 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006Re: Top tips
Thanks everyone for taking part in the "Top tips" debate, even those that were very judgemental of me and my abilities. My photographic abilities may be average but it doesn't stop me taking the odd decent picture, with your tips I'll maybe get a few more. The idea for my posting was to stir up a debate and it judging by the number of responses it appears to have been quite successful. From all your tips I intend to use the following top ten for my personal use, to (hopefully) improve my abilities..... 1. READ the camera manual and refresh memory of basic photographic technique. I've a couple of books, John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide and NG's Photography Field Guide: Secrets to Making Great Pictures both inspirational with good technical advice and thought of adding Understanding Exposure - Bryan Peterson, anyone seen this? 2. LOOK for inspiration, other photographers photos, (Photonet, IMO is an excellent resource). 3. Be PREPARED - Carry a camera everywhere with a fully charged battery and clean memory card. (I've been disappointed not to have a camera when seeing a good photo opportunity and caught out by flat batteries and no memory space before). 4. SEE - have an idea of the picture before clicking the shutter. 5. TAKE PLENTY OF PHOTOS: - to find the best viewpoint for landscapes - to capture the moment (and the focus point!) for action and people. - to learn to use the equipment (practise makes perfect). - To develop style and photographers "eye"- stepping out of comfort zone experimenting with different subjects and techniques. 6. AVOID CAMERA SHAKE, use a tripod where appropriate and shoot within shutter speed limits imposed by technique, equipment and subject matter. 7. PATIENCE expect to wait for perfect light, it's the LIGHT that makes the photograph. Make the best of it, get up early and avoid the harsh shadows of midday. Find something else to do if the light is uninteresting, unless somewhere for a short time only. 8. Shoot at the BEST QUALITY available on your camera, Raw if possible. 9. REVIEW your results critically and learn from successes and failures. 10. EDIT hard, print and share only share your best work. Finally, not from anyone's list, but something I intend to learn is PHOTOSHOP to make the best of the shots I've taken and to keep busy on dark winter nights. Thanks again for all your top tips. Kevin >Thanks everyone for taking part in the "Top tips" debate, even those that >were very judgemental of me and my abilities. My photographic abilities may >be average but it doesn't stop me taking the odd decent picture, with your >tips I'll maybe get a few more. <big snip> >Finally, not from anyone's list, but something I intend to learn is >PHOTOSHOP to make the best of the shots I've taken and to keep busy on dark >winter nights. I was surprised that very few contributors to this thread made any reference to gaining a fundamental understanding of light and lighting. Specifically, how differing light produces significantly different results with the same subject. For example, with landscape or architectural photography, the direction of the incident light is of crucial importance to the shot. That means choosing the right time of day, even the right time of year, to make the shot. It might even involve going back to the same site several times just to get the right weather conditions. A good understanding of light can save you a lot of time by predicting (with some accuracy) what time of day is best to make the shot. You can learn a lot about light and lighting by studying the work of great photographers. That doesn't mean copying their style, just understanding what it is about the light that makes particular shots of theirs better than others. Black and white images are particularly useful for this as the light and shade is not overlaid with colour. It is no coincidence that the best and most successful photographers all have a superb grasp of light and lighting. For example, Ansel Adams is lauded for his superb landscapes, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Doisneau for their street photography and portraiture, and Robert Capa for his war and documentary photography - a very diverse range of subjects. What these four great photographers had in common was their ability to use light to its best advantage. Photography is, after all, "painting with light". If you don't have at least a basic understanding of light, you cannot expect to produce attractive images - except of course by accident! No amount of work in Photoshop is ever going to make up for poor lighting. So my three tips would be: 1. Learn thoroughly the basics of light and lighting, 2. Understand your equipment and its limitations, and 3. Except for grab shots, think hard before you shoot and previsualise the final image based on what you see in front of you, both with your eyes alone and through the camera's viewfinder. <snip> >So my three tips would be: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the final image based on what you see in front of you, both with your >eyes alone and through the camera's viewfinder. 1. Agree 2. For sure 3. Yes, always Well put Tony. RP© > Photography is, after all, "painting with light". If you don't have > at least a basic understanding of light, you cannot expect to produce [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the final image based on what you see in front of you, both with your > eyes alone and through the camera's viewfinder. Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers that come out with that one. I'm surprised at you Tony. ;-) H. -- "Bend over, I'll drive" www.backfire.co.uk >Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers >that come out with that one. I'm surprised at you Tony. ;-) Don't wince. "Painting with light" is the best and most accurate description of photography that I have ever seen. Yes, it has become a cliché. But that doesn't prevent it being true. ;-) >>Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >>stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, it has become a cliché. But that doesn't prevent it being true. Actually, the term has become a new technique. So it's probably best not to use it anymore, otherwise a quick Google search will result in the newbie thinking he should go out and buy some flashlights: http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22painting+with+light  SignatureAlex atheist #2007 >>>Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >>>stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the newbie thinking he should go out and buy some flashlights: > http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22painting+with+light Actually, it's not that new. I have a photo annual from the late '40s that has a couple of images done that way... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >Actually, it's not that new. I have a photo annual from the late '40s that >has a couple of images done that way... Only now, it's economical to do it since so few captures are any good (even less than normal). SignatureAlex atheist #2007 >>>>Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >>>>stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Actually, it's not that new. I have a photo annual from the late '40s > that has a couple of images done that way... It's even older than that....Witness the paintings of some of the Dutch masters, like Rembrandt and Vermeer........ [SNIP] > It's even older than that....Witness the paintings of some of the Dutch > masters, like Rembrandt and Vermeer........ Or, later, Joseph Wright of Derby - surely the ultimate exponent of chiaroscuro. Peter >>Don't wince. "Painting with light" is the best and most accurate >>description of photography that I have ever seen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the newbie thinking he should go out and buy some flashlights: > http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22painting+with+light nice example: http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18353 SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > >Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" > >stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, it has become a cliché. But that doesn't prevent it being true. The word really translates as 'writing with light' - which makes less sense to me. Peter > > >Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" > > >stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The word really translates as 'writing with light' - which makes less sense > to me. I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >> The word really translates as 'writing with light' - which makes less sense >> to me. > > I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... It'll help if you can find an old Nikon service manual. The logic and control circuitry borrowed extensively from the centuries old Photomic T, one of the first photon controlled shooters. >>> The word really translates as 'writing with light' - which makes less sense >>> to me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and control circuitry borrowed extensively from the centuries old >Photomic T, one of the first photon controlled shooters. <scotty> "It's the resistors, Jim! I canna' get any spares any more!" </scotty> >>> I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > </scotty> <g> Anyone know where we can get a spare Scotty or two. :) >>>> I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > <g> Anyone know where we can get a spare Scotty or two. :) The guy was an absolute gem. I wonder if he could be cloned? >I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... It might help if you got the name right. They were Photon torpedoes. ;-) > >I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... > > It might help if you got the name right. They were Photon torpedoes. > > ;-) Though even that was presumably a misnomer - wouldn't the whole point be to use anti-photons? ;-) Peter >>>I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Peter nonono.. you only did that when Kirk was cornered and considering self-destruct.. What... every second episode or so? P. SignatureI do *NOT* have a short attention sp...(Oooh!! shiny!!) >> >I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >;-) That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. ;-) > That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility > throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. ...and, more importantly, shouldn't be watching Star Trek anyway. -tih SignatureDon't ascribe to stupidity what can be adequately explained by ignorance. >>> >I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ;-) Yes....for one thing, photons are their own anti-particle, so an anti photon beam would be the same thing as a photon beam....... >> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility >> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes....for one thing, photons are their own anti-particle, so an anti photon >beam would be the same thing as a photon beam....... Personally, I think this is a subject that would be better discussed over a bottle of fine malt whisky. ;-) > >> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility > >> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Personally, I think this is a subject that would be better discussed > over a bottle of fine malt whisky. Are you buying?... Peter >> >> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility >> >> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Are you buying?... Yes, next time I am in William's neck of the woods. ;-) >>> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility >>> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ;-) True, but then, wouldn't any subject be better discussed over a bottle of fine malt whiskey? >>>> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility >>>> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >True, but then, wouldn't any subject be better discussed over a bottle of >fine malt whiskey? Yes, but the stuff I drink doesn't have an "e" in it. ;-) >>> Personally, I think this is a subject that would be better discussed >>> over a bottle of fine malt whisky. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, but the stuff I drink doesn't have an "e" in it. Good man! Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo Gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111 >>>> Personally, I think this is a subject that would be better discussed >>>> over a bottle of fine malt whisky. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Good man! Thanks. My favourite tipple originates from a place that has 5 letters in its name, the first is "I" and the last "y". There isn't an "e" to be seen ... >Slainte Cheers! ;-) > Thanks. My favourite tipple originates from a place that has 5 > letters in its name, the first is "I" and the last "y". There isn't > an "e" to be seen ... Islay I presume. My God Polson, do we agree on something? I like the 12 yr old Bowmore myself, esp. in front of the fire. The 17 is a bit dead in taste. > > Thanks. My favourite tipple originates from a place that has 5 > > letters in its name, the first is "I" and the last "y". There isn't > > an "e" to be seen ... > > Islay I presume. He could have meant Italy... > My God Polson, do we agree on something? > > I like the 12 yr old Bowmore myself, esp. in front of the fire. The 17 > is a bit dead in taste. Bowmore? Islay Lite! ;-) Try Ardberg :-) (Mind you, for in front of the fire, I like The Balvenie, which is not an Islay.) Peter (making mischief, as usual.) > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote > > > Islay I presume. > > Bowmore myself > Try Ardberg Usquebaugh anyone? The stuff I was given was green and redolent of turpentine with a hefty dose of Lysol: the ultimate in obscure Scotch. I have never seen the stuff on the shelf, but have heard there is a commercial brand of the liquor. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > Usquebaugh anyone? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have never seen the stuff on the shelf, but have > heard there is a commercial brand of the liquor. This really is becoming a thread with the toppest of tips. :-) Signatureinvalid = com >>>>> That's true. But anyone searching for true scientific credibility >>>>> throughout *one* episode of "Star Trek" is likely to be disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ;-) "Whisky, by any other name, would taste as good".....To paraphrase the bard..... >"Tony Polson" wrote in message >> Yes, but the stuff I drink doesn't have an "e" in it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"Whisky, by any other name, would taste as good".....To paraphrase the >bard..... Never a truer word. ;-) >Personally, I think this is a subject that would be better discussed >over a bottle of fine malt whisky. I'll drink to that! jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA >>I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... > >It might help if you got the name right. They were Photon torpedoes. > >;-) Tony, if you don't know, be quiet. While Photon torpedoes were from Star Trek, and are figments of Gene's imagination, Photonic torpedoes are real. The technology came from the alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell, NM. We (the US) have adapted the technology for use in the Star Wars missile defense system. I could tell you how I know this, but then I'd have to take down the entire Internet. Hint: think Laser. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >>I still don't understand how Photonic torpedos work... > > It might help if you got the name right. They were Photon torpedoes. > > ;-) Yes. And it's too late to find out now....Scotty (James Doohan) died a couple of years ago..... >"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes. And it's too late to find out now....Scotty (James Doohan) died a >couple of years ago..... "He's dead, Jim." ;-) >> Photography is, after all, "painting with light". If you don't have >> at least a basic understanding of light, you cannot expect to produce [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers > that come out with that one. I'm surprised at you Tony. ;-) Well, literally, "photography" means light drawing... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Photography is, after all, "painting with light". If you don't have >>> at least a basic understanding of light, you cannot expect to produce [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Well, literally, "photography" means light drawing... Exactly so. Sometimes, the truth hurts. ;-) > Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" > stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers > that come out with that one. I'm surprised at you Tony. ;-) How about "pencil of nature" then? Signature_______________________________________________________ How long before is 'well before' in 'Shake well before using'? _______________________________________________________ >> Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >> stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers >> that come out with that one. I'm surprised at you Tony. ;-) > >How about "pencil of nature" then? We're getting away from the point, which is the fundamental importance of understanding light and lighting, which is of course at the root of understanding photography. >>>Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >>>stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of understanding light and lighting, which is of course at the root of > understanding photography. "painting with light" is one of those advanced techniques that most photogs