eastern. Westerners want to intellecualize everything and want to "master" it overnight. The Easterners take a longterm approach, and are patient (sometimes to the extreme).

 

Anyway, just some food for thought. I'm not really a photographer.

 

I hope you have a lot of fun whatever method you choose. Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Xinban, I can see why, though you've rated pretty well every image on photo.net you don't actually show any..."

 

First of all, my name is "Xinbad", not "Xinban". Second - I think I've rated four or five images at most over the last 3 or so years. You've got me confused with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

years ago, I had a friend who got me into developing b&w. He never used a contact sheet, just reviewed b&w negs on a light box with a loupe. A habit that has stuck with me til this day. I personally feel a contact sheet is next to useless. Just cut your negs into 5 or6 frame strips and put into sleeves 35mm negative sleeves that fit in 3 ring binders. Get a decent loupe (I use a 5x leica) and lightbox. I think anyone will be amazed at how quickly they'll learn to analyze negs. I mark the sleeve for those I want to print at a later date. And it's a lot like focusing/composing with a reversed image, You can learn a lot about your own photography by just looking at your negatives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a long story. It's enough to say that the 'nanny' wasn't really a nanny in the sense that I was paying for her services (the nannying ones), just another freeloader, along the lines of the kid's mom's boyfriend, and that the damn dog would let loose with a violent seizure every now and again.<P>

 

<i>Gaetano</I><P>

 

I guess I would if I knew what that was. It's not that Italian ice cream, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came into this thread late. Just now in fact. But I'd have to say that on the whole I agree with Zinbad - just take pictures. Take a lot or take a few, but take them with the intention of making them like no one else. And digital has lots of advantages over film, in terms of immediate feedback, and the ability to take however many you like without regard for expense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright then, Bailey. I guess I'll have to look into that.<P>

 

On another note, it seems that ice cream as we know it is <a href="http://www.dippindots.com/">on its way out</a>.<P>

 

Should I stop eating ice cream now? Or wait until Ben and Jerry stop making it?<P>

 

On another other note, what ever happened to <a href="http://www.tcby.com/index2.asp">TCBY<a>? Do they still make that stuff or what?<P>

 

And lastly, I'm working on a thing which I am calling "I Can't Believe It's Not Yogurt", which will change forever the way that we think about spoilt milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of long odds. What are the odds, Bailey, that you could stop rating photos on this site? Even if you wanted to? What are the odds that your compulsion stems from something with a clinical name? (<i>Projection</i> and <i>obssessive-compulsive</i> come to mind - though the latter is really self-evident) - along with some not so clinical but just as well warranted, such as <i>unfortunate</i>. Unfortunate for you, of course, with nothing better to do, but also for photo.net - which sees its major patron and biggest fundraiser, Sandy, alienated (at least in part) on account of it. He makes his disappointed exit, taking with him his healthy enthusiasm and gift for raising money - and photo.net is left with its continuing monthly costs, its rating system, and your forty-thousand-something (and climbing) ratings, which clearly have value only for you - and even that is negative value.<p> What are the odds this would make for an interesting business story? If O. Henry had written for <i>Fortune</i>. Or Freud for <i>BusinessWeek</i>..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear you're not leaving, Bailey. There's really nowhere to go anyway, is there? Rate photos, if it makes you happy. That's what the rating system is supposed to be for, after all, or so I understand.<p>

 

No need to get agitated. Just wanted to give you (and some others) food for thought. And to put in a good word for our friend Sandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i> There's really nowhere to go anyway, is there? </i><p>

 

I'm sure that's what you tell yourself every day of your life, Junior. <p>

 

<i> Just wanted to give you (and some others) food for thought. </i><p>

 

Serve your rancid vittles to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...