elvagabundoviejo

<p>Fred, In another forum thread, some of our friends in the PN community were taking about "keepers." You know, the photographs that really hit the mark, both in terms of intent and execution. I don't want to be obsessed with numbers in terms of photographs that are sellable, I'd rather take steps that I know will allow repeatable satisfactory results again, again, and again. I think it's like the scientific method, it's one thing to create a wonderful photograph but, it's something else entirely to be able to create two nearly-identical photographs of the same subject at two different times --not that you would want to as you said, but it's the capability and the comfort, if you will, with the method that is important. And it's important because it allows me spend time creating, or capturing good photographs instead of flipping switches because as I said in my original post, those great moments will get away.</p>

<p>Firstly, for Luis G. The whole student/teacher thing was a give and take between Landrum Kelly and I and I think it and should be read in that context, not as an affront to Fred or anyone else because it wasn't intended that way. I'm still and ever will be a student and I don't have any misgivings about being a student and trying to learn or being identified that way. I still get it wrong and in particular, a challenge just I gave myseft to take an idea Fred mentioned and execute it mostly failed, probably because I spend so much time on the computer and not behind the camera --oh, the delicious irony, I know.</p>

<p>Much of Fred's first post was about not taking pictures, I merely suggested he do more of the nuts and bolts than writing about it --he opened that door. I'm not controlling or trying to control anyone's behavior, nor would I suggest it. I'm guilty of not taking enough pictures too, perhaps only to a lesser degree.</p>

<p>For Fred, I will post my response to the "do it again, and again, and again" idea in a separate post. While I'm doing that, will you take a picture for me? I'm posting in my gallery a picture I just did (the one I alluded to above) in the experiments directory with the commentary on how I did it, the real nuts and bolts. I failed to get what I wanted but I think you will appreciate the idea. I wanted to use this example, not to poke fun or belittle, or any other malicious intent, but because, specifically in this case, I liked the idea of trying to put into a photograph, the problem we face --I have dishes in my sink too. If you're so inclined, please upload your take on the idea --with or without looking at mine first. If not, that's O.K. too.</p>

<p>I happen to agree with you completely when you said "The photographs talked about in artistic terms often don't measure up to the glow of the words about feelings, emotions, thinking outside the box, etc. We wax on about the deep inner recesses of the creative spirit but does any of that actually show up in our work? If it does, can we describe it in photographic rather than poetic terms . . . do we bother to describe it? What does it look like? Or do we just take for granted that if we talk about it enough it will be there in the photographs?" But I agree even more with the idea that: "We're not going to become photographers (or better photographers) by osmosis of thought, by philosophizing about abstract concepts and by framing everything we do in the form of a debate, this vs. that, or in the form of an abstract intellectual endeavor?" Amen brother.</p>

<p>One of the great attractions of Photo Net for me is that I can and should be both at the same time. I don't see photography as a one way street. I truely wonder at some of the photos/illustrations/paintings I see here on a daily basis. If I can save someone a minute, hour, day, month, year in their own development simply by providing a relevent example, shouldn't I?<br>

Even if I am dismayed by the subject, verb, object --shocked or amazed I try to understand the reason for the effort.</p>

<p>I agree that balance is the key.</p>

<p>As for the idea: "...it is a hard call to make as to when someone is thinking too much, or analyzing too much, as opposed to producing too much."</p>

<p>I don't think it's all that hard, at least not in my opinion. I think it's obvious --but the difficulty is, as always, communicating that to the student honestly and directly.</p>

 

<p>I'm still reading the posts from yesterday's discussion and thinking about them... It's unsettling in a way.</p>

<p>Lannie - It is, as Julie's post implied, proficiency in the craft is more likely to result in a satisfactory result. It's not that you, or anyone else, should shoot all day and process/post all night or shoot without thinking. I'm suggesting we become more proficient by experimenting and we produce a better result when we can think and see the result we want and the craft happens without thinking about it --it should be instinctive/automatic. I'm not sure what the references to the other posts I've done are about, the fact that I made them where I did or what I actually said in them which is essentially what I've said here --learn how to get it right the first time, first and by doing so, produce a more satisfactory result, whatever that might be to the person taking the photograph.</p>