will never get around to even playing with, much less achieving mastery in any sense. Selectively flashing parts of the scene with a handheld strobe (painting with light) is (IMHO) only suitable for stationary objects or extremely patient models (who will not move or flinch when the strobe fires). I've never had any reason to even try it myself, it sounds like the wanted effect could be achieved in Photoshop from an image that is well exposed in the conventional sense. > "painting with light" is one of those advanced techniques that most > photogs will never get around to even playing with, much less achieving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wanted effect could be achieved in Photoshop from an image that is well > exposed in the conventional sense. Probably too true... Even if you did it in-camera, these days folks will assume you Photoshopped it anyway. Here's a short tutorial on it: http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/10-2006.htm >> "painting with light" is one of those advanced techniques that most >> photogs will never get around to even playing with, much less [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Here's a short tutorial on it: > http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/10-2006.htm Gret looking pictures! The first three image on the could be done by using layers and darkening the areas you want, the "action" shots are very clever indeed. I don't know if I'd want to even try getting real golf swing shots to look like that, my camera would have to be a bit too close for comfort. A sound operated shutter trigger could be used to synchronise with the impact of club head on ball. >>>>Not bad, but always wince whenever I hear that "painting with light" >>>>stuff. It's usually the pretentious and self-indulgent photographers [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >photogs will never get around to even playing with, much less achieving >mastery in any sense. Now you have *really* strayed away from the point. ;-) Let me throw in my $.02, based on many years in the school of hard knocks: 1. Learn to use your equipment until you can use it to make technically excellent images without thinking about the details. 2. After that, forget about the details of your equipment, and ignore advice from anyone who tells you that a different lens or gadget will somehow improve your photography. Avoid like the plague any discussions about what camera is better. 3. Teach yourself to see photographs in a subject even when you don't have your camera with you. Visualize how you would make a photograph of the subject even if you don't have your camera. 4. Study the work of other artists, not just photographers. If something strikes you as good, find out why it strikes you that way. 5. Never be afraid to experiment. 6. If you have to apologize for a defect in a picture you show to someone, don't show it in the first place. 7. If there is any one piece of equipment that will guarantee an improvement in your pictures, it would be a good sturdy tripod. It will help you both with technical quality and with the content. 8. If in doubt, shoot first and edit later. 9. A blurry or poorly exposed photograph is rarely artistic. 10. On the other hand, what Ansel Adams said is even more true: "A sharp image of a blurry concept is worthless." Steve >Thanks everyone for taking part in the "Top tips" debate, even those that >were very judgemental of me and my abilities. My photographic abilities may [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >Kevin At last a breath of fresh air .. thanks Kevin > Let me throw in my $.02, based on many years in the school of hard > knocks: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > > >Kevin Top Posted For Your Convenience: I love Kevin's remarks. As with anything, "JUST DO IT!" We can all sit around and intellectualize the heck out of any subject, but the true heroes are those that just do it. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who made a statement about critics, and at the end said (paraphrasing) "they know neither defeat nor victory." In the same statement he glorified those who had the guts to go out and fall flat on their faces while trying. Yes, one does need to understand their equipment. After that, it's like a guitar. Now that you understand it, let's hear you play. Steve > At last a breath of fresh air .. thanks Kevin > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >> > >> >Kevin > Top Posted For Your Convenience: Really. Snipped for convenience was missing. > I love Kevin's remarks. As with anything, "JUST DO IT!" We can all sit > around and intellectualize the heck out of any subject, but the true heroes > are those that just do it. Yet photography, unlike, say, basketball, hiking or tennis or dozens of other sports and pastimes, does lend itself to reflection and learning to a much higher degree. So, those who just buy a camera, and just go out and 'do it' are missing a lot of potential in their craft, if indeed, it is a craft for them. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> Top Posted For Your Convenience: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, those who just buy a camera, and just go out and 'do it' are missing a > lot of potential in their craft, if indeed, it is a craft for them. ..........huh? >Yet photography, unlike, say, basketball, hiking or tennis or dozens of >other sports and pastimes, does lend itself to reflection and learning >to a much higher degree. I know of very few pastimes *better* than hiking for reflection and for learning. Fortunately, hiking and photography mix reasonably well. As with other pursuits -- there's something to be said for book learning, and something to be said for real-world experience. Both are necessary, and neither is sufficient. I have nearly as many books about hiking and backpacking as I do about photography. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> Yet photography, unlike, say, basketball, hiking or tennis or dozens of >> other sports and pastimes, does lend itself to reflection and learning [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and for learning. Fortunately, hiking and photography mix > reasonably well. True enough. [see below]. > As with other pursuits -- there's something to be said for > book learning, and something to be said for real-world > experience. Both are necessary, and neither is sufficient. This is what I meant as my point, but managed to obfuscate it somewhat. > I have nearly as many books about hiking and > backpacking as I do about photography. Now I wonder why I said hiking, instead of "walking" or "strolling"?? At least I should have said, "day hiking on established trails with modest elevation gains", as in my mind I was excluding the zillions of details that can come up with backpacking. In any event, I was thinking about the relationship between studying up on a subject and doing it. Er, "just doing it" if you will! Would you say that the ratio of reading/learning about hiking and doing it was much lower than that same ratio as it applies to your photography? SignatureJohn McWilliams >Now I wonder why I said hiking, instead of "walking" or "strolling"?? At >least I should have said, "day hiking on established trails with modest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >say that the ratio of reading/learning about hiking and doing it was >much lower than that same ratio as it applies to your photography? Simple strolls don't take much book-learning, that's true. Long-distance hikes are another matter. I haven't given much thought to your second question, though it's surprisng how "bookish" hiking can be. You've got your journals and diaries, equipment- review sites, how-to books, and the whole cult of "ultra-light" hiking. You've got diaries and biographies by Aldo Leopold, Benton MacKaye, Colin Fletcher, Ray Jardine... There's this thing called the Appalachian Trail... a project I've been working on for the last thirty years or so. A fair chance that I might finish it in 2007 or 2008. You'd think, after 30 years one might know most of the tricks, but there's always more to learn (and un-learn.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Simple strolls don't take much book-learning, that's true. > Long-distance hikes are another matter. Many books had to be carried when the Mongolian immigrants walked from Nome Alaska to Terra del Fuego. > I haven't given much thought to your second question, > though it's surprisng how "bookish" hiking can be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > biographies by Aldo Leopold, Benton MacKaye, > Colin Fletcher, Ray Jardine... There has to be a book on strolling, there must ... Hey, there is a whole series on strolling through various cities: planned strolls, what a concept, heaven forbid you should just stroll around on one's own. I'll bet the books have 'equipment guides'. And there is "Hike to be fit: Strolling With John", by J. Merrill. Nothing on 'Competitive Nose Picking' though, wonder if I could get an advance? All that said, I am a Colin Fletcher fan. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > There has to be a book on strolling, there must ... > Hey, there is a whole series on strolling through various > cities: planned strolls, what a concept, heaven forbid > you should just stroll around on one's own. I'll bet the > books have 'equipment guides'. There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." I went out of my way not to buy it, but alas, a copy was given to me by my Unitarian minister. I think he picked it up for cheap at the library book sale. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." > > I went out of my way not to buy it [...] If you spent a lot of time in the "woods" you might better understand the need for such a book. >> There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." >> >> I went out of my way not to buy it [...] > > If you spent a lot of time in the "woods" you might better understand the > need for such a book. Or, you could "just do it". Studying such a project for long could have dire consequences ................. Steve >>> There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or, you could "just do it". Studying such a project for long could have > dire consequences ................. Particularly if there are mosquitos about ;-) Phil >>> There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve But then, again, one could use it as reading material while in the "library". Steve [re: "How to sh*t in the Woods."] > If you spent a lot of time in the "woods" you might better understand the > need for such a book. A good deal of time, thank you -- assuming there's nothing weird implied by the quotes around "woods." I see the need for a paragraph, a page, or even a few pages. But not a whole book. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> If you spent a lot of time in the "woods" you might better understand the >> need for such a book. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I see the need for a paragraph, a page, or even a few > pages. But not a whole book. Certainly for short hikes in the woods. But > If you spent a lot of time in the "woods" implies not just a need for an informative book, but for one that has *many* pages, and preferably a cheap book, not a coffee-table book having glossy, coated pages. > implies not just a need for an informative book, but for one that > has *many* pages, and preferably a cheap book, not a coffee-table > book having glossy, coated pages. Ah... like maybe a Gideon's Bible or something of that nature? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > [re: "How to sh*t in the Woods."] