| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2003 11:32:41 PM · #1 |
I'm curious to know if the photographers here on DPC prefer set up shots or shots that are captured in their surroundings?
Personally, I feel much more proud of my efforts when I see something and capture it as opposed to setting up a shot based on my imagination. I walk around looking for scenes that are of interest, sometimes at risk of bumping into things because I am not paying attention to where I am going.
I am fortunate enough to have ribboned here a few times, but feel that these are not my best works, since they were manufactured shots. I got a blue for my Sunset at Six, but I feel much more deeply about my North Hatley Fog, Heavenly Skies, Three Views or Evening Star shots.
I don't know why, but I take more pride as a photographer to have found a photo as opposed to creating one.
Anybody else have as opinion?
|
|
|
|
11/26/2003 11:52:34 PM · #2 |
I feel exactly the same way. I'd rather reflect real life (unless it's something like Propoganda, then it kind of had to be set-up). Creativity in a set-up is nice, but finding a way to capture it in a still life shot always seems better to me.
Edit: As in a current contest, it's a real-life capture that I personally love, but the scores tanked right away...and I don't know why...There's 99 votes and 1 comment -_-
Message edited by author 2003-11-26 23:54:09. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:20:38 AM · #3 |
| I prefer "found" shots, but partly because it is too hard to do a set-up shot well -- and I usually have neither subject, equipment, nor patience for it. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:22:24 AM · #4 |
I'm rather the opposite. I love setting up shots and get very frustrated out in the field.
I think my best are ones that I've done in the studio. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:52:15 AM · #5 |
| Looking at the top of the home page here, I see 6 of what I would call set-ups. I prefer shooting outdoors but there's no denying what the voters have said. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 01:53:22 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Looking at the top of the home page here, I see 6 of what I would call set-ups. I prefer shooting outdoors but there's no denying what the voters have said. |
I'm curious as to what you'd see on the last couple of pages as well.
There's no question a well-done studio shot will probably make a "better" photo than one shot on the street, due to factors like focus and framing, lighting and the ability to try 200 versions.
Unless a challenge calls for a more photojournalistic style, I think the best of the set-up shots will usually do a little better than the best of the captured shots. Just one more thing to take into account when weighing subject vs. score |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 02:03:15 AM · #7 |
| I like both.To set up a shot that feels natural is a challenge. but to take a shot in nature or a found shot can be as much fun. I've had good results both ways. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 02:38:37 AM · #8 |
I get most satisfaction out of making a set up shot, mainly because I enjoy spending a whole evening just changing all the parameters in the shot, to get exactly that one single result that I am after. And it gives a feeling of achievement when it all works out.
I like nature shots as well, walking around, relaxing, enjoying the freedom, and am happy to spot a good location and take a good picture of it. But I feel it is less my achievement, it is more recording of what was already there.
With setup I feel more like an artist, MAKING a picture, in nature I feel more like a photographer, TAKING a picture.
Message edited by author 2003-11-27 03:01:08. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 09:49:08 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by willem:
With setup I feel more like an artist, MAKING a picture, in nature I feel more like a photographer, TAKING a picture. |
I feel this hits the nail on the head: The art in photography (taking a picture) is to be able to see something and properly transfer it to the 2 dimensional realm of the photograph, while still capturing the depth and richness of the real scene.
Personally, this is what I'm trying to attempt.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 10:02:11 AM · #10 |
Studio shots I find more technically demanding. You need to have really good grasp on lighting, exposure, composition, and style.
Seeing photos in my surroundings is less of a challenge for me. Im always looking at things from a "photographers perspective". I make mental notes all the time when I run a cross a scene Id like to shoot, an often return at "better light" to grab the shot.
If I have a good location scoped out, I know I can run out at sunset and get a good shot. For studio stuff, I spend more time setting up lights, designing the look of the photo, and working out the proper exposure. To me this is alot more demanding.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 10:40:52 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by willem:
I get most satisfaction out of making a set up shot, mainly because I enjoy spending a whole evening just changing all the parameters in the shot, to get exactly that one single result that I am after. And it gives a feeling of achievement when it all works out.
I like nature shots as well, walking around, relaxing, enjoying the freedom, and am happy to spot a good location and take a good picture of it. But I feel it is less my achievement, it is more recording of what was already there.
With setup I feel more like an artist, MAKING a picture, in nature I feel more like a photographer, TAKING a picture. |
I feel that getting a great outdoor shot is akin to "making" a studio shot. Twenty people can take the same scene but not all 20 will be great shots. Each photographer has his/her interpretation of what they are looking at and what they are trying to convey. Many times I get photos back that technically are well done but I don't show them because it was not what I intended to produce.
Each requires a different skill but both require an artistic sense. One is not better than the other just different. That's why some photographers only take portraits while others only do landscapes. Mostly everyone has there nitch in what they excell in and what they prefer. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:13:27 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by willem:
I get most satisfaction out of making a set up shot... it gives (me) a feeling of achievement when it all works out.
