Related Links:
Do you know where your photographic strengths lie?
Do you know what kinds of photographs you make which are truly outstanding?
Can you tell me at least three mistakes you make over and over again? Do
you take risks, or are you a "safe shooter"? Are you a "fair weather shooter",
or do you shoot in weather fair or foul? Are you improving as fast as you can,
or have you gotten stuck doing the same old thing over and over again?
Most photographers don't spend enough time in studying
themselves and their images. We don't like doing so because our "bad" images
remind us of our failures. I am going to suggest that you should look at
your "bad" images as a tutorial on how you can improve your photography.
The fastest way to improve your photography is by studying how and why
you are making mistakes and boring or bad images.
The first and easiest study is to pick out
the obviously bad slides or images and start categorizing them. Technical
errors are the easiest to identify and fix. Start out by identifying and
classifying your technical errors, including probable causes for each.
For example, I found I had too many first shots on the roll which had fogging
on one edge. I wasn't advancing the film enough after loading film. So
I learned to use three rather than my earlier two film advance strokes.
That problem hasn't resurfaced. This simple example shows how a simple
review and small change has saved hundreds of slides over the years. Another
important point is that many of our errors are entirely preventable, but
only if you recognize them and take corrective action consistently.
Sadly, lots of us make the same technical errors
again and again. Common problems include distracting backgrounds, clashing
colors, or even tree limbs or buildings growing out of people's heads.
These problems are often easy to identify after the fact. Once you realize
you have these problems, it gets much easier to learn to do a last check
for them before pressing that shutter button.
Other problems like subject movement or lack of flash fill lighting
on sunny day portraits can be identified with greater awareness and practice
too. While you can't eliminate these technical goofs entirely, you
should be able to radically reduce them in your general photography work.
Isn't that benefit worth the trouble of studying, categorizing, and fixing
these kinds of problems?
The second level of analysis is harder, because
it forces you to categorize your bad images artistically. Why are they
bad? Why are they dull? Why did you make such dull and bad
images in the first place? What were you trying to do, and how and why
did you fail? Are you doing the same dull photos over and over again,
or are you inventing new dull photo motifs all the time?
Again, some personal experiences may help. I found
that I ended up with many bad slides because they didn't have a single
central theme or subject. Like too many photographers, I didn't get
close enough to the subject, and then closer still. I realized I was wasting
a lot of film taking generic shots from too far away. I started getting
closer and closer and closer again. With each step closer, my photos got
better and more focused upon a main subject. I began to appreciate the
power of substituting a part for the whole of a thing. In this case, the
artistic improvements were dramatic.
I also identified a problem with my approach to photography
which could be improved by purchase of a macro-lens. I soon purchased
a macro-lens so I could get really close! Once I had that added capability,
I found the macro-lens became my favorite lens of all. Now I almost have
to force myself to get back and take those overview shots! As a side
effect, I now take photos of people's hands with tools, cigarettes, or
just at rest. Before these experiences, I realized I had never taken photos
of parts of people, but only portraits or whole body shots. So improvements
in one area can lead to dramatic changes in other parts of your photography
work too.
The third level of analysis is to search out
what is not in your photographs. For example, I found that I didn't
have a lot of available light shots. I didn't like carrying a tripod around.
I liked fine grain slide film for travel promotions. I had mostly slower
lenses, including my favorite but slow 55mm f/3.5 macro-lens. To take
more available light shots, I needed faster film and a faster normal lens. It
seemed almost idiotic to buy and carry a second two-stops faster normal
lens, but I did it. I have learned
to use all kinds of supports. I often use a monopod when I can't use a tripod nowadays (e.g.,
in museums without permission).
Again,
the result was to add a new level
of breadth to my photographic pursuits. Suddenly, my slide shows had more
photos of the resort towns at night, nightlife, bar scenes, and other photos
I wouldn't have taken previously even without my equipment (esp.
slow film) limitations. These great photos were always there waiting
for me to take them. I just missed them due to my narrow mindset.
I also discovered that I was more comfortable taking
photos of things rather than people. I think lots of photographers are
the same way. Partly, I blame the sense of intrusion on my own hesitation
to photograph people. There are several things you can do to cure such
afflictions. You can get a longer lens. Use it to enable you to take
more people photos from a less confrontational distance. You can seek out
situations such as a crowded marketplace to learn how to grab people photos
on the fly. You can go to basketball games or other sports you hate so
you won't watch the game. Instead, focus on the faces and emotions of the
people around you. Take a given number of rolls of film during the game,
with special attention to periods of peak emotion. A few such adventures
will innoculate you against this problem, and your proportion of people
photos will go way up!
Another major strength building exercise is to make
mini-trips and photo safaris. I started out taking trips to the zoo
to photograph the animals and people there. I kept track of which
lenses I used, and which I didn't, and why. I came back with a lot of surprising
African safari style shots. But more importantly, I learned about what
lenses would be most useful in particular situations. I also learned that
too many lenses made too much weight for easy traveling. After a while,
I began to realize that less was more. Fewer lenses meant more focusing
on photography subjects around me.
Trips to our weekend farmer's market provided another
source of colorful scenes with which to practice. If you ever want to maximize
your own trip photography results, the secret is in practicing first with
the same equipment and lenses in similar local situations. Learn what works
for you, what doesn't, and why. Practice with your equipment, your camera
bag packing, and get familiar and fast at making photographs with what
you have and use often.
Another surprise awaited me in our local museum of
art. I was shocked to see someone taking photographs of the art objects.
Turns out that taking non-commercial photographs of the permanent collection
is permitted in many museums, provided you don't use a tripod or flash.
Naturally, you do have to use fast tungsten film for most museum lighting.
You may find a rubber lens hood very handy in reducing reflections. A longer
focal length macro-lens may also be handy.
Again, what I was learning was how to work in a different
and darker environment, under different lighting, and within a limiting
set of rules. Yet to my surprise, the art museum offers a terrific set
of items for photography, especially for closeup photography. You also
learn how to hand-hold at slower speeds, while controling your breathing.
Finally, I find that such trips help focus your attention on the little
details that are often missed by visitors. Again, you find yourself expanding
your photographic vision by concentrating on the smaller things and the
essence of the whole.
What lenses do you use? Which ones could and should
you leave home? Will you use that strobe for fill lighting enough
to justify its weight and bulk? Will that tripod be used, or is it too
slow to setup? Maybe a quick release is what you need? How can you speed
up changing film? Is your camera bag working for you, or is it constantly
proving to be too small or hard to access? Do you have a polarizing
filter for each lens? Is a second camera body worth the extra weight
for the flexibility it gives you? Is a handheld lightmeter able to solve
some problems you run into frequently? What spare batteries, tape,
tools, and cleaning items need to be in your camera bag kit? What else
needs to be in there, like raincoats, soda in a plastic bottle, or a sandwich
or apple? Is there room for a travel guidebook? Are two small bags lots
better than one big one? Is a photo vest for you?
I realized I hadn't really, really explored
the limits of my lenses. For example, I was surprised to discover how really
close focusing my 28mm and 24mm lenses really were. While not a macro lense,
they could do some surprisingly good close focusing work, and very crisply
too. You have to tailor the use of extreme lenses, such as fisheyes and
long telephotos, to specific situations and goals. Today's zoom lenses
make it easier to pack a range of focal lengths in just a pair of lenses.
But you may find that a fast or macrolens is needed to fill out even such
basic traveling kits.
Following another photography book suggestion, I
went on photo safaris or mini-trips with only one or two lenses. This discipline
resulted in missing some good photos. But I also succeeded in making lots
of photos that I would not have made otherwise. I discovered you
can make full-body portraits with a 24mm lens, if you learn to control
the distortion effects. Now I even do so with my 18mm. Conversely, I discovered
the need to get a different tele-zoom lens with a full range of macro capabilities.
So I am suggesting that you see how much you can really do with the just
one or two lenses, and take mini-trips around your home town where you
can learn to exploit your lenses fully.
Another point is to focus on how you are using your
zoom lenses. Are you constantly pushing one or the other limits of the
zoom focal length range? Is the macro setting at the wrong end of
the zoom range, or is it not macro enough for your needs? If you
constantly push towards the long telephoto range, maybe you need a longer
telephoto length zoom (a 60 to 300mm vs. a 28 to 210mm zoom?).
Perhaps a teleconverter of 1.4x or 2x is enough to suit your needs
and weight limitations? A zoom lens can also help convince you whether
you need a given fixed prime lens, such as a 105mm as well as a 135mm lens
based on your zoom lens use. You might find that a 28mm to 210mm zoom isn't
wide enough for most indoor situations, and that you really do need that
24mm or even 18mm lens.
By studying your lens use patterns, you may be able to identify areas
in which equipment trade-offs can be done to maximize your kind of photographic
effectiveness.
The fourth level of analysis is to find out
whether you are a "safe shooter" or not. I used to be a really safe shooter,
taking photos I knew would work well. Unfortunately, I didn't take a lot
of photos that might have worked out even better. These unsafe or "risky"
photos would certainly have relieved a certain sameness that was creeping
into my photo slide shows. Paradoxically, the biggest risk is playing
it safe. Safe has a tendency to become dull, and dull is deadly.
What is a "risky" photo, you ask? Any photo
that you can't predict precisely how well it will work out is a risky photo.
For example, take a Caribbean sunset photo with a green filter instead
of a graduated yellow one. Sure, it is a risk, but only about a quarter's
worth of film and processing.
Try to take at least three risky photos on the average for each roll
that you shoot. What was risky before will become part of your expanded
photographic capabilities in the present and future.
You can control the degree of risk, albeit at some
expenditure in effort. I should have taken some green sunsets at home first,
so I would know what to expect better. I could also have taken a range
of apertures, so as to learn how each lens worked when shooting into the
sun. Where does this lens focal length start to show objectionable amounts
of lens diaphragm shape highlights in the image? Can I use my zoom lens
for shooting into the sun, or will I be much better off with using a prime
wide angle lens?
Do you shoot photos in the rain? Why not? Are
you a fair weather photographer only? Granted, as a former underwater photography
instructor, I have an unfair advantage here, with lots of underwater cameras.
But you can keep shooting in poor weather for modest costs, such as a Ewa
marine bag or a camera rain-bag (even a home-made one). The same logic
applies to shooting in cold weather, or in sandy areas (beach, desert).
