| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2002 06:27:22 AM · #1 |
How much time do you put into your photographs that you submit for this site?
I've had my digital camera for 1.5 years now and except for taking macro pictures of toys at home I've never done any kind of setup. My most shot subject is NHL hockey. With this subject the preparation that goes into it is just setting up my camera for optimal performance under the lighting conditions and speed of the game (ie fast shutter speed, but not too fast, hi ISO, wide open aperture). After that its a matter of pointing in the right places to get the exciting action.
Now that NHL regular season is over I just take walks in my neighborhood or local parks and take pictures of anything I find interesting. I guess the most setup time I spend is if I find a really interesting subject I'll try and take alot of pictures of it from different angles.
I'm a bit embarrassed by my traffic light shot because I'm much better than that. But I was new to the site and I just couldn't think of a transition and when that popped into my head it was already saturday and I wanted to take a picture and just post it and be done with it.
Well... that's it. Just answer the question. Thanks
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 07:16:04 AM · #2 |
It seems after looking at my profile that 4/7 of my shots have been setup. It seems that the time I spent on the shot is reflected negatively in the score I received. My [url=image.asp?IMAGE_ID=106]highest rated[/url] photo took about 5 minutes to setup, frame, and shoot a few shots.
[url=image.asp?IMAGE_ID=706]Layer After Layer[/url] took me anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to setup and shoot multiple shots.
[url=image.asp?IMAGE_ID=284]The Color Wheel[/url] took the most time (2-3hrs total buying, unpacking, laying out, shooting, packing back up, and returning :)), and is apparently one of the worst shots I've submitted so far.
In doing research on my shots to respond to your forum post, I've found that the less time I spend, the better the shots do. Maybe I'll use that motto this challenge and see what happens. :)
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 07:31:03 AM · #3 |
I have read comments stating that "it looks too setup" on several occasions... I can't seem to understand why people have issues with a setup photo. You can't always find a challenge topic in a daily stroll through the park. The 'setup' is what makes some photos challenging!
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 07:31:40 AM · #4 |
I think alot of it depends on your style of photography. I tend to be a "found" photo photographer. I seldom set up a picture and when I do, I am usually disappointed. This is not reflected in my submissions to the challenges though, as most of them have been set up..... but none of them is my best work by far.
Barbara |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 07:46:27 AM · #5 |
| "Finding" a photo is great when it happens. In a week long challenge opportunity, sometimes it is hard to find what you need. Improvisation is required... |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 07:51:35 AM · #6 |
| well I spent hours yeaterday trying to get a setup to work (lots of desk lights, a wwhite sheet etc) but later on in the afternoon I just happened to see a much better idea and too a few of that instead for submission |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 08:28:09 AM · #7 |
I usually dwell on the challenge for days, trying this and that. Then my wife says, "What about that?" I shoot it and it seems to work.
Now I just ask her from the beginning instead of wasting time. :) |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 09:38:56 AM · #8 |
The problem is, if you don't take the time to "set up" your shot, you will get tons of responses that say it looks like a snapshot! LOL!!
The set up consists of:
1. think about what you want to shoot
2. find said subject
3. compose and "set up" shot
4. take photo
5. re-compose and re-setup
6. take photo again
7. repeat steps 6 and 7 until you get it right!!!
Now how long does this take??? well for some of us we are STILL trying to get it right!!
Well anyway, for the "ground up" challenge I probably spent total of about 2 hours getting the right shot. (Still not quite sure it was the right shot, however) but there wasn't really any "set up" involved, mostly just composing. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 10:17:16 AM · #9 |
I'm still learning and VERY new to this so this type of helpful topics is great for me:)
I seem stuck in a mode of ;
1.) Think of something totally different than what I feel others will do. Which is my normal way of thinking anyway :)
2.) I get ready to take the photo and I stand there and think, ok, how close, flash, no flash, macro or not, angle, eye level... no wait ! take it from a lower sideways...ugh wait...then I stand there and chill and forget all that.
3.) Point and shoot and go..wow now I kinda like that.
4.) I sweat ALL week :)
I know rules are from experience and need to be applied. However, I do feel sometimes we tend to only focus on the challenge of the week and forget rules or get the rules down and forget what the challenge really is about. I think *balance* is the key. If I like it..then I feel I've done what I set out to do:)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/1/2002 10:18:51 AM. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 10:25:37 AM · #10 |
I don't think I've been doing this long enough to have worked out a 'style' and I'm enjoying playing with lots of different approaches.
