What path to follow to self-learn photography

[soufiej]

First of all, hello! I’m pretty glad to be a part of this fabulous Group of people (and photographers).

A couple of months ago I purchased my first DSLR (Nikon D5100) and a beautiful 35mm f1.8 lens. I want to learn, by my own, how to improve in the art (science?) of taking photos. I know almost all the basics: what is shutter speed, diaphragm, ISO, little of composition, etc. Now, I want to get deeper understanding of the camera and the techniques, but the thing is that I don’t know where to start, what subjects I have to take into account, and a steady curve of learning.

Could you please point me in the right direction, and help me to make a list of subject so I don’t forget any?

Here are some of my pictures: Flickr damian.demasi s Photostream

There are numerous threads similar to your own all over this section of the forum. There are even a few links to similar threads at the bottom of this page. The "right direction" will be found in those threads as everyone eventually needs the same basic information. So do read what others have said and you'll find a wealth of information and suggestions to pull from.

Two rough suggestions I would make to anyone beginning in photography would be; 1) use your camera regularly and 2) work on only one thing at any one time. First, if you were learning a new language or taking up a musical instrument, you would want to practice virtually everyday for at least a few minutes. Ten minutes each day is time better spent than three hours every other weekend. Second, take one aspect of your work and see where you can take it today. Photography is a unique mixture of technology and the ability to envision how light and shadows can play to your benefit through standard compositional tools and knowing when best to bend those rules. You develop those skills largely through using them and being critical of your own work. Like the student guitarist, the recording of your work is the greatest and often the most startling instructional tool you have at your disposal. Of course, recording your ideas is what photography is all about. now you simply need to learn how to be critical of what you've done. Do, though, work on only one thing each day. A guitarist will learn, say, the blues scale faster and have greater retention of the scale if they practice just the blues scale today. Up and down the neck and diagonally across the neck. Ascending and descending, just the blues scale. If they jump from the blues scale to the Dorian scale and then the Mixolydian scale and back and forth and back and forth without any great plan, they get virtually nowhere faster than any other method. Learning the blues scale then as it relates to music, gives them an anchor with which they can hear the relationships. As with photography, when you change one thing, you affect another. You need to isolate what it is you're changing to be effective at your self instruction. So, even if it's just that you are going to work on, say, shutter speed or metering variables today, only work on shutter speed or metering variables for the majority of your work. Defining what has changed in a single variable makes for faster learning and less confusion sorting out after the fact what did change to affect the result you prefer.



Looking over your collection of photos, I would say a few things should be on your mind. First and foremost, virtually every shot appears to have been taken with a very small aperture setting. The focus looks as though your camera had an "infinity" setting and you were uncomfortable moving off that one setting. The few shots where you have blurred the background so the subject matter stands apart also look as though you have a generic "portrait" setting which you fall back on. This gives your collection an either "this" or "that" quality that doesn't say you have a nice DSLR. The same results could have been captured with a fairly inexpensive compact camera. You need to explore the range of DOF which is allowed by your nice DSLR and its very fast lens.

Next, while your shots are pleasant and not lacking so much in composition, it would seem you are seeing mostly the same ideas in your head before you shoot. You are finding the same images interesting though taken as a collection they don't hold interest when they all have a similar appearance. You have a building in front of you and you shoot a photo of the building. OK, why? Why would I care to see a bunch of photos of buildings you came across when they mean nothing to me? Building. Building, Building. Building from an angle. Building from the front. Another building. Again, unless all you want are shots of buildings that are of little to no interest to the observer of your photography, you'll need to change how you see and think about buildings. Why should I care about "this" building? Is there some architectural detail which is of value beyond just the fact it's a rather large building? If so, show me that detail. Show me that building under different lighting conditions. IMO, photography is about capturing an "event" in time just as an audio recording is about the performance as it exists right now. Not the performance tomorrow or last year. What is the event which you want me to exam that you saw occurring and captured in a photograph? A building which has stood for decades isn't, on its face, much of an event. How the light plays across some detail of the building might be.

