Photography Post Vol. 2

[aitsuka]

Carl,

since you take some pretty amazing pictures, I must as well model my lens type and everything similar to yours. what lens are you working with? do you have a couple for different occasions?

i am thinking about a 50mm f/1.8, a short tele and maybe a wide angle to start off. is that overkill?

[wild_whiskey]

Aitsuka, you're not going to notice a difference in quality when you're beginning. I noticed you picked a non-zoom lens. Are you shooting film or digital?

I may just be getting pissy here, but you're doing an injustice to good photographic work by assuming that the lens and camera is what's making his stuff look good. You're never going to be a good artist if you only concern yourself with "catching up" to the people you admire. It certainly helps to have a 10.1mp camera with camera raw formats, but seriously...

Get a zoom lens, its convenient and you won't notice any quality difference. If you're using a Nikon, the D50 kit lens (18-55) is serious business for the money. IMO, you really don't want to get a huge set of lenses - you're wasting your money. Generally you can get one do-all lens after you've saved up money (for Nikonians, the 18-200 VR lens is a piece of heaven).

Vitamin, very pictorial. Cool stuff. Not my taste, but very artsy.

[Carl]

I respect Wild Whisky's opinion in photography above anyone else here (well, raised by wolves too), but here i have to disagree.

I think that zoom lenses make for lazy photographers. Look down at your legs. Your momma gave you the best zoom lens on the planet. As the immortal Robert Capa once said, "If your photos arn't good enough, you're not close enough."

As far as lenses go it sort of matters what kind of camera you are shooting with. Im gonna guess film.

Either a 50mm 1.8 or a 35mm 2.0 will be your best bet. I prefer a 35mm because i like to shoot a bit wider. Both lenses are the tried and true focal lengths and it can be argued either way that the eye sees directly at that focal length.

By the way...Wild Whisky, how do you know so much about photography? Ive always wondered but forgot to ask.

[Vitamian]

Thank you. It's all street photography with a high aperture although the lenses are slow compared to what you can get these days; my Leica has a lens (Summitar uncoated) from 1936.

And I agree about the equipment--there are many people on places like Photo.net who have very expensive equipment and who then produce the most mediocre photographs despite any best efforts at their "decisive moment".

I like limited equipment and a basic selenium cell light meter, from 1965. All that extraneous stuff is just that, extraneous. Only your eye matters. I think it was Lisette Model who said that if you see something familiar in the viewfinder, don't take the picture.

[wild_whiskey]

Fair assessment, Carl. I really like this quote in particular:

. Look down at your legs. Your momma gave you the best zoom lens on the planet.

Its true that zoom lens can make one lazy.. you really do want to avoid laziness because serious photography can't spare any half-assedness. The best photos are so obviously in your face and in the moment. You can always tell when something doesn't have the immediacy that gets captured from someone with guts.

I agree in principal, but in practice, I have to say that a do-all lens like those I mentioned above are just so sweet...

As for my knowledge of photography, I am studying graphic design pretty intensively and with that comes a study of photography (after all, if I'm going to be hiring photographers in the future I better damn well know what's going on!). After having seen Paul Strand's and Walker Evans' work, I have really been enamored by the art of releasing the shutter.

[SoloC]

I took these two pictures at last summer in Hong Kong.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

I'm gonna weigh in and say that I'm glad to see that someone wants to start without zoom lenses in this day and age.

I've spent the better part of my life shooting with a 50mm on a Nikon FE, and when not using that, a 35mm on my leica M2. When I moved up to medium format, I chose the 80mm option, which is the happy medium between the two...it's 35mm equvalent is around 39...which is perfect for me.

That said...three lenses does sound like to much to me...plus that shit is not gonna be light on the pockets. Focusing on one lense (as Carl mentioned) is the best way to begin to understand how you "see" through" your view finder, as well as how the camera itself is "seeing". Unless you shoot Politics, sports, or wildlife on the regs...You should be golden with a 50. I know some teachers who only allow students to use 50's in their photo one classes. Thats a little extreme, but I get the reasoning behind it. You can shoot landscapes that appear flat and in proper perspective, portraits, action...whatever. I would argue that someone who has mastered their 50 is more versatile than someone relying on their 28-80. 35's are great to, but their slightly askew perspective can sometimes be difficult when trying to shoot landscapes that look "true to eye".

