Reading mode: Light Dark

Concept & composition vs gear talk

Go to last post
D

deednets

Forum Pro
Messages
15,031
Solutions
1
Reaction score
13,596
Location
NZ
I found two articles/blog - or whatever you want to call those contributions to mankind these days - and thought that this might indeed make an interesting read for those who posted that there should be no more FoV, DoF, EvF or any other combination of three letters anymore, but instead discussions about how to "make" better photos.

The suggestion here is that you can learn composition etc by neglecting over-indulgence in technical matters, as in "I got it, I got it..." and then concentrate on other matters.

As many of the older folk here will know, photography has traditionally started with black & white where the "pop" was difficult to achieve, since there was no colour (so no boomeefeecation Jared Poland style!). I started with a Zeiss SLR, a variety of Ilford film, extremely grainy high-iso capabilities of around 400 ASA, sometimes pushed to 800, very clever!!!, a lab available and then shot - fences - to get an idea as to how DoF works with different lenses and apertures. Then later shot portraits, but in hindsight liked the fences better. Trial and error, if you like, 35mm the standard although we had some bellow-oldies in 6x9, called mid-format (35mm was called small-format, today Full Frame, inverted inflation alright...). So even in the olden days, calculations and plenty of AGFA paper for the bin, there was a lot of emphasis on technicalities. Only HCB never ditched any wasted shots in the lab I am sure.

Anyway, I found these 2 blogs/articles and thought this might cover some common ground, but again starts with b&w:

Loading…

effeleven.blogspot.co.nz

Loading…

effeleven.blogspot.co.nz

- note the inconsistencies regarding the naming convention of the blogs 1. vs ii. VERY arty!!!

Enough material in it to have a healthy start maybe? I enjoyed reading this, good enough for a slow Sunday!

The author uses an X100s, since gear doesn't matter by the way ...

Deed
 
I thought that there was a high demand regarding taking about composition and other ways to become a better photographer and not talk about gear etc anymore??

The guy got plenty of thumbs ups, plus the last comment I saw spoke about words of wisdom, so I thought I would make a start re style versus gear, but probably didn't hit the right note - although Henri was mentioned there?

Not easy, is it now??

Deed
 
deednets said:
I thought that there was a high demand regarding taking about composition and other ways to become a better photographer and not talk about gear etc anymore??

The guy got plenty of thumbs ups, plus the last comment I saw spoke about words of wisdom, so I thought I would make a start re style versus gear, but probably didn't hit the right note - although Henri was mentioned there?

Not easy, is it now??

Deed
Click to expand...
Well, it makes a change from a gear thread, but as you can see it's quite a slow start ;-)

Personally I don't agree about colour. Not since I first saw Stephen Shores' Uncommon Places.

These days, colour is more realistic and easier to manipulate. Black and white has it's place as a kind of kitch film-noir mood enhancer, but it only has one mood. Moody.

People like what they know, and I guess a lot of photographers like the very things they grew up with and which inspired them. I grew up with Haas, Shore, Parr and Eggleston and I like them. Gursky would be nothing without colour. Colour can be grand, spectacular, scary. The semiotics of colour is deeply rooted in the human psyche, so much so that it obsessed painters for centuries.

With digital you can make colour work for you, not against you. You don't have to accept what Kodak told you was green, but recreate what you saw, either in your eyes or in your imagination.

I can't look at a B&W photo taken on a colour camera without thinking it was contrived. Just as I am not keen on colours being painted onto black and white photos.

The black and white photos I do like are the ones that fit into their historical context. HCBs Paris in the 30's, Walkers Evans American Photographs from the 50s. That I like. It fits into its time and context. But when I walk into a gallery full of nothing but black and white, I feel like a cloud has descended.

Give me colour any day.
 
Member said:
deednets said:
I thought that there was a high demand regarding taking about composition and other ways to become a better photographer and not talk about gear etc anymore??

The guy got plenty of thumbs ups, plus the last comment I saw spoke about words of wisdom, so I thought I would make a start re style versus gear, but probably didn't hit the right note - although Henri was mentioned there?

Not easy, is it now??

Deed
Click to expand...
Well, it makes a change from a gear thread, but as you can see it's quite a slow start ;-)

Personally I don't agree about colour. Not since I first saw Stephen Shores' Uncommon Places.

These days, colour is more realistic and easier to manipulate. Black and white has it's place as a kind of kitch film-noir mood enhancer, but it only has one mood. Moody.

People like what they know, and I guess a lot of photographers like the very things they grew up with and which inspired them. I grew up with Haas, Shore, Parr and Eggleston and I like them. Gursky would be nothing without colour. Colour can be grand, spectacular, scary. The semiotics of colour is deeply rooted in the human psyche, so much so that it obsessed painters for centuries.

