Ricoh
Well-known
Tim,
Many years ago I read a tip about photographing what you feel, not what you see.
In context of your interest in wildlife, the above could be expressed by showing the courtship of two birds, reflecting your feeling for the moment. The viewer is rewarded by seeing what you felt, not simply what you saw. Pictures of 'what I saw', 'where I've been', etc, are often boring to a third party.
Why not try another genre, eg people photography. Admittedly it's difficult to do well, but easier to capture emotions, not just the subjects emotions but your emotion to the scene. Sam Abell in his B&H talk (have you watched it yet?) talks about back to front composition, ie, compose the background, the middle distance then the foreground (assuming they all exist), then waiting for expression and emotion. He also mentions many times micro composition, meaning nothing touches, all the essential picture element have room to breath, eg the head and shoulders above the horizon (imagine two lovers on a beach, standing, kissing, arrange your viewpoint such that their heads and shoulders are above the horizon against a grey sky and not not muddied by being buried in the sand.
Many years ago I read a tip about photographing what you feel, not what you see.
In context of your interest in wildlife, the above could be expressed by showing the courtship of two birds, reflecting your feeling for the moment. The viewer is rewarded by seeing what you felt, not simply what you saw. Pictures of 'what I saw', 'where I've been', etc, are often boring to a third party.
Why not try another genre, eg people photography. Admittedly it's difficult to do well, but easier to capture emotions, not just the subjects emotions but your emotion to the scene. Sam Abell in his B&H talk (have you watched it yet?) talks about back to front composition, ie, compose the background, the middle distance then the foreground (assuming they all exist), then waiting for expression and emotion. He also mentions many times micro composition, meaning nothing touches, all the essential picture element have room to breath, eg the head and shoulders above the horizon (imagine two lovers on a beach, standing, kissing, arrange your viewpoint such that their heads and shoulders are above the horizon against a grey sky and not not muddied by being buried in the sand.
LCSmith
Well-known
This, and the "first 10,000" quote of HCB, touch the reality. Cameras are menacingly deceptive in their simplicity of operation -- deceptive in the sense that making a good photograph seems, prima facie, to be as effortless and manageable as pointing the lens at something beautiful. Yet how often beautiful things do not make beautiful photos, and beautiful photos are not of beautiful things.
It is an approach that does not work for everyone, but when I limited myself to a single camera and lens, my photos improved. That said, after 5 or so years of doing photography I still do not think I have made anything of value. But I recognize that photography, like anything worth pursuing, is not a sprint but a marathon.
Ricoh
Well-known
I've found I make better photos (to my taste, not anyone else) if I use a fully manual camera and manual focus lenses. So much so that the RF works best because I have to imagine the DoF (sometimes referring to the DoF markings on the lens, at other times by memory). When using AF I get a green light and a bleep confirming focus lock, and I think (foolishly) everything must be fine so press the shutter release.
May not work for some, but using a film camera without any gizmos is a good way to improve. I've lost count of the times I've pulled the shot because it's not good enough, not good enough meaning it's just a record of something. iPhones etc are made for such image making.
May not work for some, but using a film camera without any gizmos is a good way to improve. I've lost count of the times I've pulled the shot because it's not good enough, not good enough meaning it's just a record of something. iPhones etc are made for such image making.
LCSmith
Well-known
Yes, I agree completely. The less camera, the more "you"; the more "you", the more art (by definition).
james.liam
Well-known
johnnyrod
More cameras than shots
Why not ask a hard one, Tim! Some good advice above as always. It doesn't sound like you want to quit, but I have asked the same question myself, as some rolls really haven't seemed to be worth the cost, once printed. There is a certain romantic optimism looking through the viewfinder, where the world is blacked out, and all you can see is a perfect image, a masterpiece waiting to be captured. Reality is that there will be a lot of misfires, and that doesn't mean you're doing something more wrong than anyone else.
You're going to have to discuss some of the bad ones to figure it out. If you can't see what you would make better, someone else has more chance. I shot my daughter playing in the kitchen sink, and to me it wasn't great as it was too backlit, but a friend thought that made it look good, and it caught the light on the water in the sink.
Another shot might be better cropped, and the composition then makes more sense. Sometimes it helps to try taking the same picture a number of times, on different visits, to try to work out some of the bad bits.
As for what makes a good picture to you, perhaps you're just going through a patch. I've had that too, I can't seem to find anything to point my camera at, so I've ended up with a load of dull pics when I may as well have waited. Sometimes you have to just snap a few to see if you're lucky, sometimes there just isn't much going on right now. That's not your fault either.
Not sure if any of that helps!
You're going to have to discuss some of the bad ones to figure it out. If you can't see what you would make better, someone else has more chance. I shot my daughter playing in the kitchen sink, and to me it wasn't great as it was too backlit, but a friend thought that made it look good, and it caught the light on the water in the sink.
Another shot might be better cropped, and the composition then makes more sense. Sometimes it helps to try taking the same picture a number of times, on different visits, to try to work out some of the bad bits.
As for what makes a good picture to you, perhaps you're just going through a patch. I've had that too, I can't seem to find anything to point my camera at, so I've ended up with a load of dull pics when I may as well have waited. Sometimes you have to just snap a few to see if you're lucky, sometimes there just isn't much going on right now. That's not your fault either.
Not sure if any of that helps!
Ricoh
Well-known
He was a brilliant photographer, and film maker. Probably ranks as a genius with the camera, and so too at directing others.
The common thing about the photos shown in the link: they all have a human element and he fills the frame; there's nothing really superfluous in the shots.
The other thing of course is that most of the people in the photos have passed away, demonstrating the power of the camera as a time machine. The photographic medium is very powerful and we should use it effectively.
KenR
Well-known
Classes
Classes
Great advise from everybody. I found that taking a photography class at the local community college really helped me. Took a few more after that at the college and then a few at the ICP in NYC.
Classes
Great advise from everybody. I found that taking a photography class at the local community college really helped me. Took a few more after that at the college and then a few at the ICP in NYC.
olifaunt
Well-known
This. Many universities and colleges with arts departments hereabouts have darkroom or digital photography classes open to the general public. You have to check that the instructor is good, but a lot of the fun of it is simply getting to know other people interested in photography and seeing what they do, getting some constructive critique on your stuff, and finally, if it is a darkroom course, finding out how unbelievably fun it is to learn printing.
