tonmestrom

October 2, 2012

thanks Marie

September 27, 2012

<div>

00arrm-497897884.jpg.8052a4b0c5379681d06dd1e14d0638c2.jpg

</div>

September 15, 2012

So, when Ton and Brad, for example, say "not too much" I'm not exactly sure what they mean.

</blockquote>

Well of course I can't speak for either Clive or Brad if for no other reason than that all these choices are highly personal. What I mean with "not too much" is merely that I normally don't remove from/add to the original (other than color/tonality in case of digital). That however doesn't deal with the time I spent on every photo. Sometimes it just takes minutes while some take hours to get out of them what I want.

As for decisive moments I prefer not to think in these terms. What I prefer and try to do is to create order out of what often is chaos out there which I think covers a lot more ground.

I meant what I said before, the outcome as far as I'm concerned is often far more due to choices made well before any PP. Still, whether I use film, digital or any app I do PP each and everyone of my photos. Sometimes however the choice is whether to shoot or not in the first place. The photo below for instance I shot under impossible lighting conditions, sometimes you just do. I didn't change anything that wasn't there but it took quite some time to get it the way it looks now. As a result technically it's hardly perfect but I do like the overall atmosphere so in that sense I do what I think is needed.

I think they both stray from a "straight" view of the world

</blockquote>

I think that depends on anyones definition of "straight".<div></div>

September 13, 2012

but then, it's not just PP is it? What a lot of people tend to forget is that the outcome is influenced well before that. For instance, a photo shot on Delta 100 will look and feel decidedly different than one shot on Tri-X. Then there's lens choice and even more so camera choice. Given that PP is only a relatively small part of it all.

To answer your question more directly: whatever it takes which normally isn't a whole lot.

August 21, 2012

well, if nothing else it makes for a great reminder that I've got to renew my subscription

August 13, 2012

all true and as such not a problem. However, if one uploads something that is part of a doc of sorts I would prefer to see some context of that doc otherwise it's anything goes and I for one have seen enough photos of flowerpots to last me a lifetime.

August 11, 2012

that's all very nice I'm sure but the fact remains that where other sites that I visit, and that's lots of them, they all fly. PN however is always on and off. Mostly on (although usually somewhat slower on average) but every now and then very slow.

My average downloadspeed is between 100-120 Mbps but regularly faster, up too 200+.

I don't mind actually if it loads somewhat slower but sometimes it's just too much and it becomes difficult even to sign in.

July 4, 2012

<div>

00aZpx-479571684.jpg.860985b724798c15da867d5a7a183783.jpg

</div>

July 4, 2012

<div>

00aZpu-479571584.jpg.ec597603173610e634d421f45c2bf6e0.jpg

</div>

June 27, 2012

I asked my wife who is a master florist. She thinks (it's only a detail after all) it's probably a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibiscus">Hibiscus</a>

June 20, 2012

<div>

00aWbg-475631684.jpg.12845433af2a084e1c1710a8098d6690.jpg

</div>

June 16, 2012

No sane person would consider an iPhone to be a good tool for photography

</blockquote>

the real question is, can one shoot good photography with an iPhone and the answer is quite simply yes. I got an iPhone not because I needed one (who does really) but because I wanted one. Why you may ask? Well, because it makes my life a lot easier on different levels other than photography. But yes, not being blind to the fact that this thing has got a camera and that people use it extensively, and why not, I use it as well and that has nothing to do with any marketing strategy. Every camera has technical and other limitations and this one is no exception. In fact it has got so many that it is indeed a challenge and that's somewhat important.

Because what most people seem to forget in this thread is that (non-commercial) photography should be fun and shooting with an iPhone (and some of the available apps) is a lot of fun. And as for those limitations, real as they are, any half decent photographer who has a feel for composition and lighting is able to get good results with virtually every camera.

I don't care with what it was captured, or how much post-processing was involved.

</blockquote>

exactly

It's also unfortunate that his style of work can now be replicated with a cellphone and a few clicks

</blockquote>

I don't agree. apart from the fact that cream always rises to the top you leave out the fact that it takes a lot more than technical prowess (or a software variant of that) to create a good photo. Besides, some of these built-in software resplications get pretty boring pretty soon.

June 12, 2012

June 11, 2012

I am embarking on my first trip to Europe

</blockquote>

Like Mike said, you got to narrow that down a bit if you want some specific advice. All in all most cities are the same in at least one respect the world over. Use some basic common sense and chances are you stay out of trouble. Most European cities are quite safe if you don't act dumb. Most natives will go out of their way to help you despite language barriers. Outside of Great Britain and the Netherlands however you'll find that most people don't speak English very well (if at all). That however is not a practical problem. I've been to many places where I didn't speak the native language and I never had any real trouble getting around. It's part of the fun actually.

yet getting scared

</blockquote>

no need for it. Just enjoy it.

but there seems to be a lot less tolerance for shooting in public

</blockquote>

I shoot all over Europe and this is absolutely not true in my experience

but many others have posted about being hassled by police; particular in places like London

</blockquote>

yes, it's true about these posts but many, like me, have pointed out that these were mere incidents. In London, like in most other places I found the police to be polite and helpfull time and again and I don't consider myself the typical tourist, far from it.

