How long have you been a photographer/ practicing photography.

[Phil V]

I think there’s an assumption I’d like to challenge in a positive way.
Photography is a skill that needs learning, which means there’s a minimum amount of time required; but it’s not even a year.

How many above have been doing this 40 years or more and we still wouldn’t regard ourselves as great at it?

And yet I’ve met photographers who within a year are taking awesome images.

It’s about ability (to learn) drive, and a certain amount of natural talent too.

The honest truth is that ‘photography’ is fairly simple, what to focus on, what to include in the frame and judging the correct exposure. A lot of photographers tie themselves in knots over those very simple decisions.

So once those basics are understood, what makes a great image is all the work that has nothing to do with ‘photography’. It’s about understanding your subject and putting in the effort to capture it well. Whether that’s trekking up a mountain an hour before sunrise, hiding out in the perfect spot for wildlife, or building rapport with a subject. That’s the important bit.

Notwithstanding, if you’ve put all that effort in, the right gear can also improve your chances, but again that’s often overplayed by ‘photographers’.

 

[juggler]

I think there’s an assumption I’d like to challenge in a positive way.
Photography is a skill that needs learning, which means there’s a minimum amount of time required; but it’s not even a year.

How many above have been doing this 40 years or more and we still wouldn’t regard ourselves as great at it?

And yet I’ve met photographers who within a year are taking awesome images.

It’s about ability (to learn) drive, and a certain amount of natural talent too.

The honest truth is that ‘photography’ is fairly simple, what to focus on, what to include in the frame and judging the correct exposure. A lot of photographers tie themselves in knots over those very simple decisions.

So once those basics are understood, what makes a great image is all the work that has nothing to do with ‘photography’. It’s about understanding your subject and putting in the effort to capture it well. Whether that’s trekking up a mountain an hour before sunrise, hiding out in the perfect spot for wildlife, or building rapport with a subject. That’s the important bit.

Notwithstanding, if you’ve put all that effort in, the right gear can also improve your chances, but again that’s often overplayed by ‘photographers’.

Yes! It's all about what you point it at; the rest is detail.

 

[Craig1912]

About 50 years and reckon I was better then than now. You can get too tied up in lenses and all the technical stuff. I had a Canon AE1 and a 50 mm macro lens for everything. Still have photos from then framed and on display.

 

[f/2.8]

Got my first camera in 1985 it was a Polaroid and I was 5. Used that up until I was about 15 when I got my first point and shoot digital camera. Got my first DSLR in about 2006/2007. Photography became my full time job in 2014.

 

[Sangoma]

I think there’s an assumption I’d like to challenge in a positive way.
Photography is a skill that needs learning, which means there’s a minimum amount of time required; but it’s not even a year.

How many above have been doing this 40 years or more and we still wouldn’t regard ourselves as great at it?

And yet I’ve met photographers who within a year are taking awesome images.

It’s about ability (to learn) drive, and a certain amount of natural talent too.

The honest truth is that ‘photography’ is fairly simple, what to focus on, what to include in the frame and judging the correct exposure. A lot of photographers tie themselves in knots over those very simple decisions.

So once those basics are understood, what makes a great image is all the work that has nothing to do with ‘photography’. It’s about understanding your subject and putting in the effort to capture it well. Whether that’s trekking up a mountain an hour before sunrise, hiding out in the perfect spot for wildlife, or building rapport with a subject. That’s the important bit.

Notwithstanding, if you’ve put all that effort in, the right gear can also improve your chances, but again that’s often overplayed by ‘photographers’.

True, but a lot depends on what you want out of it, and what your aims are.
More than being great at it, I want to enjoy it at the same time getting the results I want.
I have only really liked one "famous" photographer's work, and many people would say he is boring.

 

[delb0y]

I would include all the "soft" skills in the larger bucket of photography. Sure, there's the camera settings, but as someone was said, it's the stuff eight inches behind the camera that really makes the difference. Learning about light, natural or artificial, learning about posing people, or animal behaviour, studying all the masters and learning the history of the art, learning software, understanding and setting up environments - be they studios or hides or remote-cameras - learning how to interact with strangers, building contacts that allows one access to sites/land and so on. Learning to sit still for hours. Arranging one's life so one has hours... Arranging one's finances... There would be a hundred other such things. The good photographers on this site do all of these things, all though they don't all do all of them. The camera stuff is the easy bit.

