I shot my first film in 1993 or close. Played with manual film development and all other analogue fun for couple of years and then abandoned photography until 2006, when I accidently made a shot with a digital compact cam, that impressed myself :) In next year I started to work as the photoeditor in a magazine where I met couple of amazing photographers who became my teachers and in 2009 I started to shoot kind-of-professionally.
Probably it's those psychological things when you make portrait of a person who does not know you yet and does not fully trust you, does not show his or hers real inner self. A good photographer should be a good psycologist, too, and I can't say I am. Everything else is all to the amount of practice which provides training of a mind and an eye.
I'd say it was 20% watching and investigating/learning from pictures I liked, 10% of talks/quetions/discussions with my teachers and 70% of practice. Though, on the other hand, I can't say I already finished the learning.
Sorry, I did not see any of yours, so I can't say nor if they bad neither why it may be so. But the universal advice is - think before you shoot. Plan the shot in your mind before taking one. When you get used to that, it does not take much of valuable time - up to the parts of the second.
I'm sorry, I think I did not fully understand your question - especially the part about jealousy. Yes, I find Ansel Adams as an exraordinaly photographer, he influenced me heavily on workin on BW photography. You can see that on my gallery at the http://helkathon.deviantart.com/gallery/
Oh that's simple. Shoot the film, rewind it to the cassette, give it to someone else and get such one in exchange, then shoot again and develop it :) Usually I do it with my friends or acquaintances, but there are several websites for that.
The bigger is the sensor - physically, not in pixel measurement - the more light it may take, the better image you get. This means with 7 MPix DSLR you can get better pic that with 12 MPix compact cam or a phone. But the quality of the shot depends not only on the sensor, influence of the optical system, the lenses is very important, too.
Adis, true, it very depends. A popular misconception is that more pixels = better photo. That's false. I can post a photo of the lunar eclipse, taken by 8 megapixels iPhone 5, and one taken with (I think it's also 8 MP) DSLR camera. That nicely shows that MP are not everything.
Wow I love what you just said, "every good photographer should be a great psychologist too". That really has me thinking because Im a psych major and really love photography, I wish I could learn more from you and hear what you believe
How many words are a picture worth? And I'm referring to an old Polaroid picture, you know, like the ones OUTKAST was infamous for using in the early 2000's. I am NOT referring to that new age digital crap! Thank you!
I guess it's not me to decide such thing, but my favorite is http://helkathon.deviantart.com/art/Red-n-White-149169676. I love it because it's my favorite season, it reflects the atmosphere of it and it has an element of coincidence. It did not need so much skill to take, just being in the right place, at the right time :) Though some years after I made very simlar one, at almost exact spot :)
I like them, especially last two. My suggestion is - get a stricter idea what you want to show and make some details more noticeable and leave some as less important. I imagine you want to show how an amazing whole sight it was, but when you give too many details, the eye gets lost. And you can set focus on things using lens blur, vignetting, saturation or desaturation and many more things. Wise postprocessing is not a sin ;)
Adis, thanks. I'll take that to heart. I'm only just thinking I might want to take up photography as a hobby because friends and family say I have a good eye for it. With all due respect, its easy to say someones good at something if you know little about that something. Time to learn how to postpricess. :)
Tenebrioun, yeah, I got that :) But you see, people usually are quite good at identifying the basics, the very sprouts of things. Of course, there's a long way to the top, if you wanna rock'n'roll, and if you not play, but just listen, sometimes you get wrong idea of how long it may be ;) But that goes for everything.
I'm afraid there is no direct answer to that, just like there is no answer to question what are the best speeds for driving a car. I think you have just to test it - kit lenses vary, photosession situations vary too. But the lens works for the best when it's on the very middle between it's biggest and smallest value. Like if your lens is 2, 4, 8, 11 and 16, the best results would be on 8. Of course, depending on the photosession, again - this is cool for landscape, but not for portrait or a macro. Unless you want portrait with quite intense background. See, many variations here :)
OK, guys, sorry if I missed some questions - there're a bit more of them than I had expected :) And I decided to delete all the comments which are not related to photography - and I will do the same in the future.
You may think about it as the gears of a car. The lower the number of F is, the more light it allows to pass on sensor or film, and the blurrier the background is. Or you may think it like about your own eye: when it's dark, you open it as wide as possible, and when you want to see something clearly in the distance, or in the (too) bright light, you narrow your eyes.
Some of your photography is really good. I've been into it for about two years. Recently I started the online classes under Nick Carver. You can find my deviantart page at deviantpigu. Anyways, a few of the professional photographers I know have abandoned photography because it's a dying art. It's so easy to get a camera now that you have to be traveling to unconventional locations to get the special shots that nobody else can. I agree to a certain degree but I wanted to know your opinion.
I fully disagree. Democratization of an art (painting, photography, architecture, whatever) always keeps it much livelier. It pushes the boundaries and creativity forward. Some shots are "special" because they were taken on Mars with Paris Hilton. Some shots are special because of your eyes. Portraits, for example, will always be unique. To make it simple: if you want a special shot, be special.
Well, in my opinion such position, as Ethan Mc described, is more pretentious than wise. My unserstanding is quite opposite: the more people will get an opportunity to write, the bigger rate of them will learn how to finally do it well and more good books we'll have in the future. Same applies to photography, I guess.
What do you think about photos on my Instagram (in my profile)? How could I improve them? *most of them are taken with iPhone 5, except the ones from the red panda to the carnivorous plant, which are taken with DSLR camera*
Square Eater developer, like for the last of your shot: you say, it's a smoothie. OK, why are you showing it? how This One Smoothie is different from any others? why are you taking - and especially, photographing - this one and not one from the day before? Make some story, leave something to the imagination of a viewer. Some accent, some detail to show This Smoothie is special.
