- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm going to be contentious and flippant... you start by seeing something worth pointing a camera at....
If you don't have a camera with you at the time.. well there is your first 'missed shot'.. no probs it would probably have been a duffer anyway..., but lesson learned is, next time take a camera...
What camera? Who CARES!!!!
Well.. every-one it seems! BUT.. don't sweat it... thing with 'photography' is that when you start to get 'in' to it, you start to loose sight of why you did it to begin with, and start spending more time looking AT the camera than through it... BE WARNED.. that is when it starts to get expensive, and you will tend to be spending ever more money, to get ever fewer 'photo's that you really like... 'cos your expectations will ramp with how big your credit card bill is, whilst the interest in what you have to point your camera at probably wont!
Lessons from history... way back when; the 'entry-level' camera for an aspiring enthusiast on the high-street was something like a Kodak Box Brownie... it had no mega-pixies, no mega-zoom range, no mega ANYTHING..
Some-where, and I have lost the digi-pic of it, I have a 1930's Voiglander 'Box-Camera'... Its a twin-lens-reflex camera, that takes 120 roll film. Twin-Lens reflex means that it has two lenses; one is in-front of the film trap, and has a shutter in it; from memory with just four shutter settings, 1/30th of a second, 1/60th/s & 1/125th/s, and three apertures, f4, f8 & f16, I think. the second lens sits in-front of half a periscope, and projects an image onto a mirror, and a ground glass view-screen you look down into at 'waist-level', to compose your picture. Focusing? Well, not one of the more sophisticated 'geared' TLR's that had a focus control that focused both the viewfinder lens and taking lens.... viewfinder was just that a viewfinder; you focused by guess work, setting the taking lenses pointer to 'near' 'middle' or 'distant'.. Not exactly bristling with technology this thing! BUT in the 1930's it was an 'expensive' camera, and just having selectable shutter-speeds made it quite a lot more versatile than a Box-Brownie... or more convenient than a wooden plate camera! And it took pictures.. and that's ALL the technology you need!
I actually dug it out of a toy-box in my Grans attic about twenty five years ago; story behind it was my Grandad had bartered a packet of cigarettes for it in a bizarre in Palestine while he was in the air-force after WWII; when he got a 35mm Kodak in the 1950's he gave it to one of his kids to take snap-shots on school trips, whence it ended up chucked in the toy box, I discovered it... cleaned it, put a film in it, and TOOK PICTURES with it.... it still worked... not very well, I'll admit, one of the rollers for the film guide had rusted and left scratches at the edge of the negatives, but it took photos, and the ones I later discovered, my Grandad had taken with it out in the Middle-East in the 40's, before it went rusty, were all VERY interesting, and remarkably 'good'.
Later, after a house clearance, I was given my Gt Uncles camera, a Zeiss Ikonta, 120 'folder'; similarly 'spartan' in features, it does however have a focus scale marked in proper measurements, though lacks a view-finder... it has a hinged metal flap with a square hole in the front on top of the lens and a wire square that folds up off the back you sort of like up like gun-sights! But again, takes photo's, and putting a roll or two through it, this camera worked very well in deed, and took very nice photo's.. well, as nice as what I pointed it at, least-wise.
And THAT is the point; the pioneers of photography had little more than a light tight box, and a glass plate spread with egg-white and silver halide and something 'interesting' to point it at, and many of thier works are, still to this day, held up as 'master pieces'.... you REALLY don't need to get bogged down or detracted by what is perported to be 'must have' camera kit... if it'll take a picture, it'll 'do'..
End of the day, purpose of photography is to make a picture, and purpose of a picture is to be looked at! Stating the bleeding obviouse, but, worth stating from time to time!
So, what makes a picture worth looking at? Who will want to look at it? WHY and WHAT will they find INTERESTING in it?
There are millions upon millions upon millions of perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, perfectly 'sharp', and perfectly BORING photographs on display for us to look at... quite a lot on here.... no disrespect to their authors, BUT... I have absolutely NO interest in Britain's bird-life, or in antique trains, or old war-planes; among many things. I do like pretty ladies, I will confess, but the O/H takes exception to that interest! SO, no matter how 'good' these photo's are. they are just NOT very interesting to me, as I have no interest in the 'subject'.. There are probably a lot of people who ARE interested in these subjects, who would be interested in looking at them... BUT, and here's the rub.... IF the SUBJECT is interesting to them.... they'll look at it! I'm interested in motorbikes... I see a motorbike, or even a part of a motorbike in a photo, it has my attention! Maybe only briefly... but still, its got the first 'look'... after that? well does it HOLD my attention? What do I 'gain' from it?