Can you identify times when you play it safe and leave the camera at home?
Are you a "daylight" or "sunny-16" shooter?
I still prefer daylight photography, but I have done a lot more night and
low light photography. You also discover just how good modern lenses can
be, even used wide open, with the right subjects. You may find sunset
and twilight to become one of the more interesting times, because of both
the color and angles of the light.
You can also buy a cheapy used point and shoot camera
and take some photos without much worry about losing the camera.
You can often find usable but unloved 35mm cameras for as little as $2
to $5 in yard sales and thrift shops. These cameras are also small enough
that you will carry them around and take photos without worrying about
their cost, their chance of being stolen in bad neighborhoods, or start
dragging due to their weight. If you find a neat subject, you may be able
to come back later with a full camera rig and shoot an optimal photograph
of it. But if not, it is better to have a minimalist camera than no camera
at all. Now you know why those mini-35mm cameras like the Olympus XA are
so popular!
Our final level of analysis is to develop
long-term projects and interests that you can return too, time and again,
while growing with each cycle of photographic effort. You can and should
think up lots of projects that you could easily perform at home or in your
neighborhood with a camera. One of my favorite photographic handbooks
on closeup photography uses the mini-project approach to stimulate your
photographic creativity. Try emptying out your refrigerator of enough items
to make a still-life. What kinds of patterns can you find in closeups of
the weave of cloth in your closets? And patterns are all around us.
One of my longer term projects has involved photography of simple but repeated
patterns, such as window gratings, bicycles locked into a bicycle stand,
and the like.
Here is a related tip from another long-forgotten
beginner's photography handbook. Setup your electronic watch to beep every
five or ten minutes (lots of watches have a beeping 10 minute timer function).
Carry a camera with a roll of film. Pick a time such as your lunch-break,
on the way to school or work, or while shopping with your spouse. Now whenever
the timer goes off, you have one minute to take three photographs in your
immediate area. Okay, so this sounds crazy, and it is. But it also is a
great way to force you to make photos in otherwise unpromising areas. You
will also find a lot more good and even great photos using this trick.
What is really happening is that you are learning to see photographic potentials
better and faster using this approach. You will also be forced to take
more risks.
One of the really important concepts is that practice
is critical to learning in photography. The above project was originally
designed for students using black and white film, bulk loaded onto 35mm
cartridges. We developed our own black and white film, and printed a contact
sheet of each roll. Only a handful of photos might be printed on 8x10 paper
from each week's shooting. By shooting hundreds of photos a week,
we quickly got much better understanding and results than if we had limited
ourselves to more expensive color print film. You also realize that the
more film you shoot, the better your chances of getting great photographs.
I feel rather happy to get a handful of really good photos from as many
rolls of color slide film.
Speaking of slide film, many professional photographers
are afraid to shoot slides because of the narrow range for exposure errors
on slide film. Actually, this narrow exposure latitude is a great reason
to shoot slides, so you can see how you are really doing exposure-wise.
Lots of errors and problems are missed because the mini-lab photo printer
automatically compensates for your exposure or lighting errors. Until you
start shooting slides, you probably won't reach full mastery of exposure
problems while using an outside lab.
You may also be surprised to find yourself developing
a project or theme from these risky photo exercises. For example, I did
a large number of color reflection slides while commuting home at night
from classes. The reflection of lights and colors on rainy city streets
and buildings resulted in some of my best work to that point. Another project
titled "Democracy" started with my beeping watch reminded me I really needed
to take three photos and fast. The only object nearby was a telephone pole.
Grazing side lighting emphasized the dark texture of the pole. A series
of rusty nails played silent testimony to a variety of political signs
posted on this uncomplaining telephone pole. Since then I have taken dozens
of photographs during political campaign seasons of such signs and telephone
poles.
Holidays also offer a series of potential themes
to the alert photographer. You can go beyond star filters and Christmas
tree lights to underlying holiday themes. An anti-holiday photography project,
pointing out the ruthless commercial exploitation of what should be a family
holiiday, can also be quite challenging. Similarly, looking for funny
photos or conflicts in themes can help you develop photographically too.
Another interesting project is to repeatedly photograph
the same site, but trying for a different effect. With the seasons,
it becomes easy to mark the passage of time and changes, from the first
buds of spring to the falling of leaves and snowfall. But you can
also photograph at different times of the day, seeking different effects
with different lighting conditions. Here again, storm effects may offer
some unusual and unique photographic opportunities at your favorite site(s).
You can also explore some technical areas of photography
that border on abstract art. Several photo magazines describe how
to make photographs of the incredible colors of soap and glycerine film
bubbles. Closeups of aspirin crystals in polarized light can also be an
amazing display of colors too. Polarized light also highlights colorful
stresses in clear plastics, such as filter cases, plastic forks and spoons,
and similar inexpensive items. You can also explore other areas of technical
photography, from the use of filters to portrait lighting, and everything
between.
Hopefully, this article will have given you some
ideas on how to improve and diversify your photographic efforts.
Analysis of your bad photos is the best way to prevent future recurrences
from the same problem sources. Eliminating dull photographs can be done
with practice, improving your percentages of great shots at the same time!
From: "Doug" [email protected]
People,
I want to thank everyone for their help, but have a request. In part of my
original post it mentions that the camera is 20 years old. Please do not
reiterate the basics of photography. Unless otherwise stated it is most often
safe to presume that the holder of a camera is the original owner. The vast
majority of cameras are not handed down.
Information on panning and fill-in flash, due to the fact I've been
shooting with an SLR for 20 years, is old hat to me. However, I may not
have worded the original message so that you realized I do have experience
behind the camera. I apologize.
I am very VERY grateful for the advice on which films to use. The most
difficult decisions I've made with film is "how much light will there be?"
I've never dealt with color depth before so this information is very
helpful.
The advice on how to use a fuselage or wing to mask out spectators was
wonderful advice! And the advice for me to expand my lens selection to
include a 28mm is also helpful (although - currently I'm unemployed, so if
anyone wants to DONATE such a lens.... I have the Minolta SRT-201 which
uses a Minolt bayonette mount circa 1979.) I may follow one person's
advice and look into an adapter for the 210mm. I'm not getting my hopes
up. It will probably be out of the price range under current conditions.
The advice on a fanny pack surprised me, but I know where I can borrow
one. The only camera bag I currently have is a 7x8x12 (depth x height x
width) shoulder bag and gets heavy. I thought about using one of those
insulated lunch/sandwich packs and found that it would fit the telephoto
lens and film nicely, but I don't have a strap for that, so the fanny pack
was a very good idea.
Just for one more idea how "antique" my camera is... nothing is
automatic! It has an internal metering system, but I must manually set the
aperture, focus, and shutter speed. Still, it works well for a $175
investment so long ago.
Thanks again,
From: ECMORRIS [email protected]
Hot summer nights and hot cars. Get out your camera. Check out
http://pages.prodigy.net/ecmorris
for the August feature on classic and antique car photography
From Nikon Digest:
Just wanted to pass along some, maybe, helpful info to those newer to
photography and those, like I, who are not pros. I recently forced myself
to go out a few times, shooting at least 36 shots per outing, with a fully
manual camera (focus, shutter, and aperture), with only a 50mm lens, and
B&W film. It was an epiphany. I had to move to frame my shots. Being
very aware of my shutter speed / aperture combinations, and especially
being very concerned with form and shape, and shadows and lighting instead
of richness of color, was a true learning experience. It may have brought
my eye for photographs back to where it was 20 years ago when I did this
at least once a week. When I switched back to color, I got nearly 1/2 my
shots coming out as I had wanted them. Sometimes a step back, can mean a
giant step forward.
By the way, another lesson I heard of but never tried, was to attach a 15
foot piece of string to the camera, and tie the other end to the foot of
the bed. Now, shoot at least a roll of film without it being sexual. It
is suppose to teach you that good shots can be found almost anywhere if
you just look and take your time.
GG
rec.photo.technique.misc
Get there early. Take a wide angle lens and get right in their face.
Most times you can get right up to where they are filling the balloons.
They use gasoline powered fans and blow into the bottoms of the balloons
as they are laying on the ground. You can get some good shots looking
into the balloon and catch the sun shining through the fabric. Great
chance for design/pattern photography. You might even be lucky enough to
get silhouettes of people on the outside, between you, the fabric and
the sun. When they finally put the burners to it, you can then get some
great action shots which includes the fire shooting out of the burners.
Once they've lifted off, you might want to shift to a medium telephoto
lens.
Good Luck.
Bob
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
When I asked for advice about documenting a small town for the end of the
century, I had no idea what I was going to receive for advice. As seems to
be typical for the group I received good long detailed and well thought out
advice. I thank all who responded.
I first had to decide what I 'thought' I wanted to accomplish. In the early
phase I was going to document everything. I was into quantity, not quality.
And this is in a town with woods, woods, woods, and a few clusters of
relatively non descript buildings.
I looked over some of the early pictures from the Historical Society. There
was more in town a century ago. I do have a handful of postcards showing
parts of the town, and those beg to be duplicated, albeit a century later.
As a means of beginning, I am documenting the major intersections in town,
showing all four views, the larger clusters of houses, open fields, and the
older buildings. I haven't even considered the important part, the people,
yet.
Question: postcards taken at the turn of the century would have had grain
that was equal to what film today?
From: [email protected] (john r pierce)
Ong Soh Khim [email protected] wrote:
1) use ISO 100 transparency (slide) film, such as Elite 100
2) use a moderate to rather wide angle lens (depending on how close you are)
3) use a tripod
4) use f/8
5) use B (bulb) shutter speed, open the shutter shortly after a multiple
'whump!' launch and hold it open while the star bursts expand.
I've never used any filtration. Gotten some stunning large prints using a
Pentax 6x7 with a 55mm f/3.5 lens, Kodak Lumiere 100, printed onto
Cibachrome or Ilfachrome glossy paper.
Oh, the best pictures are generally when the air is clear. When it gets
all smoky, it tends to leave a dull brown glow in the picture. Wait for
the smoke to clear
You can also try this handheld, especially with a wider angle like a 28mm
on a 35mm camera, relax and hold the camera as steady as you can during
the time exposures, it adds a 'wobble' to the trails. The viewfinder will
be useless (assuming a SLR), so just watch the sky and point in the
general direction you want.
