let's talk about improvement...

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Randy,

In high contrast light like that, you can reduce contrast by shortening the developing time. The developing times manufacturers recommend are for normal brightness ranges, basically what you get in light that is soft, like in overcast conditions. When the sun casts dark shadows, the range of brightness in the scene is too much for the film to handle when developed to normal contrast.

Try reducing the developing time 30% from normal. You will need to increase exposure one stop when you do this because the film's effective speed drops about a stop from such shortening of the developing time. So, determine correct shadow exposure, increase it a stop, then shoot and drop the developing time 30%.


These are two examples of this. Film was 120 size Tmax 100, developed in Rodinal for 30% less than normal with one stop more exposure than normal.

Chris, thanks very much, and for the nice examples - that is one thing I have not experimented with and want to try. I will do so soon.

One thing I HAVE tried is stand developing, but I am not sure it would work so well in this situation?

Randy

[Juan Valdenebro]

Originally Posted by zauhar

Can I kick this off with a real elementary example?

Lynn (lynnb) left a comment about one of my gallery photos - he said it was overexposed:



I exposed for the shadows, and the sun was really strong that day - I was not sure how to best handle it. Exposure was (I think) f4 @ 1/250 (Tri-X)

Would could I do to improve that? Stop the lens down more? Change development strategy? (I developed in Rodinal according to the chart.)

UPDATE: I've had additional criticism that I was too far away. Who says that the RFF forum is all sweetness and light!? ("Good capture!") That remark stings - I am well aware that I do not get close enough, and using the 21mm lens at the march only made that worse.


Randy

Hi Randy,

I would have exposed and developed this image exactly as you did...

Why less exposure/development if your subject is fine?

It would be a dull image in case of shorter development: you'd have less pronounced direct sun on the buildings, but at a much worse price: lower contrast on your real subject...

A photograph or a print doesn't require all parts of it inside a normal tonal range always: some parts can be, sometimes, a lot more important than others... Why show better buildings under direct sun (read, with more detail) when what matters and what you're showing is happening on the shades exclusively?

I'd even prefer the image with a bit more contrast on the subject... That's where dynamism is required...

Cheers,

Juan

[gdmcclintock]

In the photograph of the protest, the photographer is photographing from the sidelines. There is not enough engagement with the subject to make the photograph memorable.

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by gdmcclintock

In the photograph of the protest, the photographer is photographing from the sidelines. There is not enough engagement with the subject to make the photograph memorable.

That's the biggest issue - getting "close". Two elements to that:

1) Psychology. You have to be willing to "confront" the subject. In this case it would also mean mingling with cops acting as "escorts" who were on all sides of people in the march.

2) Skill. The crowd was moving surprisingly fast, and to get a shot from the best angle (in front) means backing up quickly.

So getting memorable photos is difficult. I am currently struggling with both of these issues.

Randy

[sreed2006]

Originally Posted by SciAggie

Here is an example of an image that was effectively ignored. I was driving through South Texas and was heartbroken at the condition of the rangeland in this particular area. I stopped and took this image. I only had a 50mm focal length and couldn't get everything in the frame I wanted, so I took two frames and later stitched them together in CS4.

I suspect I may have been better off depicting the dry conditions with several seperate images in a series. They could have shown more detail. #1 I didn't think of that at the time. #2 I didn't have access to the private property. ( I was shooting over a fence) #3 I was traveling on business, and couldn't devote time for more invloved reportage. That's my story - what do you say?

About 8 years ago, my morning commute to work was on a freeway that was almost always crowded, with frequent bumper-to-bumper slowdowns. One night a snowstorm had come through. As I was driving to work the next morning, there was 1 other car on my side of the freeway. I thought, "This will make a great picture - no cars on the road!" So, I took a picture through the windshield.

The picture was of a road covered with snow and one car off in the distance. Totally pointless and boring.

I saw the lack of a traffic jam and no cars as something amazing.