With digital you can make colour work for you, not against you. You don't have to accept what Kodak told you was green, but recreate what you saw, either in your eyes or in your imagination.

I can't look at a B&W photo taken on a colour camera without thinking it was contrived. Just as I am not keen on colours being painted onto black and white photos.

The black and white photos I do like are the ones that fit into their historical context. HCBs Paris in the 30's, Walkers Evans American Photographs from the 50s. That I like. It fits into its time and context. But when I walk into a gallery full of nothing but black and white, I feel like a cloud has descended.

Give me colour any day.
Click to expand...
I feel exactly like you, and agree with your sentiments, but the opposite way round. Best Pc -- http://www.pbase.com/meagre_offerings/street_photography `im a simple man, i use simple tools, and i shoot what i see` L S Lowry (but bastardised by me).
 
57even said:
deednets said:
I thought that there was a high demand regarding taking about composition and other ways to become a better photographer and not talk about gear etc anymore??

The guy got plenty of thumbs ups, plus the last comment I saw spoke about words of wisdom, so I thought I would make a start re style versus gear, but probably didn't hit the right note - although Henri was mentioned there?

Not easy, is it now??

Deed
Click to expand...
Well, it makes a change from a gear thread, but as you can see it's quite a slow start ;-)

Personally I don't agree about colour. Not since I first saw Stephen Shores' Uncommon Places.

These days, colour is more realistic and easier to manipulate. Black and white has it's place as a kind of kitch film-noir mood enhancer, but it only has one mood. Moody.

People like what they know, and I guess a lot of photographers like the very things they grew up with and which inspired them. I grew up with Haas, Shore, Parr and Eggleston and I like them. Gursky would be nothing without colour. Colour can be grand, spectacular, scary. The semiotics of colour is deeply rooted in the human psyche, so much so that it obsessed painters for centuries.

With digital you can make colour work for you, not against you. You don't have to accept what Kodak told you was green, but recreate what you saw, either in your eyes or in your imagination.

I can't look at a B&W photo taken on a colour camera without thinking it was contrived. Just as I am not keen on colours being painted onto black and white photos.

The black and white photos I do like are the ones that fit into their historical context. HCBs Paris in the 30's, Walkers Evans American Photographs from the 50s. That I like. It fits into its time and context. But when I walk into a gallery full of nothing but black and white, I feel like a cloud has descended.

Give me colour any day.
Click to expand...
Haha, only ever so slow ... maybe it was the libks that didn't have anything in it, although there is a link to an HCB interview where he states that colour is horrible because he didn't want to replicate real stuff as in: If you take a photo of a woman then the emphasis is on the dress, but in b&w it's on the woman ... (no cut & paste here just from remembering the interview...).

Maybe I should have started a thread about whether or not the RRS BH-25 is sufficient or should I get the BH-30??

Now that surely would make anybody a better photographer, right??

Deed
 
deednets said:
57even said:
deednets said:
I thought that there was a high demand regarding taking about composition and other ways to become a better photographer and not talk about gear etc anymore??

The guy got plenty of thumbs ups, plus the last comment I saw spoke about words of wisdom, so I thought I would make a start re style versus gear, but probably didn't hit the right note - although Henri was mentioned there?

Not easy, is it now??

Deed
Click to expand...
Well, it makes a change from a gear thread, but as you can see it's quite a slow start ;-)

Personally I don't agree about colour. Not since I first saw Stephen Shores' Uncommon Places.

These days, colour is more realistic and easier to manipulate. Black and white has it's place as a kind of kitch film-noir mood enhancer, but it only has one mood. Moody.

People like what they know, and I guess a lot of photographers like the very things they grew up with and which inspired them. I grew up with Haas, Shore, Parr and Eggleston and I like them. Gursky would be nothing without colour. Colour can be grand, spectacular, scary. The semiotics of colour is deeply rooted in the human psyche, so much so that it obsessed painters for centuries.

With digital you can make colour work for you, not against you. You don't have to accept what Kodak told you was green, but recreate what you saw, either in your eyes or in your imagination.

I can't look at a B&W photo taken on a colour camera without thinking it was contrived. Just as I am not keen on colours being painted onto black and white photos.

The black and white photos I do like are the ones that fit into their historical context. HCBs Paris in the 30's, Walkers Evans American Photographs from the 50s. That I like. It fits into its time and context. But when I walk into a gallery full of nothing but black and white, I feel like a cloud has descended.

