Of course it was a slow exposure, 10 seconds according to the data file that came with the picture. A tripod would inevitably have been used. It is a fine picture. I would have cropped the foreground a bit but that is just personal taste.
Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
When I scan in a negative or a polaroid I don't bother cloning away the dust.
I like instagram filters.
I like lots of noise in film pictures.
I think camera shake blur is cool.
I have a lens hood on my Pentax K1000 and currently it's on backwards.
I tend to crop off the paper border around polaroids because I think keeping them on alters our perception of the image.
Often, I can't be bothered scanning so I take a cameraphone picture in bad lighting of my polaroids and upload those instead, and when I do that I tend to leave the paper border in tact, because I think it alters our perception of the image. Plus, I'm lazy.
I have a toy camera plastic lens converter for my Nikon DSLR.
My Hasselblad's name is Heloise. My Polaroid SX-70's name is Penelope. My Nikon D50's name is Boris. I can't remember if my Ricoh GR-D has a name. My Ricoh GR 1 doesn't.
I wish you could apply Hipstamatic filters to pictures after you've taken them instead of having to select them before taking pictures.
I love that feeling of bringing a film/digital/phone camera up to your eye (or looking at the screen), lining up a shot, and then BAM hitting the button to take the picture. What happens next interests me less. I get far, far more enjoyment from taking pictures than I do from seeing what I have taken afterwards. I find that's how I approach most things in life though. I have grand ideas about what I want to achieve, but it's the doing that I enjoy, and once I've started the process I lose interest quickly in the finished product or end result.
I like low contrast, noisy digital pictures, with blur and bad composition.
I like tack-sharp digital images with balanced colours and great composition.
I like blurry low-light film pictures. I like well-exposed low-light pictures that were taken using a tripod.
I've shot in RAW and now I mostly shoot in jpg (or film), but tbh I don't take many pictures at all these days. I don't care much for the technical side of things, I just care about how I feel when I'm doing it, or how I feel when I'm looking at pictures. I want to feel pure joy. The joy from hearing the shutter clatter. The joy from seeing the light through the viewfinder. The joy from seeing a pleasing arrangement of objects in someone else's picture. The joy from an evoked feeling or memory or emotion when seeing an attractive conglomeration of colours and lights and shadows. If there's no joy, if there's no slightly giddy feeling, I don't really see the point.
Am I doing it right?
I like instagram filters.
I like lots of noise in film pictures.
I think camera shake blur is cool.
I have a lens hood on my Pentax K1000 and currently it's on backwards.
I tend to crop off the paper border around polaroids because I think keeping them on alters our perception of the image.
Often, I can't be bothered scanning so I take a cameraphone picture in bad lighting of my polaroids and upload those instead, and when I do that I tend to leave the paper border in tact, because I think it alters our perception of the image. Plus, I'm lazy.
I have a toy camera plastic lens converter for my Nikon DSLR.
My Hasselblad's name is Heloise. My Polaroid SX-70's name is Penelope. My Nikon D50's name is Boris. I can't remember if my Ricoh GR-D has a name. My Ricoh GR 1 doesn't.
I wish you could apply Hipstamatic filters to pictures after you've taken them instead of having to select them before taking pictures.
I love that feeling of bringing a film/digital/phone camera up to your eye (or looking at the screen), lining up a shot, and then BAM hitting the button to take the picture. What happens next interests me less. I get far, far more enjoyment from taking pictures than I do from seeing what I have taken afterwards. I find that's how I approach most things in life though. I have grand ideas about what I want to achieve, but it's the doing that I enjoy, and once I've started the process I lose interest quickly in the finished product or end result.
I like low contrast, noisy digital pictures, with blur and bad composition.
I like tack-sharp digital images with balanced colours and great composition.
I like blurry low-light film pictures. I like well-exposed low-light pictures that were taken using a tripod.
I've shot in RAW and now I mostly shoot in jpg (or film), but tbh I don't take many pictures at all these days. I don't care much for the technical side of things, I just care about how I feel when I'm doing it, or how I feel when I'm looking at pictures. I want to feel pure joy. The joy from hearing the shutter clatter. The joy from seeing the light through the viewfinder. The joy from seeing a pleasing arrangement of objects in someone else's picture. The joy from an evoked feeling or memory or emotion when seeing an attractive conglomeration of colours and lights and shadows. If there's no joy, if there's no slightly giddy feeling, I don't really see the point.
Am I doing it right?
fractionMan
Custom Title
bravo.
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
If you like.
I've already showed the older 3 to a bunch of people on the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group, who thought they were great (I've re-edited them in LR since them btw). The TB shot got up to 92.2 on 500px, and I submitted the TB pic for critiquing in of those videos you all seem to be turning your noses up at. They said it would be better if the ledge in the bottom right corner wasn't there, and if both entrance arches were shown instead of one. It was taken like that because of the limitations of where I was photographing it from, and my equipment.
Yes, a slow exposure, and brought down in Lightroom. I used a mini-tripod (it's all I've got atm), and rested it on the river wall.
editor
hiraethified
Oh, my opinion surely can't be as worthwhile as any expressed by the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group.
Do you work hard at being a prat or does it come naturally? FFS what is your problem? If you didn't want to do it don't fucking ask. OK......?
And, another thing, if you're going to be like that, and the way you've been with me the past few weeks, why would I be interested in you "opinion". What sort of "photographer" puts down other photographers who know a hell of a lot more about photography, have more experience, and have done work for TV and magazines, AND give their time to educate people for FREE, because they are "on YouTube"? An insecure one that's who.
