I don't get it ...

Quicksnapper

Quicksnapper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
704
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been trying to make the transition from happy snapper to "photographer" - how ever you define that - for a 3 or 4 years now, with varying degrees of success. In that time, I've pointed my camera at just about anything and everything - sports, landscapes, macro shots, portraits, wildlife, sea scales, architecture ... my hard drive is groaning under the weight of my accumulated outputs.

There have been a few posts on here, and other forums, recently from folks who, like me, are still in the early stages of this weird addiction we all suffer from, and who are questioning what they should shoot, whether they ought to specialise in a few genres and if so, what, and how to decide where to concentrate their efforts. I feel the same, but I think I'm getting there. I've realised through trial and error (mostly error!!) that there are some forms of the art that I just don't get. That doesn't make them bad or unworthy, just that they're not for me, personally, for one reason or another. I love images of people, especially older people, taken in context of their surroundings or activities; macro shots of just about anything; sport - especially athletics and equestrian sports; anything old or grungy - ruined buildings, rusty farm machinery etc; architecture ancient or modern ....

So, I was wondering what you guys just don't "get" (sorry - just re-read that!!! ... ) I mean in a photographic sense ...

I don't get ...

  • Birds ... the blimmin' things will insist in jumping about and flying off and just won't sit still long enough for me. I must learn to be more patient ...
  • Big landscapes ... of the hills, mountains and lakes variety. I've hiked up my fair share of hills and dales over the years, but just prefer to be in a landscape that try to capture it on camera...
  • Studio portraits ... always look a bit bland to me. Just can't help it. Shots of people in context, doing something or in their usual environment are great, but heads against blank backgrounds ...nope ..not for me ...
  • Still life ... can't seem to make a collection of inanimate object look like anything other that some stuff plonked on a table, and admire anyone who can arrange things artistically, light them well and get to the essence of the objects ...
So, I'm getting there I think. Shooting anything and everything is gradually being replaced with a better understanding of my abilities and interests and saving me a lot of heartache in the process. Still got a long way to go, of course, but that's what it's about ...
 
I think we must have been separated at birth :D

My list is almost identical to yours.

Birds - that's my fault. I don't have the patience to get anything beyond another Bluetit against a soft background. Got bored with those.
Big landscapes - I prefer to think about what's in the landscape, rather than the landscape itself.
Studio portraits, especially 'glamour' - leaves me cold, apart from a few exceptional ideas.
Still life - If I see another beautifully arranged and lit bunch of grapes, or tomatoes on the vine, I shall have to stab my screen.

Like you, I admire and appreciate those who produce excellent images in any of the above genres, but I think too often it's all a bit clichéd and samey. There are exceptions in every case.

I see all this as a positive thing though. I know what's not for me, although never say never.
 
What you get or don't get is a matter if appreciation, and it's always more difficult to appreciate a genre you don't expose yourself to. To pick two genres you mention, still life and studio portraits. I'm not mad keen on flat and uninteresting examples of either - and there are a lot of these on forums/Flicker/etc., but I do like looking at paintings in these genres and because of that I think I have a bit of an idea about why I like or dislike photographic examples in these genres. I've been doing a bit of landscape research recently, next to the sofa isn't a book of landscape photographs (although I do have a couple of good books on the subject) but a Taschen book of the landscapes of Caspar David Friedrich.

If there's a genre you don't "get", it may be that looking at established example from outside the photographic view point may help.


Edit: I'll agree with "glamour" as something I don't get. I have that pigeon-holed as guys-with-cameras pretending they don't want to shoot porn. The gender/age bias in the subjects tends to support this view.
 
Last edited:
theres a lot of photogrpahy I dont get..the best way IMHO is to shoot what you do get and just forget the rest... shoot what you enjoy and in time you will get to the top of your tree with it..
 
The difficulty lies in your first line - how you define a photographer. And beyond that, what, if anything, do you want to produce as a result? A work of art; a perfect record (define "perfect" how you will); increased technical mastery of the medium; acclaim from others; or something entirely different?

It's easier for me to say I "get" and why. I go out looking. Not for a subject to photograph but something that catches my eye in the sense of making me want to photograph it. So in that sense, it's everything and nothing.

Viewed as a pattern of light and dark and colours, does the subject necessarily matter as opposed to what you "translated" it to? Answer - yes, if you want a record; no if you want a work of art. Hence how do you define a photographer, or better, what do you actually want to achieve?
 
