DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> I need a break from this place
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 140 of 140, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/17/2002 03:48:18 PM · #126
Originally posted by marksimms:
You have just given away what your entry was this week Seltz :-)

I think I marked you up again this week...



Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]I see definite growth :)


[/i]


I think you lost one on that one... my comment was referring to the quality of Zeiss' work...

09/17/2002 04:53:31 PM · #127
Originally posted by TerryGee:
Yeah tom n texas, you are too good for this site- for example- this photo of yours, or this one -surely they are better than everyone elses.
Keep dreaming.....


Terry, thanks for enlightening me....I didn't realize that these were part of Tom's collection. As you say, a lot of dreaming... Did anyone say "big head"?

OK, I shall stop now. Jakob
09/17/2002 11:45:01 PM · #128
Stop bashing Tom :) I have seen some of your work as well... he's just being honest as to how he feels.

Everyone has a bad day once in a while. Taking 200 shots and choosing one for a challege doesn't mean you know how to photograph, because what you're doing is taking 200 shots and choosing one :) You won't be able to do that when it really counts, photographing a fleeting moment, etc. In fact, I'd say that anyone who took 150-200 shots to get one shot to enter a contest probably missed the point of photography -- he's simply aiming randomingly and hoping ONE hits. Hey, everyone can play golf and 1 out of 20,000 shots may seem like what Tiger Woods can do, but that doesn't mean squat.

I believe in one shot, one kill :) at least I aim for that success rate. My best photos usually happened when I thought "Wow, that's beautiful" and the camera naturally comes out, checking for exposure (spot metering) and then one shot. You can shoot as much as you want in a controlled setting, but it's hard to do that in nature. Here's one of those moments, i was about to leave a garden and looked into a pond and thought "wow.....", literally 10 seconds after I took the photo, the vision dissappeared:

Awakened
09/18/2002 12:15:21 AM · #129
I agree, he has some good stuff on his site, and his pencil photo was good techincally. I do not think it was fair to poke fun at his weaker images. He did not pick out anybody by name.

It is very dissapointing for some of us to have our photos rated lower than we think they should be.

What I think is really important, is that all the comments I saw that he left were very positive. We can use people like that here.
09/21/2002 12:25:50 PM · #130
Originally posted by paganini:
Stop bashing Tom :) I have seen some of your work as well...
he's just being honest as to how he feels.

Everyone has a bad day once in a while. Taking 200 shots and
choosing one for a challege doesn't mean you know how to
photograph, because what you're doing is taking 200 shots
and choosing one :) You won't be able to do that when it
really counts, photographing a fleeting moment, etc. In fact,
I'd say that anyone who took 150-200 shots to get one shot to
enter a contest probably missed the point of photography --
he's simply aiming randomingly and hoping ONE hits. Hey,
everyone can play golf and 1 out of 20,000 shots may seem
like what Tiger Woods can do, but that doesn't mean squat.

I believe in one shot, one kill :) at least I aim for that
success rate. My best photos usually happened when I thought
"Wow, that's beautiful" and the camera naturally comes out,
checking for exposure (spot metering) and then one shot.
You can shoot as much as you want in a controlled setting,
but it's hard to do that in nature. Here's one of those
moments, i was about to leave a garden and looked into a
pond and thought "wow.....", literally 10 seconds after I
took the photo, the vision dissappeared:

Awakened


I tend to disagree with what you say here. I don't think someone
who does this has missed the point of photography, they just
have a different approach to it than you do. You believe in luck
and 'happening to be in the right place at the right time'. Certainly
a valid approach and hoping to get lucky can certainly happen. I
wonder how you can learn and improve with that approach though, it
must be difficult.

Its interesting you talk about nature shots - seems like most of
the really admired landscape photographers in some cases take _years_
planning for the right shot. Sure they get some lucky breaks and
happen to have their cameras with them, but a lot of them return
year in year out to the right spot, at the right time because they've
calculated the light will be right and hope the weather plays along.

In one case I know, someone spent 10 years to get one shot that
they were happy with - returning on about 20 occasions to shoot.
09/21/2002 12:34:07 PM · #131
Surely one can work in both ways. My "street photography" is, by definition, unplanned, capturing the moment just as it occurs. However, I can see room for serious thought and planning for studio shots, special events and, yes, those landscapes.
09/21/2002 01:48:30 PM · #132
Originally posted by jakking:
Surely one can work in both ways. My "street photography" is, by definition, unplanned, capturing the moment just as it occurs. However, I can see room for serious thought and planning for studio shots, special events and, yes, those landscapes.