 

[RichardC27]

My dad is fairly into photography so I remember having a little compact point and shoot film camera when I was around 9 or 10. My first 'real' camera was a fully manual Chinon 35mm film SLR handed down from my dad when I was about 12, so this would have been around 1996, 1997. No idea what I was doing really, but started shooting motorsport with that. I'm 38 now so I'd say I've been practicing proper photography for over 25 years, which is a scary thought. Switched to digital in 2008, and went mirrorless last year.

I did dabble in film again a few years ago but realised it was a very slow and expensive way of getting very mediocre images.

If I include photos taken with my phone too I'd say I take some sort of image almost every day.

 

[delb0y]

I have only really liked one "famous" photographer's work, and many people would say he is boring.

I'm intrigued! I reckon there's a thread worth starting right there (to save hijacking this one).

 

[hamster100]

I started with a little Kodak Instamatic. Must have been late Sixties / Seventies. From there I somehow made the jump from that to a Pentax MX. More like a giant leap, thinking about it now. But, like a lot of things they come and go, and I've been taking photos, in some capacity, ever since. Still got the MX as well, as I've gone full circle, almost. Not sure I'd consider myself a photographer though. I take photos, but I feel that is different.

I started with a Zenith EM (for the young amongst us google it ) and then moved to a Pentax MX , I had 2 bodies and only sold them about 8 years ago but now wish i'd kept them . Great little camera that i learned so much from using.

 

[zx9]

I was going to say less time than some of the above but it is getting on for fifty years, that said I go through phases when I take loads of pictures get fed up with a certain genre and almost entirely give up, so probably been taking photos for half of those fifty years.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Looks like an AVO Model 8 there too But I don't see an Adcola

In those days, I rather think Solon was the hot wand of choice!

 

[Phil V]

True, but a lot depends on what you want out of it, and what your aims are.
More than being great at it, I want to enjoy it at the same time getting the results I want.
I have only really liked one "famous" photographer's work, and many people would say he is boring.

I’m making no judgement, just responding to the OP’s ‘assumption’ that simply years of doing it is the answer to why he’s not taking ‘simply amazing’ images.
Nowadays I shoot only for pleasure, and the effort I put in is rewarded with ok photos.
But when I needed to produce something better than ‘ok’ I put a lot more planning and effort in.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I’m making no judgement, just responding to the OP’s ‘assumption’ that simply years of doing it is the answer to why he’s not taking ‘simply amazing’ images.

There are lots of 'amazing images' that aren't worth a second glance. IMO

I took my first photo when I was about six or seven, almost 60 years ago, and even though I no longer have it I can still see both the subject and my awful photo of it in my mind's eye. It taught me a valuable lesson that I didn't understand until much later - that what the camera sees and what we see are not the same thing.

Ten years later I was bought my first SLR and started taking photographs more seriously. From then until now my subjects and photos haven't changed all that much. Digital and camera tech has made them technically better, but other than that (and being in colour now) they're no better or worse than ever. Some are absolute rubbish, some are pretty damned good.

What has changed in recent years is that I no longer try to make 'amazing photos', or anything approaching art. If that happens it's a bonus. I still try to make pictures that have a formal coherence, but making records has become more important to me as I've aged and come to realise how much has gone or changed in my lifetime that hasn't been documented. It's the stuff that we take for granted that gets overlooked, not the stuff in obvious danger or photogenic.

I realise I'm not representative of photographers in general.

 

[RichardC27]

Just wondered how long you folks have been involved with photography and what you found hardest to get to grips with initially?

Just an addition to my post to answer this question, and as others have said above, you need to know your subject and what you're trying to achieve. Once you've mastered the exposure triangle and all the technical side then the process of actually creating images begins,

My speciality is motorsport photography. I find that now, instead of just taking pictures of cars on track and hoping for the best, I see the image before I take it, if that makes sense? I'm not just blindly shooting and hoping for the best, but starting with visualising in my mind how I want the finished image to look and then working to make that happen. That's been the single biggest step up in the quality of my photography I'd say, and it's little to do with gear or technical prowess.

