What do I need to do to take the photos I want?

andrew00

Established
Local time
8:37 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
134
Hey,

So recently I've been struggling with photography as I find most images quite boring and not really worth taking.

I've been thinking about what I really like from photos, and what it is is weird, colourful, odd, sometimes blurry, slices of life photos.

I also watched this YouTube video recently that sort of summarised what I was feeling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyCumQ78ZoI&t=0s

The guy is talking about his life of Nan Goldin and her imperfect photos, which in turn look really human and evocative. It's worth a watch.

I've always really like Nan's photos and I think she is probably one of the best examples of the types of photos I want to take, so I thought I'd ask you guys - how?

As in - how do I do it? Is it a technique issue? Is it a shooting style? Do I need to make certain camera decisions - film, manual/auto, point and shoot, slr, rangefinder etc?

Basically can you get me to the place where I have the right gear and approach to take the kinda of shots I want to take, in this style and with this feel.

Obviously then, if I suck at is, so it goes I can keep improving. But I feel like so many cameras are so good now they don't feel real to me and I think that's part of why I don't like a lot of photography, and also why I'm looking to get back to liking it, so please would you help a dummy out. Thanks!
 
I think it would be quite useful to share some of you work and question what do you want to do with it. Like, make it more dramatic? more intimate? more casual? Then people can add suggestions on technique. Probably point to some books on how to improve those aspect of your photography.

Photography is such a wide, personal and artistic topic it is difficult to point to suggestion with not much of context. Nan Goldin photography varies from intimate to nude to abstract, with anything on the middle. Only common topic, in my humble opinion is spontaneity.

Sorry for not being too useful but hope to see some of your pictures. Will chime in with suggestion, as no doubt other on this forum will.

Marcelo
 
I've been thinking about what I really like from photos, and what it is is weird, colourful, odd, sometimes blurry, slices of life photos.

there is no recipe for this. but trying not to overthink when you're in the moment might be a start. take pictures when you intuitively feel like it. timing and perspective is everything in photography, don't worry about shutter speed or even focus too much if it gets in the way of the moment.

there is nothing wrong with taking a lot of boring pictures if you find the pictures that sing to you while editing. the picture not taken is the worst and most boring of all. style will emerge, don't try to edit while shooting.

interesting lives offer opportunities for interesting pictures, go to where there are people for example and/or have people come to you. but there are photographs everywhere, every day. try staying attentive and aware of your visual surroundings even in your usual, everyday life. don't give in to the numbness of routine.

again, not a recipe, just some of my general thoughts on the subject.


ps: it's great, uplifting even, to find inspiration in other people's work. but i wouldn't try to be these people, it's a dead end from what i've seen.
 
Use the camera you find the easiest to use instinctively and concentrate on the picture not the equipment.

Or if you must, emulate your hero and use what they use.

The rest is all about your eyes, brain and being in the right place.
 
Many decades ago I was an actor, and I remember a very smart director told me something one day that I always try to remember. I was struggling with a role, so I tried to imagine how a few actors I'd admired would handle it. I tried to do the scene a la De Niro, and the director stopped me and asked what the hell I was doing. I told him and he said, "If I wanted De Niro to do the role, I would have hired him, but I hired you to do the role because I wanted to see your interpretation of it."

I try to keep this in mind when I fall in love with a photographer's work. It's quite tempting to try to produce work like that we admire, but we will always fall short, because only that artist can do that work, it come from inside them. Just like only you can do your work, because it comes from inside you.

Find a camera that you are comfortable working with. It doesn't have to be auto focus, mirrorless, SLR, rangefinder, or anything else, it just has to be a tool that you feel comfortable with. Then go out and record your vision for the world to see. It won't be Nan Goldin, but only Nan Goldin can be Nan Goldin, but what it will be is your vision of the world, and that has value.

Just my 2¢

Best,
-Tim
 
Many decades ago I was an actor, and I remember a very smart director told me something one day that I always try to remember. I was struggling with a role, so I tried to imagine how a few actors I'd admired would handle it. I tried to do the scene a la De Niro, and the director stopped me and asked what the hell I was doing. I told him and he said, "If I wanted De Niro to do the role, I would have hired him, but I hired you to do the role because I wanted to see your interpretation of it."

I try to keep this in mind when I fall in love with a photographer's work. It's quite tempting to try to produce work like that we admire, but we will always fall short, because only that artist can do that work, it come from inside them. Just like only you can do your work, because it comes from inside you.