-jrp
From: "keith" [email protected]
I don't know if this would work for color photos, but it does for black &
white:
Scan your photo, and make a fullsize print on a laser printer, not
bubblejet. (ie: using the powdered copolymer printer toner, same as what is
used in B&W photocopiers). Or make a photocopy of the print. Next, using
spray bottle moisten (not soak) with laquer thinner (oil of wintergreen also
works, but not as well). Do this outside or in well ventilated area so you
dont set something on fire. When soaked through, carefully lower paper toner
side down onto surface, press gently, and then peel off. The toner will come
off on the surface.
I tried it as an alternative printing process, where I scanned in my
photographic print, then made a negative image in PaintShop, then printed on
a laser printer. The important thing in my case is that the halftoning and
dither pattern on the printout provided the perceived shades of gray with
only black&white colors. Next, apply to zinc printing plate, and image comes
out negative. Put in nitric acid bath to etch non-covered areas (the tiny
halftone patterns from the printout then turn into small holes which hold
the ink, like in intaglio printing). Then, ink the plate, crank it through
the printing press, and you have a positive image for a really interesting
effect. You can use any type of paper you want.
Similarly, you can get photo-sensitized copper-clad circuit board at
electronics stores, along with the exposure kit which includes the
ultraviolet light. Scan in your picture as above, but this time print
negative image on mylar transparency. Use the transparency as a mask to
expose the positive photo-resist on the board, develop the board in sodium
hydroxide developer, then etch the copper surface in ferric chloride
solution. You end up with an etched copper plate instead of an etched zinc
plate, which you can then use in the printing press as described above. The
copper coating on the circuit boards is very thin, you have watch carfully
during the etching step to make sure you dont let it eat too much copper
away. Plus, the copper plate with the photographic image by itself looks
neat if you polish it up. The anti-oxidant blue coating on the copper can be
removed with varsol.
keith.
> my 11 y.o. son saw an example of an alternative processing method for
> transferring photos onto non-photo paper. apparently it involves
> taking your basic color print, having a color copy made (like at
> kinko's, not another color print) and then treating the copy with a
> solvent (like lighter fluid). this apparenlty loosens the toner or
> whatever on the color copy and the picture can then be pressed onto
> nonphoto (for example watercolor) paper for a neat effect. i guess
> it's similar to the polaroid transfer.
>
> any help with the specifics would be greatly appreciated. email me
> please before we blow the house up!
From: David Hay Jones [email protected]
While going through my archives and consigning many hundreds of slides
to the reject box, I decided I'd learnt by making some BIG mistakes in
the past decade. My 10 biggest mistakes are:
1) Copying the example of other photographers. I read a comment by Art
Wolfe along the lines of, "If you want to make it in stock, you have to
hunt species". So that's what I started to do. And everywhere I went and
every species I photographed had been done before. As a beginner you
can't compete in that way against someone running a multi-million
dollar business (or even a multi-thousand dollar business).
I've sold much more since concentrating my photography on the places
I live and the species that are close by. The world is full of images
of lions and elephants but few of pygmy shrews (of which there are plenty
where I live).
2) Imagining there's a simple formula to success that's hidden in
books and on gallery walls. It's great to be inspired by others but you
have to find a way of working that suits your temperament, inclinations,
budget, family situation, etc. If grizzles don't do it for you, then
don't photograph grizzlies.
3) Thinking only of the subject to be photographed rather than the
composition of the whole frame. I've got great shots of birds and
animals in lousy settings that just don't work. I love being
outdoors all the time so am not into digital and don't want to spend
time lifting animals into better backgrounds.
When you're too focused on subject rather than the entire picture,
you can ignore lighting, composition, colors, etc.
4) Being too narrow. I started out wanting to be a bird photographer.
Bird photography was all I looked at. These days I have much broader
horizons, drawing inspiration from street and fashion photography. I've
learnt more about lighting by looking at fashion pics than I have from
reading nature books on flash.
5) Buying equipment that others, including magazines, said I needed.
I bought new and slow third-party lenses instead of fast, secondhand
Canon lenses. I spent so much money on long, heavy lenses that I
couldn't afford good lenses in the 20 to 200 range, and more than half
my nature pics are shot at less than 200 mm. You learn by trial and
error, but you should pay more attention to your own inner voice than
to the ramblings of mass market magazine journalists.
6) Relying too much on the camera's automatic settings, including TTL
flash, instead of learning in-depth about manual shooting. I'd let
the camera and auto flash decide the exposure and often be disappointed
because the shot didn't come out as I'd envisaged it.
7) Letting sharpness get the upperhand over expression and creativity.
It took far too long to realise that movement in a picture can say so
much more than a stationary but razorsharp bird or animal. These days I
hardly ever shoot birds on sticks, motionless herons and egrets, etc. I
prefer a shot of the heron catching a fish rather than frozen motionless
waiting to catch a fish. And so do picture buyers.
8) Following the herd into shooting exclusively on Velvia. Velvia's a
great film but it's awful on certain subjects. I often shoot Kodachrome
200 in Kenya rather than Velvia or any of the other punchy, over the top
films. It's softer, grainier, more subtle. These days I choose films
with the characteristics of lighting and subject in mind. Velvia has its
place but it's far from the only film I shoot.
9) Letting clients see work in progress and test shots. I've lost work
by showing bad pictures of good ideas. There are plenty of clients who
judge you by your worst work. Only let them see your best stuff. If
you're not ready to send a portfolio to people, it's best to be honest
and not send. It's possible to be too cautious, but only submit to a
stock agency when you're convinced the pictures are good, not try to sell
them the line: "My pictures could be great if I had the money selling
stock to be taking more stock".
10) Not understanding that selling photographs is a different business
from taking photographs. Each demand their own time and own skills,
which must be developed.
David
Date: 26 Jan 2000
First of all- THANK YOU.
Secondly: I think 1-8 can be rephrased as "Listen to others but think for
yourself".
If you agree, I can't agree more. Coming from another country, it amazes
me, how much american photog's blindly follow the beaten path. Anyone I
assisted shot Nikon F3 or Hasselblad, carried a Temba bag, used Vivitar
283, Dynolites or Speedotrones. Shot the same way, lit the same way, see
the same way. I hate japanese photogs. Every time I see a shot done by
them it's a masterpiece. It's like they have different eyes or brains.
It's amazing. European photogs have life in their pix. But I'm getting
away from the orig. topic.
Thanks again for sharing.
Oleg March
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999
If you ever get involved in camera club competitions, you will find judges
applying various "rules". Here are some examples, but the last two are the
most important:
- Put your main subject of the intersection of thirds (i.e. imagine two
vertical lines one being one third from the left of the frame, the other
one third from the right, and two horizontal lines similarly placed from
top and bottom. Now place your subject at any of the four points where the
lines cross)
- Include some red in the picture
- A diagonal from top left to bottom right is passive (suitable for
static, gentle subjects), a diagonal from bottom left to top right is
dynamic (suitable for moving, aggressive subjects). This assumes that you
read from left to right and top to bottom.
- Always have an odd number of objects
- Have the darkest part of the picture at the bottom (ideally bottom right
hand corner) and the lightest part at the top. Bottom to top ensures that
the picture is naturally weighted, and, assuming that you read from left
to right and top to bottom, a dark area in the bottom right acts as a full
stop, and you tend to start again from the beginning)
- Use light for modelling. The best light is near sunrise and sunset. That
way you get the interest of the colour of light (blue in the morning, red
in the evening), and the light hitting objects obliquely shows up relief
and texture.
- Always have one catchlight in the eye of a subject (you may get two or
more if you use multiple lights, but one is what your brain expects -
there is only one sun) It's easy to get rid of extra catchlights in the
computer.
- Break these rules often
- Take photographs you like
--
geckonia [email protected] wrote
[Ed. note: Bad weather can be good weather for photography!...]
I find rainy and overcast days great for photogrpahy (one of the
"delights" of living in Washington State). Here are a few suggestions:
1. Use a polarizing filter to remove the glare from wet foliage. This
will greatly saturate the colors of the foliage. Overcast and rainy days
are fantastic for working in a forest or alpine meadow. See
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/LT9.html
2. Generally, frame your shots to exclude as much sky as possible.
Most of the time, a cloudy sky will appear completely white with no
detail on film. If you want to include the sky and foreground, try
using a graduated split neutral density filter and cover the sky with
the darkened part of the filter. Or, wait for sunlight to break through
the clouds and illuminate your subject so that it is brighter than the
clouds. This works well in unsettled stormy weather or on partly cloudy
days or when a storm is just arriving or departing. See
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/FF27G.html
3. On the other hand, fog and mist can be used to creat a feeling of
depth in a photo. I like to look for trees and mountains blanketed in
mist. See http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/LT25A.html
4. Rivers and waterfalls make great rain/overcast day photo subjects.
The overall contrast of the scene is greatly reduced as compared to
sunlit days. See http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/LR4A.html
5. Dress for the weather (warm and waterproof) so that you remain
comfortable while you work. You will be more productive when you are
comfortable.
6. Use a tripod of course.
Cheers,
Supernet News wrote:
From: "ULF SJ+GREN" [email protected]
The advices you have got so far are all correct. But a dark "neutral"
background is not so easy to get. You'll often have to "cheat" a
little. In
your camera bag you should have a pice of dark cloth, about 1 meter in
square. Be sure it is not made of a reflective meterial. Velour is good, a
bit heavy maybe. It can be used as a background, draped over a stick or
two.
Be sure to have it out of focus. Don't be ashamed of using such things.
Nature is wonderful but not always adapted for the pictures you want. One
more thing. Avoid flashlight if you don't have at least two-or better-
three
of them to fire simultainiously and know much about how to set lights
(Practice!!). one flash, worst of all attached to the camera, can only be
used for "party pictures" - and even they get horrible......
Good luck
Ulf Sj�gren
Sweden
[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is editor of Shutterbug, a noted photographer
(glamour..) and workshop leader, photobook author...]
Hmmmmm. Wonder if I should dig out my props and shoot the picture of
Dorian Gray in the mirror.
Years ago photographer Wayne F. Collins had an artist paint a dress
onto a mirror. They worked with the model very carefully so it would
all line up, and then she posed nude with her back to the camera with
her on the right and mirror on the left, and in her reflection she is
wearing the painted dress. Cool shot! This was pre digital, though.
