What is my story? To you?

A couple of months ago I came across PhotoCamel.net. Like this site, folks have fun with each other there. But, here, I felt a little intimated about posting images given the overall caliber of the work shown. Besides I had no online albums other than the Picasa ones I created for this site. (Confidence has not been my strong point!)

A week ago I house sat for some folks who live in the country and have 22 chickens. My goal had been to concentrate on improving my capture technique, but I found that chickens are really pretty stupid -- and, BTW, did I forget to say that they really stink?? Anyway, knowing that we do our best when capturing something for which we have an emotional response, the week was almost over before I was able to make some chicken shots. Once I became intrigued with their feathers, I was able to move forward. A couple of days ago, after processing one image, I really wanted some feedback and started a Critique and Comments thread on the other site. No one killed me; I actually had fun as it turned out. So, last night I got brave enough to create an album on their free gallery site -- my 18 favorite images captured since I began digital last August -- and requested C & C. A couple of people suggested I repost my images at a larger size before they make comments. No one killed me, either, even before I resized the images.

As a result, I would very much like input from all of you on the following:

Some say we should only photograph what we have an emotional response to; others, that we need to be conscious of the story we are telling so that we tell it well. Problem is, when out in the field, everything happens for me somewhere below or above the verbal. I don't know how to become more conscious of the story I'm telling. I CAN tell you something about what attracted me to the subject initially or at the moment of capture, though.

Could some of you please take a look at my year's favorite images and provide feedback so that I may grow and develop? I would be most appreciative. Do keep in mind, though, that I am more than well aware that nearly all of them have major technical weaknesses, some of which I was able to address in PP, some of which I was not. I would also be interested in knowing if there is any cohesiveness to the collection in the sense of a developing style. If so, what would suggest as a path to improvement?

My goal since last October has simply been to shot minimally (probably fewer than 500 captures all told) while practicing composition and Photoshop. I only have 2 P&S cameras -- one of which is a Canon on which I have added RAW capture functionality thanks to Asher having told me about the Canon Hack Developers Kit (CHDK) when I made my first post here. I know RAW is where it is at for now and the future. Using CHDK has made it possible for me to explore RAW capture while still being restricted to a very small sensor.

The album images appear in chronological order. Here is the link:

Trying Again -- 8/2009-5/2010 - Free online photo gallery at PhotoCamel.com

Since the link is not showing up as a link, please go to "PhotoCamel.net --> Forums --> By Genre --> All Other Styles." My screen name there is "GeekStyle59" and the thread has the same title as this one does. Sorry about that!

Hi Winston,

Please tell me how you did that! I've been trying to send a link to a friend without success. Many thanks, too.

Jean

Jean,

What could we say of this collection? Well, the pictures are pleasing, however there's no thread that unites them except that the lens and chip work and your compositions are pleasing.
well.



Take this picture as an example. It's unique and as far as I can see has no relationship to a picture of a flower or a face or even a close up of a set of rocks or a railway bridge. So what can be done? Pick related pictures so we have a series of children's portraits then children full body at play perhaps, flowers shot in like composition and so forth. Your pictures can be reviewed only as related groups. Then photographers can look at features that connect one picture with another. After that critique is worthwhile.

So post the pictures here in sets and then see what happens.

Asher

Hello Jean,
My fly-by reaction to your images is that you're developing a nice eye for traditional compositions. The image that Asher highlighted is a very good example, where you've established an interesting foreground and then used the shore to bring our eye to the lighthouse. This is a very traditional (and, yes, rather clichė) image. So if your general goal is to use your camera to express traditional beauty as you find it, I'd say you're doing fine. You're placing things in the frame in a pleasing manner. Keep practicing. You don't have to take a trip to practice. Make a point to shoot something every day, and not just snapshooting. You can practice composition on any subject.

If I could offer three suggestions...