Find a camera that you are comfortable working with. It doesn't have to be auto focus, mirrorless, SLR, rangefinder, or anything else, it just has to be a tool that you feel comfortable with. Then go out and record your vision for the world to see. It won't be Nan Goldin, but only Nan Goldin can be Nan Goldin, but what it will be is your vision of the world, and that has value.

Just my 2¢

Best,
-Tim

+1 to that

Marcelo
 
Use whatever gear you know so well that the camera does what you want it to, when you want it.
Meaning it takes the image when you press the shutter at the moment you feel the need to.

The video about Nan Golding was partly interesting but when he tried to imply to imperfection on purpose to add individuality ... well that just faking it. The point is that although there is "technical" imperfection (mostly out of focus, blur) in a lot of Nan's photos they still work and it supports to transport the connection that Nan had with her subjects when taking the image.

She didn't care about technical perfection but that's not using imperfection on purpose.
Her photos have such an impact because she connected with her subjects.
Whatever gear being used it completely irrelevant as long as it doesn't disturb this connection.
 
Pick one camera one lens and one photographer you really like. Buy his/her books, go to galleries that showcase their photos if you can. Study and try to imagine how they took the photo. Then try to do the same. Don't expect instance gratification. Once you you have their look mastered than go on to another photographer and maybe another lens.
 
As in - how do I do it? Is it a technique issue? Is it a shooting style? Do I need to make certain camera decisions - film, manual/auto, point and shoot, slr, rangefinder etc?

Basically can you get me to the place where I have the right gear and approach to take the kinda of shots I want to take, in this style and with this feel.

You have to find your voice... your style. It is the hardest thing to do in photography. How do you do it? You go out and photograph a lot... and then do some more. Learn from your mistakes and fall in love with learning more and more. There is no short cut. It takes work. The camera is a small piece to the puzzle. It needs to be capable of the quality that you want and feel right to you. That is it.
 
Heya,
I watched her pictures at beginning and googled for more.
She is grand master of photography. Don’t know who told you about imperfections.
Must be clueless idiot. She is world class portraitist, like Jane Bown, Diana Arbus, and those wiped the floor with Leibovitz.
Her portraits aren’t just life snaps. You can’t get to this level with any camera. If you are missing following:
Artist gift, plus communication with special people capabilities. And soul full of humanity.
Get those first, then you could use any camera.
Or at least find something to be passionate about. Again look at her pictures, Arbus and Gilden pictures. Think why they get this close.
 
Great question, and great inspiration. Goldin isn't one of my favorites, but I appreciate her strong sense of style and intimacy with subjects. And it's mostly been covered how to get there: know your subject, get close to your subject, and just plain be there.

But as for equipment, that is mostly your choice and boils down to what you're happy and comfortable with. We debate here endlessly on film and lens choices, and as to how that matters to the final image, well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. i think that carries over to I guess what you could call 'imperfectionism.' As an example, I recently noticed that about 7 or 8 of my friends on social media have photos I've taken as their profile image, all taken on the same night out with a point-and-shoot and 14-years-out-of-date Tmax pushed a couple stops. To me the image quality is terrible, but they aren't the heavily stylized Lomography look, and really capture a range of emotions.

I think that's part of Goldin's appeal, aesthetically; it's imperfection as a result of being in the moment (see also: HCB's and Bruce Davidson's work) rather than a deliberate aesthetic choice (see also: Terry Richardson's direct flash).

But as for equipment itself, obviously any camera can take a good photo, but it really helps to have the right gear for the job. My question to you is, what do you own and what's your level of experience with photography? Do you feel comfortable shooting what you have, or are you still learning the ropes and what every button does? Is the camera too big to want to carry around most of the time?

There's sometimes a snobbery in purism of shooting with one camera and one lens, or limiting oneself to a manual, meter less camera, but I do think there's a lot of merit in a restricted approach. Not as a badge of honor, but in eliminating a lot of decision making, and that's what lets you get close to a subject, by focusing on them rather than the camera. For myself, I use mostly a mechanical rangefinder or a meterless MF SLR, but that's because I very quickly forget how to operate a modern digital SLR, and that trips me up shooting. Conversely, when I shot for publication, heck yeah I left my camera on full-auto half the time. (As Ken Rockwell, our favorite punching bag, would say, "'P mode' for 'Professional'"!) If leaving everything in auto works for you, do that!

RF or SLR, film or digital, doesn't matter as much as if you're comfortable with it and want to bring it along and shoot with it. Aside from sticking an 8x10" in their face, the subject isn't going to bother with the size of the camera so long as you're engaged with them or disappearing into the action. I shoot film because I like getting my hands dirty but I could just as easily whip up something with Silver Efex (and probably would look better, too).

