SI Mandate suggestion

I'll be looking forward to some examples of your work showing details.
I don't seem to be able to find any.

 

Nor was there any attempt to pose the subject in either of my shots. In
the first one the cat had just made herself comfortable on the back of
a couch. The shot was there.
In the second, the cheetah was moving, I have several frames before and
after the one I posted.
One 17 frames before:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSC_3634-Ew.jpg >

 

[...]

[/QUOTE]

Results are all that matter? So why is there a problem with
staged, photoshopped works for "news"?

And if results are all that matter, why not using archive
shots anyway?

To the extend that you didn't leave your camera at home, yes.

Or maybe you *did* leave the camera at home, and the IR
tripwire got the burgular or the cat.

But you do understand what I meant.

Or maybe you use a cat cam, say
http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_u.htm

No button pushing, no staging, no pre-planning except
"belling the cat" with the camera box you bought.

-Wolfgang

 

What, you can't find any details in my work?

-Wolfgang

 

This cat certainly isn't black
<http://www.wimp.com/cathairdryer/>

 

I think I have seen this before. And I still think it's a nice capture.

 

You don't see the difference between capturing a unexpected scene and
Photoshopping a news shot? Or staging an event and claiming it
represents news?

Non sequitur.

It's a typo for "utilizing". You understand. Just like you made a
typo below in "extend" for "extent". It happens. Most people are
clever enough to figure out what was meant when there's a typo, but
the slower ones ? it.

If you are one of those people who do not pre-plan your shots, with
camera in hand, that explains why you don't have the balls to link to
any of your photographs or join in the SI.

 

I'm having trouble finding your "work". What name do you use when you
post links to your work?

 

: On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:06:31 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
:
: >> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:34:19 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: >
: >>>[furniture]
: >
: >>>> It's not the subject, but how the photographer sees the subject and
: >>>> what the photographer does with the subject that makes it a challenge.
: >
: >>>> Here's one I shot six days ago:
: >
: >>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2013-03-10-100.jpg
: >
: >>>Nice cat, but I can't see detail in most of the fur.
: >>>Additionally, shouldn't the cat at least lounge on the
: >>>furniture? Or on that bird?
: >
: >> I am not a cat person,
: >
: >My condolences.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >> and no idea how one goes about posing a cat.
: >
: >Oh, there are ways to entice a cat to behave in certain ways ---
: >but cats do have a free will. Maybe they'll allow you to use
: >their furniture and their camera to make photos of themselves
: >--- or maybe not.
: >
: >However, having some texture in fur is not so much dependent on a
: >cooperating model, but on the actual dynamic range of the photo.
: >
: >
: >> This is a feral cat that lives on the museum grounds and is a quite
: >> independent creature. I feel lucky that it deigned to even enter the
: >> frame and remain there for a few moments. I went there to shoot the
: >> scene and didn't expect to have a creature in it.
: >
: >Shooting only planned scenes and using only cooperating
: >models is rather boring, IMHO, and only emphasizes planning,
: >not observation and preparedness.
:
: I got the shot, didn't I? Isn't that utilization initiative?
:
: >
: >> This, by the way, is a re-shoot of a scene I've shot before, and was
: >> done for a mandate in another group, but it wasn't used for that
: >> group because I had another shot I liked better. That answers your
: >> comment about my position on shooting "fresh".
: >
: >It does. You're on the extreme side of it. I could be saying
: >that you shouldn't use a photo that was in any way staged or
: >pre-planned --- but I recognize that that would be extreme.
: >
:
: All shots are pre-planned to some extent. When I shoot "Street", the
: pre-planning is little more than raising the camera and firing, but
: all other shots have some planning involved. Even "Street" requires
: having the camera set to the shutter speed and aperture that is
: expected to give the best results for the conditions. That's
: planning.
:
: Or, don't you consider the angle, the relationship of the subject to
: the sun, the camera settings, the decision to use or not use fill-in
: flash, and the framing of a shot to be "planning"?
:
: I don't do much in the way of "staged shots", but anyone who shoots
: non-candid people shots stages their subjects. Or should. Anyone who
: shoots table-top or still life stages their shots. I do some of that.
:
: It seems to me that pre-planning and staging shots are two of the most
: important parts of coming up with a good photograph. The rest is just
: pushing the button.

