If you only ever watch one photography video ......

enjoyed it Chris! ... thanks for posting
 
I quite enjoyed it. Working in sport, I often only get one chance to get a shot, so it's nice to watch a discussion of the 'other side' of photography that perhaps affords more set up and trial time. I only really take landscape type shots when I'm on holiday, and I can appreciate the 'something there' point, and haven't always been able to capture it as well as I'd like.

It got me through an hour at work too!
 
..... found that really inspiring !

Thanks for link
Fred
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why?

That was quite possibly the WORST photography video I've ever seen. I want my hour back.
Click to expand...

I liked it.

It entertained me.

And a nice touch IMVHO is that he didn't waffle on about gear. I didn't watch the whole thing, I skipped bits, but the only times I heard he mention gear was that he used a 28-300mm lens and the bit about tripods.
 
I'll admit, it was a breath of fresh air to have no gear talk.... but I really dislike what he's demonstrating, and therefore recommending... which is just shoot everything and sort through it later. I firmly believe developing the skills to decide if a shot works merely by looking through the viewfinder (or even by making a frame with your fingers) develops very fast, critical, analytical skills that are essential in "seeing" the shot. After all... if you go to a place, take 500 shots from every conceivable angle and position, it is likely that you'll get something, but does that make you a photographer any more than the mythical million monkeys at typewriters would be Shakespeare? I think not. You're getting images by default, because you're just taking such a vast amount. Given hundreds of attempts at something, everyone will succeed eventually, but sooner or later, you'll need to shoot something with very strict time, or access, or other limitations, and you'll be dead on your feet.

Pre digital, photographers needed to get what they needed with maybe 5 rolls of film, and would have no means of confirming they've got it until it was processed. They still managed. They managed because they had skills that people like Kelby are discouraging in favour of a spray and prey approach. It's not photography. IMO.. he's not a photographer either. I don't care how famous he is, or how many seminars he delivers... Give him a Mamyia and a few rolls of film and he'd be ****ed.

What he should be doing is forcing people to go shooting with a 512MB SD card, and a 50mm lens. Deliberately limiting options so that photographers have to start to rely on a little bit of ingenuity and skill. Get them to push their creativity and ingenuity and skills as far as they can with as little resources as possible. Once they've demonstrated they can do that, then take the gloves off and let them play.

Sending them out with a 28-300 stupid-zoom and advising they machine gun the scenery in the hope they'll get the shot through sheer numbers is stupid, ill advised, and will not produce photographers. It will produce snappers who will never appreciate what a joy it really is to actually "see" the finished image in that viewfinder.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with post digital photography.
 
The message *for me* was that if you walk past something that catches your eye then there's a potentially great image there, and it's up to you to search for a way of creating it. It's how I already work, trying to find a way of getting what I saw in my mind into the camera, and yes, it was encouraging.

He did mention you too David - the person that walks over and takes a single shot that's the perfect picture captured first go - but recognised most of us aren't like that. :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
He did mention you too David - the person that walks over and takes a single shot that's the perfect picture captured first go - but recognised most of us aren't like that. :)
Click to expand...

No he didn't... because I don't. As I said in my first post.. I work the scene as much as anyone, I just don't actually press the shutter until I see the image. "Seeing" the image is what defines a photographer from a happy snapper. Anyone who has to rattle off hundreds of frames in the hope they've got something is just crap, as they're clearly incapable of seeing the image in their mind's eye, or the viewfinder before they shoot. That skill is what has always been, and WILL always be the sign of a photographer. Anyone who needs to shoot so excessively would have been in deep sh1t pre-digital.

Digital may give you a get out of jail free card sometimes, but it must leave you cold inside knowing that if someone handed you one roll of film, you'd be immeasurably more crap than you are with a 32GB card.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'll admit, it was a breath of fresh air to have no gear talk.... but I really dislike what he's demonstrating, and therefore recommending...

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with post digital photography.
Click to expand...

Post digital photography? I've only just got used to digital. What are we on now? :D

To me whatever happened in the days of film is irrelevant. As I said in another place recently it isn't 1952 any more and we're not limited to 12, 24 or 36 exposures and pressing the shutter costs us next to nothing. Plus of course no one ever shot a bad image with film or spent time in the darkroom trying to polish one into something better. Nor did they shoot a whole roll or three and end up with just the one shot that they presented to the client. No. That never happened. Of course not. Perish the thought. Every one was a keeper.

I've been in a similar situation to him at the Taj Mahal many times as I live in the noth of England and often find myself in the rain or fog or probably both and in crappy light and wondering if I'm wasting my time even taking a single shot. In 1952 I'd be left with 12 exposures that'd be fit for the bin but these days I can open them in PS and see what can be recovered and guess what... sometimes there is something there even if it needs converting to B&W and playing with for a couple of minutes. And give me a roll of film and I wouldn't be ****ed because I'd know I was limited to 12 exposures and whatever Boots or whoever processed them gave me a week later. But as I said, it isn't 1952 any more.

Not that I machine gun, I don't, but I do sometimes take pictures in the expectation rather than hope that I can make something bloom a bit on the pc and as the only other option is to put the camera back in its bag and go home I see nothing wrong in it. In fact, one of my favourite sets of pictures from my current digital days was a product of a wet and crappy light day and me shooting rather than giving up... and a bit of time in PS when I got home.

I do think that you're painting what he said in the worst possible light but if that's your view it's your view. Where you saw him recommending machine gunning with a stupid (but expensive) zoom what I saw was a recommendation to think and explore possibilities in what at first looks to be a pretty hopeless situation.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No he didn't... because I don't. As I said in my first post.. I work the scene as much as anyone, I just don't actually press the shutter until I see the image. "Seeing" the image is what defines a photographer from a happy snapper. Anyone who has to rattle off hundreds of frames in the hope they've got something is just crap, as they're clearly incapable of seeing the image in their mind's eye, or the viewfinder before they shoot. That skill is what has always been, and WILL always be the sign of a photographer. Anyone who needs to shoot so excessively would have been in deep sh1t pre-digital.

Digital may give you a get out of jail free card sometimes, but it must leave you cold inside knowing that if someone handed you one roll of film, you'd be immeasurably more crap than you are with a 32GB card.
Click to expand...

So what would you have done at the Taj Mahal?

On a lovely day I'd have taken a few shots, how many I don't know as I've never been there. On a crappy day I'd have taken fewer shots but I'd still have taken some. Yes, I'd have thought about them more but I'd still have taken a few :D
 
woof woof said:
So what would you have done at the Taj Mahal?

On a lovely day I'd have taken a few shots, how many I don't know as I've never been there. On a crappy day I'd have taken fewer shots but I'd still have taken some. Yes, I'd have thought about them more but I'd still have taken a few :D
Click to expand...

In a once-in-a-lifetime location you take as many as you can fit on your memory card. Granted most will be rubbish, but you never know what you may need later on. You may want something with empty space for a cover, nice framed image, specific shots for advertising, something to comp in a model, etc. etc. Memory cards are cheap, time and flights are not.
 
woof woof said:
Post digital photography? I've only just got used to digital. What are we on now? :D
Click to expand...

Post digital. A period of time AFTER the advent of digital. Semantics won't win this debate however. :) Not that it's winnable anyway.... we clearly have a radically different philosophy regarding photography.





woof woof said:
Plus of course no one ever shot a bad image with film or spent time in the darkroom trying to polish one into something better. Nor did they shoot a whole roll or three and end up with just the one shot that they presented to the client. No. That never happened. Of course not. Perish the thought. Every one was a keeper.
Click to expand...

If they shot blindly without being able to evaluate if the image was working before pressing the shutter, then yes, of course they would get a bunch of terrible shots. We used to call these people "Bad Photographers" :)



woof woof said:
And give me a roll of film and I wouldn't be ****ed because I'd know I was limited to 12 exposures and whatever Boots or whoever processed them gave me a week later. But as I said, it isn't 1952 any more.
Click to expand...

So why not exercise the same diligence with your digital photography, and stop wasting time, effort and wear and tear on your gear by taking shots you're probably only going to delete? Plus... it keeps you sharp.. stops you from getting sloppy. Occasionally getting something good by accident is not a good enough reason to start working sloppily. I'd eventually just stop taking care. My photography would get worse IMO.

woof woof said:
I do think that you're painting what he said in the worst possible light but if that's your view it's your view. Where you saw him recommending machine gunning with a stupid (but expensive) zoom what I saw was a recommendation to think and explore possibilities in what at first looks to be a pretty hopeless situation.
Click to expand...

