Wayne wrote:
> If you look at the number of photos posted in a single day on
> some
> photo sharing websites, the number is overwhelming. And there
> are some really good ones being posted.
At our state fair, there is a photography competition. Can you
imagine a large room filled with thousands of 8x10s? How does
one jump out when 70% of them are "winners"? I noticed that the
ones that actually did well in competition were the ones that
were the simplest. I think a picture of a blank wall with a
single nail showing, might be a show winner just because it
jumps out from the mosiac of sameness.
> The ability to pound away 700-1000 photos in a short order
> would be mind boggling to a someone with a wet plate camera
> in the past.
Over the past three days I "pounded out" around 2200 photos.
You know what? There are some real "winners" in there. There
are some creative shots using the zoom lens and longer
exposures, but in reality, the hit-rate on those was quite low.
It took probably 200-300 pictures just to get five usables. This
is something I never ventured to do with film.
> But if every other photo I shot, or anyone
> shot, were always that good, maybe they would all become
> mediocre photos.
This is like music. Brahms is wonderful, but you'd be bored out
of your gourd if it was all you listened to. Tchaikovsky would
drive you to suicide. But these are two of the masters, aren't
they? You need variety. You need the lulls and "dull spots" to
make the "bright spots" even brighter! Last year, I visited
"House on the Rock". In all honesty, I'd rather have a dentist
drill my teeth without novacaine than go there again.
> recent rejects:
> http://www.zuik.net/om/reject_MG_3342.jpg
> http://www.zuik.net/om/reject_MG_3356.jpg
> http://www.zuik.net/om/reject_MG_3399.jpg
> http://www.zuik.net/om/reject_MG_3672.jpg
3342 doesn't do anything for me because of how the plane of
focus intersects the subject. It appears to me, as a
photographer who has tried to avoid this, like a mistake. Even
if it fulfills your artistic vision, to a fellow craftsman, it
appears as a mistake.
3356 probably won't work as a standalone photo, but would work
in a set.
3399 is really cool. Painterly. Maybe all it needs is a little
curves adjustment. I like it.
3672 is very nice, but to take it to "another level" might just
be an issue of cropping. I've had a number of photos that went
from ho-hum to YOWZA just by adjusting the crop.
These last two photographs just need time to mature. Put them
away and come back to them in a year. Seriously! It doesn't
hurt anything to wait. When you took the pictures you "saw
something". The problem is, you saw it in 3D. You also saw it
life-sized. Now, you're looking at it on a small screen in 2D.
Just like the Z-falls photograph, it just wasn't presented at
the right size. Even the difference between 20x24 and 16x20 is
critical in that one photograph.
By no means are the last two "tossers". Far from it. They just
need adjustment (maybe some LCE might help) to complete the
vision you had in the viewfinder when you clicked the shutter.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
