ola.b
Established
Jeicob
Amateur
A photograph without an intended audience is nothing more than pure masturbation
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Jeicob, then you are going to spend your life chasing trends. Unless your goal is commercial photography, you have to do the work - your own work - and let viewers make up their mind. If you are not passionate and interested in what you are shooting, why shoot it? That's just playing with cameras.
Jeicob
Amateur
Only if I wanted to please the audience on their own terms!
Having an audience in the equation don't prevent me from being passionate and interested in the things I like to 'communicate' about.
It's the photographs without an intended audience that's just playing with cameras in IMHO
Please note that I'm not saying that playing around is not useful in order to become a better photographer!
Having an audience in the equation don't prevent me from being passionate and interested in the things I like to 'communicate' about.
It's the photographs without an intended audience that's just playing with cameras in IMHO
Please note that I'm not saying that playing around is not useful in order to become a better photographer!
Damaso
Photojournalist
Those are two fairly different cameras capable of different things. To be honest the equipment is secondary. You need to commit yourself to becoming a better photographer by either working diligently on your own or by taking a class, working with a mentor (there are many fine photographers on this site including myself who work with students) or taking a class.
Photography is like any other craft, you need to learn a certain amount in order to excel at it. I think we've all since the photos posted by members of this forum who have access to great equipment but take horrid photos. I've spent fifteen years studying and refining my photograph technique in a active way and I feel like that hard work has paid off.
If you want to get better you have to work at it, simple as that
Photography is like any other craft, you need to learn a certain amount in order to excel at it. I think we've all since the photos posted by members of this forum who have access to great equipment but take horrid photos. I've spent fifteen years studying and refining my photograph technique in a active way and I feel like that hard work has paid off.
If you want to get better you have to work at it, simple as that
johne
Well-known
Accept the fact that some people have talent and love to use it; others, like me, work at it.
johne
johne
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, talent is nice, but it still takes work. Winogrand had talent, but he still shot a couple of million photos. There's really no shortcut.
wgerrard
Veteran
A photograph without an intended audience is nothing more than pure masturbation
You don't look at your own photos, then?
I take pictures to please myself. I hope they please others, but I am Customer Number One.
Jeicob
Amateur
Oh so admit Well me too
We could file it under 'a pretty well defined audience'
But in order to get a better photographer myself, I really feel that I have to add this particular element to my pictures.
Well me too We could file it under 'a pretty well defined audience'
But in order to get a better photographer myself, I really feel that I have to add this particular element to my pictures.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
While it's true that a true photographic artist (I decline to use the term "pro") can use almost any tool with adequate results, it's equally true that those skilled in photography also have their preference for tools; such preferences are important enough that such persons make emotional investments in certain types, brands and formats that stick with them throughout their photographic career.
So I don't buy the bullsh*t about "the camera isn't important". Heck yea it's important! It's just not the end-all to your photographic choices, but rather the mere start of a lifetime of choices pertaining to photography.
In my mind moving to a place of increased skill in photography (what you describe as "better") requires that you learn control. Control of the tools. The tools being the camera and its associated peripheral equipment (filters, flash, etc.) and also what happens in the "development" and "printing" stages, be it film-based or silicon-based. In this respect, if you find that you lack the type of image control with the LX-3 that you desire, then it become logical to assume that it will eventually (maybe not today) become a hindrance to further growth. So you will eventually need to grow into a tool that offers increased control of the parameters of photography. The M6 you mentioned earlier could easily be that tool.
As could the GF1/20@1.7 combination. The reality is that, regardless of our fond retro-tech feelings for film cameras on RFF, you are eventually going to have to become skilled with the capture and processing of image files digitally, as that is the future. The GF1 is a good tool for learning these skills. It's JPEG output, for instance, is considered by many to be sub-standard to the E-P1 by Olympus, so you'll essentially be forced to learn RAW processing, whose results can be very good. The camera is compact and light (certainly lighter than an all-metal M6 with accompanying Leica or Zeiss lens) and the one focal length of the 20/1.7 will offer you the opportunity to learn to see with just that angle of view.
If it were me, I'd get the G1 instead of the GF1; but I say that as a biased person, currently owning the G1 and 20/1,7; the EVF on the G1 I believe will serve you much better as a tool for viewfinding the scene than the less adequate externally attached accessory EVF for the GF1.
One more comment about film photography with manually controlled cameras is that they can teach you a lot about the essentials of photography. I think you could get into a film-based camera besides the GF-1 for lots less than a Leica M6 and be more than satisfied, and still have a great opportunity to learn. I'm thinking about a fixed-lens rangefinder, to be had much less expensively then a Leica; or even a compact film SLR like an Olympus, and use both simultaneously.
Good luck, and whatever you do, don't lose your passion for creating images.
