mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What's with you and your fixation on courses? I NEVER suggested people should take courses. I did suggest people should educate themselves in the craft if they want to learn about and improve their photography. You have this terrible habit of implying things that were never said as if they were facts.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You also clearly did not read or understand my use of the word snapshot. The issue once again is your poor communication skills. You need to actually read and understand the words written to avoid misinterpreting them, as you've done several times in this thread.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Great photos. Maybe you should teach courses.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Haha👍

Peggy C Loc: Small Town, North Carolina

A photo is what one sees ... nobody will see it the same.
We can all look at same object for a photo, yet the photos won't be the same because we are not.

Photo or snapshot .. who cares?

Take what pleases you ..

indigoblues

I would like to comment on this, as I see both sides.

I started painting at a very young age (12 years old). I won numerous contests and even a scholarship to San Jose State University via my artwork. I worked my butt off to learn proper technique, composition, and color theory, etc. I went to museums and studied the great Masters. I tried to replicate their techniques.

When I got out of college, of course I was looking to sell my work, and, at the time, galleries were abundant. I did very well, but it was because I consistently produced quality work for the genre I was working in. All the galleries had a very specific rule—to even be considered as a showing artist, you HAD to bring in 20-30 pieces of work to them. The gallery owners wanted to see that an artist was consistent with technique and his/her work easily identifiable with his/her own style, otherwise they wouldn’t invest in you.

This is important, because a novice does not have a “style”— this is not to be a smart*ss, but is a fact. Style comes from hours and hours and hours of working at one’s craft. Throwing away FAR more than one produces... like 95% of it, because it didn’t make the grade.

Style is hard-earned and really does take years to develop, just like any of the arts. True “masters” are immediately identifiable by the style of their work... and it is not pretentious... “style” is a development of self and soul that is knowingly infused in one’s work. Novices should be busy learning technique— because that takes years, too.

Having said all of this, I do believe that there are some rare instances of artists that somehow have the muses talking to them at a very early age. Prodigies... and these people magically take to their specific craft with talent, technique, and style in a short amount of time that is simply remarkable.

More specifically, in the age of digital cameras, cell phone images, instagram, etc., the making of images is within reach of nearly all of us on the planet. The market is decidedly over saturated.

My rule of thumb, when it comes to photography is this: can a self-proclaimed “photographer” make nice images with a film camera that does not have AF, or an exposure meter. Back in the day, that’s how the “pros” worked. The Sunny 16 rule— still holds true today, though not many know about it or even care.

I was born in 1965– I am 53 now... I started in film photography with a camera that did not have an exposure meter... nor AF. At age 15, much to the chagrin of my mom, I turned our only bathroom into a darkroom. When digital cameras came out, I fully embraced them— many dedicated film photographers did not. It wasn’t “real” photography to them. But, I immediately saw the advantages of working in digital; however, I never forgot my film photography roots— what I learned about film photography has been such a blessing. I can work in any situation on full manual, no AF, quickly and efficiently— I never even look at my exposure reading because I rely on the Sunny 16 rule.

I think there are some fantastic young artists out there that are doing amazing things in photography: from large format to abstract and very contemporary. My point is this: most of us can make a decent image... but does it stand out from the crowd? Have we developed a style? How well do we know the tools that we work with? Is our work consistently brilliant?

indigoblues

Hi, I would very respectfully disagree with you...

When taking photos with a film camera one should over expose by a half stop or one stop. Film notoriously develops on the dark side even when the exposure needle is at it’s setting for “correct”. On a digital camera, however, one should under expose by a half stop to one stop. Why? Because clipped, blown highlights are very difficult, if not impossible to recover, even on a RAW file. Shadows are much easier to lift and retain detail.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

My understanding is that the RAW file will NOT be likely be overexposed (and highlights will not often be blown) if one overexposes slightly on the meter reading; and if using blinking highlights on the LCD or EVF as a guide, they tend to blink before the photo receptors are saturated. ETTR is best done by watching the histogram and pushing the curve to the right-hand edge, which probably represents overexposure to the meter-suggested settings.

But again getting back to my original premise, I think the RAW file saved even with normal metering would still be very useable; my use of the word "optimum" was referring to the overall process of shooting, not to getting the optimum RAW file.

indigoblues

Agreed... watching the histogram is the way to go— but we cannot dismiss photometry settings... which changes things up quite a bit...

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Without sounding harsh, in my universe, these photos fall into the snapshot category. But please don’t feel bad, MOST of us ARE snapshot shooters. We should all compare ourselves to the best in order to see where we are at.

Are people trying to purchase copies of any of these photos from you? That is another way to tell.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Be careful, or he'll call you a snob as well.

srt101fan

Interesting comments....

Would you agree that it's more difficult to develop a "style" in photography than it is in painting?

With painters like van Gogh, Picasso, Gaugin, Delacroix, Cezanne, Wyeth, etc, etc, it's easy for me to recognize a style. With photographers, unless it's someone like Jerry Uelsmann or Diane Arbus, not so much. I find it especially difficult to identify styles in landscape photography.

I love to look at good photographs and there are so many of them. So I'm not trying to put anyone down. I just find it much more difficult to detect a "style" in photography than in painting.

Sorry if this is off-topic....

indigoblues

No, not off-topic at all...

And very true. It can be hard to recognize a “style” in photography... we are playing with a much more limited deck of cards than painting or music— BUT, if one studies and looks long enough, “style” can be identifiable right away.

As I mentioned, we have been inundated with images currently— some very, very good— others not so much, or mediocre.

It takes LOTS of looking and studying the masters to recognize his/her style...

Harder than recognizing paintings, yes— but train your eye and it will become apparent quickly. Note: I’m talking about the Masters of photography... not the bazillion self-proclaimed “photographers” nowadays.

I know that sounds bad and opinionated, and my apologies— but I do believe this to be true.

srt101fan

Thanks for your response. I think you're right. I was thinking similar thoughts after sending my post. You probably have to look at the true "Masters" of the photographic art/craft to see distinctive styles.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

I appreciate your opinion, and I don't consider it harsh. As for sales, photography is purely a hobby for my own enjoyment. I've never tried to sell a photo. Thanks.