How do you make really great photographs?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Believe me I have tried over the years... the -1.5 degree off is the closest to zero I can get. Earlier the tilt varied all over the place. As it is now uncannily consistent, an easy fix in PS/Action.

I "see" this small amount of tilt as perfectly plane and horizontal. My optician gave me a long explanation but the gist is I cannot correct against something I cannot perceive.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Just looking at my photos from Maui I was surprised to find how many were framed in camera and not cropped.  Lots were cropped slightly for more impact.  Another group was cropped severely, mainly due to lack of reach.  Anyone who wants to ditch every image that would benefit from cropping is welcome to do so, but I see that as a terrible waste.  Speaking for myself, if things were still like they were with slide film, I would have a different hobby, and there are probably lots of people who wish I had a different hobby anyway.

[Frank Fremerey]

Ron: This is a great topic. We get emotional over it because these are permanent burning questions that are a part of our motivation to take any shot at all.

I told you before "Ron finds Sex everywhere" ... so it is another part of the motivation to worship beautiful women ... and maybe ... a phantasy ... a flirt ... whatever

***

What do you think Gary? Are you fully aware of the "why am I shooting at all? why now? why this? why that way?"

You speak of photography like a sporting event "I want to compete! I want to outshoot the competition!" It is almost a war you seem to wage....

Awareness is your Gospel, isn't it?

[Ron Scubadiver]

Frank I don't know what to say about finding sex everywhere...   I would rather call it beauty and a bit of the human condition.  There is definitely a fantasy element.  I also like costumes, weird clothing, tattoos, piercings and non standard hair colors.  I find Garry Winogrand to be a great inspiration and Sally Mann too.

[Andrea B.]

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.

[Andrea B.]

You all can stop baiting each other now. Let everyone speak their own personal passions without getting all testosterony and thinking you are being personally addressed. You're not.

We each have our personal goals when shooting. Like, some frame in camera and some don't. Me? Where I'm from, if I used too much foot zoom to get things framed nicely then I might have pitched forward into some canyon or backed myself into a pile of rattlesnakes. So no thank you. I'll crop later in the editor if I need to. And there is no way you will ever know, will you? 

The worst is when you get a foto all nicely framed and then discover when you see it in the article or book that some editor has whacked the bejesus out of it to get it to "fit". Sigh.

The worst of the worst was when I spent days getting the colour just right for some shots of an old Roman villa and later saw that they had all been converted to B&W. So much for my Really Great Photographs.

Oh well.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

Assumes the camera has the feature and I am using the view finder. Neither of which assumption might be true.

[Akira]

Based on my experience of using the integrated leveling scale of Sony NEX-5R/T, I don't really trust these thingies...

[Almass]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Gary]

My personal experience is that by cropping in the camera has caused me to focus much more on, composition/framing/lighting/the-whole-enchilada, than I had previously mustered before.

Again, for me, the lesson of getting it right in the camera was further enforced by denying the use of an image which wasn't 'correct in the camera'.

I also believe in only shooting with one lens which quickens the time required to harmonize with that lens. (No, I wouldn't employ the one lens training technique for work.)

Sure, these techniques, lessons, training may not be for everyone, but I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that nearly every successful photojournalist incorporated these techniques on their road to making better photographs.

I hate bringing up that I was a pro ... I am not trying to elevate myself above others just for the sake of elevation. But, I think it is important for those reading this thread to understand where I am coming from.  Maybe what works at a pro level of competency is too extreme for a hobbyist level of competency. I don't know ... But apparently, by many of the responses it does not.  Maybe it is my natural competitiveness clouding my vision ... But I just assumed that most people who are so into photography that they contribute routinely on an Internet photographic forum, would want to shoot like a pro, would actually want to make their photographs better. To that end I offered my suggestions and personal experience.  I acknowledge that I am not the best photographer on this forum.  There are photogs shooting infra-red, ultra-violet, landscape, et al ... Which are far far above my pay level ... But, in the genre of photojournalism and for the consistency require to be a pro, I think I'm pretty good and that others may learn from my personal experiences.

Maybe, the lessons which my mentors taught me, of how to make better photographs, are too extreme for those not desiring to be pros ... I don't know ... I started shooting as a stringer for the local papers when I was in junior high (middle school). I do believe that getting it right in the camera, with the severe penalty for not getting it right, will make you a better photographer. The concentration of purpose required to consistently get it right in the camera will elevate your images to higher level of success.  (A byproduct of getting it right in the camera is harmonizing with your equipment, the two go hand-in-hand when shooting photojournalist type of subjects.) The severe penalty I and my mentors imposed on my photography shortened my learning period. 

Back in the film-only days when I was shooting professionally, we would expose for our personal film development chemicals, techniques and previsualized final print. (i.e. I only agitated a couple of times during development.) Similarily, I believe one should intentionally expose to an expectation of post processing manipulation. Getting it right in the camera may mean to underexpose for the final image, if that is the shortest/cleanest road to take. Et cetera.

More often than not, I shoot with the intent to document and report ... Not to make art. As such, I typically restrict myself to the tools I would use in a wet darkroom, dodge, burn, contrast, dust removal, et al. This also helps reinforce the lesson of getting it right in the camera. 

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.

[Almass]

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.

1- Composition
It is a fallacy for wanting to learn Composition and the truism is to start by learning Perspective.
Perspective is the key to Composition and when one learns the former, the latter is a natural progression.

2- One lens
Most definitely one lens.......at a time.
I mentor a handful of photographers about Perspective with the help of a cut out 3x4 on an A4 card.....this is before touching any lens or camera......Learn how to see before trying to see.

[Almass]

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.

The main reason for agencies wanting Jpegs is not really for authenticity as there is no such thing in photography in the sense that we can manipulate any picture without anybody being the wiser.

The underlining reason is the firing of staff photographers caused by the explosion of mobile camera photography.
Agencies are now open to accept any picture from anybody and pay pittance for the picture rights.

It is always about the money.

[Ron Scubadiver]

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.

I agree with all of this.  If anyone out there wants to try what is good for me, go ahead, but it will probably be a disaster.   My version of the one lens thing is to go out with a lens affixed to the camera and no bag.  It really does wonders for my back.