~Joe
So I don't buy the bullsh*t about "the camera isn't important". Heck yea it's important! It's just not the end-all to your photographic choices, but rather the mere start of a lifetime of choices pertaining to photography.
In my mind moving to a place of increased skill in photography (what you describe as "better") requires that you learn control. Control of the tools. The tools being the camera and its associated peripheral equipment (filters, flash, etc.) and also what happens in the "development" and "printing" stages, be it film-based or silicon-based. In this respect, if you find that you lack the type of image control with the LX-3 that you desire, then it become logical to assume that it will eventually (maybe not today) become a hindrance to further growth. So you will eventually need to grow into a tool that offers increased control of the parameters of photography. The M6 you mentioned earlier could easily be that tool.
As could the GF1/20@1.7 combination. The reality is that, regardless of our fond retro-tech feelings for film cameras on RFF, you are eventually going to have to become skilled with the capture and processing of image files digitally, as that is the future. The GF1 is a good tool for learning these skills. It's JPEG output, for instance, is considered by many to be sub-standard to the E-P1 by Olympus, so you'll essentially be forced to learn RAW processing, whose results can be very good. The camera is compact and light (certainly lighter than an all-metal M6 with accompanying Leica or Zeiss lens) and the one focal length of the 20/1.7 will offer you the opportunity to learn to see with just that angle of view.
If it were me, I'd get the G1 instead of the GF1; but I say that as a biased person, currently owning the G1 and 20/1,7; the EVF on the G1 I believe will serve you much better as a tool for viewfinding the scene than the less adequate externally attached accessory EVF for the GF1.
One more comment about film photography with manually controlled cameras is that they can teach you a lot about the essentials of photography. I think you could get into a film-based camera besides the GF-1 for lots less than a Leica M6 and be more than satisfied, and still have a great opportunity to learn. I'm thinking about a fixed-lens rangefinder, to be had much less expensively then a Leica; or even a compact film SLR like an Olympus, and use both simultaneously.
Good luck, and whatever you do, don't lose your passion for creating images.
~Joe
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Totally agree with Pickett and wgerrard: the photographer and the audience are the same: just yourself.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Whatever gear you use, you have to shoot enough that the technical aspects of photography become internalized, so you don't have to think about them. And then you have to shoot regularly, so that the next time you pick up the camera it isn't foreign to you again. Once again, if you want to improve and especially if you want to excel, you have to work at it. Consistently. Over time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Just the tiniest of disagreements: after you've used a camera for long enough, 'regularly' doesn't need to be all that often. With something like my Ms (35 years) it's completely internalized, but with (for example) my Linhof Technikardan (20 years, but not used much any more) it comes back in minutes -- and as each shot takes several minutes, this doesn't slow me down much...
Cheers,
R.
peripatetic
Well-known
There is no magic bullet but...
20 years of film SLR and a glass ceiling that I was never able to break through with film and minilab processing.
Stage one of my revival was my first DSLR 15,000 shots 12 months later and I was doing okay.
The next stage was to mainly use a fixed normal lens for 95% of my shooting for the next 36 months - maybe 5,000 frames a year.
Stage three was a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder and 50mm f2 Planar and Coolscan V. Shooting C41 BW and scanning. I now shoot film/digital about evenly in terms of days out with the camera. With digital I will of course shoot more throwaway frames than with film. But the rangefinder suits me perfectly and most of my best shots in the last 2 years have been with the rangefinder. And of course the number of frames is now way way down. Maybe 50 rolls of 36 and a couple of thousand frames of digital in a year.
Stage four has been to start using a wide angle lens occasionally and even a zoom lens on my Canon 5DMk II, but unlike before I now look at the scene, think about what I want to do and choose a focal length then shoot. Zooming with the camera to your eye is very dangerous unless you are 100% confident in your abilities.
Next I don't know. I like digital and I like rangefinders. The obvious choice is an M9, but my 5DMkII and Zeiss Ikon are a pretty good combo too. My photography is not limited by the technical quality available from my cameras at this time.
What will be the right journey for you? I can't say. I think a GF-1 + 20mm would have been okay for me too. A Leica/ZI/Bessa would not have been enough to get me through those first 25,000 frames that I needed to find my feet. But after those first shots I could now survive fairly well just with a film rangefinder and a decent scanner.
20 years of film SLR and a glass ceiling that I was never able to break through with film and minilab processing.
Stage one of my revival was my first DSLR 15,000 shots 12 months later and I was doing okay.
The next stage was to mainly use a fixed normal lens for 95% of my shooting for the next 36 months - maybe 5,000 frames a year.
Stage three was a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder and 50mm f2 Planar and Coolscan V. Shooting C41 BW and scanning. I now shoot film/digital about evenly in terms of days out with the camera. With digital I will of course shoot more throwaway frames than with film. But the rangefinder suits me perfectly and most of my best shots in the last 2 years have been with the rangefinder. And of course the number of frames is now way way down. Maybe 50 rolls of 36 and a couple of thousand frames of digital in a year.