I agree. I also think part of successfull of "street photography" lies in being able to apply framing, lighting, and other "artistic" considerations to a transient situation. Maybe part of making a great still-life is to make it look like a an inspired moment captured, not a carefully staged tableau. I take many landscapes, sunsets, etc., and feel they combine elements of both...

* This message has been edited by the author on 9/21/2002 1:51:30 PM.
09/21/2002 04:52:34 PM · #133
Originally posted by lisae:
This is a fact of life. The rest of the world has an opinion of you that you have created for us, and you in turn resent us for it. You really can't have it both ways.


This is true of all cultures. Australians, are all out back with a Kangaroo chasing alligators. Japanese all live in houses made of paper, and sit on the floor. Africans are all black and live near Tarzan. I could go on and on about the stereotypes presented by the world media.

The biggest danger is not seeing past the stereotype, to the individual. It is so easy to say, "If you don't see my way then it must be your cultural shortcomings." Because a person thinks that Americans have restricted views, doesn't make them right. Anymore than an American saying that some other culture has a distorted view. All our views are based on our reference point, and therefore biased.

Just because you like something I don't, or vice versa. It doesn't make one of us right, and one of us wrong. It just makes us different, and thank goodness for that. Could you imagine a challenge where we all submitted exactly the same picture?

-Alex... who thinks that Tarzan is a myth, not all Africans are black, some Japanese have tall furniture, and some Australians have never even seen a real live Kangaroo.
09/21/2002 05:30:47 PM · #134
Did I mention "LUCK" in my post? I think not. Nothing happens by chance. You ahve to be there at the rigth place and the right time.

Do I take "insurance" shots? Yes. But I spend more time on composition than on pure "shots".

You may think the waterlilly photo i took was "luck" but rest assure it was not. I look down on the water on my way out, dissappointed because the garden was not spectacular due to teh lighting condition, I saw the sun COVERED by the cloud but near the edge..... I waited until the sun came out just a little and that was the result. 10 second later it was completely covered again and I waited for a second chance but didn't happen.

Landscape photographers like Ansel Adams do not have the luxury of multiple shots. Remmeber, he shoots these 50 lbs large format cameras. He spent time to get his composition and he often only takes ONE photo and have only one chance. he mentions it throughout his writings. His photograph of Orville for example, was a one shot deal.

And you actually read professional photographer writings, such as Galen Rowell, you will know that landscape are NEVER the same, you can't ever capture the same moment twice. if you come back 10 years later, what was virgin territory might have a road plowed right through your image.

BTW, landscape photographers, the good ones, don't depend on LUCK. The famous photograph Rowell was known for, the Tibetan Rainbow one, there were about 10 other photographers who saw the Rainbow about 1 mile away, only Rowell ran 1 mile to get the shot (he actually told them about his vision and no one else followed him) because based on his FIELD experience, he knows there is a good chance the rainbow will fall near the Palace. And what do you know, it was directly on top of the palace at the angle he was aiming for. There hasn't been ANY photograph even CLOSE to that ever sincec, it's not luck, it's being prepared.

Now, if you don't know the basics of photography (i.e. exposure and how a state of the art 35 mm matrix exposure meter like Nikon F5 could screw up at sunset and difficult lighting positions), then you should take a lot of photographs to know how to do it technically, but I am talkinga bout COMPOSITION here. I am talking the arts of seeing. The only way you're gonig to learn is to THINK about what you're going to take, BEFORE you take the photo. If you blindly shoot 100 shots at an object, you're doing it by LUCK as you call it, but if you have a vision, and you follow through with it, well, then you may have something assuming all the technical stuff are there.

Unfortunately, 99% of DP Challenge stuff can be done in a studio setting where lighting, etc. are all controlled, making it EASIER for the photographer to do 100-200 shots. I don't tend to take photographs of studio settings, but that's just me, i like nature photography the best because ther eare elements in it that i cannot control. I can't help it when the sun suddenly dissappeared int he clouds and i have hiked 10 miles to the destination to take the photograph of a waterfall :) I spend most of my time figuring out the composition and what feelings i have at that moment, rather than just shoot away and hope something hits, because it often times do not.


Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Stop bashing Tom :) I have seen some of your work as well...
he's just being honest as to how he feels.

Everyone has a bad day once in a while. Taking 200 shots and
choosing one for a challege doesn't mean you know how to
photograph, because what you're doing is taking 200 shots
and choosing one :) You won't be able to do that when it
really counts, photographing a fleeting moment, etc. In fact,
I'd say that anyone who took 150-200 shots to get one shot to
enter a contest probably missed the point of photography --
he's simply aiming randomingly and hoping ONE hits. Hey,
everyone can play golf and 1 out of 20,000 shots may seem
like what Tiger Woods can do, but that doesn't mean squat.

I believe in one shot, one kill :) at least I aim for that
success rate. My best photos usually happened when I thought
"Wow, that's beautiful" and the camera naturally comes out,
checking for exposure (spot metering) and then one shot.
You can shoot as much as you want in a controlled setting,
but it's hard to do that in nature. Here's one of those
moments, i was about to leave a garden and looked into a
pond and thought "wow.....", literally 10 seconds after I
took the photo, the vision dissappeared:

Awakened


I tend to disagree with what you say here. I don't think someone
who does this has missed the point of photography, they just
have a different approach to it than you do. You believe in luck
and 'happening to be in the right place at the right time'. Certainly
a valid approach and hoping to get lucky can certainly happen. I
wonder how you can learn and improve with that approach though, it
must be difficult.

Its interesting you talk about nature shots - seems like most of
the really admired landscape photographers in some cases take _years_
planning for the right shot. Sure they get some lucky breaks and
happen to have their cameras with them, but a lot of them return
year in year out to the right spot, at the right time because they've
calculated the light will be right and hope the weather plays along.

In one case I know, someone spent 10 years to get one shot that
they were happy with - returning on about 20 occasions to shoot.
[/i]

09/21/2002 05:43:20 PM · #135
Originally posted by paganini:
Did I mention "LUCK" in my post? I think not. Nothing happens by chance. You ahve to be there at the rigth place and the right time.


Urm, you just described being lucky - being in the right place at the
right time.

Other than that, you seem to be in violent agreement with me -
of course it takes talent and care - and a lot of thought.

You don't think rowell was lucky to be there when the weather just
happened to conspire to produce a rainbow ? Maybe you just have a
different definition of luck to the rest of the world. Yes he used
it to his advantage, but he was still lucky and made the best of the
luck that he got.

Read anything by Colin Pryor, or the many other current landscape
photographers - I'm sure Adams would shoot a load more now if he
were alive too (though even he shot a lot)

Rowell himself is quoted as saying he spent about one third of each
year revisiting places he'd been before to try and take better
landscape shots. I don't believe anyone said random shooting would
get you better, but shooting more helps improve your ability to
make good pictures. Trying different things helps improve your
chances of taking a good picture. Going back to places that
seemed promising before improves your opportunity to take a great
picture.

I still don't see what you find such a bad concept in that - but if
you prefer 'one shot - one kill' approach, thats great for you.

Rowell :"Very few of my top landscape photographs represent my initial
interaction with a subject. My most enduring photographs almost
always come from repeat visits to scenes I feel passionate about. "

Lots of shots of the same thing, at different times, maybe with
different techniques, leads to better pictures in general.

* This message has been edited by the author on 9/21/2002 6:00:58 PM.
09/22/2002 12:19:32 AM · #136
Being at the right place at the right time does not nececssarily mean "lucky". Lucky means that you're doing it by pure randomness, like someone shooting 200 shots on a given subject at the same time and hoping one "hits" without giving each shot serious thought.

There were 10 other photographers with Rowell during the Tibetan shoot, and he is the only one that came up with it. And yes, he has visited the same PLACE again, but never took the same photo (you can't, the moment is gone). Your conclusion is incorrect: each time you visit a place, a different lighting creates a totally different photograph, it's NOT the same as shooting the same subject 300 times and hoping one hits.