Give me colour any day.
Click to expand...
Haha, only ever so slow ... maybe it was the libks that didn't have anything in it, although there is a link to an HCB interview where he states that colour is horrible because he didn't want to replicate real stuff as in: If you take a photo of a woman then the emphasis is on the dress, but in b&w it's on the woman ... (no cut & paste here just from remembering the interview...).

Maybe I should have started a thread about whether or not the RRS BH-25 is sufficient or should I get the BH-30??

Now that surely would make anybody a better photographer, right??

Deed
Click to expand...
Many years ago I joined a photography club. I was 22 and working and had saved up for a nearly new Canon A1 just before my AE1 shutter died for a third time. I was hoping to enter some competitions, get involved and learn something.

Instead I was patronised for have a small format camera (that wasn't a Leica) and using 'snapshot' film. If that wasn't bad enough, all the photos submitted by club members looked the same.

To obsess about the image is as boring as obsessing about the camera (which they also did in spades). Nobody seemed to care if the image was interesting, or the subject matter was interesting, only that it conformed to some formula of 'good photography' that I have never been party to.

I guess I was lucky that the Dusseldorf School was prominent around that time. The primacy of the subject matter over the image, the non-interference of the photographer's ego or agenda. The sanctity of what is - the one thing photography can offer that no other art form can. I quit the club and started reading instead.

It is harder - much harder - to take a good colour photo. There are a whole lot more variables that can fail a shot. But that's all part of the challenge and the fun. Most of my shots simply would not work in black and white.
 
I wish that there was more talk here about light and composition rather than gear. And don't get me started on the bizarre obsession that some have with the need for a full frame anything! Go out and shoot with what you have.

One of my favourite things to do is watch movies and study composition in them. The other day I watched a movie called The Painted Veil and there was some shots in itthat made my jaw drop. They had a very painterly quality about them. Good movie too.

Two weeks ago I visited the Met in NYC and found myself in the Rembrandt room. His Man in Oriental Costume is there and is a wonder to see. What a master of light! http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/20.155.2 Oh and there are 12 more in the room by him. If you ever visit NYC you must go The Met!

Rather than talk about gear show us what you have done lately. Perhaps some book or artist has inspired you. Tell us about it.

For your consideration here are some photos of mine

Our son Evin at the MoMA, NYC

Our son Evin at the MoMA, NYC

b6d5cb6c67ae4457896a826a934db84a.jpg


Colorado. Shot in IR

Colorado. Shot in IR

Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vinyard, MA

Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vinyard, MA

Times Square, NYC

Times Square, NYC

--
Zack S
Shoshin ni modoru - go back and remember the feeling of being a beginner
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05
 
HCB(or "Hank Carter"--as he checked himself in to hotels in the American South) objected to color for good reason: The color couldn't be under his control.... in his day.

Now, it is under the direct and complete control of the photographer, but only if you make prints or, conceivably, exhibit on calibrated electronic displays.

For the poor slobs among us that only post photos online, good luck: neither the color or monochrome that you produce is under control at the viewing end(computer displays).

The blogger's idea that setting the X100S to mono to get the B+W viewfinder is not useless, but it is amusing, for those of us who had the superior learning experience of shooting monochrome film with a color finder and, most importantly, color eyesight.

Also, the idea that there is something amiss with using equipment that records color but switching to mono in post production is misplaced with digital. It looked bad in film systems, but there is no difference with digital.

Btw, if you haven't seen "Color Corrections", the posthumous issue of Ernst Haas' [mostly] previously unpublished work, it's color photography that still haunts the mind and stimulates thought some 50 years after it's creation.

--
-KB-
 
Last edited:
I agree there are much more important things than obsessing about gear. But this is a gear forum isn't it? But still thanks for the links.

Personally I am getting very tired of the gear obsession. The endless pixel peeping, and those who even get angry if you prefer a different camera than they do. Why do they need to "prove" their choices are the correct ones? Don't tell me what I need. But it's my fault for reading forums such as these. There is valuable information on here from time to time, but I spend more time here than I need to. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone other than myself.

I recently realized that my XPro does everything I need it to do. It is more capable than I am. I have not reached any limits that can't be handled if I learn to do MY part. I have to remember that I shot Motocross races and other action events with my old Nikon F2. Manual everything. I was pretty good at it. So the XPro is amazing to me now.

When I learned to play guitar, at first I had to think about where to place each finger. And then pick the right string with the other hand. But with practice it became sub-conscious, intuititive, fast and effortless. How do we achieve that with our photographic instruments if we are changing every time a new model comes out? Can you imagine how fluent you would become if you used only one camera for many years?

