Show HN: The Bastards Book of Photography • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: The Bastards Book of Photography

#71

Post by danso » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 5:47 PM UTC

martenshinwarts wrote: post #62

danso wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(you're getting an upvote for this; great points) 1) I disagree with your first statement, just because some work that really "wows" me is so beyond my comprehension that it's difficult to learn from it; sometimes, that's a core element of being "wowed": the astonished person doesn't quite know why he's astonished. How can he learn from example? As far as my photos being boring, not going to contest that. You just ha…

I loved the photo of the Hudson River sunset. But generally, maybe you can swap out "mediocre photos" with "better" ones either by yourself, or by others who gave you permission? Not because your photos are so bad, but because there are sweeet photos out there, from photographers who would love to help / show off - and photos that "say something" would help drawing people in, and keeping them reading. I'm thinking of…

Thanks Marten, I definitely have more decoupling ideas in mind...I think my general strategy (and this will annoy people who already think the material is too brief) is to continue to break the topics apart, even if some articles are just a few pictures with thorough explanations.

As for using others' photos...there's a couple reasons, and they don't have to deal with personal pride. 1) Distribution /copyright issues, 2) I would spend waaaay too long if I felt I had to pick the best of the best out there (even among just the Wikicommons material)...plus, I'd have almost no expertise to share about them, so I'd feel a little guilty about using them mostly as eye candy.

I think my direction will be to improve the quality of the photos, but more importantly, improve the relevance of the photos to the topic at hand...I don't think I'll ever satisfy everyone's idea of what a great picture is, but at least I can put up educational ones.

Re: Show HN: The Bastards Book of Photography

#72

Post by danso » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 5:49 PM UTC

rorrr wrote: post #59

pizza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show us your photos?

Sorry, I'm trying to remain anonymous. I don't even consider myself great. I have a couple of shots that I've made in the last 10 years that I think are OK. Most of this advice doesn't really come from me, it's mostly passed generation-to-generation. I was told pretty much this when I started learning photography, and it got reiterated by a few professionals that I respect.

Just want to say, for the record, I agree; you shouldn't have to show your photos. Your points stand on their own and shouldn't have to appeal to authority...so my disagreements with you aren't based on "well let's see what you can do.

Re: Show HN: The Bastards Book of Photography

#73

Post by wallflower » Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:48 PM UTC

rorrr wrote: post #58

wallflower wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind me asking, who are a few of your favorite photographers? Also, what do you think of Vivian Maier? http://www.vivianmaier.com/

She's a good classical street photographer. I'm sure her photos look way better in print than the tiny versions on her website. I wouldn't say she is my favorite, but pretty solid. There are truly many photographers that I like (and many that I only remember by the images, I'm horrible at remembering names). Classic street photographers: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt Modern street photographers: Joseph Koudel…

Thanks for your recommendations!

Re: Show HN: The Bastards Book of Photography

#74

Post by pasbesoin » Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #51

rorrr wrote: post #45

WARNING: negative feedback ahead. Disclaimer: I'm a pro photographer (as in I get paid for taking photos), and I had a few exhibitions. A few important points, if you want to become a good photographer: 1) My philosophy with most art teachers/book writers is - unless your art makes me say "wow", you can't teach me much. There are many truly great photographers out there. Dan Nguyen is not one of them. I look at his p…

I wonder if your ability to not think about the technical details of photography comes from the fact that in the beginning, you did think about them, and now you have a completely intuitive understanding of them.

I agree that equipment and settings do not make the photographer.

But I will point out that, back in the film age -- and more so in the pre-automated-settings age -- being able to manually set them and get them right was much more important.

- You had (stock 35 mm film rolls) 12, 24, or 36 shots to a roll of film. Particularly as a amateur photographer, developing and printing that film was a significant expense.

- Unless you had a dark room -- or, more recently, "quickie" development shops and kiosks -- you typically had at least a day between the shot and visual feedback of what you'd accomplished with it. (In "yea olden days", perhaps more like a week if you didn't want to pay "rush" fees.)

And... I guess much instruction has carried forward with a lot of inertia from those earlier times.

It seems a lot like much computer and programming instruction, when I think about it. Starting off with a lot of minutia that can be very offsetting and demotivating to many attempting to learn the art (and thereby, but for them -- thinking again of photographers -- actually secondary, the craft).

The digital age has changed this significantly. In my own circle of friends, I've observed at least two people develop from "average" snapshooters (well, one had from the start a very good natural eye) into very good amateur photographers. I don't think they would have done so starting from the perspective of shutter speed, f-stops, and tweaking exposure. But as they've learned to see and frame, they've added some of this in order to further accomplish and replicate aspects of their successes.

In the digital age, they can first "accomplish shots" and then "learn to refine". One could do that pre-digital (optionally including digital metering and exposure control), but the feedback loop was a lot slower and perhaps more circumspect.