1. For the time being, forget the RAW image stuff. If you're on a budget (and who isn't?) just use your camera's highest (biggest image) JPG setting and the most neutral in-camera processing. I noticed that your white balances are nearly all out of whack and suspect that it may be due to the RAW hack that you described. RAW is a fine facility for enabling generous post-processing but such techie nits can be very counter-productive to simply learning to see and capture images. Your camera probably knows a great deal more about exposure and white balance than you do. Let it do its thing for the time being and just concentrate on capturing the type of imagery you want.

2. Patience. Wait for your shot. Look at that viewfinder (LCD screen) as if it was the whole world. Lean to spot distractions and to wait for them to exit (or to eliminate them yourself). That lone patch of blue sky amidst the jagged edges of the clouds is, for example, distractive. The gray cloud behind that white/gray lighthouse diminishes the lighthouse's value (perhaps intentionally). Perhaps waiting for those clouds to move might have produced a stronger image?

3. I'm going to contradict Asher here and recommend that you forget the "story" bit. You're not a photojournalist; you're an amateur photographer trying to improve your basic skills. So if you want to take a whirl at telling a "story" with your camera, fine. But I would not suggest that it be paramount for you right now. (The whole "story" line of photography is, at least for me, a bit fallacious anyway. Photographs, in themselves, cannot tell stories. They can suggest a story. They can support stories through illustrations. But you need language, or many more images - 24/second - to "tell a story".)

There are many, many excellent books and resources to help guide you toward "Taking a Better Picture". I heartily suggest you pursue one or two for your primary guidance, and take advice from online forums (like this) with big salt grains. There are some very good, experienced photographers online in such forums. But the mainstream of participants are no stronger than you.

One last thought: Remember who your audience is. It's probably not other amateur snappers. It's probably your friends and family (and you).

Keep shooting!

Hi Jean. First a belated welcome to OPF from me.

If you are from the great State of Oregon, then you already have a head start on a lot of us. And you must be a beautiful person just like the beautiful State.

Now to your pictures. Will you be kind enough to tell me what you like to do in life? Passionate about it?
Care about it? It's ok if you are still young ( in age or at heart ) that you are undecided.

Think about it for some time. Get back to me.

About the pictures you posted...what do you think of them? Who do you want to see your work?

Why does it matter to you what I think about your photos? To hear how good or bad your photos are? How to improve? Improve what? Your composition, technique, both, none?

I shall await your response.

Take care.

Asher Kelman said:

Take this picture as an example. It's unique and as far as I can see has no relationship to a picture of a flower or a face or even a close up of a set of rocks or a railway bridge. So what can be done? Pick related pictures so we have a series of children's portraits then children full body at play perhaps, flowers shot in like composition and so forth. Your pictures can be reviewed only as related groups. Then photographers can look at features that connect one picture with another. After that critique is worthwhile.

So post the pictures here in sets and then see what happens.

Asher

Click to expand...

Ken,

Is there anything here about a storyline?

Ken Tanaka said:

3. I'm going to contradict Asher here and recommend that you forget the "story" bit. You're not a photojournalist; you're an amateur photographer trying to improve your basic skills. So if you want to take a whirl at telling a "story" with your camera, fine. But I would not suggest that it be paramount for you right now. (The whole "story" line of photography is, at least for me, a bit fallacious anyway. Photographs, in themselves, cannot tell stories. They can suggest a story. They can support stories through illustrations. But you need language, or many more images - 24/second - to "tell a story".)

Click to expand...

I really don't mind being contradicted, as for sure I only try to give opinions and facts separately, and what I write here is a judgment where we likely agree anyway. I make no reference or inference to story here. There are stories in some pictures but that's not of interest here. The only concern is this. When a set of pictures is presented with widely diverse subjects in a forum, the task of giving constructive feedback is made harder. What applies to one category is important to spend time on and often does not apply in the same way to other subjects. So, in this case, all one can do, as I have done, is comment on whether or not the camera works and the pictures are agreeable. The exception would be when the collection, (as extremely varied as the subject might be), still hold together in master theme or motif, so that looking at each one builds up an experience not possible with just one picture alone. We do not have this here.