The one thing I've noticed though is that when I 'find' things to take pictures of it still requires a bit of thought to then set it up well. The first thing that attracts you to a shot, doesn't mean that's the place that is the best to shoot it from (witness all the power lines etc in shots)
This comes down to having an idea of what the shot should look like before I start taking it. Doesn't mean I'm not open to stumbling across something that works well, but when I find it I still try to visualise what the final version will look like. It doesn't come too easily and it doesn't often work out, but the better shots are certainly the ones I put the thought in up front. Other wise I always find annoying things later on anyway.
Also, my wife is generally the best critic that I have (she's vicious) and also the best suggester of topics to shoot.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 10:38:40 AM · #11 |
I did over 100 shots last week and spent several hours reviewing them. The way I had to take the shot was physically difficult, resulting in probably 80% throw aways. I actually submitted one shot on Thursday, and wound up talking myself out of it and submitting another on Sunday. I would probably have done better with the original shot! I think I need to quit trying so hard and be more thoughtful about the composition. 80% planning and 20% execution would be much better than the reverse!
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 10:42:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by pnicholls:
I think I need to quit trying so hard and be more thoughtful about the composition. 80% planning and 20% execution would be much better than the reverse!
I think that's true, although I've found doing some 'concept shots' really helps. By that I mean think it out, take a few shots to see how
it looks but don't worry too much about getting these perfect, then use
them to refine the idea and go and shoot the final version. Use the quick feedback you can get from digital as an advantage...
40% plan, 10% shoot, 10% review, 20% plan again, 10% shoot again, 10% post process
Usually spend a couple of hours a week
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/1/2002 10:43:45 AM. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:10:41 AM · #13 |
| I'm still very much a beginner myself so there usually isn't much method to my madness. My table shot photo consisted of clearing anything off of or around my kitchen table before I let the Tasmanian Devil in to "pose". I put one slice of pizza on the plate, put the dog in the chair, set up my focus, took one blurry shot before the pizza was gone, got the last slice of leftover pizza and put it on the plate, ran after the dog, put him back on the chair, took about 4 more bad shots, went to the refrigerator, got out a slice of cheese and placed it on the plate, chased the dog down again, put him in the chair, and finally after 3 more shots I got the photo I submitted. This took about 10 minutes total time. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:31:44 AM · #14 |
I find I usually start out differently than I end up. For transitions, I had a totally different set-up involving microwaved Easter candy that didn't quite end up turning out very well. Then one afternoon I noticed the tomatoes I should have thrown out a while ago...
For ground up, though, I actually had several photos I liked. I had a pretty generic idea, but some logistical issues prevented me from ever even trying it. Out of frustration, I started taking quite random photos and ended up with one that I liked, but wasn't quite there. Went back the next day to try again, got a shot I thought was satisfactory. Then on the way home decided to try one more thing and that ended up being the keeper.
For this advertising one, I've had just one idea I thought of shortly after I read it. Unfortunately, more logistical issues will prevent me from even attempting this til the weekend. So I've been practicing on lighting and stuff, and not having too much luck (camera likes to take noisy photos when lit only by one 40-watt bulb). Now I have to think of an appropriate outdoor location for my shot.
I spend a lot of time thinking of things, but I rarely end up with the thing I've been thinking of. But this week may be different (hopefully). |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:32:12 AM · #15 |
Well, I think the best shots are the ones that have the basics down..whether they are setups or not.
Keep it simple. Photos are all about subjects most of the time. I see so many shots that have such great potential but they lose the focus of what the subject is.
I agree with Gordon about finding the right surroundings for a good subject. As a matter of fact..I am going to embarass Gordon and say that I think he has some of the greatest eyes for photos at this site :-) He has such simplicity and cleanliness along with finding the right elements to make an image jump from the screen or pull you in.
There are a couple others here ( Mousie ) that have a similar eye and that is what it takes. I won't name too many others for fear of missing a couple it's just Mousie and Gordon come to mind for the moment.