StephenM said:
The difficulty lies in your first line - how you define a photographer. And beyond that, what, if anything, do you want to produce as a result? A work of art; a perfect record (define "perfect" how you will); increased technical mastery of the medium; acclaim from others; or something entirely different?

It's easier for me to say I "get" and why. I go out looking. Not for a subject to photograph but something that catches my eye in the sense of making me want to photograph it. So in that sense, it's everything and nothing.

Viewed as a pattern of light and dark and colours, does the subject necessarily matter as opposed to what you "translated" it to? Answer - yes, if you want a record; no if you want a work of art. Hence how do you define a photographer, or better, what do you actually want to achieve?
Click to expand...

How you define a photographer is a whole other thread. I'd never say never to any type of photographic genre or activity. But the point is, I'm getting more focused (damn, I was trying not to use that word!!) on what I like and don't like. That doesn't mean I won't continue to explore and push my personal boundaries, nor to fully appreciate the work of those who are much better at, or specialised in, specific genres. Vive la difference ....
 
Does it come down to whether you like the process or the result? To go out looking for a particular type of subject, to specialise in a genre, to even divide up the world into categories for the purpose of photography.... Is this enjoying the process of photographing rather than starting with the end result and working backwards to achieve it?

There are lots of different ways you can subdivide photographers according to what they photograph; and similarly lots of ways you can divide them according to their aims (make a fortune from photography; become famous; win competitions; know more than anyone else about something; master all the different techniques; amass an encycopaedic knowledge of the subject etc. etc). And doubtless other ways as well.

But is it ultimately whether you love photography or love to create photographs - they surely aren't the same thing. One or both?
 
I've walked for miles through beautiful countryside and seen nowt to photograph. Then on other days, I've walked thought crappy areas and seen loads. Often, for me, what I see is dependant on my frame of mind.

If I have 'stuff' going on it effects my 'photographic eye'

Cheers.
 
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!
Shoot what you love!

It's easy, only when you're doing that will you develop enough drive to do it properly. Photography takes planning and preparation and patience, before skill even enters the frame.

Most hobbyists think its about gear first, then skill, and they never work out why their shots are never more than average. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in, and that's not buying gear, but learning your subject. Very few photographers can be given a random subject to shoot and just turn their hand to it.
 
Quicksnapper said:
  • Studio portraits ... always look a bit bland to me. Just can't help it. Shots of people in context, doing something or in their usual environment are great, but heads against blank backgrounds ...nope ..not for me ...
Click to expand...

Really?

Phill's right.... shoot what you love, and you'll get good at it. As Tm Walker said... "Be in love with your subject".
 
Pookeyhead said:
Really?

Phill's right.... shoot what you love, and you'll get good at it. As Tm Walker said... "Be in love with your subject".
Click to expand...

Yes, really .... just not my thing. I do appreciate the artistry in a good portraiture, but to me, people should be in context, not isolated. I am increasingly taking Phil's advice and shooting what I love, but not JUST what I love, as its a big world out there and lots to explore, and I'm always happy to try something different. But, as I said, I'm getting increasingly assured about what I love and what I don't and trying to get better all the time.
 
Quicksnapper said:
Yes, really .... just not my thing. I do appreciate the artistry in a good portraiture, but to me, people should be in context, not isolated.
Click to expand...

Portrait styles change, and it seems that the photographic studio portrait has moved away from providing context through the use of props and backdrops. Probably because the kit has become portable enough to take into the genuine environment, but also because studios have been shrinking in size and there's no longer the room.

I mentioned Caspar David Friedrich as a non-photographic landscape inspiration, for portraiture I'd like to mention Sir Henry Raeburn. There was a documentary on his studio, and his set-up for portrait painting was very similar to that of later photographic studios - using big windows and adjustable shutters to control the fall of light on the subject, choice of background (admittedly easier with painting)and careful use of props. There's even a hidden language in the choice and positioning of props and poses that's been largely lost. You can see the influence of this style of portraiture in the work of Victorian studio portrait photographers. Somewhere along the way this style dropped out of fashion, although you still find it in high fashion and art photographic portraiture (such as Annie Leibovitz).

I'm just throwing names into the ring here, just to show that what's popular in genre photography isn't all there is. There are very different examples of each genre, and they're taking their influences (sometimes indirectly) from outside the usual boundaries that are put around photography.

