The process of photography

[The dingo]

We all approach photography differently.
Yet there are certain aspects that are essential with photography that none of us can ignore.

To complete the image that we desire we must have some understanding of the following:

1. The photographer (ie, ourselves.)
2. The idea we have in mind before we take the shot.
3. The object and its content.
4. The equipment we intend on using
5. The settings on the camera that will assist in achieving our goal
6. The framing of the subject matter
7. The focus (both mentally and physically)
8. The time we choose to shoot
9. the editing we employ to get what we want
10. The presentation.

No one point is more important than another.
A successful photo is in the eyes of the beholder. If we, as the photographer, wish to achieve a positive result we need to give as much attention to each.

I note with interest that some don't particularly like the PP stage or even resist or ignore it.

\That might be suitable if you dine out and don't clean up afterwards.
Unfortunately, none of us can really avoid it, so why not consider it a part of the journey.

PP is an interesting mental process. If you are experienced enough you will already have perceived the PP image before you take the shot.
Others will allow the PP to ferment for a while until the image reveals itself.
Many will change their minds over time and produce different results from the same file.

Whichever the option, PP is a vital part of digital photography. It is not to be ignored. Nor is it to be a task. It is part of the process of achieving what you want.
And it doesn't need to be complicated.
There are many simple programs about that will give you very satisfactory results without huge expenditure or skill.
Some days its a simple crop, contrast adjustment and colour change.

[Tannin]

I note with interest that some don't particularly like the PP stage or even resist or ignore it. PP is a vital part of digital photography. It is not to be ignored. Nor is it to be a task. It is part of the process of achieving what you want.

Cheers Tom.

An alternative approach is to strive to capture the image you want correctly in the first place. ("Correctly" in this context means "as you want the final product to appear".)

One does not always achieve this as one would wish. There are two ways to deal with the matter: (a) try to repair the image in a program like Photoshop, or (b) go back and shoot it again until you do get it right. The choice is a matter of personal inclination.

(Some types of photography mandate that one approach or the other always be used. For example, many news publishers forbid post-capture manipulation; in contrast, some types of photograph are impossible without it.)

[The dingo]

Cheers Tom.

An alternative approach is to strive to capture the image you want correctly in the first place. ("Correctly" in this context means "as you want the final product to appear".)

One does not always achieve this as one would wish. There are two ways to deal with the matter: (a) try to repair the image in a program like Photoshop, or (b) go back and shoot it again until you do get it right. The choice is a matter of personal inclination.

(Some types of photography mandate that one approach or the other always be used. For example, many news publishers forbid post-capture manipulation; in contrast, some types of photograph are impossible without it.)

You have grabbed the bull by the horns, Tony.
Its not one or the other; its how much.

Repairing is not acceptable in any other process, so why should it be in photography. If you #### it up, dismantle it and start again. Shooting until you get it right reminds me of the philosophy that if you bang your head against a hard object often enough it stops hurting.
Good photographs are produced by hard work, not guess work. Mistakes are learnt from not corrected.

What I am saying is that to gain a specific end result, it is necessary for the photographer to know ALL the steps and to know what can be achieved.
It is not the viewers right to decide. It is not a band aid approach, it is not hit and miss. Its about deciding what you want, knowing how to get it and working towards that end.
Make mistakes along the way, by all means. Keep working at what you want. Connect with every stage.
Its p[ointless if you continue to PP and all you need to do is hold the camera steady.

- - - Updated - - -

Photography: In your first post I'd tend to swap 2 and 3 around, and then perhaps 5 and 6.
What Tannin says is (to me anyway), an abbreviation of what you set out.

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

The list isn't chronological.

[The dingo]

Take this shot, for example.

[IMG]_DSF5347 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr[/IMG]


I might ask myself how others see it.
I don't find that so important.
I ask myself is it what I wanted to achieve.
Like most thoughts, stuff in my head happens quickly. I react to those thoughts and take the picture.
What I am graced with is a whole stack of experiences, skills and knowledge that will predict what the final image will look like.
I take the photo in this way because I can perceive the end result.
Fortunately, I don't always go with my first thoughts.
Unfortunately, I forget things.
This shot took now more than a fraction of a second to go through the 10 steps.



This shot took years


[IMG]_d3s9469 copy (1) by Tom Dinning, on Flickr[/IMG]


Photography is less about the result than the process.
The result is important but it is viewed at a glance.

ngoy the process.

xx
Tommo

[ameerat42]

Photography: In your first post I'd tend to swap 2 and 3 around, and then perhaps 5 and 6.
What Tannin says is (to me anyway), an abbreviation of what you set out.

