Mr. Robb, I've enjoyed most of your posts. This "back to the basics" post is a good one. -Lon
William Robb wrote: > .... > I think that people see equipment as the Holy Grail of > photography. I tend to be this way myself. The thought process > seems to be that if one has this lens, or that camera, then > great pictures will just happen. > While a certain amount of equipment is a requirement, I really > think we tend to go overboard. With the equipment list you > mentioned, I would add a 50mm lens and something wider, probably > a 28, because they are common, inexpensive, and fairly useful. I > would also consider dumping the zoom, and trying to find a fixed > lens in the 135mm range, an M series 150mm f/3.5 is a terrific > lens if you can find one. Also, get a solid tripod and cable > release if you haven't already. > > Going to a basic non-zoom lens based kit is a great way to learn > how to see pictures. Zoom lenses don't demand the same > discipline as prime lenses, and as a consequence, tend to make > for a lazy approach to composition. > > A zoom in the hands of an experienced photographer can be a > powerful tool, but in the hands of someone inexperienced, it can > be a photographic disaster. > > More important than equipment is film and processing. The best > way to learn the art of photography is to take pictures. Lots of > pictures. This is the practical part of the process. > The theoretical part is to look at pictures. Look at pictures > done by other photographers. See what they are doing that works. > Look at the composition of pictures that you think are good, and > analyze why they are good. Apply what you learn here to your own > work. > Look critically at all your pictures. Too often, we dismiss the > failures without looking to see why they are failures. > This is one of the problems with digital cameras. I have read > several posts where people shooting digital say that it is so > wonderful and liberating to be able to nuke the pictures that > don't work on the spot. Like as if you can actually see a > picture on a 1 inch LCD. Like as if a bad picture has no value. > The ones that don't work out will teach you far more than the > ones that do work. > We need to know what doesn't work, as well as what does. > It is very easy to hit on a formulae that works: Find this type > of subject, wait for this type of light, use this compositional > strategy, and push the button. Eventually, you end up with an > entire portfolio of boring shit. > Conversely, if you save and analyze carefully, the pictures that > don't work, you will learn why some things work, and others > don't. > Maybe that one that doesn't cut it would have been better if you > had waited an hour for the sun to come around. Will you know > that if you delete the image off your ram card thing or just > toss the print because it doesn't catch your eye right out of > the envelope? > .... - 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 .
