Photography - it's a start

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Snapped

[elaineb]

EoC, these are beautiful photographs. I'm a painter, not a photographer, but there are commonalities between the two media, especially in terms of composition. So, I have a couple of observations to throw out. They are not meant as criticisms or judgments. I was just looking at these images as if they were one of my paintings, and then had some thoughts about what I saw.

You have caught a wide range of tonality. There are dark darks, bright highlights, and a nice juicy range of greys. Contrast is the living breath of visual arts. The rhythm of contrasts is like the heartbeat of an image. In these pictures you have been able to create a lot of rhythmic interest with dark areas against light, lights against greys, and greys against dark areas. The 3rd picture, of the pier, is particularly striking. It uses trolley tracks and boards to create interesting patterns as a backdrop to the stark, heavy shape of the thing you wrap ropes around. (Sorry, don't know the name of it.)

However, the biggest problem is that you have put the main motif of each picture directly in the center of the image. That is a natural choice, and it is a common design for simple portraits. In anything that is not a portrait, however, centering deadens the composition. In the third picture, for instance, the big black shape of the rope thing sucks all the air out of the linear patterns you caught, and reduces their music to a whisper. It's as if someone mixed a recording so that the singer is really really loud, and you can barely hear the backup band.

I think you'd do really well to start looking into composition for 2D images. Composition is a vast field of study, and there are endless books, web tutorials, and courses on the subject. But basically, it boils down to this principle: keep the most important part of your image away from the center of the canvas, and then find a way to balance it with other elements in your picture.

Some teachers point out optimal places for focal points (often citing geometry and systems like the "golden mean"), as practiced in Western art traditions. But then when you look at Japanese woodcuts, you'll see an entirely different system to organize visual compositions. They are all interesting and valid ideas, but ultimately -- composition is a bit of black magic that every artist needs to conjure on their own. Show me a compositional rule, and I'll show you a very successful painting that ignores it.

So, I guess, I'm saying maybe head to the library or a bookstore, and look for a simple primer on composition for photography. Read through the "do's" and "don't" and try editing/cropping/rearranging your own images in response. See if you find anything that looks better to you. It's all just a way to generate ideas. Oh, and don't forget: cropping away parts of a motif is a very powerful compositional tool. You don't need to show something in its entirety to make it recognizable.

Enjoy! You're off to a great start.

[penwash]

I like these.

I love B&W photos, any B&W photos that don't try too hard to be "edgy" or screaming "i am a rebel, look at me".

Unlike painting or drawing or sketching, you can't just take stuff in and out of the image, so photography, to me, has that added challenge to strike the balance and harmony given elements that you can't do anything about, and the cool thing is, sometimes you can use the "offending" element to your advantage to give your photo just a touch of interesting-ness.

I think you have a good sense for composition to start with.
So the best encouragement I can give you is: Don't stop, hone your eyes and brain and find your own style (after many, many, many reject shots).

[Dreck]

Very nice! I think the choice of vintage subjects pairs well with the B/W photos

[RobJohnson]

Black and white images always work for me.

You might want to experiment with some of the settings on Manual, especially the ISO settings.

Great depth of field on the wooden planks, is it a pier?

[An old bloke]

ISO has to do with film speed (think sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO the faster the film.

I am not a photographer, although there was a time I explored photography as a hobby. That was in half a century ago learning the mysteries of the dark room, shutter and film speed, and light and shading using black and white, colour, and slide films of different makes (Kodak and Ilford for instance). What attracted me then, and amazes me even now, is light and shadow and how it can be captured to create -- I call it -- 'dramatic effect'.

An example by Harold Cazneaux:


And another:

[RobJohnson]

As advised by AOB, ISO means sensitity, the higher the number means that you can have a faster shutter speed for low light conditions or when your object is moving. I am not an expert but I think that the higher the ISO is aslo a trade off on grain, for NZ in summer you shouldnt have too much in the way of poor light so if you are experimenting and learning the craft I would try a lowish ISO but brace yourself when you are taking the shot or rest the camera on something to avoid movement/vibrations.

The Panasonic TZ camera is a cracking little camera with a good electronic brain in Intelligent Mode and sports a very good Lumix lens, you could do a lot worse than leave the difficult stuff to the camera and just concentrate on composition and getting the light in the right place.

An experienced photographer gave me some tips, I worked as an assistant at his studio for a year, take your pics at a time when there is no one else around taking pics and don't take pics that everyone else takes, be out around dawn and sunset, don't take pics of the sun or the sea and you have to be really good to do a good landscape, try not to take pics at 1.8 metres from the ground, which is what everyone does, 0.8 and 2.8 metres is much more interesting.

Look at how you can make light work for you, for close ups switch the flash off on the camera, it's boring.

[manoeuver]

The first one is my favorite. What a cool building!

[An old bloke]

As advised by AOB, ISO means sensitity, the higher the number means that you can have a faster shutter speed for low light conditions or when your object is moving. I am not an expert but I think that the higher the ISO is aslo a trade off on grain, for NZ in summer you shouldnt have too much in the way of poor light so if you are experimenting and learning the craft I would try a lowish ISO but brace yourself when you are taking the shot or rest the camera on something to avoid movement/vibrations.

The Panasonic TZ camera is a cracking little camera with a good electronic brain in Intelligent Mode and sports a very good Lumix lens, you could do a lot worse than leave the difficult stuff to the camera and just concentrate on composition and getting the light in the right place.

An experienced photographer gave me some tips, I worked as an assistant at his studio for a year, take your pics at a time when there is no one else around taking pics and don't take pics that everyone else takes, be out around dawn and sunset, don't take pics of the sun or the sea and you have to be really good to do a good landscape, try not to take pics at 1.8 metres from the ground, which is what everyone does, 0.8 and 2.8 metres is much more interesting.

