whats really improved your photography ?

[Flyfisher Tom]

Watching my wife shoot with one camera, one lens, and seeing how she takes a totally different perspective (and frequently better one) than I do. I risk generalizing, but anecdotally, I do think that female shooters are more interested in the photograph than the actual equipment. And at least in my wife's case, she is a better photographer for it. cheers

 

[GeneW]

Watching my wife shoot with one camera, one lens, and seeing how she takes a totally different perspective (and frequently better one) than I do. I risk generalizing, but anecdotally, I do think that female shooters are more interested in the photograph than the actual equipment. And at least in my wife's case, she is a better photographer for it. cheers

Tom, I think there's some truth in that. The outdooreyes.com forum, which is oriented towards nature/outdoors photography, is about 50% female -- which is refreshing in itself. Nearly all of them got into photography via digital and, generalizing, most of them are not gearheads. Nonetheless many of them have become excellent photographers -- several of them could go pro. It's been interesting to watch them learn their way into photography. Most of them started with digital P&S cams and have graduated to DSLR's.

I don't mean this to sound in any way patronizing. I wish I could take images as good as the ones they're posting!

Gene

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I've mulled this post over since it was introduced and most of the influences that were obvious to me at first just didn't feel significant. Then it hit me just moments ago: what improved my photography more than anything else was my father's patient guidance and loving criticism; always offered with the best intentions...I'll always be grateful.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What has improved my photography? Many things. One of them is patience. Another one is a better control of my irrational fear of people becoming irrational when I take their picture. The other is that I'm using film more than digital...like any good wine, a good fois gras, a good cup of espresso, taking your time to savor the scene, think and compose is as much an art as the end result.

Digital is dangerous in allowing the unaware and inexperienced to take the McDonald's approach to photography (that's why some call it, misguidedly, the Dark Side). Using a rangefinder allows me to take the grandma's timeless homecooking approach to the art of photography. And I apply that now when using digital gear too.

 

[hoot]

Digital is dangerous in allowing the unaware and inexperienced to take the McDonald's approach to photography (that's why some call it, misguidedly, the Dark Side).

Not sure that's all too misguided:

Luke: "Is the dark side stronger?"
Yoda: "No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."
(Episode V, 1980)

Sure sounds like a description of digital snapshooting to me. 😀

 

[Allen Gilman]

"Digital is dangerous in allowing the unaware and inexperienced to take the McDonald's approach to photography..." Who are these unaware and inexperienced digital snapshooters anyway? And how do you determine who they are? Are they the ones who can explain hyperfocal distance, know the internal mechanics of a camera, know when to slow down and consider all the possiblilities, and yet are not able to produce a decent photo to save their life? And do you really believe digital cameras are what leads those "uninitiated" to the McDonald's approach to photography any more than all the other cultural gimmicks that draw your eye during the average day? Those who are gonna see are gonna see no matter what tool they have in their hands.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Film or digital doesn't matter - regardless of the number of shots taken or the method employed only the cream will rise to the top.

 

[Bertram2]

"Digital is dangerous in allowing the unaware and inexperienced to take the McDonald's approach to photography..."

Those who are gonna see are gonna see no matter what tool they have in their hands.

Allen,
I'd second your standpoint so far as I believe that in principle the tool does not make photos and is therefore always No 2 if it comes to " quality". And (tho I do not like it very much) this cannot exclude digital cameras, otherwise I'd expose myself as a silly "racist", wouldn't I ? 😉

BUT I believe too that you cannot learn to shoot good photos if you have not learned how the camera looks at our realtity. You must have understood the machine and the film to be able to use it properly..

And that's the prob: All digital cameras , P&S or DSLR are all-auto, and the newbies whic digital leads to photography will it use the cameras this way.
Even those newbies who gonna see (by nature) will have hits , no doubt, but they
won't get photographers this way , automatically, sooner or later.

A camera IS a damn machine and you have to understand it to make it work as you want it to work. So far the tool DOES matter of course. Solely the ability of seeing does not make a photog. He never will understand his own hits and He won't ever understand his faults too and some day he will give it all up because he is tired of that damn machine which seems to have an enigmatic soul.

Bertram

 

[Allen Gilman]

"And that's the prob: All digital cameras , P&S or DSLR are all-auto..."

Bertram, I use my DSLR manually aside from the focussing so I don't know what you mean by all-auto. There just is no fundamental difference - seeing is a funtion that exceeds the craft of knowing how the camera functions. If someone knows how to use the camera well enough to bring out what they want, then they're home free.

Millions of more snappers because of that automatic preview on the back of the camera? So be it - ain't gonna change anything in the end. Photography has historically grown more and more popular and convenient- esp since the advent of the 35mm hand-holdable cam. Digital is just another step on the way. Tourists will always be tourists - others will find their way to more interesting places.

 

[Bertram2]

There just is no fundamental difference - seeing is a funtion that exceeds the craft of knowing how the camera functions. If someone knows how to use the camera well enough to bring out what they want, then they're home free.
.

Hi Allen,
---
>>There just is no fundamental difference - seeing is a funtion that exceeds the >>craft of knowing how the camera functions.
----

That is true. But it cannot mean that a correct use of the tool must not be learned.

----
>>If someone knows how to use the camera well enough to bring out what they >>want, then they're home free.
----

And here you confirm it yourself: "... how to use the camera well enough........"
Well enough does not mean set it on program mode and fire, trusting in your ability to see. I think this was meant with the "McDonalds approach " ?

This prob is not a prob of the digital age, it is as old as the full auto cameras are.
And so all the digital cameras sold to millions of newbies will not make one more true photog than all the crappy P&S cameras or full auto multi mode SLRs did during the last 3 decades. SOS.

This is what I meant with "all-auto". Talent (to see) is nothing without craft.
But watching your photos I suppose you to know that all very well, you have learned your technical lessons perfectly, haven't you ? 😉

Regards,
Bertram
SOS = Same-Old- Shit

 

[thpook]

I can pin the most recent leap on one particular moment. I've been stuck in the mud for a while, taking the same type of shots over and over, and I realized that a huge part of it was that I'm just too bloody shy for my own good.

I was in The Free State of Christiania here in Copenhagen, and I was sitting in a bench by the waters edge taking a break. I glanced up, and saw a man who looked like he had just walked out of Auschwitz. His face was incredibly shocking, and he wore a sweater with a deep hood, presumeably to hide his face. He walked past me, and all I could think is "I want to take a photo of that man."

I kept sitting on the bench, cursing myself for 100 types of coward, and finally I told myself "If you want the damn shot, you'd better get up off your ass and go get it!" I got up and walked as fast as I could to catch up with him. I finally caught up with him (he walked really fast). I took a deep breath and said "Excuse me, but I am an american photographer, and I would very much like to take your photo if it's ok (in Danish)".

He said "what?" I repeated myself, and he said "NO!" very loudly and hurried off. On the walk back into Christiania, I realized that I was terrified up until the moment I actually began to speak to him. At that point, I had committed myself and was working. I realized that you'll never get the shots you want if you let them just walk past. Have the courage to take the shots, because the worst that can happen is someone will say "No."

So, in an odd way I learned the most from a photo I chose not to take. While I wish that he said yes, I could understand his not wanting his photo taken and respected it. I haven't completely gotten over my fear of asking people, but it's getting easier every time.