I can't let your earlier mention of still life go by without mentioning the work of the forum's very own TheBigYiin. Both as an example of excellent still life work, but also to show how older non-photographic traditions can be an influence.
 
This is a portrait photographer whose work I admire... Her name is Laura Domela ...

http://domela.com/Portraits/Others/23/

... Her work is both intriguing and technically precise and she specialises in portraits taken against plain (mostly white) backgrounds as she feels this gives her subjects the space to just be themselves. But many of her subjects are also photographed in living environments such as homes or work places and I still prefer these as they say something more about her subjects. Each to their own. It's wonderful that there is so much reference resource out there for us to look at, admire and be inspired or educated.

I've looked at BigYin's still life images and they are remarkable. He has a great talent for this genre. But I know that, given the same set of props to work with, I would end up with an image of a set of props on a table, not a coherent and artistic presentation.

At the end of the day, I'm still learning, trying hard and exploring possibilities - sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Forums such as this are a great place to look at what others are doing and gain something from constructive critique from people who understand where I'm at and what I'm trying to achieve. I'll keep posting a few images and see where I can go from here.
 
Quicksnapper said:
I've looked at BigYin's still life images and they are remarkable. He has a great talent for this genre. But I know that, given the same set of props to work with, I would end up with an image of a set of props on a table, not a coherent and artistic presentation.
Click to expand...

And so would I. Unless I exposed myself to work from that genre and took the time to understand it.

This is the thing about styles that you don't "get" - if you want to get it, you'll need to go out of your way to understand it. It's all a matter of whether you want to understand it or not.
 
Hi
Interesting post, I find I tend to move onto another genre before I've fully understood the present genre that I'm trying to shoot. This results in me having all these ideas in my head that i end up not implementing them before I've moved on. Sometimes I think you can delve in too deeply when really you should be out shooting. I feel it's the same with gear, I've definitely been guilty of it, that is buying gear because I feel I 'need' it for that particular type of shot, when really I have plenty of gear available. It's very liberating to just go out with a camera and just the one lens rather than have to choose what to take. I was recently looking through my Lightroom catalogue and noticed that I'd taken more shots when I just had my micro 4/3 gear, I have a FF camera that I should really use more than what I already do.
JohnyT
 
Quicksnapper said:
Yes, really .... just not my thing. I do appreciate the artistry in a good portraiture, but to me, people should be in context, not isolated. I am increasingly taking Phil's advice and shooting what I love, but not JUST what I love, as its a big world out there and lots to explore, and I'm always happy to try something different. But, as I said, I'm getting increasingly assured about what I love and what I don't and trying to get better all the time.
Click to expand...


How exactly are those people in the Crewdson shot not in context?
 
Quicksnapper said:
Sorry, you've lost me ... But I admit to being the worse for a couple of glasses of vino. The Crewdson shot?
Click to expand...


Pookeyhead said:
Really?

Phill's right.... shoot what you love, and you'll get good at it. As Tm Walker said... "Be in love with your subject".
Click to expand...

There's a link in that Really?, to a photograph by Gregory Crewdson.

That said, I don't think that I can say that any photograph I've ever seen by Gregory Crewsdon is an example of "heads against blank backgrounds" studio photography that Quicksnapper was bemoaning. Rather the opposite.
 
Quicksnapper said:
Sorry, you've lost me ... But I admit to being the worse for a couple of glasses of vino. The Crewdson shot?
Click to expand...

You never even clicked the link.... brilliant.. LOL

Musicman said:
There's a link in that Really?, to a photograph by Gregory Crewdson.

That said, I don't think that I can say that any photograph I've ever seen by Gregory Crewsdon is an example of "heads against blank backgrounds" studio photography that Quicksnapper was bemoaning. Rather the opposite.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps he shouldn't generalise "heads against blank backgrounds" shots into "studio portraiture" then :)
 
Last edited:
A fair point, indeed :)

Anyhow:

- Birds: Nope. Not interested. I went through my bird spotting phase between the ages of 11 and 12 and never looked back.

- Big Landscapes - not many of them around central London. Cityscapes, I do on occasion, though

- Studio Portraits: never felt the need. Closest I get is the occasional headshot for work - which means I do get my pictures published in the trade press for all that's worth.

- Still Life: I never enjoyed painting or drawing them much when I did A Level Art, so I've never really felt the need to photograph them either since. My brother is a dab hand at them, though; usually with his Hasselblad or some home made 5x4 camera, possibly a cyanotype print toned with tea.


