Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Lon Williamson wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Lon Williamson wrote: If yout shoot a 50, you are stupid unless you read Mike Johnston. Can you elaborate please? Mike Johnston is a semi-famous writer who used to hang around here and might yet again. It was more the if you shoot a 50 you are stupid bit. I am not offended, just wondering how one comes to this conclusion. Kostas
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, graywolf wrote: I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? I do very much so, please keep it up. Same for everyone. Kostas
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Mike Johnston wrote some pretty specific opinions on Pentax 50mm glass being outstanding. Last I read, the old metal 50mm Super Multi Coated Takumar was his favorite for images it produced and for feel. They feel much like a Limited lens, but focus without the whirr. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was more the if you shoot a 50 you are stupid bit. I am not offended, just wondering how one comes to this conclusion.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I shot 154 exposures at a concert the other night, the light was poor and they weren't staying still for me. Discarding outright rejects due to focus, shake, subject movement, blown out highlights and unpleasant expressions left me with 38 usable shots. More than I ever walk away with when using film. SHOCK. Rob S finds something positive about a DSLR - it's official. wank, er I mean wink Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I hear what you're saying, Lon. If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a tri or monopod. In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed establishment. My God, are you kidding William? For real? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On 27 Jan 2004 at 18:50, Cotty wrote: SHOCK. Rob S finds something positive about a DSLR - it's official. It's just another tool :-) Did find another thing to bitch about though. The metering mode is one of the few controls that there is no quick way to assess when working in darkness. No indicators appear in the finder or on the right LCD panel and pressing the info button reveals most settings except the meter mode. The only way to check the metering mode (assuming that you haven't memorized the switch positions) is to shoot then review the last shot and check the info page which contains the thumb-nail and shooting data for the meter mode icon. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! SB And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what SB everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here, SB including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL SB Bill Owens wrote: I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to suit yourself and to hell with anyone else's opinion. If you're happy with your results, it shouldn't matter what someone else thinks. Shel, let me put it this way: I wouldn't want to show PDML a shot of mine if I did not like it or if I did not think I needed a lesson and this shot could be a good way to ask for such lesson. I am perfectly happy about these two images. The guy with billiard balls (now, don't you dare to joke on this g) is good, to me at least, because I caught him in a very fine moment. He is pointing his finger and rather heatedly explains himself. Naturally, it has to be read this way. Which it wasn't. Which is a lesson. As for Beer Portrait - Frank read it exactly right and I really liked how it came out. By the way, this shadow of flash shadows a woman who did not quite wanted to be photographed. So it has its odd meaning too. But, there is big but here. Again, don't you dare joke on this g... I want to learn. I do shoot as much as I can. Like I mentioned 40 * 36 exp films in 2003. Just a little less than film a week. But I also want to hear opinions. I suppose that you guys don't mind telling me what you think. I will then process that in my head and shoot even more, and then may be come up with more questions... I sincerely hope, you don't mind g... Boris P.S. Lon, I would appreciate if you indeed elaborated on that: If yout shoot a 50, you are stupid unless you read Mike Johnston. But primes greater than f2.8 get Expensive. P.P.S. I do read Mike's column by the way...
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Mike Johnston is a semi-famous writer who used to hang around here and might yet again. Do a Google search on Mike Johnston Sunday Morning Photographer. Then read any of the Hot Sites that carry him. Make up yer own mind. Personally, I like him. -Lon Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Lon Williamson wrote: If yout shoot a 50, you are stupid unless you read Mike Johnston. Can you elaborate please?
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Yes you CAN use a tri-monopod in bar situations. And it is ugly. You CAN do it. I have. As you all know, it's a blessing and a curse. For eggsample, some surly folks can get you thrown out. Really. As for street, I have no opinion. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hey, when you're out street shooting there's no time for tripods and other such things of that ilk. When you're hangin' out in a pub like Boris was, setting up a tripod won't cut it. I did mention that resting the camera on some solid object will work. shel
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Mike Johnston sorta loves a Pentax M 50mm 1.4 on a purty old body, shooting BW film. I like almost any Pentax Prime on a purty old body, shooting slow as I can get away with Color Film. Mike is Famous. Lon is Not. Any questions? Grin. BTW, I think this mail list took a slight uphike when Boris joined. Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! SB And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what SB everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here, SB including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL SB Bill Owens wrote: I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to suit yourself and to hell with anyone else's opinion. If you're happy with your results, it shouldn't matter what someone else thinks. Shel, let me put it this way: I wouldn't want to show PDML a shot of mine if I did not like it or if I did not think I needed a lesson and this shot could be a good way to ask for such lesson. I am perfectly happy about these two images. The guy with billiard balls (now, don't you dare to joke on this g) is good, to me at least, because I caught him in a very fine moment. He is pointing his finger and rather heatedly explains himself. Naturally, it has to be read this way. Which it wasn't. Which is a lesson. As for Beer Portrait - Frank read it exactly right and I really liked how it came out. By the way, this shadow of flash shadows a woman who did not quite wanted to be photographed. So it has its odd meaning too. But, there is big but here. Again, don't you dare joke on this g... I want to learn. I do shoot as much as I can. Like I mentioned 40 * 36 exp films in 2003. Just a little less than film a week. But I also want to hear opinions. I suppose that you guys don't mind telling me what you think. I will then process that in my head and shoot even more, and then may be come up with more questions... I sincerely hope, you don't mind g... Boris P.S. Lon, I would appreciate if you indeed elaborated on that: If yout shoot a 50, you are stupid unless you read Mike Johnston. But primes greater than f2.8 get Expensive. P.P.S. I do read Mike's column by the way...
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while you're at it. Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held photography, and others like to let everyone know they're taking pictures. Whatever floats your boat, Lon ... Lon Williamson wrote: Yes you CAN use a tri-monopod in bar situations. And it is ugly. You CAN do it. I have. As you all know, it's a blessing and a curse. For eggsample, some surly folks can get you thrown out. Really. As for street, I have no opinion.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up? Well, I will share one of my snap shots. It is related to this thread because it is an indoor flash shot. I scanned it to see whether it was worth retouching the scratches. Scanned from a 8x10 work print, and downsized for the web. The print is a bit more contrasty than the jpeg. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/presscameras/temp.html -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Bill, And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here, including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL Bill Owens wrote: I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to suit yourself and to hell with anyone else's opinion. If you're happy with your results, it shouldn't matter what someone else thinks. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well thought out and quite germane to the general subject of this list. And if Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or that you are full of crap, the heck with them. Frankly, I get the sense that very nice is a good critique here, but worthless as teats on a boar hog in the long run. I appreciate your efforts, even when I don't agree with you. shel graywolf wrote: Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up?
