I'm afraid that my pictures simply aren't awesome enough

[XterraJohn]

There seem to be a lot of posts here concerning technique, however, I don't think that I'm suffering from a technique problem. When I see the amazing pictures that some of you people, and others, take, I don't feel like you have a better understanding of shutter-speed, f-stop, or ISO than I do. For the most part, I don't even feel that it's because you have superior equipment. I feel like I simply don't see things in such interesting and creative ways. How does one learn to see things this way? How does one learn creativity?

[Hermeto]

Learning to See Creatively (http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=pd_cp_b_0?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0817441778&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0AK5AEWEZMXBW1CGJCTM)

[Andrushka]

yes the fear of "photos not being awesome enough" is strong at times ;)

climbing out of your proverbial "box" can be tough - When i don't feel particularly creative i just think - ok what is the opposite of what i usually do... and i give that a try!

[DC Fan]

Go to an event.
Take pictures.
Go home.
Look at the pictures.
Decide what worked and what didn't work.
Go to another event.
Take more pictures, using the techniques that worked the last time.
Take more pictures, trying more techniques. Use different angles. Different locations. Different focal lengths. Different settings.
Go home.
Look at the pictures.
Decide what worked and what didn't work.
Repeat.

In short: experience equals improvement. The more pictures you take, the more you learn.

No one started this as an expert. Keep trying.

Be your own toughest critic, and you'll improve.

[20droger]

Above all, have fun!

Go out there and take lots of pictures of anything that interests you (as long as it's legal). Trust me, your pictures will slowly improve, and then one day you'll find that you're right there with the best of them.

But the secret is to have fun! Don't obsess over the pictures you take.

[Duncan Frenz]

Culling your stash of pictures to include only your best shots will help improve your outlook. I don't mean to wipe out all of your albums, but only publicly display your best and keep them in a separate album for yourself.

By being more selective in what you choose to keep, you force yourself to see things differently, recompose and look for the better shot. Also try to find things you normally overlook and try to 'see' them for the the first time.

The next time you drive home from work or the store, pretend you are driving the route for the first time. Like you are coming from a different state and the route is unknown. You will be surprised at how differently things appear and all the things you commonly overlook.

Keep an open eye and keep shooting. If all else fails, take a vacation. You'll eventually find your creative zone. We all have a different way of reaching it though. Good luck!

[sakuradxb]

i think i have the same problem. Is it because i'm not aware enough of photography techniques.. or it's just need more practice?

[RayHenry]

But the secret is to have fun! Don't obsess over the pictures you take.Agreed. Unless you're on the clock (someone is paying you to be there taking the pictures), find a comfort zone and work within it. I find that a large portion of my best images come more as spontaneous snapshots than when I'm dedicating too much effort and thought.

It's sometimes like mechanics can negate creativity. Let your eye and inner eye direct your photography. The technical knowledge is good, but should almost be subconscious. With time, the two will work together..... :)

[SkipD]

In short: experience equals improvement. The more pictures you take, the more you learn.The part of the quote that I put in bold type ain't necessarily so.

Anybody can go out and literally wear a camera out and essentially have nothing but lousy photographs.

If a beginning photographer does not pay very close attention to what and how he/she has produced and determine what is lacking vs what is good, that person will never become a consistently good photographer.

I strongly suggest that a new photographer who is truly interested in learning the art turn off all automation if using a modern camera. Work strictly in manual. That means manual exposure, manual focus, manual everything.

Taking only one photograph in a whole day's efforts is just fine if it is thoroughly thought about during the planning and production phases and thought about more afterwards to analyse how it could have been made better.

In other words, quantity does not make quality.

[neumanns]

Also, If you find you have a genre that your stronger in...Persue that.

I would LOVE to be one of those people that could make ANYTHING interesting!......I am not. So I shoot what I do OK at.

There is nothing wrong with and maybe even an argument for being a specialist.

What's your strong area?

[Duncan Frenz]

The part of the quote that I put in bold type ain't necessarily so.

Anybody can go out and literally wear a camera out and essentially have nothing but lousy photographs.

If a beginning photographer does not pay very close attention to what and how he/she has produced and determine what is lacking vs what is good, that person will never become a consistently good photographer.

I strongly suggest that a new photographer who is truly interested in learning the art turn off all automation if using a modern camera. Work strictly in manual. That means manual exposure, manual focus, manual everything.

Taking only one photograph in a whole day's efforts is just fine if it is thoroughly thought about during the planning and production phases and thought about more afterwards to analyse how it could have been made better.

In other words, quantity does not make quality.

Along the same lines, 'Practice makes perfect' is not accurate. PERFECT practice makes perfect. Consistently using the wrong techniques only reinforces the same bad results. My .02

[malla1962]

You can sometimes see a better picture within a picture, so have a closer look at pics you have taken and try different crops.

[nicksan]

I think most, if not all of us, go through this pain at one point or another.

I approach photography similar to the way I approach music.

With music, in particular Jazz, when I hear something that "pulls" me a certain direction, I try to find out why it affected me that way. Whether that involves any extensive theoretical study or not depends on what it was that I heard.

What I have found over the years is that it is better not to force the issue. Let it come naturally. Obviously what comes naturally will also depend on awareness. That's when theory comes into play. It opens you up to possibilities. With music, being aware of the "sounds" opens the ears up to more possibilities. What one "hears" changes with this progression.

Simply put, the more colors you have on your palette of possibilities, the more you have to draw on. But sometimes knowledge can get in the way of purity...that becomes slippery slope at times. It's very easy for the joy to become pain.

With photography, I approach things ALMOST the same.

The one thing that I do differently is take it easy on theory and over-analysis and just try to go out there and have fun with it. That's something that plagued me with music. It became painful to play. I forgot the reason why I started playing music. So whenever I go out shooting, I don't worry about too much and just go out there and shoot what I like to shoot.