Show me the line(s), the direction in which you want my eye to travel, the negative space surrounding the subject. Keep me looking at your shot rather than simply moving on from another photo of another building. Are there repeating patterns which you find interesting? Show me those. Show me some thing about that building that strikes me as possibly not the same shot any tourist would have taken while on the bus. A decent rule to follow as a beginner is to wait for at least 30 seconds, and maybe even more, to consider what you are about to photograph. If it will simply look like a travelogue image, why bother? You need to be more creative in what you see and then show us what you've seen so that we might remember that image for more than the time it takes to forward to the next image. As is, your catalog has very little which makes me want to stay on one shot any longer than the rest.

Finally, your initial work shown in your images doesn't have much in the way of dynamic range. No highs and no lows, all medium values. Sort of like talking in a monotone or playing an instrument for use in an elevator. Where's the drama? Where are those portions of your shot which leap off the page? Where are those dynamically opposed bits which hide from easy view? Where you have shadow, you have shadow, nothing more. Highlights are not greatly displayed in your work. Almost as if you only go out shooting when it's overcast. Possibly, you need to learn how to work with the exposure compensation control but all of your shots have a similarity - a drabness and flatness of light and shadow - that doesn't, IMO, occur in nature and should not be occuring in each shot you take.

Most of all, I think, you need to begin thinking about what you can show us that is unique. We don't need another middle of the road, dynamically flat shot of another large building. What can you find that no one else has likely found before? Show us that. Be different than the thousands and thousands of photographers who have seen that same flower or that same building or that same landscape before you got there. It's not an easy thing to learn since the easy shot has become so conventionally ubiquitous we accept it as a good shot and hurry on to the next good, not great, shot. However, what you've shown us so far isn't what can be achieved with a high end DSLR and lens.

Soufiej, thank you very very very much for that analisis and those advices. Of all the pictures I took, just a few have made an impact on me and made me feel something (the ones of the lighting storm). What you say is what I'm looking for, to find the way that my pictures tells a story, and nos only look "standard". I will work in the originality of the shot, and the message that I want to tell with that shot.
Again, thank you.

Glad you found the post helpful. As an addendum to The Traveler's suggestion regarding shooting a tree, building, etc., I would change the idea around a bit. The Traveler has far more good advice than I can give but think about this, I don't care about what YOU FEEL about a tree. You may feel, "That is the ugliest tree I have ever seen." On the other hand, I may feel, "That is a fascinating tree because it is all gnarly and nasty and yet the light and shadows play across its multiple trunks and peeling bark in a way which suggests the intricacies of nature at its very best." Now, not to be rude but, if you felt the tree needed to be photographed because it was ugly and I felt your photograph portrayed the greatest example of nature's diversity, I simply don't see what you are seeing. Nor do I really care what you felt. What you saw doesn't really mean anything to me because "this" moment is my own, it's no longer your's. I look at things from my own perspective and can't possibly determine what you were actually feeling at the time you took the photograph.

Let's say you are playing Hamlet and you are acting out the torment of a son betrayed by his uncle and mother in the face of a dead father whose value has now been taken by a usurper. If, by some strange chance, I see a very spoiled young man who has returned from a world tour on his father's dime to a world he no longer fits easily into and refuses to accept, for me the experience of the spoiled brat takes precedent over your interpretation of the troubled youth. And, should you as an actor ignore the possibility of my reaction to the character, you will likely go for the simplest, most easily obtained interpretation available. Which, IMO, will leave your character study somewhat flat and lacking in dynamics, as if you never actually thought so far as to consider Hamlet as anything other than beset upon. You can do Hamlet in Elizabeathan garb, in Roman togas or as Wild West cowboys. Even putting Hamlet in a modern political context ignores the fact each audience member has the capacity to explore the character's actions in their own way. A single viewpoint, "I'm playing Hamlet as a 1920's gangster", makes for a pretty boring production when that is the extent of your analysis. A character study which has many open ends to the many touch stones familiar to the audience is, IMO, far more interesting and has far more potential to be effective with the audience.

If you were to take a photo of a line of demonstrators and a police line out in front of the Capitol building where a well know politician was speaking, depending upon my previously established biases and background, I might feel one way about the demonstrators or I might feel the exact opposite. Unless your intent is solely to project a set perspective - your own, you are there only to record an event and nothing more. You are willing to forgo your own emotions which in turn, will make your shot more powerful since it can then be seen from any of an infinite number of perspectives, each unique to a single, individual viewer. It's the viewer who matters, not the photographer.

