How to change up your photography -- the list

02/11/2011 09:02:44 AM · #1

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
You forgot the most important one--try adding wine glasses :)

hehehe...

Why isn't it on the first post yet? :-(

sorry!! I forgot! I'll do it first thing (next year :)

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

02/11/2011 09:00:11 AM · #2

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
You forgot the most important one--try adding wine glasses :)

hehehe...

Why isn't it on the first post yet? :-(

02/11/2011 08:51:23 AM · #3

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

You forgot the most important one--try adding wine glasses :)

hehehe...

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/11/2011 08:51:01 AM · #4

Originally posted by ubique:

I agree with Clive on hitting the books. I've read only Sontag of those he suggests and it's absorbing, especially at the second & third read. It gives a very well-considered context to photography in a social/intellectual sense rather than a technical sense (it has nothing overtly technical at all).

The photography book that most helped me find my own admittedly bizarre way to self-confidence was a cheap one. It's actually titled The Photography Book, published by Phaidon. 500 pages with one image per page, each accompanied by a roughly 200-word commentary. The commentaries are very good. The other thing I like is that there is only one image each from 500 photographers, spanning 150 years, so there's a great range of styles, techniques and ideologies. It's the sort of book that best repays random opening to a page or two on a regular basis � forever in fact. And as your own exposure (oh dear) grows, your re-appreciation of things you've looked at in the book earlier develops as well.

The Photography Book

Ok. Now you've intrigued me. I wasn't interested in the book aspect of things, because I've read so many of them. However, they have all been about technique. And you've reiterated a point that I knew well, but had forgotten: I need to look at others' works. I had no idea who Henri Cartier-Bresson was. I probably know the works of 3 famous photographers. That's it.

Ok. It's book time.

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

02/11/2011 08:48:08 AM · #5

You forgot the most important one--try adding wine glasses :)

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2011 08:44:08 AM · #6

I would say that The Art of Photography is also worth a read.
I'm also very fond of Robert Adams' various essays.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

02/11/2011 08:13:45 AM · #7

rooum

02/11/2011 06:57:41 AM · #8

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by bvy:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
A boring suggestion perhaps, but how about reading some theory? The usual suspects such as Barthes, Sontag and Berger still seem to be the first things they throw at students at university these days and probably for good reason. They are still great interesting reads if slightly frustrating and annoying at times. If nothing else they are bound to make you look at photography and the world with a different perspective.

Okay, I'm intrigued. I've been looking for a good source of theory, though not very hard. Which one would you start with?

FWIW... you might as well WATCH the Berger one, since the book is written based on the BBC production.
Ways of Seeing Episode 1 (1/4) There are four episodes. With a bit of poking around they're all on youtube.

Yes, might as well watch the old Berger series, and then go far the Barthes. Another very good place to start is The Photography Reader, edited by Liz Wells, which has extracts and essays from Barthes and Sontag as well as many others and is a fantastic collection. She also edited Photography: A Critical Introduction which is less theoretical and more accessible but also has some great stuff in it. On Amazon you can see the contents of both of these which will give you an idea of what to expect.

Message edited by author 2011-02-11 06:58:58.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/10/2011 09:46:10 PM · #9

Originally posted by bvy:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
A boring suggestion perhaps, but how about reading some theory? The usual suspects such as Barthes, Sontag and Berger still seem to be the first things they throw at students at university these days and probably for good reason. They are still great interesting reads if slightly frustrating and annoying at times. If nothing else they are bound to make you look at photography and the world with a different perspective.

Okay, I'm intrigued. I've been looking for a good source of theory, though not very hard. Which one would you start with?

FWIW... you might as well WATCH the Berger one, since the book is written based on the BBC production.
Ways of Seeing Episode 1 (1/4) There are four episodes. With a bit of poking around they're all on youtube.

bvy

Sigma DP1x

02/10/2011 09:37:37 PM · #10

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

A boring suggestion perhaps, but how about reading some theory? The usual suspects such as Barthes, Sontag and Berger still seem to be the first things they throw at students at university these days and probably for good reason. They are still great interesting reads if slightly frustrating and annoying at times. If nothing else they are bound to make you look at photography and the world with a different perspective.

