|
|
| Author |
Message |
mcpoz
|
|
Reason(s) you take pictures.
| 
Apr 15 01:07 UTC 1995 |
Why do you take pictures?
|
| 27 responses total. |
mwarner
|
|
response 1 of 27:
|
Apr 15 04:17 UTC 1995 |
To make, or preserve, a record. To create, or inspire, recognition.
However, the process of preserving images of (say) beautiful, scenic,
wild or natural places literally take a little bite out of those places.
So, when I take, or view, photos of beautiful, unspoiled places I always
look for the little degradations I am observing or introducing.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 2 of 27:
|
Apr 15 11:56 UTC 1995 |
Funny, when I take a B&W photo, I usually think the end product is a great
enhancement over the actual scene - even at my amateur level. I never had
the same feeling with color, unless I accomplish something unusually good
by composition, croping, etc.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 27:
|
Apr 16 00:07 UTC 1995 |
An "enhancement over the actual scene"? Unless you do a lot of darkroom
alteration, I don't see how that can be. What happens, of course, is
that the camera catches an *instant* for lengthy contemplation. That
definnitely changes the nature of the experience one gets from it. The
B&W print is also *different*, since we see in color. That change could
be for better or for worse.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 4 of 27:
|
Apr 16 01:10 UTC 1995 |
Things which are bleak, trashy, run down, etc look a lot different when
enhanced by contrast control, dodging, burning and composition. I take
a lot of photos of old run down stuff and (at least to me) they produce
really good B&W prints.
|
morgayn
|
|
response 5 of 27:
|
Apr 16 16:02 UTC 1995 |
My experience with photography is very very minimal...However, I have noticed
that B&W photos seem to come out much better... I think perhaps because the
contrasts show up better... I tend to really enjoy and look for shadows and
contrasts between light and dark. Sometimes these are lost in color because the
different shades of color produce a separate effect than darkness and light.
B&W photos of run-down, trashy places seem to give them an ethereal almost
paranormal look at times...It tends to make things look like it is from the
past as we associate *I do and most of my peers do as well...* B&W with a time
gone by...Antiquities...
Comments?
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 6 of 27:
|
Apr 17 01:37 UTC 1995 |
Morgayn, probably the easiest and the cheapest route to photography is
black and white with a do-it-yourself darkroom. That's how I got interested.
For a long time, I sneered at color, basically because most of it was out
of your hands. (commercial develop/print). I really like color now, but
I still believe B&W allows for more creative skills and the pictures you
create are more abstract than color. Everyone has seen the Ansel Adams
photos, and they (I think) look better than the actual sites.
I have a lot of photos of old ramshackle buildings and they have earned
honorable mentions, but no prizes. I have a photo of a stone staircase
in Mexico in which I was almost on my hands and knees, shooting up toward
the stone stairs, each of which was worn from years of traffic. The
edges reflected white light and the cobblestones were dark. Looked great
in the photo!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 27:
|
Apr 17 06:31 UTC 1995 |
Ansel Adams did a lot of darkroom manipulation on his prints - dodging,
in particular. I was entranced by the effect in the beginning, but
eventually tired of it. It looks artificial to me, now.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 8 of 27:
|
Apr 17 13:12 UTC 1995 |
By definition, it is artificial, but then so is a sketch. If you are good
at dodging/burning, you leave no seams and you tend to show what it would
look like given perfect light/contrast.
To me, I have always wanted to be able to sketch, but have zippo talent
in that arena. I feel B&W comes close to that kind of creative feeling.
Some older movies were shot in B&W for the dramatic effect. This was at a
time when color was fully available. I don't know why I mention this but
it seems like it points out an ability of B&W to be more effective in
sending certain kinds of messages.
Oh, well!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 27:
|
Apr 17 18:24 UTC 1995 |
Well, yes, *photography* is artificial. I meant artificial in the
sense that it became obvious that nature could not look like that.
Before that sank in, I only noticed the "heightened drama" (yuch). He
didn't leave seams - but it would take a rare cloud configuration to
produce that kind of lighting. Well, its a matter of opinion: I can
like sketches for what they are, but I just got bored with Adams'
technique.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 10 of 27:
|
Apr 17 19:35 UTC 1995 |
Adams' photos have the blackest black and the whitest white on each photo.
Maybe that is what some people like and some people find too artificial.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 11 of 27:
|
Apr 24 00:54 UTC 1995 |
Well, I took some telephoto COLOR shots of birds today. Goldfinch, Purple
Finch, & a few others. Saw lots of flickers, but they would not pose for me.