28's and below should be reserved (not literally, before someone jumps down my throat) for people with an advanced understanding of framing and composition, otherwise, you are merely relying on an effect you don't understand how to manipulate to your advantage. For good examples, see Eugene Richards. He is the OG of this shit and is a perfect example of using wide lenses to masterful effect. http://www.viiphoto.com/photographer.html

As for optics...fixed lenses are better. End of story.

As for anyone and everyone who wants to start digital. by all means do, but remember this:

Though the learning curve may seem to be steeper with film...You will pay yourself back ten fold for your time, effort, and money spent with the understanding and know-how you gain from going this route. I could rant about how digital photography makes every cocksucker at last night's party think they are an artist, I could tell you how I think that digital photos are not "real" because they are no more than a bunch of fucking ones and zero's floating about on a piece of plastic called a CF card. I could go on a long bitter tirade about the fact that Digital technology is changing the entire process and nature of image making for the worse, because as it emphasizes speed and quantity, it creates a never ceasing pool of images from which we "cull" and "take" out pictures..instead of making them. All the savings and ease of digital will never make up for the quality of that beautiful singular image c-printed and framed under gallery lights...or as part of a 10 page spread in the NYT magazine. I could (and have) give every one an easy target at which to pitch words like elitest, old school, purest, bitter or wrong. Fuck it though...who cares. It's passion like this that keeps me doing what I do.

[Loop]

Unless of course you are in the all too common situtation of having no access to a darkroom and are without the luxury of being able to set up one up at home. In which case you are screwed... on the other hand since you're on Superfuture I assume you have access to a computer of some sort thus a digital darkroom is a distinct possibility.

It doesn't matter whether you start out with film or digital, just remember it's not an either/or situation. If you get the opportunity to work with film then grasp it with both hands, there is nothing like developing your own prints, but if you only shoot digital don't let people tell you what you produce isn't 'real photography.'

As far as Zoom lenses are concerned, I agree in part with Carl, if you can use your legs, but it depends very much on the type of pictures you are taking (for instance I can see why Carl wouldn't find much use for one with his approach to photography, which is very personal and photojournalistic).

Personally I wouldn't go and buy a load of lenses right from the start, I'd wait and see how things developed, and what I'd actually use most. You don't want to way yourself down with specialist lenses that you hardly ever use (and cost you lots of cash).

[Vitamian]

28's and below should be reserved (not literally, before someone jumps down my throat) for people with an advanced understanding of framing and composition, otherwise, you are merely relying on an effect you don't understand how to manipulate to your advantage. For good examples, see Eugene Richards. He is the OG of this shit and is a perfect example of using wide lenses to masterful effect. http://www.viiphoto.com/photographer.html

Another prime example would be Garry Winogrand and his usage of the wide-angle; I believe Diane Arbus also used a wide-angle Rolleiflex.

My personal criteria for a good photograph is something that recognizes your own absurdity, the malice of the mundane, the tragic element.

[Carl]

If you study all the great photographers (the magnum boys, Nachtwey, Richards, Winnograd, Minor White, Salgado, Eggelston, Bill Allard, Meatyard, Frank, hell even Helmut Newton) you will find one very common theme.

The use of a wide angle lens. Usually between the focal lengths of 24mm to 35mm (and sometimes 50).

It is no secret that the human eye sees in a wide angle perspective and there for the best photographs are taken with a wide angle lens.

[Vitamian]

If you study all the great photographers (the magnum boys, Nachtwey, Richards, Winnograd, Minor White, Salgado, Eggelston, Bill Allard, Meatyard, Frank, hell even Helmut Newton) you will find one very common theme.

The use of a wide angle lens. Usually between the focal lengths of 24mm to 35mm (and sometimes 50).

It is no secret that the human eye sees in a wide angle perspective and there for the best photographs are taken with a wide angle lens.

An exception might be Lisette Model who used to severely crop her photos after zooming in a subject.

I've a nice Soviet Jupiter 12 3.5cm lens which was a copy of the excellent pre-war Zeiss Biogon.

[aitsuka]

wow, really surprised and amazed at all the quality answers I got. I didn't want to go with zoom lens was like was carl said, if I got legs - use them. I was told that prime lenes do make the best quality of the pictures, don't know if that is true or not.