Therefore, your "feelings" about the tree are equally invalid as a touchstone for those viewing your photos. If, say, photography is about recording an event, then you are really a photojournalist. You step back and observe but you do not interpret for the viewer. You leave as much as possible up to the person viewing your photo to decide upon based on their experiences, not your's. They don't have your experiences so they can only guess at what your intent was if you place yourself at the forefront of the image's purpose. As such, it is not your job to "feel" anything, it is your job to present an image which will encourage the viewer to linger, to look more deeply and to create the event's story in their own mind and from their own experiences. So the question then becomes not how you feel about "the tree" but how many ways can you think might the viewer feel about your image. Similar to taking those 30 or 40 or 60 seconds to consider how you might frame a subject, taking equal time to consider how your viewers might think about the event you've captured is, IMO, good advice. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for the moment and consider what might be the most impactful way to describe the event to someone else.



Also, I would suggest you select an interesting object, something which has some details to play with. Go out and take a photo of that subject right now. In two hours, take another photo of the same subject from the same location of your camera and with mostly the same settings on your camera; same focal length, same focus point, same height, same distance, etc. Do the same for the next several hours, every few hours taking the same location shot as the available sunlight defines the subject. If you have a house with large overhanging eaves or a deep front porch, this would be ideal. The trunks of a crepe myrtle would do equally well. You decide what you are going to study. The more dramatic and dynamic, the better. Take these photos every few hours for the next several days through bright sunshine and semi-darkness of dusk or dawn. On clear days and on shady days. Same photo, the only thing that changes is how the available light operates with your subject to create new ideas and new dynamic lines to follow and shapes, contours and features to study.

After a week or so, collect all your photos side by side and compare how the available light has made the same subject different, more or less compelling, more or less emphatic in its place in the world. What is different? Why is it different? Then once a month, for one day, do the same exercise. Now, as the year progresses, the sun's position related to the tilt of the planet on its axis will have altered your subject as seen through the lens of your camera. In January the sun sits lower in the sky while in June, July and August the sun reaches its zenith only to begin again its annual descent back down to low on the horizon where it reveals what is hidden beneath those eaves, on the porch or behind the curve of that stone. Finally, really seriously study what only available light has done to your subject over this time and begin to understand what available light has to offer you as a photographer.

For those of us who are not paid photographers with the funds to spend a week in one spot waiting for just the right moment, for just the right shot to be taken, we must deal with the available light we find at any one time of the day. If you are not fully aware of the effects of light and shadow on your subject though, your shots will tend to have that same similarity of the tour bus rider given ten minutes off the bus to take whatever shot you can find. IMO one of the greatest virtues a good photographer can have is patience. Patience and the ability to see another interesting shot around the corner which is being influenced by the dynamics of light and shadow rather than just snapping a shot of the same time of day every 10:30 AM tour bus arrives and the same basic look to every shot they take in their ten minutes time.

Diversity! I don't want to see the same thing everyone else has seen. Show me what you see and make me think about what I see.

Since you have a nice camera, it might be beneficial to have a very, very cheap, very basic camera also. Carry it with you so you can snap a shot anytime you see something of interest. The basic limitations of the fixed lens, minimal variables camera should force you to think more about how to see what you are photographing. The camera will make many settings which you can't alter. When looking at those images of an interesting this or that, think about how you would have set your DSLR to make a better statement.

 

[photoguy99]

While it's certainly true that every viewer will take from your photographs and experience that depends on that viewer, this is no argument for trying to remove your own ideas from the image.

In the first place, it is a fantasy that you can. Photojournalists always have a viewpoint, whether they know it or admit it, or not. The rest of us, all the moreso.

To suggest that one should attempt to simply be a channel for what is in front of the camera is as silly as to suggest that someone playing Hamlet should simply read the lines in a monotone.

Also, I do not understand why one would attempt to remove ones own ideas and reactions from the image, and simultaneously worry about light, camera position, and all the other photographic problems. How, exactly, does one simultaneously select all of this stuff to "Put yourself in someone else's shoes for the moment and consider what might be the most impactful way to describe the event to someone else." while simultaneously leaving oneself out of it? Who's shoes, exactly, are we talking about?

