Stan - You made the point much better than I did earlier - u write good :-)
ann
On 10/27/2016 9:10 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote:
On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Ken Waller <[email protected]> wrote:
Your involvement with stock photography changed your goal relative to most of
us on this list and retaining your captures maked sense. You were shooting for
reasons other than casual photography.
I know that the vast majority of my photography up to about the last 20 years
was to simply record things with a few real 'keepers' amongst the rest.
About 20 years ago I started to attempt to refine my photography and produce
'wall hangers' so to speak and stop recording the more mundane subjects out
there.
It was the collection of these 'keepers' that made me stop and weed out most of
the previous 20 plus years of my photography.
With a much improved eye and careful editing I now have a few thousand images I
truly regard as 'keepers’.
I somewhat agree with you Ken. If one’s goal is to produce a select set of
“wall hangers” that are worthy of one’s careful craftsmanship, then one
shouldn’t waste time shooting what is obviously going to be a poor shot due to
lighting issues, too much wind causing subject movement, intrusive elements in
the composition, etc.
But there are many other reasons for taking pictures. Dan and Brian talk about
capturing memories of places (e.g., a poorly lit Grand Canyon.) For many
people, it is about capturing memories of people and occasions (and places).
I am in occasional contact with a few from my high school class. There was a recent
reunion (which I could not attend.) My friend Ingrid afterwards walked to a
landmark waterfall, her husband took a P&S or cellphone image of her on the
path behind the falls. She posted it on Facebook, commented how happy she was to
have been able to visit the place. I have struggled with that waterfall. Lighting
is poor in the gorge, too many people on the path, most of whom want that shot
under the falls. It is possible but highly unpopular to set up a tripod on the
narrow pathway. It is possible to do a decent portrait but it takes care and luck.
Someone commented on Ingrid’s photo, gushing about what a wonderful shot it was. It
wasn’t wonderful. It was approaching pretty awful. Poor focus, camera movement,
subject too small to be recognizable unless you knew who you were looking at. But
for Ingrid and others, it was wonderful because it captured her in a moment in
time, at a special place she is too seldom able to visit.
stan
-----Original Message-----
From: ann sanfedele <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PESO: A tree grows in Badlands.
the black and whitenegatives are in numbered and dated looseleaf binders
and sometimes help me find key slides, as I shot both together.
From about 1980 on I was in a stock agency I still am but don't give
them anything anymore.. so I kept careful notes and such.. but without
thetrip markers I could give them the wrong info. Also, I over shot in
film. I've only tossed the most greviously duplicate OTF or
unidentifiable shots.. Mine go back to 1965..
The ones from the early days only take up a couple of drawers .. are
mostly nostalgia and frequently not that good... I'm guessing I have
well over 100,000 slides. 25,000 bw negs and drawers from prints, not
sure how many. I have room for them, so they stay. I'd never have been
able to do my new calendar without keeping the fillers. There are
precious memories among thosethat I wouldn't show to the list - more
important than the qualityof the images... gott'm in steel filing cabinets.
But then I'm a keeper of things in general, a collector by nature.... as
those to Chez Ashley can testify. I have a couple of years on you in
length of time shooting.. since there are many more years behind me than
in front of me, I see no reason to toss thingsthat are small and tidy...
I've mainly regrettedparting with some things more than keeping them.
Good morning gang..
ann
On 10/25/2016 12:19 AM, Ken Waller wrote:
Ann - I might have agreed with you a few years ago before I went
through approximately 35,000 edited slides I'd accmulated over 40+
years of photography. I discarded all but a thousand or so and wound
up wondering why I had ever kept them as I had seldom reviewed any for
many years.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "ann sanfedele" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PESO: A tree grows in Badlands.
Ken - sometimes we take photos just to remember the moment..., when
you know you won't have another chance... the geometry is nice enough
here.
My solution in this situation in days of film was to slap on a red
filteron the camera with the bW film in it... Dan could do the same
in photo shop and
improve it quite a bit I think...
I hardly shot anything at that particular location it isn't a very
handsome spot.. but I do often use photos as trip markers... I was
thinking of looking to
see if I met that tree back in the 80's... I know I drove over that
bridge in 2001. scary bridge!acrophobia city. When I was there two
dogs were having
a tussleand I mainly photo'ed them
ann
On 10/24/2016 4:25 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
I appreciate that as others have stated the light isn't wonderful,
but sometimes you have to work with what you have and live with
it.
Not to be elitist about this, but I wouldn't take this shot if the
light wasn't acceptable - I don't see a reason to capture the image
when I know it already has major faults built it - YMMV
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Smith"
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PESO: A tree grows in Badlands.
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
A shot from my recent trip to New Mexico:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18302690&size=lg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I like it. I appreciate that as others have stated the light isn't
wonderful, but sometimes you have to work with what you have and
live with
it.
I had a difference of opinion recently with a photographer with
letters
after his name for this medium; he was not adverse to changing (quite
dramatically) light or removing elements from the photo with
software. I'm
happy to use Lightroom to enhance the image and remove spots, but
otherwise
it stops being what you saw. I have no doubt an artist would simply
paint
what he wanted. I've looked at your image several times Dan, and
I've taken
many pictures which would benefit from a more dramatic sky. I still
like
this as it stands.
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