With regards to improving, when I see a photo that I really like, I try to find out why. That alone have been the biggest learning tool for me. I mean, I've done my readings and all that, but in the end, it's your gut telling you something is good, and you finding out why that is the case that will have the biggest impact IMO. Sure, there will always be that trial and error phase. But eventually you'll see these styles being blended into your own. You just hope that it forms something unique. I suspect that most of us don't have the luxury to achieve that kind of style.

There are a handful of folks in here who I really admire in terms of style. Quite obviously most of us are capable of taking a pristine photo, however there are always those few who really makes my gut tell me "Damn...that's GREAT!".

Better find out why!:D

There seem to be a lot of posts here concerning technique, however, I don't think that I'm suffering from a technique problem. When I see the amazing pictures that some of you people, and others, take, I don't feel like you have a better understanding of shutter-speed, f-stop, or ISO than I do. For the most part, I don't even feel that it's because you have superior equipment. I feel like I simply don't see things in such interesting and creative ways. How does one learn to see things this way? How does one learn creativity?

[tonylong]

The fact that we see such great work here and in the various galleries of the InterWebs can be intimidating, sometimes discouraging. This is especially true when some people have the "eye" to capture a scene, maybe of natural beauty, maybe more urban, whatever, but that capture stands out visually as "art", whereas my capture of the same scene might come across as "workmanlike" -- not bad, but not art.This is especially, especially true when someone comes on here and says things like "this is my first post", "this is my first DSLR", or the worst, "I'm new to photography":)!

Ah, well, this is true of all crafts that can be "transformed" into "art": true of painting, true of film (have you ever read of the efforts of a film director being described as "workmanlike" -- meaning "adequate" but not "artful"), true of music, the list goes on.

So, what to do? I guess the only practical approach is to keep aspiring, keep looking to grow in what you are shooting, and (a favorite of mine) keep trying new things, stretching yourself and your skills. I set out quite often to try something new, with a new approach, a new eye and often a new set of skills to go with it.

The quality of my photography may not ever be transformed by the strength of my inner vision into works of art -- so be it, I'm OK with reaching for excellence in what I can do without beating myself up for what I can't achieve.

[TheHoff]

Go somewhere new.

Whenever I see photos that I wish I had taken it is almost always because the photographer had the cahones to go somewhere that I either don't want to go or never thought to go. Then they had the persistence to stick around until they got the right shot.

I agree... the amazingness of photos is rarely because of sharpness or technique. More often it is because of persistence in finding the right spot and being there when the right time happens.

[Duncan Frenz]

It may have been suggested already (my eyes ar tired), but check out or buy some good photography books. The coffee table type that are pictures with little or no writing on technique, just great inspirational photos.

One exception: The Moment It Clicks - is an awesome book that is both a great inspirational book for its amazing photos as well as its dialogue on technique and how it was shot.

Get the ones put out by National Geographic, Anne Geddes, Ansel Adams, Time/Life compendiums... maybe a bit trite and 'common', but all are far from common when you look at the photos. Go to Amazon and see what they recommend and choose one you would never have thought of but has high reviews. And of course, browse the sharing section here on POTN! They inspire me the most because these are people just like me taking shots I dream I could and aspire to.

Most of all, get excited about taking pictures. Maybe you're a gearhead... go buy something even insignificant to light that fire. Hiker? Take a hike... literally. Bicycle, drive, picnic in a park, walk the streets of a city you've never been, explore your basement. Just find your inspiration. You'll find it eventually, and you'll wonder what all the fuss was about some time from now.

Have fun!

[tonylong]

There are some magazine-type periodicals that contain photos with simple descriptions but no "technical" info. I just can't recall any names of the ones I've occasionally picked up:)!

Anyway, in our free-flow forum we are kind of addicted to seeing exif info, and it can be exasperating to go through pages of great shots and not see any "how to", but then when you look at it another way it can be liberating -- look at the vision that the artist/photographer had and let yourself be inspired.

A whole other realm of "art/craft" is in post-processing. Many of the "WOW" shots we see here have been enhanced by great post-processing skills, just like many of the film greats (see the work of Ansel Adams) utilised darkroom skills to enhance/bring out the best of their work. All digital photographs require some PP, but there are people who know how to bring out the best, while many of us are dithering around just trying to bring out some good!

[Tom Reichner]

There seem to be a lot of posts here concerning technique, however, I don't think that I'm suffering from a technique problem. When I see the amazing pictures that some of you people, and others, take, I don't feel like you have a better understanding of shutter-speed, f-stop, or ISO than I do. For the most part, I don't even feel that it's because you have superior equipment. I feel like I simply don't see things in such interesting and creative ways. How does one learn to see things this way? How does one learn creativity?

Hello, John!

What subjects are you most familiar with? Wildlife? Sports? People?

Perhaps you could post a couple of your shots here so that we could give you some ideas about how you could have perhaps approached the subject differently.

- Tom

[Randy1213]

My advice: When you see a pic you like, whether it's yours or someone else's, think about why you like it.

[Duncan Frenz]

There are some magazine-type periodicals that contain photos with simple descriptions but no "technical" info. I just can't recall any names of the ones I've occasionally picked up:)!


I think American Photo is a decent rag.

[XterraJohn]

Thanks for all of the great suggestions everyone. It looks like I have some book ordering to do. ;) I guess that it would also help if I was a little more comfortable out taking pictures. That's something that I intend to work on. As it stands now, I feel like I'm always looking over my shoulder when I'm out in public with a camera, and for no particular reason.

Hello, John!

What subjects are you most familiar with? Wildlife? Sports? People?

Perhaps you could post a couple of your shots here so that we could give you some ideas about how you could have perhaps approached the subject differently.

- Tom

When I'm out for the sake of taking pictures, I guess I tend to take more industrial/architectural photos. I don't know that I specifically set out to do this, but it always seems to be what I find most interesting when I'm out and about. However, I'm not quite sure that I enjoy looking at these types of pictures. I feel like I want to take pictures of historical landmarks, and man-made achievements, but, when I get home, I don't know that I want to hang these pictures on my wall.