Okay, I'm intrigued. I've been looking for a good source of theory, though not very hard. Which one would you start with?

zencow

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

02/10/2011 09:17:37 PM · #11

Number 15 on the list made me think of a tip I'd read somewhere: "Sometimes, just look up". This can be a good one in particular for street photography, if you've got large or overhanging structures around.

I'd recommend picking one or two of the ideas at a time and just getting deep with whatever change that is to your normal style. I find that if I try to go through a long list of things, I will forget or get discouraged, though some folks might enjoy the "going wild" aspect and get a ton of interesting stuff with all those variations in one outing.

My personal recent experimentation list:
- mostly black and white
- mostly use just the 18-55mm lens
- mostly use mid-range f-stops (eg: f/8-11), instead of full-open or full-close, as best image quality of a lens will be in the mid-range
- try slower shutter speeds and experiment with motion blur
- try low angles, "shooting from the hip" as others mentioned. Here I'm "shooting from the toe":

(I haven't yet posted the images I got from that day... I'll have to get on that! I got a cool B&W silhouette of DPCers in Seattle)

So, when following these "rules", I've often been making few settings changes with the camera, sticking with the basics above (but not militantly). I mostly just adjust shutter, ISO, zoom, focus, and me. I'm about ready to choose some new set of "rules" and then just run with that for a while, seeing what kind of shots I can get. I really liked the single-focal length and "shooting from the waist" suggestions.

rooum

02/10/2011 08:11:27 PM · #12

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2011 07:48:07 PM · #13

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok. I need to break out of my mold (but slowly and careful, because it scares me!!)

I see the shot. I take the shot. I don't know how to change it up.

A list isn't going to help you break out of your mold. What you need to do is think about why you are taking the picture, and what you want to get from your subject.

Stand or sit still for a few minutes and look at your subject. Examine it, look for details, patterns, shapes, textures. What about the subject makes you want to take a picture of it? How does the light look on it, would it look better later?

If you could only take one picture of a subject, how would you want to take it, what would you want to show?

All that bobbing and weaving is nonsensical if you don't know why you are taking the picture in the first place.

I know exactly why I take the picture. I like to chronicle beautiful things in nature. So I'm very literalistic. I watch and I see and I shoot. I get pictures like this.

But I'd like to try other forms of photography. Not just chronicles but creating something. That's why I'm looking for other methods. I know what works for my own method. I'd like to try another. :)

Louis

Nikon D800

02/10/2011 07:48:02 PM · #14

I was going to say what alohadave has said. Instead of making a list of ways to take a photo, there should be a reason to take the photo in the first place, and a reason to take a particular kind of photo, and a reason for the technique. Maybe thinking about the ways in which your style (or your reasons) determine your methods would be just as helpful as making a list.

alohadave

Pentax K-5

Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL AF

02/10/2011 07:43:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

Ok. I need to break out of my mold (but slowly and careful, because it scares me!!)

I see the shot. I take the shot. I don't know how to change it up.

A list isn't going to help you break out of your mold. What you need to do is think about why you are taking the picture, and what you want to get from your subject.

Stand or sit still for a few minutes and look at your subject. Examine it, look for details, patterns, shapes, textures. What about the subject makes you want to take a picture of it? How does the light look on it, would it look better later?

If you could only take one picture of a subject, how would you want to take it, what would you want to show?

All that bobbing and weaving is nonsensical if you don't know why you are taking the picture in the first place.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens

02/10/2011 06:30:32 PM · #16

I shoot from the top of my truck sometimes. It gets me up above some foreground distractions, and/or allows me to get a better perspective of desirable foreground elements. I got the idea from AA. Ansel Adams, photographing in Yosemite National Park from atop his car in about 1942.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/10/2011 06:19:58 PM · #17

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

2: Rotate, rotate, rotate and rotate again. See if a rotation of an image is more interesting than the original orientation. Works best for abstract subjects - worst for landscapes.