Wayne was big with mirrors. He actually built a giant kaleidoscope in
his back yard with plate glass mirrors. It was big enough for a model
to crawl up inside! He got some neat photos with that as well.
Hmmm. Now I'm thinking of all sorts of reflection ideas.
Bob
[Ed. note: another interesting project idea...]
Oh, just reminded myself. The other neat idea he had was to
photograph a model INSIDE a soap bubble. He got a truck tire
and sawed it in half to make a round trough to put the bubble
mixture in, and took a hula hoop and put handles on it to be
the bubble maker. The model was standing on top of a box inside the
truck tire. Two assistants would quickly lift the hula hoop
and the model would be inside a giant soap bubble for a second
or so until it popped. They spent all day doing this for a
couple of days. Man did those assistants have sore backs!!!!
There was a black background behind the model so the colors
of the soap bubble would show up nicely. The shot was used
on a calendar.
Bob
[Ed. note: another example of serendipitous photography
projects...;-)]
Chuck Albertson wrote:
I shove my Classic M6's into my bag quite often. My batteries last,
seemingly, forever. I have a soft release on both which would aggravate
the problem. But I don't have a problem. I simply got into the habit of
taking another photograph before putting the camera away. No matter where
I am, what I'm doing, what is in front of me, if the camera is cocked, I
point it somewhere and take a photograph. It is amazing how many of these
photographs turn out being keepers. Someday I'll publish a book
"Photographs to Prevent a Dead Battery" or "Photographs on the Way To the
Bag", or whatever. It works. It has worked, subconsciously, for many
years.
Jim
From Nikon Manual Focus Mailing List:
Duri Koenz wrote:
Dear Nikon friends
snip
Duri:
I've taught photography at the college level for 11 years, and, IMHO,
this is what I would prescribe.
1) Put all of your equipment away except an FM body, a 35mm lens and an
85mm (or 105mm) lens.
2) Buy 100 36-exposure rolls of Tri-X, HP-5 or the cheapest 400 speed
color negative film you can find.
3) Shoot 1 roll a day until all the film is gone. Use only the one
camera and two lenses. NOTHING MORE.
4) Find someone nearby who will act as a mentor and discuss your work
with you every week or so.
5) When you run out of film, go through all of the photographs you have
made and pick out your ten favorite images.
6) Look at those ten photos for a week, and ask yourself questions. If
you can't come up with any answers that make sense, start again at Step
1, and repeat the process.
(Whatever you do, don't buy any more photo equipment.)
--
From Nikon MF List:
my solution is to use a carry around camera (FE, olympus XA..) so I have
a chance to keep my photo eye learning and seeing as I travel around, and
take photos every day I can. The one camera and one lens is inherent in
this approach. I also have a small travel carry bag for radio, cola drink,
camera/film, sunglasses and hat that works to carry second len or even
third
(24mm, 105mm, 50 mm f/1.4)
the second approach is to buy new gear, but set aside time to test it out
and use it with a preplanned trip. I just paid for several lenses which I
already have plans to shoot at a local lake and zoo trip. So buying
lenses also has the side benefit of making me take time out for
photography...
I also am a fan of the oddball lens trip; take a lens like a 300mm or an
18mm and use it as your only lens on a trip around town or to some place
you can easily return (local civil war cemetary, sculpture garden etc).
Force yourself to learn that lens limits and utility in unusual
circumstances (300mm plus extension tubes..).
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 [email protected]
*
From Nikon Mailing List:
I think it really depends on your style. Someone referred to the National
Geographic and the amount of film their photographers must go through.
Reading the 'National Geographic Field Guide' it's interesting to find out
the varying styles as regards film use. Some of the photographers hardly
take any pictures at all, preferring to wait for the right moment,
carefully choosing their composition and exposure before squeezing off a
couple of frames; others choose something they wish to capture (say a
farmer ploughing his field, for example) and take several rolls of film
just of that scene experimenting with different compositions and
exposures. Neither is a more correct or skilled method, it's just a
different technique favoured by that particular photographer. It's also
interesting to note that the different techniques seem to be dictated by
the photographers preferred camera equipment, the low film burners seem to
favour rangefinders, the high film burners favour SLRs. The results taken
of the same (or similar) scenes by the two different 'kinds' of
photographer are quite interesting as well. The low film burner seems to
capture more atmospheric pictures, the high film burner seems to capture
more action or unusual pictures.
Of course I am generalising hugely and it's all just IMVHO.... ;-)
BTW the person who wondered why you'd buy a manual camera when you can
simply 'turn' your F100/F5 whatever into a manual camera should go and
have a go with an FM2 or equivalent. There is NO comparison between using
an F5 in manual mode and an FM2 other than the word 'manual'
Cheers,
Simon
[Ed. note: what kind of lens fan are you?...]
I don't know about metaphysics and lenses. I do know that you can
divide photographers into two main groups, wide shooters and tele
shooters. Most photographers favor one or the other. It may depend
on the way they see the world. I favor medium telephotos for most of
my work and don't use wide angle as often. When I do shoot wide, I
tend to like to go VERY wide, as with 15 or 16mm. I don't own a 35mm
lens for any of my SLRs because it just isn't really wide to my eye.
28 is just barely beginning to be wide to me.
Bob
...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
[email protected] (NikonJeffery)
wrote:
The following two methods have helped me get a lot better at my
photography:
1. Obsess over composition and light. Like Anders said, get close to
your subject and then consider getting evern closer. This can create
a much more dynamic and dramatic image, almost magically. Also,
really make an attempt to learn how light affects your favorite films.
Try your hardest to learn when to shoot during the day to give your
shots that perfect tonality. These two variables will have the
greatest effect on your picture quality, more so than equipment and
film. A great way to master composition and light is to pick a couple
favorite locales which you can shoot at different times of day, during
different seasons, and with different films.
2. Use a 50mm lens. Once I stopped playing with the consumer zoom
that came with my camera and mounted my 50mm f/1.8, my photographic
mind came alive. I stopped trying to make the images with my
equipment and started making them with my own creativity. Once the
50mm was mounted on my lens, there was no zooming in or changing to a
non-standard focal length for a certain effect. I had to create an
effect by changing composition or waiting for the right light. This
allowed me to gain great insight into how to make pictures look the
way I wanted them to look. My equipment will NEVER be without my
50mm.
--
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
Force yourself to use a tripod most of the time. That will let you
compose and think about the picture your are taking and the technical
aspects of what you are doing. It will also allow you to take sharper
pictures.
Compare your photos to ones that you really like from magazines or books.
Observe what is different and try to figure out how to make yours better.
Go out and shoot some more to try out your conclusions.
Scott Elliot
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Almost all of the above, plus:
*Look through your stack of rejects...not the total losses, but those that
just don't quite grab you.
**...What would have made those shots winners from the photographer's end?
***-Look for repeated mistakes that are of a similar cause.
****Avoid that ONE mistake in your next shoot.
*Now look through your short stack of keepers.
**Look for the things you did that made them winners...
***right them down.
****Choose one aspect to specifically remember on your next shoot.
Then... Repeat this process over the course of future shoots.
Pretty soon, you'll find NEW mistake patterns (sigh), but fewer of the
old. :-)
Part of your skill advancement is becoming more keen to your mistakes, and
avoiding your worse tendencies.
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
I suspect getting a new camera system and learning how to "see" through it
makes anyone's photography a bit more reflective and thoughtful, hence
"magic" pictures. In short, you don't hurry-- and coming from 36 exposure
35 mm cassettes to 12 exposure 120 film slows you down more and makes you
even MORE interested in not wasting a frame.
Same thing happened to me when I got a Minox. It literally "sees the
world" differently and you begin to work within the parameter of the
camera's strong points and shortcomings.
Here's a cheap test:
Buy a disposable (or single use/recyclable) camera with the simplest lens.
No flash -- maybe a "panoramic" disposable ---, and carry that for a
weekend. It will make you work within *ITS* parameters and you'll have to
think what to shoot and what won't work. Your pictures may not be great
but those that come out will be really interesting. You will have had an
exercise in seeing, as opposed to shooting.
I have laid off my Rollei for awhile in favor of the Minox and the new
Cosina/Voigtlander.
I am taking the big boy out this weekend, if it stops snowing, to try
something I've been thinking about for some time now. Let's see if I can
catch a little magic, too.
levy
From Rollei Mailing List;
Jon in Georgia writes:
Heck that's easy: DO NOT join a camera club and learn to take "saloon"
photos as these are formulaic. But you can learn, for example, that a
horizon in the middle of a photo is static whereas placing it in the top
or bottom third makes for a better composition....
After that, here's a couple of ideas:
Look at great photos of the sort that interest you and figure out why it
is that they seem so appealing, or eye-catching?
Take a subject, any subject, put one roll of film you like in your Rollei
and spend one day thinking about and photographing that subject 12 times--
you will see how long thought (and different light during the day) will
affect your work. Take notes time of day etc...
Then print all 12 photos and study them, Have a loved one (wives are
better than girlfriends as they will be more honest) look at the pix and
select their favorite, then tell you why. You might try this on several
people, and if they all gravitate toward one image you will know that
image is communicating something...
Do this exercise a few times and you will see that your eye sharpens and
you know, after awhile, how to position your camera and viewpoint, what
light to seek to get a dramatic or informative or pleasing image.
Learn to kneel down or stand on walls to change viewpoint. Too many of us
shoot the same angle all the time...
I have zillions of Kodachrome slides and sometime this summer (as I did
ten years ago) I have to go through them and cull the crap. What an
amazing exercise that is: Time shows you that images held dear for their
souvenir value do not "say" anything now and what is left after the brutal
culling is a body of work that actually says something photographically.
Maybe that's why Ansel Adams prints changed over time as he discovered
more in the shadows and learned how to make landscapes broodingly powerful
where years earlier the same images were lighter ands more
"calendar"-like.
Levy,
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
My father took a photography class offered through the local college.
One of his assignments was to take a b&w photo of an egg. Too much light
was not good. I think he ended up lighting it a little from the front and
a little more from one side. He used one of his Fs. A similar assignment
was to take an interesting bw photo of a lump of carbonized wood (lumpy
charcoal). Also difficult.