 

[LCPete]

Have been taking photographs for a while semi seriously in the 80s with film but when digital SLR came out it was a revolution for me at least
I mainly do wildlife / nature photography, mostly record shots but always trying to improve

 

[Dave Canon]

I have been taking photographs as a hobby for over 50 years now. I started with BW film and a darkroom then after a few years added colour in 1979. By the late 90's I was processing digitally but did not buy a digital camera until 2005 as I did not consider the quality to be good enough. I still had to wait a few years to get the quality I wanted. The only aspect of photography that I find difficult is the artistic side though I can even get that right sometimes. As I worked as a scientist, I found the technology all straightforward.

Dave

 

[Doc Tempest]

I bought my first camera when I was 8 y.o. back in the early '70's. Before that I'd borrow my Mum's camera and take a few shots.

In 2008 I went Freelance and ran my own studio in Hanoi for a while. Got caught up in the Ego Price wars of billing customers and the sage advice that went around at that time. I then hit the wall in Hamburg - a town with 3000 pro 'togs fighting for table scraps.

Now? I just shoot for myself and play with all the little bits of dross that I've collected over time, resigned to the fact that I may or may not be rubbish as a photographer, but I ain't in a position to make it work as a business.

I'm an avid amateur, and that it.

You can find me on Flickr and my website, I'm not hard to search... Tsc Tempest.

 

[Petrochemist]

I started as a keen amateur about 40 years ago, but then gave up as other things got in the way.
Came back to it around 2010 when I could afford a used DSLR, and have been very heavily into photography as a hobby since.

Don't think the quality of shots you see online reflects people normal output, most of us only share 1% or less of our shots. Even then I'd be chuffed to find someone considering 1% of my shared images 'amazing'.

 

[Scirocco_09]

I've been doing it since 2005 and I am the most mediocre photographer I have ever met. I haven't developed any decent photograph skills and I make very simple mistakes. I see all of the photos of the amazing photographers on here and I think to myself.. one day I can create fantastic images like that. It may seem harsh to myself, but I am being realisitic and hoping to change by booking myself on a Skomer workshop and later in the year I am going on some other workshops. Hopefully achieve some decent photos by the end of the year.

Hardest concept I found was the maths behind photography, but I understand it now.

You don’t need to know maths at all, maybe thinking you do has got in the way and stopped you from being creative with the camera. In time you can gain a good understanding of what settings to use for lighting conditions or whether you want to blur the background etc, balancing the exposure with shutter speed, aperture, ISO. Live view and histograms can be used to assist and now with mirrorless cameras and their electronic viewfinders it’s easier. I’d advise concentrating on the creative side of photography and a bit less on the technical - make the settings secondary to composition.

 

[Steelo]

It's 11 years this September for me. I only bought a camera to take snap shots of places I'd driven to and the cars....I quickly switched that around to driving to places to take photographs, and become ever so obsessed and seduced by not only the art of photography, but the landscapes I find myself within.

I still have a massive drive to improve and an even bigger passion for the landscape of the UK but mainly the Highlands of Scotland. Would I have travelled the length and breadth of the UK if I didn't buy that camera? Probably. Would I have planned those trips during amazing, stormy weather conditions or got up in the middle of the night to witness places at sunrise? Probably not.

I absolutely love what I do and how I stumbled into something I'm reasonable at because of a pretty bad situation to begin with. I love the countless failed trips out with the camera because I'm still outside witnessing the landscape around me as much as I do those moments the get the shot, and whilst 99% of the time it isn't great for the photo aspect of it, it's great for the body and soul, and that's the whole point of it for me.

I only shoot land/seascapes because it's the only thing that interests me in front of the lens, and I'm a firm believer of having that connection with what you're shooting if you really want to get the best out of it.

 

[Adamcski]

Well there is an awful lot of experience here isn't there.

Just comes to show that it is a journey of sorts for us all.

Today I've been learning how to set the flash trigger and flash up (which I've done) and as suggested above I'm going to learn how to use flash in manual mode.

