kinell

<p>Thanks Michael for some really great points!<br>

Regarding portraits, I know they're pretty weak. I need to develop some skills regarding photography of people.</p>

<p>The butterfly lacks sharpness because it was taken with a bad automatic point-and-shoot. Most of the other macros were taken with the Canon 180mm Macro, which I am very pleased with.</p>

<p>The most important advice, I take, is the foreground object in landscape pictures.<br>

You've executed this very beautifully in both pictures (especially the first one).</p>

<p>Thanks again for your advice.</p>

<p>Thank you two for your comments!</p>

<p>Robert: I do use Photoshop. But I am by no means an expert user and I wanted the images to count as "unmanipulated". I will try to apply better post production. Especially, since I would like to print some of the pictures poster-size.</p>

<p>Eric: Many of the pictures originate from the same Safari tour. During the few days available, of course I have to use whatever light is available and cannot afford to wait.<br>

However the comment regarding backlighting made me wonder if - on a future trip - I could ask the driver to consider the light when positioning the car. I assume you need an experienced guide/driver for that but I will definitely try!</p>

<p>yes. Your advice and thoughts would be most welcome!<br>

You could write here or directly at the corresponding photo.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Andreas</p>

<p>Would anybody care to give me some real advice/feedback on my photos?<br>

I get absolutely no response at all from my critique requests....</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Andreas</p>

<div></div>

Tim Holte: That's not as stupid as it sounds. If I have the same camera as some famous photographer, at least

there is no way I can blame the camera for the bad pictures I take...

 

;-p

Ralph: If all other variables remain unchanged, "more prolific" could be seen as "better". Regarding Ansel Adams: My personal belief is that he probably could have been even better with todays possibilities. Just because we have much more knowledge today (thanks to people like Ansel Adams!).<br>

Most people would agree that we get better at whatever we do over time. Also, many would agree that we are able to learn more and faster due to better educational methods. If we take those two statements as facts, it is safe to conclude he would have reached his level in less time, leaving more time for further improvement.

Jill: I try to go for the double meaning I like it. :-))

Dick: <i>"Start with National Geographic"</i><p>

And do you feel National Geographic pictures have improved over the years? In mathematics, physics or painting (all very old fields) so much progress has been made in the last half of the century (stretch that a little to include Picasso and Monet...). Photography however is a very young field compared to the others. I couldn't believe it's already stagnating.

Jussi: Ok. Let's leave it at the conclusion that there exists an alternative to capturing the peak in the field now. Everyone can select the method he likes best. Myself, I am very willing to improve my capability to get it right in the field. After so much discussion, I felt the need to go shooting myself too :-)

Dick: <i>"Some of those earlier Life photographers were amazing at their craft. How good are 200 paparazzi all trying to take the same picture for millions of dollars?"</i><p>

The paparazzi are probably much worse. Of course one has to consider the tools someone uses to judge that persons skill. One probably has a hard time trying to compare photographers using different formats. That doesn't mean the historic time needs to be considered too. A question to be asked could be: "How well did the photographer handle the light with the tools he had?" or "How well did he compose?"

<p>

<i>"what do you define as better?"</i><p>

Others have asked me to define it too. But I left it open on purpose to allow different metrics and quality attributes. Just in the discussion with Ralph historic quality was weighed against technical quality.

Ralph: <i>"your argument comes down to talent is created by technology."</i><p>

No, that is completely wrong. I believe talent has been constant over the ages. Nowadays, we just exploit

it better than ever. In order to exploit it better, we need technology. By applying it, we raise the absolute

level.<p>

<i>"I think there is many a historian who would question [your] logic. So your saying Jesse Owens [...]who won 4

gold medals [..] is less of an achievement? "</i><p>

Regarding athletics, yes, that's what I'm saying. 8 gold medals is just better than 4.<br>

Just ask yourself: In a 100 meter run, who is considered the all-time best? It's the one who ran the distance

fastest.<br>

Who has made the greater historic achievement is another question though. I'd say Jesse Owens.<p>

But to get back to photography: A photographer's quality is not judged by how well he performs in another field.

And I see nothing wrong with judging photographers on an absolute scale without considering some historical

context. Just like 100 meter runners.

Matt: <i>"Is arrival of open wooden Viking long boats in North America a thousand years ago any less impressive

now that you can hop on a Virgin Atlantic flight "</i><p>

To me it is definitely less impressive.<br>

The first is a bunch of bold sailors who somehow managed to reach America in a primitive boat. Maybe they did

some great sailing and surely they were very brave.<br>

The other is the convergence of the work of thousands of engineers using the latest technology and research in

order to construct such a fantastic thing as a Boing-747. Being able to fly is the greater achievement for me.