Not sure what you call a standard photo. I rarely do a stock imaging, since I usually get hired for a photosessions or photoprojects. Which may vary from tens of € (like personal photosession) to hundreds - if it is a big task and you have to work with the team.
I guess some ox on the wall of a cave, with painted body :) If you are talking about photogaphy, first documented colorfull photo is about a tartan ribbon, shot in 1861. There is a theory, that a hilotype technique was about 15 years earlier, but the founder of this techniue was doing some retouches on colors of his shots, and his hilotypes were not so well documented, so most historians say first colorfull shot is that tartan ribbon by Thomas Sutton.
Square Eater developer, with anything what comes by the hand - SLR, DSLR, compact cam, phone, pinhole. If there is a hole, you can shoot with it. If there is no hole, you can try to make one and shoot with it ;)
The camera itself is not so much important, really. Of course, modern DSLR probably is most comfortable, but I started with an old fucking-soviet cam "Smena-2", which was total crap and probably worse even that generic noname Chinese stuff of 1990s, but it gave me lots of important lessons via practice.
Name of Lomography comes from the old fucking-soviet factory LOMO (Leningradskoye Optiko-Mekhanicheskoye Obyedinenie) that was producing cameras (actually, making poor copies of stolen foreign tecnologies) of quality so low, that most part of the shot success was depending not on the skill of a photographer or settings of the camera, but mostly on the pure luck. And after the collapse of USSR happened this crazy thing, when something is so bad and terrible, that it is good again - some guys of Austria found one awfull LOMO camera model, started shooting with it and made a movement out of that :D
No, I find it rather good and honest question. And yet again, no, I did not, just some nudes for a few magazine covers. But shooting pornography in professional level is quite serious and skill demanding stuff, you need to know studio lights well. I see most people often do not realize that.
I have mixed feelings on his thoughts. Sometimes I find him too spiritual on the topic - for me camera and the photography is simply a tool and I won't take an ode to the hammer, hammering or sawing too seriously, though I of course will appreciate the house built with those tools (if it is worthy of appreciation, of course). But in some cases I totally agree with him, like on that thing of illiteracy, where in modern times it should mean not the inability to write, but inability to photograph in at least medium level.
Well, technically I did :) At the studio, when one photographer was setting the lights for upcoming session and another photographer volunteered to be a test model for that. Since both of them were my colleagues, I snapped this process, but actually that shot appeared to be not so impressive as you might have imagined :D
I really liked the last three. In Ireland shot i feel intense atmosphere, it's impressive. That building shot with and without color intrigues, makes you wander the pic like on a hidden objects game. The girl is nice, though quite stereotypical somehow, and I don't think such wide formal is necessary for a portrait. And that no-bee shot is a common mistake, like "this is the shot were we sail to the Crete, and it was such an enormous wave here, but somehow it is not seen in the shot, but you know, it definitely was". Picture should depict the object without any further description or explanation, unless you help the viewer to rediscover the shot and alter primary idea.
Adis, thanks. And 1 more important question: How would make income as a starting out hobby photographer that no one knows? Do I post my photos and hope people buy the copyright? Or what should I do to have income on the side to make all this effort worth it
.:: Gor ::., that is a question with many answers. You can gather some portfolio shooting for free and then ask some smaller business object if they need a photographer for some project or occasion - and try it on different bussiness objects until you get the positive answer. You can try sell your shots at the stock. You can try getting an acquaintance with somebody who is in business of photography, and offer your services as an assistant - from time to time. Or you can just shoot, enjoy the process, publish yourself and wait until you reach the level when someone will finally ask you to photograph them (or anything for them) for the money. Either way it takes time. Years, mostly.
Not that much - about 1500 kilometers, I guess. Most of the times such thing happends when I get hired to cover some event, make a photo report on it. Mostly business, not so much romance :) But I have a dream to visit Japan on the springtime, of course - to shoot the falling blossoms of sakuras :)
Yes I did. And I have to say, when you are shooting it, you stop seing body or nudity, you see shapes, geometry and light. So usually eroticism is in the result - in the photograph - but not in the process :)
I guess you're talking about filters like on Instagram? They change the photo - increase or decrease some tones, alter original colors, warmth, contrast. In the result it changes or increases the mood, makes the shot more clear in the meaning of idea, for a viewer.
Usually I don't watermark my photos (unless it's some rare editorial). If someone publish my shot saying that it's his or hers, I give a comment about the real authorship (if I notice such, of course), but actually I take it as some kind of a compliment - this means I did it in a better way than a thief could ;) But if someone tries to get some money from my shots - yeah, I dig up the axe of war then :) But that happened to me only once. Usually I publish my shots in quite small resolution for a commercial theft.
Canada, no, I don't publish myself at NG as the full time or the part time, because sometimes I do some more postprocessing than it's on to their - I would say, sometimes unwisely strict - rules. But they do have a platform with lower restrictions, and that's where I am.
OK, the card is expired, but if you ever get here in some way or another, always feel free to ask anything about the topic. And I thank you very much for all the questions I got - just as I expected, there were situations where I had to check my own knowledge and attitude, and I find it very useful for me. So, have a great shots everybody! Click!
Earn SOL - a cryptocurrency used in Sola (ERC20 standard token). Sola is an iOS, Android and web application which is a mix of a media and community. Sola allows discovering new people and exciting content in a most simple, friendly and relaxed manner.