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

[Hamster]

Site Matters: You seem to collect extra IMG tags front and back. These can be deleted
without affecting the image displayed.

Yeah, Flickr tends to add that info bit in the BB code. As you say, easily deleted.

[ameerat42]

Apologies, as I read "process".

[The dingo]

Apologies, as I read "process".

never apologise to me, ameerat42. It persuaded me to think highly of myself.

You presented good points that need discussing. We are here to discuss, to debate, to learn. I learn new things every day. I have the habit of telling people about it.
Photography is a tricky business, It involves so many 'feelings' as well as skills.

[Glenda]

An interesting read. As someone who became interested in photography later in life it has been a steep learning curve. I still find #6 the framing of the subject the most difficult, although I think I am slowly getting better. I am one of those who enjoy PP, although spend more time on genres such as landscapes and much less on birds/nature shots. I do envy you your ability to capture interesting street scenes. All that I've seen tell a story and I love the predominantly mono processing. That is a genre I feel very intimidated doing but one I feel I'd enjoy if I could just let go of my inhibitions. And, of course being inhibited all my attempts look exactly what they are snap shots, done way too quickly without anywhere near enough thought behind them.

- - - Updated - - -

[The dingo]

An interesting read. As someone who became interested in photography later in life it has been a steep learning curve. I still find #6 the framing of the subject the most difficult, although I think I am slowly getting better. I am one of those who enjoy PP, although spend more time on genres such as landscapes and much less on birds/nature shots. I do envy you your ability to capture interesting street scenes. All that I've seen tell a story and I love the predominantly mono processing. That is a genre I feel very intimidated doing but one I feel I'd enjoy if I could just let go of my inhibitions. And, of course being inhibited all my attempts look exactly what they are snap shots, done way too quickly without anywhere near enough thought behind- - - Updated - - -

By the look of your join date, you've been here for a long time.
I'm a beginner at this forum gig. I've been banned from more than I have joined. Seems like I have a harsh voice.

Photography is the same whichever genre you choose. Being in the street is much like photographing weddings: lots of people, no-one stands still, everyone is the enemy, there's always one bloke who knows more than you do.
I shot weddings for the first 10 years of my career. I swear it was the worst experience of my life, but I learnt a lot.
In the 70's I was offered a job as a court photographer. That required of me to photograph people in the street, crime scenes, spy on people and be confident in what I do. That was the best training I ever had.I still love being in the street.

I think I've learnt to be invisible, like when you're at the counter of a shop and everyone ignores you. Be like that.

Don't look people in the eye.

Frame for the shot, not for the person.

Be content with your progress.

[Tannin]

^ Those are interesting remarks, Tom. I can perhaps imagine doing wedding photography by extrapolation from my time as a uni student, where I paid the bills by playing in a band at weddings (and other functions, but mostly weddings). Most of them were pretty awful. Some were downright horrible. And some were so much fun you'd do the same crowd again next week for nothing. But mostly pretty dreary stuff. Your court photography stint must have been quite an experience.

And, curiously enough, I resonate strongly with your "learn to be invisible" bit. I never, ever do street photography, practically never do humans at all if I don't have to, but my game is all about being there and being seen without being noticed. It has become second nature for me: dress like a bum, never eyeball the bird, never look interested, never move purposefully, drift aimlessly about like a browsing sheep such that you "just happen" to be where you want to be to get the shot. Be so boring so that the wildlife - which always knows that you are there - doesn't bother reacting to you.

[The dingo]

^ Those are interesting remarks, Tom. I can perhaps imagine doing wedding photography by extrapolation from my time as a uni student, where I paid the bills by playing in a band at weddings (and other functions, but mostly weddings). Most of them were pretty awful. Some were downright horrible. And some were so much fun you'd do the same crowd again next week for nothing. But mostly pretty dreary stuff. Your court photography stint must have been quite an experience.