What's how expensive the lens was got to do with it? Expensive lens = good photography or something? LOL

Of course I'm painting him in a bad light. SO many beginners hang on his every word, and he's advocating a method of working that will do NOTHING to develop the skills I'm referring to here... the very ones that separate great photographers from people with time, gear and software on their hands, and despite what people think, a bad shot made better in Photoshop will never, ever be a great shot.. A great shot made better in Photoshop will... but never a bad one to start with. Despite what you think, the GREAT images taken today are not made in photoshop or lightroom... and they never will be either. If you disagree, then you've clearly got a very different idea of what great shot is than I do.

You, probably, are looking at this from the perspective of someone who can read between the lines, and recognise what I'm saying, even if you don't actually work in the way I do, but a beginner will see what he says as THE way to work... the recipe for success. It very clearly is not, not ever will be. He's cashing in on people's hope... he's blowing smoke up people's asses so they'll give him money to buy his stuff, courses, attend his seminars. I doubt he actually fully believes in what he preaches. He knows he's making all the right noises to beginners and amateurs. He gives them succour and makes them feel better.

woof woof said:
So what would you have done at the Taj Mahal?
On a lovely day I'd have taken a few shots, how many I don't know as I've never been there. On a crappy day I'd have taken fewer shots but I'd still have taken some. Yes, I'd have thought about them more but I'd still have taken a few :D
Click to expand...

I'd have taken a couple as snapshots.. as you do... something to put on Facebook etc... but if the light was sh1t and everything looked like hell, I'd have not put the time and effort in, no. What's the point? I'd know I'd have distinctly average shots. The world has enough average shots of landmarks. Why would I want to add to the pool? I'd probably not be in India for one day... I'd pack up and come back tomorrow. If I was there for one day, then so be it... Things weren't going my way, but I still wouldn't want a lack lustre shot. It wouldn't be in my folio, and I wouldn't be showing it to anyone... why bother? Great landscape shots, or architectural shots needs great light. It's either there, or it's not. If it's not, it will only ever be an average shot. So yeah... I'd have rattled a few frames off just to prove I;d been there... but that's pretty much it. I'd have probably tried at night though... as then it takes on a whole different perspective.... but again... if I didn't see the shot in my viewfinder, I'd have taken the obligatory single snapshot and just accepted it wasn't going to happen.

[edit]... Actually.... I'd have gone elsewhere and taken images that didn't necessarily rely on great light actually... I'd have got in some people's faces and documented something worthwhile instead. Bloody Taj Mahal... the more I think about this, the more ridiculous it all seems... what the **** would I want to shoot it for anyway? Travelling to India, and that's all I can think of shooting? Kill me now.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, if Kelby hadn't taken the crap shots leading up to the 'best' ones he'd have had nothing to show in his presentation. As teaching points they were necessary. However...

Fix missing tile at Taj Mahal in post = photographic guru.

Clone out video camera in post = photo journalistic pariah.

Go figure.
 
woof woof said:
So what would you have done at the Taj Mahal?

On a lovely day I'd have taken a few shots, how many I don't know as I've never been there. On a crappy day I'd have taken fewer shots but I'd still have taken some. Yes, I'd have thought about them more but I'd still have taken a few :D
Click to expand...

I have been there on just the same kind of day he described: grey building against a grey sky. It's the Taj, right, reputedly the most beautiful building in the world, and it looks like a boring grey lump in the distance. I'd say he did well to find an interesting angle on it in the circumstances, and that to me was the point of the talk - to make people keep looking until they found something worth shooting. If the filters used to hear the lecture thought he said hold down the shutter button until your card is full or the battery flat then maybe the issue isn't Scott Kelby?

I've just been back through the images I took then on a cheap compact and wondered how different they would be - if at all - if I'd had an SLR and lightroom to process them. Framing would be better (a 1.5" view screen is quite small) and likewise post-processing, but the shots themselves I'm OK with. I did grow up using film and am really grateful that digital gives space to try things that you can bin if they didn't work without worrying about the cost of D&P.
 
It was still an interesting talk. As with everything you have to make your own mind up what you get out of it.
I'm glad I started off with film cameras in the Seventies. It certainly made you stop and think before pressing the shutter.
Kodachrome and Ektachrome were not cheap for a student back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Pookeyhead said:
I'll admit, it was a breath of fresh air to have no gear talk.... but I really dislike what he's demonstrating, and therefore recommending... which is just shoot everything and sort through it later. I firmly believe developing the skills to decide if a shot works merely by looking through the viewfinder (or even by making a frame with your fingers) develops very fast, critical, analytical skills that are essential in "seeing" the shot. After all... if you go to a place, take 500 shots from every conceivable angle and position, it is likely that you'll get something, but does that make you a photographer any more than the mythical million monkeys at typewriters would be Shakespeare? I think not. You're getting images by default, because you're just taking such a vast amount. Given hundreds of attempts at something, everyone will succeed eventually, but sooner or later, you'll need to shoot something with very strict time, or access, or other limitations, and you'll be dead on your feet.