June 9, 2012

The US courts have repeatedly reaffirmed and in some cases actively encouraged the public to film law enforcement.

</blockquote>

which makes it legal. It doesn't mean it makes it right! Oh I know all about the so called citizen journalism and such. The real truth is much simpler, if you've got no business there get the F***k out of there. I've been at such scenes professionally and that changes ones perspective dramatically. While I don't mind being photographed or videotaped (frankly I couldn't care less) you simply don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry there for whatever reason (and in many cases that reason is pretty sick).

but photographers/videographers are hardly "breathing down their necks"

</blockquote>

I can tell you from personal experience that this what happens in almost every case with the notable exception of professional PJ's.

and most certainly do have business being there

</blockquote>

please enlighten me. What business would that be?

June 7, 2012

Garbage men have to deal with garbage. Doctors with disease. Soldiers with dangerous duty. Firemen with fire, etc. The above is simply the nature of the job. Don't want to come close to that? Do not apply for the job.

</blockquote>

the problem with all these kinds of discussions is that they only deal in absolutes and life simply isn't that straightforward. Forget 1st amendment and all that for a minute. Working in a high stress environment can sometimes get a bit too much. It happens to the best. Especially if someone is breathing down your neck who has no business there.

Of course, if this proves to be a unlawfull arrest it requires action. That can easily be done without getting out a lynchmob. But even then, a little understanding goes a long way.

June 4, 2012

If I knew as much as you claim for yourself or for Winogrand, that element of surprise when I view my photos would have been lost

</blockquote>

of course it wouldn't. Let's suppose you are going to shoot at the Folsom street parade which is a highly dynamic environment. Are you just going to snap away at everything that comes your way? Of course not. You'll make sure you get the best lighting angle possible but most of all you compose your shot and only then you are going to shoot. Does that mean you are going to end up with only keepers? No. Maybe your main subject is turning his head away at the very moment you shoot, maybe someone will walk into your frame at that precise moment or maybe you conclude afterwards that it just isn't to your liking or that it hasn't the impact that you thought it would have. But serendipity and all, you are in control (or should be) to a very large extent. Less so than you would be in a controlled studio environment but even so. That element of surprise you talk about lies mainly in the period leading up to your shot. That doesn't mean you can't discover nice things in your photo afterwards. That's why I called Winogrands quote a simplification rather than a philosophy. It's a known fact that Winogrand experimented a lot. Perhaps that's what he was referring to but I'm sure that at the moment he took his photo he was very aware what would be in his frame (and thus how it would look like).

I need to feel a sense of sharing in my work

</blockquote>

so do I and everyone else on this site or we wouldn't be here. Non commisioned work on the other hand (which is virtually all of it) I shoot for my own pleasure and in the way I like it. If other people can relate to that in some way afterwards that's great but it's the last thing in my mind when out shooting. In other words, when out shooting there is only one viewer to please or take into account and that's me.

...and lots of mediocre photographers say things that sound great but aren't evidenced in their photos

</blockquote>

there are even great photographers who do that.

June 3, 2012

yes Fred, that was my point.

I don't think anyone is claiming that photographic communication is the same as verbal communication. No one said every photo contains a message.

</blockquote>

No, I merely reacted to Wouter's introduction.

June 3, 2012

When shooting there is only one "viewer" to consider and that's me (leaving commissioned work out of the equation) so I put a frame around what (and how) I like best and what appeals to me the most which is a very conscious effort more often than not. As for any viewer afterwards they have all the freedom they want and that's exactly how it should be. As for seeing (or putting) any messages in any given photo I find that to pretentious, seeing or looking for subtleties or layers if one wants seems far more apt. Not every photo contains a "message" after all although a lot of messages are projected into too many photos I think.

As a photographer, I'd like to claim that I still adhere to the Garry Winogrand philosophy: I take photographs to see how things look in photographs.

</blockquote>

while I have a lot of time for Winogrand I've always felt that this was one of his most facetious quotes because most experienced photographers know exactly what it will look like. Winogrand certainly did, which made him take a particular shot in the first place. That's how it works for me and most other photographers as well. Winogrands quote I consider not so much a simple philisophy but a simplification.

Still, I agree with how Luis put it: "Neither viewer or photographer see everything that is either in the print or within the frame at the time of exposure" and while that may seem at odds with the above it's far less of a paradox than one might think.

