What kind of advice do you give when asked?

I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

On Oct 23, 2:36 pm, TheDave© wrote:
I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

Always tailor your reply to the level of the audience. Usually, unless
I've read that person before, I'll ask questions to clarify their
level of expertise and knowledge base, and answer their first question
after it is clear what they "really" wanted.

See?

Oh, and you should always shoot RAW, unless you don't want to. Only
use the best, i.e. most expensive, glass on the market, unless you
can't justify the cost. And most important, always use the most
recent release of PhotoShop, unless you have something else that works
just the way you want it to. :-)

TheDave© wrote:
I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

I think what you say above reflects my experience as well. I keep it
down to simple things that immediately improve people's photos without
any technical inputs (or few, anyway).

-shoot people from lower than face level, esp. children: crouch
-simplify the shot; fill the frame with content; de-clutter; watch the
background
-set negative film at 1/2 the ISO rating
-keep the camera as level as possible in pitch (up / down) to reduce
perspective distortion
-shoot steady
-shoot outdoors in the magic hours/cross light.
-if not using a tripod, try to shoot fast, but also at moderately closed
down apertures where possible to get usable DOF.
-bounce the flash off of anything white to soften people

and so on.

There's a lot you can help with that will have an immediate impact on
their photos without it getting technical and with the person
immediately getting it 'cause it's obvious to them once pointed out to
them. In the digital age there is the benefit of immediate re-inforcing
feedback.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Oct 23, 3:45 pm, JimKramer wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:36 pm, TheDave© wrote:



I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

Always tailor your reply to the level of the audience. Usually, unless
I've read that person before, I'll ask questions to clarify their
level of expertise and knowledge base, and answer their first question
after it is clear what they "really" wanted.

See?

Oh, and you should always shoot RAW, unless you don't want to. Only
use the best, i.e. most expensive, glass on the market, unless you
can't justify the cost. And most important, always use the most
recent release of PhotoShop, unless you have something else that works
just the way you want it to. :-)

Or use film...

On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, UC wrote:

Or use film.

That's one bit of advice I would rarely give.

On Oct 23, 3:45 pm, JimKramer wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:36 pm, TheDave© wrote:



I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

Always tailor your reply to the level of the audience. Usually, unless
I've read that person before, I'll ask questions to clarify their
level of expertise and knowledge base, and answer their first question
after it is clear what they "really" wanted.

See?

Oh, and you should always shoot RAW, unless you don't want to. Only
use the best, i.e. most expensive, glass on the market, unless you
can't justify the cost. And most important, always use the most
recent release of PhotoShop, unless you have something else that works
just the way you want it to. :-)

Or use film...

On Oct 23, 6:47 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

-set negative film at 1/2 the ISO rating

Why?

On Oct 23, 2:45 pm, JimKramer wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:36 pm, TheDave© wrote:



I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

Always tailor your reply to the level of the audience. Usually, unless
I've read that person before, I'll ask questions to clarify their
level of expertise and knowledge base, and answer their first question
after it is clear what they "really" wanted.

See?

Oh, and you should always shoot RAW, unless you don't want to.

Thanks, but prefer to keep my clothes on.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:47 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

-set negative film at 1/2 the ISO rating

Why?

Because:

1) Negative films have lots of latitude on the overexposure
side and hardly any on the underexposure side. Most
novices don't know when to override what their in-camera
meters tell them, so an extra margin of safety will reduce
the number of underexposed shots. There is much anecdotal
evidence from people who work in photo-processing labs that
underexposure of colour negative film is a very common
problem.

2) C-41 films show a noticeable reduction in graininess
with increased exposure.

Peter.
--

Scott W wrote:

Which is all true, but is also means that that ISO 100 film is really
more like ISO 50, if you want a good image.

The ISO speed is a standard and films are nearly always
rated correctly according to the standard.

The problem is that the ISO speed for colour negative films
answers a different question from the one that people
assume it answers.

The question answered is something like "what is the minimum
exposure I can use without obvious loss of shadow detail
assuming that the average of the light measured by my
meter is to be printed as a middle tone."

The question that people generally assume the ISO speed
should answer is "How should I set the meter on my camera
to maximise the number of well exposed pictures?"
The answer to this question is generally a lower setting than the
ISO speed for negative films.

Peter.
--