Pre digital, photographers needed to get what they needed with maybe 5 rolls of film, and would have no means of confirming they've got it until it was processed. They still managed. They managed because they had skills that people like Kelby are discouraging in favour of a spray and prey approach. It's not photography. IMO.. he's not a photographer either. I don't care how famous he is, or how many seminars he delivers... Give him a Mamyia and a few rolls of film and he'd be ****ed.

What he should be doing is forcing people to go shooting with a 512MB SD card, and a 50mm lens. Deliberately limiting options so that photographers have to start to rely on a little bit of ingenuity and skill. Get them to push their creativity and ingenuity and skills as far as they can with as little resources as possible. Once they've demonstrated they can do that, then take the gloves off and let them play.

Sending them out with a 28-300 stupid-zoom and advising they machine gun the scenery in the hope they'll get the shot through sheer numbers is stupid, ill advised, and will not produce photographers. It will produce snappers who will never appreciate what a joy it really is to actually "see" the finished image in that viewfinder.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with post digital photography.
Click to expand...
Enjoyed the video but fully agree with this.
JohnyT
 
I agree with quiet a few people, that video is pretty bad! Everything say in one hour could be said in 10min! This is absolutly not the kind of photographer I would be looking up too.

Kelby annoying points:
-take a thousand shot in 1 day
-choose the less bad one (probably a close up of something because the rest is badly framed)
-add extreme photoshopping, lot's of unecessary cloning (taj nahal exemple if he add move is trypod 3m ahead and waiting 2 minutes he wouldn't need to clone the tile or the person...)
-get shot looking like pure stock photography
-love stock photography and print uggly cup of coffee to put on his wall (sorry but that picture is far from an holiday photgraphy bringing memory, it look like a bad stock photography...)
 
I watched that video and then whilst in the car a few hours later I listened to a seminar by Jared Polin.
Jared explained that he had a short time with a recording artist who didn't like being photographed. 15 mins'ish later he had taken 6 shots. (may not be totally accurate)

Polar opposites I thought
 
Really good. Enjoyed that
 
Pookeyhead said:
What he should be doing is forcing people to go shooting with a 512MB SD card, and a 50mm lens. Deliberately limiting options so that photographers have to start to rely on a little bit of ingenuity and skill.
Click to expand...

Thats a really good idea. I might go somewhere and do just that. Great suggestion. :)

For me, I find myself spending more and more time just looking around now and am learning to say "No - Its crap, dont press the shutter" and accept that whilst I may have been happy with said composition 6 months ago, today it will stay on my hard drive as an untouched raw and do nothing more for my photography than fill my hard drive, increase my processing time and devalue the camera with excess shutter actuation's. My standards are climbing very quickly of late. Even if the light is pretty even I am still using my Lee grads to try and keep the dynamic range maximised in the dark areas and ensure the blown sky doesnt ruin an otherwise good shot. Im trying really hard to improve my keeper ratio which used to be about 0.25% and has risen to about 10% over the last 6 months.

My point?
I fear that seminars like that are doing a lot to discourage exactly what I just described above which is "Get it right in camera", and as a newcomer to the industry whom has a high OCD poblem with every interest I have that means I have to become reasonably good at it fast or I drop it, I feel that's a bad thing as I want to be a good "Photographer" not someone who records a scene a million different ways and hopes a couple of them look good at home on a PC. I want them to look good in the viewfinder because I took the time and learnt the skill to make it so, not because i got lucky.

I bet in film days the keeper rate was up in the high 70% plus for the pro's? Why the hell should it now be LESS with such features as Live view and adjustable ISO? Surely it should now be a lot higher?
 