My mom sorta taught me this one. I had shot this closeup of ants on a flower. I liked it how I shot it - in a "portrait" orientation. She has a large 16x20 of it hanging in her living room framed and hung in a horizontal orientation, because she likes it better that way and the framer agreed. Over years of staring at it, it's grown on me... LOL

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

02/10/2011 06:11:50 PM · #18

At the risk of taking this off track, not all creativity occurs in the field. Here are some in-computer techniques that help you get the most out of what you have in the camera:

1: Zoom in so you can see only 1/4 of the image in Photoshop. Now move the image around and see if different parts of the image are more interesting than the whole.
2: Rotate, rotate, rotate and rotate again. See if a rotation of an image is more interesting than the original orientation. Works best for abstract subjects - worst for landscapes.
3: Reflect the image horizontally. Mirror images are sometimes more interesting than the original orientation. For some subjects reflect vertically. Reflection is not the same as a double rotation.

4: if you forget to do them in the field, there are equivalent photoshop techniques for many of the camera techniques. Use 'em if you forgot 'em in the field.

5: Break the rules: center your subject in a square crop; crop only 1/4 of your subject within the frame; try different quarters of the subject; try high aspect ratio crops ... greater than 2 to 1.

Just food for thought.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/10/2011 05:48:43 PM · #19

Yah, with a widish angle lens you can set an f/stop of 11 and focus just short of infinity and be pretty close to the hyperfocal one way or the other. Use the linked DOF calculator to find your hyperfocal more precisely, but we don't need to be that critical for this kiond of photography. The main thing is, take OFF the autofocus and have it set at the hyperfocal, use aperture priority or a calculated base manual exposure, and then let 'er rip. You do NOT want to use autofocus, because if something's really close to you (remember, you can't see what you're framing) then two bad things can happen with AF: the AF may grab the near object and most of the shot may be OOF, or the AF may grab infinity and the near object won't be close to in focus. So hyperfocal is the safest thing.

R.

tanguera

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/10/2011 05:43:32 PM · #20

Something I like to do is look for the negative space. As photographers we're always looking for the way things are lit. But I sometimes find that the unlit portion proves interesting patterns and shapes.

02/10/2011 05:38:29 PM · #21

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by vawendy:

That's the one I was perusing. However, it says to find the focal length of the lens, find your fstop and that tells you the hyperfocal length. But what fstop should I set for street photography? Do I want a really large hyperfocal length?

Well, in open daylight, you could go by the sunny 16 rule for selecting aperture. Say for instance f/16 at 1/200 at ISO 200. Wider lengths are more forgiving than longer lengths, so go with the lens zoomed out. Hyperfocal distance focusing is usually just short of focusing to infinity.

Here read this:
//www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/hyperfocal.html

02/10/2011 05:34:35 PM · #22

Originally posted by vawendy:

That's the one I was perusing. However, it says to find the focal length of the lens, find your fstop and that tells you the hyperfocal length. But what fstop should I set for street photography? Do I want a really large hyperfocal length?

Well, in open daylight, you could go by the sunny 16 rule for selecting aperture. Say for instance f/16 at 1/200 at ISO 200. Wider lengths are more forgiving than longer lengths, so go with the lens zoomed out. Hyperfocal distance focusing is usually just short of focusing to infinity.

02/10/2011 05:28:52 PM · #23

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I looked up hyperfocal length, and it varies dependent upon the fstop chosen. What type of hyperfocal length would you select for somewhere between 28 & 35mm?

It's hyperfocal distance, and unfortunately a lot of modern lenses, especially those not designated as pro, don't have a marking for it on the focus ring.

Here's something to look at though.
//www.dofmaster.com/charts.html

02/10/2011 05:25:19 PM · #24

Originally posted by vawendy:

I looked up hyperfocal length, and it varies dependent upon the fstop chosen. What type of hyperfocal length would you select for somewhere between 28 & 35mm?

It's hyperfocal distance, and unfortunately a lot of modern lenses, especially those not designated as pro, don't have a marking for it on the focus ring.

Here's something to look at though.
//www.dofmaster.com/charts.html