Will bribe the wife and daughter with a take away see if they let me take some portrait/ low key type shots over the weekend. I can also try my water drops again now

 

[Raymond Lin]

@Adamcski

I have notice that I still need to "work" for a good photo, even if I "see" a shot, a lot of the times I still need to think and plan it a little, even if it’s an extra 10s Rarely a good shot happens by happenstance and luck by just point and shoot. Composition takes time and effort, timing is often standing there waiting for the moment with camera ready, even with like 20 years of shooting. It doesn't get easier to get the shot. The only easier part these days is the camera is faster, AF is faster, and you can see it now and not having to wait a few days.

I notice when I don't try, my photos are not as good.

 

[Pound Coin]

Taking pictures for very many years, developing and printing after about 5 years. I won the first competition I entered, my only win to date.

Digital has made some things easier, and makes for a laziness - safety shots all the time. However, it has also made things harder. Poorly exposed, out of focus and blurred aren't really acceptable any more, unless artistic.

 

[Adamcski]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

 

[Dale.]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

10 years ago, I would have said I was but this last 5/6 years or so, I've very much gone off on a wildlife/landscape/nature tangent.

That doesn't mean I don't/wouldn't take pictures of other interesting things, it's just the tangent is now my passion.

 

[Steelo]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

Me, I'm a one trick pony because it's the only thing that interests me, although I have shot and can shoot motorsports too mostly rallying, but I rarely get to shoot rallying is I'm always competing in them!

 

[Raymond Lin]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

Everyone starts off that way, but IMO the sooner you find your niche, and that means, find an area where you enjoy the most, the better.

There is a knack and skill in every genre, for me I love shooting photos where there is a person in it. Whilst I appreciate a nice landscape or wildlife, I have no interest in them. Even a really good one doesn’t really or seldom make me go “I wish that was mine”. That is my barometer and really how I tell what I’m interested in. What photos that make me go “Damn, that’s amazing, I wish I’d taken that.”

Also, the sooner you figure that out, the better you can spend you money, directed directly into lenses for those genres. I.E. I don’t have any long telephoto and never going to get any because I don’t find moon shots or birds or things like that my thing. I seldom shoot above 100mm either. So I concentrate my lenses in a short range and pay zero attention to the long teles.

 

[Gav.]

I like to keep an open mind, but I fail a lot
I do find myself out with the wildlife a lot these days, followed by macro.

 

[Steelo]

Everyone starts off that way, but IMO the sooner you find your niche, and that means, find an area where you enjoy the most, the better.

There is a knack and skill in every genre, for me I love shooting photos where there is a person in it. Whilst I appreciate a nice landscape or wildlife, I have no interest in them. Even a really good one doesn’t really or seldom make me go “I wish that was mine”. That is my barometer and really how I tell what I’m interested in. What photos that make me go “Damn, that’s amazing, I wish I’d taken that.”

Also, the sooner you figure that out, the better you can spend you money, directed directly into lenses for those genres. I.E. I don’t have any long telephoto and never going to get any because I don’t find moon shots or birds or things like that my thing. I seldom shoot above 100mm either. So I concentrate my lenses in a short range and pay zero attention to the long teles.

One of the best pieces of advice I've read on here in a long time...probably because it suits my attitude towards it too.

 

[Jungli]

19 years old, had a pentax flip camera which doubled as a handle and think it was 110. The borrowed my dad's olympus om10, the a film canon dslr, canon 500, the 7d now R6.

I couldn't afford frequent film development so had to pick my choices, but mainly family and friends. Only after I got working did I move to the canon 500.

Learned more in the last 10 years than. In the previous years so really from 2012 after the 7d, got the proverbial together.

 

[Fuji Dave]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

When I was shooting with film it was always landscape and people, then when I jumped to digital it was airshows as totally loved them but stopped after being at the Shoreham airshow. Then it went to jazz gigs that I really do love plus people, once I can get back out and about I will try my luck at architecture.

 

[Nostromo]

I used to take photos of everything when I first started, but now I concentrate on just a couple of genres.

