jordan2240

<p>Interesting article that Daniel linked to. I enjoyed it and find it inspiring. However, I disagree with this statement from the author:</p> <blockquote> <p>We need this presence because the truth about talent is this – talent is a set of skills you develop over time through desire.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think what he is really describing there is 'ability,' which I believe is different from 'talent.' Nearly anyone can gain an ability to do something through hard work and perseverance (barring any physical limitations), but that doesn't mean one has a 'talent' for it, which to me is an innate ability that doesn't require any work whatsoever - you can simply do it. </p> <p>Fred, 'only' might have been a poor choice of words, but I don't know how you'd measure talent unless others measured it for you. Ella asks, 'how does a person know if they actually are talented,' and the only answer I would know for that is that other people tell you. That's not to say that 'everyone' tells you, but typically someone has to see something different in what you're doing compared to others.</p> <p>Regardless, whether you have talent for something or not, Mike has already pointed out the biggest predictor of success above - 'passion.' Have that, and you'll find a way around any obstacle, including a lack of talent.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I disagree Gordon. Growing up, most of us knew kids who drew well. They had an innate ability for it, or a talent. The only way they knew they had this talent was because other people told them they did. Now, that's not to say that someone who really wanted to draw couldn't learn to do it through hard work, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have a 'talent' for drawing. </p> <p>There are photographers who simply have a better eye than others. They can see a picture, or an angle, or light that others might not. That's not to say one cannot learn to be more aware of those things, but talent is typically something that one has prior to working at it, at least as I interpret it. And talent alone won't breed success, but you definitely have an advantage if you start with it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>How does a person know if they (sic) actually are talented?</p> </blockquote> <p>If other people tell you you are.</p> <p>Not being a smart-aleck, but that's pretty much it.</p>

<p>Laura,</p> <p>I'm just amazed one might get 25 keepers out of 30 shots. Sounds like something I might have dreamt once.</p> <p>No scat, but this tree swallow with its head screwed on backwards no doubt dropped some.</p><div></div>

<p>That site is hilarious. Thanks.</p>

<p>I shoot Pentax, but would buy a Nikon D7200 for the better tracking AF and some very nice lenses, including some long telephotos. The rest I'd use for non-photo stuff.</p>

<p>Ump is not calling a 'dead ball,' so it obviously lives.</p>

<p>I saw a documentary once about a blind photographer, so all is not lost.</p> <p>I wear readers, but the vision in my dominate eye (the right) is still good enough to focus without glasses, though I do rely heavily on auto focus. The diopter adjustment will have one setting for you that is best for your vision, so even if a little fuzzy, it will be the least fuzzy setting. I would say you just have to determine what that is and go with it. Perhaps the image will never look to be fully in focus to you through the viewfinder, but that doesn't mean it's not in focus. Basically, I think you just have to learn what your own variant is.</p>

<p>It's always a thrill to me when I see a species of duck in the area that I've not seen before. I guess I've been kind of sheltered from duck life around here until I started visiting a new haunt near Harrisburg PA with some regularity. Wasn't sure what these were when first captured, but identified them as a blue-winged teal couple once I consulted my books. </p><div></div>

<p>Last year, I purchased a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 for travel. If interested, you can see some of the shots I've taken with it here: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/sets/72157644216394417/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/sets/72157644216394417/</a></p> <p>It gives you all the manual control you could ask for and is very light, but it does have a small sensor, and at full resolution, shots are noisy. But it's a very versatile tool, and I still use it when photography isn't the main focus of a trip.</p> <p>I intend to visit Ireland next year, and am pondering what equipment I should take. On one hand, the Lumix will give me everything I'd need in a small package, and on the other hand, well, it's Ireland, a photographer's paradise from what I understand. I shoot Pentax, so my lens selection isn't as great as some, but what I'm considering doing is bringing 2 bodies, one with my 17-70 attached and another with a 70-300 or the like (not yet acquired), and getting a small sling bag to haul them in. I recently purchased a large sling bag (Ruggard 55 from B and H) for my bodies and larger lenses, and I prefer it a zillion percent over a backpack. Really comfortable to wear and distributes the weight nicely, and much easier to access the equipment from. </p> <p>Good luck whatever you decide.</p>