And STILL, it is the subject that is captivating me and making me look; whats special about it? Whats unique? What's important? If its a motorbike, is it a rare one? Or does it have a unique front suspension system, or engine or something? WHAT makes the subject worth recording? WHY do I want to see it? What do I learn from it, or what does it make me feel? If its a land-scape, does it make me feel part of the scenery and take me out of my mundane living room? I fit's an action shot, does it take me to that motor-race or make me want to be IN that motor-race? WHAT does it GIVE ME, the viewer, that a bit of patterned wall-paper wouldn't?
Now flip that round; what do you want to 'give' the viewer in your picture? What COULD you give the viewer, in your picture?
There has to be a 'reason', there has to be a 'gift' in it, or it WONT be looked at.. and a picture not scene is a picture that might as well have never been taken.....
And THAT is where you should start... with the 'subject' with the 'interest' and that 'gift' to the viewer....
The camera don't matter; editing programs don't matter, all the 'stuff' you THINK matters... doesn't... ALL that matters is that there is a picture, and it 'gives' something to a viewer to make them want to look at it... even if that viewer is only ever yourself....
And on THAT basis, we return to the top.... you start by seeing something worth pointing a camera at.... and, you take a picture of it!
You shouldn't be buying a camera to get you out of the house and 'doing stuff'!! You buy a camera because you ARE out of the house and doing stuff! Stuff that is interesting enough to take photo's of!
You are working from the wrong end.... trying to push the cart with the horse, rather than pull it....
You said you were doing stuff with a camera-phone? What were you doing? DO MORE of it! Use your camera-phone MORE.. its still a camera, it still takes photos!
Only when you are struggling to get photo's with that camera, because it's lacking, 'something', do you need to think or worry about what gear to buy, and having a specific 'problem' to over come, that problem will direct what gear is needed... and what know-how you need to exploit it.
To do what you say you want.. get out and about and do 'something', you REALLY don't need a camera... JUST the inclination!
So get motivated, and Go Do! And if you happen to have a camera handy when you do.. great! Take pictures, and you are doing this photography lark!
If you don't have a camera with you at the time.. well there is your first 'missed shot'.. no probs it would probably have been a duffer anyway..., but lesson learned is, next time take a camera...
What camera? Who CARES!!!!
Well.. every-one it seems! BUT.. don't sweat it... thing with 'photography' is that when you start to get 'in' to it, you start to loose sight of why you did it to begin with, and start spending more time looking AT the camera than through it... BE WARNED.. that is when it starts to get expensive, and you will tend to be spending ever more money, to get ever fewer 'photo's that you really like... 'cos your expectations will ramp with how big your credit card bill is, whilst the interest in what you have to point your camera at probably wont!
Lessons from history... way back when; the 'entry-level' camera for an aspiring enthusiast on the high-street was something like a Kodak Box Brownie... it had no mega-pixies, no mega-zoom range, no mega ANYTHING..
Some-where, and I have lost the digi-pic of it, I have a 1930's Voiglander 'Box-Camera'... Its a twin-lens-reflex camera, that takes 120 roll film. Twin-Lens reflex means that it has two lenses; one is in-front of the film trap, and has a shutter in it; from memory with just four shutter settings, 1/30th of a second, 1/60th/s & 1/125th/s, and three apertures, f4, f8 & f16, I think. the second lens sits in-front of half a periscope, and projects an image onto a mirror, and a ground glass view-screen you look down into at 'waist-level', to compose your picture. Focusing? Well, not one of the more sophisticated 'geared' TLR's that had a focus control that focused both the viewfinder lens and taking lens.... viewfinder was just that a viewfinder; you focused by guess work, setting the taking lenses pointer to 'near' 'middle' or 'distant'.. Not exactly bristling with technology this thing! BUT in the 1930's it was an 'expensive' camera, and just having selectable shutter-speeds made it quite a lot more versatile than a Box-Brownie... or more convenient than a wooden plate camera! And it took pictures.. and that's ALL the technology you need!