Like Phil says, I take pictures of things that I love, or at least things that interest me. Keeps me busy enough not to worry too much about all the types of photography I'm not doing. At the age of 46, I'm in no hurry to dash off and try my hand at war reportage, for example.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to Quicksnapper, I wouldn't put Crewdson into the studio portrait genre - he's a country mile away from what most people would associate with the term. His work is elaborately staged, sometimes in the studio sometimes outside, and is easier to think of as a one-frame movie. The production values are certainly into Hollywood territory.
 
Sorry. Didn't realise the link was there. Having now had a look at it, certainly those people are in the context of their surroundings as opposed to heads against a background shots. And that's what I mean. The Crewdson shot is a bit depressing but at least it says something about the people, their lives and environment. That's the sort of portrait I would aspire to take, rather than simply faces, however well shot, removed for their contextual surroundings or activities. The Laura Domela link I posted illustrates the point that, however excellently shot a studio portrait is, it says little about the person.

One of the people in the Domela gallery is my sister in law. A person I know very well. The shot of her is excellent in that it it is a brilliant likeness and very well executed, but it says nothing about my SIL as a person. The Crewdson shot, by comparison, allows the viewer to take a view of the subject's life and thus - to me anyway - gain some insights into the subject beyond simply what they look like. To be fair, I wasn't actually bemoaning "blank" studio portraiture, I was simply saying it's not a route I want to pursue myself in my photography going forward. I prefer more contextual shots. On the iPad at the mo, but when I get back on my desk top where my images reside, I'll post one of my own efforts to illustrate the point. Interesting debate ..... Cheers ...
 
Quicksnapper said:
Sorry. Didn't realise the link was there. Having now had a look at it, certainly those people are in the context of their surroundings as opposed to heads against a background shots. And that's what I mean. The Crewdson shot is a bit depressing but at least it says something about the people, their lives and environment. That's the sort of portrait I would aspire to take, rather than simply faces, however well shot, removed for their contextual surroundings or activities. ...
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of why David posted it: it's not people shot in their own surroundings, it's a studio shot. All of that 'natural environment' is carefully constructed.
 
If you have access to Sky Arts there has been a documentary on recently (and they are often repeated) called "Close up: Photographers at work" which included Gregory Crewsdon. I found all the photographers interesting with each one having a very different approach to their work. Made me think a lot about how I approach what I do, and how it needs to be more structured.

Just found the Gregory Crewsdon section of that programme on Youtube:

 
No, I didn't miss the point. I know that this is a staged shot and that the people in it are probably actors or models, posing for artistic effect. Furthermore, this shot has been very carefully staged precisely to say a good deal about the central character. From it one could make all sorts or assumptions about the man, his circumstances, his relationship with the other character in the image, even his financial or mental state.

But whether they are real people in their own environments, or fictitious characters they are still people in a contextual setting. Even fictional characters have context, after all. Think of James Bond or Jayne Eyre ... The whole point of their existence is the context in which they exist, or there wouldn't be a story to build around them. Real people have real lives, fictional people have fictional lives devised by an author. But either way they have "lives" and those lives provide context and a setting in which the people "exist".

Also, I'm not saying that studio portraits are a bad thing. The work of David Bailey and legions of other exceptional photographers stands testament to their skill and artistry. I'm simply saying that I, personally, prefer a portrait which says a bit more about the person in it and that generally means including a bit more detail in the setting to provide that context. And that is the way I'll be going with any portrait work I attempt henceforth. So, pictures of <x> and he/she is a retired soldier/loves to ride horses/plays in a band or whatever. For better or worse, it's a personal preference and I am in no way saying that anyone else's personal preference are any less valid, just different, that's all.
 
PS to my previous post, if I may, here's one of my own humble efforts to show what I mean by context. This isn't just a shot of a lady, it's a lady doing something, wearing jewelry and make up and generally being active in all sorts of ways which are visible in the image and implied by the detail ...


Never too late_edited-2 by NittyNattyNora, on Flickr
 
There's a lot of things in life that I don't get Sara, its a normal human trait, as we all perceive things differently. In fact if we all saw things the same, there would be no variety, and it would all be very boring.

I love photography and digital image processing, but do not profess to have, nor want to have, and understanding of art. For this reason, whether it be a painting or a photograph, some examples just leave me stone cold, and without a clue as to what the artist or photographer is trying to "say".