All I'm stating, and this you must surely support, is that to get useful feedback on individual pictures, they need to be presented alone or in sets of related images. Then one can give attention to each class of image on its own group needs and individual merits. The requirements for intimate close portraits, for example, differ in emphasis and or nature from characteristics we look at in landscapes or even, as here, picture-postcard-pretty lighthouse images!

Asher

Asher,

All I'm stating, and this you must surely support, is that to get useful feedback on individual pictures, they need to be presented alone or in sets of related images. Then one can give attention to each class of image on its own group needs and individual merits. The requirements for intimate close portraits, for example, differ in emphasis and or nature from characteristics we look at in landscapes or even, as here, picture-postcard-pretty lighthouse images!

Click to expand...

No, actually, I don't unconditionally agree with your assertion. But this is a subject away from Jean's thread. So it's best to take this up another time and place.

Hi Asher, Ken and Fahim,

Thank you for such quick responses. I came back briefly and read the first two of your responses, then had to immediately leave again and have come back to find these others.

Fahim, for now, I am not going to answer yours because I want to think about the very good questions you have posed for me.

Asher and Ken, I can respond to both of you a bit right now. First of all, I presented these only in chronological order, hoping you might find some little bit of development, but, apparently, you did not. In my 20's (now 60 and in no need nor inclination to make more than expenses, so, yes, I am an amateur who will always be an amateur in all likelihood), I used to spend many hours at the Portland (Maine) Headlight, crawling over the rocks, etc., at all times of year photographing in B/W. So this spot has a special place in my heart.

Last August, together with a snap shooting childhood friend, I made a rather quick trip to the Headlight. It reawakened in me the passion I used to feel about pursuing photography as an art form (but life threw me some major curves). I had only the Kodak at that time, which is notorious, it turns out, for being impossible to view the LCD screen in bright light. I literally had to use my mind's eye and only the little bit of some on the job design training to compose, then hope the image contained a good amount of what I had wanted it to. I am almost surprised that you did not comment that -- something which I see in this collection -- that they are more "design-y" than they are "photographic" (writing with light).

That being said and with all due respect, Asher, my initial response to your first comments was along the lines of "So you can tell an impressionist from a cubist based only on seeing paintings that the impressionist/cubist has presented with like subject matter?" From all the comments made, I would have to say that you only see a picture postcard style (which would, I think, be an accurate description although I was hoping there might be just a tiny seed of something more), that you might be able to see this, and, then, make possible suggestions for my consideration about how to bring this out a bit more.

Yes, I know the development of style takes years and changes over time, but developing one is one of my goals (I figure I've got a little more than 20 more years of life in which to work at such a goal). That's more than some artists had available to them. Besides, I'm not looking for anything like your assessment as to whether or not I have talent as I know I have a good eye, first of all; and, second of all, I am in search of ways to develop that eye -- you know, 10% talent; 90% hard work kind of thing. At best, though, I jokingly think that I could be some kind of photographic equivalent of Grandma Moses, at least here in the Northeast United States.

As for audience, I began photographing only for myself. But, you know, at some point, we all value feedback and I started to share some of these with friends, many of whom might be like hunters who think that a pleasing picture of a pheasant in its natural environment is also great art. I kept hearing "You ought to be a professional," kind of comments. But that is not what I want in the first place. But it did begin to mkae me start to consider the possibility of marketing some images locally.

Long ago I remember hearing that one of the differences between European culture and that here in the U.S. is that nearly all European homes have at least one original work of art whereas most Americans do not. Now I didn't say that those European homes had an original work of art by an incredibly famous artist -- just that they had an original piece of art in their homes. I think you get the point, right? I'm not deluded enough to think that, within the next 20 years there is any great possibility that I would become a "GREAT AND FAMOUS ARTIST." I do believe, however, that I, at least, have the potential to become a reasonably well known local or regional artist whose medium is photography -- and I'm willing to work very hard, within the limits of my disability, to get there -- whose images will stand the test of time.

Along those lines, then, I think that Ken's suggestions to forget RAW for now, to let the camera initially handle white balance and exposure (perhaps with some EVs applied), to photograph something every day (Weston's advice, too, if I remember correctly), and to focus (lol) on really SEEING the subject, are much more helpful to me. I know that I have been trying to get my head around everything at once this past year just to get an initial basic foundation. And, I have had to do this primarily in a vacuum except for my email/snail mail mentor for PP.

Your suggestions, Ken, seem to me to be right on target. I think I have gained that basic foundation to the point where I can let go of some things for now in order to concentrate on the most elemental ones. For example, I was completely intimidated by the Photoshop learning curve in the beginning. Now I have learned to do some genuinely basic things to each photo with a beginner's skill set -- which I totally lacked for most of the past year despite my best efforts to get SOMEWHERE and know how to get back if I needed to. I LOVE LEARNING, never want to stop learning, and it doesn't appear that I will ever run out of learning opportunities by pursuing photography as an art.

This is just my initial, off the top of my head response and have no doubt left out several things.

Oh, yeah, one last thing. I don't remember, as I write this, who said that I don't have to travel to photograph. Yes, I did spend a week in my native State of Maine. Yes, I did get a quick trip to Vegas. But the rest of these images were all made right here in my current hometown because I don't have a car and public transit barely exists where I live.

Humbly submitted,
Jean

Yeah, this is more what I had in mind, Asher. Actually the sky has already been replaced (see the "My Favorite View" taken only minutes later). The original sky was not as blown as the Favorite View is, but it totally lacked interest in addition to having blown spots. And, yes, I too, was bothered by the rocks jutting out into the ocean without more "free" space to the right of them and very much like the concept of expanding it as you have done here. Now, see, that possibility never occured to me as something which I could actually DO!

I spent days learning how to replace the sky inititally using the selection tool and ended up painting pixel by pixel around the contours of the lighthouse. Just recently I found a "cleaner" way of replacement through using adjustment layers and blend modes inside PS. I even tried "flipping" the sky because of the problems it now presents against the lighthouse, but the sense of light direction just didn't seem right to me so I reverted it to its initial orientation.

As for marketing, all I have done is to call a local General Store (which also has an antiques section). They said, "Sure! Bring your pictures in and, if we like them, we'll buy them." So, I researched ways to keep the costs of presentation down. I came up with printing all the images at 5.25 x 7" (full frame for my tiny sensor) in an 8x10 matte with backing board inside a poly sleeve. Before I entered into these presentation costs, though, it only seemed prudent to see whether or not I had anything even locally marketable. (One's income when on disability leaves just a LITTLE bit to be desired! ) With this approach I could sell the matted printed prints in sleeves, make a little more than 100% profit over the cost of materials only while still offering them at a purchase price of $10.

Jean Henderson said:

.........

That being said and with all due respect, Asher, my initial response to your first comments was along the lines of "So you can tell an impressionist from a cubist based only on seeing paintings that the impressionist/cubist has presented with like subject matter?"

Click to expand...

I didn't categorize your style. The subject of the lighthouse, however, is what it is. Generally such images are postcard pretty. Nothing wrong with that. Look again at what I wrote, emphasis in bold:

Asher Kelman said:

... to get useful feedback on individual pictures, they need to be presented alone or in sets of related images. Then one can give attention to each class of image on its own group needs and individual merits. The requirements for intimate close portraits, for example, differ in emphasis and or nature from characteristics we look at in landscapes or even, as here, picture-postcard-pretty lighthouse images!

Asher

Click to expand...

So if the picture needs to be on its own, so be it. We welcome that. If you have a set of like images, go for it, show them together. If you are going to put it in an art gallery, however, Ken has more experience, he can advise you and maybe your collection works for him. For here, in order to get the best feedback from within the limits of the skills of the community here, until we know more of your work or unless there's a guide to seeing them together, pictures should be related in some way. No story is needed ever unless you have something instructive or fun to share. For example, photographing 10 foot tall towering bears, (which is dangerous), or eagles over their hunting ground, (which might require knowledge of their patterns of flight), benefits from the story of how you approach this. What's always helpful is to say why you are posting and you already did that well. Thanks!