<p>Always enjoy your intros Laura. Not sure how you come up with them week to week. Speaking of earth, I thought these things were rocks until I saw them start to move, then the bigger one started to chase the smaller. Spring is in the air. I wonder if the earth moved for her.</p><div></div>

<p>Of course Wouter and Fred are correct. Ultimately it's the artist's satisfaction with what was created and how it was created that is important. I DO find it unfortunate that the older technology that requires a different, and I think more extensive, skillset doesn't necessarily yield better results. The silkscreen artist I referred to above came across as having some disdain toward modern methods, and I can fully appreciate why. I don't typically think that is the case with film photographers, though I would also understand it if it was. Is there any doubt that film photography is more difficult and involved?</p> <p>I got interested in photography a few years before it started to transition to digital, and I swore I would continue shooting film, then scan the negatives to display them digitally or print them as necessary. I figured it was the best of both worlds - until the workflow got to be a pain in the rear. Much easier to simply pop the camera card into a card reader and go from there, plus it was cheaper than buying rolls of film and the immediate feedback was hard to resist. If I was to return to shooting film, it would be because I wanted to challenge myself, though for me, the more significant aspect of photography has always been what was captured rather than how it was captured, so the media used is really secondary.</p>

<p>My take is that people typically embrace older technologies because there is more of a psychological impact than a creative one. For older people, it likely reminds them of a 'simpler' time (at least as they remember it), or at least a time when they recall being happier and healthier. For younger people, I think it's mostly a desire to be different. To most lay people, and probably a lot of 'enthusiast' photographers, it would be guesswork to discern a film print from a digital print. It certainly would be for me. </p> <p>I visited a town a few years ago here in PA that had a variety of art galleries. In one, a man described how he did silk-screening the 'old-fashioned' way. The process sounded quite complex and impressive. Unfortunately, pretty much the exact same results he was getting could be achieved much more quickly and easily using modern technologies, and virtually no one who looked at a framed print would know the difference. So while I admired what he was doing and the talent involved, I wondered whether it was really worth the effort and expense. I suppose I have a similar question about film.</p>

<p>Powerful photo Fred, thanks for the link. The difference, I would argue, in the linked shot and the Phuc photo as compared to the Svenson work is that those photos were taken out in public. The discussion is not about street photography in general but about how far it should reasonably extend, I suppose, though Svenson wasn't photographing from the street anyway, so I'm not sure we can even categorize it as that.</p> <p>Nonetheless, I'm in full agreement with this:</p> <blockquote> <p>I think there's plenty of room for a lot of differing interpretations of what's moral and what's empathetic and, sometimes, empathy demands the difficult action of putting oneself in the shoes of those with whom one disagrees vehemently.</p> </blockquote>

<p>Tom,</p> <p>For the photo to post within the thread, you need to resize it so it is no more than 700 pixels on the longest end (i.e. 700 wide max if landscape orientation or 700 high if portrait orientation).</p> <p>And thanks to those who explained their removal methods.</p> <p>Bill</p>

<p>I applaud the thoughtful and civil discussion here. Many valid points on different sides of the issue, and while I am not convinced that what the photographer did was respectful, honorable, or even useful, I do understand why others would disagree.</p> <p>Fred, I appreciate the link to the Hopper work. I think we tend to disconnect with strangers whether they are in a photo or painting, though when I look at a painting of a realistic scene, I tend to focus more on the detail the artist was able to achieve and the technical merits more than the scene itself, while with a photo, I tend to focus more on the overall scene. </p> <p>So, for example, if I were to see a painting of a homeless child huddled in a corner under a makeshift lean-to on a cold winter morning, I wouldn't view it in quite the same way as a photo of the same. The photo would be far more powerful, to me, in its ability to generate a feeling of sympathy and sadness, while in the painting, I'd be more engaged in looking at how the artist was able to capture every fold in a blanket or the forlorn look in the child's eyes. </p> <p>I'm not suggesting that is the correct way of viewing those things - it's simply how I do it. Perhaps it is different, though, when we recognize the subject. If I knew the child in the painting, and therefore knew the scene was real, would it make a difference? I really don't know. Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but I think it might help explain why someone would be more objectionable to a photograph than a painting, and feel more violated by one over the other.</p> <p>As far as whether or not Svenson's work has the ability to connect us more than divide us, that may be true, but would it be any less true had he asked the subjects for permission to display the photographs once he'd taken them? I don't think class matters at all in this issue.</p>