Elizabeth
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002
From: "KAHN, JEREMY H " [email protected]
Subject: RE: Shooting computer screens
I've had some experience doing it on film, if it helps.
I set it in Shutter Priority for 1/15 (It's got to be more than 1/60 'cause
otherwise the screen won't show up, as it refreshes 60 times a second) and
use a neutral color balance.
-Jeremy
From: [email protected] (PLB49)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 22 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Projects for Learning Photography?
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/
Paul B.
From Photography Teachers Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002
From: "David E. Price" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Self assignment lesson plan?
Well, so far I have gotten lists of self assignments, but no info on
why we do them, etc.
So, I wrote something.
Here is what I did, one pag, for our newsletter. If anyone has good
info to add, I will gladly add it, give you credit, and post the
final to our "Files" area.
-------------------------------------------
HOW TO:
Photographic Self Assignments
- A Great Way to Improve Your Photography Skills
by David E. Price
Do you ever find yourself in a photographic rut? You really want to
take some photos, but just don't see scenes or subjects that interest
you? Welcome to the club!
One way to overcome this creative block is to give yourself
photographic focus (pun intended) by doing self assignments. You pick
a subject, technique, or theme that you think will be fun, and take
photos with the assignment in mind.
What are some advantages of self assignments?
They get the creative juices flowing by focusing your energy toward a
specific topic. They force you to concentrate on finding subjects or
scenes that correspond to or compliment your topic. They teach you to
view photographic subjects in new light. And they give you the
opportunity to work on subjects or techniques that you have yet to
master. This is a VERY important benefit from self assignments.
Let's think about an example self assignment that I did a couple of
years ago. I decided to do 'reflections' as a self assignment. My
wife and I were planning a trip to Yosemite in November, so I knew
that I could find some nice autumn foliage reflected in the river in
Yosemite Valley. OK, so I have nice river reflections. Now what?
Well, how else could I interpret 'reflections' in a photographic
sense? Let's see... Mirrors are an obvious variation, and the
Northern California Renaissance Faire offered some nice distorted and
curved mirrors that gave very interesting reflections of the period
costumes. Also, windows or store fronts are easy to think of. But
let's stretch our imaginations a little.
How about symmetrical objects as reflections of shapes? How about
different sized objects with similar shapes as reflections of basic
form? How about shadows as distorted reflections of the physical
world? How about objects with different shapes but the same basic
colors as tonal reflections? How about a portrait of a family member
deep in thought reflecting on happy memories as a creative variation
on our theme?
See where I am going with this? You can interpret your assignment in
different, warped, outlandish, creative ways to get your mind working
in new, challenging photographic directions. Your photography will
suddenly become fresh and exciting to you again!
What if you aren't talented at thinking up self assignments? Where
can you find ideas? (I thought you would never ask!)
There are books and Internet web sites, including college photography
course outlines, that list (self) assignments. There are monthly
photography magazines that list contest subjects that make great self
assignments. (And you may end up with contest entries!) There are
other photographers who may be willing or eager to cooperate on self
assignments as a group learning activity. There are objects or
subjects you have never photographed that will stretch your
abilities. The sources are as varied as your imagination.
What are some good self assignments? Here are a few suggestions.
Subjects:
Children Puddles Fences
Clouds Cars Fruit
Techniques:
Stop Action Rule of Thirds Close-ups
Soft Focus Hyperfocal Distance
Themes:
Curves One Color New
Soft BIG!! Part Of It
Self assignments: Try it, I promise you'll like it!
[Ed. note: interested in discovering the source of the "infinity" sign?]
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where have all the adults gone?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002
[email protected] wrote...
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> > I'm also doing a self assignment of taking a picture of the maple tree in my
> > backyard, once a day, for one full year... This is using a 40 year old C-220
> > and a 65MM lens, using Velvia film... Don't ask for a reason, I'm just
> > doing it....
>
> That could be an interesting project indeed. I've seen one such project's
> end result - the tree was a birch, and I believe it was shot on 35mm
> though.
>
> This was all combined onto a single largish print, sort of like a
> jigsaw puzzle, with all the pieces from different shots ... all the
> seasons happily mixed and the same squirrel in both summer and winter
> colors too, on different branches, at least 7 times in total...
>
> Quite something to look at.
If you are looking at a year long project, take a look here:
http://vrum.chat.ru/Photo/Astro/analema.htm
This is an amazing accomplishment. Very few analema photographs have been
made, let alone at this quality level.
It was done in medium format too.
However, it was taken with a Kiev though so the equipment snobs don't have
to look. :)
Tom
From: "Joseph Meehan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: The easy way to improve your photography
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
One rule. Use the trash can.
Even Adams had photographs he never showed to anyone. Every time you
show someone a photograph that is not your best, but maybe a bad photo of a
cute child, you are showing everyone your photography - bad photography.
Get rid of all but the very best as soon as they are processed. Save
only a couple of photos from that 36 roll and in no time people will think
you have become a much better photographer, and you will have. The other
half is they will not get bored.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
From: [email protected] (Onepercentf)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 25 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: The easy way to improve your photography
Discarding the majority of my photos alone won't improve my photography - but
you are right, people will think me a better photographer. Also I too have
received requests for photos which, left to my own judgement, I would have
thrown out. What really helps is to learn from my mistakes, by looking very
carefully at the duds. Recently I have learnt a lot about composition, depth
of field, etc. - all things I thought I had mastered a long time ago!
regards, David
From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The easy way to improve your photography
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002
I disagree completely. I keep almost everything, something I've learned
from bitter experience. In 1978 my three boxes of "best" slides went up in
flames. Two boxes of "back-ups" were spared and after many years I was able
to digitally improve them to the point where many are on my web page and
several others while not on the web are in my print collection.
There is also the historical aspect of my older pictures. One "reject"
while trying to get a shot of a pigeon ended up being the only shot I ever
took of a building that was torn down in 1968.
And the personal history aspect. By looking through my negative (and
slide - I don't have them mounted which means I can store 80 or more rolls
of slides i the same space where I used to get about 12) pages I can see
what I was up to around the time I took any given shot. The failed shots
tell me as much about what was on my mind as the successes.
I would say that I show others less than 1% of what I shoot, but I keep
pretty close to 100%. The selection process is important for showing. I have
a friend who says: "Wanna see some pictures I just got back?" and hands over
two or three rolls worth of 4x6 double prints. Most people think he's not
much of a photographer. His "success rate" is about the same as mine - but
wading through all those bad shots causes the good to get lost in the
shuffle.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
From: [email protected] (Karl Winkler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The easy way to improve your photography
Date: 25 Aug 2002
...
> you have become a much better photographer, and you will have. The other
> half is they will not get bored.
My uncle, who I consider an outstanding photographer, said it this
way: "the difference between amatuer photographers and the pros is
that the pros discard their bad ones".
The other part of the story, IMO, is that a critical eye needs to be
developed so that you can clearly distinguish between the good and bad
photos. The more you work to discard your "less than" type shots, the
more you can develop this critical eye. Sometimes a "forced"
percentage of discarding can help. One thing I've done at times is to
work towards keeping only 1 of each "pose" or subject. Or, try keeping
only 6 shots from a roll of 36. Really gets you to decide what makes
one photo "better" than the others.
-Karl
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is There A Name For This Style Of Photography?
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002
"Mxsmanic" [email protected] wrote
> Whatever you do, keep the photos. Someday, someone will be thankful that
> you took the time to document such things. This is just the sort of thing
> that historians of the future will adore. Imagine how much more we would
> understand about past history if someone had just been willing and able to
> take a few photos at the right time and place, even if it seemed boring to
> others at the time.
I became interested in this typr of photography after seeing a series of
books called "Images of America." They are paperbacks, and the series is,
essentially, photo essays on various cities and towns throughout America. I
happened to find one for my home town, Perth Amboy, NJ, that was filled with
old b&w photos of all sorts of mundane things, many of which I was
personally familiar with and others that I had never seen, due to their no
longer existing.
It turns out that the bulk of the photos were taken by a local photo studio,
over a period of several decades, and were in the photographer's possession
all that time--unseen by anyone else. Some of the photos were of the most
ordinary subjects--the interior of the local high school gym, train stations
that had long been razed, photos of a ferry that connected Perth Amboy with
Staten Island, NY (and that had discontinued operations in 1964), all sorts
of ordinary things that were no longer in existence. I became fascinated
with those shots.
Apparently, many other people held the same fascination, as the "Images of
America" book series has expanded rapidly over the past few years. The
thought occurred to me that those "ordinary" photographs of those "everyday"
subjects (which were now only memories) would have more sentimental and
historical value than most of the "artsy" photographs that were being
churned out by most photographers.
I then began posting digital snapshots of familiar places in my home town on
my high school alumni web site. The response was incredible! I began
hearing from people that had relocated to various parts of the USA, that had
grown up in my home town, that hadn't been back in decades, and who were
thrilled at being able to see some of the old sites, buildings, and streets
once again. One alumnus logged on from Italy, where he had been living for
over 2 decades. Another alumnus logged on from British Columbia, after
having moved away from New Jersey in the late 1950s. Everyone, without
exception, loved the photos--and, believe me, they were nothing special.
They were only snapshots taken by a 2 megapixel digital camera.
Since then, I have gone on what might be considered some bizarre photo
expeditions. I have taken photos of every house that I ever lived in as a
child. I have taken photos of family cemetery plots, including details on
headstones. I have located photos that I had taken 3 decades ago, of places
that had changed dramatically over the years. I've now gotten to the point
where I try to anticipate what is about to change, and I go out and capture
its image on film while it is still there to be seen.
I have never enjoyed my photo hobby as much as I do now. I try for a very
straightforward style, with as little manipulation of the scene as possible.
The only indulgence I allow myself is to use a polarizer, because I really
do love those nice blue skies. I typically use only a normal lens. I don't
wait for the lighting to be "just right," and I don't go looking for
"interesting angles" when I shoot. As I said in a prior post, my work will
never hang in an art gallery. BUT, they just may be important historical
records in the future.
I don't know why it took so many years for me to develop a personal style of
photography (albeit such an unusual one). Granted, this subject matter may
not be for everyone, but for the first time, I feel that I am doing
something creative that comes from ME, as opposed to my doing a bad
imitation of someone else's work.
