11 replies to this topic

[sunshine]

This piece of driftwood caught my eye, and with the late evening light, I thought I had captured something special.  In the light of a new day, though, the photos just don't "grab me".  Based on the lackluster reaction online, I don't think they grabbed anyone else, either.  When I look now, I see "nice photo, boring".  So my questions to you all are - is it possible to make these photos into something more compelling?  And how do *you* decide whether a subject is worth the time it takes to capture, import, edit, and post or print?  I am interested in hearing what different people look for.  How do you choose what to point your camera at?  All too often, it seems, what I choose to point my camera at ends up being wasted electrons or pixels or whatever digital photos are made of instead of something that I want to print and hang in my office.

 

driftwood by Mark, on Flickr

 

driftwood2 by Mark, on Flickr

[deano]

Don't know what to tell you Sunshine.  I suffer the same malady, see something exciting to me and how to convey that to the world through the camera lens.

[TBonz]

You mentioned late evening...I actually like the second shot quite a bit, but it looks like you needed more DOF as the front of the wood doesn't look sharp like the piece sticking upwards...not much as the bokeh in the background is perfect but just a touch...

 

As to what makes a great image, some of it boils down to what you like...In reality, unless you are being paid to shoot where you have a customer to please, the rest really doesn't matter...if you like it, who cares what others think?  And, I have found myself in the same situation...I'll try something and see if it ends up working for me.  I may keep it and I may share it and I may trash it, but I always think it is worth the effort to try as I generally learn something...

[Jerry_]

As you mention that the capture was taken at the late evening, I suppose that what you saw was in warm dark colours - and the capture doesn't show the same mood? Correct me if I am wrong.

Taking a capture means having a subject to take a picture, a lens and camera, and finally yourself . While what you might see is different from what the camera produces in the picture, you should not forget that you have given the camera some parameters how to optimize an "average" picture. This can be Active D-Lighting settings, Auto ISO, auto whitebalance, ev. a positive EV, Aperture and/or Shutterspeed, just to name probably the most relevant ones.

A late evening capture is mostly not under ideal light conditions for the average shot - even so that special light is what you wanted to include. The camera however tries to "optimize" the situation, resulting in a capture that shows the subject, but that has lost the mood.

How to overcome? Take control of your camera and use it fully manually in such situations. Do a few captures with different settings and check what it gives.

How to get it back in post processing? While the weekly editing exercise is paused this doesn't mean that you can't publish the raw files (if you have) or the full jpeg on a dropbox (or similar) - probably some of the members here will give it a try to see what results they can get with post processing.

[sunshine]

Thanks for all the commentary.

 

TBonz - I wanted to emphasize bokeh and minimize noise, so I didn't try different apertures for this angle.  In hindsight, I should have.  You're right that it might help if a little more of the wood were in focus.  I guess I need to start carrying my tripod even on the boat.

 

Jerry - I use manual mode exclusively unless I'm in a situation where Shutter or Aperture priority are called for.  I have 17 shots of the driftwood taken over an hour and a half using various settings, slight changes in angle or perspective, and changes in the light.  And while late in the day isn't the best for light "quantity", I like it for light "quality", so it seems I'm always compromising between large aperture and high ISO in order to get the shutter speed high enough.  And frankly, I don't think my problem is a technical one.  I always shoot raw, but I don't think Lightroom (or equivalent) can edit a boring subject into an exciting one.  I printed the 2nd driftwood photo above at 13" x 19" and I think I will hang it in my office.  It actually looks pretty good on paper. (At least, it does to me.  And it's my office...) However, when I see Nicole's milky way photo or your metro station escalators photo, I feel like I have a long way to go.  As TBonz said, each photo is a learning experience.  I've read books on "Learning to See...", but obviously I'm still learning.  So I appreciate any insight that you here with more experience are willing to offer.

 

I am reminded of a saying: "Experience is something you acquire right after you needed it." 