At a club I belong to, we've had lectures recently by a magazine cover
photographer (one of Canon's Points of Light, or whatever they call them) and
a prominent architecture photographer. Their photo sessions (except when
they're shooting for their amusement) are planned to the finest detail. Maybe
Wolfgang wouldn't approve of that, but those guys are paid very well for what
they do.

Bob

 

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:06:31 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: >>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:34:19 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
:
: [...]
:
: >>Shooting only planned scenes and using only cooperating
: >>models is rather boring, IMHO, and only emphasizes planning,
: >>not observation and preparedness.
:
: > I got the shot, didn't I?
:
: Results are all that matter? So why is there a problem with
: staged, photoshopped works for "news"?
:
: And if results are all that matter, why not using archive
: shots anyway?
:
: > Isn't that utilization initiative?
:
: ?
:
:
: >>> This, by the way, is a re-shoot of a scene I've shot before, and was
: >>> done for a mandate in another group, but it wasn't used for that
: >>> group because I had another shot I liked better. That answers your
: >>> comment about my position on shooting "fresh".
:
: >>It does. You're on the extreme side of it. I could be saying
: >>that you shouldn't use a photo that was in any way staged or
: >>pre-planned --- but I recognize that that would be extreme.
:
: > All shots are pre-planned to some extent.
:
: To the extend that you didn't leave your camera at home, yes.
:
: Or maybe you *did* leave the camera at home, and the IR
: tripwire got the burgular or the cat.
:
: But you do understand what I meant.

Maybe Tony does, but I don't. To me an unplanned shot is just a shot I
couldn't have planned, not one where I deliberately decided to wing it. Even
in event photography, where individual shots are notoriously difficult to
plan, I find that I have to think through where I want to be and what I want
to accomplish at every stage of the event. Leave out that step and you'll miss
your best shots.

Everybody here knows that I'm a strong believer in firing off lots of shots
and winnowing them down later at the computer. But if you're not in the right
place at the right time with the right equipment, it doesn't much matter how
many shots you take.

Bob

 

Ansel Adams

 

| >I liked it. The cat is what makes it work.
|
| That's kinda what I meant when I said that the challenge is what the
| photographer does with the subject. I shot several frames of this
| furniture grouping. Just as I was about to move on, the cat came into
| the scene. From the series, I selected this one because the cat added
| an element.

For what it's worth, I like it better without the cat.
The cat turns it into a slightly humorous image that's
nice. But without the cat there's an interesting
juxtaposition of empty stillness (in the unoccupied,
somewhat unattractive space) and dynamic energy
(in the colors and the bird scultpure). A pregnant
nowness.

I guess what I'm getting at is that without the cat
it makes one really look, and think about what it is.
With the cat it's easy to slip into cliche perception:
"Oh, there's a nice, cute cat picture."

 

<BFG!>

 

And he isn't backing down! My cats would be up the curtains in the next room
if I turned one of those things on them, LOL!

 

: On 3/20/2013 1:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2013-03-20 10:14:52 -0700, Savageduck
: > <[email protected]{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
: >
: >> On 2013-03-20 09:06:31 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: >> <> said:
: >>
: >>>
: >>>> I am not a cat person,
: >>>
: >>> My condolences.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>
: >> I am not exactly a cat person myself (mainly due to allergies and a
: >> preference for dogs), but there are times a cat might be worthy of an
: >> iPhone shot.
: >> < http://db.tt/bIMswEZ7 >
: >
: > Though I must confess, that was shot with my D300S. ;-)
: >
: >> I don't go out of my way to shoot cat subjects with a decent camera
: >> unless it is a cheetah.
: >> < http://db.tt/w0bdoUro >
: >
: >
: I think I have seen this before. And I still think it's a nice capture.

The cheetah seems to be glaring at the camera with a somewhat critical eye. I
seem to recall that the last time we saw the picture, we wondered if she
thought that the Duck should have been using a Canon.

Bob

 

It would not have glared if the Duck was using a cannon.

 

Naah! It was glaring at the idiots next to me trying to shoot it with a
Blackberry, and the other using a P&S with the flash permanently on.

 

I might understand P&S on a wildlife safari, but Blackberry? Surley you
jest. But then......

 

Don't call me Shirley!

 

That's my previous point. It isn't a photograph of furniture: it's
merely a picture with furniture in it. I'm not too sure that I would
even class the bird as furniture.