Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What You Have Is Good Enough. You, However, Are Not.
Know thy enemy, know thyself, and you will be invincible.
– Sun Tzu
When I was a professional photographer, once someone at a party found out what I did for a living, I would inevitably be asked, “Say, I want to take better pictures, what kind of camera should I get?”
My answer to this was always, “Well, that depends. How many rolls of film do you shoot each week?” This would usually end the conversation as the would-be photographer grappled with the concept of shooting an entire 36-shot roll of film each week, much less more than one roll a week. One the other hand, it was not uncommon for me to burn through two dozen rolls of HP5+ or TMZ covering just one minor high school basketball game on a Friday night.
Looking back, I realize my answer to the wannabe photogs was snarky and condescending: The reason people want to take better pictures isn’t because they want to be the next Mark Seliger. It’s because they want to capture memories that are more evocative and aesthetic, a desire we all share.
It’s not the camera that limits the photographer. We are limited by our ability to put in the time it takes to realize our vision and desire for creativity. The fact is, great photos can be taken with any camera. Chances are, you can defend your life with just about any firearm. It’s not the tools you use, it’s how you use the tools you have. My friend Tam said it wonderfully, so I’m quoting her here:
Two reasons people are anti-training (perhaps not coincidentally, this is also why people are anti-competing in organized shooting sports):
1) “It costs too much.” Somebody has fifteen guns, a motorcycle, a PS3 with plenty of games hooked to his flat-panel TeeWee (not to mention the PS2 and PlayStation in the attic), and who knows how many other toys, and a $200-$400 handgun training course “costs too much”. Hey, Skippy, how ’bout selling that Taurus Raging Judge you were bragging about buying last week and using the proceeds to get yourself taught how to use one of the fourteen other guns you already had? (And maybe sell one of those and take an MSF class for your motorcyclin’ while you’re at it.) The problem is, people can’t point at new mental furniture and say to their friends “Look what I just bought!”
2) People can’t shoot, but think they can. At the range, nobody is really watching them shoot and, face it, everybody else at the range is awful, too. But if they go to a class or enter a match, it will get proved officially: “Joe/Jane Averageshooter: First Loser”. It takes humility to learn and lose. Humble people don’t boast on their adequacy. So most people go and buy another gun instead, because when they open the box on that gun, it won’t look up at them and say “You stink!” It’ll say “You just bought the official pistol of SWATSEAL Team 37 1/2! Congratulations!”
If you want to take better pictures, learn about light and get some training: Chances are the camera you have is up to the task. If want to defend your life, learn to use the guns you have, because they’re the ones you’ll have with you if your life is on the line.
Published in General
Great post. I think the underlying point can be extended to many other fields. For example, the hundreds of computer users I’ve met over the years, first with Lotus, and then Excel, who can’t understand why having the piece of software hasn’t turned them into the equivalent of a CPA.
The ones that learn about the light and get some training can, eventually, work wonders. The others just keep buying the next release, or the newest product, still hoping for a miracle. Which never happens.
All I want to know is why no one looks as good in pictures as they do in real life, including adorable babies and dogs and cats. Ok, for supermodels, maybe it’s the reverse, but still…
Excellent title, and quote, and post. Now if only the “upgrades” would slow down or even stop, I might be able to learn more thoroughly how to use some of the stuff I own.
I’m definitely in that category (though strangely enough I have the same problem with faulty mirrors) but it is perhaps not as odd as ordinary people who look much better in photos than in real life. The camera definitely has its preferences.
I have a sneaking suspicion that while you can get learn to take better photos, unless you have “the eye”, you won’t take great photos. I think I have the eye, and maybe I don’t. But I will take a great photo and someone will say “How did you do that?” and my answer is “I just saw it.” Maybe this is where talent comes in. I have never been formally trained, though my dad taught me a lot, and I’ve done a fair bit of reading.
I think it likely that shooting is the same. However, you don’t have to be a great shooter to defend your home.
Because the person taking the photo did a lousy job. Most of the time, I think, it’s harsh lighting that highlights all of the lines and bumps and rolls. You take a photo inside where the light is dim, so your built in flash throws a ton of light right in their face.