That doesn't mean to say that to those that do understand, its not seen as a work of art that they can appreciate, but its just not for me.

For me, photography is about capturing things as they really are, a captured moment in time, a memory. As such I don't like 'milky water' shots, taken through say a 10 stop ND filter, as to me it is more artistic than reallity. However, there are those that do like such shots, and why not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we all have a different 'eye'.

I guess I like photographing pretty much anything and everything, albeit not 'still life' objects (as I said, I'm not artistically minded), but don't specialise in any particular genre. As such I'm not an expert in any particular genre, and probably never will be, I just enjoy photography as a hobby, and have done for longer than I care to remember.

Perhaps its true to say that I do have a particular area of digital imaging that I specialise in, and that is 'deep sky' astro-imaging. That as opposed to Planetary, Solar, or Lunar imaging, albeit I do dabble in these.

My philosophy is, if you see it, and like it, then photograph it. If no one else appreciates it, then so what, you do, and that's all that matters. If you want constructive critique, than you can ask for it, as there are plenty of knowledgeable people on forums such as this one.

I do mean constructive critique, as a opposed the pointless "it does nothing for me" type comment.

If you want to, decide what genre that you would like to understand, and make the effort to learn more about it, and what better source than the internet.

Or, just carry on as you are, enjoying what you are doing, and seeing, even if you don't fully understand it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
The thread is called, "I don't get it...".. but what you really mean is... "I don't like it." In which case.... err... I'm not sure actually :)
 
Star trails: The first time it was done it was probably quite clever but why I don't understand why people keep doing it. So much time and effort to produce a type of image that only had value when it was an original idea.

Water drops: likewise.

In fact, pretty much anything that pops up in the "creative" subforum here. It's ironically the least creative of all of the comment and criticism fora. It's full of stuff that was probably quite creative ideas....once.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Star trails: The first time it was done it was probably quite clever but why I don't understand why people keep doing it. So much time and effort to produce a type of image that only had value when it was an original idea.

Water drops: likewise.

In fact, pretty much anything that pops up in the "creative" subforum here. It's ironically the least creative of all of the comment and criticism fora. It's full of stuff that was probably quite creative ideas....once.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.. to a point. It depends what else is in the shot, and why the shot was taken. If it's just a boring scene with star trails, taken for the sake of doing star trails, then yeah.. what's the point? Well... To learn technique...It's great to learn... and I know people post images up for crit so they can improve, but once you've got the technique boxed off... do something else with it. Otherwise you're just left thinking.. Yeah.. the Earth rotates... and? It's hard to bring something new to the able when you're work revolves around a technique and noting more. That's where creativity steps in.

Astro shots like these, are a different kettle of fish. Unless you have done this kind of work you've got absolutely NO idea what is involved. This is absolutely NOTHNG like start trails or milky way shots... in fact, it's NOTHING like photography actually. This is science, and it turns up new discoveries all the time. Only 2 weeks ago a new supernova in M81 was discovered by someone like DaveS2 imaging a galaxy.
 
Dave ...

I totally agree and I think your last post brings this discussion back to where I started. Which was to say that, as I mature as a photographer, I'm finding that there are some genres/methods/subjects which I prefer to others. That doesn't mean I'd never have a go at something I'm less partial to. Nor is it to say that my personal choices are any more valid than those others may make. Each to their own. One of the reasons I like photography as a hobby is that it has so many variations and options with regard to what and how people approach it. And one of the reasons I like this forum (over one or two others i've looked at on line) is that critique posted on here is largely helpful, constructive and encouraging, and long may it continue to be so.

I was simply seeking to explore others' preferences and why they do or do not prefer one form of the art over another.

We all get into this and take it as far - and in the direction - we want. If what we produce is not to someone else's taste then fair enough.

Pookeyhead said:
The thread is called, "I don't get it...".. but what you really mean is... "I don't like it." In which case.... err... I'm not sure actually :)
Click to expand...

I guess you're right - I don't much like still life or bird pics, but that doesn't mean I'd never attempt images of those types and I'd never belittle or de-cry peoples efforts in those areas. If that's what they like then good for them. I just prefer to use my limited "camera" time on the things I enjoy.

I'll continue to post shots on here and see what folks think of them, for better or worse. I'll also keep shooting, reading, watching videos online and exploring other avenues for learning. That way I hope i'll continue to develop my abilities by learning from my mistakes and from the suggestions for improvement from those folks who are far more experienced than I. onwards and upwards ... and as i've said before - Vive la Difference .....
 
