"The photography is simply amazing!" I found a book at my parents' house a few years ago. It was written by a National Geographic photographer, and it was about how to take good pictures.
The prime focus of this book was landscape picture, for which National Geographic is known for beautiful ones. The author said that when he gets to a site, he would spend several days just looking of the subject. He would note what time of day the lighting was best, what angle gave the best shot, and so on. All this for one picture.
I also used to know someone who owned a cabinetry shop. He had done a real nice piece of work with some fancy laminate made by DuPont. DuPont sent out a photographer. This guy covered up all the windows in the shop, set up his photographic lights, turned off the shop lights, and took one picture. One. My friend asked him if he wanted to take a backup shot. The photographer said, "No, I got what I came for." Hours of work to take one picture.
I wish I was a better photographer, Matt; we have a very good digital camera. But I'm lazy and want to take the shot quickly so I just take several and stick with the best of the bunch :-)
Not that I am the world's greatest photographer (I do a great deal of cropping in Photoshop -- but I am also trying to do the best I can on the fly), but the best thing anyone can do is to be consciously aware of what they are trying to photograph.
Too many people try and take pictures of Fred and Suzie in front of a mountain. In order to get the mountain in the picture with the people, the people are small and unidentifiable. Either take a picture of the people (with some clues as to where they are) or take a picture of the mountain -- don't try to combine them. When I used 35mm, I liked to use my 200mm telephoto to get candids of people (such as family and friends) without them even knowing I was taking the picture. I got some great shots that way.
There are also many shot that I do not take because, while the idea is nice, I know the picture won't turn out anywhere like I want it to. This especially applies to distant scenic shots. When you look at the picture, there is no real focal point in the shot, and what might seem interesting is usually gray and hard to see.
Florenista said.... " I wish I was a better photographer, Matt; we have a very good digital camera. But I'm lazy and want to take the shot quickly so I just take several and stick with the best of the bunch :-) "
I have a hint for you. All of the professional photographers I know that work out of doors do just what you do, with some planning & concentration on the subject as Matt said, sometimes very intense as to timing & composition...then...they blaze away with cameras capable of 10 frames per second...sound like angry bumble bees when shutter is triggered.
No "Mr One shot & Got It" mentioned is a different matter....never make it out of doors, especially with animated subjects..he's acting like a painter, not a photographer, projecting his idea of "good" on to an image. Ansel Adams had to do this the equipment was rudimentary, and he used large field cameras with ground glass viewing screens, etc...but if he could have shot multiple frames once set up, I know he would have done so.
One guy I know took 30,000 images on a 6 week field trip, with barely 300 he was "happy" with enough to print and display. 1%.
My "ratio" is even less (because I am not nearly as patient or good)...I might be "happy" with maybe 0.5% of shots taken. I take less frames because I can only blaze away at 3 frames per second. :-))
[Sorry, don't know how to post a live link here yet]
Shaw is one of the best of the best and has written guidance for amateurs in plain language that anyone can learn from...now available both on paper or ebooks I believe...see his link tabs. He has a concentration on flowers and various other fauna that he explains very well.
"The photography is simply amazing!"
ReplyDeleteI found a book at my parents' house a few years ago. It was written by a National Geographic photographer, and it was about how to take good pictures.
The prime focus of this book was landscape picture, for which National Geographic is known for beautiful ones. The author said that when he gets to a site, he would spend several days just looking of the subject. He would note what time of day the lighting was best, what angle gave the best shot, and so on. All this for one picture.
I also used to know someone who owned a cabinetry shop. He had done a real nice piece of work with some fancy laminate made by DuPont. DuPont sent out a photographer. This guy covered up all the windows in the shop, set up his photographic lights, turned off the shop lights, and took one picture. One. My friend asked him if he wanted to take a backup shot. The photographer said, "No, I got what I came for." Hours of work to take one picture.
These guys amaze me.
The artifacts are amazingly well-preserved! Just incredible.
ReplyDeleteBut I had to lmao when I looked at a close-up of the cloth and the birds wings all look like 'fro combs!
Anyway, very nice article, lady red, thanks.
I wish I was a better photographer, Matt; we have a very good digital camera. But I'm lazy and want to take the shot quickly so I just take several and stick with the best of the bunch :-)
ReplyDeleteMy talents lie in gardening, I guess.
Not that I am the world's greatest photographer (I do a great deal of cropping in Photoshop -- but I am also trying to do the best I can on the fly), but the best thing anyone can do is to be consciously aware of what they are trying to photograph.
ReplyDeleteToo many people try and take pictures of Fred and Suzie in front of a mountain. In order to get the mountain in the picture with the people, the people are small and unidentifiable. Either take a picture of the people (with some clues as to where they are) or take a picture of the mountain -- don't try to combine them. When I used 35mm, I liked to use my 200mm telephoto to get candids of people (such as family and friends) without them even knowing I was taking the picture. I got some great shots that way.
There are also many shot that I do not take because, while the idea is nice, I know the picture won't turn out anywhere like I want it to. This especially applies to distant scenic shots. When you look at the picture, there is no real focal point in the shot, and what might seem interesting is usually gray and hard to see.
ReplyDeleteFlorenista said.... " I wish I was a better photographer, Matt; we have a very good digital camera. But I'm lazy and want to take the shot quickly so I just take several and stick with the best of the bunch :-) "
ReplyDeleteI have a hint for you. All of the professional photographers I know that work out of doors do just what you do, with some planning & concentration on the subject as Matt said, sometimes very intense as to timing & composition...then...they blaze away with cameras capable of 10 frames per second...sound like angry bumble bees when shutter is triggered.
No "Mr One shot & Got It" mentioned is a different matter....never make it out of doors, especially with animated subjects..he's acting like a painter, not a photographer, projecting his idea of "good" on to an image. Ansel Adams had to do this the equipment was rudimentary, and he used large field cameras with ground glass viewing screens, etc...but if he could have shot multiple frames once set up, I know he would have done so.
One guy I know took 30,000 images on a 6 week field trip, with barely 300 he was "happy" with enough to print and display. 1%.
My "ratio" is even less (because I am not nearly as patient or good)...I might be "happy" with maybe 0.5% of shots taken. I take less frames because I can only blaze away at 3 frames per second. :-))
Well, that's good to know, Aridog. Tom has a better eye than I do so I usually leave the picture-taking to him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, since he's at work 10 hours a day I have to get by.
Although I did take the "good" shot of PattyAnn that I sent to several of you here :-)
Florrie...just occurred to me that you might be intersted in the writing and photogrpahy of John Shaw as well as his books.
ReplyDeleteSee:
http://www.johnshawphoto.com/favorites_gallery/index_fav.html
[Sorry, don't know how to post a live link here yet]
Shaw is one of the best of the best and has written guidance for amateurs in plain language that anyone can learn from...now available both on paper or ebooks I believe...see his link tabs. He has a concentration on flowers and various other fauna that he explains very well.