« what matters is to look,
but people don’t look.
most of them don’t look,
they press the button.
they identify,
but to seek the meaning,
beyond this or this…
very few do it. »
— Henri Cartier-Bresson
mincing art, but not words •
don't confuse me with the facts.
11 months ago
| Tags:
| Notes: 2
11 months ago
| Tags:
(not meaning to pick on Mr. Kelby,
it is just the example that “comes across the desk” — youtube link )
the other day I commented on how photography,
and I think confined to the internets,
and on steroids as promoted by G+,
is becoming like watching ESPN. [ link ]
while photography is democratized by digital photography,
and that is great for people wanting to take photos,
it is also creating a false sense of the _art_ of photography.
to wit: the availability of more cameras to more people does not mean that the _percentage_ of talented photographers in the population has changed from when there was only film cameras, or tin-types.
perhaps, since photography has so much technicality in its nature,
there are many things that can be taught.
furthermore, digital cameras allows some new ways to improve our chances of taking a good photo.
still, there are many problems exemplified by this 1-hour lecture.
aside from the sensational title,
but then that title fits the ESPN narrative.
the lecture is to present an aphorism: « work the scene ».
this of course,
is nothing new,
but there is merit repacking well-known wisdom for a newer audience.
one of the outstanding whoppers here is the idea that someone should be able to take a single snapshot to get the shot _of a scene_.
this gives rise to a justification for the aphorism presented.
in the _Decisive Moment_ world of photography,
yes, that is all you have: one shot.
but otherwise, in this case, where is the *Taj Mahal* going?
this idea of great photographers needing one-shot is pure bullshit,
and of course, one has to “work the scene” — it is not going anywhere!
the approach taken here seems to imply that a photographer,
without a digital camera,
cannot “work the scene.”
this seemed like solving a problem by skipping studying,
not doing homework••,
and then hoping for the best by taking photos.
if the audience is complete amateurs,
then repackaging aphorisms (here, something from Ansel Adams),
and adding a rehash of “rules” is not a bad deal,
even with the *Tony Robbins* /ESPN feel to it.
but rules are only discussed for “not even 5 mins.”
why? nothing here is new,
then make it worthwhile as a whole for the amateur.
it is unfortunate that the internets create a false sense of photographic talent,
and these seminars are geared towards that end.
~
•• Mr. Kelby was -lucky- able to spend three days going to the Taj Mahal,
why not study it first? even with just a point a shoot if needed,
and then go seriously prepared on the third day?
if not having the luxury of multiple days,
there are plenty of photographs of this marvel to do some prep work.
~
•• Mr. Kelby was -lucky- able to spend three days going to the Taj Mahal,
why not study it first? even with just a point a shoot if needed,
and then go seriously prepared on the third day?
if not having the luxury of multiple days,
there are plenty of photographs of this marvel to do some prep work.
11 months ago
| Tags:
| Notes: 3
![when it comes to small venues: don’t be the douchebag with a camera thinking you can do anything because you a “photographer.” pile on that if you bring a flash because you don’t know how to control the settings in your camera, or cannot rent a “fast prime.”
the last two concerts, one in Europe and one in San Francisco — A Place To Be Strangers at Bottom of the Hill if that matters — had two such single individuals, so there is no monopoly to SF. there were other photographers that had a sense of measure as to what they were doing.
in both instances, with a packed audience, the photographer felt that he could move around during the entire concert through the front of the stage, all the while shoving the camera in between people’s faces, and setting the flash to fire to the side at one guy’s face (in the case of San Francisco).
as they cannot help themselves into their lack of talent, they have to chimp all the photographs, which then reveals a huge problem with their talent as concert photographers: not only are they going at it randomly, but really, what they are doing is taking
« hundreds photos of a single note, rather than a few shots of the performance ».
I really cannot emphasize that enough. conditions at small concert venues are of poor lighting which makes for interesting photography — depending on the band’s stage presence, of course — yet, it is more akin to the cartoon in this post. it is just snapping away at random rather than considering what is actually happening. furthermore, the small venue offers a great luxury: the photographer can take photos throughout the concert, rather than being confined to the first 1-to-3 songs as in bigger venues, and often they can bring an SLR without press pass. yet, rather than observing and taking photos here and there, it is just 73 photos per song for the entire concert.
really, there is no clear sense of why to take the photo, with what also seems to be that they don’t know how — from a camera settings to being considerate of the people around them.
let’s be clear. there are many categories for douchery at concerts: people who talk through songs, someone that cuts right in front of shorter people, etc. however, this does not mean that we can overlook the annoying photographer.
I was too far away to use my phone-flash on him… maybe next time.
[ comic image: from The Oatmeal ]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5d5brMna41rqy8qvo1_500.png)
when it comes to small venues: don’t be the douchebag with a camera thinking you can do anything because you a “photographer.” pile on that if you bring a flash because you don’t know how to control the settings in your camera, or cannot rent a “fast prime.”
the last two concerts, one in Europe and one in San Francisco — A Place To Be Strangers at Bottom of the Hill if that matters — had two such single individuals, so there is no monopoly to SF. there were other photographers that had a sense of measure as to what they were doing.
in both instances, with a packed audience, the photographer felt that he could move around during the entire concert through the front of the stage, all the while shoving the camera in between people’s faces, and setting the flash to fire to the side at one guy’s face (in the case of San Francisco).
as they cannot help themselves into their lack of talent, they have to chimp all the photographs, which then reveals a huge problem with their talent as concert photographers: not only are they going at it randomly, but really, what they are doing is taking
« hundreds photos of a single note, rather than a few shots of the performance ».
I really cannot emphasize that enough. conditions at small concert venues are of poor lighting which makes for interesting photography — depending on the band’s stage presence, of course — yet, it is more akin to the cartoon in this post. it is just snapping away at random rather than considering what is actually happening. furthermore, the small venue offers a great luxury: the photographer can take photos throughout the concert, rather than being confined to the first 1-to-3 songs as in bigger venues, and often they can bring an SLR without press pass. yet, rather than observing and taking photos here and there, it is just 73 photos per song for the entire concert.
really, there is no clear sense of why to take the photo, with what also seems to be that they don’t know how — from a camera settings to being considerate of the people around them.
let’s be clear. there are many categories for douchery at concerts: people who talk through songs, someone that cuts right in front of shorter people, etc. however, this does not mean that we can overlook the annoying photographer.
I was too far away to use my phone-flash on him… maybe next time.
[ comic image: from The Oatmeal ]