[wild_whiskey]

Though the learning curve may seem to be steeper with film...You will pay yourself back ten fold for your time, effort, and money spent with the understanding and know-how you gain from going this route. I could rant about how digital photography makes every cocksucker at last night's party think they are an artist, I could tell you how I think that digital photos are not "real" because they are no more than a bunch of fucking ones and zero's floating about on a piece of plastic called a CF card. I could go on a long bitter tirade about the fact that Digital technology is changing the entire process and nature of image making for the worse, because as it emphasizes speed and quantity, it creates a never ceasing pool of images from which we "cull" and "take" out pictures..instead of making them. All the savings and ease of digital will never make up for the quality of that beautiful singular image c-printed and framed under gallery lights...or as part of a 10 page spread in the NYT magazine. I could (and have) give every one an easy target at which to pitch words like elitest, old school, purest, bitter or wrong. Fuck it though...who cares. It's passion like this that keeps me doing what I do.

I won't call you elitist, old school, purist, bitter, or wrong, and I agree with *some* of your complaints - I'll just say that it's very impractical, and without concrete justification, to restrict yourself to purely film. Modern digital SLRs do not have the ridiculous oversharpening and oversaturation that is common on photoblogs, band shots, etc so that is not a problem, and the only people that focus so desperately on the immediacy, quantity and speed of digital pictures are the Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus etc. marketing teams. Basically, I share your complaints about the tendencies of *people*, but completely disagree with your complaints about the use of digital.

The process that the lens and main camera components go through is the same function it's been for decades, but now its method of recording the light it captures is through pixels. The art of photography rests in the camera's eye (the viewfinder, the lens), the mind's eye (that fictional idea you have in your head of what the picture is going to look like BEFORE you bring the camera to your face), *not* in the equipment and printing methods.

Let's be honest with ourselves. FOX can effectively appropriate and re-create an entire subculture of music and style with the OC. Nothing these days is sacred - and I grudgingly embrace the idea that film is not an exception. There is nothing that Photoshop cannot do that a Leica can. One is "purer" than the other if you're a purist, sure, but that doesn't remove the fact that both potentially create the same item. --- Hell, I'd even say that modern digital photography is *more* pure than old Film photography because it de-emphasizes the touch and signature of the camera, making the work more about the photographer and the moment and less about the equipment he used to create the photograph. If an artist devotes his life to using the Leica because he likes the way it produces images, then his art is a reflection and a demonstration of the Leica, not inherently (and I use this word because in some cases the subject matter is enhanced by the flaws and natural enhancements by using a particular camera) of his subject matter or the lighting, the emotion, society or whatever else he is trying to portray.

The only thing elitist in your post is the idea you seem to allude to that only film shooters can be passionate about what they're doing. THAT I find incredibly wrong.

I think a person who restricts themselves to a particular medium (one which is becoming more "obsolete," in terms of practical usefulness by the day), is seriously stunting their potential aesthetic development.

Like I said, I agree with a lot of what you're bringing up, and I even mentioned a few days ago on another thread my same frustration with the fact that everyone who buys a piano doesn't call themselves a pianist, yet everyone who buys a digital camera is a photographer, and everyone who has a set of turntables is a DJ and everyone who downloaded Adobe CS is a designer. I just think you're only hurting yourself by rejecting digital photography so blatantly.

If you haven't checked out some of the newer DSLRs out there, you really should. They're made for photographers, not for cocksuckers to take pictures of parties, and in good lighting make for some excellent photographs. I recently upgraded to a Nikon D80, and have been able to produce prints 40" wide with NO color noise whatsoever (at ISO <400).

[hype_killz]

wow some of these pictures are pretty intense. I'm especially likeing Carl's. portraying someone's lifestyle thru pictures is very interesting...

[sphoxx]

[chris_n]

[Carl]

heyyyyyy thats right near where i live!

cool photo too

[will_i_am]

shot in raw format. no idea what i'm doing.

[will_i_am]

eh. some more.

[Carl]

A few from the past weeks.

Ill put a few more up later.

Mustard Seed Clothing Company in downtown Napa

Two guys working on there truck

[Carl]

My friend Chesey

Bonfire before the big town rival high school football game

[Lucas]

Wow man so fantastique.

