What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Jeremy wrote:
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...


One of the interesting views I've come across from some on these groups
is of the amateur being a historical documentarian, taking images for
posterity, particularly of a certain locale or populace that happens to
be his, that may not otherwise be covered.

So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?



I was the one that posted the epistle on freezing a moment in time. Let me
expand a bit on that subject.

I, too, was one of those guys who thought that he was going to become the
next Ansel Adams. But after several years of producing what were
essentially just snapshots that were a cut above what an Instamatic could
do, I lost interest in photography. I concluded that I could not ever
produce anything professional, because I did not have the time and the
commitment to doing this type of work. Also, I realized that I didn't have
an artistic bone in my body (bet you never heard anyone admit THAT before!)

It's true. I am no artist and never will be.

Then one day I fell into an entirely new genre--I submitted some photos of
very mundane scenes to my high school alumni web site. And people all
across the country--who had previously lived in the same home town as I
did--began emailing me thanking me for the memories. One year later, and
150,000 hits later, the site was quite a hit--at least it was to the many
folks that had memories of those very ordinary places that I had recorded
and posted on the Web for all to see.

And that is when I realized that there were other uses for cameras rather
than just trying to produce works of art. And my cameras took on anwhole
new meaning for me.

I have been taking documentary photos of all sorts of places over the past 5
years. And I truly believe that my photos of ordinary scenes will be worth
more over the long term than all those artsy images that appear every month
in the photo magazines. I mean, how many "interesting angles" do we need?

So I have developed a few principles about my style of picture-taking:

1: I almost always use a normal lens. I want to record the objects without
any apparent perspective distortion. When using my digicam I set the focal
length on my zoom lens to approximately 50mm. I never zoom in or out if
possible.

2: I use a tripod as often as possible, to maximize sharpness. I use a
cable release or the self-timer to fire the shutter. I swear, the
improvement in the images has been striking!

3: I use a lens hood virtually all the time (I even have a digital camera
that takes a lens hood).

4: I often bracket. I want to try for the best possible exposure, because
my photo may very well be the ONLY photo of that scene. I want to try to do
it right.

5: I do not try to embellish or improve the view in any way. If there is
litter on the ground, it appears in my photograph. I won't choose a better
angle, to get it out of the way. My goal is to shoot a very straightforward
image--one that accurately depicts what the scene looked like. The good,
the bad, the ugly--whatever was there.

6: My shooting style is more oriented toward what a Large Format
photographer would do. Lots of time spent setting up the camera, checking
the exposure, levelling the tripod, etc. I prefer a few good images over
hundreds of "machine gun" shots.

7: I try to see the artistic qualities of mundane things, rather than try to
manipulate the image to turn something that is ordinary into something
artsy. I'm getting better at doing this. Perhaps this is my artistic vein
after all.

I have found that I can literally stop time with my camera. I do not know
of any other photographer that does this sort of work, and I truly believe
that I have developed a style of shooting that is unique to myself. The
challenge is to train myself to look for interesting places, things, etc. in
the ordinary, everyday places that we all see every single day. The strange
thing is that those scenes are transitory. What we take for granted, and
think will always be there, one day disappears.

I am currently focusing on the many former industrial sites in Philadelphia
that have become abandoned after the City had shifted to a service economy.
The abandoned freight lines are still there, the signs painted on the brick
buildings are fading, and the City is talking about clearing it all away and
building residential developments on those former brownfields sites. I
intend to save their images while they can still be saved. Who knows what
value they will have in the future?

I may yet become famous for my work--but not until long after I'm dead.


Excellent views J

I think this emphasises the importance of the amateur photographer

One who seeks to satisfy a quest that is not income generating and has
peer merit or appreciation outwith cash flow generation

Amateurs do it for love, professionals do it for income?

Well put anyway

Aerticeus

Jeremy wrote:
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...


One of the interesting views I've come across from some on these groups
is of the amateur being a historical documentarian, taking images for
posterity, particularly of a certain locale or populace that happens to
be his, that may not otherwise be covered.

So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?



I was the one that posted the epistle on freezing a moment in time. Let me
expand a bit on that subject.

I, too, was one of those guys who thought that he was going to become the
next Ansel Adams. But after several years of producing what were
essentially just snapshots that were a cut above what an Instamatic could
do, I lost interest in photography. I concluded that I could not ever
produce anything professional, because I did not have the time and the
commitment to doing this type of work. Also, I realized that I didn't have
an artistic bone in my body (bet you never heard anyone admit THAT before!)