I liked the post contrasting "workman-like" with "art". I think that that's a great way to describe how I feel about a lot of my pictures. I feel like I did an adequate job documenting the subject, but not necessarily at turning it into an object of art.

Here are links to three of my more-recent attempts:

Paddock Viaduct (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0432-2-edit1.jpg)

Ruins (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0419.jpg)

Fort Worth (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0227-upload.jpg)

And of course, feel free to check out the link in my signature. C&C greatly appreciated.

[imahawki]

Don't forget that people GENERALLY don't post their failures. Don't assume that everyone here is a much better/more creative/whatever photographer than you are just because of what they post here. You see your entire collection, you only see the best of theirs.

[canonnoob]

honestly just post the photos... I love seeing people learn...

[XterraJohn]

honestly just post the photos... I love seeing people learn...

Links posted in post #21. Let me know what you think, and thanks in advance for any comments.

[Maureen Souza]

Not every photo has to be awesome. I shoot with a purpose. Memories (snaps of my grandson doing things I don't want to forget), travel shots of everything so I can always remember my trip, and sometimes just for the details.

Look at your photos objectively and put them into a category. You will always have a few to stand out and grab you. Enjoy them all!

[tonylong]

I especially like the Paddocks shot and the Ruins shot, because you captured a perspective, you could call it an environmental perspective, that gives them a unique view. With this type of shooting, sometimes that's all you can aim for -- show an environment from your own viewpoint. It sets those two aside from your third shot -- a nice but distant cityscape with a bridge, but without a compelling viewpoint.

That being said, many of us have taken thousands of such less-than-compelling cityscape/landscape photos, part of our experience and practice, learning what works, as well as documenting our surroundings. No shame in that!

[mrkgoo]

Learning to See Creatively (http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=pd_cp_b_0?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0817441778&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0AK5AEWEZMXBW1CGJCTM)

I was just Borders earlier and was flipping through this. I learnt a few things already! I want to read it, but I don't want to buy it. I guess I'll hit up my local library.

xteraajohn: Look at others' photos and think about why you like them (or dislike them). Start off by emulating - try to copy shots you like and see what processes you go through to make them.

[Tom Reichner]

John,

I viewed the images you supplied in the links. You are absolutely right - these images accurately show the subjects. But there is no art here.

I don't typically photograph buildings or other manmade structures, but I think I know how I'd go about it if I did. I would forget that the building is a building and simply look for the shapes within it. Any building can be a study in geometry if you look at squares, triangles, rectangles, and spheres instead of looking at walls, gables, foundations, and windows. Perhaps you can isolate certain shapes by zooming in and not showing the entire structure. In that way, you get to choose what part you show in your image.

Maybe you could go shoot buildings one day and only shoot zoomed all the way in at 300mm (or whatever your longest lens is). In this way you would force yourself to shoot differently, and, hence, see things differently.

Like I said, I shoot very few manmade subjects, but I do have a couple shots that may show what I'm trying to say; a train and a ferris wheel.

[Gentleman Villain]

Here are links to three of my more-recent attempts:

Paddock Viaduct (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0432-2-edit1.jpg)

Ruins (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0419.jpg)

Fort Worth (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0227-upload.jpg)

And of course, feel free to check out the link in my signature. C&C greatly appreciated.

All 3 of those compositions are actually very strong....I think the problem you're having is not a matter of vision but a matter of matching the idea to the technique.

You're probably in the wrong format my friend :)

Serious architecture, cityscape, man-made dwelling type of work is the realm of view cameras and large format. 35mm is absolutely the wrong format. A photographer must have the ability to control perspective and the focal plane with precision movements. Also, this type of photography absolutely must be shot in high resolution in order to capture all of the intricate patterns in the diverse subjects. 35mm + Tilt/shift lenses are good for some applications. But for the most part, this type of photography requires a different format altogether.

I would suggest that you stop looking at 35mm photographs for awhile...Start looking at photographs taken with View Cameras, field cameras or other dedicated architectural camera systems (like Alpa Cameras). There is a dedicated view camera magazine available at Borders Books: http://www.viewcamera.com/

Here's some links to photographers that you might enjoy:

http://artphotogallery.org/petergasser/a_visual_journey/index.html
http://photography-now.net/george_tice/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/h_and_d_zielske/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/eugene_atget/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/josef_sudek/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/edward_burtynsky/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/feng_bin/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/sze_tsung_leong/
http://photography-now.net/nadav_kander/
http://photography-now.net/william_eggleston/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/josef_sudek/portfolio1.html
http://photography-now.net/robert_adams/portfolio1.html

Here's a quick album I put together from images off my hardrive (none of them were taken by me):
http://s264.photobucket.com/albums/ii176/ConsensusTrance/

Also, it might be worth spending some time researching Alpa Cameras and photographers that use them: http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=gallery
Alpa is very popular with photographers that stitch panoramas and shoot extremely wide angle architecture and landscape.

Serious landscape and cityscape requires a totally different approach than the typical 35mm mentality. It might take 20 trips to a single location to get just one good shot. It might require studying the lighting conditions at various times of year to know exactly when is the best time to get the light perfect at a certain location and angle. It might require multiple exposures taken at various times of day....long waits...and extreme patience on the part of the photographer. 35mm shooters tend to blast away and take tons of pictures...That's the absolute wrong approach. This type of photography requires lots of careful planning...location scouting...waiting for weather and conditions to be just right. 35mm cameras are great for location scouting...but not necessarily good for the final shot.

A lot of guys that don't have much money and are seriously into this type of photography will buy inexpensive view cameras/ field cameras and shoot on 4x5 film and then scan it.

Here's my thoughts on your 3 shots on how a different technique might have helped your idea come together better

Paddock aqueduct: VERY strong composition...I really like the angle that you chose. The problem is there is no interesting color in this shot. IT should have been photographed in B&W. This is an excellent opportunity to shoot film and process using the zone system...or to try an HDR technique to balance the backlight situation.