A few from the past weeks.

Ill put a few more up later.

Mustard Seed Clothing Company in downtown Napa

Two guys working on there truck

[Carl]

Thanks lucas.

few more...

Ho-Ho eating contest at a local high school

Napa High Vs. Vintage High

[fiveagain]

haha. that's right across the street from me. 6th and 2nd?

[xcoldricex]

carl how do you get that kind of exposure without mad blurring in your night shots? (pardon my misuse of photography technical terms)

[swooc]

carl how do you get that kind of exposure without mad blurring in your night shots? (pardon my misuse of photography technical terms)

Super steady hands hehe?

Im don't know much about photography but i'll try and answer your question. You can try opening your aperture to the biggest size your camera/lense can handle. An aperture of at least f2.8 is ideal. That way you can increase your shutter speed and hopefully theres enough light from the scene for you to capture the pic quick enough without blurring. Or use a tripod .

If it was me i would use a tripod, that way i have the freedom to use the smaller apertures to get the depth of field i want.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

Whiskey-

You really came with it on that one, and I don't have the time and energy to respond to all that at the moment. Suffice to say, I think you get what I am talking about, and where my opinions come from. I have no ill will towards people who use digital, I'm real familiar with all of the latest DSLR's on the market, and I understand the merits and capabilities of CSII ( though I don't see how "there is nothing that photoshop can't do that a leica can", that just doesn't make sense to me. They are fundamentally different tools, one for capture, one for post-production). Nearly all the photojournalists and "consumer" photographers I know shoot some kind of digital, or on occasion shoot negs and scan. Digital photography is the future, I am not denying that.

As for the blatant rejection, you're probably right. Maybe I am hurting myself, maybe it seems a little overbearing. But if someone asks me about photography, it's bound to come up, and I can be fierce about the things I'm passionate about. Both "film shooters" and those using digital have a right to that passion equally, no question. But The tactility and "object" quality of film photography is something that IS important to me in of itself, and influences the way I envision and present my work, as well as how I make it.

You make some excellent points, but ultimately I think its two different sides to the same coin...and I'm sure we can agree on that....

Guess I had more energy than I thought.

[beatle]

[xcoldricex]

Whiskey-

You really came with it on that one, and I don't have the time and energy to respond to all that at the moment. Suffice to say, I think you get what I am talking about, and where my opinions come from. I have no ill will towards people who use digital, I'm real familiar with all of the latest DSLR's on the market, and I understand the merits and capabilities of CSII ( though I don't see how "there is nothing that photoshop can't do that a leica can", that just doesn't make sense to me. They are fundamentally different tools, one for capture, one for post-production). Nearly all the photojournalists and "consumer" photographers I know shoot some kind of digital, or on occasion shoot negs and scan. Digital photography is the future, I am not denying that.

As for the blatant rejection, you're probably right. Maybe I am hurting myself, maybe it seems a little overbearing. But if someone asks me about photography, it's bound to come up, and I can be fierce about the things I'm passionate about. Both "film shooters" and those using digital have a right to that passion equally, no question. But The tactility and "object" quality of film photography is something that IS important to me in of itself, and influences the way I envision and present my work, as well as how I make it.

You make some excellent points, but ultimately I think its two different sides to the same coin...and I'm sure we can agree on that....

Guess I had more energy than I thought.

it's like vinyl vs. serato.

[Carl]

carl how do you get that kind of exposure without mad blurring in your night shots? (pardon my misuse of photography technical terms)

Well, first you have to think about the situation. The two pictures i am assuming you are referring to are from a bonfire, which even at night emits a very strong source of light. Those photos are taken at 1/60th and 1/30th, 2.8 (just like swooc said), at 800 iso.

Now, normal street light at night, bar light, and many other sources of light after the sun goes down, usually equate to around 1/30th or 1/15th, 2.8, at 1600 iso. Thats just a good general rule of thumb.

A steady hand also helps, as neither of those photos were taken with a tripod.

Rir - I think youve finally convinced me...i might sign up for a blog later tonight. Any good idea for a host?

Raised By Wolves - Excellent arguement. When are you gonna post your alaska photos!?!?!!

Beatle - I really like that and im not usually a fan of photos without people in them.