May 28, 2012

as Jeff clearly implies, ANY camera is good enough to learn photography because in the end it's the least important tool of all those that really matter.

May 28, 2012

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend, inside of a dog it is too dark to read"

Groucho Marx

May 22, 2012

Color, while useful is in a sense, is too easy as it plays off our sense of sight which can overpower (or mask in the case of an unsuccessful image) the sometimes subtle but more important details.

</blockquote>

on the other hand it can bring out exactly what you want to show or emphasize in what otherwise could prove to be a drab picture in mono. Personally I think choosing color is merely a technical choice and/or a personal preference. It's certainly no less suited than b&w is for streetwork.

The notion that content is the most important is something that falls on fertile ground here and yet that seems a bit to subjective. Some time ago the work of Cartier-Bresson was discussed when his work was exhibited in SF MOMA. That he's one of the all time greats seems beyond debate and yet it didn't do a lot for quite some people while others are lyrical about his work. In that sense I can feel some sympathy for Marc's observation when he states that criticues are useless. On the other hand that would render all work beyond debate and I don't think anyone would agree with that. That's why an adjective as content (as such) is really subjective.

Personally I think good photography, and certainly streephotography, should draw you in, should question or provide a mirror and challenge, should invite to discuss. However one chooses to decribe it it should certainly do something for and to a viewer (or the majority of viewers). In that sense photography is and should certainly be open to critique.

May 21, 2012

I had not heard of him before but he seems to have specialised in photographing peasants.

</blockquote>

Carrick was one of the first "etnographic" photographers and as such highly regarded by his contemporaries and in Russian society. While he made a living out of professional studio photography during his career he never stopped travelling to document the life of the lower classes in Russia. However it was never meant to be a dramatic social documentary, rather a "celebration" of ordinary life. His work was recognised and applauded outside Russia as well.

May 21, 2012

...but is the digital dark room a good thing or an abused thing?

</blockquote>

just like every other technique it's not the technique itself that causes "abuse" but the photographer at hand. I agree with Dave that it's all about personal preference so "abuse" if any, is very debatable and subjective.

Personally I think the digital darkroom has brought a lot of good things. Having said that my inkjet/lambdaprints don't differ that much from my wet work.

The notion that the darkroom is for purists is laughable. It's said many times before, what it all comes down to is your endresult. Use whatever suits you best. That's why I use both although by now virtually all of it is digitally rendered.

As for plug-ins I'm able to try a lot of them thanks to my job. Most of them are crap or copies with a slight twist. SEP however is a positive exception and one of the best out there.

May 21, 2012

thanks David. As for your question, I virtually rolled into it. While I grew up only a few miles from the track I'd never been there. It was only when a female photographer (a good friend of mine) called me that she had to shoot some photos there and didn't want to go alone that I got there.

Right from the start though I saw the potential for a documentary series. Not so much about the racing itself, in which I have no particular interest, but life behind the scene. Given its small setup there's a wide variety of people there ranging from dads who buy an old banger for their kids to race in right up to heavily sponsored teams. Add to that the fact that most of them are regulars and there is your subject.

What made it difficult at the start was that people weren't used to being photographed "behind the scenes" which made them a bit weary if not suspicious in the beginning. There are always a lot of photographers but their interest is limited to the races. What helped was that I had offered the organisation to provide them with full res photos for their website, mostly because I didn't want any hassle with people asking for prints. This turned out to be the best decision I could have made because once people saw the photos on the track website I was "in" and very much welcomed. Secondly I can get everywhere I want to and thirdly people are able to download full res photos and have them printed.

What I think is the most important is to earn peoples trust. Once they know what you're about and follow up on promises made without fail you can get away with murder. It's all about respect working in two directions. Secondly it helps if organisers back you up so be honest about what it is you want to do and make sure you comply with their rules, in this case safety rules. Lastly it helps if you speak the language. To be honest what goes on under the hood is a deep mystery to me, I just turn the key and it goes so to speak but since my father was a truckdriver I do speak the "lingo" which often proved to be a big help. Lastly, be there as often as you can.

But what is also very important, at least I think so, is the ability to feel at home with people of all walks of life. Given my job for me that comes natural but for some people that may be a bit daunting.

Photographically speaking you can start in a more or less abstact way but still, from early on you need to know what you want to get out of it.

Most of all however it is a time consuming process and although I very much have come to like it I underestimated that no end at the beginning. And while I got of to a good start it took quite some time to "blend in". By now I can shoot next to people while they are working on their engine or walk in their caravan or truck without anyone blinking an eye but it takes some time before you can do that without people starting to pose.

But maybe I just lucked out as well. It's a special breed of people for sure but I have felt very much at home there virtually from the beginning.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by tonmestrom