The camera did not record that at all.

When I saw your picture of the barren land in Texas, I was reminded of that picture I took. Perhaps you know how this rangeland really should look - but having never seen the land, I don't have a clue, and what I see is just apparently a barren field with a windmill. There's no recorded context of what ought to be there instead.

I saw some 'before' and 'after' pictures of a tropical island that had been stripped clean of trees by a hurricane. The before shot had lots of large trees on a hill. The after shot showed a barren hill. That was impressive, and the context was right there for comparison.

So, that is my critique of your rangeland photo. Hope that it helps.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Originally Posted by gdmcclintock

In the photograph of the protest, the photographer is photographing from the sidelines. There is not enough engagement with the subject to make the photograph memorable.

Your opinion... But it can be questionable... If true, no memorable photographs would exist done with 50mm lenses... (And above...)

Photographs are memorable not because of engagement with the subject, but because of content, no matter where the photographer shoots from.

Again, you can "be there" with a 28 or 25 and get boring photographs.

About improvement: I found interesting a good photographer once said he didn't use to look through camera too much: almost never... Just for an instant: while shooting... I find looking at reality without camera, means a lot more than I used to think...

Cheers,

Juan

[gdmcclintock]

My opinion concerns the photograph in question. In general, memorable photographs engage the subject, and this engagement is revealed by the content.

Originally Posted by Juan Valdenebro

Your opinion... But it can be questionable... If true, no memorable photographs would exist done with 50mm lenses... (And above...)

Photographs are memorable not because of engagement with the subject, but because of content, no matter where the photographer shoots from.

Again, you can "be there" with a 28 or 25 and get boring photographs.

About improvement: I found interesting a good photographer once said he didn't use to look through camera too much: almost never... Just for an instant: while shooting... I find looking at reality without camera, means a lot more than I used to think...

Cheers,

Juan

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

1. Don't Dream, Practice

Stop pitying yourself for the lack of time, beautiful subjects, wonderful sceneries, 'happenings'. Anything in the world can become your subject including those readily accessible to you. A subject looks mundane only when the photographer didn't want to spend the time or the effort to make it look otherwise.

2. Aim higher

If you decided that you want to use your cat as a subject, don't be satisfied with just taking snapshots of your cat. Do your homework, look for cat photos that engages you. Don't copy, synthesize, create your own version.

Obviously, substitute 'cat' with anything you like to use as a subject.

3. Don't bore you viewers

Before you post multiple pages of your 'work', stop and think, what are you trying to convey?
This simple question is what distinguishes posts like those of Chris Crawford's and some threads about using one of the most expensive camera in the world by showing *lots* of shots that cannot be distinguished from those shot using a P&S.

Again, not because the poster is not a good photographer, just need a little friendly nudge to kick him/her into higher gear.

All good points, number 3 is close to me. I really like shots that are snapshots, BUT the photographer goes to a "higher gear" to make them excellent technically. Even if they are mundane; the technical excellence brings to a different level.

It reminds me of how Chaucer in the 'Canterbury Tales' used high English to describe something of low value. And he would mix high and low English is bawdy stories like 'the Miller's Tale' Maybe for the present (1968-2011) it would be combining 'ying and yang.' This isn't a good example but I took this snapshot 25 years ago, and for fun I went back and tried with cropping, etc. to bring it to another level. It didn't work but you get the idea:



Well, I tried,

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by nextreme

Do you still have the essay ? Would love to read it !

Cheers
Steven

Originally Posted by jayhopkins2001

I would love to see the essay too.
Jay

Just checked, and it is still HERE

[ferider]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Just checked, and it is still HERE

I liked this one a lot, Stewart and asked Joe to make it sticky.

Roland.

[SciAggie]

Originally Posted by sreed2006

About 8 years ago, my morning commute to work was on a freeway that was almost always crowded, with frequent bumper-to-bumper slowdowns. One night a snowstorm had come through. As I was driving to work the next morning, there was 1 other car on my side of the freeway. I thought, "This will make a great picture - no cars on the road!" So, I took a picture through the windshield.