And, curiously enough, I resonate strongly with your "learn to be invisible" bit. I never, ever do street photography, practically never do humans at all if I don't have to, but my game is all about being there and being seen without being noticed. It has become second nature for me: dress like a bum, never eyeball the bird, never look interested, never move purposefully, drift aimlessly about like a browsing sheep such that you "just happen" to be where you want to be to get the shot. Be so boring so that the wildlife - which always knows that you are there - doesn't bother reacting to you.

couldnt have said it better, Tannin. The best shots are ones that get a reaction from someone and they then realize that they are not the centre of attention and feel stupid for reacting.
I took some photos in Adelaile Library a few years back. The old section. As I was leaving a woman approached and accused me of taking photos of her. She asked me to accompany her to the security guard. I did. When we got there I immediately accused the woman of harassing me and making false accusations. She was dumbfounded. "Why would I take photos of someone so ugly" I announced. I walked off with a smile on my face.

Those who shout loudest are often the least heard

[The dingo]

THE PHOTOGRAPHER

We don't hear or ask much of the photographer when we view a picture
Shame, really, because they are interesting people and that knowledge can add to the enjoyment of looking and appreciating the image.

Take this picture, for example:

Image removed due to breach of forum rules.

Nothing spectacular, I hear you say.
Quite right.

Lets dig deeper.

Who is the photographer?
Who are these people?
Why did the photographer choose to photograph them?
Is there anything we can assume about the photographer?
What does the photographer usually photograph?
What other interests did the photographer have?
Has this photographer influenced our way of photographing?

The more we look the more we know and the richer the photograph becomes.

[bobt]

On the other hand, one can become so involved with the philosophical aspects that one forgets the underlying aim of taking photographs, and this aim is different to each of us.

Art (and photography is a form of art) falls within the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" framework. As such, anyone can say that their work is "beautiful" , and anything we produce and like can be "beautiful" under this definition even if only to that one person. However, that doesn't make it art, it makes it something one person likes. In order to become art it needs to be assessed within a broader framework.

Far too often I see allegedly "artistic" work which has been deemed to be artistic simply because it was produced by someone who has a "name" rather than because their work was intrinsically worthwhile. If your name is Picasso, then everything you produce will be art irrespective of whether it is or not. I disagree with such blanket assessments just as I disagree with photographers who allege that they do not care what others think of their work.

Few photographers take photographs which they alone like. Occasionally maybe, but not consistently all the time. We all want others to like our work even if we are reluctant to admit it.

We can analyse our work, we can wax lyrical about its alleged qualities, we can speak in hushed tones about its deeper meaning and reflect upon what spiritual impact it has upon our souls. At the end of the day, a crap photo is still a crap photo, and no amount of creative interpretation can breath life into a stillborn failure. There are those amongst us who are artists, and others who are simply full of it.

[Tannin]

Speaking as (probably) one of the latter, I define "art" as "any form of communication which provides the viewer with a new insight or understanding of the world, which is of some value".

Now you might argue that an accounting textbook can do that. Sure it can. (Assuming one understands something of it, that the understanding is a new one, and that you (as the reader) considers it to be of value.)

On the other hand, the inclusion of a textbook is a small price to pay for the inclusion of all other communications which produce insight and understanding, and the exclusion of a vast pile of faux "art" not worthy of a tea-towel or length of wallpaper.

The thing I like about this approach is that it neatly includes Mozart and excludes Muzac, and it very properly does not care cares not whether that new insight is mathematical, visual, tactile, or emotional.

[Cage]

After reading this I must confess to being a tad confused as to just what constitutes a photograph.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cott...24-gxhr4y.html

[bobt]

After reading this I must confess to being a tad confused as to just what constitutes a photograph.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cott...24-gxhr4y.html

I'm not sure that one is even art!! It is a great example of how the art world has perverted the definition of art and ventured into a world where it becomes a meaningless concept. I don't believe that your example constitutes art in any universe, and certainly doesn't qualify as a photograph !!!

[ameerat42]

I wonder if her sense of unease will prompt her to give the money and the prize up?
That would be a good object lesson to the judge(s).

What a joke to perpetrate on all who entered that particular INCOMPETENT-ition.

[Cage]

Bob, it was entered in the 'Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture' and won. How it can be considered a portrait, or a photograph, is beyond my comprehension.

Apparently presenting something on photographic paper can now be considered a photo, even though a camera was not used.

[bobt]

Bob, it was entered in the 'Olive Cotton Award for Photographic Portraiture' and won. How it can be considered a portrait, or a photograph, is beyond my comprehension.

Apparently presenting something on photographic paper can now be considered a photo, even though a camera was not used.

Our local judges are starting to look quite good by comparison!! And here was I feeling guilty because I used a creative filter on an image ........ this isn't just moving the goal posts, it's taking them away altogether! Sheesh ....