Ruins: VERY strong composition. I love the angle that you chose...The real problem with this shot is that the resolution is too low to capture all of the intricate details in the scene. Sorry man...but 35mm just doesn't cut it:( This would be a great shot just the way you took it but on a larger format and with more precision camera movements

Fort Worth: Very good angle....This type of panorama shot requires either a dedicated panoramic camera or a high resolution camera capable of extreme movements to use in stitching in PP. This is a perfect example of where an Alpa camera system would have been the right tool for the job.

Notice that all of your compositions are good. That is the heart and soul of this type of photography. SO you've already got the vision...now it's just a a matter of getting all of the other pieces of the puzzle to come together.


Just throwing out some ideas to get your mind jogged...If some of it helps then cool...if not that's cool too. But I'm very familiar with shooting architecture and I love it! It's one of my favorites...I did a bit of it professionally before and really enjoyed it.

[friz]

This is what drives all of us. Once you are satisied, you will probably get bored and find another hobby.

[S.Horton]

@Villian - Excellent links and advice.

I think you've been in the business for a while.

;}

Kander/Chernobyl is haunting, especially (for me) the abandoned pool, the shot of the girls photo on the floor, and the playground slide.

I'll spend quite some time looking over the work of all of those artists. Thx for posting them.

[XterraJohn]

Gentleman Villain, thanks for all of the great examples. I've considered trying different formats, however, for the time being I'm afraid that, for financial reasons, I have to stick with what I have access to.

I really appreciate all of the well-thought-out comments that I've received here, and I've tried to put a lot of the advice into practice. Mr. Reichner, those are some beautiful pictures that you have there. I think that I would enjoy having either of them on my wall. I was definitely thinking about them with today's project.

I went to Borders, and although they didn't have "Learning to See Creatively" in stock, I did pick up another book that looks promising called, "The Photographer's Eye." On the way home from the bookstore, I found an old train of my own to practice on.

Here are the results:

Controls (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/2009/02/controls/)

Light Switch (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/2009/02/light-switch/)

Brake Wheel (http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/2009/02/brake-wheel-2/)


Please let me know what you guys think, and thanks so much for all of the help already.

[tonylong]

I like the first one the best -- nice capture!

[Tom Reichner]

I love the curved spokes in Brake Wheel - what interesting form!

[chopper5654]

john,

i am glad you posted your "struggles." i suffer from the same syndrome. and, you, and the others, have helped me realize its most likely just you (me) being tough on yourself (myself). not that any of our shots are Pulitzer material, but they arent as poor as we feel they are, either. so, youre most definitely not alone in your disappointment or your harsh self-criticisms. and, where some may feel "down" about that, i feel its the root of PASSION. and, that cant be a bad thing.

about your photos. the first set, i liked a lot of what you did. "The Paddocks" was by far the more inspiring photo, to me. i agree that there wasnt any color to be had and it may have been better in B/W. but, maybe you go back to the same spot and play with sunrise/sunset, dark storm clouds, spring, summer, harsh light, soft light, etc. you will find the right day and time to nail that shot. its a beautiful composition. imagine B/W with large, puffy cumulus clouds in the sky? maybe from just the other side of the bridge where you arent in the shadow and shooting into the shadow, too?

with the 2nd set, i gotta tell you, the photos dont do much for me, but the comments you are getting are positive. i like #3 (spokes) the best, but that style of photography isnt my mileau, so to speak.

keep firing, though. you have talent, from what i can tell, and like the others are saying......keep them all, but show your best.

[wyntrsnyte]

Someone on this board recommended this book and I really like it: http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235414054&sr=8-1

It's not a quick read but I think it does a great job covering the different things one should take into consideration when composing a shot. Also, as others have said: go out, take a bunch of pictures and have fun!

[PhotosGuy]

Look through this:
Composition Articles library (http://photoinf.com/)

I tell people to shoot something they don't usually shoot & make it look good, or at least interesting. Cars are one of the hardest things to shoot, & they'll help you to learn to "see" beyond the subject while you learn to ...
MOVE YOUR FEET! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=536323)

Learn to "see" the light:
A few Car Lighting Tips - Updated (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70290)

And have try to have fun while you're learning.

[rdenney]

As with all such threads on POTN, you've gotten the full gamut of replies.

One of the things I've had to learn, and I'm a slow learner on this subject, is to view any subject with objectivity and detachment. My goal is to try to understand what it is about the subject that pulls me. If I can figure out what that is, then I try to emphasize that in my application of technique, and de-emphasize (or better yet, eliminate) any elements that distract from that central story.

The story need not be narrative, of course, as it usually is with, say, photojournalism. It may be an intriguing texture, or a splash of color, that pulls me in. It may be an emotional reaction, such as peacefulness, intensity, or stalwartness that drives the story. It may simply be a study in dramatic shapes that force the viewer to rethink their reality (because the subject forced me to rethink my reality).

The image below makes me want to curl up in one of those chairs and read a book:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/biltmore-terrace-lores.jpg

But I would not try to apply drama with post-processing techniques if the image itself doesn't reflect it. PP can help bring out the drama that is there, but trying to create drama without the visualization of the scene to support it usually has empty results for me.

Sometimes I succeed, and more often I fail. I'm still a beginner, with only 35 or 40 years of practice.

