How do I get to Carnegie Hall?

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
11:14 AM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Location
Aquitaine
View My Gallery
Practice! says the old joke. But that's also a much better answer to "How do I get to take pics that look like Salgado's [or HCB's, or Willy Ronis's, or AA's, or whoever's]."

There's a quality threshold. Below it, a better camera/lens will give you better pics. Above it, the camera/lens can take better pics than you can. The threshold is very low. Above it, all you're buying is pleasure of use (which is not irrelevant) and maybe ergonomics (I have a Varex IIa with 58/2 Biotar).

Cheers,

R.
 
Photography, like fiddle (violin ) playing takes practice, true, but without someone listening how do you now if you're doing it right? That's why a site like this, with a decent gallery audience, is important. But even an audience is no good without valuable critique.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Practice! says the old joke. But that's also a much better answer to "How do I get to take pics that look like Salgado's [or HCB's, or Willy Ronis's, or AA's, or whoever's]."

There's a quality threshold. Below it, a better camera/lens will give you better pics. Above it, the camera/lens can take better pics than you can. The threshold is very low. Above it, all you're buying is pleasure of use (which is not irrelevant) and maybe ergonomics (I have a Varex IIa with 58/2 Biotar).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger:

A thousand thanks for posting the lead-in to a thread that potentially may lead to intelligent discussion. (however, I am skeptical)

I personally think the key it critical self editing. Shooting a gazillion photos year after year does nothing to improve one's ability if all you do if file them away or maybe post 1/10 gazillion on line hoping someone else will give them a clue. But having to pick out 10-20 to tell a story or make a point does wonders to improve the overall. I also realize that many simply do not care and are just happy to shoot without regard. I have no problems with them as they are fulfilling their own personal objectives.
 
If you are shooting to please yourself, you really need to understand what kind of pictures you are trying to take. If you don't know what you like, no amount of self-editing is going to help that much. However, if you know what you are trying to produce, then you can work on building the skills and the knowledge to allow you to criticize your own work in a useful manner.

Example: It seems a number of folks here do not like Ken Rockwell's photos. Too bright, too saturated, too bereft of people. But, if you do want to create images like his, then you need to focus on different aspects of photography than someone shooting street an hour after sunset in a big city. And vice versa.

As for posting photos online and asking for advice, I've noticed that many well-meaning people confuse "good photo" with "I like that photo". So, don't ask, "Is this photo good?" Instead, show or describe what you want to shoot and ask how to make that happen.
 
Practice, yes.

True Bob, editing is key- as are a few people whose opinon one can really trust, and who one can argue with without fear of banning or hurt feelings.

I'd say that certain equipment is always going to be more capable than I- I find myself being the reason negatives don't make the cut far more often than the lenses I use are. Granted, the needs of a 16x20" print are a lot greater than a 150dpi 7" wide jpg, but it is my failings that are the reason most of my images remain as contact prints alone.

As valuable as valid, smart criticism is, giving and receiving it is something that few seem able to do without ruffled feathers or worse. Opinion should be seen as just that- opinion, not a cut and dry fact. It is in the listening and arguing of opinion that real progress is made in the understanding ones work.
 
I'd say concentrate on one instrument ... a theory which I've failed miserably to put into practice of late unfortunately!

The great violinists of the world played violins ... they didn't faff about with violas, cellos and other stringed instruments ... they focused their energy and talent into the one!

I'm convinced that if I locked all my other camera gear away giving someone else the key and left only my OM-1 with 50mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses accessible ....

... sigh, that will never happen though!

😛
 
In short, I don't think you get to Carnegie Hall by sounding like Frank or Ella anymore than you'll end up producing work that would stand up to the photographers mentioned by trying to emulate them. You get there by being original. But if you don't use a LEICA, or a NEUMANN microphone, you'll never get there! Sorry.

In most cases I believe it takes more than practise. It takes ambition, passion, networking, hard work... and, as Bob indicated, years of critical self evaluation.

Of course in the case of Carnegie Hall you may get there by winning American Idol. Maybe there should be an equivalent TV show for photographers ("Capture Idol") who then go straight into Magnum or the MOMA without passing "Go". I guess it's on the cards.
 
I don't want to take images that look like "Salgado's [or HCB's, or Willy Ronis's, or AA's, or whoever's..." I want to take images that I hope are my own.

Carnegie Hall?? I would be happy with the Public Theatre.


🙂
 
FYI: Dear Roger.. you're talking about this joint right?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sour...-73.980045&spn=0.114435,0.264187&z=13&iwloc=A

And not this joint:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sour...rnegie+Delicatessen+&+Restaurant&z=15&iwloc=A

Anyway, regardless... that site can get you directions.