Stewart, I have a feeling that success rates weren't very different back then than they are now. The biggest difference is that now one can experiment more than before and post-processing is easier. But film was a much more tolerant medium, and just like .jpg files, a contact sheet or enprints would give you a hint of what could be done and the negs or trannies were just a starting point for (sometimes significant) reworking.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'll admit, it was a breath of fresh air to have no gear talk.... but I really dislike what he's demonstrating, and therefore recommending... which is just shoot everything and sort through it later. I firmly believe developing the skills to decide if a shot works merely by looking through the viewfinder (or even by making a frame with your fingers) develops very fast, critical, analytical skills that are essential in "seeing" the shot. After all... if you go to a place, take 500 shots from every conceivable angle and position, it is likely that you'll get something, but does that make you a photographer any more than the mythical million monkeys at typewriters would be Shakespeare? I think not. You're getting images by default, because you're just taking such a vast amount. Given hundreds of attempts at something, everyone will succeed eventually, but sooner or later, you'll need to shoot something with very strict time, or access, or other limitations, and you'll be dead on your feet.

Pre digital, photographers needed to get what they needed with maybe 5 rolls of film, and would have no means of confirming they've got it until it was processed. They still managed. They managed because they had skills that people like Kelby are discouraging in favour of a spray and prey approach. It's not photography. IMO.. he's not a photographer either. I don't care how famous he is, or how many seminars he delivers... Give him a Mamyia and a few rolls of film and he'd be ****ed.

What he should be doing is forcing people to go shooting with a 512MB SD card, and a 50mm lens. Deliberately limiting options so that photographers have to start to rely on a little bit of ingenuity and skill. Get them to push their creativity and ingenuity and skills as far as they can with as little resources as possible. Once they've demonstrated they can do that, then take the gloves off and let them play.

Sending them out with a 28-300 stupid-zoom and advising they machine gun the scenery in the hope they'll get the shot through sheer numbers is stupid, ill advised, and will not produce photographers. It will produce snappers who will never appreciate what a joy it really is to actually "see" the finished image in that viewfinder.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with post digital photography.
Click to expand...
I learnt more reading this post and the first one than I did watching the video:)
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
But film was a much more tolerant medium, .
Click to expand...

You've GOT to be joking, right??

You ever shot a roll of E6? You've got to get exposure bang on. You've got hardly ANY latitude, and hardly any scope to do anything about it if you get it wrong... what you get back from processing is your finished, positive final image. Get it wrong, and you've blown it. Digital is MASSIVELY more forgiving.
 
Fair point (I'd forgotten about E6 ;) ).

TBH I don't recall dynamic range being a problem with E6, but then I also didn't try to evaluate my results with a histogram on a screen, nor did I ever have to present work professionally in that medium. Happy memories of E6 actually - after our son was born I took pictures of him at the hospital, then whipped home and developed the film around 4am so I could show our friends later that morning - amazing how well a transparency projects on an OHP! :)
 
Under expose a shot from something like a D800 by 5 stops and you can recover it. It will look rough, but it's possible. Under expose a piece of E6 film by 5 stops and there'll be nothing on it except your highlights.
 
Shoot the picture then recreate it in photoshop.... mm no thats not photography that's graphic design. This is what gives photoshop a bad name. People completely altering shots not using software to retouch or finalise images.
 
Anyone who thinks that the top pros working for Getty shooting the Olympics take time to pick "the shot" are misguided, they blast off thousands of images every hour while on location, its then up to someone at an editing suite to sift through the tens of thousands of rubbish photos and pick out the "one spectacular" image which gets wired round the world, we all then see it on websites all over the world and think WOW, brilliant, the guy who took this is an amazing photographer.

He may well be, but 99.999% of the people who look at the final image have absolutely no idea about the thousands that were binned

Were in a digital age and the above scenario can and is passed across to all types of photography be that landscapes, portraits, weddings or just simply snapping the kids at play in the back garden, im pretty damn sure that a Landscape photographer doesn't travel to his destination and wait all night for the perfect sunrise then just take one shot and pack up and go home, will he hell because he knows that the light can change in a split second and at any given time a new "that moment" photograph can pop up in his view finder.

Nikon, Canon, Sony and the rest have given us specific tools to help us capture "that moment" so use them, simple really.

Having said that, im not a fan of spray and pray myself.
 
Last edited:
I think whenever you are watching a training type video or on a course, whatever it's about, you need to be selctive about what you take away. I have been on more courses (usually business related) than I can remember. However I have never been on a course where I accepted everything that was said neither have I been on a course where there was n't at least something I could take away and use.

From this video, I took away the idea of 'working the scene' with my feet and eyes, looking for the shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top