Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Slightly OT Tokyo recommendations

Subject: [OM] Re: Slightly OT Tokyo recommendations
From: Daniel Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:07:45 -0700
Steve Dropkin wrote:
> Maybe add a 
> macro lens if you have one (but, then, that's the kind of 
> photography I like to do).

  That brings up an interesting question -- I've taken a fair few macro 
photos while travelling, and sure, there's some nice shots of 
flowers/insects/etc that resulted, but when I look at them back home, I 
always find myself regretting not taking more photos of the places I went.

  Macro photography tends to be 'locationless' -- there's some shots 
that I could only have taken in certain places because the particular 
plant/butterfly/whatever only grows there. Personally, then, I'd keep 
the wide-angle lens in favour of a macro lens if you're going to be 
going somewhere you haven't been before.

  Arguably, the same thing applies in reverse -- I've been getting a lot 
of mileage out of wandering around my neighborhood with a macro lens 
taking close-up shots of things that I wouldn't otherwise have looked at 
twice. And while a close-up photo of (say) grass frozen in melting snow 
is a neat way to make the end of our garden more photogenic, it's also a 
photo that I could take in an equivalent garden anywhere.

  Heck, I have way too many photos of beaches, mountains, forests, etc, 
all of which tend to look pretty much the same after a while. This may 
just be a personal thing, but I'm going to try and change the way I take 
travel photos -- currently I tend to look for the impressive photo 
opportunity in isolation of where I am, which is a good way to get nice 
photos (or at least try..) but doesn't leave me with as many shots that 
remind me of where I was.

  Ideally, of course, I'd learn the skill of taking good photos that 
also remind me of where I was -- but that's harder.. I think the problem 
is that the cause of a lot of non-technically-good photos is too much 
extraneous stuff in the background, the classic snapshot look -- but 
it's very difficult (I find) to exclude extra background stuff but still 
leave enough there to remind me where I am; I can isolate a particular 
element of the location, but the trick is then getting that bit of the 
location _on its own_ to also give the sense of being there.


  Compare, for instance:

http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/Trip/tahiti/gaugin_museum_3.jpg

  This is a nice photo on its own (ignoring the awful scan quality) but 
which doesn't really tell me anything about where I was. Later on that day:

http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/Trip/tahiti/papeete_5.jpg

  which is much more snapshot-y, but which does a far better job of 
reminding me how it felt to be there at the time, and that's what I've 
(belatedly) discovered I want out of travel shots..

  -- dan



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz