To Ron's question : I don't think one becomes more creative by visiting an unknown part of the world.
is located in north-east Spain.
I would rather say north-west...! ;)
There is one too in France : le Finistère, in Brittany.
But not as further as the Spanish one. Both Celtic areas.
I wasn't thinking that visiting an unknown part of the world would make me more creative. It is more like just getting away and having different surroundings helps to free the mind.
I took this word by Confucius as my personal motto: "The eye is blind if the mind is absent."
It is often in the unexpected, uncalculated and very much overlooked moment, since we're mostly preoccupied and caught in a wave of thoughts and projections.
when inspiration is lacking, I do find the focus of a new place and the more intensive concentration that getting "away" allows to be useful.
Around here I am known for certain things. For example, I don't think the answer is having the ultimate in gear. It has to be good, but not great.
I like taking street shots with attractive people in them.
Travel helps. Being in an unfamiliar place seems to stimulate one's creative juices. I travel to the point of distraction.
There are many paths to photographic fulfillment.
I agree. The Tilburg-dutch artist and philosopher Kees Mandos said: 'Als ge 't hier nie ziet, ziede 't daor ook nie' which means roughly translated 'if you don't see it here (your own town) you won't see it there.'
Please define what is a "Great Photograph"
why do people miss the point when they start to intellectualize :o
why do people miss the point when they start to intellectualize :o
I believe I know exactly what Fons is saying.
I believe I do, too. We could compare beliefs, perhaps. After you?
I believe I know exactly what Fons is saying.
Ron, you being a SP par excellence, probably you know about Saul Leiter and if you don't, he is right up your street.
That being said, you really should try the 300 PF. It is good if not great, rather inconspicuous (if you don't mount the shade) and is a sweeeet long distance portrait lens.
To your OP:
1) Shoot;
2) Shoot some more:
3) At the end of the day when you think you're done shooting ... Shoot again.
Then, self-critique the hell out of your images. Be you own worst critic. Always look for improvements to be made in your images. Find a mentor that will kick your a$$. Use a camera/lens until you have harmonized with said camera/lens. Use the camera until you can operate it in the dark and the camera is an extension of your hands. Use your lenses until they are an extension of your eyes. Until you know the FOV and DOF without having to mount the lens. Previsualize the image you desire to capture in your minds eye, then reflect that image with camera position, lens choice and settings. The less post manipulation you need to make to attain your previsualized image, the better your are becoming.
After the above, shoot for the next level ... Crop only in the camera. If you need to crop in post to straighten a horizon or eliminate distractions or any reason ... then the image gets dumped.
Your 3 steps are nearly what HCB said, except #3 was only show the good ones.
Your 3 steps are nearly what HCB said, except #3 was only show the good ones. I think for those of us who shoot in a journalistic mode cropping, straightening horizons and other fixes are necessary. Things happen too fast. However, experience tends to eliminate bad horizons and various other mistakes. The fewer the better.
As a former photojournalist, I disagree. I used to crop 100% in the camera when I worked for a major market daily newspaper and shooting film. With sufficient practice and dedication, I think most photographers can attain that level of proficiency. Saying that because you shoot in a photojournalistic manner allows for cropping is an excuse for setting the bar low ... an excuse not to be self-critical ... is an excuse so accept flaws while shooting ... which could be corrected in the field.
For a period of time, I only printed full frame on all my assignments, no cropping, if a horizon was off, if the framing was off ... the photo was dumped.
I hope to attain that level of skill, discipline and self-critiquing again.
I guess that I will have to put my superman suit on... The way I look at it is if we have these tools, use them. Even when we only had film, cropping and many other adjustments were fundamental. I make photographs, nobody pays me for them, so I should have a bit of room to do it my way.
Shooting slides for projection was a very good training in the olden days!
You can call them "tools" or you can call them "crutches" ...
Many children use training wheels to learn how to ride. After a while the rider removes the training wheels because they have mastered a certain level of competency.
I am just addressing your title. We are all different and we all learn differently. I am giving you the lessons that allowed me to attain a high level of success as a photojournalist for major market newspapers and wire service.
I am very competitive and I embrace the challenge of photography. For me the challenge is to strive to capture the exceptional image on every assignment and to outshoot the competition. Those twin tenets are what drive me and my photography. It isn't about being paid. It isn't about doing it my way. It isn't about donning a Superman suit. It is about doing the best job one can ... it is about shooting better today by improving upon how you shot yesterday ... it is about tossing the crutches away and moving up the learning curve of exceptional photography.
...to become a better photographer stay away from forums and their convenient opinions and do it your own way...
Gary, I find your points very compelling.
Shooting slides for projection was a very good training in the olden days!
I am interested in your comment that you printed only the full frame "for a time". What were the factors that caused you to move away from this approach?