That's where I think I am now. Learn one camera, my XPRO, and one lens, the 23mm, until it is thoughtless. I think it would be very valuable to KNOW one focal length so well that you see the framing, know where you need to be, what aperture you need, before you raise the camera. And only then add another lens (56mm) and learn it that well also.

I am also thinking about using only JPEGS, for a while. No PP, no cropping, straight out of camera. Learn to get the right exposure, contrast, color etc. in camera. This reminds me of when I shot Kodachrome. You had to get it right before you pulled the trigger.

Anyway this is what I think will make me a better photographer. Not getting the latest model or sitting in front of a computer.
 
Last edited:
As for the "color vs B&W" debate this is silly. Everyone expresses themselves as they see fit. But I guess we should tell an artist that uses black charcoal that they should use only color pastels because we say so. It's somehow better.

Sometimes the photo is not about color. Sometimes form and values are what is important. Photography is sometimes about what you leave outside the frame, what you don't include, how you simplify. Leaving out color is one way to do that.

Someone should tell Salgado he is doing it wrong.
 
His first post is very much about composition, the second is a lot more gear-driven. Does make a good job of illustrating the difference

Vis-a-vis the black and white vs colour issue, some of the research I encountered during my day job pointed to there being two separate visual systems which are complementary but sensitive to different inputs. The ventral system is (supposedly) more sensitive to colour, while the dorsal system is more sensitive to contrast. The ventral system is primarily responsible for object and facial recognition, and links up with the emotional systems within the brain, while the dorsal system is responsible for spatial recognition.

So, this is just a theory, but anytime you see a monochrome image you will find it somewhat alienating because the ventral system's response will be dampened due to the lack of color to sense, although it will still pick up faces and details as you stare at the picture. What you will react most to are spatial relationships within the frame, assuming there are any of significance.

So if you're going for the all-in monochrome approach like he suggests, it helps if you focus on capturing contrasting patterns of light, different shapes, distances between objects, people in relation to one another, etc.
 
pluton said:
HCB(or "Hank Carter"--as he checked himself in to hotels in the American South) objected to color for good reason: The color couldn't be under his control.... in his day.

Now, it is under the direct and complete control of the photographer,
Click to expand...
Exactly.
pluton said:
but only if you make prints or, conceivably, exhibit on calibrated electronic displays.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the extraordinary colour of some film is far more obvious that the differences between most decent displays. As for printing, well, that's the whole point...isn't it? ;-)
pluton said:
For the poor slobs among us that only post photos online, good luck: neither the color or monochrome that you produce is under control at the viewing end(computer displays).

The blogger's idea that setting the X100S to mono to get the B+W viewfinder is not useless, but it is amusing, for those of us who had the superior learning experience of shooting monochrome film with a color finder and, most importantly, color eyesight.

Also, the idea that there is something amiss with using equipment that records color but switching to mono in post production is misplaced with digital. It looked bad in film systems, but there is no difference with digital.
Click to expand...
A lot of the time it seems like a cop out to me (this shot doesn't look good in colour, I'll try B&W). Trouble is, we never get to see the comparison. I don't mind B&W, but to me it's a rare shot that demands to be shot that way. It's just a form of saturation adjustment. One wonders if B&W film had never been invented, people would think of using it at all....

But each to his own. I don't want to stop others doing what tickles them, I just prefer colour 99% of the time. Every time I convert into B&W it looks like a fake antique...
pluton said:
Btw, if you haven't seen "Color Corrections", the posthumous issue of Ernst Haas' [mostly] previously unpublished work, it's color photography that still haunts the mind and stimulates thought some 50 years after it's creation.
Click to expand...
 
Beat Traveller said:
His first post is very much about composition, the second is a lot more gear-driven. Does make a good job of illustrating the difference

Vis-a-vis the black and white vs colour issue, some of the research I encountered during my day job pointed to there being two separate visual systems which are complementary but sensitive to different inputs. The ventral system is (supposedly) more sensitive to colour, while the dorsal system is more sensitive to contrast. The ventral system is primarily responsible for object and facial recognition, and links up with the emotional systems within the brain, while the dorsal system is responsible for spatial recognition.

So, this is just a theory, but anytime you see a monochrome image you will find it somewhat alienating because the ventral system's response will be dampened due to the lack of color to sense, although it will still pick up faces and details as you stare at the picture. What you will react most to are spatial relationships within the frame, assuming there are any of significance.

So if you're going for the all-in monochrome approach like he suggests, it helps if you focus on capturing contrasting patterns of light, different shapes, distances between objects, people in relation to one another, etc.
Click to expand...
That's a very credible explanation.

Men also (on average) have worse colour vision and colour memory. I wonder to what extent that affects the choice. Colour may simply not have the semiotic resonance with some people than it does with others.