 

[vintageman]

I started aged 8 as a runner delivering films from the local tennis event back to the darkroom for D & P which then went back to the show notice board for sale a within about 2½ hours later. 2 years later I was allowed into the darkroom. A kodak 127 brownie, then my first 35mm Balda (second hand) from the local chemist aged about 12. I also liked cars so have motor racing and Heathrow airport pics of airliners from the 1950s. Then mostly B & W family pics as film (and D&P)were expensive when the only income was a Saturday job and bicycles were needed for transport. I always took a camera for pics on my teenage cycle tours.

The introduction of colour came in my later teenage years but lack of spare money after spending on motorcycles and then cars and courting limited the amount of photography although there were always some record shots. Marriage and children boosted the amount of family photography. After a few years I was single again and indulged in some more serious photography with a zenith slr, a Rollei TLR, a back bedroom darkroom for B & W and cibachrome if I wanted colour. I sold a few prints which helped with cost and hen nights were popular as everybody in the group wanted a print!

A Move to a different area limited the chance for the more serious stuff although I managed to wangle a few work trips for publicity shots as a break from my normal day job. The next decade was mainly for the family album and records of my classic 00scar meetings and trips.

Digital was coming in the early 00s and I started back doing more local street and travel photography upgrading cameras as digital became "the thing". A fuji bridge camera, a9600, was a big enough leap in IQ to get me interested in doing some serious photography again. Then retirement provided the opportunity to indulge my motoring and photography together which will provide my legacy when I can't get out and about to shoot any more.

 

[juggler]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

'Looking for a favourite genre' seems the wrong way up. That says you enjoy the toys & the tech more than the subject of the pictures. It is seductive, I've been there myself .

I like people, especially performers, and I like design. And I can't draw. So I photograph them.

If you like small stuff then photograph that.
By all means venture off into other areas as they attract your interest but be wary of letting the tail wag the dog.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

That says you enjoy the toys & the tech more than the subject of the pictures.

... or not, as the case may be.

I enjoy using different cameras, different lenses but I also enjoy recording all sorts of different subjects - probably a legacy of my early days in the newspaper world. "Variety is the spice of life" or, as the Americans say: "different folks, different strokes"...

 

[Plain Nev]

I like people.

Ugh, dirty smelly things. Always getting in the way and being too random. I won't have them in a photo!

 

[RichardC27]

Well there is an awful lot of experience here isn't there.

Just comes to show that it is a journey of sorts for us all.

Today I've been learning how to set the flash trigger and flash up (which I've done) and as suggested above I'm going to learn how to use flash in manual mode.

Will bribe the wife and daughter with a take away see if they let me take some portrait/ low key type shots over the weekend. I can also try my water drops again now

But all different experience. As I said above, I've been shooting with some form of camera for over 25 years, but I haven't a clue about flash, lighting, triggers and all that. You already know more than me about that side of things as it's not something I ever need for the type of photography I do

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

I'm trying to be more of a general photographer with my actual camera, rather than just using my phone. I used my film SLRs and my DSLRs almost exclusively for motorsport photography. I had the goal of getting media accreditation and covering some big events and I achieved that, covering stuff all the way up to FIA World Endurance level. Since Covid that side of things has become much harder so I've gone back to attending as a fan and shooting from the spectator side of the fence and I'm really enjoying it.

One of my aims in switching from a DSLR to Fuji mirrorless last year was a smaller and better quality setup that I would use for more than motorsport, to take on holidays, walks, days out etc and I am trying hard to do that.

 

[4wd]

We always had a camera of some sort in the family, a Great Uncle and Grandad seem to have been very keen and developed their own but with mixed results - I think it was much more common in those days.
In 1982 I bought a used OM20 film camera which I still have but not had film through it in 30 years.
It got used a fair bit until around 1990 - then we had a run of ever improving camcorders so acquired strong interest in video.
About 2000 got first PC followed rapidly by a little Fuji digicam.
Then first proper (sort of) DSLR was a canon 300D in about 2004.
It was that reasonably competent SLR and ability to take almost limitless number of shots virtually cost free that really changed the game - and I learned far more in a year or two than in previous 20 years.
Since then some sort of upgrade has happened regularly. I currently have quite a list of stuff in regular use mostly Sony and DJI
Main cameras are (sony) Rx100v, A7iv, A7Siii.
The main theme has always been landscapes and special interest in weather events but also enjoy architectural studies and dabble in candid street photography.

 

[CharleyL]

Since about 1951. I was given a Kodak 828 camera, and my dad helped me put together a dark room in the corner of the basement. Then he taught me some of the basics of lighting and proper framing of shots, and how to use the dark room. I spent most of my allowance and soda bottle deposit return money on film and developing chemicals all through high school. I was hooked.

In 1957 a high school teacher saw some of my photos and asked if I would be interested in learning to use the school's Graphlex camera. When I jumped at this opportunity, he taught me how to use the camera and put me to work taking club group photos and sporting event photos for the school yearbook. I have been in and out of photography ever since, mostly because of budget needs due to raising my 4 children.

I went totally digital in 1998 and later opened a full time photo business doing photo retouching for several commercial customers, as well as providing walk-in service for about 5 years before having health problems that forced me to sell the business. I never had my very own studio until I began building it in late 2018. I had rented studio space a few times, and had even used a theater stage with all of the curtains drawn a few times, but I never had my very own space for photography, until I began building this one in late 2018. Then COVID hit and although the studio is mostly finished and being used now, it hasn't been used as much as I had expected. I have had heart and other health problems that have also contributed to this "in and out of photography" and lack of studio use since it was built.

While raising my family, the living room or basement became my temporary studio and everything photo related was folded and stored in the back of a closet when not in use. In 2018 I realized that with all of my children now grown and married, that the upstairs 2nd Master Bedroom Suite (formerly bedroom for 2 boys) might make a pretty good, although a bit small photo/video studio for me. The bedroom is 19 X 26' and it became the shooting room. There is a 6 X 10' walk-in closet for my photo gear, and the 8 X 18' hallway at the top of the stairs became the hair/make-up and break area, although the actual breaks always seem to be held in the shooting room. A long closet off the hallway is now partly for prop storage and partly for family storage. There is also a large master bathroom off the shooting room that is now being refurbished. My digital darkroom is in the back corner of the shooting room (camera right). Printing and battery re-charging are along the windowed wall camera right. Along the camera left wall I have chair props and other frequently used prop items stored. there are six 10' wide backdrops on ceiling hung rollers with a 4' X 7' white board for teaching on the wall behind them opposite the camera location.

The only significant factor/problem with using this space for a photo/video studio has been the 8' ceiling height. It works as a studio, but would be far better if the shooting room ceiling height was 10 or 12' high. The space is in a roof dormer off the back side of my home's roof, so altering it for more ceiling height would be quite cost prohibitive. Standing and group shots are difficult, and most of my work involves seated models on stools or chairs because of this. Video work involves limited camera motion, since the backdrops are 10' wide and about 7' high. Zoomed shots of table close-ups, or wide shots from just one camera location are the norm for video use here. It has been suitable, so far, for the limited video use that it has seen.

When the need for more space arises I go outdoors. There is a nice very well maintained park just across town with many nice background locations for shoots, and with paved paths to get to them easily. Unless special events are scheduled, it's a been a great and quiet outdoor studio for me.

Charley

 

[LeeRatters]

How many of you would consider yourselves as general photographers? I mean dabble in taking pictures of anything and everything and how many stick to say one or two genres?

I am trying to learn as much as I can and bounce from trying star trails and long exposure stuff, to landscape and macro.

So perhaps trying to tackle too many different things at once (jack of all trades master of none type of thing). I don't feel I've found my favourite genre yet, although I really do like macro stuff. I'm not keen on street but I think that's more because I'm conscious of being accused of things...

I wouldn't say a 'general' photographer.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't just do photography to take photos..... I like the getting outside, the location planning, the sun and stars direction planning, the failed trips, the friends I've met......

I don't shoot just anything and everything though I don't think even though my subjects are pretty varied. I do tend to navigate towards landscapes/sunrises/sunset which I guess means I like to photograph light, and colour. And night skies, I guess that involves a lot of light too. My new village project, all new locations and subjects but it's not just photos, there has to be some sort of light, colour, composition, texture involved. I only really shoot car meet type stuff when I actually go to them - the Escort has been in the lock up for 4 months so it's not that often!