advertisement


Sorry I know I am boring (another lens ?)

matthewr
'Leica certainly would benefit from having a least one clown in a pinstripe suit on it's payroll'
Mick ? Arf

Anyone who owns a Sunbean S8 (487cc OHC inline POS ) and a 1961 BSA 348cc OHV B31 (another POS) and admits it on this forum must be a fXXkwit of the very highest order,he should be awarded the BFLA by HM Queen !

The one I found most irritating was his Royal FXXkwits pretentions to own a Ariel 4G 997cc Square Four,they stopped making 'em in '59 and most were scrapped/laid to waste way before he even had his first 5/- provisional.
 
Joe Petrik said:
Surely the rare talent is in taking the masterpiece in the first place, like this French bloke had done so often:

cbresson_ut0143043.jpg


Joe
Click to expand...
Sorry Joe but I must disagree,I think the basics of a masterpiece photo are the availibilty and importance of the subject and blasting off a couple of thousand frames,that's what most pro's do and bracketing for insurance,probably including your French bloke above.

Did you ever see Prince Andrews shots of his mother walking the corgis back to Sandringham ? Mediocre at best but brought to life by a master printer.

The ones in about '87 taken by a UK Daily Telegraph person who took over 2,200 shots of seal culling in Greenland and eventually had a winner where the baby seal looked up into the face of it's killer seconds before being clubbed to death ?
 
Artioneer

Did you ever see Prince Andrews shots of his mother walking the corgis back to Sandringham ? Mediocre at best but brought to life by a master printer.
Click to expand...

Not that I remember. Do you have a link, ideally before and after the master printer did his magic, to show me what you mean?

Joe
 
Joe,
I haven't seen the photo for decades,all that I can remember was that Andrew was using a Canon F1 and following his mother back (behind) after walking the corgis in early winter/light mist back to the palace.

My point is that would you or I get a free range with security (there was zero security then) chance of the very same shot and if so with a H/S motor drive could not many of us do much better.

Ever since I was given a Zeiss Ikon 'Nettar' before I was a teenager I've always been absolutely sure that the biggest difference between most pro's and many well meaning amateurs is the confidence and manipulation to be in the right place at the right time,lighting awareness,and blasting a couple of thousand frames at various speeds and apertures and not to be afraid to experiment.

The 'super prints' that we all see are probably at best less than 1% of the frames exposed,the other 99 plus % being well discarded but with digital photography everyone can now take 1,000 or even 10.000 shots for that winner and if you're at the right place and time who knows - you could own the definitive photo of the 21st. centuary ?
 
it's not about what others think of you. it's about your own production of quality in your own eyes and an awareness of the world that allows you to judge yourself properly. shooting 2000 frames for one image is verges on total failure, no matter how well the final, single print (you did not even make yourself) turns out. actually, if you can't make a good print out of it yourself, you're a complete tosser.

vuk.
 
Phillip Hyde - crusty 4X5 landscape icon - sarcastically spoke of photographers shooting hundreds of images and looking at them on the light table to find the "mistake". As a full-time professional photographer - environmental photo journalist - for 15 years I can assure you that I would starve if it took me 1000 trips of the shutter to get a good image. My clients don't really care about film costs, they care about production and time. Assignments are always streesful in terms of producing a high volume of quality work in a given amount of time. Time wasted shooting crap is time not spent scouting locations, searching for subjects, waiting for and anticipating great light etc. This is what produces good images. Planning, preparation, anticipating, and the ability - when need be - to work quickly and precisely - is what produces images. Wasting film - or digital images - is wasting time. Sure I might bracket half a stop to factor in potential errors in meter, and film speed calibration, but virtually all of my exposures work. When I work with people I never bracket. I am looking for a fleeting expression a moment that reveals something of the person, there is no time to shoot bad exposures. I can assure you Bresson did not bracket - a bit contrary to "the decisive moment". Certain kinds of photography, working in low light with a moving animal with a large telephoto wide open and minimum depth of field with a slowish shutter speed, is going to produce a higher cull rate than a landscape, but if something doesn't look good through the viewfinder, don't trip the shutter. As one becomes more experienced, I think one tends to shoot less subjects in a given day, explores them more thoroughly, and produces a higher rate of quality images. Discipline, craft, vision, and having something to say is what quality photography is about. At least that is what I strive for.

Cheers,
Garth
 
garyi said:
What is bracketing?

hehe.
Click to expand...

After determining exposure, the photographer then makes additional exposures, at different exposure settings to provide insurance against incorrect estimation of the original exposure. Even a very experienced photographer may bracket some as very high resolution films such as Velvia may have a latitude of only 1/3 of a stop, over or under, before an image may be spoilt and this is right on the verge of "acceptable tolerances" for both filmspeed, meter, and shutter, accuracy. I.E., even if your exposure is perfect, if your meter, processing, and shutter are all over or under exposing by as little as 1/4 of a stop, your image may be unacceptably over or under exposed. How widely one deviates from the original exposure gives some indication as to the photographers confidence in their abilities. Photographers shooting digital, would shoot in RAW format and look at the histogram to judge whether the exposure was "correct" and then compensate as, and if, neccesary. In any case, the ability to get the exposure right the first time is critical as often the best images are the most fleeting, with no opportunity for future exposures. This is even true with landscape photography where the most dramatic light may be very brief. Of course, photoshop gives abit more margin for error now, whether the image is film or digital capture - given that most film based images are also scanned. However, just as in music, a firm and reliable technical command of the medium is essential before creative expression can be attempted.