Look at how you can make light work for you, for close ups switch the flash off on the camera, it's boring.

It is surprising at times to realise that 'stuff' --facts and skills -- you haven't used in nearly half a century is still neatly catalogued and ready for recall in the deep depths of the mind.

Just to confuse matters slightly, I suddenly remembered that ISO and ASA are similar in that they are both indicators of film speed or sensitivity. I believe, but have not confirmed, that ASA is an older, possibly out-dated now, version of ISO. I remember seeing on Kodak films in particular.

Back in the day 'when dinosaurs roamed the earth', ASA of 60 and 80 were what I remember bog standard (general purpose) Kodak film was rated at since it allowed a slow shutter speed. We considered ISOs of 200 and 400 as high speed film back then for 35 mm film cameras. Today's digital cameras allow ISOs that were only available for the rarest of uses with film in the 1960 and '70s. Shutter speeds allow more or less light to expose the film, and was an issue film and film cameras. As memory serves, time lapse photos back then were taken with high speed film and very slow shutter speeds.

All of this is probably more than anybody cares to know, but there you have it.

[Robert]

Beautiful work, E-o-C - - As I've said before, in photography Black & White rules!

[An old bloke]

I would suggest deciding if you want to use film only, digital only, or film and digital. That is a big decision since film and digital have much that are unique while doing both allows you to fully explore the art that is photography. To assist with that decision, have a look here: https://istillshootfilm.org/post/110...ill-shoot-film and this: https://www.shutterbug.com/

[An old bloke]

Fair point, but I think at this exploratory stage I should stick with digital, as that's what I've got. Interesting though is that I have a Yashika FX-3 on my ebay watchlist, though I haven't plunged in as I am not sure I can bear the cost of film processing right now.

DIY film processing is simple and easy. It doesn't really require any expensive equipment either. You do need a complelely light free space to work in -- an unlighted windowless bathroom will do -- and a red light. The red light allows you to see what you are doing without over exposing the film. Making prints does require a bit of an outlay for an enlarger, but it isn't beyond most people's budgets (cheaper than a new camera).

[penwash]

I would suggest deciding if you want to use film only, digital only, or film and digital. That is a big decision since film and digital have much that are unique while doing both allows you to fully explore the art that is photography. To assist with that decision, have a look here: https://istillshootfilm.org/post/110...ill-shoot-film and this: https://www.shutterbug.com/

Whoa! Film vs digital is indeed a BIG decision.

I spent almost a decade in learning and exploring film photography.

Suffice to say, tons of things to absorb and learn, a lot of very rewarding moments, but man, the investments are deep and wide.

[RobJohnson]

I you are not an experienced photographer I would learn your craft first of all and let your camera do all the technical stuff.

Take many pics and learn about composition and light, leave the tele function alone, that is just cropping that you can do on the computer

I used film stock for years, I can understand the appeal o the old ways but digital works well, brilliantly well.

There is one expert wildlife photographer who is a keen advocate of camera phones being very easy and give good results, here is his site

https://www.simonkingwildlife.com/

I know that you enjoy Christofs pics, he is very adept at how he uses light. A still life pic though has a different light requirement, you may be looking for something dramatic.

I would look at youtube vids for your camera and just enjoy it, you already have an artists eye and have made a good start.


It really is so much about light and making it work for you

[Yazeh]

Lovely photos.
EOC, my wife is an artist and if my photos are dead centre she'll lecture me in length about what Elaine mentioned above.
They both have a point...
So, we've found a simple way to remedy my photographic shortcoming by using a simple photo editor to crop photos...
Here is your photo cropped different ways:

Cropped to the right
Railroad.jpeg

Cropped to the left

Rail.jpeg

[catbert]

Consider crouching or standing on something to alter your point of view. In the case of the rail lines and wooden planking, a lower perspective would emphasize interesting surface textures.
Or go in close when there are strong patterns of light and shade, as on the wall of the steampunk building.

[penwash]

I don't want to make this a photo-critic thread, but this is an interesting exercise which shows why a single photo can be taken (presented) in different ways.

I disagree that photos with centered subject are *always* undesirable.

In this particular case, David's photo works as it was presented in the original post, because in addition to the "almost" centered rails, it has other elements that strengthen the composition.

Element #1: The two people in the "background". They provide a good "anchor" for the viewer's eyes.
Element #2: The square metal plate (with 4 rivets or bolts) near the foreground.

The rail now becomes the connector between these two "anchors" and overall the composition makes for an interesting (as opposed to boring) image.

Another factor in composition is image ratio, which is how tall or wide a photograph is. If I were to present this photo, I'd crop it to 3:2 or maybe even 4:3, so it won't look as "tall".

[RobJohnson]

Have a look at this vid, I am sure that there are many others but this is an 8 minute worthwhile watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM2fAvEYTAU

[catbert]

Consider crouching or standing on something to alter your point of view. In the case of the rail lines and wooden planking, a lower perspective would emphasize interesting surface textures.
Or go in close when there are strong patterns of light and shade, as on the wall of the steampunk building.

I shall endeavour to engage my inner Federico Fellini

Looking forward to it.



Or whatever exponent of light, shade and composition inspires you.

[Sphere]

What are you trying to show in your photos? Do you have specific idea of what you want your images to look like? Are you shooting film or digital? Why do you work in black and white? Which is more important to you, the image or the process? These are fundamental questions to try and answer before you worry too much about the technical end of photography. Also, stop apologizing for your mistakes, just resolve to do better, and be honestly self-critical.

ISO _ International Standards Organization.
ASA - American Standards Association
Both organizations cerify that the sensitivity of the film/chip is accurately stated by the manufacturer.