Creative spark?

[jenko]

Smoke weed.

The problem with this is all too often the only people who get it are others who have been smoking weed.

 

[CycleDog]

There's a wealth of sound advice here, and I thank all of you for it. I'm not a newbie at this. My first good SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic that fell off the back of my Honda CB350. If you recognize them, it gives an idea of my age.

I've used photography for documentation with an eye toward those old structures we'll eventually lose to time, decay, and gentrification. I'm particularly fond of Route 66 through the Tulsa area.

Unlike some of you, I'm not looking at photography as a profession. Instead, I do this for my own gratification. ..and to remain in the good graces of my wife.

Shooting a digital camera has made me much more stingy in using film. I'll get all the cliches out of the way, then find something more creative that I'll get both in digital and film versions.

Finally, my apologies for not being quick to respond. My internet connection is iffy during the day for technical reasons. And I'm still learning how to use this new phone.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Rick58]

I've used photography for documentation with an eye toward those old structures we'll eventually lose to time, decay, and gentrification.

:thumbup:

 

[ronlane]

I usually find sticking a fork into a wall outlet creates enough spark for me.

I keep a spare 9volt battery close by for such occasions, just stick out your tough and touch the terminals. lol

 

[deeky]

I would suggest going out on a photo walk without your camera. When you find something you would shoot, take time to walk around it, look from different angles, different light, different background, etc. Don't rush it, pay attention to all of what you see both in the subject and around the subject. Identify specifically what makes it interesting. I think it will help you really see your subject and lay out your shot better without the distractions of the technicalities.

I dunno, this seems like kind of a terrible idea. The only way to get better at anything is by practicing, and that means taking photos.

Not at all. Reading the op, he doesn't have any problem with the mechanics, it's an issue with the "art" of it, or as I read it, seeing an image and composing in a way that tells a story or evokes an emotion. If this is where practice is needed, don't let the mechanics of the camera distract you. Focus on what you want to improve on. Use your eyes to see the subject and what is around it and your brain to interpret what you see. Then, when you have practiced that, take the camera and apply the mechanics of that.

It's a little bit of the Dead Poets' Society thing - put the normal aside and learn to see from a different perspective (oh captain, my captain).

 

[fokker]

But wouldn't it be better, if you were to take that approach , to actually take the pictures while you're at it? So you can see them later and decide if they still have any artistic merit? It's all very well saying 'it looked great in my head at the time' but statements such as that are what non-photographers say.

Note: I do think it's a great idea to take a bit of time to look around a subject and think about it a bit before pulling out the camera.

 

[fokker]

Smoke weed.

The problem with this is all too often the only people who get it are others who have been smoking weed.

Maybe, maybe not. It may have seemed like an offhanded remark but I was actually completely serious. I don't smoke weed often, but when I do and then pick up the camera I see things totally different from usual, and a lot of my favourite and most popular photos have been either created or the concept thought up when I was baked. Not saying this works for everyone, but there is that whole artists/stoners stereotype - and most stereotypes exist for a reason.

 

[bratkinson]

As an afterthought...Although I make every effort to get it right in the camera, when I'm shooting more for myself, I tend to use Auto a whole lot. It saves having to fret over getting the right exposure. But then, most of my personal shots are outdoors during the day, so the chances of Auto getting it terribly wrong are quite low. And if Auto over/underexposes slightly, it's easily fixable in Lightroom or Photoshop Elements.

That leaves me the 'luxury' of thinking more about choosing what I want to photograph, then framing it as desired, etc. Of course, I can always go to manual, Av (as I did in an outdoor car show last summer) or Tv and still not have to think about what the camera is doing. One of my favorite venues is downtown Chicago, mostly shot on Auto. That way, I can see the sights and be quite selective on what I shoot. I'll be there again in May for part of a day.

 

[deeky]

But wouldn't it be better, if you were to take that approach , to actually take the pictures while you're at it? So you can see them later and decide if they still have any artistic merit? It's all very well saying 'it looked great in my head at the time' but statements such as that are what non-photographers say.

Note: I do think it's a great idea to take a bit of time to look around a subject and think about it a bit before pulling out the camera.

It can work to take the camera along. In my experience, having it with you makes it a whole lot harder not to put that thing to your face and click away without taking the time to look. If a person has the ability to carry a camera and not pick it up for a while (I'm talking multiple minutes) then go for it. Visual artists in other mediums do it regularly.