[drphoto]

I think there are two fundamentally different ways of approaching photography. Making vs taking. There was an article in PDN years ago that talked about a similar concept.

I'm a commercial shooter. I create my images. From the the most boring product shot on white to a full blown location ad. It's all scripted.

But I am not a photojournalist. I'm always one step behind the infamous "decisive moment'. I'd suck as a wedding photographer.

And believe me, modern wedding photographers do some amazing work. It's not like the crap people shot when I was young.

Last week, an agency emailed a bid request. When I saw the loose description of the shots an image appeared in my mind. I was seeing the final ad right in front of me or at least in my head. My job, and why I get paid would then to secure the talent, get the stylist if needed, any props, get location permits, book the the crew and then go make it happen.

But I think most people just see something they think is cool or interesting an photograph that. And that's fine I would think that would be most who are here. and a lot of you are probably way better than capturing that best moment when the baby laughs or what ever.


I'm also all about controlling lighting. I've simplified my process over the past 3 years, but I almost always use some sort of supplemental lighting in my shots. Yeah, natural light when good can be best, but hey, the sun and the weather don't care about deadlines.

Keep shooting people. Photo is one of those rare things that is both a great hobby and great career.  (I doubt if there are many who dabble in open heart surgery  )

[JLM]

I have a stepson who has been pushed by mom into photography (he has a "real" job).  He's moving slowly (still taking community college photography classes after 7 years) and only does occasional high school graduation jobs and helps at a few weddings.  He totally lacks interests, effort, and imagination.  His work is completely dull, except for special effects he's learned at school.  He takes pictures.

I have a stepdaughter in-law who shoots weddings and does a nice job.  She is a college administrator, took only one photography class, and her photography totally blows his away.  (Her I.Q. is probably 60 points higher than his and her emotional I.Q. would probably be 100 points higher.)  She makes pictures. 

[stlrman]

I saw your images on your website, which I think you should post a link , for people to understand your post and your vision better.
Your work is stunning !!
I'd hire you to shoot my wedding in a heartbeat.
Wedding photography also has a lot of portraits , directing the actors movements, style/ fashion pics, product( rings, details) along with candids.
I've shot 325 weddings , but would never attempt your craft.
Keep on creating beauty ! Your very gifted!
Todd

[charmerci]

Hmmm, to me - this is taking a photo....

 


...and this is making a photograph!


 

...as well as other manipulations.
 

[Guy 13]

Hi drphoto ad others...
I started to take black&white pictures with my perents Kodak about 50 years ago.
I never did it for money, always tohave fun and making up souvenirs albums.
I did a few weddings, but it was for relatives and close firends.
I like to take pictures of flowers, colorfull nature, longtime exposures
and people, mainly chicks...
I never pretented to be a great photographer,
even if at times I had professional cameras (Medium and large format camera).
As long as I will do it for fun, I will keep doing it.
Now taking snapchot or creating a beautiful work of art with or without special effects,
it's each one his priorities.

Guy 13

[Bob in St. Louis]

Well said Doc.
Yes, there are indeed two different ways. I believe I can "see and frame" a good photo. How I set up the camera, well, that part I suck at. As far as organizing, setting up, and post processing, I've never enough tried. But framing a shot and using what is available to me at the time, I find enjoyable and challenging. I've got some amazing shots just from "what my eye sees", if that makes sense.

[drphoto]

Thank you for the kind words stirman.

Hey here's a couple of tips for you budding artist. 1) play with where you put the camera. 99% of amateur photographs are taken with the camera at eye level at the shooters standing height. Trying going low or high. I shoot a lot of stuff from very low perspectives. It tends to make the product or person 'heroic'. Cars shot from low angles look way better.

2) Don't just park the subject right in the the middle of the frame. This is the way a lot of people take pictures of other people. There's Jack & Jill together, right in the middle, with a bunch of likely boring stuff behind them.  Think about dividing the frame into thirds both horizontally and vertically and offset the most important part of image. Say a head shot. Put the eyes near the top 1/3 line for example. This is called the 'rule of thirds'. In reality there are no rules, but it is a good general guide.

3) Don't always have the light source at your back. Light coming from angles is a lot more interesting

4) Don't shoot outdoors in the middle of the day in bright sun. UGLY!  If you have to shoot people outdoors at noon, put them in the shade and adjust exposure.