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Nope. Gimme an Mx, a 50 1.4, and a monopod. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while you're at it. Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held photography, and others like to let everyone know they're taking pictures. Whatever floats your boat, Lon ... Lon Williamson wrote: Yes you CAN use a tri-monopod in bar situations. And it is ugly. You CAN do it. I have. As you all know, it's a blessing and a curse. For eggsample, some surly folks can get you thrown out. Really. As for street, I have no opinion.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Second the motion. Graywolf is good. Even if he shoots Pentax. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't Tom.I for one listen and learn.:-)
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Gee, Bill, I though the reflection of the barber pole in the mirror kind of made the shot. Also that sink helps show that this is an old, old barber shop. In fact if you look at it the only thing in this photo that shows it wasn't taken 50 years ago is the plastic product containers on the shelf. Cropping the left side of the print would also remove some of the information that indicates this is a basement barbershop. Sometimes cropping out the background just is not a good idea, as it can destroy ambiance. At other times, as you say, it is just distracting. Besides, if I did not want it there it would not have been on the negative, I would have chosen another viewpoint. Also, this is quite clearly labeled as a work print. I have about six different versions of it done in Photoshop to see which works best. One of them will be used as a template for a custom print. However that one has only minor tweaking over the work print, as I have decided not to crop the image. I also decided to show the raw image to the list rather than one of the photoshopped ones. BTW, for those who do not know, a work print is one that you make to decide what you need to do to a custom print to make it come out just the way you like. It is usually a moderate enlargement (5x7, or 8x10) so the details are clear. You use it to decide about cropping, dodging, burning, etc. Proofs on the other hand are just snapshot size prints that can be used to select poses etc. Usually the work flow is from negative, to contact, to proof, to work print, to custom print which might be any thing from an 8x10 to a mural. -- Bill Owens wrote: Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash. The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad. I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much of. But I thought GrayWolf was both brave (Old?) and kind in his review. Keith Whaley wrote: graywolf wrote: Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. You mean, ...negatively criticizing. . . You were criticising, but there's nothing wrong with that. Especially since he asked for it! You weren't criticizing anyone in the peanut gallery, or THEIR work, so who cares what others say about your criticism? He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. That's the way I read it! I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. Uhh, calm down, GW. He got what he asked for. There's no problem there, in my eyes. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? C'mon, Tom. Lighten up. Who cares? If you like giving lessons and advice, and you know it's good advice, go ahead and give it! Who cares if anyone else likes it? Listen to the person asking for the advise. As for the others -- scrume. Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up? Well, I will share one of my snap shots. It is related to this thread because it is an indoor flash shot. I scanned it to see whether it was worth retouching the scratches. Scanned from a 8x10 work print, and downsized for the web. The print is a bit more contrasty than the jpeg. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/presscameras/temp.html -- Nothing wrong with the shot. Sort of odd location for a hair dresser, I guess. But if he likes it, and the patron likes it, why not? g Good work. I may be dickering on a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Crown Graphic soon. I'll let you know. . . g keith
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Funny, I cropped it on the right side and on the top, and thought I would have liked a bit more of that sink... :-) Lasse From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting. Bill - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up? Well, I will share one of my snap shots. It is related to this thread because it is an indoor flash shot. I scanned it to see whether it was worth retouching the scratches. Scanned from a 8x10 work print, and downsized for the web. The print is a bit more contrasty than the jpeg. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/presscameras/temp.html -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Bill, And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here, including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL Bill Owens wrote: I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to suit yourself and to hell with anyone else's opinion. If you're happy with your results, it shouldn't matter what someone else thinks. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Just goes to show that different folks have different tastes. You can probably get as many opinions as people that comment. Bill - Original Message - From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Funny, I cropped it on the right side and on the top, and thought I would have liked a bit more of that sink... :-) Lasse From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting. Bill - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up? Well, I will share one of my snap shots. It is related to this thread because it is an indoor flash shot. I scanned it to see whether it was worth retouching the scratches. Scanned from a 8x10 work print, and downsized for the web. The print is a bit more contrasty than the jpeg. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/presscameras/temp.html -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Bill, And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here, including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL Bill Owens wrote: I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to suit yourself and to hell with anyone else's opinion. If you're happy with your results, it shouldn't matter what someone else thinks. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On 26 Jan 2004 at 16:54, Lon Williamson wrote: It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash. The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad. I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much of. I think that the thrust of suggestions was to learn to use the light that exists before making the situation more complicated by adding more light. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On 26 Jan 2004 at 11:54, Lon Williamson wrote: And I have been in bars where, say, a 50mm f1.4, gives me hand-held shooting speeds arount 1/4 or 1/8. These situations cost a LOT of wasted film, no matter what Shell says abut hand holding. I love my DSLR just for this reason :-) I shot 154 exposures at a concert the other night, the light was poor and they weren't staying still for me. Discarding outright rejects due to focus, shake, subject movement, blown out highlights and unpleasant expressions left me with 38 usable shots. More than I ever walk away with when using film. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I don't think Boris said that he didn't appreciate Tom's comments, did he? Unless I missed it. Tom, I'll echo what Shel said: your comments were well thought out and useful to Boris and the whole list. As one of the nice shot folks, I wasn't saying that you or Shel were wrong, or that Boris shouldn't heed your adivce. And, althought I'm sure you weren't directing your comments to me, I did do a bit more than just say nice shot, I think I illustrated ~why~ I liked it. And, I was commenting on it in the context of what I thought it was. I would say, keep commenting, if you feel so inclined, when someone asks it of the list. I for one always enjoy reading all of the responses. And, you and Shel's opinions rank right up there with those that I find most interesting and informative. Whether I agree or not is a whole different issue. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:33:33 -0800 Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well thought out and quite germane to the general subject of this list. And if Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or that you are full of crap, the heck with them. Frankly, I get the sense that very nice is a good critique here, but worthless as teats on a boar hog in the long run. I appreciate your efforts, even when I don't agree with you. shel graywolf wrote: Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should have done was say, Very nice. I guess, I wonder, does anyone apperciate my efforts here? Or should I just figure all folks are doing, in cases like this thread, is sharing their snapshots and shut up? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Bill, Nope. If I were going to crop, I'd take out the pipe on the right. It would also move the hair-cuttee off centre nicely. I think the sink along with the various bottles of hair stuff, is very barber shoppy, and adds to the mood of the photo greatly. It may not even need cropping, but it might be worth trying, just to see what it looks like. But, I say, crop out the right. Nice shot, Tom. Oops! Did I say that? vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:47:22 -0500 Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I hear what you're saying, Lon. If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a tri or monopod. First, the tripod is liable to be kicked, knocking down your camera. Especially if you have an assistant there. g Second, some drunken patron can trip over it, and hurt themselves. They sue bar. Bar third party's you. I hope your insurance is paid up. And they provide coverage. Even a monopod would be way too restrictive. At least for me it would. Even with a flash, the element of surprise is necessary (which is why I'll often shoot from the waist, when they're not expecting it - wide angle lenses are great for that!). I've got to circulate, gab with everyone, fire away when no one (sometimes even me) is expecting it. But, hey, that's just me! As many have said throughout this thread, whatever works for you, and your style, is good. The certainty is that whatever other differences there may be between yours and mine, yours are bound to be, on average, way sharper than mine! cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:41:43 -0500 Nope. Gimme an Mx, a 50 1.4, and a monopod. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I kind of thought that mostly the suggestions were to think about where that shadow is going to wind, up and what it is going to look like when it does. That is a long way from don't use flash. I guess, what we are seeing is comments on very much different levels. To start with Boris's photos were very good snapshots of his friends. At that level he has to make no apologies. Some of us saw a capability of moving those photos out of the snapshot category and made suggestions on how he could do that in the future. Others, saw nothing beyond that and made comments about how unfair our comments were. One can chose a couple of things in photography. On can chose to let the camera do it. Even when one has a good eye, that still leaves things in the mediocre category as anyone could do it. On the other hand one can try to understand why this works and that does not work. How to do things they have not gotten around to programing the cameras to do yet. How to see in ones mind approximately what a photograph is going to look like and to adjust it before snapping the shutter. Still others seem to think that if one has to do all that study and practice and work why bother. Those are the ones I frankly don't see why they join in the conversation. In my opinion no matter how great they make the cameras, good pictures will still depend upon emotions, tools, and techniques. Too many only want to talk about the tools. Emotions are very personal. Technique requires a lot of study, and practice (the one real advantage digital that I see, cheap practice), e.g. work. One of the interesting things I have seen, and the interview with Helmut Newton that Lasse posted a link to seems to show this, is the best photographers do not seem to think they are all that good. That is probably because they can see the difference between what is in their head and what they produce. -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 26 Jan 2004 at 16:54, Lon Williamson wrote: It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash. The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad. I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much of. I think that the thrust of suggestions was to learn to use the light that exists before making the situation more complicated by adding more light. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Quoting graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [SNIP] One of the interesting things I have seen, and the interview with Helmut Newton that Lasse posted a link to seems to show this, is the best photographers do not seem to think they are all that good. Certainly they'd never claim that a post to a mailing list was an advanced photography course. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought I hear what you're saying, Lon. If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a tri or monopod. In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed establishment. William Robb
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Excellent reason to go to unlicensed establishments. Speakeasy, here I come. -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought I hear what you're saying, Lon. If it's real dark in a bar or at a party, I'll use a flash. But never a tri or monopod. In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed establishment. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
When I first lived in Saskatchewan, stores were closed on Monday as well as on Sunday. What a bizarre policy THAT was, especially moving there from Montreal. Obligatory Pentax remark: I knew a guy that worked at Woolco Northgate in the '70s and early '80s (long before it was sold to Sauron) who used to write up K1000 invoices in advance because they flew out the door so fast. Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed establishment. William Robb - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought Obligatory Pentax remark: I knew a guy that worked at Woolco Northgate in the '70s and early '80s (long before it was sold to Sauron) who used to write up K1000 invoices in advance because they flew out the door so fast. Who was that? It's a small community here, I probably know him. William Robb
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Ya? Well, some folks understand hyperbole, some do not. But, at least you are reading my posts. ;) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [SNIP] One of the interesting things I have seen, and the interview with Helmut Newton that Lasse posted a link to seems to show this, is the best photographers do not seem to think they are all that good. Certainly they'd never claim that a post to a mailing list was an advanced photography course. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
There are lots of places down here like that, too. In fact, just taking a camera into these places could result in a serious butt kicking. Some folks are afraid their spouse or S.O. might see them with someone. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 In Saskatchewan, I am pretty sure they have not repealed the post Prohibition law forbidding photography in a licensed establishment. William Robb
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! SB Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well SB thought out and quite germane to the general subject of this list. SB And if Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or SB that you are full of crap, the heck with them. I must rush for work, but I must type in this before that. Tom (Graywolf), Shel - I very much liked and appreciated what Tom wrote. Tom, please don't feel bad. You did exactly what I was asking for. And again, I do appreciate what you said, Tom. Shel, I like that is anything *but* what I was asking for. Thanks! Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Boris's shots did show shadows cast by what looked to be a flash mounted directly on a hot shoe. Sometimes this can work out OK, usually not. I've sometimes gotten a shot where this works in vertical, but it's a bit of a crap shoot. It's a good idea to consider which WAY to shoot the vertical, as shutter button up or down also puts the shoe flash left/right. I think you've got a chance of direct flash working out well when one or more of the following is going on: dragging the shutter a bit, the subject is well away from other objects, the flash is told to underexpose. I would add using a diffuser except that I don't own one, so cannot comment from experience. Shadows in that situation may help mould the face, even with vertical shots, without causing distractingly obvious shadows on nearby background things. -Lon Bruce Dayton wrote: Shel, I would say that we are in violent agreement then. There are certainly reasons to use flash, but what Boris was shooting was severely affected by the flash. My first choice is to not use flash, but when the situation warrants it, I use it. The shots Boris showed were not the right situation. Bruce Friday, January 23, 2004, 7:59:14 PM, you wrote: SB Bruce ... SB Weddings are a different type of photography, Paul's product shots are different, SB too. What Boris was trying to do, and what I was addressing, is different. In SB such situations, and in such type of photography, flash is definitely a detriment. SB All the naturalness goes out of the photograph. SB Weddings are planned events, photographs MUST be produced, product shots are SB controlled events ... photos in pool halls, bars, and on the street just happen ... SB unless they have been set up, and that brings us back to photography being like SB weddings and product shots. I don't want my people to look like a product, and I SB certainly don't want them to feel that way. People at weddings expect flash; a SB lady quietly nursing her drink at the Hotsy Totsy club is gonna be really fried SB when that blast of light startles her, and I'll be a very sad photographer for SB being thrown out of the bar for disturbing the patrons. SB shel SB Bruce Dayton wrote: Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots there that are required to take and without supplemntal (flash) lighting, there would be some very unhappy clients. I agree that whenever possible, don't use flash and don't over do it, but I have need for flash.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I'd like to hear more about this, tv. You've done a lot more flash work than I have. -Lon tom wrote, in part: . Contrary to the prevailing wisdom here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting results than to use available light and get interesting results. Luckily there's nothing preventing you from trying both.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I am not Boris, but I am about his age and I am sure you are joking here, particularly for an upright. 1/30 is my absolute limit (perhaps the practice bit is my problem). I got some very sharp shots the other night at a concert shooting 125mm @ 1/15th f2.4 ISO800, I was sitting but had no arm rests to lean on. Of course I made more soft and medium sharpness shots than really sharp ones but most were still quite usable and I'm not sure but I suspect that I'm older than Boris. I've been shooting in poor available light a long time, don't ask me about flash though. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Hi, it is still a peaceful thread. -- Cheers, Bob Sunday, January 25, 2004, 11:09:41 AM, you wrote: Hi! His 'autobiography' is called 'Slightly Out of Focus'. He is supposed to have said that it was better for a war photographer if your pictures were slightly out of focus because it looked more convincing, as if you had been in greater danger, so you could charge more for your pictures. Here very peaceful thread about two photos made in a bar has entered the war photography zone... Just a notice. I am somewhat surprised. Boris
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
I think Paul summed it up pretty well, but basically working with available light involves seeing the light that you're given, working with flash involves working with light that you create. You have to see it before it's there, and know how to put it there. I used to be a strict available light guy myself, but there are situations where it's just not going to work. Once you're forced to work with it you start looking for ways to improve on direct on-camera flash tv -Original Message- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought I'd like to hear more about this, tv. You've done a lot more flash work than I have. -Lon tom wrote, in part: . Contrary to the prevailing wisdom here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting results than to use available light and get interesting results. Luckily there's nothing preventing you from trying both.