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see the need for a paragraph, a page, or even a few > pages. But not a whole book. Well, that would depend - surely - upon whether or not the pages were made of soft and absorbent paper. With a perforated binding. -- Jeff R. > There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." > > I went out of my way not to buy it, but alas, a copy > was given to me by my Unitarian minister. Beware the Unitarian Minister. ... Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. ... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? WB Yeats, Joni Mitchell I was a UU once, got excommunicated for professing a belief in the Trinity. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I was a UU once, got excommunicated for professing a > belief in the Trinity. Do UUs have "excommunication?" I kinda doubt it. Excellent. site for UU jokes: <http://stoney.sb.org/uujokes.html> (Hit "refresh" for a new joke...) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com "rafe b" <rafeb@foobar.com> wrote in message > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message > site for UU jokes: <http://stoney.sb.org/uujokes.html> These are not jokes, they are truths. > > I was a UU once, got excommunicated for professing a > > belief in the Trinity. > Do UUs have "excommunication?" I kinda doubt it. It was a joke... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com "rafe b" <rafeb@foobar.com> wrote in message > There's even a book, "How to sh.t in the Woods." What a lovely selection: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8417475-5906348?url=search-alias%3Daps& field-keywords=how+to+shit+in+the+woods Thanks, made my day. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com I would go further and say don't worry about cameras or lenses, ignore ISO, grain/noise reciprocity law failure (one for the film users there!) In fact before you begin to get your head around those things... learn to see. I mean really SEE the world around you. Look at things, through the lens of your eyes and try to see what it is that captures your imagination in a subject. Then, and only then, will you have something worth photographing. This will also tell you something about how to shoot it. If you're standing on a bare hilltop with one gnarled tree and you think, this place feels lonely, then try to shoot it to convey that emotion. Then learn about lighting. Not the studio kind, or flash, but learn about light and weather and how that affects things. Carry a compass. If you think, "This would look great on a winter's morning with that bright reddish light, and the long blueish shadows" - then check your compass to see where the sun will rise, figure out the composition, and return when the time of year, time of day, and the weather all combine to make this an amazing scene. I'm sorry if this sounds a little "new age" but I think too many people get bogged down in technology, and equipment and forget to really look at things. My one pence (which is roughly equivalent to 2 cents) Nigel -- http://www.nigelcampbell.net >I would go further and say don't worry about cameras or lenses, ignore >ISO, grain/noise reciprocity law failure (one for the film users [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Nigel Greetings from across the pond, Nigel. You've nailed it, good post. Nothing "new age" about it, learning to see is far more important than any camera or gizmo the photo magazines tell us to buy. Very nice images on your website, also. Cheers, Steve > Greetings from across the pond, Nigel. You've nailed it, good post. > Nothing "new age" about it, learning to see is far more important than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve I read something like "Good judgement comes from experience. And most experience comes from bad judgement." > I read something like "Good judgement comes from experience. And most > experience comes from bad judgement." Very, very, very true words. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I read something like "Good judgement comes from experience. And most > experience comes from bad judgement." I like that! >> There has to be a book on strolling, there must ... >> Hey, there is a whole series on strolling through various [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > was given to me by my Unitarian minister. I think > he picked it up for cheap at the library book sale. Well, hopefully it's written on tissue paper. > > Top Posted For Your Convenience: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, those who just buy a camera, and just go out and 'do it' are missing > a lot of potential in their craft, if indeed, it is a craft for them. I completely agree, you will not only take better photos but also have more fun doing it if you know your equipment inside and out. The time to get to know you lenses is just shooting test photos, of nothing you care about. The same is true for learning how your camera meters and what you have to do to get a good exposure. And then there is the trade off between what ISO you shoot at what f/stop and what shutter speed, taking time to experiment and really getting a good understanding of the three is very important. Whereas you could just go out and take photos when you are learning the personality of your camera and lenses it is far easy to do so at home with photos that don't matter in the least. And if you are a film shooter you should have a good understanding of the different films that you might use testing the look of each before using them for photos that you really care about. You can use the Brownian motion method were you don't bother to read anything and just randomly play with the camera controls and film types or you can study and learn a bit of the science behind what you are doing. I would highly recommend reading as a good way to get to the end result faster. No book can, or at least should, tell you exactly what to do in every situation, but at least if will give you an idea about what the effects of changing the f/number are as an example. And if this is all too much then