[nikdood17]

Knowing when you hit "bingo" is part of the long and very hard road to great photography. And in the end you might not even know "this" one is the one. I shot a wonderful photo of the Beatles and I love it but every person I showed some Beatles photos to likes a boring photo of them straight on, with the "lads" staring at the camera. Ho hum.

Great photography is easy -- you just lug your camera around and bleed from the eyes.

[Jerry_]

Mark,

When you decided to take the capture, you saw something special - something worth freezing into a picture and you did a good job. I do join Tom in saying that you need a bit more DOF to have the front sharp.

Also, as already mentioned by Tom, photography is mostly a subjective art; i.e. the result must please to you, or the one viewing it.

But, considering the title of the discussion and questions addressed in your initial posting:

What I tried to say in my posting is that a good picture is not only to capture the subject, but also some mood/expression. This is what usually turns a good picture into a special picture.

If you would have a blund scenery, it would be difficult to turn the photo into something outstanding. So, taking your questions, when do I decide that it is worth to capture, import, edit and post/print? All this is a sequential filtering process based on the potential that you see for the next step to achieve for what you are after.

The basic is to have a picture that is sharp where you want it to be sharp. Starting from there editing will allow you to play with the colours, slightly with the contrast or adding a vignette.

Which brings us back to the initial point:the result must please the viewer (yourself or others).

[TBonz]

Jerry is correct...I have some images that I love but others don't see them as "amazing".  I think in part it is because I shot the image...so, I was trying to capture something - a mood, the light, the subject in a certain manner, even something that was just meaningful to me at the time.  Thus, lots of things that can mean something to me that may not mean anything to others.  I guess the "home run" is the image you capture that fits one or more of those categories for you AND speaks to others.  I am always happy if I hit the first - the rest is just a bonus to me...

 

It also depends on what I am shooting...with sports, it is timing, anticipation, stopping (or not stopping) the action and lots of other little things including focus and exposure that combine to make a great capture...With landscapes, still life and other shooting, it becomes less cut and dried as to what is a technically good capture and what is more than just a good capture...I run into that quite often and while most folks never see my "attempts" I challenge myself to see what I can come up with...and I will do it with ANY camera - my D4, my Nikon 1 or my phone...Sometimes I am trying to capture something I see with what I have available (not easy to shoot a beautiful sunset with a long tele) and sometimes I just wonder what I would get if I tried "this".  I got a great capture of a deer in our backyard this way but the Nikon 1 does not do high ISO very well...got the image, but too grainy...I played with the burst option on my phone to try and capture some lightning last week...got some, but no where near what my eyes saw...I still have fun with all of them though...

[dcbear78]

I heard in a podcast that the only people who care about your photos are you and the person in it. You don't have a person as a subject, so you have extra hurdles. You engage viewers by triggering their emotions. Be that happiness & joy or remorseful & sad (and everything in between). People like landscapes because they want to go there. They like portraits because they can relate to the subject. They like still life's because it makes them feel a certain way etc, etc..... A piece of driftwood is going to have a really, really hard time engaging some kind of emotional response from a viewer. Not to say it can't. But there is going to have to be something exceptional for people to stop and really look at the image.

 

Maybe isolated out from a vast beach with a really long exposure that softens out the tide, high key processing to highlight the endless horizon etc.

 

Also things like focal length choice. Want something to look interesting? Shoot it in a focal length we do not see in. This is why short-telephoto length portraits are appealing. Our eyes aren't that "zoomed." Or wide angle lens at an unusual angle. Show things in ways people can't see them with their own eyes. Unusual processing may create interest too, but still can never polish a turd. You got to start with a great photo.

 

Don't be afraid to stage something. This is art, not journalism. Would it have looked better on some virgin, untouched smooth sand? Or out on the ripples in the sand as the tide withdrawals?

[nbanjogal]

Lots of good thinking and advice here. I don't know that I have much to add, but I'm jumping in anyway because it's such an interesting topic.