<p>In Julie's post about Minor White's course, which all seems very reasonable in terms of craft, I'm more wary of the criticism and to whom we look for guidance. Anything from the 1950/60s is immediately suspect as far as I'm concerned because I seem to have a love/hate relationship with authority. I think PN is a much better forum because it's a collection of photographers doing the criticism (sometimes weak I'll admit) while doing the craft (also sometimes weak). I think the opportunity is in shrinking the learning curve for people who do want to learn. </p>

<p>I think Fred should take more pictures and talk less. After all, 4000+ forum posts and 7000+ photo comments has simply got to take an enormous amount of time to write. I know saying that might seem a little too strong, but I'm hoping to shock Fred out of his malaise.</p>

<p>There is simply no substitute for training education and experience --to varying degrees and and in whatever order you prefer.</p>

<p>In particular, experience will give you the capability to anticipate --to see what's coming and process your way through the mechanical steps necessary to capture whatever subject in a way that is accurate in terms of light and shadow (exposure), visually pleasing as a composition and accurately conveys the mood or emotion. You have to be able to do it quickly because the moment will get away.</p>

<p>I uploaded four photos this morning that address this subject directly. They're in my gallery in the folder "Kids." The first one that matters is "Resting" and it matters because, if you've ever had kids, you know that moment is, firstly, rare and secondly, it won't last. The one titled "Slide" falls into the same category --that moment won't last and you have just one chance to get it right. The "Baby Pile" is less time sensitive, but the expression on the baby's face is priceless, at least to me, not because she's my granddaughter (which is reason enough by itself), but because you wouldn't think being in that position would result in the peaceful expression on her face. The Last one is the "Grimace" and it goes to show that you never know what a kid will do next and you have to be ready. I was taken by the harsh ligh on her face. There are four pictures in this series, two at one exposure setting and two at another. As I was taking the first three, her expression never changed, and then she did that...</p>

<p>You won't get there over night. I've been doing it since '74 and I'm just starting to get comfortable with my work product.</p>

<p>But, perhaps most importantly, I know I could do the same thing again, and again, and again.</p>

<p>Try not to worry so much about the philosophy and concentrate on being able to consistently produce and reproduce, at a moments notice, a memorable photograph.</p>

 

<p>I think newcomers to photography can learn a great deal from the work of others --particularly what they like or dislike which helps narrow the path they might want to follow. The term photography covers a lot of ground and the possibilities within each category provide endless opportunities for experimentation and expression.</p>

<p>I learned a lot just by reading the books found in your local library or Barnes & Noble. The process of education never really ends --because seeing something in another photographer's work might lead me in a new direction or suggest an evolution of technique.</p>

<p>I'm not a fan of post-processing images although I do digitally alter images for the fun of experimenting. I try to get as much as possible of what caught my eye in the first place, the first time. Then again, my vision and the result of my efforts may not appeal to everyone, or anyone for that matter and the same is true the other way around.</p>

<p>I'm particularly annoyed by the cutting off of heads in portraits, other people do it incessantly and it drives me mad, but I try not to give them any grief because I know that what I do probably drives some people nuts too. But, I still look, and analyze, and admire.</p>

<p>I think ultimately, looking at other images, evaluating the good and the bad, and applying what I've learned from that process raises the bar, forces me to try harder and in the long run makes my photographs better.</p>

<p>Welcome to the community!<br>

I recommend taking an extended look around the various portfolios. If you need a place to start, take a look at Massimiliano Uccelletti and John Peri, and then follow the links to portfolios on which they have commented.<br>

There are a million variations on lighting and background and that might be the place to start, and then jump into the mix. Experiment!<br>

You also may want to explore the classic pin-up artists at <a href="http://flyingirls.awardspace.com/">http://flyingirls.awardspace.com/</a> for inspiration and pose ideas.<br>

Good Luck!</p>