Very strange, indeed.
From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is There A Name For This Style Of Photography?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002
"Patrick Draper" [email protected] wrote
> OK, you've inspired me. I have sometimes thought that it would be nteresting
> to take photos as I walk around my neighborhood, in order to be able to
> remember what it looked like 20 years from now. Now, I'm going to have to do
> that for real.
At first, you wonder why you are wasting your film.
Years later, you discover that you have, indeed, stopped time--when you look
at your old photos and realize that many if the mundane things that you shot
are now only memories--and YOU have the only known images of them!
Thirty years ago, when I first bought my Spotmatic II, I walked around town
taking, essentially, test shots of various ordinary places. Now, virtually
all of them has changed or diasppeared. When I show my photos to people
that were familiar with those places, they invariably express how much they
enjoyed seeing those photos.
I probably would have begun this project much earlier, but I was influenced
by the photography magazines and their articles on creating "artsy"
photographs. You know the type of pictures they were referring to--abstract
shapes, "interesting" color combinations, manipulated images through the use
of filters, etc. EVERYTHING BUT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE.
I am not an artist. My efforts at producing "interesting" images have not
been all that good. All those wide-angle and telephoto lenses, with their
accompanying ability to manipulate perspective, have not done much for my
photographic style.
The good ole' normal lens, sharp as a tack, and a tripod and lenshood, are
all the accessories that I need to take the kind of documentary photographs
that people find so fascinating. I could probably publish a book full of
those photos, and I'd bet that it would sell--at least to the locals!
Another interesting subject to photograph is people, as they walk down the
streets or stroll in malls. It is amazing to see how their clothing has
changed over the past 4 or 5 decades.
There are tons of excellent subjects, everywhere in America, for documentary
photographs. Just train yourself to start focusing on those things that are
very familiar--the things that you pass every day and don't even stop to
look at. The old gas pumps that have been at the filling station for the
last 30 years. That weathered old barn. Your house. Your local school or
municipal buildings. All of these things eventually change. You can create
fascinating "before and after" shots, and your efforts may well become
important historical documents.
Buy lots of film. Happy shooting!
From: Dean Van Praotl [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Normal lens
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
[email protected] (Salts2001) apparently said:
> I left all my lenses at home...except for a 50mm f/1.8.
I occasionally do a similar exercise: put a particular
lens on the camera and force myself to shoot an entire
roll of film with that lens. It not only forces you to think
about setting up a particular shot in a way that works
with the lens; you'll soon find yourself seeking shots
that you know will be right for the lens. It's a great
way to get to know a new lens, particularly wide angle
and ultra-wides.
From: "Paul Skelcher" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to shoot a parade?
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002
DJ wrote..
> Any advice would be appreciated.
State, to yourself, in one sentence why you want to shoot the parade. To
photo one person or group, to sell or lease slides or prints, personal
pleasure, whatever.?
Then, who do you want to shoot, what do you want to illustrate, where and
what context are you looking for?
Now you can answer the how.
Find out if anything interesting happens at the beginning and end of the
parade. Walk or drive the route the day before. Think about where ths sun
will be and which side of the road to stand. Position yourself so the
background contributes to the picture, ie flags on Memorial Day, rather than
telephone poles, wires etc.
Use your lens shade, fill flash if shooting against the sun. Are you ready
if it clouds over or rains, faster film, plastic bag for camera. A short
and long zoom will cover everything. The closer to your subject the better,
fill the frame. Use AF a lot for single subject pictures coming toward you.
Switch to MF where the AF sensor will fall on empty distant space between
multiple subjects. Don't be afraid to step out into the middle of the
street as a group comes toward you or when the parade stops for a baton
twirl or somesuch.
If you want photos instead of snaphots, treat the parade as a job
assignment.
From: "David" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to shoot a parade?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
Locally, the big parade is the Miss America parade, which is on the Atlantic
City Boardwalk, and starts at sundown.
Of course, the main assignment is to get the contestants on film. The
paper's photographer used a bracket flash, and he had an assistant 90
degrees from the subject with a radio slave flash on a pole, holding the
flash overhead.
Of course, good subjects are:
pretty girls
emotional signs of respect for military veterans
old people with children
children happily getting candy and toys from floats, or kids with clowns etc
a cool reflection in a shiny tuba's horn
Use your imagination, shoot what inspires you!
Dave
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003
From: Eric Maquiling [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Portrait Work
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> But I'd like suggestions to the more how-to kind of books... Portrait
> Photography for Dummies or something... :-)
http://www.zuga.net
There's explanation about main ligthing, fill lighting, masculine
poses, feminine poses, group poses, sitting poses, standing poses,
poses with women with men, men only, women only, children, camera
height, lens choices.....
--
Eric
From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Dew Drop Photography
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003
Michael J. Bushey [email protected] wrote ...
> In a collectors edition of �Birds and Blooms� magazine, mailed to me
> free of charge, there was in interesting two page exhibit of photos of dew
> drops. The photos show the dew drops reflecting the colors around
> themselves producing some dazzling effects. The photos were taken by Steve
> Terrill of Portland Oregon. Does any one know of this technique?
Well, a simple websearch brought this up:
http://www.yoshidasfineartgallery.com/photo/terrill.html and that led to
http://www.terrillphoto.com/. I did not skim through the sites to see if the
technique was fully explained
But there isn't a whole lot to the technique, it's more a matter of
logistics, how much of a royal pain it is to get in the right conditions. If
you look closely (and you can see this on his ladybug photo on the art
gallery site), you're not seeing reflections, you're seeing magnifications
since the dewdrops are acting as lenses. But their curve is so significant
that they work as a super-wide angle or fisheye lens.
Because of this, what's needed is a good subject *close* behind the
dewdrop, well-lit and able to be framed in the drop properly. And, of
course, a *good* macro setup on the camera, the ability not to disturb the
drop, and so on.
I don't want to make accusations about Steve's photography, and the end
result is excellent, but it would be easier to set up your own conditions
rather than to find them. A simple rig holding a leaf/twig in front of the
lens in an ideal position could be made, then the subject found, and water
(with perhaps some glycerin) added to get the drop the right shape and size
to use. A strobe could be used on the background area to get the dewdrop
image properly lit. You would meter for the background image, and try to
avoid having the flash strike the dewdrops themselves.
You could also create 'dew' with a misting bottle (I do this with
spiderwebs all the time) when the morning conditions aren't right, which can
be very frequently.
Steve is an excellent photographer and his site (again,
http://www.terrillphoto.com/) is well worth a look around.
- Al.
From: "Aurelius Aristotle Finch" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: time lapse photography help
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003
It would also be interesting if you took pictures at different times of
the day, so that the entire project looks as though it were built in the
course of one day, in spite of the seasonal changes. The fist picture
could be taken at 5 am, the second at 5:15, etc. so that they cover dawn
to dusk.
You could do this in addition to your plan stated below.
aaf
"David" [email protected] wrote
> I am starting a project in about 2 weeks that will require a single picture
> every 24 hours (at 3p.m. for example) for six months. It's a construction
> site. The plan is to mount a camera with a good angle on the site, set it,
> shoot and collect the images (digital or 35 mm, I don't care) once per week.
> At that time, I'll change batteries as well. The site is outdoors.
>
> I've never done time lapse photography. I'm looking for advice.
>
> I have a Canon F1 and Canon G2 available, but am willing to buy something
> else that would work. I'd like advice on weather proofing as well -- I'm
> kind of thinking about putting the camera in a weather proof container, but
> with access to it for image removal and maintenance.
>
> Any ideas. From what I've read so far, the interval of 24 hours seems to be
> an issue. I'm wondering if the 35mm solution with an intervalometer
> (suggestions there too please) would be a better solution.
> Thanks for your help.
> David
From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: X-Ray !!!
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002
Chris TM [email protected] wrote
> Hi,
>
> chitin is transparent to infrared light. That's the reason for the title of this
> digital infrared color shot of a grashopper:
>
>
http://photoalbum.powershot.de/fotos/45/58//00e4e8d964dbd87d361ea0d610d8355d.jpg
>
> Canon Powershot G1
> Hoya R72 Infrared Filter
> Two B+W NL4 Close-up Lenses
>
> ... and an IR lamp :-)
>
> I hope you like it ... and the used equipment ;-)
> Greetings from Germany
>
> Chris
THAT, is pretty damn surreal! Nice use of a different technique! I'm
just annoyed I never thought of it, since I've been looking for a different
way to do macro work for a while...
Naturally, I shoot film, with a camera that fogs infrared film with the
sprocket-counter. Could be a real chore to produce anything similar.
Cool, cool shot. Sell it to somebody, especially a photo-technique
magazine. And keep experimenting!
- Al.
-
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: cantos Re: 8x10???
Date: 7 Apr 2003
yes, that is a good point. One useful thing to do is to analysize one's
own "bad" photos for trends. I have done so in the past, esp. with some
batches of 35mm and MF slides. Sometimes there is a technical problem that
crops up (bad light trap in a MF back) that is easily fixed once detected.
A flash unit may be over a stop "optimistic" in its ratings and need to be
downrated. The compositional problems are more problematic; sometimes they
are necessary compromises due to lack of time to return to the site or get
there at optimal (sunrise/sunset) times. The differences between a
documentary or site recorded shot and a great photo can be subtle ;-)
You take some shots, knowing you are taking some risks, but if you don't
play, you can't win. I think this sort of experimentation and risk taking
with shots is an integral part of expanding as a photographer. So 100%
keepers or a similar high rate may be an indication of too little risk
taking or experimentation too ;-)
Cantos:
Recently, I have been taking what I consider to be "tree portraits" of
some gnarly old trees with broken limbs around a local lake I walkabout.
The idea that this is a portrait of the tree, rather than a nature shot of
trees, has changed my approach to these subjects. Like a human portrait, I
am also doing more focusing on parts of the subject (cf. gnarly hands ;-).
In an odd way, my efforts to combine portraiture with landscape is a
result of trying to figure out, from some photos, what I was trying to
capture in a surprisingly large number of shots. In similar ways, I have
found a series of other projects coming out of my photowork, including a
study of reflections in architecture and so on.
Misrach calls his series of projects "cantos", having started out with the
four elements in his early work (air, water, fire, earth(works) - air was
the shuttle landing in the desert, water was a flooded area of desert
etc.).