Someone mentioned treating architecture as just shapes. I find that enlightening--my training was initially in architecture and I find I do best with my pretty rocks subjects when I treat those architecturally, looking for the thrust of the shapes and the geometric story they tell.

http://www.rickdenney.com/IMG_0480_stonehenge_closeup_lores.jpg

Often, improving a photo is merely a matter of self-editing--weeding out the distractions. I for one need to do more of that. In this one, I made images of the fountain along with people and the surrounding Seattle waterfront, and finally realized that the dance of the water, sparkling by the backlit sun, is what pulled me into the scene. So, I moved in.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/seattle-waterfront-fountain.jpg

Someone mentioned that you might consider different formats. I disagree with his general prescription in the context of this quest. If you cannot find compelling stories to tell with a small camera, using a big camera will make it more rather than less difficult. The reasons is that large-format cameras are rooted to the ground, and it's very difficult to move around the scene and try to understand what's important about it with a view camera. You cannot overcome with large-format image quality what isn't there in a thumbnail. (I've learned that the hard way.) It's not about the equipment. Now, when you have developed a clear eye, then the view camera will provide technical capabilities that are difficult or impossible with small cameras. But in my experience, if I could not find the compelling point of view with a small camera, then I would be no more satisfied with the results I got from the big camera.

If I told GV that I'd made this image using a view camera, he'd be hard-pressed to prove me wrong. But I made it with a 24mm TS/E lens on a 5D. If I'd constrained myself to a view camera, I wouldn't have been there at all--I didn't have the time that day to deal with that much kit.

http://www.rickdenney.com/houseruinsbwlr.jpg

This one took an extreme amount of post-processing to bring out what I visualized at the time. Even though it's not really a picture of Benaroya Hall in Seattle, it is a view of that building that absolutely reveals its essence. When I've shown this to anyone familiar with downtown Seattle, they've know the building.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/benaroya-hall-lores.jpg

Too often, I just make pictures, including some that pose a technical challenge, without really trying to understand my reaction to them. To often, I get partway into an image, realize there isn't much of anything compelling there, but go ahead and make the image out of sheer momentum. Technical practice is fine, but that's where the self-editing comes in.

And don't be alarmed if your visualization doesn't match that of others. I'm sure mine doesn't, and you or anyone else may be looking at these images and wondering why I feel like I have earned the privilege of even commenting in this thread. There's nothing wrong with that response. A lot of what I see include novel techniques that are fascinating to look at. Often, good photographers are the ones displaying those novel techniques. Don't confuse the novelty of the technique with the clarity of the visualization. Even with absolutely conventional techniques, that clarity should dominate. But since everyone has a different resonant frequency, what's clear as a bell to some is a dull thud to others. Just make sure it's clear to you.

Rick "who often asks, but hates the question, 'why did I make that picture?'" Denney

[XterraJohn]

Once again, thanks to everyone who has responded to me. All of your thoughts are greatly appreciated!

Someone on this board recommended this book and I really like it: http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235414054&sr=8-1

It's not a quick read but I think it does a great job covering the different things one should take into consideration when composing a shot. Also, as others have said: go out, take a bunch of pictures and have fun!

Yes, the is the book that I bought from the store the other day. I have just started it, but so far it seems very good.

Too often, I just make pictures, including some that pose a technical challenge, without really trying to understand my reaction to them. To often, I get partway into an image, realize there isn't much of anything compelling there, but go ahead and make the image out of sheer momentum. Technical practice is fine, but that's where the self-editing comes in.

Rick, I think that I know exactly what you're talking about with the above quote.

I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to like my Paddock Viaduct image. Out of the three images I posted when I started the thread, I think that it is personally my least favorite.

[Gentleman Villain]

Once again, thanks to everyone who has responded to me. All of your thoughts are greatly appreciated!

photographers are never low on thoughts huh? LOL

When I first saw this detail shot, I thought it looked a little light painted (even though it isn't)...just reminded me of the old light painting technique http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/2009/02/light-switch/

Are you familiar with light painting? Have you ever tried it on location with some of these subjects. Just an idea man

[Gentleman Villain]

Kander/Chernobyl is haunting, especially (for me) the abandoned pool, the shot of the girls photo on the floor, and the playground slide.

I'll spend quite some time looking over the work of all of those artists. Thx for posting them.

That Chernobyl series is really creepy...it would be an awesome place to photograph. Peter Gasser and Robert Adams are probably my favorites of the bunch. I like how they shoot in some strange lighting conditions.

Btw - your lightning shots are really cool :D

[XterraJohn]

When I first saw this detail shot, I thought it looked a little light painted (even though it isn't)...just reminded me of the old light painting technique http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/2009/02/light-switch/

Are you familiar with light painting? Have you ever tried it on location with some of these subjects. Just an idea man

I only remember trying light painting once, and that was when photographing the night sky. I tried to use a flashlight to lightup some trees in the foreground, but didn't really like it with that particular composition. I assume that that's what light painting is? I don't think I've ever through to try it on a subject such as this one, but it might be worth a shot.

That image has a bit of an odd look to it in my opinion, but as best I can tell, it's because I underexposed a bit and had to bring it back in PS. There was also some relatively strong light coming from just outside the frame on the left side that may have reduced contrast a bit.

[neilwood32]

I have had my moments of doubt with my shooting - sometimes you go and find nothing worth shooting.

For me, irrespective of the subject, its all about the light. The three compositions you submitted in post 21 all would benefit from different light.

The landscapes were shot with very flat skies - imagine whay they might have been like with cloudy menacing skies?

The ruins could have been improved by thinking about the light and dark in it - possibly adding flash or some other light to vary the intensity over the photo.

Remember a lot of the photos here might have taken days of visiting and revisiting to get the most out of the scene. The might also include lighting setups that you wouldnt even consider (i remember reading about a professional who did industrial photography - he used 21 flashes to light a scene properly! TBH it didnt look like it was flashed but thats because of the care he took).

[FishPix]

I'm definetivly not anywhere as good with photographing technique as you are. I still have a lot to learn to make pictures like this. But I know a thing or two about composition starting out with painting. Your objects tend to divide the picture in two, which keeps the eye from wandering around like in Rick Denny's pictures. They are composed by the rule of the third. As an exercise you could pick one object and try to make 10 differently composed shots of the same object and analyse which are more interesting to the eye than other. Maybe you have a friend to help you analyse. In composition class I spend hours rearranging three objects and drawing them. Boring but very, very effective. Good luck!