I like nature shots as well, walking around, relaxing, enjoying the freedom, and am happy to spot a good location and take a good picture of it. But I feel it is less my achievement, it is more recording of what was already there.
With setup I feel more like an artist, MAKING a picture, in nature I feel more like a photographer, TAKING a picture. |
Now then. That's the precise reverse of the way I look at it. With nature shots, I hardly ever feel that I'm recording what is already there. Instead, my aim is to bring out a particular characteristic or aspect given in what I perceive is there. The latent aim, really, is to try to match what nature provides with something I can provide, appreciative but not quite imitative of nature. The idea to reproduce would strike me not only as dull and uninspiring but also as arrogant (in light of 'everything'), since I myself am only an object of nature.
On the other hand, the argument you make 'for' the set-up shot, seems quite sensible to me as a matter of personal preference. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 12:56:15 PM · #13 |
My 2cents:
I like them both. I like to shoot and view them both. I think I shoot more studio style for three reasons. One the weather here in Oregon.[which will change with the seasons] Two going out alone to a remote area is not safe by myself and my husband isn't available 24-7 to escort me. Three I can always think of something here in the house to shoot. Either way I enjoy the challenge. |
|
|
|
11/27/2003 02:38:07 PM · #14 |
I like both formats. I do both formats. Sometimes I have an idea or a theme that I want to create a photo for, but I can't find something pre-existing in nature to relay my thoughts. In these cases, I set something up.
Overall, I prefer working in a controlled environment. It gives me much more opportunity to create my own work and make it look the way I want it to look.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 06:57:23 PM · #15 |
I like both, and I find challenges in both.
"Capturing" a shot, which I interpret to mean that I have little or no control over many of the variables, is fun and I have learned a lot by doing it.
I also like setting up shots and seeing if I can get them to look like they do in my head.
Oddly enough, I have found the two build on eachother. I started out doing mostly set up shots, and enjoyed that, but hated "going outside." When I did "get outside," (not necessarily outside, outside, but outside the setup part), my outside pics were generally better. When I came back inside, I found that they were improving too. Dunno. I guess it is just a matter of learning a few things that work, then applying them whereever you are.
Just as an aside, I find that I do more indoor work in the winter and outdoor in the summer. Just easier that way.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 07:45:57 PM · #16 |
Now then. That's the precise reverse of the way I look at it. With nature shots, I hardly ever feel that I'm recording what is already there. Instead, my aim is to bring out a particular characteristic or aspect given in what I perceive is there. The latent aim, really, is to try to match what nature provides with something I can provide, appreciative but not quite imitative of nature. The idea to reproduce would strike me not only as dull and uninspiring but also as arrogant (in light of 'everything'), since I myself am only an object of nature.
zeuszen
Zeuszen- easy for you to say. I feel that your photographs are works of Art. You have the eye for it. Me, I just feel like I̢۪m pressing a button on top of that thing called a camera. Almost all my photo̢۪s are set ups. I get an idea then work like hell to get it to where I like it. In Propaganda, I work near where they have been tearing up the earth to put in a new mall. I immediately knew what I wanted to do. Get a picture of an animal close to the site of destruction. I and Rita sat there one Saturday for 4 hours and not one bird even showed. Then the building manager came out and wanted to know what I was doing. I tried to explain but he wasn̢۪t having any of it.
I left in defeat.
That night my Daughter came home with a Prop bird. Just cardboard feathers rubber and wire. I ran out there the next day, set up quick, rattled off a few shots.
Not the greatest photo, but it was fun and I got some nice comments.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2003 09:13:46 PM · #17 |
Of the three or four recent threads about stock/not stock, I think this is the most rational. I like set up shots better because of the reasons given by jc. And it's cold here.
I just wanted to say the main reason I joined this site is because I want to become better at producing pictures that I can sell, ie: stock photos. The members here seem to have a lot of knowledge that they share freely with others. Of all the sites I have memberships to, this is the one that I feel will prove to be the most useful. I would have paid much more if it had been asked. To me, this is better than going to school.
edit: oops. The reasons were justine's.
Thanks to all you stock masters. You are helping me a lot.
Message edited by author 2003-11-27 21:14:53. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 01:05:49 AM · #18 |
In my opinion, the only "found" photographs are the ones that are purely attributed to being "in the right place at the right time", without prior knowledge of said subject/environment interaction. This means, "the photographer going out without the 'intent' of shooting an image", but with a camera "just in case" they find something. To me, this is akin to playing the lottery and when you win saying "I picked good lottery numbers." The more often you go out walking/driving with your camera, the more chances you have of finding something "interesting".
