Shel,
Thank you for writing this. I am more of a lurker than an active
participant on this list, but posts like this are why I love this list.
I have both auto and manual on my Pentax. 95% of the time I leave it on
all manual, but sometimes the laziness bites me and I switch to
automatic. To protect myself, I am keeping my eyes open for a manual
only. Having the option for auto makes me lazy. And I learn nothing
from those shots.
Thanks,
Caleb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:09 PM
Subject: Learning To make a Photograph
> There's been some discussion here about how many of us have felt
> that our photographs are not of the quality we'd like them to be. I
> have some thoughts on that, which, I hope, will lead to further
> discussion and help a few list members improve their skills and
> creativity.
>
> I firmly believe that using AF gear and automatic metering does not
> help one to really learn about making photographs (notice I said
> "making", not taking). Recently I've returned to using 100% manual
> cameras - they don't even have light meters. The first thing I've
> become more conscious of is light, and the quality of light. Not
> that I didn't think about it before, but now I must pay more
> attention to it. I've been using a hand held spot meter and paying
> careful attention to what's in the shadows and where the specular
> highlights fall. My negs are looking a lot better, and my ability
> to read the light has improved to the point where using a meter is
> no longer as necessary as it had been.
>
> There are those who will argue against my position, and that's all
> well and good. However, to those people I'd say go out and start
> shooting with fully manual cameras again, eliminate the use of TTL
> metering and eschew autofocus and zoom lenses. It'll be some work,
> but in time I can almost guarantee that your pictures will improve.
> Why? Well, when you better understand the light, you'll get better
> images. But more than that, you'll be able to concentrate more on
> composition rather than being distracted by lights, needles, and a
> plethora of information in the viewfinder, and the need to fiddle
> with knobs, dials, and buttons to put the camera into the correct
> mode. You don't need all that stuff to make a photograph.
>
> And when you better understand focus and DOF - by focusing yourself,
> which I believe you can do more critically with a fully manual
> camera - and you start to understand where the zone of sharp focus
> is, you can begin to become more competent and creative.
>
> Stay away from zoom lenses with variable apertures. You never know
> for sure what the aperture is, or the focal length is, and how can
> that help your creativity in the long run. Sure, those lenses make
> taking a picture easier, and built-in meters make taking a picture
> easier, and autofocus makes taking a picture easier, but it doesn't
> always help you to ~make~ a superb photograph.
>
> Grab a fully manual camera, a prime lens, and go out and practice.
> Shoot every day. Process the film quickly and review the results.
> Learn from your mistakes, and go out and shoot another roll, and
> another, and another. Don't rely on the latitude of the film to
> carry you through. Learn to understand what the perfect exposure is
> for each frame you shoot, even if it means that you have to work
> slowly at first, and perhaps miss some "great" shots. Most of our
> great shots are crap anyway.
>
> When I returned to a fully manual camera I was surprised at how lazy
> I'd become. Somehow it seemed easier to let the camera's meter set
> the exposure, but then I had to think about the metering pattern,
> and how that might effect the exposure I wanted. How much simpler
> it is to read the light first and then just concentrate of shooting,
> and finding the best way to capture the subject.
>
> Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully
> examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their
> style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do
> documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at
> their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or
> photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on
> this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or
> HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in
> books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced
> photographers, too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the
> prints not only from a contextual POV but from a technical
> perspective as well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have
> the detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is
> their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same
> film?
>
> Be critical of your work, and of your gear. Don't settle for pretty
> good. Your reach should exceed your grasp. Think about making
> large prints instead of those 4x6 mini lab photos. Why? Because
> you'll never be able to tell how good your photography is by looking
> at those itty-bitty images.
>
> Of course, you can settle for mediocre pictures and great family
> snap shots. But if you want to excel, you must push yourself, sort
> of like a fighter training for a title match. What's good enough
> for a club fighter isn't always good enough to move up a few
> notches.
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "... there is no point in pressing the shutter
> unless you are making some caustic comment
> on the incongruities of life" - Phillip Jones Griffiths
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