These "cantos" are open ended projects, again something I like as I often
return, as with the seasons, to a past project and interest and extend or
rework it. Part of the trick is to recognize, from your own photos, a new
area of interest or approach or attitude, which then gets strengthened by
being recognized and developed. You can also identify areas you would like
to explore (e.g., low light work, macrophotography, crystal photography)
but which mandate some specialized equipment.
So I think that one should have a reasonable number of "bad" shots from
experimentation, and some shots on the chance that you will get lucky
(e.g., birds taking flight), but should have minimized the losses from
technical issues thru an on-going awareness of what is causing problems.
But each type of photography (35mm, MF, LF..) seems to have a different
keeper ratio, though the number of great shots per day of photographing
seems to be remarkably constant in each case, though the nature of those
shots (e.g., action for 35mm) may differ significantly. This suggests to
me that it may be the photographer's vision or photo opportunities rather
than the number of photos shot which is controlling the keeper ratio? ;-)
regards bobm
From: "Jeff Novick" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10???
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003
Bob,
That's certainly a low percentage of keepers that Misrach claims. I would
guess in his case it is not a matter of exposure being good or not but
whether the subject matter conveys what he is trying to express. It would be
an interesting study to analyze what it is that makes a photographer press
the shutter and why the image is rejected more time than not. Photographing
people is different, where expression and movement play a very important
role. But, shooting landscapes, architecture, and, other 'static' scenes,
you would think barring exposure problems, that photographers would know
before they shot what they were getting and could reject a shot before they
pressed the shutter.
Jeff
"Bob Monaghan" [email protected] wrote
>
> Richard Misrach, an 8x10" (nearly exclusively) shooter and now producing
> 4x5' (that's feet, not inches) and larger prints for modern art museums
> and clients, at a recent local lecture ( http://www.mamfw.org/educ.html)
> noted that he felt bad about only getting 1 or 2 keepers out of every 100
> exposures (8x10") until he had the chance to review some of Gary
> Winograd's work, who had roughly the same percentage of keepers. This was
> delivered as a straight answer in the group Q&A after his lecture and
> slide show to a large audience. I thought he had to be kidding, given GW
> was shooting 35mm action and street shots, and Misrach is shooting mostly
> landscapes and cloud patterns? My general impression is that most LF
> shooters seem to edit before shooting to the point where they get at least
> a third or better keepers - esp. at current film and processing prices,
> not to mention the effort of carrying an 8x10" around the desert etc. ;-)
>
> bobm
From: Le Grande Raoul [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10???
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003
My general impression is that most LF
> shooters seem to edit before shooting to the point where they get at least
> a third or better keepers - esp. at current film and processing prices,
> not to mention the effort of carrying an 8x10" around the desert etc. ;-)
For me it's not so much the price of materials (I don't do 8x10 color)
but rather the expense of time. I spend much more time with my 8x10
shots. There is so much stuff to carry every where- sometimes I'd like
to hire a porter to carry all the stuff. Let's say, to keep it light, a
fella carries three holders. That's 6 pictures. Probably wouldn't
carry two film boxes (exposed and unexposed) and a changing bag because
of the weight. If you're gonna carry all that crap, may as well carry
another three holders.
So, if you're not really sure of an exposures (or want to try two
different developments for one scene) that's three setups. Two shots
each setup. At least for me, that's between two and three hours of
work. For changing light situations- deserts, whatever- that's one
'light session' and I'm done for the day. I'm much more careful with
my 8x10 stuff.
Now, today, I don't use my 8x10 too much- I'm using a Hassy. But, for
one year, I used nothing but 8x10 and, as a matter of fact, owned
nothing but an 8x10 and a couple of lenses (240 and 375). I learned
more in that year than in all the years past. (I'm middle aged and have
been making photos since I was a teenager) In that year, I took about
200 photos. Of those 200 photos, there are about 30 I really like and
about 30 that are just OK. So, I guess you could say that I was
successful on 60 out of 200 photos. Or about 30%. That's batting
.300. If I was a ballplayer, I'd be paid a million bux for that year.
However, to *me* as a photographer, that year was worth about a million
bux to me because of what I learned about photography.
Can't say that I would recommend the process to someone else but it
worked for me.
Jeff
From: Andrew Yee [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: NASA scientist paints with ice and light (Forwarded)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003
NASA SCIENTIST PAINTS WITH ICE AND LIGHT
NASA invites you to explore the frozen vision, or "Frizion," of Dr.
Peter Wasilewski, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Md. His striking, often hauntingly beautiful
photographs of polarized light through ice crystals will be on display
at the Goddard Visitor Center beginning May 17. The free exhibit will be
open through July.
Although grounded in science, the endeavor is purely artistic. "I choose
photographs that evoke an image or theme, and I'm very interested in how
others react to those images. Like all abstract art, there can be
various interpretations," said Wasilewski.
Wasilewski uses "only ice, the laws of physics, and attitude" to create
his colorful images. "Many are purely fortuitous. The couple dozen on
display at the Goddard Visitor Center came from about a thousand photos,
which I guess is almost the same ratio for a professional photographer,"
adds Wasilewski with a grin.
Each piece begins as a vessel of water, which is then frozen,
manipulated, and viewed through polarized light. Light has wave-like
properties, one of which is vibration. Ordinary white light vibrates in
many directions, but a polarizing filter blocks all light except that
which is vibrating in a single direction. To make a "Frizion"
photograph, a polarizing filter is placed on a light table to polarize
the light passing through. A petri dish with a thin layer of water in
the process of freezing is placed over the filter. As the polarized
light passes through the forming ice crystals, it is subjected to
birefringence, where the refraction (bending) of light in two slightly
different directions forms two different rays of light. The color
palette in the images is created by rotating a second polarizing filter
placed over the ice to intercept the emerging light rays.
"A 'Frizion' photograph can be thought of as a painting of polarized
light on a canvas of ice," said Wasilewski.
Wasilewski traces his interest in ice photography to his friend, Dr.
Tony Gow, formerly of the U.S. Army's Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, now retired. "Tony Gow spent 45 years studying
ice, and is a world-class expert. He was fascinated by how much he could
learn just from the shapes and colors in ice. His enthusiasm was
infectious, and I became fascinated as well," said Wasilewski.
The inspiration for "Frizion" photographs happened in 2001, when
Wasilewski and Gow created a winter camp for science teachers on Lake
Placid, N.Y., supported by Goddard's education program. "We were taking
core samples of the frozen lake surface and examining their crystal
structure. One end of the lake had a layer of organic debris on the
bottom that emitted methane gas bubbles as it decayed. The bubbles were
frozen in the ice, and when we examined this ice, we noticed that the
structure and color of the crystals were completely different from
ordinary ice. I realized that color and form could change depending on
the thickness and orientation of the ice. I started playing around,
making ice crystals in my refrigerator and photographing them, and
'Frizion' was born," said Wasilewski.
To see a sample of Frizion photography, refer to:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0508ice_photo.html
For directions to the Goddard Visitor Center, refer to:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/vc/directions_t.html
For more about Goddard's exhibits, refer to:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/vc/exhibits_t.shtml
[Ed. note: now here's an unusual use of photography ;-) ]
From: George Kenney [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 5/8/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT: Was Hasselblad Ghost Hunt
Sorry, can't help it, I'm interested in this.
Here's one more link, to show that you can be a professional, a photographer, well known, and legitimately make money with photographs of ghosts (Bio first with institutional link then link to his site):
University of Wales
Address: School of Art, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Buarth Mawr, Aberystwyth SY23 1NE
Web: http://www.aber.ac.uk/art/
Researcher: Dr. Christopher Webster
Areas: Paranormal photography (especially the relationship between the crisis in belief and
spirit photographs in the nineteenth century); Photography as a tool for recording the paranormal;
Mixed media art practice work incorporating automatism in its use of text and drawing combined
with photographic montage
(N.B. Dr. Webster's art is exhibited widely in galleries and exhibitions around the world).
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cpw/open.html
From: [email protected] (Phred)
Newsgroups: aus.photo,aus.science
Subject: Re: Lightning Trigger
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003
Bruce Murphy [email protected] wrote:
>" Miro" [email protected] writes:
>
>> The electricity flows from the ground up till the cloud is neutral with the
>> surrounding region.
>
>Care to explain how it is that clouds can only form one polarity of
>charge, or would you like to retract some of those words?
Stolen from http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env016.htm
quoting
Lightning is a fascinating phenomonon, one not totally understood by
scientists. What HAPPENS during the initiation of a lightning stroke
is fairly well recognized, and, thanks to high speed cameras, has even
been caught on film several times. Lightning is responsible for more
deaths each year (approx 200 in the U.S. annually) than either
tornadoes or hurricanes. Many people are not aware of the hazard that
lightning presents when they are outdoors in a thunderstorm.
You are correct in your presumption that there [are] strokes that
originate from the ground in the direction of the cloud, as well as
strokes that originate within the clouds.
What is not totally understood is how the charge separates within the
cloud, that leads to the electric field differential that triggers the
formation of the conductivity channels within the atmosphere.
Here are some excellent websites that explain how lightning forms.
Some are pretty basic, and a couple are more advanced. You might check
these out. Basic...
http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/Portland/kidtopics.html
http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/primer2.html
more detailed...
http://www.howstuffworks.com/lightning.htm
Wendell Bechtold, Meteorologist
Forecaster, National Weather Service
Weather Forecast Office, St. Louis, MO
quoting
Hope this helps. ;-)
Cheers, Phred.
From: Henry Posner [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 6/5/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Andreas . . .
you wrote:
>As Andreas Finneger (sp?) once said, "We are more concerned about the beauty
>of our photographs than about the beauty of our equipment."
It's Andreas Feininger, a wonderful photographer and author who also once
said, "If your friends don't like your photos, get new friends."
-- -
regards,
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: "Nandakumar Sankaran" [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Garden Photography
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003
Hi,
I've started a new Yahoo! group on garden photography -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GardenPhotography/. My goal for this group is
to discuss any topic that relates to garden photography. Topics include but
are not limited to photographic techniques, equipment, sharing/critiques of
images, garden design from the photographer's perspective, photogenic
gardens, business side of photography and plant selection/identification.