How shall we play Hamlet so as to freely allow any interpretation of the character? That's not even a question that makes any sense.

Rather, put all of your own ideas in. Put your ideas in as hard as you can. But accept that people may get something quite different out.

 

[soufiej]

While it's certainly true that every viewer will take from your photographs and experience that depends on that viewer, this is no argument for trying to remove your own ideas from the image.

In the first place, it is a fantasy that you can. Photojournalists always have a viewpoint, whether they know it or admit it, or not. The rest of us, all the moreso.

To suggest that one should attempt to simply be a channel for what is in front of the camera is as silly as to suggest that someone playing Hamlet should simply read the lines in a monotone.

Also, I do not understand why one would attempt to remove ones own ideas and reactions from the image, and simultaneously worry about light, camera position, and all the other photographic problems. How, exactly, does one simultaneously select all of this stuff to "Put yourself in someone else's shoes for the moment and consider what might be the most impactful way to describe the event to someone else." while simultaneously leaving oneself out of it? Who's shoes, exactly, are we talking about?

How shall we play Hamlet so as to freely allow any interpretation of the character? That's not even a question that makes any sense.

Rather, put all of your own ideas in. Put your ideas in as hard as you can. But accept that people may get something quite different out.

However, reading Hamlet in a monotone is not what I suggested as an alternative to anything. Nor did I suggest the photographer in any way attempt to remove themself or their own ideas from the process. I will say, I'm not at all clear how you drew those conclusions from my prior post.

What I did suggest was, it is not the photographer's feelings which matter to the viewer. The viewer is, first of all, not a mind reader and to pretend they will be is, IMO, egotistical of the photographer and uninteresting to the viewer. As with the image of the demonstrators and the police line, one viewer is certain to feel this way and another viewer is quite likely to feel the exact opposite. IF the photographer is there to record a specific viewpoint, then they will set up their image to reflect that certain feeling. That is called propaganda within the echo chamber. For the explicit purpose of use as propaganda, that image is useful. However, the more the image hues to one voice alone, that of the photographer, the faster the majority of viewers will dismiss it.

The photographer should, IMO, pause to consider the vast array of viewpoints his image may touch upon. That is what I am advocating. Don't be so hasty to take a shot simply because you have the opportunity before you must return to the tour bus. Wait, consider and then find the most coherent image with which to attract the greatest audience. Why should I look at an image which has been presented by one thousand other photographers in more or less the same manner? Wouldn't it be more valuable to all concerned to show a not so common image, even of it meant laying down in the grass to take a photo no one else thought to see in the first place?

Consider not just your own viewpoint but the possibility of other viewpoints. By doing so you will have looked at the event with fresh eyes and hopefully found the manner in which you pull your audience into the image rather than pushing a majority of viewers away. For they will depart without any thought as to a view which is not fully aligned with their own or a view which is simply ... too simple. If I disagree with what you have to say, I don't care what you have to say. If I find your viewpoint boring, I don't care what you have to say. It is the orator's gambit to play up the uniqueness of their viewpoint, to pull the listener into their words and ideas by playing to the audience's own motivations and thoughts. If you, as a photographer, leave me with the option to agree or disagree, to see or not to see, I am more likely to linger over the image seeking a viewpoint or possibly just more information about the image.

This doesn't necessarily apply only to a political reportage style of photography. The Traveler suggested the op express his ultimate "feelings" about a tree or building or what have you. IMO that is self indulgent and wasteful of the viewer's time. Simply because that one viewpoint, those one sided feelings, may miss the mark entirely. I'm not disagreeing with the Traveler's advice, simply presenting a different opinion and an alternative work style as a way to encourage the op to engage his brain before clicking the shutter. If the photographer asks, "How do I truly feel about this tree?", immediately a wall has been erected which does not allow for much discussion. Should the question be rephrased to, "How might other's feel about this tree?", the discussion immediately opens up new possibilities. Further possibilities then require the photographer to question whether their first impression of how to photograph the tree was correct or whether there might be more and possibly better ways to capture the image. If, for instance, the photographer sees the tree simply as an overgrown weed with little to no value, they will make that statement in their photo. Should, however, the concept of a tree be aligned with the living spirit of the tree in an Oriental fashion or the life giving processes of a tree as seen by a nature and wildlife lover, then the idea of a weed is not shown. If the photographer creates the image of a building as just a building, we will look and pass on to the next shot. If the photo is one which indicates the strength and stability of the building, it's ability to stand for centuries or the determination of those who made it possible, then the image is made somewhat more inquisitive, somewhat more ... "intellectual" in its stance. Not so simple.