5) If you really want to get good, learn to use off camera lighting. The follows from principle 3 above.  If you want to save a bundle on battery flash units (speed lights) Learn to live without TTL and go manual. In another post I mention the Lumopro LP-180. It is a spectacularly good unit and way cheaper than a comparible power Canon or Nikon TTL flash. If you camera has built in flash, you can dial the power way down so you can use it as a fill to your off camera light, plus it will trigger the optical sensor in the Lumopro, so no need to invest in a radio trigger. (I live by radio triggers, I have a half dozen) I also have two ridiculously expensive Canon 580 EX lights.

A great learning resource is stobist.blogspot.com. Run by dude named David Hobby, who was a shooter for Baltimore Sun for years. Dave changed my life. I used to lug around studio type lights on location, but now do it all with 3 speed lights. (well, if you look at my architecture shots, those interiors were actually lit with just one light!)

6) If you want to get really really good. Stop thinking about photoshop as just a way to 'fix' things, but learn to use it as part of your picture making process. I build images on the computer. That's why I can light those interiors with one flash. About the only thing I ever shoot that is just one shot is the eccommerce crap that I do to pay the mortgage. (well, and usually people photos, but not always!)

7) Study the work of the gods. Buy that I mean the great photographers like Avedon, Penn, for someone working today...Michael Grecco. Not annie lebowitz. She's a decent commercial shooter, but her real gift is getting celebrities to cooperate, which is no mean feat.

If you want to study lighting......look a painting by Rembrandt or Vermeer. good grief! amazing.

ok, class dismissed. 

[Bob in St. Louis]

3) Don't always have the light source at your back. Light coming from angles is a lot more interesting

I do have "the rule of thirds" in mind when I shoot pics, but here's a couple where I broke that rule. I wanted the subject (my wife and daughter) to dominate the image.
But I also broke the rule of where the light source should be. These are two of my favorites. I would actually like the one of my wife to be darker. For her image to be more of a silhouette, and lack the color that it has in reality. If her shirt was black or grey it might have been perfect. Orange "sticks out". The fact you can't see who this is, appeals to me, from an artistic standpoint. The fact it's my wife and it seems like I'm tying to hide her, might get me in trouble. 
The one with my daughter, I like the shadow, and the light the way it hits the ripples in the water. 

Both of these paint a picture that I'm trying to convey, without post processing and without words.
Constructive criticism much appreciated.
(these were taken eight years ago)

[drphoto]

there ya go. On the daughter.....I personally would have kicked in some front fill flash, but that's just me. you've got the right idea!

and as I said, there are no rules. The real artist break them, bend them, beat them into submission!

As I rule, I don't like modern country music (I think I'll barf if I hear one more song about pickup trucks or tractors) but I LOVE Brad Paisley's guitar work. Why? because he just does crazy shit. His solos make no sense, but they work. That's talent in my book.

BTW: while I suggested looking at the work of the greats, you will only become an artist.....or a successful commercial shooter when you develop your own style. I think I finally became a real photographer, when I stopped trying to shoot what I thought the client would buy, and started shooting what I wanted, then either let it speak for itself, or sell the hell out of it. That actually started on a shoot when I thought I was going to quit photography and be a pharmacist. I told Eddy, who was then my assistant......."I'm not going to be doing this anymore, so let's just go in and shoot whatever the hell we want." One of those pictures is the opening page on my website now. (BTW: Eddie is my business partner now. He's a friggin genius and hella nice guy. His girlfriend is our producer/client liaison, etc. Great gal)

(and that's how I'm a commercial photographer who sometimes helps out in a trauma center!)

[JLM]

+1 fill in flash.

Another tip:  double check the background to avoid awkward scenes (like telephone poles coming up out of people's heads).

And keep a camera (not just a smart phone) with you at all times. 


Nearly 40 years ago I was still living at home on the farm and drove home to a marvelous sunset and while driving planned my photo.  Had a roll of ASA 25 (slow, color rich) film at home so I rushed home, grabbed my camera, loaded the film, set up on a tripod with a remote shutter release and shot a roll with the farm stead/horizon silhouetted in the fore ground with the yard light and the kitchen light both on and that sunset in the background.  Probably the best pic I ever took.  Enlarged it and framed it for Christmas present to Mom and Dad.

