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 ) 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 ) 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 t