The picture was of a road covered with snow and one car off in the distance. Totally pointless and boring.

I saw the lack of a traffic jam and no cars as something amazing.

The camera did not record that at all.

When I saw your picture of the barren land in Texas, I was reminded of that picture I took. Perhaps you know how this rangeland really should look - but having never seen the land, I don't have a clue, and what I see is just apparently a barren field with a windmill. There's no recorded context of what ought to be there instead.

I saw some 'before' and 'after' pictures of a tropical island that had been stripped clean of trees by a hurricane. The before shot had lots of large trees on a hill. The after shot showed a barren hill. That was impressive, and the context was right there for comparison.

So, that is my critique of your rangeland photo. Hope that it helps.

Yes, that is helpful. It is easy to "miss the forest for all the trees" as the saying goes. I think this thread has value as we share these sorts of experiences and opinions. In a previous post, and as you have alluded, this image is a record of a place but it contains no information to help the viewer see and feel what I was experiencing. That is a very helpful realization for me. Thanks for your input.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by gdmcclintock

My opinion concerns the photograph in question. In general, memorable photographs engage the subject, and this engagement is revealed by the content.

So, only photos of people are memorable?

[Teuthida]

1: avoid the picturesque, always.
2: never try to emulate someone else
3: be selective in what you show others
4: develop a style YOU like and ignore others criticisms
5: never, ever, equate sharp with good.
6: forget your gear.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by ferider

I liked this one a lot, Stewart and asked Joe to make it sticky.

Roland.

Thanks Roland

[Coldkennels]

Originally Posted by SciAggie

Here is an example of an image that was effectively ignored. I was driving through South Texas and was heartbroken at the condition of the rangeland in this particular area. I stopped and took this image. I only had a 50mm focal length and couldn't get everything in the frame I wanted, so I took two frames and later stitched them together in CS4.

I suspect I may have been better off depicting the dry conditions with several seperate images in a series. They could have shown more detail. #1 I didn't think of that at the time. #2 I didn't have access to the private property. ( I was shooting over a fence) #3 I was traveling on business, and couldn't devote time for more invloved reportage. That's my story - what do you say?

My two cents: I personally feel this would be better in colour. If you're trying to capture the barren, dried-out wasteland look, colour would probably convey that more than black and white (from this particular angle). As it is, the bottom half of the image looks somewhat empty.

[paulfish4570]

sci, on your photo, the main issue i see is the almost midpoint of the main horizontal line. perhaps if you'd sat down and given the foreground more than half the frame, with focus on the nearest rocks, we could have gotten a rockier, more desolate view. a change in perspective can do wonders. it is difficult for me to go from standing to sitting on the ground. my knees creak and bang like like shutters in a hurricane, but a change in perspective sometimes is just right ...

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

1: avoid the picturesque, always.
2: never try to emulate someone else
3: be selective in what you show others
4: develop a style YOU like and ignore others criticisms
5: never, ever, equate sharp with good.
6: forget your gear.

Great axioms, on number one; I went to a Yosemite exhibit at the Oakland Museum it had all visual disciplines. Ansel, the guy that did the swimming pool photos, and many famous paintings were there, but the one I remember was a photo of Yosemite with one of the typical (overdone) icons in the background but it was taken with the entire parking lots (which was over full) in the foreground.

[gns]

Originally Posted by photomoof

There is no lack of photo skills on the RFF, in fact the overall skill level and equipment knowledge may be in many cases better than many professional photographers.

But the main "problem" seems to be an lack of personal clarity about WHY one should be taking photos.

Traditionally most amateurs took photos to celebrate or record the those around them they knew personally.

Now everyone seems to be trying to make art.