Re: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Comments interspersed: From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Talk of HCB - I know I told the list about seeing the Magnum at 50 Years retrospective with the print of the grinning kid with the wine bottles (Rue Muffon or something like that). rue Mouffetard. Yes, well, I was close. 1 out of 2 syllables ain't bad. And the first syllable, too! See, this comes back to our titles convo of last week. I can never remember ~other people's~ titles either. Whatever it's called, it'll always be The Grinning Kid with the Wine Bottles to me. g Someone actually accused Capa of purposely shaking his camera for those D-Day photos, for dramatic effect. It refers to the excuse Life made on publishing his D-Day photos that the fear of battle meant he couldn't hold his camera steady. He was more angry about that than about the ruined photos. And, as one critic wrote (paraphrasing liberally): Capa was on the heaving deck of a landing craft, which reeked of the vomit of nervous soldiers, after having crossed the English Channel in unexpectedly rough seas, had just jumped chest deep in water, was being shot at, was trying to maneover through and across barbed wire, and was bumping into Allied soldiers: and they think he had to ~purposely~ shake his camera? His 'autobiography' is called 'Slightly Out of Focus'. He is supposed to have said that it was better for a war photographer if your pictures were slightly out of focus because it looked more convincing, as if you had been in greater danger, so you could charge more for your pictures. Maybe I should become a war photographer. I've already got the OOF thing down pat (well, according to Shel, anyway g). cheers, frank _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Tom's not joking ... it takes a bit of practice to hand hold at low shutter speeds, but it's very doable. Numerous techniques to aid in such a practice have been mentioned here in the past few days. Leave your tripod or monopod at home, and practice, practice, practice. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Being young and healthy you can probably hold 50mm down to about 1/8 second with a bit of practice, certainly f2 @ 1/15th which I think would have worked in there. I am not Boris, but I am about his age and I am sure you are joking here, particularly for an upright. 1/30 is my absolute limit (perhaps the practice bit is my problem).
Re: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
I tend to agree with Capa's comment. Having seen the Requiem show, and looked at the photos in the book, it became clear that those pics that were less than perfect technically - OOF, showing camera movement - had, in general, a far greater impact than the nicely exposed, sharp pics. Can't speak to the financial aspect of the comment, however. Bob W wrote: His 'autobiography' is called 'Slightly Out of Focus'. He is supposed to have said that it was better for a war photographer if your pictures were slightly out of focus because it looked more convincing, as if you had been in greater danger, so you could charge more for your pictures.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! RS I got some very sharp shots the other night at a concert shooting 125mm @ RS 1/15th f2.4 ISO800, I was sitting but had no arm rests to lean on. Of course RS I made more soft and medium sharpness shots than really sharp ones but most RS were still quite usable and I'm not sure but I suspect that I'm older than RS Boris. I've been shooting in poor available light a long time, don't ask me RS about flash though. Oh, it reminded me, thanks Rob. One of my shot was made handheld at 220 mm of focal length with 1/60 or so shutter speed. It is one of my first PUG submissions I think - Bored Leopard. Anyway, I have no idea how I could pull this one out - total weight of gear in my hands was close to 1.5 kilos (more than 3 pounds)... For all practical purposes I am 32 years old g... In a sense I am glad that two photos of mine resulted in two somewhat prolonged threads. It means that at least these two shots were worth something... Thanks. Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! SB Tom's not joking ... it takes a bit of practice to hand hold at low shutter speeds, SB but it's very doable. Numerous techniques to aid in such a practice have been SB mentioned here in the past few days. Leave your tripod or monopod at home, and SB practice, practice, practice. The last is so simple - I have neither. I have some video tripod, but I mostly lend it to my co-workers for there digi cams and video cams... Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! ft I went back and looked at the pics again, and I ~really~ like the second one ft a lot. The guy's face has a great deal of character. He has a sort of ft self-satisfied smile; he seems a very confident and friendly person, very ft outgoing. I think you captured a great deal of his character here, Boris. Finally. At last. I am getting somewhere... He is exactly what you described, Frank - friendly and outgoing. ft Nice composition: I really like the guy in the background just taking a ft drag from his cigarette (of course, I would never condone smoking... g). ft Puts the guy in a typical pub scene - it looks like he's right at home. I did not see the second guy at the time I was taking the shot. Most probably I did not. But it really fits well... ft Only bad thing is the shadow obscuring most of the guy just to the left of ft the subject. It looks like he's being kind of thoughtful, with his chin in ft his hand, but we really can't see him. Too bad. I suppose that if it wasn't this shadow - it would be a very good shot... ft Otherwise, and despite what some others have said, I think this one's a ft really really good shot! So Frank, you're cool again VBG... Thanks! At least one person read the shot the way I saw it too. I did not see all this at the time of shooting, it just felt right to click the button. But after I saw the outcome - I also thought more or less in line with what you said. Thanks! Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Boris Liberman wrote: ft I went back and looked at the pics again, and I ~really~ like the second one ft a lot. The guy's face has a great deal of character. He has a sort of ft self-satisfied smile; he seems a very confident and friendly person, very ft outgoing. I think you captured a great deal of his character here, Boris. Finally. At last. I am getting somewhere... He is exactly what you described, Frank - friendly and outgoing. How does he like having his picture taken? Kostas
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
At 06:00 PM 1/23/2004, Shel wrote: More and more the photographs we see have a generic look about them ... so many people are using slower zoom lenses, 400 speed film, lab processing, and relying on cameras with meters that do the thinking, that it's becoming rare to find photographs that are made by the photographer rather than technology. and also Whoops! Hardly anyone does any of that these days. So much easier with color neg film, a flash, and a quick trip to the one hour lab. No more cool drinks during mid day ... that's the biggest loss LOL Actually, I resemble those remarks. In recent years, I have moved from a PS to an SLR. Originally, I just kept everything on auto mode. Then I started wondering how come my photos documented events, but lacked a certain something. More likely, my efforts reflected my lack of thought /or understanding of what I could do w/ the process. Yes, I'm still using slow(er) zooms (moving from 3rd party to Pentax though), ASA 400 color film, and a one hour lab. But I've learned to have a conversation w/ my photodeveloper and come to an understanding of personal style and preferences. If I did a mid-roll rewind and left a blank shot in the midst, that's ok. If I was playing w/ street lights at night that's ok too. If I don't like the results, we figure out why. This is a working relationship w/ someone who understands the process. But thanks to this list, I've begun exploring and experimenting. Bright sunny day? Try an ASA 100 film; I've found the difference btwn. Reala and others. Try a polarizer. Dark, indoor events? Try an ASA 800 film. May not need to blast the flash. Try one exposure w/ and one w/o to appreciate the differences. Set my own Av or Tv values instead of leaving everything in auto. I think it was most revealing when someone who's a bit of an equipment geek picks up my camera and says, hey it's in Av mode. Then I realized that equipment does not equate skill (a bit of a waste to keep an F100 in auto mode?). The results since I've joined the list are a little better (I think). What anyone else thinks of a photo? Well, they weren't there when I took the photo and I don't want to have to explain every photo I take. The PDML does a great job fostering beginner/amateur photographers (when it's not masquerading as a comedy/debate club). Thanks for being here! Pat in SF