Stage four has been to start using a wide angle lens occasionally and even a zoom lens on my Canon 5DMk II, but unlike before I now look at the scene, think about what I want to do and choose a focal length then shoot. Zooming with the camera to your eye is very dangerous unless you are 100% confident in your abilities.
Next I don't know. I like digital and I like rangefinders. The obvious choice is an M9, but my 5DMkII and Zeiss Ikon are a pretty good combo too. My photography is not limited by the technical quality available from my cameras at this time.
What will be the right journey for you? I can't say. I think a GF-1 + 20mm would have been okay for me too. A Leica/ZI/Bessa would not have been enough to get me through those first 25,000 frames that I needed to find my feet. But after those first shots I could now survive fairly well just with a film rangefinder and a decent scanner.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Very sorry about that. I'm usually very careful about such things. I could have sworn someone above had referred to your gender but, i don't see it now.... Apologies.
***
Back to matter, though: Someone here said to 'take the kinds of pictures you like to look at.'
That's probably how i began. I found Richard Avedon and Irving Penn. And since then, everything has been toward making pictures that captivated me to the same degree. The objective can't really be reached, but the need doesn't seem to ever end.
FS Vontz
Aspirer
Been there mate - I couldn't even be bothered carrying a D40. I went through a few rangefinders(Olympus 35RC, Zorki 4k, Olympus 35RD), didn't really like any of them. At the minute I'm using a Petri GX-1, it's light and to the point.
I would recommend using a prime for a while. I've found myself wandering around my subject, going closer, standing back kneeling down and even leaving without tripping the shutter because I felt it wasn't interesting enough. Get something light, stick a prime on it and away you go.
I would recommend using a prime for a while. I've found myself wandering around my subject, going closer, standing back kneeling down and even leaving without tripping the shutter because I felt it wasn't interesting enough. Get something light, stick a prime on it and away you go.
ola.b
Established
No worries, not in the slightest bit offended
That sounds like a reasonable way to start. Hopefully my growing catalog of inspiring photographs will help me define, and refine my taste a bit.
...
As for a general update on my... errr.. problem/challenge:
I´ve sold the 30D.
And I´m pretty sure I want a film camera to work with. The limited amount of shots available will hopefully force me to look at subject, light, angles and evaluate it before I snap the shutter.
Now to decide what focal length I should get. For me it´s either 35mm or 50mm, but I´m having trouble deciding. :S
Also went to the library and rented a few books by different photographers. black and white by Robert Frank, William Eggleston´s Guide and some book called "hot rod" (forgot the photog.) because I like cars..
sture
Member
Some thoughts of a young, not that experienced photographer:
I think shooting much, reviewing its own work and looking at different photographs as already pointed out is important. I would like to add one thing: I realized that getting some theoretical input at the same time is a good way to improve my photographic skills and to broad my mind. Following these four approaches i'm currently trying to find my own way of taking photographs.
I'm also feeling uncomfortable with my current equipment (being honest i never felt comfortable with any of my gear since i started to take photographs) and i don't know if street photography will be my first choice of taking photographs in the future. But i think feeling confident and having fun at the same time is a good indicator here.
P.s.: When it comes to books i can highly recommend "The Negative" (Ansel Adams) and "About Photography" (Susan Sontag) to you.
Cheers,
Thomas
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thomas, good advice & books...
Ola, film is it. Well decided, and now, do yourself a big favor and get an incident light meter... (Not a big investment: mine has 13 years and works perfectly... A Sekonic digital with spot metering too)
By the way, for the project I told you I got some rolls of cheap Sensia 100 slide film: natural colors, and almost identical to Astia, with comfortable contrast... Lots of wonderful, published photographs are shot on Sensia!
Cheers,
Juan
Ola, film is it. Well decided, and now, do yourself a big favor and get an incident light meter... (Not a big investment: mine has 13 years and works perfectly... A Sekonic digital with spot metering too)
By the way, for the project I told you I got some rolls of cheap Sensia 100 slide film: natural colors, and almost identical to Astia, with comfortable contrast... Lots of wonderful, published photographs are shot on Sensia!
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Interesting. I find that my pictures are quite unike many -- perhaps most -- of the other photographers whose work I like to look at. For years I tried to emulate others, but then I realized that there was no point in many cases: I was me, where and when I was living, and they were them, where and when they were living. Often, the gap was unbridgeable, and even where I could try to emulate them (AA in Yosemite, for example) I found that I got better pictures if I did it my way rather than theirs. Thus if I try LF in Yosemite I get a bad imitation AA; if I use a 280 or 400 Telyt, I get my own pics. As good as AA? Well, probably not, but at least a lot better than bad imitation AA.
Cheers,
R.