 

"How do you choose what you point your camera at?" And the question that inevitably follows that is how do you point it? (Meaning from what angle, with what lens, at what time, and a host of all sorts of other questions.)

 

Mark, you asked the question of all questions when it comes to photography. I wish I knew the answer because maybe my own photography would be a lot better! I take a ton of throwaway photos because I'm not good at looking around (especially nature and landscape) and finding compelling compositions. I can see fantastic subjects, but I have a hard time making them into strong images with good composition. 

 

I've also read (and am in the process of reading) "Learning to see" type books. I've read Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Composition Field Guide"—TWICE! And it hasn't seemed to stick. Heh heh... 

 

And that's awesome that you printed your image and have it displayed in your office! Are you enjoying it? Because if so, then there you go. Mission accomplished, right?

 

So this might offend some of you, but I've found that one good way to figure things out and improve is to imitate. I'm not embarrassed to admit that sometimes I'll see a shot and think "I want to see if I can make a shot like that" because I know I'll learn a ton from it. But then I'll have some new knowledge I can use for my own vision. My photography mentor has a saying: "Imitate, assimilate, innovate." I guess it's when you get stuck in imitation (or try to pass it off as your own creative work) that you stagnate or get in other trouble.

 

Anyway, this isn't adding much, but thanks for asking the question.

[sunshine]

Thanks for all the thoughtful commentary.  Regarding the driftwood photos, I know that being there and having seen it "live" is why those have some meaning to me.  The timing, the mood at the time, the late afternoon sunlight at the end of a perfect day are very difficult to capture with a camera.  So when I look at those I see an experience that no one else can see who wasn't there at the time.  I still see the boat floating nearby, my wife enjoying a swim - the things that are not in the frame but are still in my memory.  However, I posed the "question of all questions" (thanks Nicole) because I do see other's photos that seem to have captured at least some of that and I'd like to be more successful at that.  I saw a video once of a presentation from a photography seminar where the speaker talked about the importance of "subject".  He used some great examples that showed a beautiful model in a particular setting, then the exact same shot taken during preparation but with his assistant in the photo.  *Completely* different result (some were quite funny).  You all have provided some great suggestions that may help to make an otherwise somewhat boring subject a little more exciting.  I'll keep looking for worthy subjects.

[TBonz]

Darryl brought up an interesting point for me with his suggestion of staging the shot.  I think it is a great idea...I can't say I have never done that, however I stage more out of necessity than for the sake of art.  But, my background is photojournalism.  As such I tend to approach a shot from that mindset, looking for the best way to capture what I see and feel rather than trying to create.  Neither is wrong and I expect staging would probably lend itself to capturing more interesting images, especially with some practice.  I'm just wired from the opposite direction and I've been doing it long enough so that I really don't think about the process as much as I think about what image I'm trying to capture.

 

Nicole's point is also good regarding imitation.  It is hard to find something that hasn't been photographed in many different ways previously.  Granted with something like sports, every play is unique and thus has not been shot before, but if you break it down, receivers have been shot catching a football from pretty much every angle you can choose with some great and some lousy results.  Same with trees or flowers or wildlife.  Making it your image as opposed to the same image as everyone else does play into the memories you (and others who were there) have.  It also includes technical decisions, timing, angle, lens choice as Nicole said and can even be changed / improved in post processing with cropping and exposure edits to make it more dramatic, etc.  

 

But it still boils down to the consumer.  If you are being paid to shoot head and shoulder shots of everyone in a company, there isn't much to do but get your exposure correct and a functional image of each of the people.  They don't expect nor do they want you to be creative.  Other shots you take for yourself and you are the one who gets to determine if it is an exciting shot, a nice shot or just a shot...all of those are fine...when you get lucky, they are exciting or meaningful to you and others because the subject or location or "something" in the image speaks to others even if they don't know you and were never where the image was taken...