All of this is to say, no matter the photo's subject, there will always be more than one way to express what is special about any subject. The more inquisitive the photographer, the more viewpoints considered, the more time is devoted to seeing alternatives rather than getting back on the bus. Consideration might lead to the happy coincidence of any entirely new perspective on the same subject or an entirely new subject.

Hamlet offers a good example of consideration for what the audience sees. Any actor who takes on Hamlet with only their own feelings to guide them is bound to fail and fail miserably. Only an insignificant percentage of the populace would ever face the issues which Hamlet takes on. Therefore, the actor's feelings toward the problems of the play and the character can never be those of Hamlet himself. Nor can they be only those of the actor since the actor has never experienced what Hamlet sees and feels. Naturally, the actor then searches for those truths which can be found in the audience at large in order to bring them into focus for the viewer. Hamlet is impetuous yet he is also worrisome and slow to react when it counts. If the character is portrayed only as impetuous, the audience will quickly loose interest in the young character's decisions and actions. Hamlet has made up his mind about how things have been and are to be. Yet most of these decisions regarding Polonius, Ophelia, his mother and so on are wrong or not fully informed. He reacts without care for others and eventually finds himself mostly alone and faced with disaster. That, IMO, is the photographer who is solely interested in displaying his own feelings. Had Hamlet stopped to consider the facts and to see another view, well, there would be no play for sure, but, more importantly, there would be a vastly different character in a greatly dissimilar situation. Any actor playing Hamlet must take on the character from the internalizations which are famous in the solilloques and outwardly portray the character's absorption with his own feelings. It is those internal questions which make the subsequent actions hold our attention. No photographer is faced with those same monumental options.

No photographer can remove themself from their work anymore than any actor can eradicate their own history and imagination when portraying a character. And photographing a azalea blossom is not the same as playing Hamlet. However, IMO, it will be the questions the individual asks in either situation which broaden the perspective rather than narrowing it to a single, less interesting viewpoint. The more you consider, the more options you find.

I'm in favor of actors and photographers exploring all the options available to them before acting upon only their own narrow range of feelings.

 

[photoguy99]

You say that you can't imagine how I interpreted your post to mean that the photographer should remove him or her self, claim that the photographer should in fact not, and then detail a process by which the photographer does exactly that.

By seeking these alternate views, by considering many possible viewpoints, by eliminating ones own opinion in favor of some universals, what us the photographer doing if not removing herself?

Your theories of acting seem to be equally wrong. There are many schools so perhaps there is one that teaches your ideas. But they are far from universal.

 

[photoguy99]

I say again: put your own ideas into the images, as hard as you possibly can. Ignore other voices as much as possible.

This is not my advice, I am merely parroting the advice of, well, pretty much everyone. Ansel Adams has it on every page of every book he wrote. Henri Cartier-Bresson gives this advice. Van Gogh may never have given the advice out loud but his life is nothing is not a clear statement of exactly this. And on and on.

Considering the viewpoints of others is for 500px artists and others who would make art by committee.

 

[soufiej]

You say that you can't imagine how I interpreted your post to mean that the photographer should remove him or her self, claim that the photographer should in fact not, and then detail a process by which the photographer does exactly that.

By seeking these alternate views, by considering many possible viewpoints, by eliminating ones own opinion in favor of some universals, what us the photographer doing if not removing herself?

Your theories of acting seem to be equally wrong. There are many schools so perhaps there is one that teaches your ideas. But they are far from universal.

Once again, I am unclear as to your position. I state rather plainly the photographer cannot remove themself from their work. We are in agreement there. Why do you protest what we already agree upon?