I actually dug it out of a toy-box in my Grans attic about twenty five years ago; story behind it was my Grandad had bartered a packet of cigarettes for it in a bizarre in Palestine while he was in the air-force after WWII; when he got a 35mm Kodak in the 1950's he gave it to one of his kids to take snap-shots on school trips, whence it ended up chucked in the toy box, I discovered it... cleaned it, put a film in it, and TOOK PICTURES with it.... it still worked... not very well, I'll admit, one of the rollers for the film guide had rusted and left scratches at the edge of the negatives, but it took photos, and the ones I later discovered, my Grandad had taken with it out in the Middle-East in the 40's, before it went rusty, were all VERY interesting, and remarkably 'good'.
Later, after a house clearance, I was given my Gt Uncles camera, a Zeiss Ikonta, 120 'folder'; similarly 'spartan' in features, it does however have a focus scale marked in proper measurements, though lacks a view-finder... it has a hinged metal flap with a square hole in the front on top of the lens and a wire square that folds up off the back you sort of like up like gun-sights! But again, takes photo's, and putting a roll or two through it, this camera worked very well in deed, and took very nice photo's.. well, as nice as what I pointed it at, least-wise.
And THAT is the point; the pioneers of photography had little more than a light tight box, and a glass plate spread with egg-white and silver halide and something 'interesting' to point it at, and many of thier works are, still to this day, held up as 'master pieces'.... you REALLY don't need to get bogged down or detracted by what is perported to be 'must have' camera kit... if it'll take a picture, it'll 'do'..
End of the day, purpose of photography is to make a picture, and purpose of a picture is to be looked at! Stating the bleeding obviouse, but, worth stating from time to time!
So, what makes a picture worth looking at? Who will want to look at it? WHY and WHAT will they find INTERESTING in it?
There are millions upon millions upon millions of perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, perfectly 'sharp', and perfectly BORING photographs on display for us to look at... quite a lot on here.... no disrespect to their authors, BUT... I have absolutely NO interest in Britain's bird-life, or in antique trains, or old war-planes; among many things. I do like pretty ladies, I will confess, but the O/H takes exception to that interest! SO, no matter how 'good' these photo's are. they are just NOT very interesting to me, as I have no interest in the 'subject'.. There are probably a lot of people who ARE interested in these subjects, who would be interested in looking at them... BUT, and here's the rub.... IF the SUBJECT is interesting to them.... they'll look at it! I'm interested in motorbikes... I see a motorbike, or even a part of a motorbike in a photo, it has my attention! Maybe only briefly... but still, its got the first 'look'... after that? well does it HOLD my attention? What do I 'gain' from it?
And STILL, it is the subject that is captivating me and making me look; whats special about it? Whats unique? What's important? If its a motorbike, is it a rare one? Or does it have a unique front suspension system, or engine or something? WHAT makes the subject worth recording? WHY do I want to see it? What do I learn from it, or what does it make me feel? If its a land-scape, does it make me feel part of the scenery and take me out of my mundane living room? I fit's an action shot, does it take me to that motor-race or make me want to be IN that motor-race? WHAT does it GIVE ME, the viewer, that a bit of patterned wall-paper wouldn't?
Now flip that round; what do you want to 'give' the viewer in your picture? What COULD you give the viewer, in your picture?
There has to be a 'reason', there has to be a 'gift' in it, or it WONT be looked at.. and a picture not scene is a picture that might as well have never been taken.....
And THAT is where you should start... with the 'subject' with the 'interest' and that 'gift' to the viewer....
The camera don't matter; editing programs don't matter, all the 'stuff' you THINK matters... doesn't... ALL that matters is that there is a picture, and it 'gives' something to a viewer to make them want to look at it... even if that viewer is only ever yourself....
And on THAT basis, we return to the top.... you start by seeing something worth pointing a camera at.... and, you take a picture of it!
You shouldn't be buying a camera to get you out of the house and 'doing stuff'!! You buy a camera because you ARE out of the house and doing stuff! Stuff that is interesting enough to take photo's of!
You are working from the wrong end.... trying to push the cart with the horse, rather than pull it....
You said you were doing stuff with a camera-phone? What were you doing? DO MORE of it! Use your camera-phone MORE.. its still a camera, it still takes photos!
Only when you are struggling to get photo's with that camera, because it's lacking, 'something', do you need to think or worry about what gear to buy, and having a specific 'problem' to over come, that problem will direct what gear is needed... and what know-how you need to exploit it.
To do what you say you want.. get out and about and do 'something', you REALLY don't need a camera... JUST the inclination!
So get motivated, and Go Do! And if you happen to have a camera handy when you do.. great! Take pictures, and you are doing this photography lark!
4
3
2
1
