Your breakthroughs in photography?

[terri]

This thread reads strangely to me, because so many of you seem to equate learning PS with breaking through with photography. I just don't think in digital terms, so it's funny to me.

I do enjoy working with my negatives in different ways, though. Which I suppose is similar to "post-processing". Most of my breakthroughs have been hands-on printmaking: spending more time in the darkroom to get my prints made well is definitely at the top.

Also:

-experimenting more with toning and dual/split toning of my prints, for aesthetic as well as archival reasons;

-experimenting with graded papers in the darkroom and how they can affect my ideas of contrast;

-experimenting with split-grade development. A very exciting technique with variable contrast papers. I've only played with a few prints in this manner, but will definitely explore this until I've mastered it.

-shooting MF almost exclusively and loving that bigger negative.

And I've resolved to continue to take classes and learn even more in 2007 - the monster is never satisfied, it seems! My poor pocketbook!

 

[Alex_B]

still waiting for my breakthroughs ...

well, felt like a breakthrough when some of my images were published in a US magazine. but nothing since

cannot blame it on my equipment, that is good enough, so it must be me who is the problem

 

[abraxas]

...

Also:

-experimenting more with toning and dual/split toning of my prints, for aesthetic as well as archival reasons;

-experimenting with graded papers in the darkroom and how they can affect my ideas of contrast;

-experimenting with split-grade development. A very exciting technique with variable contrast papers. I've only played with a few prints in this manner, but will definitely explore this until I've mastered it.

-shooting MF almost exclusively and loving that bigger negative.

...

I believe you are right about equating post processing. I couldn't afford to try the cool stuff with film as a kid 35 years ago. I've always loved to take photos but couldn't get past the photomat stage. I resolved to snapshots, but really good ones (IMO) for years.

15 years ago, my brother gave me a minolta 35mm with some lenses. This worked out for a year or two, but then again, never past the handing the canisters out and waiting for prints. 10 years ago I bought an epson digital and developed a real estate/internet photo business- but the low resolution kept my work from getting into print. A few years ago, I got a nikon 990 for 360d shots, but the resolution wasn't there yet for the bigger stuff. A d70 2 years later and a d80 a few months ago. With the cs2, I'm having a lot of fun with the post-processing and can try the things my budget wouldn't allow before.

So the big breakthrough, which led to the others was the higher res digital slrs. Now back to the camera to see how much I can get done before I drop it in the computer.

 

[Remi M.]

Markc: I wish I could take courses like that here in Vancouver. It's too bad all I can find here is courses that teach the technical aspect of photography.

 

[markc]

Yeah, I feel pretty lucky about that. It was a local community darkroom too, so it wasn't expensive. One of the benefits of living in Rochester, home of Kodak.

 

[RMThompson]

My biggest breakthrough came from a phone call when a girl on the other end said she wanted to pay me to take pictures. It opened a lightbulb in my head, and dispeled myths about being a photographer. I used to think that photographers got paid for having 10,000 dollars worth of equipment, but I realize now that we get paid for taking pictures someone wants to look at. Some people want a Macro of an anthill, and some just want a great picture of their kids.

 

[castrol]

My biggest breakthrough came from a phone call when a girl on the other end said she wanted to pay me to take pictures. It opened a lightbulb in my head, and dispeled myths about being a photographer. I used to think that photographers got paid for having 10,000 dollars worth of equipment, but I realize now that we get paid for taking pictures someone wants to look at. Some people want a Macro of an anthill, and some just want a great picture of their kids.

I'm with you on that one. That happened to me 3 times in '06. I am looking
forward to more of that this year. The more people see the shots I have
taken of the other people, the more people want some shots themselves.

I am cheap too, so that might be some of the incentive.

 

[ksmattfish]

My biggest breakthroughs have been these realizations:

1) Buying a more expensive camera won't make my photos better.

2) Photography (and art) culture is filled with lots of worthless and misleading anecdotes. Pros don't always shoot slides, and the phrase "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." is complete bullsheet. Most accomplished artists also teach at some point in their career, if not during most of it.

3) The label "professional" means that the photographer is getting paid to photograph or paid for their photographs, and nothing else. It is not necessarily an indication of superior skill or ability. The label "amateur" means the photographer is doing photography because they enjoy it, and doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of skill. Some of the worst photographers I've ever met do it for a career. Some of the best have never earned a dime from their photographs.

4) Talent is convenient, but hard work will go farther. Of course, talent plus hard work is a great combo.

5) It's okay to make bad photos. In fact, it may be necessary to make many bad photos on the way to a good one.

6) Technique and technical quality is very important to photographers, but for most other folks in the world content trumps all.

7) I'm not betraying my love for film just because I'm falling for digital. There is room in my heart for both.

 

[The_Traveler]

5) It's okay to make bad photos. In fact, it may be necessary to make many bad photos on the way to a good one.

Well, then I've got a ton of good photos in my future because I've got 20 tons
of bad ones in my past.

 

[ksmattfish]

Well, then I've got a ton of good photos in my future because I've got 20 tons
of bad ones in my past.

1 to 20 is a pretty decent ratio of good to bad, IMHO.