I've learned a hell of a lot more from YT videos than I have from any of you, that's for certain.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I never joined a camera club because all the ones local to me seemed to be filled by middle-class gearheads with Nikon and/or Leica obsessions, or who believed that you could only do real photography with a medium format camera.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yep. I'm going back to film.
Do both. Always worth carrying a pair of cameras anyway, IME.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
editor
hiraethified
Right there is your problem. You selectively choose which photographers you decide are the ones you want to listen to and then completely ignore or put down the ones you decide you don't like. Or weirdly slag off how a photographer chooses to carry their lens hood because you feel it's the 'wrong' way.
And when it comes to being insecure, I'm afraid that's your biggest problem. You're unable to commit to a true, from the heart, artistic statement, so you hide behind the quest for technical perfection and the desire to please members of some private FB group.
Where's the passion in your work? What are you trying to say with your work? Where's the artistic expression? Where's you?
Anyone can knock out a pretty picture of Tower Bridge but so fucking what?
That's because you don't understand photography, or at least the kind of photography that most of us here are inspired and excited by.
You're a bit like a competent guitarist in a covers band, knocking out note for note copies of talented acts and sneering at those you feel aren't 'good' enough, while the innovation, originality and excitement passes you by completely.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Any time I have the SLR with me, I'll have a digital camera along as well. I'm just liking film at the moment.
It might be different if I had a very expensive DSLR; but I don't.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Don't know about Bungle; but that's a very apt and well-put description of so much that's happening in photography these days in general.
editor
hiraethified
A lot of the photo magazines are full of it.
While sometimes marvelling at the technical ability, I generally find the results to be as dull as ditchwater.
A bit like you then, because they are "on YouTube", and not a member of your clique.
That FB group that you put down (again) is full of friendly people (which is more than I can say for here), willing to critique others' photographs, and help others with their photography, and run by a couple of professional photographers who are very experienced, and have one of the top selling photography books on Amazon. They are worth ten of you.
And I'm sorry my image didn't please you. Funny how everyone else seemed to like it, everyone but you. Funny that. And excuse me for not living up to your level of "perfection" as soon as I picked up a camera. And for the record I am interested in constructive criticism; what I'm not interest in is people like you who are only interested in putting other people down.
I'm unsubscribing from this thread. The main point, that Mr Rockwell writes a load of nonsense, I think we're all agreed on. Nothing more to be said.
I'm really not interested in reading any more of Ed's pathetic ramblings, and how he thinks he's "the man" in photography because he's sold a few photos, and anyone else, no matter who they are, nor what their credentials are, just doesn't cut it.
I'm really not interested in reading any more of Ed's pathetic ramblings, and how he thinks he's "the man" in photography because he's sold a few photos, and anyone else, no matter who they are, nor what their credentials are, just doesn't cut it.
editor
hiraethified
I'm sorry, that doesn't makes sense. What has YouTube got to do with this. And what clique am I supposedly part of?
Not entirely sure how you can calculate the comparative worth of photographers, but you banging on about how everyone loves you on a private FB group someplace else reeks of insecurity.
I don't recall actually saying that.
It's also a shame you chose to ignore everything else I wrote too because I think there was some good advice in there.
editor
hiraethified
You could learn an awful lot from Ken Rockwell and people like him. He posts some daft stuff up from time to time, but he also posts up some really useful information that has no doubt helped a lot of people.
Your credibility really falls apart when you start posting up clearly dishonest nonsense like that.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I think digital has brought a fundamental change to photography. Film cameras are relatively simple to operate; also, the possible effects achievable via manipulation of negatives, is relatively limited. So, people either used their camera for family snapshots; or those who wanted to be creative, had to do it via attempts and novel or unusual observations of the world.
Digitization has turned photography into a graphics software project. Much greater ability to manipulate the image. I'm sure that a satisfaction comes with the ability to use that software well; but it's a different type of creativity. It's like a creativity without individuality, if that makes any sense.
As a rule, the great film photographers had recognizable styles that they worked at for years in perfecting. To me, it often seems that the technical masterpieces that people create with software can be beautiful to look at; but there's no way to distinguish the work of one photographer from another. The objective is different from the one that motivates me; which is a desire to create a body of work that reflects what it is that I see when I look out at the world. I want to suffuse my perspective into the images I create.
I think we have a new euphemism "polishing my Leica".
fractionMan
Custom Title
Not exactly sharp.
D-
fractionMan
Custom Title
Wrong shutter speed. Everything a bit blurred.
must try harder. D-
must try harder. D-
Last edited:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
If I were guessing, I'd say Cartier-Bresson.
editor
hiraethified
Of course. And any one of his photos is worth a cartload of perfectly exposed, colour saturated, High deffed, Facebook group-pleasing technical wonders.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
Oi! Ive got a nikon DSLR and a 2 Leica's.
But then I insist a good photographer can take a photo with anything that can capture light. The first project I get my students to do is to take photos with photo paper in a beer can, and I reckon the camera club types would say "thats not proper" hence I've never joined one.
My uncle rates them to a point though, when he was a photography student he used to enter all of their competitions and won most of his camera gear
fuck seals
Well-Known Member
He's always had more than whiff of Alan Partridge to his postings
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I have a cheap DSLR (7-yr old Pentax K100D), and always stick a digi-compact and a film compact in my pockets too, same as I'll put the same two types of compacts in my pocket if I'm taking a film SLR (or TLR etc) out with me. Sometimes you almost "need" fiilm, because you can pre-visualise a shot and know exactly how it'll look, especially with B & W film, and especially if you know the capabilities of the emulsion you're using.
Similar threads