Nor can an actor. What you appear to be missing is the simple fact no one is a mind reader. No photographer, no actor and certainly none of the audience has that ability. Both the photographer and the actor make their decisions based upon their own internal compass. The painter, the sculptor, the musician, etc all make their decisions based upon their own histories and recollections, their skills and their talents, their past and their future, their reality and their reaction to the realities of others. Acting and photography are, IMO, communal activities. An actor cannot "act" unless there is an audience. A photographer is not a photographer until someone views their work. While that may appear to be a Schrodinger's Cat approach to either, the concept dates back to Aristotle.

Hamlet clearly sees and speaks to a ghost. Can we agree most of us have not had that direct experience? If so, then, no matter the "school of acting" in which the performance operates, if this is to be a convincing portrayal, the actor playing Hamlet must first believe it is possible to see and speak to a ghost, as did the vast majority of Shakespeare's audience of the day. At the Globe Theatre, the concept of a ghost appearing would have meant something very different to a viewer than what we, as modern, scientific individuals will likely see as reality. Yet, if you get someone who believes in ghosts to play the role, your search for the correct actor to play the other parts of Hamlet's character might be rather drawn out. What then does the actor portraying a young prince of Denmark do in preparation for the role? He expands his scope to find those thoughts which contemporaries have regarding ghosts. He studies those who claim to have seen and spoken with ghosts. He sees their trepidations and their eventual acceptance of the reality of ghosts and, more to the point, ghosts which speak directly to them. From that process he can only meld his own feelings toward the experience into the final performance. The process is foreshadowed in the opening lines of the play between the palace guards and built upon in Hamlet's own inner dialogues. The actor arrives at the point where he believes this to be possible by asking questions and he is guided through the passages by the reality of others if, that is, he is to convincingly portray Hamlet. He pulls from the many files he now has in his head but the actor cannot remove his own feelings any more than a rooster can remove his crow. Hamlet is what the actor makes of him, not the other way around. The actor's feelings are within him and ultimately shape his performance of an unreal and a mostly unrealistic character.

Last night on PBS's "Shakespeare Uncovered", Christopher Plummer discussed playing Lear. A comment was to the effect, "The idea of losing one's mind runs all through this play." Well, you probably wouldn't want to select an actor who had lost their mind to play the King. Though, to be true to the writing, the actor who portrays Lear must have a concept of what losing your mind is like for those who have experienced the idea. For that the actor reaches out to those who have experienced such a fear and disorientation. With those thoughts he mixes his own concepts of such impending events. If an actor is to play a drunk, the actor cannot be physically drunk on stage. However, the actuality of being drunk one's self means you are not in full comprehension of what "drunk" looks like and acts like to others. Therefore, the actor/actress will pull from their experience with others who are drunk. The end result is hopefully a faithful portrayal of what being drunk looks like, sounds like and most importantly seems like to the audience, not the player.

Now, if those examples still leave you thinking the only thing that matters is the person pushing the button, then I'm afraid I can't help you any more.

When you say, "Your theories of acting seem to be equally wrong. There are many schools so perhaps there is one that teaches your ideas. But they are far from universal", I'm not sure which "theory" of acting to which you refer. You are though, discussing this with someone who has earned two degrees in Theatre. Not to use that as an argument from authority, I'm far from that and make no pretensions to know all there is to know about acting and I know far less about the centuries of staging Shakespeare. I can, however, see a strawman when I spot one.

And, I will say, even should Hamlet be performed in the highly stylized manner of Oriental Theatre, the performer portraying the prince would still need to have a believable approach to the character's motivations. If the actor were in a performance directed by the bio-mechanical motivations of a Meyerhold, the mechanics of the actor must be believable and true to the moment if the performance is to ring true to the viewer. Any actor trained in naturalistic motivations would not, I think, not do as I have described when confronted with the impossibilities of Hamlet's character flaws. So I am uncertain as to which theory of acting or school of acting which you follow, but I am rather certain of what I have said.

None of which even invites the actor to disassociate their own feelings from the performance. Quite the contrary in fact.

A photographer acts as their own director; they create their own motivations and their own blocking and stage setting. Photography, unlike acting, is not a fully collaborative event before the fact. So, as I believe Adams and Bresson and other well known photographers have said, the photographer and only the photographer must know when to take the shot and from where they will take the shot. As with the actor they cannot be anything if not true to their own feelings about this. There is no outside guidance to what a photographer does other than the thousands of photographers and millions of photos of, say, a landscape or an azelea blossom. If the photographer wishes only to have the millionth and one shot of either, then they need not ask any questions. They simply take the most common shot they find. Truth be told, there are very few "feelings" attached to such a work style. Yet, if "feelings" are what the photographer is aiming for, like the actor playing a drunk, it is the outward manipulation of the audience's feelings which matter the most.

I hope that clears up my thoughts on this issue. You are free to work in any manner you so choose. As I said, I am not here to argue with anyone nor was I disagreeing with the Traveler when I proposed this this idea. IMO it is merely another way to stir the pot of creation within the photographer (the op specifically) and should be viewed as just another tool at their disposal, not that unlike the tool of depth of field. The more tools the craftsman has at his disposal, the more the number of variables which can be covered when they arise. It's as simple as that.

 

[paigew]

not sure if anyone mentioned it, but your editing could use some work. Your images are all over the place (consistency wise) learning some good solid processing techniques will be priceless.

 

[photoguy99]

soufiej, my thesis is twofold:

You appear to be self contradictory to one degree or another

Insofar as you're making a coherent point at all, you are wrong (or, if you prefer, I disagree)

 

[soufiej]

soufiej, my thesis is twofold:

You appear to be self contradictory to one degree or another

Insofar as you're making a coherent point at all, you are wrong (or, if you prefer, I disagree)

As the saying goes, "I thought I was possibly wrong once, turns out I was incorrect."

I think this boils down to the capacity to hold two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time. And, possibly, you taking a basic acting class. You have yet to say exactly how my position is not how an actor or a photographer works. You only say you disagree. Disagreement alone is not proof. As I have said repeatedly, I am not a mind reader and neither is the op who is seeking assistance.

Or, if you prefer, saying this is how I work is not taking into account how others work.

 

[tirediron]

Enough!

 

[soufiej]

Enough!

not sure if anyone mentioned it, but your editing could use some work. Your images are all over the place (consistency wise) learning some good solid processing techniques will be priceless.

After having confirmed the above series of posts is not the reason for tirediron's post (there were several other posts deleted), I think I should ask the question; what needs to be changed? Simply saying, "Your editing isn't working", doesn't give a newbie anything to work on. Some specific examples would, I think, be beneficial if you are going to make the criticism.

 

[paigew]

@soufiej I didn't say "your editing isn't working". I didn't read any of the replies besides the original post so I'm not sure what your getting at. I said right in my post that the editing was inconsistent and that I would invest in learning some solid processing techniques. Not sure how much more clear I could get with that.

The original poster asked what path to follow on self learning. That is where I would start

 

[soufiej]

@soufiej I didn't say "your editing isn't working". I didn't read any of the replies besides the original post so I'm not sure what your getting at. I said right in my post that the editing was inconsistent and that I would invest in learning some solid processing techniques. Not sure how much more clear I could get with that.

The original poster asked what path to follow on self learning. That is where I would start

That certainly clears things up! You didn't read and I generalized.


How about; what is "inconsistent" in the op's editing? Can you be more clear when asked that question?

Processing is where you would start in an education of photography? Why processing? Doesn't "photography" begin before that?

 

[paigew]

based on the portfolio the OP provided, processing would be one of the things I recommend them to spend more time learning/studying. The op's entire portfolio has inconsistent editing styles. Incorrect white balance, exposure, etc. I think the photos themselves are not bad so that was my opinion. I am really not understanding why you are questioning me. Have you seen the portfolio in question? What would your advice to the OP be?

 

[soufiej]

based on the portfolio the OP provided, processing would be one of the things I recommend them to spend more time learning/studying. The op's entire portfolio has inconsistent editing styles. Incorrect white balance, exposure, etc. I think the photos themselves are not bad so that was my opinion. I am really not understanding why you are questioning me. Have you seen the portfolio in question? What would your advice to the OP be?

If someone asks, "How do I learn", and you respond, "Spend more time learning/studying", well, ...



If you don't understand, you don't understand.



If you didn't bother to read the thread, you didn't bother to read the thread.

Have a nice day.