My first DSLR was a D80 with the AFS 18-200 VR. I bought that for a trip to Ghana to pick up my daughter who staid there for a couple of month. I enjoyed that lens, special on the shorter side. And I still like the images I made then, though with much less knowledge. Reading about the 28-300 I read this is the 18-200 for FF.
After the D80 I had a D300, but that wasn’t that much difference.
Then a D700 and that one I liked. I still believe the D700 has a better quality as the D750.
And now the Z6II with IBIS.
Quit fast I bought a AF-S 28-70 2.8 and a AF-S 80-200 2.8. Both where stolen in a burglary but I bought the same back. I added a Tokina 15-30 2.8 and a Sigma 105 2.8 macro.
A few years ago I went to Sardina for holidays and took the wrong lens with me: the 15-30 in stead off the 28-70. That’s different shooting but many times I was glad I had that wider angle.
When I look at that photo, I think it’s an excellent way to learn about lighting, and Manfred M did a wonderful job of showing all the similar shades of white and gray. I certainly don’t have the skills to do this, and I no longer have the lighting or Lightbox. To me, it seems to be a challenge in how to use lighting.
Do I understand it? Probably not correctly, as in why do it? The photo doesn’t “do” anything for me, although it does look pretty. I like how he brought out all the detail in the bowl. It would certainly be a good way to learn how to use lighting (but that’s not what I think you want from me).
I created an account, and signed up. It seems like an unusual and “different” website, but I have no idea yet what I will find.
There are many kinds of photography. Nothing wrong with photojournalism, but I agree with all of you that there’s more to photography than “only” photojournalism.
To be honest, I look at this image, and wonder how he got the lighting to work so well. Others complained about the one area at the very bottom, but while that did stand out to me, I thought it was intentional, to go with the lighting at the top left of the vase, both of which are darker gray.
I may be hopeless, but I’m also very stubborn. That most of you can see and appreciate photos like these, is hopefully something I can learn.
To me, photojournalism is there for the editor to illustrate his text and is not necessarily interested in the position of the subject data. Art photography is down to the photographer that has to tell the story and can occasionally be in the centre, but preferably nearer to one of the thirds. an example, your upside down boat. I suggested that you should add a little more to the right and to the bottom of the picture so that it balanced the picture better. I was hoping that you would be thinking to yourself ‘does it tell a better story’, you may need to view it several times to decide.
@Joanna, she is a really terrific photographer. However, much of her work is abstract or leaning in that direction. Mike, by his own admission, has no understanding, appreciation or interest in the abstract.
Yes, anyone can try to learn. However, first and foremost you have to want it, and up to now you have not shown any no interest in abstract photography.
If I open my eyes wider, I can accept this:
“art photography goes beyond the camera. An image is created through any means as long as the result materializes into the vision of the artist.”
I guess when I’m walking around with my camera, I need to open my eyes wider. Until now, I’ve been trying to create photographs that share what I see. Perhaps I need to continue walking around, but capture photographs that share what I feel.
The question at the end of that page is:
"Do you identify yourself as a photographer or an artist photographer? "
It doesn’t matter what I write here - I identify myself as a photographer, trying to share my view of the world. Once in a while I see something that to me represents “art”, but I must be oblivious to it most of the time. What I enjoy much of the time with Joanna’s photo is that they are often both - art, and photography.
Hmm, if I try to do any of this, I need to find my own way to do so, not copy something somebody else already did.
No more typing about this - If I can capture images that I think are appropriate, I’ll post them. If not, not.
Yes, he is very good but there are many, many, more top flight photographers posting images on the internet. Simple searches will turn up lots of hits to rival as well as exceed Manfred’s work. However, there’s no magic involved, just a lot of practise, practise, practise.
Hmmm. To my mind, that means expressing your emotions like happiness, sadness, etc, which is not necessarily what art photography is about. I would venture to suggest that it is more about expressing ideas, concepts or designs.
Both Anne and I often look for part of a subject, rather than the entire scene, thus abstracting out an essence.
And, if I might just add, from Anne’s backstory, looking at thousands and thousands of photos by other photographers, getting inspiration and emulating their work.
It seems to me, that understanding another photographer’s work is far more important than emulating it. Having said that, I’ve also been wondering how I can see the world in ways that Saul Leiter was so good at.
Joanna, I would have gladly taken at least four of the five photos you just posted. All but the photo of the shells look like something I would photograph, if I saw them. The shells - no. That really stands out as a wonderful photo, that I would have ignored, because I wasn’t smart enough to recognize the beauty.
I left my Apple TV on last night, connected to YouTube, with a search for “art and abstract photos” which I thought might be good for me to try to understand. The one. that reminded me the most of Saul was this:
The way he explains it… well, never mind. Just watch the video and listen to what he is trying to teach people how to do.
I am totally “guilty” of spending the past 70 years taking photos of _____. Every so often I find a fascinating (to me) reflection. Saul does this, but in a very different way.
Every photo (but one) that you just posted could have been captured by anyone with a camera. That one special photo is something everyone, me included, would have ignored. I would say the others are “snapshots”, and that one photo is “art”. Of course, it doesn’t matter what I say or think, but the video I just linked to includes this: “Abstract photography is a great way to challenge your creativity and work on your composition technique. In this video we explore an urban environment, looking for abstract photography compositions and discussing some tips and techniques that you could use to strengthen your own images. Enjoy!”
Can “abstract photography” be art? To me, of course it can. I think.
I know what you mean, I think, but how can anyone “practice” until they know and understand what they are trying to do? I think it would be helpful for you to elaborate, so that people who don’t yet understand, will have a better goal of what it is they are trying to do. Maybe I’m wrong and if people practice without a goal, they eventually WILL recognize what to do, and how?