 

[GoM]

Alright, I'm not gonna lie, kind of had this thread idea rolling around in my head for awhile.

I can safely say that my first 'breakthrough' came with getting my DSLR-ish camera. It's a fixed-lens, basically glorified p&s, but it's the best in its sub-$500 price range in my opinion. Before that, I knew I had a bit of an eye, just going from the number of times I'd see the way a building was lit or something like that and realize it looked...sweet. I had a p&s piece of dog's ass (sub-$100 anyone?) before that, which got me into it. But once I got my Finepix, even though the manual options are limited in range, everything is there...aperture, shutter speed, ISO ratings, everything. Having read up what each thing meant in theory was good enough, but just going out and shooting allowed me to figure out *how* to make the shot look at least in the same time zone as what I wanted it to look.

Second major breakthrough, I'd say, came with going out and shooting with, around or near people. That sounds the same as my 'first' one, but initially, I'd hide away my camera between shots, whip it out and then tuck it away right after I shot a frame, as I felt very self-conscious with it. Once I managed to approach a couple strangers to see if they minded my taking their snap, shot alot more in more public spaces and whatnot...it got my thinking past the theory stage into the practice stage, that all I have to do now, instead of looking for a particular shot in a convenient location, I could let the shot come to me, per se, and take it in confidence wherever it was and however I looked.

Third breakthrough was over the course of the past week. Going from looking up and out when I walk around and let the shot 'come to me', to looking up, out, down and below when I walk around. Not neccessarily to the extent of macro, but definately in the sense that...where before, most of my shots would be of buildings, etc...while they still are generally urban shots (as I do in fact live in 2 rather large cities ), they won't neccessarily encapsulate a whole building unless I want it to.

I dunno, this is far too long a response, but I think it's worth it for every photographer to kind of take a step back and realize where they changed their approach or whatnot. My next little planned-breakthrough has to do with a mentioned-elsewhere mini-studio of a box with the sides cut out, dealing with arranged, organized and 'set up' shots for the first time, even if it is of small objects.

I guess I can boil my entire progression through the last 6 months from when I got the Finepix down to a constantly changing, in a very slow way, way of how I view everything around me, whether I have the camera or not. My perspectives have changed in terms of noticing the little things, the close up things..and frankly, if I don't have my camera with me, whatever I see and whatever I'm doing, I'll have part of my mind focusing on what the best angle, etc would be for a particular...whatever. For instance, last night I went for a walk in the park with some friends late at night, and there were several lamposts (lit, of course) and a little gazebo bandstand, silhouetted from behind by several lamps, with trees all around. Stuff like that...I dunno.

From here? Who knows.

 

[boclcown]

For me it kindof goes in cycles. I'll have a period of horrible shots - bad lighting, bad color, etc. I'll blame the camera, then myself, than reach the conclusion that I am not meant for photography. Then I'll grab a single shot that is good. I can't say any of my pics are great, but I do beleive some of them are good. It just takes that one good shot to revive my spirit (until my next string of horrible pictures).

Although it's tied to my first cocnlusion, I realized that not 100% of my pictures will be good. Well, not 50% or even 20%. After a trip to new york with over 400 shots taken, I found around 12 keepers. But looking back at those 12, I realized that this is how every photographer functions (I think?) more or less.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Personally, I picked up the technical basics while I was young, probably 11. Compositional basics took another 10 years, as I wasn't serious about it.

Now I can recognize good and bad photos, and even make a good one from time to time.

But my breakthrough is being able to take candids and "snapshots" after developing a keen eye for composition. Sometimes, you just have to throw it out the window and take snapshots. Sometimes, that's what the situation calls for, and if you can't lighten up and enjoy the finer things in life, what is the point. (ex. it's nice to go to a party without feeling like you need to "cover it")

That's the beauty of photography. I can make it into an art when I want to. But even when I don't feel like it, it is useful. Capturing memories, illustrating things for online fora & ebay, making a retracable map when I'm taking apart something complex. At work, I take technical photos for parts of my reports. I take the best ones in the company. It's silly, but I'm proud of it. People notice that my pix are clear, sharp, & concise.

It is quite a useful hobby, even if you're not any good at composition. ^_^

 

[mysteryscribe]

I only had one breakthrough all the rest has been linear progression. It was the day my first mentor told me I wasn't going to ever be a great artist.

If I wanted to do anything with photography I needed to stop thinking of it as an art and think of it as a business.

"Art is art. Business is business. Most of the time they are mutually exclusive. Unless you plan to open a gallery to sell other people's work, you need to start thinking about a photography business. You might also consider a real job."

Sounds harsh coming from a woman you have breakfast with, doesn't it? Nothing like having you illusions shattered by someone you think you love.

My only consolation is she never made much money selling her painting either. She probably should have taken her own advice. She was cute enough to be a sketch artist walking around the mall.

 

[ksmattfish]

Doing art with the intention of making money or be famous is almost always a losing proposition. Do it because your heart and mind demand you do it, and fork what anyone else thinks. Picasso wasn't the greatest artist ever, he's just one of the best we've ever heard of. Thousands of creative geniuses have come and gone with no notice. Creativity is part of being human. Art is part of life. The reward should be in the work itself, not in celebrity.

"The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics."