martin_ceperley

to me she looks rather scared and intimidated by the

photographer, i feel uncomfortable looking at it, a little sad.

technically speaking, the blown out background is distracting,

and the colors look rather muted. do yourself a favor and check

out the book 'reading national geographic', it was quite an

interesting read that delves into the underlying cultural

messages behind the western appropriation of images from 3rd

world cultures that we have all grown up with.

Okay, everyone take a break from the questions about where the

brightest flowers are or which lens to use, my question is related

to the message and meaning of nature photography.

 

I was wondering if you can think of any artist's that inspire you

with their portrayl of environmental issues, dealing with

conservation, land manangement, etc. Two that come to my

mind are Robert Glenn Ketchum and Richard Misrach. I am

particulary fond of these two photographers because they break

free of the tired aesthetic rules and boundaries of 'nature

photography' and make art with a message, with a purpose,

dealing with emotions, spirituality, and dealing with current

issues. I have recently been working in the same vein, to see

some of my latest work go to <A HREF="http://

www.ceperley.com/photo/cut">www.ceperley.com/photo/cut</A>

or click on my portfolio, but I would like to see as much work as I

can and get inspired.

 

So, anyone else knows of photographers or artists that deal with

these contemporary environmental issues? thanks -martin

The old nature vs fine art photography conundrum. I think alot of nature photographer's deny themselves, as well as their emotions in the process of showing 'nature's beauty'. What makes an artist is someone who brings themselves to their work and makes it personal.

 

 

"Too me, a good subject, good composition, and quality of light are three of the more important aspects that go into creating a striking image". What do you mean good??? Good can mean a hell of alot of different things, and I think youve been reading a few too many textbooks. What's a good subject? You mean those flowers over there? What about the gravel path under your feet, with a wonderful texture. I'm sorry sir, but the best photographs I've seen have been of 'bad' subjects that showed me them in a different way. Once you label something as a good subject, then must everything else be ignored? And as for light, it is a little known fact that wonderfull photographs, even *gasp* nature photographs, have been made in harsh sunlight in the middle of the day. You just have to look at the light, and photograph it as it is, not how you wish it could be. If it's raining outside, you could complain about the rain or you could go outside and photograph. Stop thinking in terms of good and bad and think about feelings and thoughts and what your want the viewer to feel or think. And stop listening to groups of photographers, too, they tend to give bad advice. Just please yourself and everything else will follow.

Hi, I'm a high school student, just getting involved in some portrait photography. I was wondering what the general 'rule' is on having blurry foreground objects vignetting your subject, or if there is a rule. Here is an example, she is going to use this for her senior portrait. Some people hate the leaves, others love them. <A HREF="http://www.ceperley.com/photo/kim.jpg">http://www.ceperley.com/photo/kim.jpg</A>. What do you think? Thanks -Martin

Hi, I am a high school student, recently been getting into photography. I just got back from a trip to france with 20 rolls of exposed film. I already sent off the 13 rolls of slide film (sensia) to kodak, but now I'm debating what to do with my 7 rolls of TMAX 400. I have never done any darkroom work before, but this fall I'll have a chance to use the darkroom at my school (I have to buy my own chemicals). But these pictures are important, so I don't think it's a good idea to develop them myself, as the chances of screwing up would be very large. So, I have two options:

 

<p>

 

a) Send them to a drugstore, getting machine-made 4x6's. I could then play around with making enlargements in the darkroom. Also, I need to mention that 2 of the rolls were exposed at 1600, so they'll need to be pushed 2 stops. Can drugstores do this? How much more (generally) would it cost?

 

<p>

 

b) Send them a pro lab to get them developed w/ a contact sheet. This would cost more, and my only results would be a contact sheet until I got around to mastering the darkroom. At the pro lab, one 4x6 print is $6, a tad much (6x36=$216). Maybe I could then bring the negs to the drugstore and get them printed...

 

<p>

 

 

Any advice? Will the drugstore labs ruin my film? Or would the negatives be the same either way I went? Am I correct in assuming that I would probably screw updeveloping my first rolls? Any help is appreciated a ton!

 

<p>

 

peace -martin

Hi, I'm using a canon FTb, and I was just wondering about the metering... it's just a needle and ring system, but I was wondering if the diameter of the ring (on the viewfinder) is equal to one full stop. let me explain. if the needle is in the middle of the ring it is correctly middletone. but if the needle is on the very top edge of the ring, is the exposure +1/2 stop (or on the bottom edge of the ring, is the needle -1/2 stop)? I've been trying to figure out, and i beleive it is, but am not really sure.

 

<p>

 

thanks, martin