Cheers,
Garth

P.S. I don't want to be too snotty about all this! The fact is, if you just want to have fun, the latest matrix meters in the best and most recent film and digital cameras, will give you excellent exposures on automatic in the majority of instances. However, if you are serious and want to take things to another level, exposure is both a critical expressive as well as technical tool and it needs to be mastered. A thorough reading of Ansel Adams' "The Negative" is a great place to start.
 
Thanks Garth, as usual I get lost inthe language.

I do occasionaly use the braketing when in P mode to knock it up or down a stop. One lens I purchased on ebay was shagged and I had to knock it down to -3 to get an exposure, so I threw it in the end.
 
Artioneer,

...everyone can now take 1,000 or even 10.000 shots for that winner
Click to expand...
Sure, but I think there's much more merit in the decisive-moment approach to photography than in the motor-driven, 8 frames-per-second method that burns through rolls and rolls of film or CF card after CF card. If nothing else, I shudder at the thought of opening a thousand pix on screen or examining a thousands slides on a light table in the hopes of finding a winner.

Joe
 
Apparently more photos were taken in the last 2 or 3 years than in the whole history of photography.

I find it vaguely depressing - I'm trying to shoot less, and chuck away more.
 
guybat,

Apparently more photos were taken in the last 2 or 3 years than in the whole history of photography.
Click to expand...
Given the number of JPEG attachments of friends' children I get in e-mails, I would not be surprised if this were true. Why do people feel the need to empty their cards onto e-mails, when one or two good shots would have been far more effective, let alone appreciated.

Joe

P.S. It gets even worse with friends who don't understand that 2272x1704 pixel images are about five times bigger than they need to be for screen viewing.
 
Artioneer said:
The ones in about '87 taken by a UK Daily Telegraph person who took over 2,200 shots of seal culling in Greenland and eventually had a winner where the baby seal looked up into the face of it's killer seconds before being clubbed to death ?
Click to expand...
Joe,
I am not saying that taking thousand of frames is the right way but that's exactly what a UK photo journalist did in the above article on a 2/3 day assignment in Greenland and said so in the accompanying article.

It's seems obvious that the more frames anyone takes multiplies the chances of the optimum photograph,of course pro's minimize wastage by familiarity with their equipment and experience with the subject.

I did use 6 x 6 and when you only have 12/24 shots available it certainly slows everything down.

I have never really considered 5 x 4 - have you seen those awful De Vere 504's or Durst Pro Enlargers ? If you even considered your WAF with a few Naim boxes just try taking one of those home.
 
As one becomes more experienced, I think one tends to shoot less subjects in a given day, explores them more thoroughly, and produces a higher rate of quality images. Discipline, craft, vision, and having something to say is what quality photography is about. At least that is what I strive for.
Click to expand...
Wise words indeed.

garyi,
I would like to add that visiting exhibitions or websites may help with recognizing that "fleeting expression" but remember , to slavishly copy and strain to recreate another person's fleeting expression is not quite photography and not quite plagiarism. So, follow and learn from the examples of others as this will get you into “The Zone” and once arrived then “Feel The Force” and press the button.

You might like to get hold of BJP Published weekly (available at all good newsagents and by subscription) as imho they have a good split between technical writings, artistic reviews and lists of exhibitions to visit.

Keep on clicking but maybe not quite as quickly as you have been.
 
Auric, there is one universal truth for all of us, we need something to shoot.

I have pretty much exhausted my interest in the very local area, sure there is probably a lot more to shoot but its all very samey and importantly I am bored with it.

So much to learn, so much to learn.

I went to the Hawk Conservency for a day with the Birds which was fantastic. I took my stock lens and a 100-300mm zoom lens and it was a bitterly cold, rainy grey day.

No excuses here but I did not shoot one decent shot all day, they were all shit. I am not just talking 'not artistic shit' but just shit.

Gutted. The super zoom is shit haha really bad it could not focus for porridge if anything so much as farted the thing would zoom the barrel all the way out and all the way back again so frustrating and upsetting.

There was a couple on the course as well with a Canon number I think it was the 350D and he had a different lens on there clearly of better construction than mine and we have emailed a few sots to each other, he was happy to admit to having as little knowledge as me, but his pictures worked because it had a 'silent wave focus?' I think, super fast to focus, where as the mechanical one on mine was just a disaster.

Anyhow, we live and learn. One learning experience is instead of 7 shit lenses get one good one haha.
 
One other thing, I got sucked into the mechanics of it all and dropped the ball on having a go at photography this irony is not lost on me as you all sit there with your sage knowing eyes.
 
Anyhow, we live and learn. One learning experience is instead of 7 shit lenses get one good one haha.
Click to expand...
Don't despair Garyi. The point that folks like Vuk and various renowned photographers seem to teach us is that a good lens is merely one with focus where you intend it to be and playing to it's strengths. Seems to mean you work to it's needs rather than the other way round and I think we spend some time on that learning curve. Of course, some are better than others, period.
 
Paul fair enough.

I really want to be good though. I accept that I have about 99% more to learn but I prefer Matthews comment that basically its about shooting something good and this is where right now I let myself down. The hawk place was slightly different in that all I wanted was some decent shots of birds flying etc. Some of these shots were very much staged, they would intcie the bird to fly towards the camera with food etc, but still I failed. I also had it set on sports mode thinking that it would sort out the fast moving birds for me. Later in the day I decided to go manual, set a high shutter speed, a bit faster Iso an small aperture and these few shots were so much better than the sports setting which saturated anything bright to the point of uselessness, it was probably a lot to do with the very flat grey shitty day.

A well.

I had a hang over as well snigger.

Thing is it cost £100 for the day, something I can't afford to do often, but it was a great day none the less. Finishing with a wonderful Barn Owl who had lived in captivity all its life, it squawked for England but was fantastic fun. Apparently they send it off to dinners and what have you and it just flys around 'talking' to people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top