I guess what I am saying is that you either got it or you don't and all the set-up in the world won't help if the magic ain't there.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:36:25 AM · #16 |
| Unfortunatly I find myself in a constant & severe time deficit. Two little kids, many hours at work, side work, school, out of town visitors, etc. tends to leave very little time to devote to this hobby. I'm lucky if I spend an hour/week. Like this week, I can pretty much bet I wont be entering a photo. Just no danged time.... |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:39:39 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I guess what I am saying is that you either got it or you don't and all the set-up in the world won't help if the magic ain't there.
Nah. You can learn. You may never be Ansel Adams, but you'll get much better by practicing, listening to constructive comments, really thinking about other people's work and what you like or don't like, reading, etc.
Just cause you're 5'1" doesn't mean you can't learn to throw the basketball in the hoop.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 11:54:20 AM · #18 |
Nah. You can learn. You may never be Ansel Adams, but you'll get much better by practicing, listening to constructive comments, really thinking about other people's work and what you like or don't like, reading, etc.
Just cause you're 5'1" doesn't mean you can't learn to throw the basketball in the hoop.
I agree to a point.
I don't disagree that you can take someone who has no earthly idea of what an f-stop is and provide enough training so that the technical deficiency is less.
Teaching someone about lighting, proper editing etc.. can help them overcome common mistakes.
But...the eye that catches that spark in even the most mundane of shots is something that has to come from you. That eye may be in you waiting for someone to help you hone the skill.
But my point without getting too philosophical here is that photography is art and technical proficiency can only take you so far. Of course there are lots of passionate people that know what they want to accomplish and lack the technical know how or a place to get the feedback needed and I believe those are the folks that sites like this really help the most.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/1/2002 11:55:14 AM. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 12:19:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hokie:
But my point without getting too philosophical here is that photography is art and technical proficiency can only take you so far. Of course there are lots of passionate people that know what they want to accomplish and lack the technical know how or a place to get the feedback needed and I believe those are the folks that sites like this really help the most.
See, this mythical "eye" for art is one of my pet peeves. Of course technique can only take you so far. There are plenty of photos I see in these challenges that are perfectly exposed and focused that I don't rate higher than a 5 or a 6 simply because they just aren't that interesting.
But I really don't believe that given the same knowledge base of f-stops, lenses, tripods, and camera vests, you can say that x% of people will be able to always take great photographs while y% are doomed to struggle their whole life taking well-exposed pictures of bland sunsets. By figuring out exactly why you like your photo or someone else's, you can start to apply those principles when you think about taking a picture. If you find you like clean, uncluttered backgrounds, put your subject in front of one. If you find yourself drawn to photographs with strong diagonal lines, try taking some. If you don't like your results, try again. Eventually, you'll develop your own style based on things you like.
I don't submit my photos to this site so that people can tell me if I focused correctly or if I underexposed. From the reading I've done, I can pretty much figure it out for myself what I've done technically wrong. I do it because it encourages me to go out and take pictures that I normally wouldn't have taken. And to get some feedback on the ones that I like, so I can see if other people like them too. A secondary benefit of this is seeing what others like about other people's photographs, as well as being required to determine what I like about other people's photographs in evaluating them for voting.
I don't really like being told that I could possibly just have no aesthetic sense and could be wasting my time even trying to learn to take more than a snapshot;-)
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:07:10 PM · #20 |
I don't really like being told that I could possibly just have no aesthetic sense and could be wasting my time even trying to learn to take more than a snapshot;-)
I know what you mean. I have never and would never tell anyone that they have no aesthetic sense, skill, vision or whatever. Even if I thought their stuff was crap. Why?
Because ..1---Art is about the artist..not the critics. If an artistic expression whether it be photography, painting, sculpture..whatever ..gives YOU joy..do it.
Second, thats my opinion. What does or does not float my boat may be the end all be all to someone else.
And lastly, there is enough negative thinking in every crappy thing we got to do everyday..why bring it to a hobby :-)
My point though is this, there are folks where talent is simply there. You can't teach it, you can't buy it off the shelf and you can't will it into existence.
And I'm not talking about a Michael Jordanesque, Ansel Adams, Andy Warhol, Studs Terkel kind of talent. I'm talking about something a bit more modest but still sparkly and inexplicable.
I see a lot..and I mean A LOT of people here that have that in them. Sometimes they catch in it a photo here or there...some are more consistent and can produce a nice image at will.