[Lazuka]

just a quick hdr in photomatix of one of your pics, maybe brings a little vibrance and fun into it, like i said, it was a 2 minute job, so i'm sure if u spent some time actually bracketing the shots, instead of doing what i did (1 exposure i took off the net and played with exposure bars manually, faked it), u could breath some new life in your pictures, post processing is VERY important, and you can find some new ideas, on top of learning to see creatively.

[rdenney]

...which keeps the eye from wandering around like in Rick Denny's pictures. They are composed by the rule of the third....

Thank you for the comments. But I want to be clear, without meaning any disrespect: I did not use the rule of thirds when I composed these pictures. Sometimes, I'm surprised that my images follow that rule when I consider it after the fact. I think the rule of thirds is less a rule than a characteristic. I have used that rule, but only when trying to make a picture that needs a focal point seem a little less incompetent. And sometimes I get lucky.

What I seek, and I'm sure this is also your approach with painting, is to draw the eye into my view of the subject dynamically. No matter what direction the viewer comes into the image, I want them to end up where I am. When the subject is in the center, viewers often start there and then fall away. I'd rather they start somewhere else and arrive at the subject after a bit of a tour.

I was fortunate to have studied art at a young age with Henri Gadbois (noted Texas artist) in Houston, where I grew up. Here is a painting of his that reflects what he was doing at that time:

http://www.henrigadbois.com/images/The%20Path%20Inward%2070%2036x30.jpg

I can still remember him admonishing me, in the midst of an exercise: "Rick! You are not seeing your subject! NOTHING looks like that." During a conversation late in my study with him, he told me that his objective was to get his students to really see the world around them, and I interpret that to mean to clearly understand the effect of a scene on us so that we may then project that effect to others by the compositional choices that we make. The above painting does not follow the rule of thirds, but it absolutely draws me into his perspective of the scene. It's title is "The Path Inward," but I didn't need to read that to know it.

I've made zillions of images that impeccably follow the rule of thirds and still force me to ask the question, "why did I make that image?" Once the eye is drawn into the photographer's point of view, that point of view still has to be compelling to make a great photograph. The vast majority of my images don't reflect that understanding, and when I look at them a few months later, my response is "ho-hum."

But we should remember that Ansel Adams (as just an example) made tens of thousands of photographs, but no more than a few hundred are on display.

Aaron Sussman, in his now ancient book The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (which I received from my wonderful artist aunt as a Christmas present and read repeatedly while still a teenager), said that the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer often was a few hundred feet of film. His point was that you have to make a lot of unworthy images (however technically excellent) before your visualization faculties start to develop. Merely asking the question is a huge step in the right direction. I waited far too long before really asking that question, and then moved beyond a few happy accidents to more purposeful results.

What I try to achieve is dynamic balance in my composition. I want it to look balanced even in thumbnail size. Sometimes, that requires formal symmetry, and often it requires asymmetry to keep the composition dynamic. I fail much more often than I succeed.

When standing in front of an image, we make choices. Most of my choices are unconscious, and after the fact we try to explain them. The words are a pale shadow of the truth. I did not spent more than three seconds composing this image (made on medium format film):

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aquarius_rainbow_lores.jpg

But now that I look at it, I would like to trim a bit off the sky, mostly because that patch of blue distracts me. But then it more closely follows the rule of thirds. Sheesh. What do I know?

Rick "well-trained in art but a lousy drawer" Denney

[chopper5654]

But we should remember that Ansel Adams (as just an example) made tens of thousands of photographs, but no more than a few hundred are on display.

...the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer often was a few hundred feet of film.

since we are getting "deep," i think it is worth mentioning that the above broken quotes are what make ANY endeavor a success or failure. Tiger Woods/Ben Hogan are a few thousand golf balls on a driving range better than us. Donald Trump is a few bankruptcies better than us.

the point is: failure is what makes success the majority of the time. well, failures that we take the time to LEARN from. the people that remain mediocre often are the people that quit learning from their failures and just accept where they are as where they will remain.

[FishPix]

I think this is a great thread and I agree with John, that we talk about technical aspects and equipment a lot and barely about what makes a good composition. Being aware about ideas like the third rule and experimenting with those rules, will help you in the long run to improve your pictures. And sometimes you will make a great picture by just ignoring it on purpose. That doesn't mean, that I will stand there every time I take a picture and think about the third rule. I also don't think it's the only thing that will make a good picture, it's just a good basis to start with.

[neilwood32]

Seeing as someone mentioned Ansel Adams, one of his famous quotes IIRC was "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. "

It doesnt matter if you use rule of thirds or any other rule - the image is either good or not. Sometimes rules make the photo great, other times they make it hum drum and boring.

[rdenney]

Seeing as someone mentioned Ansel Adams, one of his famous quotes IIRC was "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. "

Yes. But that doesn't mean a beginner won't benefit from using it as a rule (which I realize contradicts what I wrote above). This thread has forced me to think about my own progress, and I realize that there was a time for such rules in my own development.

An analogy: A few years back I got into endurance sports for several years, which was sort of a reprise of my college bike-racing days. To do triathlon, however, I needed to learn how to swim. I got my early instruction from an Olympic swimmer in Dallas, but I found his ability to instruct me (a brick traveling sideways through the water) limited. That's when I discovered that the truly great swimmers just swim. They feel the water. They can tell by how it feels when they are moving efficiently through it.

But how to convey that to those who won't be swimming at that level but who still want to learn?

Great swim coaches have this faculty: They observe great swimmers, and divine from what they see what the swimmer is doing that leads to success. Then, they teach that to folks who can't feel it for themselves.

I put the rule of thirds into that category. A review of competent photographs shows subjects placed off-center, and leading into the image, creating dynamic balance. The good photographer never followed it as a rule, but rather just felt when the portrayal of the scene conveyed that balance and movement. But it's hard to say to a beginner, "just feel the composition until you have dynamic balance". It is easier to realize that an off-center subject is (approximately) a third of the way in from the edge, which leads to a rule that can be taught to beginners.

