let's talk about improvement...

sreed2006 said:
About 8 years ago, my morning commute to work was on a freeway that was almost always crowded, with frequent bumper-to-bumper slowdowns. One night a snowstorm had come through. As I was driving to work the next morning, there was 1 other car on my side of the freeway. I thought, "This will make a great picture - no cars on the road!" So, I took a picture through the windshield.

The picture was of a road covered with snow and one car off in the distance. Totally pointless and boring.

I saw the lack of a traffic jam and no cars as something amazing.

The camera did not record that at all.

When I saw your picture of the barren land in Texas, I was reminded of that picture I took. Perhaps you know how this rangeland really should look - but having never seen the land, I don't have a clue, and what I see is just apparently a barren field with a windmill. There's no recorded context of what ought to be there instead.

I saw some 'before' and 'after' pictures of a tropical island that had been stripped clean of trees by a hurricane. The before shot had lots of large trees on a hill. The after shot showed a barren hill. That was impressive, and the context was right there for comparison.

So, that is my critique of your rangeland photo. Hope that it helps.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is helpful. It is easy to "miss the forest for all the trees" as the saying goes. I think this thread has value as we share these sorts of experiences and opinions. In a previous post, and as you have alluded, this image is a record of a place but it contains no information to help the viewer see and feel what I was experiencing. That is a very helpful realization for me. Thanks for your input.
 
1: avoid the picturesque, always.
2: never try to emulate someone else
3: be selective in what you show others
4: develop a style YOU like and ignore others criticisms
5: never, ever, equate sharp with good.
6: forget your gear.
 
SciAggie said:
Here is an example of an image that was effectively ignored. I was driving through South Texas and was heartbroken at the condition of the rangeland in this particular area. I stopped and took this image. I only had a 50mm focal length and couldn't get everything in the frame I wanted, so I took two frames and later stitched them together in CS4.

I suspect I may have been better off depicting the dry conditions with several seperate images in a series. They could have shown more detail. #1 I didn't think of that at the time. #2 I didn't have access to the private property. ( I was shooting over a fence) #3 I was traveling on business, and couldn't devote time for more invloved reportage. That's my story - what do you say?

p758486575-4.jpg
Click to expand...

My two cents: I personally feel this would be better in colour. If you're trying to capture the barren, dried-out wasteland look, colour would probably convey that more than black and white (from this particular angle). As it is, the bottom half of the image looks somewhat empty.
 
sci, on your photo, the main issue i see is the almost midpoint of the main horizontal line. perhaps if you'd sat down and given the foreground more than half the frame, with focus on the nearest rocks, we could have gotten a rockier, more desolate view. a change in perspective can do wonders. it is difficult for me to go from standing to sitting on the ground. my knees creak and bang like like shutters in a hurricane, but a change in perspective sometimes is just right ...
 
Teuthida said:
1: avoid the picturesque, always.
2: never try to emulate someone else
3: be selective in what you show others
4: develop a style YOU like and ignore others criticisms
5: never, ever, equate sharp with good.
6: forget your gear.
Click to expand...

Great axioms, on number one; I went to a Yosemite exhibit at the Oakland Museum it had all visual disciplines. Ansel, the guy that did the swimming pool photos, and many famous paintings were there, but the one I remember was a photo of Yosemite with one of the typical (overdone) icons in the background but it was taken with the entire parking lots (which was over full) in the foreground.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Will,

Once again, I have simply misunderstood you, and once again, I apologize. It may be down to the fact that today was the monthly Old Folks' Dinner, a (very) liquid lunch at the club d'amitié.

I am sure that you are right that one can grow to care about some of the things that one had never noticed, but I am equally sure that there are other subjects where it would never happen, at least for me. I don't drink coffee and I don't keep cats, for example...

In this context there are, I strongly suspect, two different kinds of photographers. Some find endless fascination in revisiting substantially the same thing. Others need the stimulus of novelty. I live in a very beautiful part of the world, surrounded with history, beautiful buildings, rivers. From my study, I can (just) see a thousand-year-old castle. I can borrow the keys to it whenever I want. But.... after nine years here, I've photographed all this enough. It no longer interests me on a daily or even monthly basis.

Less than an hour's drive away is another centuries-old fortress, much more photogenic, and owned by a friend. Well, an acquaintance: a friend-of-a-friend, whom I know well enough to be on first name terms. There are quite a few pictures of it in the Zeiss 18mm review at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews 18 zeiss.html. But I don't go there more than once a year. Been there; done that.

This may be viewed as a character flaw, but I don't really believe much in those: anything that doesn't hurt anyone else, doesn't qualify as a character flaw in my book. I don't complain that I have too few things to photograph: I just don't bother to photograph the things that don't interest me (or no longer interest me). I can however sympathize very easily with those who do not find visual stimulation in their surroundings.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

Thank you for the clarification. Your post above helped me in seeing where you're coming from (and made me want to visit you and Frances someday).

And I agree with the two types of photographers you mentioned, which probably explain somewhat why some of us like Ansel Adams, and others detest him in preference to Gary Winogrand.
 
gdmcclintock said:
The subject of a photograph need not be a person. I am using the word "subject" in its most general sense.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess the word engage made me think person. Viewers can find almost anything engaging though... and this cannot be predicted.
 
I don't know about improving because I always try to improve myself but at least if you want to enjoy this game with peace of mind and actually enrich your life with it then take photos only for yourself.
 
One potential angle: talk to strangers. Engage with people you find interesting. In this way a camera can become a participant in a meaningful conversation. I rarely notice any photographer's lack of technical skills. But, I often notice their lack of engagement with their surroundings.
 
PKR said:
I just completed a huge edit of 40+ years of personal and non personal (photos taken for money) film and image files. While many of these images generate money - the ones of most importance to me were ones of family and friends. I guess the next most important photos are the ones I haven't taken yet.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are they the ones of most importance to other people? And if so, which other people?

At our age, we may be able to afford self-indulgence like this. But should it be an ambition?

For an amateur, yes, of course. For anyone with ambitions to be a Great (or even Good) photographer, possibly not. Or possibly yes, if we've earned a living from the other stuff.

At what age should one give up such ambitions?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yes, but are they the ones of most importance to other people? And if so, which other people?

At our age, we may be able to afford self-indulgence like this. But should it be an ambition?

For an amateur, yes, of course. For anyone with ambitions to be a Great (or even Good) photographer, possibly not. Or possibly yes, if we've earned a living from the other stuff.

At what age should one give up such ambitions?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, why would you give up any ambitions prior to being put in the ground?

All the best, Randy
 
I don't think aesthetics can improve.

They can change over time, like "maturing" (I wish Daido hadn't though) or w.ever or change due to a change in perspective of the photographer. But improve? maybe if improving means more closely matching existing constructs.

I think if you want to improve your photos there are a few things you can do:

improve your technical skills
improve your approach / mental state
focus harder on what you want to do and trim the fat
come to a greater understanding of what your own aesthetic is (looking at other people's art or learning a new one falls under this)
experiment / take photographic risks
 
What about the mindless approach ?
Sometimes just being out (woods, mtns, cities....) and looking and enjoying the day, just shoot, don't make it an intellectual thing, just a vision thing.
 
Peter Wijninga said:
I don't think religion can improve.

As far as pictures are concerned, most improvement takes place somewhere in-between the ears.
Click to expand...

At the risk of offending the mods, how could it get worse? Everyone has their own beliefs, and distressingly few are prepared to contemplate the possibility that there is any truth whatsoever in anyone else's beliefs.

The only possibility for improvement lies in recognizing that religion is the consequence of universal responsibility and the good heart, not the cause.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom