On 6/9/2016 8:14 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
<<The other Moose knows more about Nikons and Wildlife shooting. Our
<<Moose knows more about image-quality.
Point taken, but there is a moderate amount of bias permissible in this
situation.
I see the Meese as being of substantially different minds. Our Moose
approaches photography from an engineering perspective and creates
images based on the technology.
It is SO interesting to see myself in the mirror of others' perceptions!
I think of myself as a photographer who generally has an idea, often a pretty firm one, about what results he wants from
photographing a subject. Sometimes, it's a speculation - "Could I get something like _____ if I try ____?" All the
gear, techie stuff, engineering, physics, etc. is only because I have to, to get where I'm headed. Sometimes, I get
there, or pretty darn close; more often, I get somewhat to a great deal less close.
A big reason that I've so much enjoyed the era of digital photography is that it's allowed me to achieve results where I
wouldn't even have attempted the shot with my film gear, knowing how it would fail.
Sure, I have a mind that works well with the tech side; just as well, or I'd be doing something else. And I enjoy the
tech of things like sensor shift HR images, in-camera focus stacking and bracketing. But the reason I actually go out
and use them is always in aid of the image. Even boring testing is always looking ahead to how I can use the results to
get the images I want.
the other Moose approaches photography
from a business perspective and learns the technology that he needs to
learn to create the images.
I know next to nothing about him. I seem to recall well done images of the Rockies and big animals. A business for him,
certainly.
The other Moose teaches based on the perspective of getting the image
first and learning the technology second. While a very good way to go,
I'm not convinced, particularly in the contemporary state of photography. If I don't know the tech, I tend to make
flawed images through ignorance of my tools. The results of Brian's step-granddaughter are an example.
.. . This picture is GREAT, then figure out WHY.
Not a bad approach at all, but it's just one technique and it works
for some people.
Sure. Perhaps the best teacher I had in school would put up two pieces of poetry, images of paintings, etc. and we would
write short essays on which was better and why. It was possible to get an A with the "wrong" answer, and vice versa.
But it also leads down dangerous paths of copycatism.
Yup. One of my challenges is to notice, "see", capture and convey something not, at least too much, like all the
acknowledged greats, yet worth seeing. It's an interesting thing to try to do, as anything from indifference to dislike
of images I like a great deal is not uncommon with my work that's not in the mold of the usual.
I know my image is that of the guy with super sharp, highly defined, super DoF images, but I do post quite a few images
far from that vein. Virtually all the images in the Alt dot Moose gallery on ZX are in that category.
I put at least as much effort into this image as any of my conventional landscapes.I think it's on of the best things
I've done. It got modest approving responses. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=17900>
As far as I could tell, nobody much liked this, but I put a lot of work into it and like it a lot.
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=13611>
So there's some sort of balancing act to do; make some images mostly for me, and others that, while not particularly
original, I feel are finely crafted, and that generally please others.
Thanks for you comments.
Thoughtful Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|