I think in general it is a bad idea to shoot a ton of shots on the same subject, trying different exposures, etc. Why? Because you're doing it either by some sort of mechanical structured technical approach (i.e. ok, i can't figure out the proper exposure, so let me just take a bunch of them, one of them has gotta hit, right?), or based purely on random chance. One should have a CLEAR IMAGE or VISION in one's head before shooting. Otherwise, you'll end up with a bunch of badly composed photos and maybe ONE will be decent, but you will not be able to repeat it again because it wasn't in your VISION to begin with.

(of course, if the vision sucks, well, then you're foobared....) There are a lot of very technically good photos out htere, but few are with enough emotional content that makes it a great photograph. That can only be done via composition and VISION: someone shooting 300 shots blindly may get one shot semi-OK, but would never be able to repeat it when the time counts and the time is critical. Landscape is dynamic, often you only have a few minutes to get hte shot and get the shot good enough with your own vision and style and at those times, you don't have th eluxury to shoot 400 photos and hoping one hits.

Let me make it clear: I do bracketing for exposures in cases that i am not totally sure, but i spent FAR MORE time trying to visualize, then the actual shooting. Because the technical part of the camera is the easy part -- the hard part is finding that right composition or the composition that I *see*.

To put it bluntly (another quote by Rowell): "Our photographs suceeded not when we like them, but when they evoke strong emotional response in others that we intended. If you doubt this statement is true because your best images accidently conveya more powerful message than you inteded, CONSIDER YOUR SUCCESS AS EVIDENCE NOT OF SPONTANEOUS CREATION OF GREAT ART, BUT OF THE *****LACK******* OF CONSISTENT CONTROL OF YOUR CHOSEN MEDIUM". In other words, if you shoot 300 shots and you're trying different ways without a clear "vision", those shots are just accidental. If you don't intend it, that is, if someone finds it interesting but you didn't intend it, you have failed.

That, my scottish friend :), is what I call LUCK! Or bad luck :) I always imagine shooting a digital camera the same way with FILM camera, because i don't want the ease of digital camera fool me into shooting things just for the heck of it and hoping it hits. I want to see it in my head, if I don't see it, i don't shoot. I want to create the vision i have, and if i don't have the vision or can't do it, i won't shoot. Digital cameras can easily make a person into a lame photographer.

(i was pretty proud when people hated my childhood photo :-) because it did evoke the emotional response i want them to have... sadness, despair and they hate me for it :))

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Did I mention "LUCK" in my post? I think not. Nothing happens by chance. You ahve to be there at the rigth place and the right time.


Urm, you just described being lucky - being in the right place at the
right time.

Other than that, you seem to be in violent agreement with me -
of course it takes talent and care - and a lot of thought.

You don't think rowell was lucky to be there when the weather just
happened to conspire to produce a rainbow ? Maybe you just have a
different definition of luck to the rest of the world. Yes he used
it to his advantage, but he was still lucky and made the best of the
luck that he got.

Read anything by Colin Pryor, or the many other current landscape
photographers - I'm sure Adams would shoot a load more now if he
were alive too (though even he shot a lot)

Rowell himself is quoted as saying he spent about one third of each
year revisiting places he'd been before to try and take better
landscape shots. I don't believe anyone said random shooting would
get you better, but shooting more helps improve your ability to
make good pictures. Trying different things helps improve your
chances of taking a good picture. Going back to places that
seemed promising before improves your opportunity to take a great
picture.

I still don't see what you find such a bad concept in that - but if
you prefer 'one shot - one kill' approach, thats great for you.

Rowell :"Very few of my top landscape photographs represent my initial
interaction with a subject. My most enduring photographs almost
always come from repeat visits to scenes I feel passionate about. "

Lots of shots of the same thing, at different times, maybe with
different techniques, leads to better pictures in general. [/i]

09/22/2002 12:34:01 AM · #137
I'll say it again, I think we are in agreement, you just want to argue
about it :)

I'd never shoot randomly - I always have an idea on how I want it to
look in the final version. I'm also using these challenges as a way
to explore techniques and as a means to learn how I can do certain
things with a camera.

I take a bunch of shots, evaluate them, learn from them, then try
other things, again look at them, learn from them and slowly improve
my technique and understanding on how to apply things in the future.

Once you've achieved mastery of the 'craft' then you can easily
automatically apply it for the art - I don't believe that many people
here could claim to have achieved mastery, and thus could benefit from
taking more pictures and trying to learn from them.