just put the camera in full auto mode and live with the photos the camera wants to take and not the ones you want to take. Scott <snip thoughtful, valuable exposition> > You can use the Brownian motion method were you don't bother to read > anything and just randomly play with the camera controls and film [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you > want to take. When I lectured beginning race car drivers, I told them we expected they would come to the school prepared; that they would have a thorough knowledge of the rules, of their cars, of their cars' capabilities. All they could learn from our time together was the relationship between their own skills and the limits imposed by rules and vehicles. I always said there are so many things about racing that are important and require serious consideration, that the most essential of all learned skills is the _management_ of attention: where and when and how to focus and/or spread attention appropriately. And I always said that acquisition of attention skills is greatly facilitated by study of the rules and the discovery of their and their vehicles' capabilities. The more effort put into analytical practice and study, the quicker the skills would become second nature and performance approach mutual and optimal limits. No question that a 'Brownian Movement' technique of photography has a chance of making impactful images; no doubt that a blind pig will find an egg-corn once in a while. No doubt that effective training will raise the likelihood of successful, satisfying results from much less-and more pleasurable-effort. SignatureFrank ess "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it." the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century > When I lectured beginning race car drivers, I told them we expected > they would come to the school prepared; that they would have a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century Hi Frank, Thank you for the insight. I think what you say is profound and accurate but the metaphor is mostly inapplicable to the photographer in the sense that the audience (fan base) for a racer is defined long before a driver ever takes the wheel. Throughout the spectrum of racing, from local dirt track to Formula One, the objective and audience are basically the same. In photography the greatest challenge and thereby the thing that should place the highest demands on "management of attention" is 'who is the audience' and 'what is the vision'. Similarly in my, admittedly very personal spectrum of music, the washboard player at the local barn band and Neil Young are both successful musicians - the difference is not technical ability but their respective vision and audience - this is very different from racing and, in my opinion, closer to photography. Still, I agree with the basic premise that management of attention and the acquisition of the skills that facilitate that management is the most important thing, but in photography there is always the possibility that success will be measured retroactively or even posthumously. How do would you describe your audience? Are there people in your past or present, dead or alive that either guide or constrain your photographic style? Did any of your race students hit the big time? Thanks, Ron >> When I lectured beginning race car drivers, I told them we expected >> they would come to the school prepared; that they would have a [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > photographic style? > Did any of your race students hit the big time? Thank you for your response, Ron. I did ignore the external 'audience'; could be my underlying attitude was/is that it's not a major consideration at my level of involvement. The human organism is so complex and capable, and it is so seldom we have definitive answers as to what influences or determines its processes, often it's a matter of smile-and-shrug. Another metaphor I use is that of pin-bowlers v. spot-bowlers: a pin-bowler looks down the alley at the set, jiggles his perceptions into alignment, aims for the 'pocket', and lets fly; a spot-bowler knows which board the pocket is on, how much torque his style imparts to the ball, where the ball must be placed, looks at that spot on the alley, and puts his ball on that spot. I recommended that both bowlers learn all they could, rehearse it mentally until it was flawless in their imaging, then forget all the micro-actions and let their being do what it knew how. I taught my brother that way, and his first three actual bowls were strikes! Rick Mears won Indy four times; of course he was a _very_ advanced attention-manager when he arrived, and his presence was just a formalty in transitioning from off-road to paved surface racing. I did get to sign off his 'novice' license, though (you could look it up!). Thanks again for your comments. SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward > No question that a 'Brownian Movement' technique of photography has a > chance of making impactful images; no doubt that a blind pig will find > an egg-corn once in a while. acorn. >> No question that a 'Brownian Movement' technique of photography has >> a >> chance of making impactful images; no doubt that a blind pig will >> find an egg-corn once in a while. > > acorn. http://tinyurl.com/y3jruo ask me again ... >>> chance of making impactful images; no doubt that a blind pig will >>> find an egg-corn once in a while. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ask me again ... Ok. Your URL generated a google link to: > An eggcorn is a neologism suggested by Mark Liberman to denote > an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common > or modern word ("baited breath" for "bated breath"). http://www.answers.com/topic/eggcorn The question is, are you proud of, or are you willing to take responsibility for legitimizing the use of the oft derided "baited breath"? If so, we may be able to breathe a little easier. :) ASAAR <caught@22.com> observed > The question is, are you proud of, or are you willing to take >responsibility for legitimizing the use of the oft derided "baited >breath"? If so, we may be able to breathe a little easier. OK, let's get back to photography. How about:- "Marco-photography" - the raking of repeated views of San Marco in Venice with gondolas in the foreground. "Trip-odd" a device carried around by photographers and bird watchers to trip up odd bystanders. "Pawnography" - photos taken with a camera acquired from a pawnbrokers. Not to be confused with.. "Prawnography" - photos of creatures taken underwater in shallow seas. Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< > OK, let's get back to photography. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Pawnography" - photos taken with a camera acquired from a pawnbrokers. I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. > I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of > the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. My parents' once made a two hour video of walking around Paris, showing just their feet and the sidewalk, interspersed with the voices of my mother telling my father that he had left the camera on and my father replying that he had not. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of >> the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > voices of my mother telling my father that he had left the camera > on and my father replying that he had not. Sounds like a snippet would make "America's Funniest Home Videos." Steve >>> I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of >>> the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sounds like a snippet would make "America's Funniest Home Videos." Or part of the credit card add that ends in "priceless".... Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of >> the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > voices of my mother telling my father that he had left the camera > on and my father replying that he had not. <g> It's one thing for him to have put his foot in his mouth, and quite another to have captured the proof of it on video. Did he save the tape or (conveniently) reuse it? :) >> I'm sure that you and I are excellent photographers, but what of >> the rabble, you ask? Well, they're merely pedestrian footographers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > voices of my mother telling my father that he had left the camera > on and my father replying that he had not. Too post-modern for me, I'm afraid. ;-( Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo Gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111 > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote: > > My parents' once made a two hour video of walking around Paris, > > showing just their feet and the sidewalk, interspersed with the > > voices of my mother telling my father that he had left the camera > > on and my father replying that he had not. > Too post-modern for me, I'm afraid. ;-( They didn't do it on purpose, they were in their 80's, so it wasn't post-modern but classical. My father was quite excited that he had made a two hour video of Paris... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > The question is, are you proud of, or are you willing to take > responsibility for legitimizing the use of the oft derided "baited > breath"? If so, we may be able to breathe a little easier. This is a photography group so I'm afraid It's rather a mute point. SignatureAlan LeHun >> The question is, are you proud of, or are you willing to take >> responsibility for legitimizing the use of the oft derided "baited >> breath"? If so, we may be able to breathe a little easier. > > This is a photography group so I'm afraid It's rather a mute point. You mean you're not willing to discuss it. Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo Gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111 >>>> chance of making impactful images; no doubt that a blind pig will >>>> find an egg-corn once in a while. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > :) Sounds fishy to me. >> Top Posted For Your Convenience: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, those who just buy a camera, and just go out and 'do it' are missing > a lot of potential in their craft, if indeed, it is a craft for them. OTOH, at some point you have to quit gazing at your own navel and take a picture or two. >>> Top Posted For Your Convenience: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OTOH, at some point you have to quit gazing at your own navel and take a > picture or two. Exactly. Thank you. >>>> Top Posted For Your Convenience: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Thank you. AND if all else fails stick your thumb up yer rectum and whistle Dixie - - - - - in Dolby. . He He He <smirk> Ho Ho Ho.Ohh Deary Deary me. > Let me throw in my $.02, based on many years in the school of hard > knocks: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >> >>10. EDIT hard, print and share only share your best work. I disagree with number 6.....Sometimes the only picture you have of something is a bad one, and you have to show it, or you can't show others anything at all. I spend a lot of time working on pictures of myself, taken by others, in Photoshop, trying to get something decent to send to my kids that shows the way I looked those many years ago...... >I disagree with number 6.....Sometimes the only picture you have of >something is a bad one, and you have to show it, or you can't show others >anything at all. I spend a lot of time working on pictures of myself, taken >by others, in Photoshop, trying to get something decent to send to my kids >that shows the way I looked those many years ago...... This is where trimming your post is *really* a good thing. There are two #6s in the post you responded to. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Late |