What is the main factor for great looking photos

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Brian, Jul 27, 2003.

  1. Brian

    McLeod Guest

    So, by your theory, anyone with a good enough piece of burnt wood and cotton
    and education should be able to produce this Neil Douglass' images as well.
    Using your theory, everyone with a little photo education should be the
    equivalent of Edward Weston, or Richard Avedon, or even Jim Brandenburg for
    that matter. Which begs the question...where are your gallery openings, book
    deals, and iconic memorable images?
    A camera is just a tool, the way a paintbrush is a tool. A passable
    photographer may be able to make an image everytime, but that doesn't make
    it art.
     
    McLeod, Jul 28, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brian

    Mxsmanic Guest

    That's why I do it. Sometimes my photos don't look too good, but there
    is still a certain reassurance in knowing that it sure wasn't the
    equipment that ruined the shot.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 28, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sit and wait for it to come to its senses and do what it is told, of course!
    ;-)
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 28, 2003
    #23
  4. Brian

    columbotrek Guest

    Does a great meal come from the cookware or the cook?
     
    columbotrek, Jul 28, 2003
    #24
  5. Brian

    Alan Browne Guest

    That of course goes without saying...
    Cheere,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 28, 2003
    #25
  6. Me too.....When I put one of my slides on the lightbox and see that it's
    slightly underexposed, (I hate underexposed slides) I know that I am the
    only one to blame....The problem was my judgement, and mine alone......
     
    William Graham, Jul 28, 2003
    #26
  7. They are much harder to forget if you have some good photographs of
    them........
     
    William Graham, Jul 28, 2003
    #27
  8. Brian

    T P Guest


    Oh dear.

    Bad starts to Usenet postings don't get much worse than this.

    Are you Mxsmanic under another name?
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #28
  9. Brian

    Andrew Price Guest

    Yes, William, well wasn't it you who stated on one occasion that
    nothing convinced his girl-friends to shed their clothing so fast as
    producing a camera...?!?
     
    Andrew Price, Jul 29, 2003
    #29
  10. (Hope I quoted the right person).

    Hey I agree with you. The thing is

    * they don't have to be nude. If they're in tank tops, sundresses or
    ESPECIALLY bikinis, automatically it's a "good picture"

    * it has to be a reasonably attractive woman. They don't have to be 5
    ft 7 and 125 lbs, but they can't be 5 ft 2 and 250 lbs either.

    Typical men we are, huh? Forget art, composition, lighting,
    high-quality Nikkor lenses (or Hassleblads, whatever). Bring on the
    chicks! (heehee)

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 29, 2003
    #30
  11. Brian

    Mike Guest

    AGREED!!!!!
     
    Mike, Jul 29, 2003
    #31
  12. Brian

    Mxsmanic Guest

    That's the difference between dilettantes and serious photographers.
    Unfortunately, the sex-starved males give the real photographers a bad
    reputation. Most real photographers don't shoot a lot of porn, anyway.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 29, 2003
    #32
  13. Ah, yes....Those were the good old days....Now, all I've got are the
    pictures, and the wonderful memories that go along with them........
     
    William Graham, Jul 29, 2003
    #33
  14. Brian

    Alan Browne Guest

    Is that Nikon burnt wood on Kodak woven cotton?

    I hear there's a big revolution and an other group called
    rec.photo.on_ceramics is really taking over and that Kodak's transition
    to enamels is just not really going anywhere. Fuji on the other hand
    have a great palette of woven cottons (love that Velvetia 50!) and a
    kick-ass ceramics business.

    Sorry to beat ya up.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 29, 2003
    #34
  15. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Thanks for all your replies to my question.

    Is this true of some prefessional photographers.
    They shoot rolls and rolls of film to get a few really good photos.
    Some might take a photo of a sunset at different exposures to get one
    photo that is really good.
    When photographing people that are not posed they might use a camera
    that rapily takes 2 or 3 photos within a second to get a least one
    good photo.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Jul 29, 2003
    #35
  16. ....
    I believe it is a mark of a good photographer, and often a major factor
    in establishing their reputation, that no one ever gets to see any images
    other than the very few they keep.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jul 29, 2003
    #36
  17. Brian

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I agree.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 29, 2003
    #37
  18. Brian

    Lisa Duskis Guest

    quick poll : how many women are reading this thread?

    I'm reading it - and laughing very loudly :p

    -- L
     
    Lisa Duskis, Jul 29, 2003
    #38

  19. A 'good' photographer instinctively knows not to place the center of
    interest dead center in the frame. This is what is known as TKOD (the
    kiss of death) for composition. The 'rule of thirds' is an
    approximation, a guideline for where one should try to place the
    center of interest. The vast majority of dreck photography is dreck
    for this very reason. Occasionally I assist/teach photo classes, and I
    can recall one a couple of years ago in which the worst examples of
    'dead-centerism' I've ever seen were shown.

    Anyone who studies art history will notice how the painters have
    positioned their subject matter. It's really elementary stuff, and
    it's inexcusable not to know basic composition when becoming serious
    about photogrpahy.

    The 'rule of thirds' is merly a guideline: training wheels, if you
    will, for those who are just beginning.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Jul 29, 2003
    #39
  20. Brian

    Alan Browne Guest

    And as usual, Tall Photographic Tales, you are taking an extreme
    position for the wrong reasons.

    The rule of thirds is a guideline. Nobody goes to jail when the rule is
    broken, nor used. As a guideline it is a quick way to organize a
    composition for at least a pleasant, if not an artistically novel and
    original result. It is a good way to start someone off in their
    learning as long as it is emphasized that nothing is cast in concrete.
    And this goes well beyond composition.

    As I've stated directly to you in the past, "Rules are for the guidance
    of wise men and the obedience of fools." But this simple bit of common
    sense is way beyond your ability to work the wide fuzzy line of
    creativity.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 29, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.