what do you do?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
12:16 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
you look at a photo and your first reaction is wow!

is your second reaction to a/ continue to enjoy the image or b/wonder how it was taken, what camera was used, how was it processed?
 
back alley said:
you look at a photo and your first reaction is wow!

is your second reaction to a/ continue to enjoy the image or b/wonder how it was taken, what camera was used, how was it processed?
Click to expand...


B, of course. Actually, kind of a mix of the two, but leaning toward option b
 
It depends.
If I find a great image on flickr I usually just look at it. Sometimes I will mark it as a fav so I can find it again.
The only time I look for the exif is if it's B+W. Yes, .... looking to see if it's digital or film :p
I'm often surprised and impressed by the B+W digital conversions although I can still usually tell long before I view the exif (not always though).

The only time I look for gear used is if I'm searching for images taken with specific gear IU'm interested in acquiring.
Finally I have most past looking for gear. There is only so much one can own when your apartment is under 800sf !
 
I would go for a... don't care that much about how it was taken or with what gear (not that I don't care about gear or technique, don't get me wrong).

But I guess you forgot option c which might also be interesting: which brilliant, enlightened mind took the photo...
 
A, soon after b. Most often, although I try to unferstand the technical parameters, I don't reach a complete explanation. Often the secret of a very good shot is the "shadow work" done in darkroom by an expert printer and this is of difficult explanation. This is often true in showed printing of famous photographers.
 
Usually, if the photo is strong, I continue to enjoy it for what it is. Sometimes, if it's sufficiently intriguing (unusual lighting, DoF, colour palette, bokeh, etc) I will start asking myself questions about whether it's film or digital and whether, given the subject, location and context, I can guess what sort of camera / lens / film combo was used.

Mostly, however, I like to enjoy something when it really grabs my attention.
 
Gear head in me - answer is B..

But in this order usually..after looking at it for a while...:)
- my type of photo?
-- what is it in this composition makes this photo work
- what was done w/ exposure wise
- camera and lens (the gear head part)

Gary
 
i am surprised that folks are still asking/checking if it's a digital or film image...

i just assume that over 90% of what i see is digital...
 
In the past, while learning about digital photography, I was always checking for complete EXIF, camera, lens and sf in use if I like the picture. How else would you learn about gear, by reading Huff and Rockwell? :)

Now I knew what gear great film photographers were using, those who have interesting images for my taste.
I'm also looking at FB pictures and most of the time they were taken with mobile phones for sure :)

I'm not anymore into wide spectrum of images to be in "wow" situation.
I have some interesting photogs on Flickr to follow and I knew which gear most of them are using, many of them are film users.
Very seldomly I check Flickr groups I'm in and if picture is interesting, I'll check the gear. Most are film groups.
More often I'm searching at pictures taken with particular RF lens or film.
I also check every thread with pictures in Leica M film and FSU subforums here :)
 
On one hand I very much enjoy looking of the gear specific threads such as the MM, M8, M9 threads to see what kind of amazing images people are capturing with it. One the other hand if I see an image that I really like and the gear used isn't stated I don't bother to find out as its not going to change my opinion besides that I'm lazy :)
 
The first things I notice about a striking photograph are content, light, and composition.

Strangely, the next things I usually wonder about are where was it taken, and who is/are the person/s in the photograph.

Next I usually try to work out what focal length was used and how did the photographer get/capture the picture. If the lens signature grabs my attention or is "different" I like to find out what lens (and what media and format) was used.

It does depend a bit on subject. Some things are self evident.
 
back alley said:
i am surprised that folks are still asking/checking if it's a digital or film image...

i just assume that over 90% of what i see is digital...
Click to expand...

In my head I know that 90% is digital.

But in my heart I can't help but to be pleasantly surprised when I run into the 10%.
 
back alley said:
you look at a photo and your first reaction is wow!

is your second reaction to a/ continue to enjoy the image or b/wonder how it was taken, what camera was used, how was it processed?
Click to expand...

My second reaction is to try to find the photographer and look for other work that he or she has posted.

I have little to no interest in what equipment was used to make the photo. It doesn't matter. Just like whether it was film or digital capture doesn't matter.

G
 
This mostly happens when it are landscapes and then I want to know where it is first. Sometimes I look if there is a story about it attached.
 
I look for the photographers other work nowadays. I used to look at what gear they used. Kind of getting out of that now.
 
I rarely think "wow" anymore. But when I do it's likely because of emotional or spiritual content. Next, I usually sink deeper into that.

Sometimes technical virtuosity grabs me and I next realize the photo has little merit beyond that.

The best photos have both of the above.

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