Photography for geeks

And then the next level yet is to do a series of photographs encompassing a common theme and message. And then developing a personal style perhaps? Not long ago I've participated in a local photo marathon, where you get a piece of paper with themes to interpret in limited time, there are checkpoints as well. Lots of walking and running around, it was really difficult, but I would recommend anyone dabbling in photography to give it a try.

When there is nothing that stands out, I usually resort to playing with the compensation dial (or you can do spot metering) to get some silhouettes and light-dark dynamics. Also look for reflections or different angles.

Inspired by street style: https://youtu.be/yRkZc8jcHas

I've been taking pictures for a few years now. Not all of my photos are fit for Wikimedia Commons, but I've put a lot on [1], especially of baseball players and buildings (just what I happen to enjoy photographing).

I began originally with point-and-shoots, which I borrowed from my parents and basically used as they're designed: pointing and shooting. The quality of those early photos is not always great. But with time, I learned how to get a quality shot of a person or action (in baseball) and how to wait for the right moment and so on. This was without cheating (using burst mode). Of course, you don't get 100% of the moments that are interesting. Sometimes someone blocks you, sometimes it just doesn't happen at the right time, sometimes you're eating a snack. It's OK. The most important thing is to get a lot of practice taking pictures of the thing you like to photograph.

You might thing non-moving subjects are easier. They are in a way. But if you are photographing buildings, for instance, then you should care about straight lines and getting the right perspective. This can be infuriating if you know what to look for. People move, but at least we humans don't have straight lines or flat surfaces and so it's pretty easy to capture us from many different angles.

The point-and-shoots helped me develop my sense of timing. You don't need to use a point-and-shoot for this, though; a better camera will be perfectly good (and give you better image quality). You can get a used DSLR for pretty cheap. The switch to interchangeable-lens cameras (DSLRs, which are a bit older, or mirrorless cameras, which are newer) will give you the opportunity to try out different lenses, which make a huge difference for your photography. (By the way, DSLR lenses can generally be used on newer mirrorless cameras.) My first photography-changing DSLR lens was a Canon 70-300, which made my baseball photography much more credible. You don't need to practice to use a new lens, of course. But if you practice using some, then you can gain a better understanding of the importance of focal length (and aperture) to your ptohography.

The next step is getting out of auto mode and getting a full understanding of manual exposure and RAW. For me, for a long time, I shot mostly in a program mode on my DSLR because I only saw through the optical viewfinder and wanted my exposure to be right, especially as I was shooting JPEG on small SD cards. That's all very well. But to get to the level I am at now, I needed to start shooting in full manual (the mode I now use 99% of the time), and shooting in my camera's RAW format (which gives you MUCH more editing latitude in basically every way, as well as the full quality of your camera).

Using a contemporary mirrorless camera can actually make manual exposure significantly easier. You can now see your exposure in your viewfinder (generally this can be turned off, too). (On DSLRs from the last ~ten years, you can get this same feature by using live view --- i.e., shooting with the back screen rather than the viewfinder.) This can confirm your exposure visually and also get you more familiar with the different settings and how to "eyeball" it even on a DSLR/without exposure simulation in the viewfinder.

At every step, practice is key. If you want to take pictures, go out and do it. It doesn't matter if they're bad. They will not all be good, especially not at the beginning. Find the things you like to photograph and keep at it until you are happy with what you're doing. (Or, if you find you don't like photography, that's OK, too.)

[1] Shameless plug: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=...

> it’s in the editing of those first 10,000 photos that you will find the hidden photographer in you.

Instead of taking 10 000 photos, then sifting through them, and then editing them... Take 1000 photos, but take the time to take them: wait for the right moment, come closer, step to the right, anticipate a moment, find great in the mundane. This will make you an infinitely better photographer.

The counterpoint is quite moot, in my opinion. The shot of a candy wrapper is interesting if it expands its meaning beyond just being a candy wrapper. No amount of technical prowess would make it a picture. You need context, you need that object to be part of a larger story, or maybe be the story itself. Where was it found? What might its presence in the place where it was pictured represent? And so on. It has way more to do with semiotics, than with the technical nature of the image itself. Technique will never make a non-subject into a subject. Strictly technical-minded people hate to hear this, because they want to think that becoming a good photographer means mastering the physical and measurable, wheres that just makes you someone who's good at shooting technically correct pictures, that's all. By this measure, underexposed, blurry or grainy picture are never good photos. And yet, any great photographer understands perfectly that value of technical mistake as well.