Gary, you are insulting a lot of photographers with the "crutches" analogy. You said your bit about not cropping, and I disagreed. What you wrote above adds nothing to the discussion and leaves a bad taste. As for training wheels, they are not used anymore. If everyone followed your advice a lot of great photography would have been pitched and most photographers would have given up in frustration. I know a retired commercial photographer of some note who advocates shooting wider than necessary to allow fine tuning later. There are many different schools of thought. You don't have to act like yours is the only one and you don't have to exaggerate to make a point.
....
I take Gary's comments as urging me not to settle for mediocrity when I could do better, and bravo - it's well said.
A different, yet related approach to the one espoused earlier, is advocated here (http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-35026932).
It basically boils down to "shoot lots, work out what you like, get better, repeat".
The debate about whether to get it right "in-camera" or not will run and run. It feels to me like a false dichotomy. It never does any harm to get the picture "as right as possible" in camera, but really, can the viewer tell whether a photograph was taken level or levelled slightly in post? I think not, unless the film border is included in the image.
That seems like a generic test to me - "can the viewer tell?" Of course another question is "does the viewer care?" For horizons, they need to be either properly level or dramatically tilted - timid tilting just looks like the error it is. So for horizons, they need to be right but it doesn't matter whether they were right in camera or not - to me at least. One can examine other errors - composition, focus, exposure, colour - on the same basis.
I take Gary's comments as urging me not to settle for mediocrity when I could do better, and bravo - it's well said.
Due to the characteristics of my eye sight, I always end up with horizon tilted -1.5 degrees. Most occasions don't necessitate any correction, but for the ones which do, I never hesitate performing the required adjustment. In the days of film, that entailed tilting the slide inside the mount or printing with the negative twisted slightly to correct. Now, I have a PS Action to arrive at the same solution.
I do apologize for insulting you, I never realized that your title of "How do you make really great photographs?" had a caveat restricting my experiences.
It certainly was. I only shot slides for many years, first Kondachrome, later Velvia, before I lost my interest in photography some 15 years ago. Now, that I started again, I find I still prefer to find a framing where I don't have to crop. Not using zooms if possible actually helps me, I find. It means I have to use my feet to find the best angle anyway ... :-)
Hermann
Anthony-Thanks, Gary, all this makes sense.
I didn't move away from the approach, the approach moved away from me. When I married and had children, I sorta hung up my cameras and my skill level diminished significantly. My children have all left the nest and I am working to get my skill level (consistency) back to my pro level. Back in 2006, when I purchased a 20D, my passion for photography re-ignited, I am working toward attaining my old skill level. For me, it is all about Time Behind the Viewfinder.
Getting it right in the camera, again for me, took a serious and conscience effort and a ton of wasted film. Then and now I shoot a lot. Film was free and my cameras had motors ... so I wasted a lot of film. My keeper rate was 1:36. This wasn't landscape, where you had time to setup your tripod or commercial work, where you can take a test shot with Polaroid film and readjust your lighting. Consequently, my framing required all the mental power I could muster as often framing/composition was on the fly. For me, for how I shoot and what I shoot, speed is essential (which is why news photogs often shoot with two cameras). As I approach the scene/subject I am previsualizing the final photo and making decisions on lens and camera position before looking through the viewfinder. Back then, when the camera was up to my eye, the camera settings were adjusted ... sorta in the background, semi-conscientiously and I focused all my conscientious mental power on the subject (composition, lighting, anticipation of action). Harmonizing with your equipment, being able to instantly and semi-automatically adjust your settings and lens to reflect a previsualized image, is an essential skill for a photojournalist. That all come down to time behind the viewfinder.
Due to the characteristics of my eye sight, I always end up with horizon tilted -1.5 degrees. Most occasions don't necessitate any correction, but for the ones which do, I never hesitate performing the required adjustment. In the days of film, that entailed tilting the slide inside the mount or printing with the negative twisted slightly to correct. Now, I have a PS Action to arrive at the same solution.Bjørn, being aware of this problem, can't you fix it by aiming off?
My optician gave me a long explanation but the gist is I cannot correct against something I cannot perceive.
Why don't you just turn on the little horizon thingie in the viewfinder? When the lines turn green, you are level.
I don't think anyone is saying don't crop or do other pp. Of course, one is entitled to use the whole range of available tools to create an image.
The point being made is, I think, that if one wants to train oneself in composition then a good way to do this can be to force oneself to compose within the restrictions of the viewfinder. This can make one work harder to get the image than sitting in front of the computer, and one can learn a lot that way.
One of Bjørn R's favourite training techniques is to limit oneself for a period to shooting with only a single prime lens.
Generally,the discipline of working with a limited range of tools, combined with self criticism of the results, can force the photographer to think harder about how to create, and this must be good. It does not follow from this that the photographer can never again use the full range of tools.
Almass: The first agency announced a few days ago they will only accept OOC JPEGs in the future for tge sake
of authenticity. They claim to have a software that detects any manipulation.