Of course, the light a shapes thing CAN be done with selective colours.
 
Nice read.

A matter of style and taste.

Color can get in your way sometimes. A while ago I took a candid shot of two people talking. Later I turned it into B&W because the jacket of one person (on the left, not being the subject) didn't work, it was red and really popped. In B&W your eye went to the person to the right (the subject).

A B&W could also get rid of WB issues when different types of light are in the shot.

Though generally it has imho a lot to do with style but can also be a great learning tool.
 
Zaax said:
I wish that there was more talk here about light and composition rather than gear. And don't get me started on the bizarre obsession that some have with the need for a full frame anything! Go out and shoot with what you have.

One of my favourite things to do is watch movies and study composition in them. The other day I watched a movie called The Painted Veil and there was some shots in itthat made my jaw drop. They had a very painterly quality about them. Good movie too.

Two weeks ago I visited the Met in NYC and found myself in the Rembrandt room. His Man in Oriental Costume is there and is a wonder to see. What a master of light! http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/20.155.2 Oh and there are 12 more in the room by him. If you ever visit NYC you must go The Met!

Rather than talk about gear show us what you have done lately. Perhaps some book or artist has inspired you. Tell us about it.

For your consideration here are some photos of mine

Our son Evin at the MoMA, NYC

Our son Evin at the MoMA, NYC

b6d5cb6c67ae4457896a826a934db84a.jpg


Colorado. Shot in IR

Colorado. Shot in IR

Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vinyard, MA

Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vinyard, MA

Times Square, NYC

Times Square, NYC

--
Zack S
Shoshin ni modoru - go back and remember the feeling of being a beginner
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05
Click to expand...
Excellent post! Will keep an eye open for you!!

Deed
 
pluton said:
HCB(or "Hank Carter"--as he checked himself in to hotels in the American South) objected to color for good reason: The color couldn't be under his control.... in his day.

Now, it is under the direct and complete control of the photographer, but only if you make prints or, conceivably, exhibit on calibrated electronic displays.

For the poor slobs among us that only post photos online, good luck: neither the color or monochrome that you produce is under control at the viewing end(computer displays).

The blogger's idea that setting the X100S to mono to get the B+W viewfinder is not useless, but it is amusing, for those of us who had the superior learning experience of shooting monochrome film with a color finder and, most importantly, color eyesight.

Also, the idea that there is something amiss with using equipment that records color but switching to mono in post production is misplaced with digital. It looked bad in film systems, but there is no difference with digital.

Btw, if you haven't seen "Color Corrections", the posthumous issue of Ernst Haas' [mostly] previously unpublished work, it's color photography that still haunts the mind and stimulates thought some 50 years after it's creation.
Click to expand...
 
57even said:
pluton said:
HCB(or "Hank Carter"--as he checked himself in to hotels in the American South) objected to color for good reason: The color couldn't be under his control.... in his day.

Now, it is under the direct and complete control of the photographer,
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Member said:
but only if you make prints or, conceivably, exhibit on calibrated electronic displays.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the extraordinary colour of some film is far more obvious that the differences between most decent displays. As for printing, well, that's the whole point...isn't it? ;-)
Member said:
For the poor slobs among us that only post photos online, good luck: neither the color or monochrome that you produce is under control at the viewing end(computer displays).

The blogger's idea that setting the X100S to mono to get the B+W viewfinder is not useless, but it is amusing, for those of us who had the superior learning experience of shooting monochrome film with a color finder and, most importantly, color eyesight.

Also, the idea that there is something amiss with using equipment that records color but switching to mono in post production is misplaced with digital. It looked bad in film systems, but there is no difference with digital.
Click to expand...
A lot of the time it seems like a cop out to me (this shot doesn't look good in colour, I'll try B&W). Trouble is, we never get to see the comparison. I don't mind B&W, but to me it's a rare shot that demands to be shot that way. It's just a form of saturation adjustment. One wonders if B&W film had never been invented, people would think of using it at all....

But each to his own. I don't want to stop others doing what tickles them, I just prefer colour 99% of the time. Every time I convert into B&W it looks like a fake antique...
Member said:
Btw, if you haven't seen "Color Corrections", the posthumous issue of Ernst Haas' [mostly] previously unpublished work, it's color photography that still haunts the mind and stimulates thought some 50 years after it's creation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There are several different blogs of this style on the Ded Pixel or Zach Arias site as well . Reading some of his blogs and watching some of his You Tube videos swayed me from buying a big digital Dslr and more onto the Fuji X100s . I'm no where near what I called a good photographer but I picked this camera so I could learn . I think this camera will be with me for many many years .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top