Just to try and keep the thread on target, I was just commenting with an opinion that set-up time for photos has little or no bearing on the quality of the photo by itself. I usually think of time spent setting up a photo as time spent trying to squeeze the most I can get from a shot. Sometimes the most you can get is not very interesting :-)
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:13:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
See, this mythical "eye" for art is one of my pet peeves. Of course technique can only take you so far. There are plenty of photos I see in these challenges that are perfectly exposed and focused that I don't rate higher than a 5 or a 6 simply because they just aren't that interesting.
I tend to agree, most of this is just thought and work. I don't believe I have any great creative talent, but I do put quite a bit of effort in to getting a good shot. I think about it. I have intent in my pictures, they don't just randomly happen.
I spent several months devouring every book I could find on composition, technique, visual language and then looking through books
of professionals work, visiting galleries and critically looking at the shots I've taken for what I like or don't like. I try to learn from the
mistakes I've made, rather than just throwing them away.
I've never studied art or done art classes, though I've picked up quite a bit in the last few months. I've also been studying drawing/ painting techniques because a lot of the ideas are similar.
I've also practised quite a bit. Looking at the file numbers on my camera, I've taken over 4000 pictures since December. I've probably got about 100 that are okay. Maybe 10 that I really like. 3 that are framed and on my walls.
So mostly I think it is hard work.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:15:55 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
[I don't really like being told that I could possibly just have no aesthetic sense and could be wasting my time even trying to learn to take more than a snapshot;-)
[/i]
I am in agreement with you Kimbly. If someone takes horrible pictures and have been at it for 5 years, yes they may not have the knack. Most of us amatuers here have been in digital photography less than a year. I looked at photos I took in October when I got my camera and my latest photos and I can see a difference. It comes from a variety of factors such as learning new techniques, familiarity with the camera and it's features, tips from others, and plain learning from mistakes. I may never be a great photographer but so what, this is for fun.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:19:21 PM · #23 |
I, too, shoot mostly "found" subjects, although they may still be planned.
Interestingly, all three photos I've submitted so far have been shot with the camera held out at arm's length, and so were composed without using either viewfinder or LCD.
I think the difference in style between "set-up" and "found" is fine -- and I expect people will score photos they like higher.
I still think two things which will reduce the scoring and comment controversies would be to:
1) Have two parallel scores: "artistic" and "technical"
2) Post/link to photographer's comments with the photo on the voting page. Maybe limit comments if necessary. Since photographer can read and respond to voter's comments DURING the voting period, it makes no sense to hide it in the first place.
It would certainly have pre-emptively answered 80% of the comments on my first submission, freeing up those voters' time for more effective commentary. |
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:22:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
I am in agreement with you Kimbly. If someone takes horrible pictures and have been at it for 5 years, yes they may not have the knack.
Or it could just be they aren't really doing much to improve. Many people take horrible pictures for a lifetime because they don't care enough to learn how to do it better.
Even the basic rules of how to compose a shot could make a huge difference to many of the entries on this site.
Spending some time to learn how to post-process the image well on a computer would also improve a lot of the pictures. And no this isn't 'cheating' it is just finishing the craft of digital image making and producing a final product.
And sure, I agree, there are no rules. You shouldn't be constrained by artifical guidelines. But you'd better know damn well why you are breaking them. Many of the entries could be improved with a bit more thought and care and delibrate creation.
And I also love the description of getting the pizza picture with the dog - a lot of the time luck plays a big part too! But you can do more if you know how to use the luck you get.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2002 01:26:59 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
1) Have two parallel scores: "artistic" and "technical"
I'm not sure I agree with this, as a good picture has to have both elements. Technically excellent pictures can be extremely dull. Artistically great pictures can be let down by poor technique. A good picture has both in balance.
Also scoring is already a big overhead, doubling the overhead doesn't seem the best approach.
2) Post/link to photographer's comments with the photo on the voting page. Maybe limit comments if necessary. Since photographer can read and respond to voter's comments DURING the voting period, it makes no sense to hide it in the first place.
It would certainly have pre-emptively answered 80% of the comments on my first submission, freeing up those voters' time for more effective commentary.
Currently the photographer can't respond to the voter's comments. This was changed just recently, I guess to try and preserve anonymity and to avoid people canvasing for improved votes. Personally I preferred being able to answer comments directly, as they were made but that decision was taken.
I think being able to see the photographer's caption/ comments when they submitted the photograph would be really beneficial. |
|