[drphoto]

Oh speaking of ASA or ISO or the digital equivalent. Modern digital cameras kick the crap out of film. In the 'good ole days' of film, the fastest you could get in color was 1600 and it had golf ball size grain. For B/W 'art' photography, nothing beats a well made silver (or even platinum) print on real paper from a neg.

But other than than. digital wins out. No more trash from film boxes, polaroid, chemicals etc. Plus modern digital has a much better dynamic range. And of course no waiting with fingers crossed that the labs processor doesn't eat your precious roll or sheet of film. Hell we used to always run half a job, then put rest through when finished.

You can jack up the ISO equivilent on good cameras to insane levels and shoot in really low light. and still have little noise. and some of that can be dealt with in post.

You can even time expose now without noise buildup. Canon uses a really clever scheme. If you shoot a ten second exposure. The camera will then internally
make a second 10 second exposure. the computer chip will compare the noise in the blank to the image and invert it out. sort of like noise canceling headphones. Neat trick.

ASA 25! That would be good ole Kodachrome, as in the Paul Simon song. (did you know Kodak make Kodachrome sheet film at one time? but it was never commercially available. I saw some images at the University of Louisville photo archive. Man they were pretty!)

Another bit of trivia. Kodachrome was essentially a B/W film. The color was added in the processing. That's why only a few labs could run it. It had a much thinner emulsion than it's rival, the E-6 process which is one reason it was so sharp.

Oh.....one more bit of trivia. Remember Cibachrome? The process where you could make prints directly from a transparency without an interneg? (plus it was only color print that is archival) Well it too was essentially a B/W process. The color came in during the 3rd step in processing from what was known as the blix. or bleach/fix.  Because I had a chemistry degree I realized you could save a ton of money by developing the the image in good ole Dektol, regular stop bath, run the proprietary Ciba blix. and set image in ordinary fixer.

sorry, obviously I love this stuff. It's been my life since the early 80's other than that detour into healthcare.

[drphoto]

Good advice on background from JLM.

 Hey I like your sig quote about the room. Boy did I find that out when being the front of house mix man for the city's most popular wedding band. Man did we get stuck in some crappy sounding rooms. I don't understand why places that hold such events pay no attention to room acoustics. The worst one was one of the most popular, because it was pretty. Slap echo out the wazoo. Drummer would hit kick drum and you'd hear it repeat like 4 times as it decayed. Everything became a muddy mess and there was nothing I could do. There was no way we could haul around a bunch of sound panels and bass traps. Between the PA and the rather massive lighting rig I put together, we had all we could handle in terms of setup and teardown.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Fellas, thanks for the advice on the flash. I can certainly see what you're talking about and agree that would have made a better shot.
Being the "noob" that I am, and was several years ago when I shot that pic, I more than likely had the camera set on [auto], and the flash wouldn't have been required by the software. So, here's where I've been stuck for a decade or two of my photography skills..... I shoot what my eye sees and rely on the camera to so the smart stuff.
Boy... I can barely wait til Thunderbrick reads this and kicks me in the balls.   

[drphoto]

Bob, If you want to get better, you have to be the master of the camera. I always shoot in manual mode. I grew up on basic film cameras. A Hasselblad was my mainstay, back in the day.

But of course how much time and effort you want to spend on a hobby is your call. You're doing fine as I can tell. But honestly, shooting in manual and using flash is not rocket science. I mean I'm basically a functional idiot and I can do it.

[thunderbrick]

Both of these paint a picture that I'm trying to convey, without post processing and without words.
Constructive criticism much appreciated.
(these were taken eight years ago)



Bob, if someone told me you took the first photo I'd have called them a liar.  I thought it was Dr. Photos, and that the woman was looking away from the camera.  That is just spectacular!

[drphoto]

Hey Brick, my pops flew 51's in Korea. That's a B model right? Before they went to the bubble canopy.

He flew B-24's before that in the big one. Hella guy my dad.  Made my day when he told me he was proud of me for starting my own business as a photographer. Said he never had the guts to do something like that.

Dude was in two wars!! shit.

One thing I wanted to do was take him up in a plane and show him I had the pilot genes. I soloed but I never got my VFR before he passed. Instructor said I had a natural feel for flying. I said I go that from my dad.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Bob, that's an awesome complement, thank you Sir. 

[thunderbrick]

Hey Brick, my pops flew 51's in Korea. That's a B model right? Before they went to the bubble canopy.

He flew B-24's before that in the big one. Hella guy my dad.  Made my day when he told me he was proud of me for starting my own business as a photographer. Said he never had the guts to do something like that.

Dude was in two wars!! shit.

One thing I wanted to do was take him up in a plane and show him I had the pilot genes. I soloed but I never got my VFR before he passed. Instructor said I had a natural feel for flying. I said I go that from my dad.

Think so, saw that one at OshKosh in Tuskegee Airman paint scheme about 10 years ago.    B-24?  Really?  There's a B-24 forward fuselage on display in the National WWII Museum in NOLA.  Called "OverExposure" it was used for photo recon, not bombing, and underneath the canopy are outlines of military cameras of the day instead of bombs.  Just last month we had our design team projects, one of which had a B-24 theme, on display at an engineering conference in NOLA, and asked the museum folks if we could photograph it in the museum, not even knowing they had a B-24 on hand.  Short version, they treated us like gold and let us do anything we wanted! 

[drphoto]

Ok, since the subject of wedding photos came up here's a few from a wedding I worked last year. Now I wasn't hired a a photographer. The leader of the band was at one of my band gigs and wanted to hire me to mix this event. Since I don't own a PA, I brought in my buddy. I set up a few of my stage lights and then just shot pics for the band to use.










Hmmm, that first image looks soft here. Believe me it's not.Shot off tripod.

In the last image, that guy is not really in the band, he was the best man. I thought it was pretty cool.

BTW: This is the horrible sounding echo chamber room I mentioned in another thread.

[bside123]

I think there are two fundamentally different ways of approaching photography. Making vs taking. There was an article in PDN years ago that talked about a similar concept.

I'm a commercial shooter. I create my images. From the the most boring product shot on white to a full blown location ad. It's all scripted.

But I am not a photojournalist. I'm always one step behind the infamous "decisive moment'. I'd suck as a wedding photographer.

And believe me, modern wedding photographers do some amazing work. It's not like the crap people shot when I was young.

Last week, an agency emailed a bid request. When I saw the loose description of the shots an image appeared in my mind. I was seeing the final ad right in front of me or at least in my head. My job, and why I get paid would then to secure the talent, get the stylist if needed, any props, get location permits, book the the crew and then go make it happen.

But I think most people just see something they think is cool or interesting an photograph that. And that's fine I would think that would be most who are here. and a lot of you are probably way better than capturing that best moment when the baby laughs or what ever.


I'm also all about controlling lighting. I've simplified my process over the past 3 years, but I almost always use some sort of supplemental lighting in my shots. Yeah, natural light when good can be best, but hey, the sun and the weather don't care about deadlines.

Keep shooting people. Photo is one of those rare things that is both a great hobby and great career.  (I doubt if there are many who dabble in open heart surgery  )

Hey drphoto! I've enjoyed following this thread and musing over the distinctions between "taking" and "making" photos. I'm an "available light" photographer and tend to work with what I've got. I've often admired you lighting and studio guys who set up the shot, augment the scene, provide lighting, etc. Those aspects I've never really approached. Flashes and lighting kinda bewilder me. That being said, I've almost (and I say almost) been able to find just enough light to photograph in. I don't know if that makes me a taker or a maker.

I have buddies who do studio work, and create incredible images in post. Many of those images are composites and required a very refined use of Photoshop tools. Myself? I attempt to be in the moment, take the photo and later use the tools to try to convey what I saw or what I felt. Lightroom and Photoshop are fantastic products, if used correctly. I'm also a fan of DxO Optics Pro. It seems that any photo artist is a combo of "taker" and "maker." Certainly that applied during the wet darkroom era.

BTW, I also enjoyed your website. Keep 'em coming. Nice work!

Speaking of weddings... Here's a few snaps from a wedding, at night, that I was not the photog, but I photographed the wedding as well as I shot the photogs who were paid to photograph the wedding! I was on the wrong end of that deal.... family! All available light, hand held, slow shutter speeds in the dark. Next time, I'll at least bring a monopod. Jeesh!


Full Moon and Wedding Tent


FUN


First Dance


Father and Bride Dance


Groom and Mother Dance Mono