> On Mar 14, 2020, at 3:56 AM, Steve Cottrell <co...@seeingeye.tv> wrote: > > On 13/3/20, Olga Iona Custer, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> Picture of Larry was more intentional. Picture of Kate was more >> opportunistic - I just saw nice light on her face. Larry and I also >> cropped him out of picture of Kate in postprocessing. I wondered at the >> time if adding another person with a camera added to a story. > > Hmmm. When I approach a photograph at the taking stage, sometimes I see 'the > story' right away, sometimes I see the story about to happen, but sometimes I > don't see the story at all. > > Taking the last category first (as I do tend to do things ass-backwards) not > seeing 'the story' (or call it what you like) is not a bad thing. Sometimes > I *think* I see something, and other times I think that maybe there is > something there that I can't 'see' now, but might 'see' later. In any event, > when later looking through the images, I'll know right away by seeing them on > the screen in front of me. More in a moment about my selection process. > > Here's an example of a shot that I simply grabbed as I was walking and had no > idea if it would work or not. Only when I saw it later, I realised I liked it > and there was a story there: > > <http://www.seeingeye.tv/PESO/001.html> This is great. Almost like a scene from some sort of an antiutopia movie. I am not sure I can discern a story from this shot, but it has atmosphere. > > When 'sometimes I see the story about to happen' is when the elements of a > would-be photo are taking shape, and about to happen, but haven't happened > yet. A classic example would be that you've found a wonderful scenario in > front of you but it just needs a little something 'extra' to make it work > better. Say, you find some graffiti on a wall next to a walkway, so it might > be better to wait for an added element (say, someone walking past) before you > push the shutter button. But it might not. Pressing the sutter at the right > time is 'the decisive moment'. Here's my humble offering: > > <http://www.seeingeye.tv/PESO/027.html> > > And seeing the story right away is the obvious one. You can see it happening > in front of you, sometimes looking through the lens, sometimes not. Mostly > not.
> What I would define as a 'good photographer' is being aware of what is going > on around you, being aware of what is likely to happen, and being aware of > what your own preferences are. I like this definition very much. > The story you want to tell. Don't forget that a photograph isn't just a > representation of what is going on in front of you and your camera, but a > representation of your interpretation of the story that is going on in front > of you and your camera. > How you tell that story is how you select the lens, how you select the > shutter speed and aperture, how you position yourself with the light - or > indeed if you bring your own light. It's your blank canvas to tell that > story, to convey that scene, to photographically describe what you see and > later present it as part of your art. A couple of other things come to mind - what I leave in the frame and what I leave out of the frame, how do I do things in post (an obvious example is making things B&W rather than color). > > <http://www.seeingeye.tv/PESO/019.html> > > And finally, just a word on selection. If you take a LOT of pictures (I'm > naming no names here!!) it can be daunting to look through endless thumbnails > in search of that keeper. We all do it slightly differently. All I can tell > you is how I do it. Thank you for that! right now I am looking for the comfortable workflow. > > When I pop the memory card into my computer, I drag across the folder with > the images in onto my desktop, and eject the card. Then I open the folder > with the images and open the images in a basic frontline photo viewer, in my > case, on a Mac and with 'Preview’. Is it a good one for preserving the colors? > I then go through each image, one by one, and right away, if I don't see 'the > story' then it's 'cmd' + 'del' instantly. Yes, I delete them into the trash > there and then. Each pic, as I look at it, right away, if it doesn't hit me > right away with a 'this pic definitely has something to it' or a 'hmm this > pic might have something to it, maybe look again at it later', if none of > those 2 criteria are met, it's trashed. This is because I feel comfortable > looking at something and getting a gut reaction. I tend to only have a good gut reaction for something that’s amazing. Problem is, I do not take a lot of amazing shots. Of course. > > That thins out the crowd by probably 50 percent or so. > > Later, I will look again at the rest, and from those I will reverse the trend > and pic out those I like, those that stand out of the crowd and sing to me. > But I won't delete the rest, they'll get saved in an archive. Who knows, I > might change my idea of style, or look again at how I interpret a scene, or > at the very least give me something to do in those years to come when I am > less mobile and more likely to sit on my butt all day! And when you do your PP is that Lightroom that you use? > > I hope this gives you some insight into another way. There is no right and > wrong way, there's only your way :-) > > But please, do keep posting images - that's what this group is all about. > > cheers > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ UK Shoot / Edit > || (O) | <www.seeingeye.tv> > ---------- > _____________________________ > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