This week I've come to understand more about backlighting than I'd
ever wanted to know at the start of the week - once the challenge ends,
I'll show the difference from where I was at the start to were I am
now, with one picture that I had visualised and strived to achieve
over several sessions.

Next weeks entry is all about the 'one moment' and knowing how to set
things up - I took 3 shots to get the one I wanted - but I only knew
my camera well enough to take those 3 shots after a whole lot of
trial, error _and_appraisal of those errors_

Random shooting without any critical evaluation is a waste of time.
Learning from it and taking the most advantage of the two things
digital has over film is just common sense. I think people are
missing the point if they don't

compared to film digital has two advantages I see : its free to shoot
more, and you can see the results straight away.

A tight feedback loop, so you can learn faster. Not constrained by
the cost, so you can learn faster. This is a learning site - people
should use all they means at their disposal:)


09/22/2002 12:44:25 AM · #138
Paganini is SO prescriptive - there is only my way or you're an idiot. Boy, you should be in government!


* This message has been edited by an administrator on 9/22/2002 4:36:21 AM - Missing name tag in signature was breaking page.
09/22/2002 02:07:24 PM · #139
I think we are mostly in agreement :) but YOU just want to argue aboutit :)

Backlighting -- that's an interesting topic. Because, well, i want to see how people can get away with the BLUISH tint that is inevitable with backlighting int he DIGITAL CAMERA world (bluish fringing that is caused by Bayes interpolation), see here:

//www.pbase.com/image/3840658

(The scene on the top isn't bluish by any means... it's that annoying light + dark subject and interpolation... but i did get some light diffraction on the branches which were fun) So i look forward to see your photo without the bluish fringing :) It's one of those things that i don't think you can get away from doing backlighting without using photoshop to edit them.


Tony


Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I'll say it again, I think we are in agreement, you just want to argue
about it :)

I'd never shoot randomly - I always have an idea on how I want it to
look in the final version. I'm also using these challenges as a way
to explore techniques and as a means to learn how I can do certain
things with a camera.

I take a bunch of shots, evaluate them, learn from them, then try
other things, again look at them, learn from them and slowly improve
my technique and understanding on how to apply things in the future.

Once you've achieved mastery of the 'craft' then you can easily
automatically apply it for the art - I don't believe that many people
here could claim to have achieved mastery, and thus could benefit from
taking more pictures and trying to learn from them.

This week I've come to understand more about backlighting than I'd
ever wanted to know at the start of the week - once the challenge ends,
I'll show the difference from where I was at the start to were I am
now, with one picture that I had visualised and strived to achieve
over several sessions.

Next weeks entry is all about the 'one moment' and knowing how to set
things up - I took 3 shots to get the one I wanted - but I only knew
my camera well enough to take those 3 shots after a whole lot of
trial, error _and_appraisal of those errors_

Random shooting without any critical evaluation is a waste of time.
Learning from it and taking the most advantage of the two things
digital has over film is just common sense. I think people are
missing the point if they don't

compared to film digital has two advantages I see : its free to shoot
more, and you can see the results straight away.

A tight feedback loop, so you can learn faster. Not constrained by
the cost, so you can learn faster. This is a learning site - people
should use all they means at their disposal:)






* This message has been edited by the author on 9/22/2002 2:06:44 PM.
09/30/2002 03:27:08 PM · #140
Originally posted by paganini:
I think we are mostly in agreement :) but YOU just want to argue aboutit :)

Backlighting -- that's an interesting topic. Because, well, i want to see how people can get away with the BLUISH tint that is inevitable with backlighting int he DIGITAL CAMERA world (bluish fringing that is caused by Bayes interpolation), see here:

//www.pbase.com/image/3840658

(The scene on the top isn't bluish by any means... it's that annoying light + dark subject and interpolation... but i did get some light diffraction on the branches which were fun) So i look forward to see your photo without the bluish fringing :) It's one of those things that i don't think you can get away from doing backlighting without using photoshop to edit them.


Tony



I don't think I see any blue fringing...


<img border=0 src="//www.pbase.com/image/5200849.jpg]

Mind you, I don't think I'm finished after pressing the shutter
release anyway - it takes work to get a good print from film
or digital...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/16/2019 09:06:46 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/16/2019 09:06:46 AM EDT.