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! g OK, 1. You did not have the camera level. If it was the subject would have been g leaning slightly forward into the frame, as it is he is leaning back slightly g and it give the view a teetery feeling almost with out knowing why. If you had g errored in the other direction it would not have been so bad, as that is the way g you unconsciously expect him to be leaning. I really did not notice that. My bad! g 2. As in the other shot, you did not think of where the flash was going to throw g the shadow. If you can not avoid a flash shadow it is usually best to arrange it g to be on the far side of the subject. Or to make it a bold part of the g composition, but he is too close to the wall to do that in this instance. I knew flash was going to spoil it but I wanted to get some DOF so I had to stop down a little. Well, I realize now, I couldn't get away... g 3. The crop is to low in this particular photo you would be better off with more g table and less air above the subjects head. Actually I disagree, but I see your point and I will try it both ways in the future. g 4. More subtilely the shot lacks the dynamic look that would indicate the g intensity to go with his expression. Also he is obviously has his attention on g something out of the frame but no indication of what. He is explaining the rules of the black ball in this variety of pool game. I suppose I failed to make it as clear as I wanted it to be. g Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow, unlike color g photography where you want to avoid deep shadows most of the time. I believe you g have a fast lens (f2?), you should have been able to shoot these available g light. Being young and healthy you can probably hold 50mm down to about 1/8 g second with a bit of practice, certainly f2 @ 1/15th which I think would have g worked in there. All those rules you find in books have to do with being safe, g you kind of have to push the limits sometimes if you want great photos. I have FA 50/1.7 lens which was used. My known slowest speed is 1/20. The problem is of course that these two shots were made after I drank even as little as quarter a liter of bear. I don't think I could pull such a trick. Unfortunately they decided to close some of the windows which forced me to use the flash. But that's lame excuse g... g Is this helpful? Take it or leave, but it *is* helpful, and very much so. It is good to be PDMLer even if sometimes they beat crap out of you g... Thanks, Tom, I appreciate your comments! Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! DM Yes, I am glad that I saw the photo before I read that. DM On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2? DM Now I'm scared to open this photo. :) And you say I am the one being *behind* the language barrier VBBroadG... Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! g As I said subtile. The emotional undercurrent in a photo is far more important g than most photographers seem to realize. I am afraid I am going to admit that I still have to start scratching the surface of that. g Is he? Or is he explaining, or is he arguing. The feeling from the photo is that g he is defensive about it somehow. That comes from the leaning back tilt of the g photo. And, I do not think that was what Boris had in mind. As it is the photo g is ambiguous, but it is not ambiguous enough to seem deliberately ambiguous. As I said, it was not deliberate and I did not have time to think all of this shot through. It came out this way and I suppose I missed it to a point (above). g GRIN! (For folks who have not looked at it Boris's photo is of a guy racking g pool balls, not pornography). Do they both have to be in focus? I think not, you g can change the meaning of the photograph simply by selective focus. Is it a g photo of a guy playing pool? Or it a photo of a pool game with a player in the g back ground? See what I mean? Tom, I really wanted to have them both in focus as my thought was that this guy is explaining about this ball... I think it was shot at f/5.6 or even f/8... g Boris's photo is actually an excellent teaching vehicle, as it is a good g snapshot, the value is in learning how it could be a powerful photograph. Now I am flattered g... g I think folks are now seeing why I do not generally critique photos. But I felt g Boris was asking for instruction rather than praise. However, everybody note, g that I did not tell him to use a different viewpoint, or angle, or distance. g That would be telling him to make a different picture, not how to improve the g one he chose to make. Indeed, I was asking for instruction. Actually, I am almost always asking for instruction. As my aim is to improve. On all aspects of the photography (including some funny sentences related to balls g)... Seriously, I'd much rather get an instruction like this instead of infinite number of ohs and wows without any specific word except the exclamation marks... But again, it is me only... Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Shel, Adding in-law to both mother and son wherever applicable gives this joke totally different perspective, does it not? VBG SB A nice Jewish mother gave her son two ties for his birthday. Wanting to show SB his appreciation for the gift, he wore one to dinner the next evening. Upon SB seeing the tie, his mother said, So, what was wrong with the other one that SB you didn't wear it. Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! SB I'd agree with that, yet for the type of work Boris was showing, such SB creative work with flash is not gonna cut it. For ambient light SB photography (I almost said available light, but some smartass would counter SB that the camera flash IS available) one will do much better by SB understanding the light and how proper exposure and development can come SB together to create a truly wonderful photo rather than the average pap SB produced by most photographers these days. I undoubtedly need to learn which I will as I am afraid g PDML will force me to. SB More and more the photographs we see have a generic look about them ... SB so many people are using slower zoom lenses, 400 speed film, lab SB processing, and relying on cameras with meters that do the thinking, that SB it's becoming rare to find photographs that are made by the photographer SB rather than technology. I took me very little time to put away slow zoom though I see nothing wrong with 400 speed film per se. I still process in the lab and rely on meters though do my own scanning and editing. Honestly, I think that there're some thing best left to technology, such as flash automation of sorts, and thing best left to a man, say choice of aperture (DOF). But it does really belong to the topic... I think. Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! PS How true. When you don't have to think about exposure, you stop PS thinking about light. When you stop thinking about light, you produce PS crap. I didn't look at the photos in question, so I can't comment on PS that. But I agree that an on camera flash is almost never the right PS solution. Paul, even if you did not look at the pictures at the time of the above writing, you have to realize that I just took my camera and trusty 50 mm lens with to have fun. Folks liked their shots immensely. So, I guess I both made them feel good and learned something from this experience. Not to mention some beer that I finally could drink... Now I suppose PDML would ban me for the above sentence VBG... Boris
Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Hi! SB I recently put up a pic for a few people to comment upon. Ann really tore SB into me for posting such crap. One of her comments was that it was obvious SB that I wasn't thinking about the light. So, while the subject was good (she SB allowed me that much g) the photograph was poor. I realized I'd been SB relying too much on the meter in the camera (as a result of spending too much SB time playing with my digicam). I took Ann's criticism to heart, borrowed an SB unfamiliar camera that had no built in meter, and which required me to SB concentrate on the entire process ... BINGO! While i was just shooting a SB test roll, there were a couple of very simple pics that turned out to be very SB nice photographs because I was very conscious about working with the light SB ... thinking about reflections, shadows, time of day, emulsion, color caste, SB DOF ... I made myself think about and consider every aspect of what went into SB making a photograph, and the results showed. SB Now, maybe i didn't have to make it so difficult for myself, but I felt my SB skills were deteriorating a bit, and I didn't want to fall back on anything SB familiar (like aperture priority or using a meter) while testing myself. You know that's the main problem with me. I remember when I was playing tennis (having a partner, time and so on), it always was the case that some of the shots just did not go. Either I was throwing the ball badly for serve, or not taking proper foot work for backhand, or making odd moves with the wrist for forehand... Only sometimes I could concentrate deep enough so that my game had resemblance of sense. As of now, I cannot possibly see how one could make these two shots with totally manual control of totally manual cameras... Well, I agree that faster film and wider aperture would let to hand hold... Other than that I am at total loss here. Indeed, if one is about to take a scenery picture - one has time to prepare and even reconsider. But if your friend looks at you smiling and raises a glass of beer and you decide you want to have this captured, you're not going to ask them to repeat this exercise 5 times just that you can bracket your exposure manually and try some interesting angles while bracketing... I definitely need more guidance g... Boris
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a bit of an odd duck here ... never used a flash, don't own a flash, can't see any reason to do so. So, basically you have no experience with what you're talking about? Your way or the highway? Boris - you really should learn all you can about exposure, but bear in mind that figuring out a correct exposure is not the same thing as being able to read the light that is available. I find it kind of funny that everyone wants to give you exposure advice - your expsoures were fine. As far as party pics go, they're fine. They're just party pics, right? Or were you trying to make some grand statement? If you want to get beyond just party pics, you either need to learn how to work with available light or work a flash. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting results than to use available light and get interesting results. Luckily there's nothing preventing you from trying both. tv
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
In this instance, yes ... for party pics, flash is Oh so cool. Nice for weddings too, and product shots. tom wrote: Your way or the highway?
RE: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Boris, Don't sweat it, buddy! I think you're thinking too hard. Not that I have any idea what the hell I'm doing or talking about, but really, you've got to just go with the flow. Shel's sage advice is obviously what one should strive for, but I think what you want is to internalize it. To use your tennis analogy, when you're learning, you're thinking, quite conciously, of what you have to do. Once you get good, however, you just get into a groove. You don't have to think style, it just happens. Call it muscle memory, or whatever. I think candid people photography is like that. You just know when a thing looks good, and you snap. You also know that sometimes it's going to work, and sometimes not, but you don't sweat it, one way or the other. The work comes with looking at the results, figuring out what went wrong or what could be improved upon, and figuring out what to do to alleviate it. But, the shooting part shouldn't be work. And, sometimes, despite being quite flawed, a shot works anyway. This discussion made me think of a photo I'd recently taken at a party (where I love to take my camera, and just blow through many rolls of film!): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2074191 It's out of focus. Quite badly out of focus, in fact. And, the girl's face is blown out a bit (but I was working with a non-ttl flash). I know what I did wrong - I was focusing by the focus scale on the ring, not looking through the viewfinder at all. Shooting with the camera near waist level with the lens set at a focal length of 24mm. Everyone seems much more relaxed that way. And, when I saw Glen and his friend, I just shot. The wall behind them is in focus. They aren't. But, I like it anyway. She has a great expression on her face. And, I like where her tatoo is. So, despite the flaws, I had it printed up anyway, to give to them as a present. And, I'm generally pleased with it. So, I guess what I'm saying (in this very long story) is, listen to what Shel said. Read the book(s) that Tom mentioned. But don't get worked up about it all. Learn these things, but just go shoot. That part's supposed to be fun. And, keep posting stuff. People who know what they're talking about (not me g) will be more than happy to give advice. FWIW, I liked both of your shots, btw. Only criticism I had is that the shadow from the flash was real harsh, but heck, you were using the on-board flash... cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:54:22 +0200 Hi! SB I recently put up a pic for a few people to comment upon. Ann really tore SB into me for posting such crap. One of her comments was that it was obvious SB that I wasn't thinking about the light. So, while the subject was good (she SB allowed me that much g) the photograph was poor. I realized I'd been SB relying too much on the meter in the camera (as a result of spending too much SB time playing with my digicam). I took Ann's criticism to heart, borrowed an SB unfamiliar camera that had no built in meter, and which required me to SB concentrate on the entire process ... BINGO! While i was just shooting a SB test roll, there were a couple of very simple pics that turned out to be very SB nice photographs because I was very conscious about working with the light SB ... thinking about reflections, shadows, time of day, emulsion, color caste, SB DOF ... I made myself think about and consider every aspect of what went into SB making a photograph, and the results showed. SB Now, maybe i didn't have to make it so difficult for myself, but I felt my SB skills were deteriorating a bit, and I didn't want to fall back on anything SB familiar (like aperture priority or using a meter) while testing myself. You know that's the main problem with me. I remember when I was playing tennis (having a partner, time and so on), it always was the case that some of the shots just did not go. Either I was throwing the ball badly for serve, or not taking proper foot work for backhand, or making odd moves with the wrist for forehand... Only sometimes I could concentrate deep enough so that my game had resemblance of sense. As of now, I cannot possibly see how one could make these two shots with totally manual control of totally manual cameras... Well, I agree that faster film and wider aperture would let to hand hold... Other than that I am at total loss here. Indeed, if one is about to take a scenery picture - one has time to prepare and even reconsider. But if your friend looks at you smiling and raises a glass of beer and you decide you want to have this captured, you're not going to ask them to repeat this exercise 5 times just that you can
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Jan 24, 2004, at 1:06 PM, tom wrote: Contrary to the prevailing wisdom here, it takes a lot more skill to use flash and get interesting results than to use available light and get interesting results. I agree wholeheartedly. There are so many options with flash that can alter your results. And of course these options range from the very simple, such as how the flash is mounted on the camera, to the very complex with multiple units, reflectors, and diffusers. Creating a natural or merely interesting look with flash is a worthy challenge and certainly an art.