I do not buy this. I can sign my RAWs with the D3 and some other cameras can do the trick too.
As an agency I would require the photographers in the field to sign their photos.
That would bring the manufacturers to recreate electronically what was the authenticity of a negative earlier.
I do not see how personal experiences in photography are relevant to "Making a great photograph"?
Personal experiences are exactly what it says on the tin i.e. Personal.
What is good for Gary is no good for Frank and what is good for Ron is not good for Michael.
To crop or not to crop is totally irrelevant as it depends on the photographer and the subject at hand.
I personally do and will crop every which way I so please as it is part of my shooting pleasure.
To come back to the original subject of making great photograph and to underline VERY STRONGLY the point of cropping.
Most if not all great photographs have been manipulated ad nauseam whether it is the Capa soldier to the Afghan girl.
From HCB to Mccurry, from Adams to Avedon......all without exception have cropped and D&B and heavily PP'd their "great" photographs.
So give us a break and stop living in cuckoo land with the "get it right in the camera" and the Law of Third and Golden rubbish.
As for Photo Journalism, is there a need to remind everybody of the Oh so Pristine pictures that were NOT manipulated.....some people really believe in Santa!
I said it before and will say it again:
Photography is 50% in Camera and 50% in DarkRoom.
My personal experience is ........................................................to making better pictures.
There are photogs shooting infra-red, ultra-violet, landscape, et al ... Which are far far above my pay level ...
Then of course there is the matter, as Andrea noted, of situations where proper framing is just not possible and cropping in post must be assumed. This may be due to physical limitations on foot zooming or lens magnification, or to issues with the desired aspect ratio for a given composition vs. what the camera provides. Those of us pursuing landscape and/or macro photography are all too familiar with these issues.
Finally and again, I believe that getting it right in the camera will help people become a better photographer and will significantly contribute to making better pictures.Well this approach worked for me so I fully agree, but I also realise that it might not work for others as different people have different ways of learning.
Starting with an image that SOMEhow is unique....too many photos of too much of the same type (subject, activity, lens use, etc) tend to blur the senses and become "blah" "so what" "who cares" regardless of how technically competent they might be.
"There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now. It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new." The human body has been around for even longer, and even more people have made images of it, but it is still possible to do new things with the nude - as Bill Brandt and Robert Mapplethorpe, eg, demonstrate. It is not easy - but that is why it is worth doing.
"There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now. It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new."
The human body has been around for even longer, and even more people have made images of it, but it is still possible to do new things with the nude - as Bill Brandt and Robert Mapplethorpe, eg, demonstrate. It is not easy - but that is why it is worth doing.
Pictures of people are more memorable because we are people.
If I see a picture of a landscape that speaks to me it will often make me want to travel and visit that landscape, as a photographer sometimes it will inspire me to recreate my own version of the picture if it really leaves its mark on me, but I can't as easily relate to being a tree, a rock, or a river (depending on my state of mind ??? ). If I see a compelling picture of a person I can directly empathize with that person and the feelings they are expressing, or probably more accurately the feelings I am projecting onto them, and this leaves a longer lasting impression on me.
But just because MIT conducted a study doesn't mean taking photos of what they say is more memorable is going to make "great" photographs.
As a people photographer I think there are three main things that lead to making great people photographs. The expression of the person(s) or emotional impact of them in their environment, the lighting, and the composition. Any one of those things can make for a compelling picture, if all of them are attained in single photograph then you are on your way to making memorable photos. That seems pretty basic but I like to think it's true.
I feel you are right!
Art is always about the non-obvious.
Look at Michael Erlewine. He is doing the things he does for a purpose and the purpose he claims is not to please us.
Yet he pleases us with the intention not to please us. This is art.
MIT did a study, that's all it is.
I shoot landscapes and enjoy it as much as photographing people.
The only idea here I personally can connect to and identify with, is #4.
6. I probably left something important off this list, but the general idea is it is about the photographer and his connection to what he shoots.My number one; Light.
My number one; Light.
My number one; Light.
The rest follows automagically as in that I don't have to think about it.
Gary,
Your work reminds me of Rich Clarkson or Brian Lanker. Top news and sports photographers for a long time.
Perspective is Position of camera and pointing direction. Period.
My recipe is usually very simple. Stand in front of something really interesting and pay close attention to the elements within the frame.
Please let go of these rules Frank, it really doesn't belong on NikonGear to state such fixed thoughts.
Just go to the Organ thread, distortion all over the place and horizontal and vertical lines going right and left.
It's allowed to shoot a portrait or architecture with what ever lens you like,,,
Sure for some a paying client has the final saying - but IMHO that has nothing to do with the question of this thread,,,
Is there a recipe to create "great photos"?Yes there is, great photographers produce great photos ;D
I think no. The term great photos has not eben been defined.
Leave it to Kodak to figure it all out.