It's true. I am no artist and never will be.

Then one day I fell into an entirely new genre--I submitted some photos of
very mundane scenes to my high school alumni web site. And people all
across the country--who had previously lived in the same home town as I
did--began emailing me thanking me for the memories. One year later, and
150,000 hits later, the site was quite a hit--at least it was to the many
folks that had memories of those very ordinary places that I had recorded
and posted on the Web for all to see.

And that is when I realized that there were other uses for cameras rather
than just trying to produce works of art. And my cameras took on anwhole
new meaning for me.

I have been taking documentary photos of all sorts of places over the past 5
years. And I truly believe that my photos of ordinary scenes will be worth
more over the long term than all those artsy images that appear every month
in the photo magazines. I mean, how many "interesting angles" do we need?

So I have developed a few principles about my style of picture-taking:

1: I almost always use a normal lens. I want to record the objects without
any apparent perspective distortion. When using my digicam I set the focal
length on my zoom lens to approximately 50mm. I never zoom in or out if
possible.

2: I use a tripod as often as possible, to maximize sharpness. I use a
cable release or the self-timer to fire the shutter. I swear, the
improvement in the images has been striking!

3: I use a lens hood virtually all the time (I even have a digital camera
that takes a lens hood).

4: I often bracket. I want to try for the best possible exposure, because
my photo may very well be the ONLY photo of that scene. I want to try to do
it right.

5: I do not try to embellish or improve the view in any way. If there is
litter on the ground, it appears in my photograph. I won't choose a better
angle, to get it out of the way. My goal is to shoot a very straightforward
image--one that accurately depicts what the scene looked like. The good,
the bad, the ugly--whatever was there.

6: My shooting style is more oriented toward what a Large Format
photographer would do. Lots of time spent setting up the camera, checking
the exposure, levelling the tripod, etc. I prefer a few good images over
hundreds of "machine gun" shots.

7: I try to see the artistic qualities of mundane things, rather than try to
manipulate the image to turn something that is ordinary into something
artsy. I'm getting better at doing this. Perhaps this is my artistic vein
after all.

I have found that I can literally stop time with my camera. I do not know
of any other photographer that does this sort of work, and I truly believe
that I have developed a style of shooting that is unique to myself. The
challenge is to train myself to look for interesting places, things, etc. in
the ordinary, everyday places that we all see every single day. The strange
thing is that those scenes are transitory. What we take for granted, and
think will always be there, one day disappears.

I am currently focusing on the many former industrial sites in Philadelphia
that have become abandoned after the City had shifted to a service economy.
The abandoned freight lines are still there, the signs painted on the brick
buildings are fading, and the City is talking about clearing it all away and
building residential developments on those former brownfields sites. I
intend to save their images while they can still be saved. Who knows what
value they will have in the future?

I may yet become famous for my work--but not until long after I'm dead.


Excellent views J

I think this emphasises the importance of the amateur photographer

One who seeks to satisfy a quest that is not income generating and has
peer merit or appreciation outwith cash flow generation

Amateurs do it for love, professionals do it for income?

Well put anyway

Aerticeus

"Aerticulean Effort" wrote in message
...

One who seeks to satisfy a quest that is not income generating and has
peer merit or appreciation outwith cash flow generation

Amateurs do it for love, professionals do it for income?

Well put anyway

Aerticeus

The O.P. hit the nail squarely on the head, when he noted that amateurs tend
to have a sameness in their photos. I certainly was one that fit that
description. I literally stumbled upon documentary/historical photography
(is there a name for this type of work?)

Admittedly, I was seeking an answer to the question of how best to exploit
my camera equipment, and the answer appeared one day--after 30 years. Most
amateurs, I believe, don't ask the question at all.

What does a guy need $2500.00 worth of gear to take photos of his vacation
to Disneyworld for?

I have come into possession of a 60+ year old family album, with upwards of
500 photos taken around WWII. They are posed, small, and of typical amateur
quality, but they are incredible in that they depict my relatives (most of
whom have passed on) in places that I would never have seen them in. Tons
of shots of my uncle during his stint in the Navy in Hawaii, my father in
Paris during the War, my mother, grandmother and aunts back home, and 2
precious photos of a grandfather that died 5 years before I was born. I had
heard much about him, but would never have been able to focus my thoughts
upon a mental image of him had it not been for those shots.