It remains a mystery to me. But it has spilled over everywhere, when I ride my bike I am passed by geriatric "teams" of uniformed riders in an imaginary Tour de New Jersey on route 9W and I often think of the Winogrand wannabes who should probably go back to taking photos of their kids.

So before you improve, you have to discover what exactly it is you want [or need] to improve.

Personally I am just happy if I hold my iTouch steady enough to get a sharp photo of my girlfriend, sailing, biking, or just hanging out. I am too old to beat myself up over photography, I do most of it for fun.

Wow. Ok, then.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Will,

Once again, I have simply misunderstood you, and once again, I apologize. It may be down to the fact that today was the monthly Old Folks' Dinner, a (very) liquid lunch at the club d'amitié.

I am sure that you are right that one can grow to care about some of the things that one had never noticed, but I am equally sure that there are other subjects where it would never happen, at least for me. I don't drink coffee and I don't keep cats, for example...

In this context there are, I strongly suspect, two different kinds of photographers. Some find endless fascination in revisiting substantially the same thing. Others need the stimulus of novelty. I live in a very beautiful part of the world, surrounded with history, beautiful buildings, rivers. From my study, I can (just) see a thousand-year-old castle. I can borrow the keys to it whenever I want. But.... after nine years here, I've photographed all this enough. It no longer interests me on a daily or even monthly basis.

Less than an hour's drive away is another centuries-old fortress, much more photogenic, and owned by a friend. Well, an acquaintance: a friend-of-a-friend, whom I know well enough to be on first name terms. There are quite a few pictures of it in the Zeiss 18mm review at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...8%20zeiss.html. But I don't go there more than once a year. Been there; done that.

This may be viewed as a character flaw, but I don't really believe much in those: anything that doesn't hurt anyone else, doesn't qualify as a character flaw in my book. I don't complain that I have too few things to photograph: I just don't bother to photograph the things that don't interest me (or no longer interest me). I can however sympathize very easily with those who do not find visual stimulation in their surroundings.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Thank you for the clarification. Your post above helped me in seeing where you're coming from (and made me want to visit you and Frances someday).

And I agree with the two types of photographers you mentioned, which probably explain somewhat why some of us like Ansel Adams, and others detest him in preference to Gary Winogrand.

[gdmcclintock]

The subject of a photograph need not be a person. I am using the word "subject" in its most general sense.

Originally Posted by jsrockit

So, only photos of people are memorable?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by gdmcclintock

The subject of a photograph need not be a person. I am using the word "subject" in its most general sense.

Ok, I guess the word engage made me think person. Viewers can find almost anything engaging though... and this cannot be predicted.

[snausages]

One potential angle: talk to strangers. Engage with people you find interesting. In this way a camera can become a participant in a meaningful conversation. I rarely notice any photographer's lack of technical skills. But, I often notice their lack of engagement with their surroundings.

[gdmcclintock]

"Now everyone seems to be trying to make art."

What does this mean?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by PKR

I just completed a huge edit of 40+ years of personal and non personal (photos taken for money) film and image files. While many of these images generate money - the ones of most importance to me were ones of family and friends. I guess the next most important photos are the ones I haven't taken yet.

Yes, but are they the ones of most importance to other people? And if so, which other people?

At our age, we may be able to afford self-indulgence like this. But should it be an ambition?

For an amateur, yes, of course. For anyone with ambitions to be a Great (or even Good) photographer, possibly not. Or possibly yes, if we've earned a living from the other stuff.

At what age should one give up such ambitions?

Cheers,

R.

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes, but are they the ones of most importance to other people? And if so, which other people?

At our age, we may be able to afford self-indulgence like this. But should it be an ambition?

For an amateur, yes, of course. For anyone with ambitions to be a Great (or even Good) photographer, possibly not. Or possibly yes, if we've earned a living from the other stuff.

At what age should one give up such ambitions?

Cheers,

R.

Roger, why would you give up any ambitions prior to being put in the ground?

All the best, Randy