I do not judge your talent. I keep an open mind but suspect that we all have talent enough. You have had people investing time in your work. As you share pictures, folk either become addicted to your work or not. If "not", then for some work, that can speak more of us and our limited insight, esthetics, experience, limitations and/taste. It will not necessarily reflect the quality of your work. We should be humble in our critique.

After all, we may not like a photograph and it could be something that already is, (or eventually will be), part of a National Gallery collection that people will line up to enjoy! Do don't ever be put off by people not liking your work enough! Maybe they're the wrong people!

One thing to add to Ken's "grains of salt warning", you won't get much false praise here and there will be an honest attempt to give valid feedback. This must be taken not only with "salt" Ken offers, but also the ability to distinguish good and bad ideas ,as well respect your own vision. However, unbridled cynicism cannot replace the benefit of openness to new ideas. It's in that limited sense that OPF might be able to help with feedback.

Jean Henderson said:

Besides, I'm not looking for anything like your assessment as to whether or not I have talent as I know I have a good eye, first of all; and, second of all, I am in search of ways to develop that eye -- you know, 10% talent; 90% hard work kind of thing. At best, though, I jokingly think that I could be some kind of photographic equivalent of Grandma Moses, at least here in the Northeast United States.

Click to expand...

That's a good goal. Just articulate what this means and what you must do and it can be done.


Asher

P.S. As far as disagreeing with Ken, or vice versa, that's part of the deal here. I respect Ken's broad body of knowledge and his talent as a photographer and he is in high standing here! However, we just give our best impression. I can tell you, that whenever there is a disagreement, there's something more to learn

OK, so we both had some misunderstandings going, Asher. I, for one, totally missed the very things which you have just made bold to get my attention. I was perhaps too eager in my race through the new posts seeking to get a feel for where the responses would take me. Lacking the nuance of face to face conversation, I guess I missed your main point. At least at the time, it failed to address my basic question -- or so I thought. Also, please keep in mind that this is the very first time I have "put it all out there." I was, then, maybe unconsciously thinking along the lines of an annual exhibit so to speak while you came back with your main concern -- that you and others on the site can be more helpful to me in the long run if I were to make multiple postings as you suggested.

Your acknowledgment of Ken's long time involvement with exhibiting DOES make me more curious, though. Ken, DID you view this as my inaugural annual exhibit? Or did you view it as a simple request?

Also, Asher, I was really kind of genuinely confused by the direction of your response given the direction of my questions. You have clarified it to my satisfaction, though. I also have absolutely no problem with people agreeing to disagree. We don't need any more wars in this world, do we? Thanks, too, for affirming my artistic goal and your map for getting there.

Now I still have to answer Fahim's questions...just not tonight.

Jean (and on-lookers),

Permit me to add one suggestion as an excercise in your learning process: Bracketing.

But NOT exposure bracketing. Positional bracketing. Looking at your images, I believe that you're at a point where you'll benefit from this practice.

Here's what you do. When you reach a position where you want to take a shot of a stationary subject (landscape, waterfall, lighthouses,...) take the shot. But immediately thereafter take one or two steps to your LEFT and take another image. Now move to your RIGHT by the same offset from your original position and take another one. DON'T change your position more than a step or two, even if you think you see another good shot. (Start a new sequence from that new spot.)

You can and should also use slight vertical repositioning for this exercise although usually lowering the camera is the only practical alternate position.

Study these sequences closely, as sets, when you review your work. I think you'll be shocked at how often one of the alternate positions seems a stronger image when you start doing this. You'll know you're making good progress when your initial shot most often seems the best. (BTW, I still use positional bracketing every time I shoot. In the age of the free digital frame it just makes sense.)

Good luck to you, Jean.

Thank you so much, Ken!! This positional bracketing is a concept I've never encountered, yet it already makes supreme sense. Will do!

Jean Henderson said:

...

Ken, DID you view this as my inaugural annual exhibit? Or did you view it as a simple request?

...

Click to expand...

I simply looked at your images.