I wasn't born until years after WWII. Who could have thought that one day I
would see images of my father, in military uniform, in Paris during wartime?
(I didn't know they existed until I was 50!)

I realize now that (for me at least) it is not about the technical quality
of the image. Sure, I want the image to be sharp and clear with saturated
colors, but even a poorly-made image can be precious. Especially if it is
the only image available on that particular subject. Get images, and stop
worrying about all the little details.

Millions of cameras out there, owned by people that probably don't know what
to do with them once the holidays are over. Sad.

Mike Henley wrote:
(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Composition?

- Siddhartha

Mike Henley wrote:
(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Composition?

- Siddhartha

Ask yourself the question: what do you want from the hobby? Do you want
artistic expression? Do you want to create a record of events or history? Do
you want to capture action? You may just shoot for a while before figuring
out what you want to accomplish, and you may decide that you shoot simply to
experience the joy of producing nice images. Some peole shoot at random to
see what the image will be, some just like using nice hardware to make
snapshots. Fire away, and seek your own level. It's easier now, since
digital has allowed us to expirment without financial penalty.

Enjoy.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip

Ask yourself the question: what do you want from the hobby? Do you want
artistic expression? Do you want to create a record of events or history? Do
you want to capture action? You may just shoot for a while before figuring
out what you want to accomplish, and you may decide that you shoot simply to
experience the joy of producing nice images. Some peole shoot at random to
see what the image will be, some just like using nice hardware to make
snapshots. Fire away, and seek your own level. It's easier now, since
digital has allowed us to expirment without financial penalty.

Enjoy.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip

"Mike Henley" wrote in message

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Others have stated "Composition" and I agree.

As important, maybe moreso, is seeing the light and seeing how it will
record on film. Exposing so it will record on film the way we
envision. This is both art in the seeing and technique in the
recording.

Entangled in the above is perspective, pattern, relationship, color
and how they are used to communicate.

Simplifying the image and communicating the subject effectively.

The serious amateur should not ignore technical quality in his
equipment, but this does not necessarily mean bankrupting himself to
achieve it. There are many quality photographic tools that are
affordable, both new and used.

Finally, to improve, one should subject himself to review by showing
his best work, entering competitions, posting on the web for comments
(a la [SI], for example), joining a photo club and otherwise
participating in photography with other photographers. There is a lot
to learn, and many experience people who are too glad to help... in
this one must develop ones own approach and style.

Cheers,
Alan.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Others have stated "Composition" and I agree.

As important, maybe moreso, is seeing the light and seeing how it will
record on film. Exposing so it will record on film the way we
envision. This is both art in the seeing and technique in the
recording.

Entangled in the above is perspective, pattern, relationship, color
and how they are used to communicate.

Simplifying the image and communicating the subject effectively.

The serious amateur should not ignore technical quality in his
equipment, but this does not necessarily mean bankrupting himself to
achieve it. There are many quality photographic tools that are
affordable, both new and used.

Finally, to improve, one should subject himself to review by showing
his best work, entering competitions, posting on the web for comments
(a la [SI], for example), joining a photo club and otherwise
participating in photography with other photographers. There is a lot
to learn, and many experience people who are too glad to help... in
this one must develop ones own approach and style.

Cheers,
Alan.

On 4 Dec 2004 04:07:33 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
wrote:

Mike Henley wrote:
(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?


Composition?

- Siddhartha

I think the OP was asking what the composition should be of.

For example, I enjoy old railroad locos. I don't do exhaustive
photographic studies, but I shoot them when I find them.
Also zoos.
Also some local events (for example, a Cars, Planes & Other show last
year).
WHatever takes the amateur's fancy is fair game. He's not limited to
what sells or what the client wants. The amateur can shoot anything,
and as much of it as he wants (or can afford).
If shooting local street scenes is what's wanted (and I may look into
this myself; things change so fast), that's a valid pursuit.
My point being: the amateur can shoot anything he wants to. It doesn't
even have to be worthwhile, or have a point. A series of pics doesn't
even need to be coherent. They don't even need to conform to any
definition of "good." Being an amateur opens one up to almost the
entire world of photography, and the amateur can take or reject any
part of it he wishes. Even composition. :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"