Re: Timing (was: As usual: photo advise sought)
Call it muscle memory, or whatever. Damn, Frank ... that was the term i was looking for. Recently read a few articles about it, even how it's used in the military for certain maneuvers. And, sometimes, despite being quite flawed, a shot works anyway. How true ... a perusal of Cartier-Bresson's work will show numerous OOF shots that have impact nonetheless. A favorite photo book, Requiem, has some photos that are poor technically (not unexpected considering the situation in which the photos were taken) that have far greater impact than the many of the better focused and exposed photos. And let's not forget Robert Capa's the melted D-Day negatives hard to imagine the perfect prints having a greater impact or stronger story. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2074191 It's out of focus. Quite badly out of focus, in fact. And, the girl's face is blown out a bit It works because it captures the mood of spontaneity ... You're the master of Excellent OOF photographs, Frank g shel
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Firstly I didn't do anything revolutionary to the pictures, secondly I don't usually upload pictures anywhere (except to an old test folder at photo.net), thirdly I don't know if Boris would like to have his pictures uploaded anywhere... Having said that - I guess I could mail it to anyone interested. However I just pulled that Curves string at a few spots for a minute, no masking or any real work put into it. (Since Boris asked for views I just wanted to add a suggestion according to my personal taste.) Btw. Boris, I kind of like the pool player shot now :). Lasse From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about showing us what you did ... Lasse Karlsson wrote: As snapshots from an evening out with friends I think they are ok, apart from being slightly too contrasty for my taste. A fast tweaking in Curves produced a bit better balance - I pulled up the pool player's shirt a bit and tuned down the highlights on his face and the walls. Similar adjustments to the friend at the table. (Yes I also straighted out the tilt a bit.)
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
One area where I find flash invaluable is moving macro subjects. It would be virtually impossible to take a picture of a honeybee on a flower with sufficient depth of field without flash (I don't believe in faking such pictures by stunning the subject). Even more true of a bee in flight. Nick
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
I went back and looked at the pics again, and I ~really~ like the second one a lot. The guy's face has a great deal of character. He has a sort of self-satisfied smile; he seems a very confident and friendly person, very outgoing. I think you captured a great deal of his character here, Boris. Nice composition: I really like the guy in the background just taking a drag from his cigarette (of course, I would never condone smoking... g). Puts the guy in a typical pub scene - it looks like he's right at home. Only bad thing is the shadow obscuring most of the guy just to the left of the subject. It looks like he's being kind of thoughtful, with his chin in his hand, but we really can't see him. Too bad. Otherwise, and despite what some others have said, I think this one's a really really good shot! cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: As usual: photo advise sought Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:05:13 +0200 Hi! Few weeks ago we went to a local pub. Excellent beer even to my beerless taste and great time we had. I took with me ZX-L, FA 50/1.7 and a roll of Kodak T400CN (last one, promise). I took some shots, but had to use built-in flash. Still I would like to hear what you have to say about this one: http://boris.isra-shop.com/local/50/black-ball.jpg and this one: http://boris.isra-shop.com/local/50/portrait-with-beer.jpg Thanks in advance! Boris P.S. Except very minor USM and levels adjustment they are straight from the scanner (Epson 2450). _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi! AC For the 2nd pic, I think I would handle the camera with the grip downward to AC avoid the flash shadow. J His expression is really one of a guy at ease and enjoying himself. J Framing and focus is very nice too, imo. Alan, Jostein, you both seem to like the second of the two. Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first one that made you not to chose it? Thanks. Boris P.S. This is one of my first attempt of people photography beyond my immediate family, so I'd like to know the truth even if it is less than favorable g.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
There is really nothing wrong with the 1st one, just that the 2nd one shows more character about the person. But I am really poor at people photography so don't take my word for it. :-) Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Alan, Jostein, you both seem to like the second of the two. Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first one that made you not to chose it? Thanks. Boris P.S. This is one of my first attempt of people photography beyond my immediate family, so I'd like to know the truth even if it is less than favorable g. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
I, too, like the beer shot more than the pool table shot. The man at the pool table has a facial expression that makes me wonder what he's doing. On the other hand, maybe thats the point of it. The finger on the ball is a nice touch, though. -Lon Jostein wrote: http://boris.isra-shop.com/local/50/portrait-with-beer.jpg His expression is really one of a guy at ease and enjoying himself. Framing and focus is very nice too, imo.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
OK, 1. You did not have the camera level. If it was the subject would have been leaning slightly forward into the frame, as it is he is leaning back slightly and it give the view a teetery feeling almost with out knowing why. If you had errored in the other direction it would not have been so bad, as that is the way you unconsciously expect him to be leaning. 2. As in the other shot, you did not think of where the flash was going to throw the shadow. If you can not avoid a flash shadow it is usually best to arrange it to be on the far side of the subject. Or to make it a bold part of the composition, but he is too close to the wall to do that in this instance. 3. The crop is to low in this particular photo you would be better off with more table and less air above the subjects head. 4. More subtilely the shot lacks the dynamic look that would indicate the intensity to go with his expression. Also he is obviously has his attention on something out of the frame but no indication of what. Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow, unlike color photography where you want to avoid deep shadows most of the time. I believe you have a fast lens (f2?), you should have been able to shoot these available light. Being young and healthy you can probably hold 50mm down to about 1/8 second with a bit of practice, certainly f2 @ 1/15th which I think would have worked in there. All those rules you find in books have to do with being safe, you kind of have to push the limits sometimes if you want great photos. Is this helpful? -- Boris Liberman wrote: Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first one that made you not to chose it? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, graywolf wrote: 4. More subtilely the shot lacks the dynamic look that would indicate the intensity to go with his expression. Also he is obviously has his attention on something out of the frame but no indication of what. The first bit I don't understand, but did not expect to anyway. For the second, I thought he was asking if this is where you put the black ball. No? light. Being young and healthy you can probably hold 50mm down to about 1/8 second with a bit of practice, certainly f2 @ 1/15th which I think would have worked in there. I am not Boris, but I am about his age and I am sure you are joking here, particularly for an upright. 1/30 is my absolute limit (perhaps the practice bit is my problem). Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2? Is this helpful? To me, very. I also want to ask (you) what you think about the fact that the pillar on the left goes a lot towards the right. Such details in my pictures fob me off uprights. It is something that I do not understand about perspective and focal length. Kostas
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2? Now I'm scared to open this photo. :) chris
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
Yes, I am glad that I saw the photo before I read that. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2? Now I'm scared to open this photo. :) chris
RE: As usual: photo advise sought
Me too -- that was a SCARY sentence. (I think the answer is No, in this case, by the way.) Yes, I am glad that I saw the photo before I read that. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise sought On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Also, would the balls and face be in focus if shooting at f2? Now I'm scared to open this photo. :) chris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Lewis Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow, Isn't this a rather restricted interpretation? Aren't line and form of considerable significance? Not to mention flowers and kittens. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Don't try outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal. www.robertstech.com
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first one that made you not to chose it? Um... Like Alan, I don't usually do people photography, so what counts for me is the general impression more than the technicalities. To me it's something about the expression of the guy. He seems engaged in conversation with someone outside the frame over the ball he's pointing at. Hi face is frozen in a moment where it's not possible for me to guess what he's saying or thinking. Jostein
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi Boris ... while there may be numerous reasons to chose one photo over another, your questions begs this little joke. A nice Jewish mother gave her son two ties for his birthday. Wanting to show his appreciation for the gift, he wore one to dinner the next evening. Upon seeing the tie, his mother said, So, what was wrong with the other one that you didn't wear it. From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please, can you tell me what is wrong/has to be fixed with the first one that made you not to chose it?
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hi Boris ... Flash sucks ... the second photo is not diminished as much by the use of flash as the first due to the way the scene is naturally light. I think Tom made the comment about BW photography being about light and shadow, and I agree with his comment. Actually, I pretty much agree with everything Tom said. And while this may not apply directly to what you were trying to say with your photos, one of the greatest pool photos I ever saw was taken using just the single light over the pool table. A lot of the scene was lost in underexposure, but the movement of the cue ball, the slash of the pool cue, the stroke of the shooter's hands, and just enough detail to know that there was someone connecting all these elements, made for a very powerful photograph. Mostly just the highlights were captured, and because of the slow shutter speed, the movement of all the elements gave the photograph a real sense of aliveness and of being there. Don't be afraid to lose shadow detail, especially when you've got a strong or interesting subject to work with. As Tom said, BW photography is just as much about emotion (perhaps more) as it is about capturing lots of detail. If you haven't already, look at the work of W. Eugene Smith. Many, if not most, of his most famous and powerful photographs use the shadows to their advantage. BW can be evocative ... try to take advantage of that. kind regards, shel belinkoff Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! Here are the links again: http://boris.isra-shop.com/local/50/black-ball.jpg and this one: http://boris.isra-shop.com/local/50/portrait-with-beer.jpg Thanks! Boris
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Lewis Matthew wrote: From: graywolf Remember, BW photography is all about light and shadow, Isn't this a rather restricted interpretation? Aren't line and form of considerable significance? ;^) only if line form make a significant emphasis of existing light shadow - otherwise they're distractions! Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Hello Shel, Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots there that are required to take and without supplemntal (flash) lighting, there would be some very unhappy clients. I agree that whenever possible, don't use flash and don't over do it, but I have need for flash. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, January 23, 2004, 6:42:20 PM, you wrote: SB Well, Bill, I suppose one can argue that it's OK to do that, but I'd SB disagree in principle, especially with BW work. If y'gotta use flash, SB then the light's not right for the subject. Move the subject, move the SB camera, think of a different composition. This is for human subjects, of SB course. And there are definitely situations where fill flash will destroy SB a mood ... There's certain times of the day when the light enhances the SB act and the art of photography, and there are times of the day that you SB should take your camera inside, make notes on what you shot earlier, have a SB cool drink, change your film, have a cool drink, brush the morning dust off SB your lenses, have a cool drink, and then head out in the late afternoon and SB continue making photographs. SB Now, with conventional BW there's another way ... overexpose a stop or SB more and then cut back on the development time. That'll even out the SB contrast, have the photos looking more natural, and keep your subjects more SB relaxed. Whoops! Hardly anyone does any of that these days. So much SB easier with color neg film, a flash, and a quick trip to the one hour lab. SB No more cool drinks during mid day ... that's the biggest loss LOL SB I'm a bit of an odd duck here ... never used a flash, don't own a flash, SB can't see any reason to do so. The only flash here is the one built into SB my digicam ... SB shel SB Bill Owens wrote: How true. When you don't have to think about exposure, you stop thinking about light. When you stop thinking about light, you produce crap. I didn't look at the photos in question, so I can't comment on that. But I agree that an on camera flash is almost never the right solution. Maybe sometimes as fill flash in bright sun outdoors? Bill
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Bruce ... Weddings are a different type of photography, Paul's product shots are different, too. What Boris was trying to do, and what I was addressing, is different. In such situations, and in such type of photography, flash is definitely a detriment. All the naturalness goes out of the photograph. Weddings are planned events, photographs MUST be produced, product shots are controlled events ... photos in pool halls, bars, and on the street just happen ... unless they have been set up, and that brings us back to photography being like weddings and product shots. I don't want my people to look like a product, and I certainly don't want them to feel that way. People at weddings expect flash; a lady quietly nursing her drink at the Hotsy Totsy club is gonna be really fried when that blast of light startles her, and I'll be a very sad photographer for being thrown out of the bar for disturbing the patrons. shel Bruce Dayton wrote: Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots there that are required to take and without supplemntal (flash) lighting, there would be some very unhappy clients. I agree that whenever possible, don't use flash and don't over do it, but I have need for flash.
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Now, with conventional BW there's another way ... overexpose a stop or more and then cut back on the development time. That'll even out the contrast, have the photos looking more natural, and keep your subjects more relaxed. I do that quite often... every time I shoot a roll of Delta 3200 in fact. (The fact that the ME Super's internal metering only supports films up to 1600ASA has *nothing* to do with this, honest... ;-) S
Re: As usual: photo advise sought
Shel, I would say that we are in violent agreement then. There are certainly reasons to use flash, but what Boris was shooting was severely affected by the flash. My first choice is to not use flash, but when the situation warrants it, I use it. The shots Boris showed were not the right situation. Bruce Friday, January 23, 2004, 7:59:14 PM, you wrote: SB Bruce ... SB Weddings are a different type of photography, Paul's product shots are different, SB too. What Boris was trying to do, and what I was addressing, is different. In SB such situations, and in such type of photography, flash is definitely a detriment. SB All the naturalness goes out of the photograph. SB Weddings are planned events, photographs MUST be produced, product shots are SB controlled events ... photos in pool halls, bars, and on the street just happen ... SB unless they have been set up, and that brings us back to photography being like SB weddings and product shots. I don't want my people to look like a product, and I SB certainly don't want them to feel that way. People at weddings expect flash; a SB lady quietly nursing her drink at the Hotsy Totsy club is gonna be really fried SB when that blast of light startles her, and I'll be a very sad photographer for SB being thrown out of the bar for disturbing the patrons. SB shel SB Bruce Dayton wrote: Then there is all those times when the wedding is at noon and pictures are right before or after. Some of them can use fill flash - even in the shade - to put a tiny catchlight in the eyes or to soften a harsh shadow. Of course, receptions tend to be quite dim. There are shots there that are required to take and without supplemntal (flash) lighting, there would be some very unhappy clients. I agree that whenever possible, don't use flash and don't over do it, but I have need for flash.