No, it’s not flash issues. I suspect it’s the 3-D to 2-D thing. That it’s true for adorable babies and cute cats reassures me that I might actually look better than I do in photos…
I’m reminded of a good friend of mine who, back when we were 17, told me that he was going to buy a word processor (they had just come out on the market) and learn as much of the dictionary as he could, and then he would have all the tools he needed to be the next Stephen King.
For some reason it never worked out for him.
Is it possible to have an eye for somethings and not others? For instance, I find that I am rather good at capturing good shots of historical subjects–at least that is what I tell myself–while I find that when I simply want to take a “modern” photo of “life happening” it comes off looking like an errant click of the trigger. So I was wondering if some people can capture different subjects than other subjects?
Both of these pictures I took while on holiday in Madrid, Spain in 2011. You can see how one picture, I think, captures a good image of the subject while the other one just looks like it should be deleted. Is there any advice you can give?
Great post. Too often our vanity is wrapped up in our “things”, be they computers/tech, gadgets, guns, etc – such that we don’t want to take the time to go thru that awkward, you-suck-at-this-now development of a skill of a particular tool or item – we wanna be Mark Seliger or Dirty Harry right outta the gate. It’s not about the money…one has to learn some actual humility & patience in these endeavors.
I see the same concept in driving cars. A person interested in having a better driving experience will get more improvement out of taking his or her existing car to a few days of autocross or track-based “high performance driver education” sponsored by a local car club than he or she will by getting a “better” car or making expensive modifications to the car.
Yes, absolutely. I suck at 4×5 work, but put me on the foul line at a basketball game with one camera for the near-court and one for the far court and I’m as a happy as a clam.
And with regards to shooting (bang bang), shooting clays is not intuitive to me, but I took to shooting pistols right away.
Interestingly I am pretty good at both. It’s rifles that I really have to work at, particularly with just iron sights. Thanks for the post.
Cheat. :D
Seriously, framing with the rule of thirds in-mind is easiest, fastest way to get more dramatic shots.
And for people portraits, frame up the shot, then take at least one step forward. If the people are the most important part of the photo, make them the most prominent.
To quote my daughter the other day, “Dad, how many guitars do you have?”
In theory, yes. I lurved me my 105 2.5 back in the day and was notorious for shooting portraits with a 180 2.8 full open (“Which eye do you want in focus, ’cause you ain’t gettin’ both of them sharp.”)…
… but.
My favorite style of portraiture is environmental, which shows the person in the context of their surroundings (Why yes, I do have a signed poster from Arnold Newman on my wall. Why do you ask? ;) ), and those I tend to shoot with a 35mm or even wider to get the background in the shot as well. If you told me right now I could have only one film camera to last me the rest of my days, I’d pick an Olympus XA: Lightweight, small, great lens, great focal length and enough controls to let you affect the outcome of the shot. The best thing about that camera is that I took it EVERYWHERE with me, which is why I love my camera phone. Great shots are everywhere, you just need to learn to see them.
My wife and I went out to shoot around Port Townsend, Wa, a couple of months back. I shot a lot to get a few interesting pictures. One thing I liked was shooting up the front of buildings. The other shots that struck me as interesting were of a narrow alley between two buildings.
I have been pleasantly surprised at the great reception my photos get on my personal blog, RushBabe49.com. Ever since I discovered The Daily Post, a WordPress site, I have been mining my photo collection for suitable pictures to answer the Weekly Photo Challenge (aside, I have started this on the Ricochet Member Feed, just for fun). I am quite pleased that I have gained a number of followers who are professional photographers. All of my pictures are taken with a point-and-shoot digital camera.
I want to prefix my comment with this caveat: this is good, sound advice; full stop.
Now, there is a certain amount of biology that preempts the prospects of the training aspect, I’m afraid.