<blockquote>I would not advocate that all photography of people be done only upon invitation or by request, overt or implied.</blockquote> <p>I agree. The disagreement expressed in this thread pertains to when such should require an invitation/request. Always, sometimes, never? I don't think we have any votes for 'always' and perhaps none for 'never,' so the difficulty is in defining 'sometimes.' </p>

<p>John raises an interesting comparison with regard to painting vs photography. I can't explain why exactly, but I don't see painting as the same sort of violation of privacy as I do an uninvited photo. Perhaps it's because paintings simply don't represent reality like photographs do. The attachment to the subjects of a photograph are far more powerful, at least for me, and we also don't necessarily know how much of the painting came from the artist's imagination and how much is based on reality. And we might not even recognize that we are the subject for the painting. After all, a woman bent over cleaning could be any woman. </p> <p>We live in an interesting age, where many do lock themselves away from personal interaction yet reveal minute details of their lives to others on social media. But that's their choice, and it really isn't for anyone else to decide what privacy they are entitled to. You mention, Fred, that growing up, neighbors and friend would stop by unannounced. I grew up similarly. But you also mention you left your door open to them. Symbolically, that's an 'invitation,' but even then it was an invitation for them to participate in your lives, not record it. And I'd suggest that when the door was shut, the neighbors knew to stay away whether the shades were drawn or not. We should each be able to decide when to open our doors and when to close them. </p> <p>Artists can push their boundaries all they want, but does that give them the right to push mine?</p> <p>I'd also like to point out that the article said 'most' of the photographs had unrecognizable subjects, leading me to believe some did not. Does that make a difference? (please feel free to read that as rhetorical - not trying to belabor the issue)</p>

<p>What others said. Assuming 'S' is shutter priority, if you set the shutter at 1000 and the iso is 6400 under bright sunlight, even at the highest aperture (i.e. smallest hole), there was still too much light coming in. Any reason you had the ISO at 6400? That's usually reserved for shots in darkness where you just want to record the image and aren't too concerned about detail.</p> <p>I personally prefer aperture priority for action because it allows you to control the depth of field and most lenses have a 'sweet spot' aperture. In your situation, I'd set the aperture at F8 and the ISO at 100, then take note of the shutter speed. If it's at least 500, you should be ok (though a little faster might be better). If the shutter speed is too slow, move the ISO up to 200. Not sure about your camera, but you should be able to go as high as 800 ISO with decent quality. Others prefer to shoot in shutter-priority so they have a consistent shutter speed, but then aperture will vary. Just kind of have to experiment a little to see what you prefer.</p>

<p>Fred, I don't think I'd want to see an exhibit of me in the buff, though I doubt I'd give anyone nightmares anyway.</p> <p>I think 'respect' is a cultural matter, but is generally universally understood within the culture. I certainly don't see it as a heard mentality issue. If 'common sense' is standard, then I think 'respect' is even more so, though what is considered respectful and disrespectful can change over time. I just can't imagine taking uninvited photos through someone's window would ever be respectful and certainly not necessary, and hopefully not a social norm. Intent, on the other hand, can be misinterpreted, thereby making something perhaps seem disrespectful that was not. No one but this photographer knows what his was - though I still think seeking permission to exhibit the photos would have been the proper action.</p>