I got these on a 300 mm lens - should be good.
|
dadroc
|
|
response 12 of 27:
|
Apr 24 12:41 UTC 1995 |
I love to excape into the picture during the spotting of the prints, this is w
what keeps me going on. I love exploring every texture, curve and arc within
the print. It makes viewing the print on the wall more fun.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 13 of 27:
|
Apr 25 00:45 UTC 1995 |
I am of the amateur"ist" of spotters, but I find it gives you a great feel
for
for the lines and shadings. Do you have any special spotting techniques?
|
mwarner
|
|
response 14 of 27:
|
Apr 25 15:23 UTC 1995 |
fingers
|
omni
|
|
response 15 of 27:
|
Apr 12 04:27 UTC 1996 |
To me, my photography is art. I try to use the simplest camera, and film
and take a monumental shot. I learned this on my recent trip to WV where I
took more than 200 shots just to document the trip, and to explore some new
things that I had never tried before. I also learned why it's not wise to
shoot into the sun.
I'm never going to be Ansel Adams, or Albert Eisenstat, but they had to
start somewhere, right?
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 16 of 27:
|
Apr 12 22:35 UTC 1996 |
You are absolutely right! Experimentation leads to personal style in
photography. Let us know what works the best for you.
|
denise
|
|
response 17 of 27:
|
May 25 21:03 UTC 1996 |
I agree that photography is a form of art, a form of expression. I've
enjoyed taking pictures for more years than I want to say [well, lets
just say that I've been taking them since grade school!!].
What are my reasons for taking pictures?? Sometimes just because I feel like it
without having any special reason. Sometimes I want to remember certain
things as they were at that point in time... Its interesting to see how
time changes our memories of events!
|
omni
|
|
response 18 of 27:
|
Aug 17 05:37 UTC 1996 |
As I have said elsewhere, I am going back to WV to try some other things.
The first set of 240 turned out well, but I learned also that I have to be
a better compositionist, and to take my time when doing a shot. But sometimes
that is not possible when you're rolling down a freeway and have 1 shot at
a sign (the Michigan border, for instance).
The focus (at least for the first roll) will be the Capitol Dome from
different locations in Charleston. I'll probably have to buy a second roll
of indoor film for the Mansion and Capitol tours. Any suggestions? I was
thinking of 400 or maybe 1000 speed for the inside shots.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 19 of 27:
|
Aug 18 02:35 UTC 1996 |
my experience with 400 and 1000 speed has been that 400 gives good if not
great photos, but 1000 gives fair to poor photos. If you have a timer and
a way to steady your camera for the low light shots, I'd go with 400.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 20 of 27:
|
Aug 28 22:25 UTC 1996 |
If you have a time and way to steady the camera, stick with 100 (or 200).
BTW, when shooting from a moving vehicle (car train, etc) try to shoot as the
object is moving _away_ from you, rather than toward you. The focus depth
is a little deeper behind your focal point than it is in front of it, and
you're more likely to keep the subject in focus.
|
vrondi
|
|
response 21 of 27:
|
Jan 1 22:19 UTC 1999 |
REgarding #18. Hello to you from a native WV resident! I've spent a lot of
time taking pictures of scenery, given what surrounds me. Sometimes I have
trouble convincing friends who look at my family photos that they weren't done
with studio backdrops. "no, that really is my front yard" "Yes, those
icicles on that rock-cliff are near my house" "Yes we really are swimming
in front of that waterfall." My favourite view of the capitol dome in
Charleston, is from the lawn directly to the east of it. Look towards the
west at sunset, and you get the most gorgeous silhouttes.
Why do I take pictures? well, there are the times my mother prods me
into documenting a family get together. But many times Ijust have this urge
to be using a camera-looking at things interestingly. I still can't explain
to my friends always "why" I am stopping to take close ups of wildflowers.
|
denise
|
|
response 22 of 27:
|
Sep 4 00:35 UTC 2007 |
I'd like to hear from more people about this topic: reasons you take
pictures. :-) And have your reasons changed over time and if so, how?
|
ball
|
|
response 23 of 27:
|
Sep 5 22:18 UTC 2007 |
I take photographs because I enjoy taking photographs, waiting for the
film to be developed and then (hopefully!) seeing the end result. It
is something creative, something that I'm new to and something with
enough depth that I can probably spend a lifetime learning. It also
seems to be something that is effecting the way I look at the world.
|
denise
|
|
response 24 of 27:
|
Sep 6 00:41 UTC 2007 |
That is so true, Andy--the world sure does 'look' different in the eye
of a photographer, that's for sure.
|