A musician has a biological requirement for sensitivity and responsiveness to sound. There are those for whom the range of prospects of musical proficiency are on a restricted domain, as determined by nature. A friend of mine has been trying to learn guitar for years, and has been beset by all sorts of frustrations. Last week he picked up a ukulele(an early Xmas present), and has learned maybe ten songs
Likewise, A photographer has a biological requirement for sensitivity to and responsiveness to light, color, shape, and the emotions they incur. Not to mention the reaction time and awareness necessary to capture those candid moments which might otherwise be lost to history.
Similar things could be said about endeavors into cooking. I fear I’ll never truly be able cook a great dish; I’ve tried. My brother in law is appalled by how poorly I cook meat. I seem to have a rather insensitive palate. My wife is not so hampered.
This all hangs off of the branch called: “know thyself. ”
For these reasons: I for one, have a deep hated for karaoke. It’s not fun, or funny. It’s just ugly vocalization. And, if I were smarter I’d be poaching the participants for voice lessons. And, the world would be better for it. Oops, how did I trip and fall onto this soapbox?
Regarding using a long mm lens, does that translate at all to a cell phone camera and its zoom capabilities?
Great topic!
There’s a similar effect when drawing from real-life, if the person or object in front of you is too close it distorts the focal plane. You might end up drawing them with dwarf limbs or looking a little stretchy.
Human eyeballs have a spherical shape and are multi-directional. Camera lenses are flat and one-directional, so there’s a difference in how focus adjusts. The camera adjusts focus by flat planes in distance. Humans can observe two objects at the same distance, and choose subconsciously to have one out of focus and the other in focus, whereas cameras don’t do this naturally. So to compensate the photographer uses framing and lighting as a way to manipulate the focus of the image.
In your second picture, just a few observations (in no particular order):
There aren’t any layers. Everything appears at the same distance, from a photographic perspective. You want layers.
The sky is blah. If I take a photo where the sky is blah I edit it, blue it up a bit. If there are some clouds but they are washed out, I increase contrast to get a little drama.
You’ve ignored the rule of threes (or thirds), which you can learn about here.
Line – This is critical I think with photos like your second one. There are lines going all different ways. You want the lines of the buildings, the horizon, the steps in front, the horizon, or maybe a road, or trees or something to direct the eyes. If you look at KPs photos, both have a good use of line. The second one is better in this regard, if you ask me.
You’ve got no subject. What am I meant to be looking at in this photo? The people? The buildings?
Most smart phones don’t have an optical zoom, so as John says, don’t use it. Take the photo full frame, then crop it down the way you want. it’s easier that way, because you have better control with the crop than you do holding the phone steady when it is zoomed in.
I have found the same phenomenon with both skiing and golf. People will buy the latest and greatest in equipment, but won’t spend a dime on lessons. Drives me nuts. I go the opposite direction–I prefer instructions, particularly hands on, when trying to learn a skill or sport. You get better faster and it’s cheaper.
I’ve always been the type that enjoys practice more than “the game itself”. While I have competed at many things on many levels, there might be a slight aversion to being humbled in competition but I think its has more to do with a love and respect for the skill itself.
In tennis, I love just “hitting” and going for those radio shots – the ones you hear but don’t feel because you hit it so purely.
Same with going to the track; the feeling of coming out of a corner just right is sublime. Most of the guys I see there just want to get their knee down. When they realize how hard that is and how much work it will take you never see them again.
I was just the opposite, as a young man. I made up for my lack of technique (I didn’t have a lesson during my first 30 years of playing) by out-hustling opponents, never giving up on a ball, and using guile (lobs and drop shots) to unnerve more technically proficient opponents, leaving some wondering how the heck they lost to such a player as me. Others beat me soundly.
Then I took a lesson on improving my backhand. It was a revelation. I realized I should have taken a whole lot of lessons earlier in life. As it happened, this revelation came just before hip surgery forced me to give up the game permanently.
Heh. Guys like you would drive me nuts. Played out exactly as you say….at least until I embraced the overhead.
As a friend of mine has said, Eric Clapton can make a $100 guitar sound good, but a $2,000 guitar won’t make a neophyte into Clapton.
Across avocations, many people (mostly men, it seems) get too caught up in the equipment and fail to put the time and effort into training and practice that are necessary to really improve.