Here is one senario of what could be considered a "found" shot that is actually a "set up" shot. Let's say there is a church 5 blocks away from your house. It's a nice church, looks old and interesting, but there are houses behind it, and they tend to ruin the background of any pictures you've attempted there in the past. Suddenly a fog rolls in and you think, "dang I wonder if the fog would obscure those houses?" You walk down to the church (with your tripod, because you're thinking ahead) and realize, "wow, this is a great shot" and take the picture. In my opinion, that was a "set up" shot...no studio...but you had a subject in mind AND you knew the environmental conditions would be in your favor.
There are so many "set up" photo's around and a person doesn't even realize it. Even the time of day (or night), the wind speed and weather are factors in a shot being "set up".
A good sunset shot isn't (usually) a random "capture"; tripod, filters, time of day location and weather all play a part in creating a good sunset image. The same can be said for landscapes, night shots and architecture...most of the good ones are "set ups". The only difference is, they aren't taken in the studio. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 01:42:25 AM · #19 |
| Like my father a "true" artist said; "Nature is abstract, and it takes an artist to interprete it, and present it in a non-abstract way" This is what I try to do, so my nature shots are set-up to interprete the place, time, and subject. With digital, I now take lots of shots of a subject when before I only took a few. Some work and others don't, but its a joy to try. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 09:41:03 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Quadrajet:
In my opinion, the only "found" photographs are the ones that are purely attributed to being "in the right place at the right time", without prior knowledge of said subject/environment interaction...
...In my opinion, that was a "set up" shot...no studio...but you had a subject in mind AND you knew the environmental conditions would be in your favor.
|
I don't quite agree. A good photographer is usually well prepared with his equipment, knows his surroundings and might have a certain vision in mind. He is prepared to shoot pictures.
My definition of a setup shot was certainly not just a well tought out and executed shot, but rather one that is completely controlled by the photographer. In your example, it would have had to be someone with "mob" connections to get the offending buildings demolished, trees cut down, crowds controlled, etc. so that the picture would be perfect. In your example, there were still many factors that the photographer could not have in his complete control. To me, that is still a found shot.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 10:48:09 AM · #21 |
I have won 6 ribbons on this site.
Out of those, ONLY ONE was a setup shot.
And out of the non-setup shots, the highest scoring was done with a point and shoot.
So put that in your pipes and smoke it :D ..
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 11:44:20 AM · #22 |
My highest scoring photo ever wasn't a set up shot. It got a red ribbon.
I had no control over anything in the photo. Not the lighting, not the pose, not the smoke, nothing. I was just stood there with my camera taking photos of what was happening. If anyone thinks this is a set-up shot they couldn't be more wrong. The amount of attempts it took to get the exposure etc right was astonishing.
I did know I was going there to take photos (and listen to the music), but I set nothing up at all. Just because you know you're going to take a photo doesn't mean it's set-up in my opinion.
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 11:47:29.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 12:29:57 PM · #23 |
I don't think the original question was whether set-up shots are better then found shots.
The question was which you prefer doing, which are you more proud of, personally. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 01:03:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Now then. That's the precise reverse of the way I look at it. With nature shots, I hardly ever feel that I'm recording what is already there. Instead, my aim is to bring out a particular characteristic or aspect given in what I perceive is there. The latent aim, really, is to try to match what nature provides with something I can provide, appreciative but not quite imitative of nature. The idea to reproduce would strike me not only as dull and uninspiring but also as arrogant (in light of 'everything'), since I myself am only an object of nature.
zeuszen
Zeuszen- easy for you to say. I feel that your photographs are works of Art. You have the eye for it. Me, I just feel like I̢۪m pressing a button on top of that thing called a camera. Almost all my photo̢۪s are set ups. I get an idea then work like hell to get it to where I like it. In Propaganda, I work near where they have been tearing up the earth to put in a new mall. I immediately knew what I wanted to do. Get a picture of an animal close to the site of destruction. I and Rita sat there one Saturday for 4 hours and not one bird even showed. Then the building manager came out and wanted to know what I was doing. I tried to explain but he wasn̢۪t having any of it.
I left in defeat.
That night my Daughter came home with a Prop bird. Just cardboard feathers rubber and wire. I ran out there the next day, set up quick, rattled off a few shots.
Not the greatest photo, but it was fun and I got some nice comments. |
Well, I can relate, jm :-) I, too, am defeated more often than I succeed. The building manager (in your analogy) makes a good archtype for much that prevents possibilities. But I also feel that much of what we do and love to do carries a reward that is worth all adversity. It is this little sense, which keeps me sharp and keen enough to go out and TRY AGAIN. And again. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 07:55:43 PM · #25 |
| I prefer the 'captures' seems like more of a challenge, because you don't have the chance to adjust everything a hundred times, requires quick thinking and action...and I think more skill in some sense. To be able to see and capture 'on the spot' in whatever conditions the object of interest presents itself. |
|