And, as beginners, we follow the rule, pretending that we know what it really means. After a while of doing that, we start to understand that underlying concept that led to the rule in the first place, and we develop the necessary feel for the dynamic balance. At that point, we no longer need the rule. That takes practice and experience, which are fortunately dead easy to get with digital cameras.

(It is true that some will never develop the feel--often it fails me completely. But when I don't feel an image, the rule of thirds sometimes help me achieve competence even when art eludes me. So, as I said above, I depend on luck in those cases. But luck works when all else fails.)

This was a good exercise for me to recall.

Rick "Do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

[neilwood32]

I think we should actually think of the "rules of composition" as guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. If we all take our photos to the same "rule" then we lose the impact that the rule tries to create.

Composition wise I think the OP isnt struggling too much - its more about the scenes themselves and lack of particular visual interest (im refering to the original 3 scenes posted). The skies did not have any interest in them and the lighting was fairly flat and didnt offer any depth to the images. Also different angles can pick up aspects missed. Moving slightly in the landscapes wouold have offered a different perspective that may have given a more powerful result.

Paddock viaduct - the image shows the strength and shape of the bridge but it doesnt go anywhere - your eye is led right out of the picture. Including some of the far bank would have made it stronger imo.

Fort Worth - moving nearer to the rail bridge would have made that the central focus to draw your eye right in. IMO its too far out to the side atm.

[SwiftFootTim]

Learning to See Creatively (http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=pd_cp_b_0?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0817441778&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0AK5AEWEZMXBW1CGJCTM)

Thanks Hermeto, $84.00 later I now have Learning to See Creatively, Understanding Shutter Speeds, which I figured I might as well own since I already have Understanding Exposure and a brand new Canon 80N3 remote shutter release on the way since while I was at Amazon I might as well pick that up as well.

:lol:

[CreedThoughts]

John,

http://blog.johnhodgephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0227-upload.jpg

The Fort Worth picture you posted I think might have looked better if you positioned yourself in a such a way that would make the buildings in the background more dynamic. The way it looks now, the bridge is coming at you, but the background seems flat. Maybe if you went to the left several hundred feet (if possible) to show the bridge meeting the background somewhere? Also maybe if your vantage point where lower to make the bridge seem more substantial?

Just a thought.. i'm a beginner too.

[XterraJohn]

John,

The Fort Worth picture you posted I think might have looked better if you positioned yourself in a such a way that would make the buildings in the background more dynamic. The way it looks now, the bridge is coming at you, but the background seems flat. Maybe if you went to the left several hundred feet (if possible) to show the bridge meeting the background somewhere? Also maybe if your vantage point where lower to make the bridge seem more substantial?

Just a thought.. i'm a beginner too.

Thanks for the comment. I've been thinking the same thing regarding moving more to the left so that the bridge isn't quite so squashed up against the right side. I want to try and go back on morning when the sun should be behind me lighting up the buildings. Hopefully we'll have a day with favorable clouds so I can try and pull it off.

[XterraJohn]

For what it's worth, here's that image with a new sky added (from New Mexico). Nothing spectacular, but I think that it's more interesting that the original:

[neilwood32]

For what it's worth, here's that image with a new sky added (from New Mexico). Nothing spectacular, but I think that it's more interesting that the original:

That change of sky makes the photo a lot better - just imaging if the sky was even more menacing? Far better picture.

Try shooting during the "golden hours"- the first hour after sunrise and the last hour before sunset. The light takes on a different quality at those times and can really make a huge difference.

You may find that in order to take "awesome" photos that you will need to wait for hours to get the light/weather perfect for the strongest effect. You will probably find that with the vast majority of landscapes that people rave about - they took hours to shoot waiting for the right time. Either that or the photog got lucky and happened on it at the right time.

[chauncey]

The longer that I'm into this silly, expensive, time consuming, sometimes frustrating and sometimes immensely satisfying hobby,
the more that I realize that the key to this whole thing is..."light".

I glanced out my window this morning, while getting the kids off to school, and saw my neighbor's woodpile. It wasn't the same one that I'd seen several hundred times before.
But at that moment in time, the light was perfect...two minutes later, it was gone, as was that woodpile that was, ever so briefly, there.

I cannot offer the words of wisdom from those that have preceded me on this thread, but I did want to share my epithemy from this morning.

Consider how rich I would be if I could bottle it. :lol:

[rdenney]

Consider how rich I would be if I could bottle it. :lol:

How rich is John Sexton?

Yes, it's all about light, because light is what makes things visible. But it isn't just about light. It's about the stuff that light illuminates. Sometimes, it illuminates that woodpile fetchingly, but most of the time it's just a woodpile.

Another music analogy: We can all tell the difference between someone with a good voice who is manipulating technique to sound like they have a lot of technique, versus a singer who moves us. And for the singer to move us, he or she must be moved, and must understand the source of that emotion.

Sometimes it's the light that does that, almost automatically (Adams's Moonrise over Hernandez, NM comes to mind). But not always. And even when the light is magical, as it sometimes is, we still have to arrange the objects illuminated by it to convey that magic. That's something we learn, by thinking about it and doing it a lot.

Rick "challenged by even the great opportunities" Denney

[kitacanon]

Great advice given so far...here's mine

Instead of taking photos of objects (or "subjects") try taking photos as part of practice lessons...with thought given to design...of LIGHT....and it's effect on the objects...your "subjects" could be:

1. Light itself...lamps, bulbs, flames from different sources of fire, the moon
2. Shadows...emphasizing the "dark side", the effects of those light sources...
3. Light...emphasis on the "bright side"...the different color, intensity of those sources
4. Repetition of an object in the frame
5. Isolation of an object in the frame
6. Repetition AND isolation
7. Look for patterns of objects...shapes of objects and of a series of objects, such as TRIANGLE, ESSSSS shape, DIAMOND shape...
8. Take photos FROM different angles...move around...from the floor/ground, from top of a ladder or from on a roof
9. Take photos of light coming from different angles...from behind you, from the side, from in front of you (behind the "subject")

I think when you take photos with thoughts of LIGHT rather than objects your photos you will see how your photos look different, and they WILL get that "pop" you're looking for..

Have fun...

[neilwood32]

How rich is John Sexton?

Yes, it's all about light, because light is what makes things visible. But it isn't just about light. It's about the stuff that light illuminates. Sometimes, it illuminates that woodpile fetchingly, but most of the time it's just a woodpile.

Another music analogy: We can all tell the difference between someone with a good voice who is manipulating technique to sound like they have a lot of technique, versus a singer who moves us. And for the singer to move us, he or she must be moved, and must understand the source of that emotion.

Sometimes it's the light that does that, almost automatically (Adams's Moonrise over Hernandez, NM comes to mind). But not always. And even when the light is magical, as it sometimes is, we still have to arrange the objects illuminated by it to convey that magic. That's something we learn, by thinking about it and doing it a lot.

Rick "challenged by even the great opportunities" Denney

Using the musical analogy, the best music is when the notes are right and the musician adds the tone to them. Think of a great piece of music played without feeling - its lifeless. Now think of a simple tune played with feeling - again not much life. Now take the two together and have a great piece played with feeling - a masterpiece.

The same goes with photography - the scene without the light = nothing special. The light without the scene- nothing special. Get them both together in that magical moment and you have a masterpiece! Thats exactly what happened with Adams Moonlight Over Hernandez - the scene was beautiful, the light was perfect and the result - better than the sum of them both!

That is the challenge of photography - managing to capture both the scene and the light together.

[XterraJohn]

Using the musical analogy, the best music is when the notes are right and the musician adds the tone to them. Think of a great piece of music played without feeling - its lifeless. Now think of a simple tune played with feeling - again not much life. Now take the two together and have a great piece played with feeling - a masterpiece.

The same goes with photography - the scene without the light = nothing special. The light without the scene- nothing special. Get them both together in that magical moment and you have a masterpiece! Thats exactly what happened with Adams Moonlight Over Hernandez - the scene was beautiful, the light was perfect and the result - better than the sum of them both!

That is the challenge of photography - managing to capture both the scene and the light together.

Great insight! Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense, IMHO.

[kitacanon]

Neil...I have Adam's Moonrise Hernandez, NM right here leaning against some LPs...
John...
I forgot to mention one other factor...timing...
Timing requires quick reflexes, and good anticipation that comes from knowing your subject...or just good luck...

In either case, knowing that "decisive moment" (Henri Cartier-Bresson's term), either because YOU were at that place at the right time, or the subject came to your view at the right time, is critical...just as knowing you missed it...even if by a half-second...

Knowing the difference between IT and ALMOST IT is the difference between being an amateur (in the worst sense, one who loves all his/her shots, NOT in the good sense, one who works for the love and not the money) and a pro who knows/shows/loves only the best...

Though I have to say I've worked with pros who don't know the difference either...and not just in photography...of those, I'm reminded of the anecdote told by Tom Peters (In Search of Excellence), of a manager describing his company as "we're no worse than anybody else!" ...clearly NOT you...

Knowing your pix are missing something is part of the mystique of photography...the learning about and longing for, and the search and the wait, for the perfect moment...
sometimes it's already there, and you just don't know it...when you get more adept in processing images (as others here have suggested/advised) you may revisit some old photos and discover just how good they really are...

enjoy the journey...

[chauncey]

Neil...I have Adam's Moonrise Hernandez, NM right here leaning against some LPs...
John...
I forgot to mention one other factor...timing...
Timing requires quick reflexes, and good anticipation that comes from knowing your subject...or just good luck...

In either case, knowing that "decisive moment" (Henri Cartier-Bresson's term), either because YOU were at that place at the right time, or the subject came to your view at the right time, is critical...just as knowing you missed it...even if by a half-second...

Knowing the difference between IT and ALMOST IT is the difference between being an amateur (in the worst sense, one who loves all his/her shots, NOT in the good sense, one who works for the love and not the money) and a pro who knows/shows/loves only the best...

Though I have to say I've worked with pros who don't know the difference either...and not just in photography...of those, I'm reminded of the anecdote told by Tom Peters (In Search of Excellence), of a manager describing his company as "we're no worse than anybody else!" ...clearly NOT you...

Knowing your pix are missing something is part of the mystique of photography...the learning about and longing for, and the search and the wait, for the perfect moment...
sometimes it's already there, and you just don't know it...when you get more adept in processing images (as others here have suggested/advised) you may revisit some old photos and discover just how good they really are...

enjoy the journey...

Very succinctly put, thanks for doing it.

[Jacobredphoto]

I am only fifteen years old and am therefore certainly not a professional by any means. I think you can learn some things that help make the photograph project creativity to the viewer. I do think that there is a certain "Artistic eye" of certain photographers that people can not simply "Learn". There are three main things that make a picture artistic in my opinion, composition, lighting, and angles as well as the technical qualities that make a successful photograph. Simply try to look at things in different ways, research other photographers and look at their techniques and make them your own.

[kitacanon]

I am only fifteen years old and am therefore certainly not a professional by any means. I think you can learn some things that help make the photograph project creativity to the viewer. I do think that there is a certain "Artistic eye" of certain photographers that people can not simply "Learn". There are three main things that make a picture artistic in my opinion, composition, lighting, and angles as well as the technical qualities that make a successful photograph. Simply try to look at things in different ways, research other photographers and look at their techniques and make them your own.

That "Artistic eye" (in my mind's eye) is empathy...being able to sense what makes the subject special...even inanimate objects have that "soul", that reflection of life that draws our eye to it and to which we photographers give meaning...that is what makes US special...painters revise nature to create meaning, photographers reframe the natural world to reveal meaning there but unseen by the rest of the world (with thanks to Saint Exupéry)...