Pookeyhead said:
The thread is called, "I don't get it...".. but what you really mean is... "I don't like it." In which case.... err... I'm not sure actually :)
Click to expand...

I don't like it, because I don't get it (understand it), or I don't get it, so I don't like it. Same difference IMO. :)

Dave
 
DaveS2 said:
I don't like it, because I don't get it (understand it), or I don't get it, so I don't like it. Same difference IMO. :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Not always... some people get it... but don't like it... which by his own admission, describes Quicksnapper :)

Usually though... you're right... people just dislike what they can't understand. I don't think Astro work falls into that category though. You don't need to understand it to appreciate it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not always... some people get it... but don't like it... which by his own admission, describes Quicksnapper :)

Usually though... you're right... people just dislike what they can't understand. I don't think Astro work falls into that category though. You don't need to understand it to appreciate it.
Click to expand...

....Erm ...Pookeyhead .... I'm a her, not a him .... ;) Cheers ... Sara ... A colourful old bird who's given to squawking a lot, hence the parrot!!! :)
 
Oh well... gender is pretty much negotiable these days :)
 
Quicksnapper said:
I was simply seeking to explore others' preferences and why they do or do not prefer one form of the art over another.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Sara.

I don't see photography as an art, but more of a technical skill (especially processing, film or digital), with room for some artistic licence thrown in.

Some folk will see capturing a pile of fruit on a table, as art. I see it as a photograph of a pile of fruit. That doesn't mean because I see it as a pile of fruit, that to the creator, and others it isn't an art form to be enjoyed as such.

As opposed to photography, to me painting is art, because it something that the artist sees, and transfers to canvas with an enviable skill, that I certainly don't have. I mean art, as in landscapes and portraits etc, as opposed to some weird and wonderful splodges of paint on a canvas, labelled as abstract or modern art. Probably because I haven't a clue what was going on in the artist's head, and don't understand what, if any, statement he/she was trying to make.

When someone takes a great photograph, examples of which have been posted on this forum, such as a Typhoon jet fighter flying at 200ft, and between the two sides of a Welsh valley, Wild Animals on an African Game Park, an attractive well lit portrait, or stunning landscape etc, I most certainly do 'get it', and can appreciate the photographer's skill.

Ignoring the composition aspect, there is a lot of the technical stuff to learn, if you are going to take your photography seriously. Aperture, focal length, shutter speed, white balance,lighting, flash photography, exposure length, bracketing, depth of field, and the list goes on.

Then comes the subjective bit, when to apply the 'rule of thirds', and when its better not to. Include or exclude foreground objects, light and shade, deep or shallow DOF, natural lighting, and or Flash, motion blur or not. Again the list goes on.

I know the forums and photo sites are full of them, but I never fail to appreciate some of the great Kingfisher shot's that are around, and the patience of the photographer in waiting for the moment to get that 'shot'.

So, yes, while there are images that I 'don't get', there is an awful lot of photography that I 'do get', and can both enjoy looking at and appreciate. In some cases aspire to.

The thing about this hobby, is that it offers something for everybody, whatever their taste. You can go as deep into it as you want, or just be a 'point and shoot' photographer, whatever approach you take, just enjoy it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Quicksnapper said:
I don't get ...

  • Birds ... the blimmin' things will insist in jumping about and flying off and just won't sit still long enough for me. I must learn to be more patient ...
  • Big landscapes ... of the hills, mountains and lakes variety. I've hiked up my fair share of hills and dales over the years, but just prefer to be in a landscape that try to capture it on camera...
  • Studio portraits ... always look a bit bland to me. Just can't help it. Shots of people in context, doing something or in their usual environment are great, but heads against blank backgrounds ...nope ..not for me ...
  • Still life ... can't seem to make a collection of inanimate object look like anything other that some stuff plonked on a table, and admire anyone who can arrange things artistically, light them well and get to the essence of the objects ...
So, I'm getting there I think. Shooting anything and everything is gradually being replaced with a better understanding of my abilities and interests and saving me a lot of heartache in the process. Still got a long way to go, of course, but that's what it's about ...
Click to expand...
I'm exactly the same most of the times. It's entirely possible to draw a personality out in a studio setting, but location portraits will almost always tell a story better.

As for the rest... no idea. I love the outdoors but always find it better to have a person doing something cool in front of the wonderful landscape....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top