If I can make a few concrete equipment suggestions, i'd say first, if you have an interchangeable-lens camera, get a prime lens. 35, 50, 90, whatever. It forces you to zoom with your feet and move around, see the scene from different viewpoints. Second is to just not get hung up on gear in the first place. Buy what your heart desires, maybe that's the latest gadget or something vintage, and just go shoot; don't second guess it or pine for the latest. I have a habit of researching any big purchase to death (and there's nothing wrong with that if you're forking over a lot of money), but let go of the worry once you have it. With both photography and cycling, I've spent too much time and energy researching products I've bought that could have been spent out riding or shooting.

I hope that helps. Sorry if this is a long rant—Lately I've been assisting two family members and a friend build kit and learn photography, so I've had the technique-vs-equipment argument on my mind a lot.
 
Take a fine art drawing class. Then take a fine art painting class. Take a fine art sculpting class.
Phil Forrest
 
Take a fine art drawing class. Then take a fine art painting class. Take a fine art sculpting class.
Phil Forrest


Phil,
interdisciplinary learning can't be understated in the arts. Wish I'd known that first time around.

After 5 years of architecture school, I often joke, semi-seriously, that I only learned two things:
1-I don't want to be an architect
2-how to photograph again

I failed my first-year drawing classes and had to retake them while working on my thesis last year. I had a great instructor on the second round who really valued photography as an art in its own right, and those were some of the most influential classes I took.
 
Okay, I know nothing about Nan Goldin apart from what I've just read from a Google search, and looking at the pictures online. Technically, what you're after is a deep saturated look with dark shadows, sometimes with fill flash. It looks like a 35mm lens for the most part, sometimes 50. You can achieve this look with a digital camera, either full frame or aps-c. Can be mirrorless or DSLR or rangefinder, it doesn't matter that much. Nan used a Leica M6 post-1990, but her NY/Boston work was probably done with Nikon SLR's.

Shoot portraits from eye level or slightly above eye level to the subject, looking slightly down. Choose darker backgrounds that are far away enough for background blur and separation to occur with your fast 35. An autofocus camera will make it easier for you to get the shot, and the ease on your part will help your subjects feel at ease, too.

Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, run with a group that trusts you and your photography. Nan Goldin obviously had the trust of her photographic subjects. You don't get to shoot some dude kissing another dude in hospital without trust.

Take your camera everywhere and shoot everything. Don't do this with film or you'll end up broke. Until you get the hang of it, use digital to rack up the experience.
 
Shoot everyday
Look around, feel the pulse
Something catches the Eye
Click, Done
Over time You are building up a body of work, themes


Hopefully in each Moment you captured the emotional pull
that will draw your viewers in.
 
No easy way

No easy way

Hey,

So recently I've been struggling with photography as I find most images quite boring and not really worth taking.

I've been thinking about what I really like from photos, and what it is is weird, colourful, odd, sometimes blurry, slices of life photos.

I also watched this YouTube video recently that sort of summarised what I was feeling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyCumQ78ZoI&t=0s

The guy is talking about his life of Nan Goldin and her imperfect photos, which in turn look really human and evocative. It's worth a watch.

I've always really like Nan's photos and I think she is probably one of the best examples of the types of photos I want to take, so I thought I'd ask you guys - how?

As in - how do I do it? Is it a technique issue? Is it a shooting style? Do I need to make certain camera decisions - film, manual/auto, point and shoot, slr, rangefinder etc?

Basically can you get me to the place where I have the right gear and approach to take the kinda of shots I want to take, in this style and with this feel.

Obviously then, if I suck at is, so it goes I can keep improving. But I feel like so many cameras are so good now they don't feel real to me and I think that's part of why I don't like a lot of photography, and also why I'm looking to get back to liking it, so please would you help a dummy out. Thanks!

Sorry. No algorithms, no equipment recommendations. Instead, ask yourself a few questions: (1) Would you know what you're looking to achieve if you saw it in your own work; and (2) How much time/effort are you willing to put into creating those images?
 
I can help.

Never leave the house without a camera. Never be in the house without a camera. Never stop seeing as though you have your camera.

Go places. Do things. Go places and do things that you know are subjects for your passion. Go and do. You have your camera. See. See and use your camera.

Repeat often.

This sounds trite, but its honestly the way to the images you want. Doesn't matter if those are still lifes, or life made still. Or, something in between or outside the box.

I try to practice what I preach. I have a handful of images I like :) :D :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom