Finally reached boredom Overload

[Reality4711]

Pretty sure that this will be my last post here (hurrah - I hear)

Finally reached the point where I look at the subject without thinking of the photograph.

So What?

Well if you take away all the style, trickery, production values etc.. you are left with the subject, as photography today seems entirely based on everything except the subject the photographic input now seems to me to be repetitive and contrary to my initial interest in the subject.

The best possible presentation of the subject!

Yup. Back to basics for me. Consider my own work. Make the subject the defining point.

Don't think I have explained succinctly but it will have to do. Take the picture, prepare it for printing and look at the result. No Good = dump it and learn. Good or better = keep, show and learn.

No more rescuing poor sunsets. Take a better one. No more rescuing dull architecture. Take a better photograph next time.

Ta Ta.

Views welcome.

 

[bhtwo]

Goodbye

 

[phrehdd]

I am hoping I understand your post and not even sure how one responds. While it has been many years now living in the digital photo world, I find myself often enough wondering if I have improved or matured with respect to capturing images. There are times I gain some clarity in realizing I saw things far differently when I worked within the "rules of film" and in particular - Kodachrome, E-6 films and various BW films. For me, it was the subject matter and how it was capture THEN it was how to best present it (Cibachrome and BW papers respectively) along with all the decisions related to dark room. At that time my entire perception of imaging was quite different and far more about "the eye," craft and pre-visualizing.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

"The best possible presentation of the subject" has everything to do with production values, style, etc. Effectively, it's an attempt to display the subject in its best light, or to convey the way the photographer sees that subject. From the moment light enters our eyes, our minds are distorting "reality." Photographic technology brings its own limitations. What is "reality" when the medium is two-dimensional and freezes time?

Subjects do not just speak for themselves. If, say, the subject is an individual in a crowd, what do you do to make that individual distinguishable from the crowd? Or, if you're unable to use selective focus, framing, vignetting, dodging... do you simply not take the photo at all?

"Trickery" is a loaded term. Sometimes a fraud can be perpetrated on the audience, but what of techniques used to compensate for the shortcomings of the technology (HDR can be used for totally unrealistic effects, but it can also be used to extend dynamic range to something more closely resembling the "live" experience)?

In the end, each of us makes our choices as to what is and is not going to be part of our creative expression. By all means, eschew anything you consider trickery, impure, etc. All that matters in the end is that your images speak to the viewer. The biggest failing in communications is failing to communicate.

 

[maxsix]

"To Be Bored Is To Have Given Up"


~ unknown ~

 

[nateo200]

"To Be Bored Is To Have Given Up"


~ unknown ~

I find the quote interesting but ultimately misleading. Boredom is a natural feeling, I get it from time to time in photography but only after exhausting a ton of different types of work or just getting in a slump whether that be creative, mood, or whatever related.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Soooo...you're not going to turd polish anymore?

 

[simonsi]

Pretty sure that this will be my last post here...Views welcome.

No point starting a conversation and then walking away. That would be quite rude in person eh?

 

[Designer Dale]

Drama queens bore me. Just go already.

Dale

 

[Reality4711]

"The best possible presentation of the subject" has everything to do with production values, style, etc. Effectively, it's an attempt to display the subject in its best light, or to convey the way the photographer sees that subject. From the moment light enters our eyes, our minds are distorting "reality." Photographic technology brings its own limitations. What is "reality" when the medium is two-dimensional and freezes time?

Subjects do not just speak for themselves. If, say, the subject is an individual in a crowd, what do you do to make that individual distinguishable from the crowd? Or, if you're unable to use selective focus, framing, vignetting, dodging... do you simply not take the photo at all?

"Trickery" is a loaded term. Sometimes a fraud can be perpetrated on the audience, but what of techniques used to compensate for the shortcomings of the technology (HDR can be used for totally unrealistic effects, but it can also be used to extend dynamic range to something more closely resembling the "live" experience)?

In the end, each of us makes our choices as to what is and is not going to be part of our creative expression. By all means, eschew anything you consider trickery, impure, etc. All that matters in the end is that your images speak to the viewer. The biggest failing in communications is failing to communicate.

No point starting a conversation and then walking away. That would be quite rude in person eh?

OK.

I have always tried to be polite.

Taking the face in a crowd scenario.

If I am quick precise and lucky the picture I take will enable the viewer to see the face in the crown standing out for the reasons I noticed them and pressed the shutter release in the first place.

If I am no precise , quick and lucky they (the viewer) will not.

This is (to me ) photography at its purest and the result of eye,creative thought and skill with the medium.

Come to think of it, that reasoning is probably the cause of my earlier work in film being far more successful than later with digital. I never printed my own images from film nor became involved in the darkroom (other than to pass an opinion to whoever was doing it).

Since I posted originally , my digital darkroom has been calibrated for colour accuracy and locked (using a colour chart and grey chart). Thats it. Pick and image print a small trial and decide what to do then (as first post). No 'chimping'. Maybe a bit of dodge&burn but thats it. My keep rate will plummet but what I keep will IMO at least be photographs of worth to me.

I have 'automated' my CS5 and 'epson' 3880 to work like a minilab.

The goal is a years work 2016 - so I/we will see.

Regards

Sharkey

 

[Reality4711]

Drama queens bore me. Just go already.

Dale

Have you seen your avatar?

 

[Designer Dale]

Have you seen your avatar?

Yes, I made it. Thanks for coming back. Now post a pic or two.

Dale

 

[Reality4711]

Yes, I made it. Thanks for coming back. Now post a pic or two.

Dale

Taken at 'Walk for Life' in Thurso (in a tent)

 

[simonsi]

Oh so your goal is minimal PP? Cool, I do that all the time as I dont really enjoy PP - still not sure why that prompts a "my last post..." post. If you want comment on your new goal then go for it, I have never viewed PP as being able to rescue much, if an image is without merit, its without merit.

 

[Reality4711]

Oh so your goal is minimal PP? Cool, I do that all the time as I dont really enjoy PP - still not sure why that prompts a "my last post..." post. If you want comment on your new goal then go for it, I have never viewed PP as being able to rescue much, if an image is without merit, its without merit.

Not ,Drama Queening, just the way I felt at the time.
Looking back to go forward I suppose.
Internet+digital and trillions of images - just overload.

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Designer Dale]

Sounds more like a good case of Internet Overload. Take a break and do something else. It gets crazy in here too often.

Dale

 

[USAntigoon]

Pretty sure that this will be my last post here (hurrah - I hear)

Finally reached the point where I look at the subject without thinking of the photograph.

So What?

Well if you take away all the style, trickery, production values etc.. you are left with the subject, as photography today seems entirely based on everything except the subject the photographic input now seems to me to be repetitive and contrary to my initial interest in the subject.

The best possible presentation of the subject!

Yup. Back to basics for me. Consider my own work. Make the subject the defining point.

Don't think I have explained succinctly but it will have to do. Take the picture, prepare it for printing and look at the result. No Good = dump it and learn. Good or better = keep, show and learn.

No more rescuing poor sunsets. Take a better one. No more rescuing dull architecture. Take a better photograph next time.

Ta Ta.

Views welcome.

I understand the essence of your message very well..I went thru a similar phase and started dumping a lot of trivial stuff.. No more FB, put Photoshop on the shelf, started from scratch in understanding aperture, shutter speed, DOF, ISO and basics of digital photography .. The wealth of shooting pics and have an immediate view helps a lot in generating what you really want to capture, indeed a full focus on the subject. This is where I am with my photography. In the video world this becomes a bit more challenging ..
Anyway, good luck with this endeavor ..Keep up the good work.
P.S I still use Capture One Pro because of the RAW shooting mode..

 

[nagual]

Taken at 'Walk for Life' in Thurso (in a tent)

wow that picture ... imo well done

 

[Reality4711]

wow that picture ... imo well done

Thank you sir.

Your photographs seem to embody my thoughts.

 

[Ray2]

I totally understand your post and had to laugh at some of the responses. For some of us, the subject is the key. For others, sitting at a computer and post processing whatever came out of the camera. Each one works for some and not for others.

I hit the same wall you did. I augmented my, at the time, Nikon D800 with a Fuji X100. Basically went back to basics. Loved it and 35 years of shooting Nikon was sold off shortly thereafter. I also adopted an approach that if composition and exposure were not right, I dumped the shot rather than mess with post. Fortunately both systems have excellent metering and WB so it was up to me to get back to taking good shots to begin with. Not that difficult.

If going back to basics works for you, then go for it. I find I now have way more time for shooting, spend way less time doing post on shots that have little to no merit (I now trash 70 to 90% of my shots) and, most importantly, have way more fun.

I don't know how old you are but I have far more time shooting film than digital. To me its more than analog versus digital. To a great extent its what type of person I am. With film I shot carefully and walked down to the lab and discussed what I wanted for the shots that justified print. Post was a personal experience. In the digital age, for me it became a rather lonely experience. So I cut it way back and discovered I enjoyed photography again. Go back to film, no. Shorten the time in solitude, yes.

 

[Reality4711]

Credit Independent Newspaper.

Just illustrate a point earlier, screen grabbed this as an example of an image not needing PP to isolate the subject in a confusing situation, Another well known one would be the isolated Maggie Thatcher image when she was struggling to survive at a Tory conference.

The above is a beautiful capture of a man in trouble with the reasons for that trouble surrounding him - no words necessary!

OK I don't do reportage or ambulance chasing now but I well remember the satisfaction of that one shot from 3 rolls of 800ASA film paying the mortgage and making my fellow photographers cringe.
Obviously I cannot say how much of this image is skilled input from the photographer or whether it is the result of hitting the sweet spot by firing off jpgs like a machine gun.

But good example never the less.

Regards

Sharkey

 

[Doylem]

^^^ PP doesn't have to be concerned with salvaging mediocre images; it can just be the final tweak that makes a good pic a little better. And anyone who shoots raw will need to spend a little time in front of the computer, if they want their pix to convey what it was they originally saw. PP should be one component of the photographic discipline... not just a way of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

 

[Reality4711]

^^^ PP doesn't have to be concerned with salvaging mediocre images; it can just be the final tweak that makes a good pic a little better. And anyone who shoots raw will need to spend a little time in front of the computer, if they want their pix to convey what it was they originally saw. PP should be one component of the photographic discipline... not just a way of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

Totally agreeing respect of RAW and presenting what you saw; however getting what you see into the camera as accurately as possible must be the first order of play so that the PP becomes almost repetitive and automatic. Almost a camera to print default setting if you like..
I will this year reverse my keep everything attitude and delete stuff that does not appeal on import then with the application of my "default"settings I hope the cream will rise to the top without much more interference from the digital lab. wizardry.
Almost describing jpgs from camera at the moment. Still if a camera jpg image still fits/suits my eye you never know. When you get the camera right perhaps the need for RAW is diminished? Who knows?

Regards

Sharkey

 

[bhtwo]

Nothing wrong with just shooting jpegs in camera... just limits your pp options.
I shot jpegs exclusively for ages till I switched to raw.

 

[Ray2]

Totally agreeing respect of RAW and presenting what you saw; however getting what you see into the camera as accurately as possible must be the first order of play so that the PP becomes almost repetitive and automatic. Almost a camera to print default setting if you like..
I will this year reverse my keep everything attitude and delete stuff that does not appeal on import then with the application of my "default"settings I hope the cream will rise to the top without much more interference from the digital lab. wizardry.
Almost describing jpgs from camera at the moment. Still if a camera jpg image still fits/suits my eye you never know. When you get the camera right perhaps the need for RAW is diminished? Who knows?

Regards

Sharkey

We're on the same track here as well. When I switched from Nikon to the much slower shooting Fuji's I quickly realized spray and pray was no longer an option. The shot(s) I could get off had to be right. Took 2 years but in the end I like where I'm at more than where I was.

My thoughts, not necessarily applicable to others:
I shifted more of the work forward, to taking the shot instead of fixing it later.
I shifted to a keep only that which I'm willing to publish. That almost halved my already well culled catalog. My current keeper rate is probably 10%.
I feel like I'm more back in photography, at least the side I enjoy.

The switch from Nikon to Fuji also brought with it Fuji's well regarded JPEG engine. After you tune the default parameters and simulation to what you prefer, wow. I went from a 100% raw shooter to probably about 60/70% jpegs. I finished up my Xmas shooting a few nights ago. About 80% of the keepers were jpegs and the whole series was done in low light with wildly varying light contrasts.

For me I find it more enjoyable and I'm back to thinking before I start pressing.

Last and a couple of days old change, I bought a "new" camera. I picked up a Fuji XE2. An anachronism features wise compared to my XT1 but I enjoy using it far more (already have an XE1 so I'm very familiar with the body). Again, a decision driven by the enjoyment factor rather than bells, whistles and all the latest tech.