Ton Mestrom: <br>

>> <i>""There is an equally reasonable view..."</i><br>

> <i>"no that's a view born from ignorance...</i>"

<p>

Ignorance is not to accept another view.<p>

To elaborate somewhat: If you have two doctors treating the same amount of patients for the same sickness, the

one who saves more is better. Simplified yet true.

Jussi: <i>"You can do it yourself: just put your camera picture quality into lowest jpg -setting and then shoot a

couple of sessions by filling a few 4-8GB cards in the process"</i><p>

Ok, I did just that. It took my 2 minutes to select the best time frame out of a 20 second sequence.<p>

Regarding the second part of your post. I agree completely. Especially the light is the one thing you probably

never will be able to change in PP.

Ralph: I see your point. There is an equally reasonable view however that a doctors quality can be measured in numbers of lives saved and a running athlete shall be measured in seconds.<p>

And no, that is not the equivalent of measuring a photographer in numbers of pictures taken :-)<p>

Doctors have always been making mistakes. And although maybe giving the best, they made much more mistakes in earlier days. Check out the great discovery of Ignác Semmelweis.<p>

<i>"As great as Michael Phelps olympic feats were does that lessen the accomplishments Jesse Owens?"</i>"<p>

Yes it does. A new world record always lessens the value of the old one.

Matt: OK, they way you cited me just gave me a feeling that people could think I was talking about photographers when I clearly wasn't.. But let's forget that for now.<p>

If I get your last post right, you believe there are two groups of skills that make a good photographer.<br>

One group like understanding the technical aspects of a camera or applying the Zone System can be taught and there is freely available information about it. Therefore, skills have probably increased.<br>

The other group includes skills such as good communication and solid work ethic. This group is harder to teach and in fact, skills have decreased.<p>

If I got this right, do you have any solution to your observed decrease in culture of professionalism? How would you teach it, or how should people learn it?

Jeremy: I don't get your point? Are you referring to my response to Edward? I'm really just trying to hear different views and so far, I succeeded quite well. There have been several good contributions.

Matt: Please do not cite me out of context. You completely turned my words around.

<p>

I explicitly referred to medical doctors and athletes. The correct citation should read:<p>

<i>"If we were talking about medical doctors or athletes I'm sure we would all agree that with improved tools

come better professionals"</i><p>

Meaning: A 100 years ago without proper tools and training methods, nobody would have been able to run 100 meters

in 9.69. A good soccer team today would easily outplay any good soccer team from 50 years ago. That's just

because athletes have advanced so much in the way they practice and with all the tools they have available such

as a whole team of coaches, video analysis, psychological training etc.<p>

The definition of a professional by the way is someone who does something for a living.<p>

 

Regarding communication, I agree with you. It still would be nice though, if you corrected the misleading

citation, since that also is bad communication.

James: Many in here seem to acknowledge the technical advancements but doubt that photographers have made progress artistically (while I myself am trying to construct an opinion on the subject). Read Ralphs concerns regarding lack of attention since the introduction of 35mm cameras for example.

Ralph: <i>"the quality of the tech and mecha have improved. The quality of photographer has not."</i><p>

Now that's really interesting. If we were talking about medical doctors or athletes I'm sure we would all agree that with improved tools come better professionals. Only thanks to great advances in educational and training methods such things as heart surgery or 100m in 9.69 have become possible.<br>

Yet you believe that the quality of the photographer has not improved. If that is the case, we are doing something really wrong. What is the answer to that downfall? How would you bring back into focus the process and the care you mention?

Ton Mestrom:<p>

I'm not sure I agree with the second part of your post. Well, in fact, I would only replace the first word "No"

with a "Yes" and leave the rest as it is :-)<p>

My idea is that professionals always have to distinguish themselves from the average. As the average catches up,

the pros have to reach new levels in order to justify charging money for their work. The access to good training

that you mention is most important. Probably the percentage of people with talent remains about the same. But if

it was one percent of the population, we still would have close to 70 millions of potentially excellent

photographers. As they gain access to good education, quality must boost just statistically.

Scott: <i>"I assume you are talking about the technical quality and not the aesthetics. "</i><p>

We could very well include aesthetics too. For example, one could argue that art in general is making progress or that education in photography has gotten better.

<p>

Of course I also have in mind that the learning curve is very different with digital photos available. They way we are able to discuss photography over the internet instead of elite closed circles has an influence too, in my opinion.

David: <i>"Just shoot... isn't that why we're here?"</i><p>

No. I'm here to discuss, I shoot outside :-p

Seems like at least one guy shares my vision about the future :-) :

 

"The source says that there's some speculation the industry that this Beijing Olympics will be the last covered

by single-frame photography. By the time of London 2012, the 'photographers' will be shooting HD sequences, from

which picture editors will take the best 'grabs'."

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29139579