Nandakumar
http://crookedtrunk.com/
From: Stein [[email protected]]
Sent: Fri 1/23/2004
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Happy stories. Long stories. Get up and go before we start.
Dear Nephew Vick and Nephew Tim,
Firstly, thank you for the news update from Kodak.
I used to be surprised by Kodak, and I was younger then and it was
harder to surprise me. Then I bought a very good book with a complete
biography of George Eastman. Then I watched Kodak advertisements in the
1980's. Then I tried to visit the local Kodak warehouse to ask for technical
information. Then I rang Melbourne to see if I could get bulk film. Then my
surprise tank ran dry and has never been refilled.
Thus I daily expect Rochester to either explode, implode, or be declared
the New Jerusalem, and I shall greet whichever change occurs with
equanimity.
But on to the good news - first congratulations to Nephew Tim who has
stepped up to the Hasselblad system and from the sounds of his posting knows
what he is doing. I daresay the very versatility of the equipment may
suggest new fields of endeavour for him. I found I was immensely inspired by
the Nordin compendium and a number of the HB publications - not to mention
the fact that the local pro shop had a few bits of older accessories out in
the bargain bin. I bought them and sat there looking at them until
inspiration struck and I had a new subject to pursue. Note I still have not
used the bellows and the slide copier to real advantage but one day....Get
out there Nephew and snap up those bargains.
The next story concerns HB and digital. No, no, don't press the delete
button - this is a happy tale.
I hold a mini-class for my friends at my little studio to help them get
better with their cameras. This sounds like a bigger deal than it really is
but we have a good time and there is food and drink and gossip as well as
the instruction - and the teacher learns as much some days as the pupils....
Kevin has a Canon 10-D and a couple of zoom lenses. He purchased them in
the hopes of changing his job from a bank clerk to that of a Phamous
Photographer. I approve entirely of this ambition, though he seems to be
reluctant at present to don a flak jacket and attract machine gun bullets or
self publish a 300lb. fashion book. I keep telling him to take a little out
of every account he handles and put it towards his own studio and I think
this will prove successful.
Kevin brings himself, a friend, and a model to the studio every month
and I show him a new lighting idea. We've covered classic 45degree 3-light,
Paramount Loop, Butterfly, and just recently Hurrell spotlighting. Kevin
learns quickly, and the models he brings have been good at their job. But
Kevin and his friend have the digital disease somethin' chronic. Their first
session shot off 120 images and it was only my insistence on a slowing for
the sake of the studio monoblocs that prevented more. Subsequent sessions
were a little less prolific but not by much. Some images were saved but very
few images were printed. There was a general air of " I'll fix it later in
Photoplop ".
At our last session on Wednesday all this stopped. I ordered Kevin to
bring a roll of 50 one-dollar coins with him. Mystified, he did, and arrived
with his cutomary friend and model. I got the models set, explained the
lights, showed their effect, and then whipped it out.
The Murphy glass.
It is a beer glass with a reinforced bottom and thick sides for those
times when you really want a drink but may find it necessary to use it as a
club. Came with a carton of Murphy ale.
I told Kevin that his model's time was worth something, as was mine, and
his friend's, and he himself. He was burning up a client's money each time
he pressed the shutter button and the end result had to be worth more than
the input money or the firm would go broke and he would be ejected into the
street. The cost of each press of the shutter button was $1.00. He could
have one free press with a McBeth panel in the lighting and everything after
that cost money. Flash meter pops were also free.
Whoo, Boy, did that improve the concentration. Each shot was metered,
scrutinised, and analysed. Things were planned and rejected on the floor
rather than later in the computer - thinking was going on. Every pop of the
shutter I dropped a dollar into the Murphy glass and the model giggled. The
sound of the money hitting the bottom of the glass did more than any speech
I could make about care and excellence. One shot he forgot to re-connect the
synch cord - the sound of the money in the dark went on just the
same....Howls of anguish, and that was the last time he failed to reconnect
the cord.
In the end, 32 coins were in the glass for 4 hours work, and I think
they had about 24 images that were worth keeping and printing. Kevin took it
all in good part and I have put the money to good use at the local bottle
shop.
Next lesson is soft focus. I wonder what sound a $5.00 bill makes in a
bucket?
Uncle Dick
How To Make Great Photos (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
Kodak Top Ten Tips for Better Photos [12/2003]
Photo Projects Pages (thanks to Altaf Shaikh for link!) [2/2001]
Photographers Shooting Log (MSWORD .DOC)
Selecting a Subject [thanks to Ken Rockwell for link! 9/2002]
Texas Towns Project [12/2003]
Tips on Photography (Dean Jones) [11/2002]
''Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of
enthusiasm.'' - Sir Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Tips for shooting at an Airshow
Date: 24 Jul 1998
Doug
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Classic Car Photography
Date: 2 Aug 1998
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998
From: g g [email protected]
Subject: Lessons to learn from
From: Bob Buckles [email protected]
[1] Re: Hot Air Balloon?? Any tips
Date: Fri Sep 18 1998
From: "Frank Allen" [email protected]
[1] Documenting a town
Date: Sun Sep 20 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: How to photograpgh fireworks?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998
>Hi. Is there any particular technique to photograpgh fireworks?
>Any special filters that can be used to improve the photograpghs?
>They all appeared as reddish in my photos although there were many
>colours in those fireworks.
>Why is it so?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: need help with son's art project: alternative processing, color
copies, and lighter fluid
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
Subject: 10 BIG mistakes
From: Oleg March [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: 10 BIG mistakes
From: "Simon Meeds" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject:
Re: It Ain't What You Got -- It's How You Use It.
Simon Meeds
---------------------
Please visit my Web site at http://www.insales1.demon.co.uk
> OK,
>
> So how does one learn to see "photographically"? I have been pondering
> this question in my own mind recently. I thought about going to the
> library and looking at famous photographer's pictures but didn't like
> the thought of stealing their ideas. In art school we studied painters,
> not photographers, so I feel unsophisticated in this arena. I have taken
> classes in composition, but still tend to "bull's-eye" everything. I saw
> a show recently on the "golden rectangle" and have been using it to crop
> my photos after downloading them. Maybe I should fit acetate on my lcd
> with the golden rectangle drawn on it? Hummm....
>
> geckonia
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: Brad Mitchell [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to "in rainly and cloudy day"
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/FF8B.html and
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/FN10E.html
Brad Mitchell
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/Photo.html
> Hi,
> I want to know how to take better and colourful pictures under a rainly or
> cloudy day.
> Any easy, not expensive equirement?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Tips for taking webs ?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
>I'd really apprecaite any tips for taking spiders' webs in the forest.
>My attempts so far have been embarrassingly unsuccesful. I can't seem to
>get the angle of the light or the flash intensity right so the threads
>are either lost against the background or washed out.
>Grateful for any help.
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax Challenge 2000 #4
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax Challenge 2000 #4
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] RE: Suggestion for Second body
>John,
>
>The problem I've experienced with the (classic) M6 meter is that when you
>shove it into a vertical compartment in a camera bag (which is generally how
>I carry it) with the meter on, you inevitably wind up with a dead
>battery---the shutter release ends up leaning against the side of the
>compartment, and the constant pressure on it prevents the metering circuit
>from shutting down. The only safeguard against this is to set the shutter
>speed to B, or store it with the shutter uncocked. Neither is very
>convenient
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000
From: Jerry Anderson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Investment dilemma
> I am really in a dilemma and need your help. I am in the lucky situation
> that I would be able to spend ~$1000 more in photography as my hobby.
Jerry Anderson
University of Mary
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: carry around camera vs. lensaholics
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Taking great loads of film to Yosemite or anywhere
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] angles
From: Ryan Shaner [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Tip On Becoming A Better Photographer?
>When meeting different photographers I always learn from their tips. Could you
>list your two tips to becoming a better photographer? (Besides shoot a lot of
>film)
>It's all how you look at the world!
>NikonJeffery
Ryan Shaner
E-mail: [email protected]
From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Tip On Becoming A Better Photographer?
http://mypage.direct.ca/s/selliot
From: "Mark Morgan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Tip On Becoming A Better Photographer?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: "Michael B. Levy" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Finding the magic
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: Michael Levy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Imagination for sale was Cassandra and Bill
> It is hard for me, being results-driven, to
> come up with something moving and ethereal (although,
> like the hypothetical monkeys, I crank out enough film
> to get lucky once in a while). Anybody got some
> imagination to sell? It would make a great accessory.
(Obviously have too much time on my hands)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001
From: Elizabeth Young [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Sculpture photography with an FM2n
From: "Paul Skelcher" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Photographing spider webs
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001
Alan Justice wrote...
> When photographing a web (with or without its creator), how does one
> calculate exposure? It seems that the web itself would contribute very
> little light to a matrix meter reading, ...
You need to be up at the crack of dawn for web photos.
Webs are most easily visible with a rising sun behind them, the wind is
negligible, dew on the webs till the sun burns it off, and spiders are
asleep and dew covered too.
Crouch down and scan the field for webs before you blunder through a perfect
specimen. Choose a web with a background that's non distracting and far
enough to be out of focus, or in the shade and dark. Trim or bend blades
of grass or twigs out of the way especially those reflecting a highlight.
Tripod level with or lower than the web, 200macro to narrow the angle of
background and to keep far enough away from the web that you don't destroy
it.
Manual exposure with a grey card or midtone vegetation in the same light.
Try slight under exposure and bounce some fill with a foil reflector
(crumpled aluminum foil glued to 8x10 stiff card) , especially to pick out a
spider. Photo with sun behind web for silhouette. Look for the orb of red
rising sun as a backdrop. Try a 8x10 matte black card as a background.
Plant mister for added dew. Plenty of room for experiment.
Nighttime web photography is a different story and backlighting with
off-camera flash gives the best results.
Paul
From: [email protected] (Eric Cohen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Projects for Learning Photography?
Date: 22 Feb 2002
Greetings,
I have just gotten interested in photography and have been reading and
practicing. I found a site that recommended some projects to develop
basic skills and I found that very helpful. Eg, this site
(http://www.scphoto.com/html/project.html) suggested some specific
activities to practice to develop skills in composition or to
understand lighting.
Can anyone recommend other sites or books that suggest
projects/homework for people learning photography? Any and all help
would be most appreciated!
Eric Cohen