You don't need an exquisite location - just the ability to see the exquisite in ANY location
For me, fly fishing (it's the only kind of fishing I've spent much time on) and photography have strong similarities.Thats golf or fishing not photography.
To take the ordinary and make it extraordinary.You don't need an exquisite location - just the ability to see the exquisite in ANY location
Indeed.
My Mam used to tell me two things Chris - I could talk a glass eye to sleep and that I would make the Pope swear. Bless.
Looking at other people's photographs and listening to what other photographers have to say is an important part of why I find photography so fascinating. Getting to "know" the person behind a particular photograph can also add to, and enhance, the viewing experience, as well as helping you better understand your own photography.
I still have a "film" attitude with digital and rarely take that many photographs. I have been lucky with film (black and white, less so with colour) that I was processing b/w films in my bedroom (and later in a darkroom), before I even owned a camera,: so no long wait to see my results.
You might not be surprised to hear I also have this book
I don't think I've ever used Rodinal, but I as I remember, one of the reasons people used it was because of its sharp and distinctive grain pattern.
How other people 'see' is a great mystery to me. But I've concluded that everyone 'sees' in a way that's individual to them. Luckily, though, there are various commonalities between us ...
Well, hoorah! It escapes me how TV is so popular, given that the little I see is overproduced relative to its content, colours are brash and the sound is blarey. It's just an assault on the senses. And the format is very 'magaziney' - ie pre-packaged.
I'm sure you know this, but, although the signals that the eye sends to the brain are very similar between people, the interpretation of those signals is unique to every individual, and affected by multiple factors.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/muller-lyer-illusion-5672bd393df78ccc15f7d08d.jpg)
They both look exactly the same length to me (and yes, I counted the hyphens to check)
My diagram was only indicative of the "real" thing.
I didn't think you meant the physiology of seeing and was reinforcing your point about seeing being psychological (in the brain).
Looking at other people's photographs and listening to what other photographers have to say is an important part of why I find photography so fascinating. Getting to "know" the person behind a particular photograph can also add to, and enhance, the viewing experience, as well as helping you better understand your own photography.
I still have a "film" attitude with digital and rarely take that many photographs. I have been lucky with film (black and white, less so with colour) that I was processing b/w films in my bedroom (and later in a darkroom), before I even owned a camera,: so no long wait to see my results.
When I take multiple digital images, they tend to be directed at helping with a specific problem. For example I know that depth of field is going to be critical to get just the right amount of out of focus in the background. So, I might take three identical images at a range of apertures. Or the wind might be blowing grass in front of my subject, and I want the grass to be in a precise position in relationship to the subject. So I might take a short burst of pictures, rather one or two where I try to anticipate what the grass is doing. This is one of the things I like about digital; being able to experiment with no need to think about the cost. But I also miss the simplicity, and tactility (if that's a word) of a 5x4 camera, enlarger and chemicals.
With digital, I rely on the basic demosaiced digital file to trigger my memory of what I was trying to do at the time of taking, and then start again. But, I usually remember things that don't match what I'm seeing on the computer, and I go with my memory rather than what Nikon/Fuji/C1/Adobe are telling me the scene looked like.
I've also had spells of making notes and sketches at the time of taking the picture, but I think I find the photo itself, being just as useful as my notes in helping me remember what I wanted from the photograph.
You might not be surprised to hear I also have this book
I don't think I've ever used Rodinal, but I as I remember, one of the reasons people used it was because of its sharp and distinctive grain pattern.
Its obviously a trick, and obvious both lines are the same, did not bother counting my intuition is usually correct.
Tomorrow never comes,I think once you're in the zone, you know what is a picture and what isn't.
Digital gets you in some kind of zone far quicker and more economically than film ever could.
The difficulty is letting that go, but it does help focus the mind from a personal development perspective.
Course if you're going all Winogrand with an unlimited film supply and shooting because you want to see what the world looks like in a photograph, maybe that's a different corner of the zone I dunno.
I go out with camera and often return no shots taken, the things I mostly see I've shot a million times before, what looked like a picture years ago turned out to be ordinary and I learned from that, the opportunities to shoot something with genuine potential become fewer, I learned that too.
I'm quite happy sat on a windswept hillside, fannying about with exposure calcs and tripod angles all day, waiting for the picture I know exists, if it doesn't come....there's always tomorrow.
I'm just not going to shoot a nothing simply because I can
It's not a trick, it's a well-known optical illusion used in psychology texts. Unless you see optical illusions due to the way our brains works as tricks, because they trick the brain into seeing things that aren't real.
I think once you're in the zone, you know what is a picture and what isn't.
Digital gets you in some kind of zone far quicker and more economically than film ever could.
The difficulty is letting that go, but it does help focus the mind from a personal development perspective.
Course if you're going all Winogrand with an unlimited film supply and shooting because you want to see what the world looks like in a photograph, maybe that's a different corner of the zone I dunno.
I go out with camera and often return no shots taken, the things I mostly see I've shot a million times before, what looked like a picture years ago turned out to be ordinary and I learned from that, the opportunities to shoot something with genuine potential become fewer, I learned that too.
I'm quite happy sat on a windswept hillside, fannying about with exposure calcs and tripod angles all day, waiting for the picture I know exists, if it doesn't come....there's always tomorrow.
I'm just not going to shoot a nothing simply because I can
I think photography means different things to different people and allows us all to approach it in our unique way to achieve different ends.
It's so common for people to think of a photograph that it's just a depiction of a 'thing' (or event). But if the whole identity & worth of the photograph is just to say that there's a such and such, it can become a tick-box exercise & nothing more. What about the light, the focus and the framing, in all of which the photograph becomes an emotionally engaging 'thing' in its own right? (Some photos, obviously, will be a hybrid of all this.)
Our breath is bated, Toni! ;-)))
Only diehards would be able to afford it as it probably be about £50? per roll for 35mm today