That said, I would concur with Bob and Keith here.
Shoot a gazillion photos.
Edit judiciously.
Tell a story.
Use one instrument so you know what you're doing with said instrument. 🙂

Cheers,
Dave
 
See Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" for a discussion of how long it takes to become really good at something - 10,000 hours! He applies this to multiple fields and it probable applies to photography too.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Practice! says the old joke. But that's also a much better answer to "How do I get to take pics that look like Salgado's [or HCB's, or Willy Ronis's, or AA's, or whoever's]."

There's a quality threshold. Below it, a better camera/lens will give you better pics. Above it, the camera/lens can take better pics than you can. The threshold is very low. Above it, all you're buying is pleasure of use (which is not irrelevant) and maybe ergonomics (I have a Varex IIa with 58/2 Biotar).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I have difficulty making a coherent link between these two paragraphs.

For the second para', you would have to give us your definition of quality and of better.










...
 
I like Salgado's work. I like the work of many renowned photographers. BUT, I want what I shoot to look like my work. I don't see what we these guys and gals see/saw. They're unique and so is their vision. My vision is unique, too. I certainly won't pretend to have their mastery, but my eye/brain connection is all my own and I'd like it to reflect my view of the world. With all that out of the way, I'll be honest and admit that I'd certainly like to get better at realizing on paper (or screen) what my mind's eye is visualizing. I'm sure not there yet.

I'm only into the equipment because I like tools that make photography fun and that make realizing my vision easier. I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to also just appreciating the gear for its machine-ness and engineering, aesthetic qualities. I think my eye/brain connection can always stand far more improvement than my gear. If my pix didn't come out the way I saw 'em in my head, I'm usually the culprit (well, expect for the flummoxed transport on my Rolleicord; Krikor, I'm headed your way soon; the darned thing has uneven registration between frames... ugh!).

While I build up to my 10,000 Malcolm Gladwell hours, I'm currently enjoying a 35/3.5 ltm Summaron on both my M's. Does that lens make me a better photographer? Hell, no. But the 10,000 hours are sure to help. I just feel comfortable with exploring that lens this week.

I need to do more editing, but I found I needed to hit a certain threshold of images to see what I liked and what I didn't and what worked and what didn't.

I do not believe a two-year old who splatters paint is an artist in the way Jackson Pollack became an artist (whether you like his work or not) who splattered paint. You need experience not just with technique, but also with a point of view (as Dave says, telling a story). Life makes you better at that IF you pay attention as you move through it.

If you ever reach a point where you feel that you're as good as you can be, it's probably time to try a new vocation/avocation. As long you're not completely satisfied, life still holds promise of new discoveries. I'm glad to have plenty to learn. It's sure to keep me feeling young longer than I have right to expect.
 
Last edited:
I usually agree with what Keith says, but not with his "concentrate on one instrument" statement. Different situations call for different cameras. There is no one camera that is best for all situations. Going back to the musical analogy: serious guitar players often/usually have more than one guitar because different guitars produce different sounds, which are better matched to different purposes/music. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a carpenter having more than one hammer, one screwdriver, or one chisel, etc.
 
Last edited:
Bill says you have to know what you want to shoot, and Bob says you have to know how to practise profitably -- not in the financial sense, but in the sense of shaping your practice towards an end, rather than just shooting for shooting's sake. They're both right, I think, but there's also a path which does involve just shooting, and seeing what you're good at.

Shooting or choosing pictures for a purpose is actually much easier when you're working professionally, because either you meet the brief or you don't. It's also easier to shoot illustration than art. This is one reason why I shoot a lot more illustration (the other, of course, is earning a living). Even so, I think I'm getting a bit more self-confident about what sort of 'art' I can do.

The danger seems to me that it is all too easy to become obsessed with a particular kind of 'art' and disappear up your own fundament, (a) doing the same thing again and again and (b) becoming increasingly detached from what others want to see: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/sgallery/g usa new 1000.html.

It's all very well to say that Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime, but there's an omitted middle here: just because some geniuses are not recognized in their own lifetime, it doesn't mean that failing to be recognized in your own lifetime is a sign of genius.

Then there's the possibility of being technically accomplished, but exhausting an idea: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/sgallery/g sl m 1.html (the tankards series).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
KenR said:
See Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" for a discussion of how long it takes to become really good at something - 10,000 hours! He applies this to multiple fields and it probable applies to photography too.
Click to expand...

10,000 hours at 8 hours a day is 1250 days. That's roughly 3.4 years, or a Bachelors degree.

Bottom line, keep practicing and keep your camera close by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom