[J.Scott]

I took a bunch of that scene over many days and through different weather conditions. For that particular one, the scene was truly breathtaking and I'm mad at myself that I wasn't able to capture it better than I did. It won't look like that again for at least another year.

These were taken a week later at the same location. Breathtaking scene, not-so-breathtaking pictures:



Again, I can see why they don't work as well as I wanted, I just need to learn to figure that out while I'm taking the picture, not by bashing my work long after I've returned home.

Wow! Tons of great advise here. I've been playing with photography for 35 years and I still suck! But occasionally I do see a dimond glittering amongst the crap.

A 'scene' can be interesting - like your ice-bound water way above; but look for interesting subjects within the scene. For instance, on the picture on the left I might go for the wind-swept tree but you chose to chop it off. And 70mm focal length might not be a super choice for landscape. If you are out shooting and see a scene like that and don't have a wide-angle lens, that try your hand at making a pano using many shots. Make a vertical pano for something different. Bend down, lay down, move in tighter, go wider; shooting the same 'scene' from different physical positions came make a difference. Try shooting the same scene at dusk or sunrise; it would look surprisingly different in varying light.

Gary is right, you have to see it in your mind then convince the rest of your body it is possible.

Good luck!

[Ash]

Try to make the ordinary extraordinary but keeping it simple and impacting.
This is what has helped me see that I can sometimes get a result I'm pleased with.
And as long as we see ourselves being pleased more often with time, then it's a step in the right direction.

[RioRico]

I'm an awful photographer too. For me, I need more experience...the more composition schemes I see the more I can apply to my photography.

Trying to 'see' a composition through the viewfinder of a 35/HF or APS-C SLR is tough. It works better to put your subject somewhere prominent (at an edge, at a 1/3 or 2/3 position, or dead-on in the middle) and finalize the composition in PP. Crop the extraneous. More on that below.

Going off what damn brit said, I think "thinking like a camera" makes sense.

I object to that. Knowing how the camera sees, yes; thinking like a brainless box, no. I try to be smarter than my tools -- but as a former software engineer, I know that's not always possible. I worked on EARLY microsystems. I've been humiliated by machines with less brainpower than a paramecium. So I try to out-think my camera, know what it will do and try to make it do something else, but not be too surprised if I fail. Who's in control here?

Mix it up, find new subjects, try new angles, try wider shots try tighter shots just keep taking pictures. Its one thing to know what you want to do and not know how to make the camera do it, its a complete other thing to know how to operate a camera and not know what scene you want

Oh, indeed. Always try to approach images in unconventional ways. Sometimes a scene (or story) jumps out at you; sometimes you must force the issue. But when TAKING pictures, always look for what's important, what you want to make stand out. My wife (I know she's not reading this) had a Bronica system and worked as a portrait photographer, and did it well. But she never was able to 'see' a scene, a story. Her non-portrait work is all snapshots -- no grabbing of a subject, just a record of what's between the frame lines. We'll stand next to each other and shoot in the same general direction, but her images just sort of generally show what's there, and mine focus on specifics. It's frustrating.

ps. I just remembered something I like from a composition book...something along the lines of "every element should have a reason to be in the frame. If there is no justification for something being in the picture, it shouldn't be there"

It's more than that. On some forum (not here, I think) a member's tagline read something like, "Painting is an additive process. The artist must add paint until a picture appears. Photography is a subtractive process. The photographer must remove elements until only necessities remain." That's why we prize fast lenses, to blur distracting backgrounds and make the viewer concentrate on the subject. That's why cropping is VITAL to making images. That's why, in PP, I use the clone brush and blurring and other tools to eliminate incriminating evidence (other darkroom tricks apply to photo-printing).

Our visual system is not like a camera's. We simultaneously see in wide-angle and tele, with infinite DOF. We too often try to make a camera see like that. The results: pictures with no 'there' there. We see a glorious landscape, mount a superwide lens (or take a series of shots for a pano) -- but that majestic mountain range emerges as a hash of bumpy hills, the serene lake becomes a wee puddle. What went wrong? We over-reached, included too much, didn't cut to the essentials. That ultrawide should be used to close on a subject, not reduce an infinite horizon to a jagged line. To show what's out there, bring it closer, don't push it away.

Any picture worth looking at has a shape, a viewpoint, a subject that sucks eyeballs in its direction -- and no empty distractions. It can have counterpoint, contradictions, absurd reflections -- a ballerina on one side, a dancing pig on the other -- but unless the image is HUGE, overwhelmingly immersing, any trivialities are just so much clutter. Sweep them out or paint over them.

So, how to learn to 'see' and compose? Look at collections of famous photos, books of the history of photography and portfolios of contemporary masters. (Peterson published a series of such, showing how many photos were shot.) Better yet, DON'T look at photos. Take art appreciation and sketching classes. Find how artists train their eyes. It's no coincidence that many great photographers had early art training. (I had some training in drafting and cartography, as well as being integral to Dad's photo work.) And remember that artists are known to destroy works they're dissatisfied with.

Addendum: It also helps to be closely, even passionately, involved with and immersed in what you're shooting. If you're not interested in what's around you, it shows. GET EXCITED! If you're not turned on by what you're shooting, why should anyone else? You're into model trains or planes or dollhouses or dogs or matchboxes or smoky bars or grasshoppers or tin cans or waterslides or car wrecks or fetishes or tattooed dwarves? SHOOT'EM! WITH PASSION! Make your obsessions work for you.

And don't just shoot pictures -- TELL STORIES! Cartier-Bresson, Capra, Penn, even Annie Liebovitz's celeb shots, have narratives built into them, make the viewer imagine the sequence that led to that decisive moment. Why is that guy floating in air? Why is Goebbels glaring? Whoopi Goldberg in the milk bath -- how did she get there? What happens after that dumped water hits the people below? Even seeming abstractions can leave you wandering through the photographer's mind. Without a story, the picture is slim.

[Spazmatazz]

There must be something wrong with me. I try and try, and try some more, and I continue to fail.

'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.'
- Samuel Beckett

Interesting thread, btw.

[sealisthenewbeaver]

.
.
It's more than that. On some forum (not here, I think) a member's tagline read something like, "Painting is an additive process. The artist must add paint until a picture appears. Photography is a subtractive process. The photographer must remove elements until only necessities remain." That's why we prize fast lenses, to blur distracting backgrounds and make the viewer concentrate on the subject. That's why cropping is VITAL to making images. That's why, in PP, I use the clone brush and blurring and other tools to eliminate incriminating evidence (other darkroom tricks apply to photo-printing).
.
.

That's actually very well said, whoever that wrote/said. Way too often people try to fill the whole frame with loads of stuff, while usually the "less is more" -approach gives way better results.

Though, as I just wrote about few shots in the critique section, I find it super annoying when people make the crops that are not regular 2:3 or square format. Sometimes irregular crop seems the only way to get rid of distracting things in the frame, but usually thinking few seconds more and composing the shot in a different way helps.

And oh, my advice is to shoot a roll of expensive slidefilm every now and then. Especially with a crappy rangefinder. It's good therapy and makes you think twice before you shoot.

[slinco]

And remember that artists are known to destroy works they're dissatisfied with.

This brings up the point I was going to make this morning. When we look at the work of the masters it's easy to think everything they did was golden. But they made plenty of duds and mistakes too, it's just that they never showed them to anybody. Ansel Adams said if he made 12 great pictures in a year it was a terrific year. Keeping this in mind always helps me feel better about my own results.

After looking at the photos you posted again, I'll second the idea to try using depth of field more creatively. All those pictures have one thing in common - there's a lot of stuff in focus, or only slightly out of focus (you can still make out what's back there, even though it's slightly blurry). This gives them all a point-and-shoot camera sort of vibe. I think one of the biggest creative differences between P+S's and SLR's is the SLR's ability to capture a shallow depth of field. I shoot quite a bit of landscape stuff with everything in focus, but my most CREATIVE results come from getting closer to things with a fast lens wide open. Don't be afraid to use a fast lens (or any lens) wide open just because the pixel peepers say it's wrong.

Another thing you can do, and I do occasionally, is to give yourself "photo class" type assignments. Spend a week (or even just a day) doing just one thing - extreme shallow depth of field one week, working with deep black shadows (chiaroscuro) the next week, etc. Your goal shouldn't be to come away with gallery shots, but just to increase your comfort level within your bag of tricks. That's how we learned back in High School photo class, and not only was it beneficial, it was fun.

[keyser]

...and don't forget, that if all else fails, you can fake it!

You think that Ansel Adams was happy with his prints 'as they come'? He used a system that would allow him to selectively burn and dodge the print to bring out detail, correct local contrast and generally enhance the picture. He had the ability to use different films and different grades of paper to enhance the grain or the global contrast or sharpness.

If this sounds familiar, it's because you can do all this in photoshop. It's not cheating if you are simply enhancing your shot (I *would* count superimposition as cheating though!!).

Anyway, if you can't make it, fake it!

[Alfisti]

I know what you're going through and TBH some of it is needing time and patience and being willing to use way more gear like flashes, tripods etc etc.

Hand held, walk about photography is going to be limiting unless you're always changing your surroundings.

I see very typical signs of attempted creativeness, shallow DOF, looking for patterns, images of dead boring plants/weeds .. it's all there and it's all dull as dishwater .. i know because i do the same.

[benjikan]

There's a disconnect between the scene you see with your eyes and your minds eye and the scene you see in the viewfinder. That's a hurdle I had to get over anyway.
As far as I'm concerned, the technical stuff comes second to the actual picture itself. Once you have the picture you can start improving on it with the technical stuff.

Some very sound advice indeed.

[tpeace]

Focus on the emotion you're feeling that makes you want to point the camera at something to begin with.

Then think thru which photographic techniques you can use to make the viewer feel it too.

regards,
-t

[RioRico]

It's not cheating if you are simply enhancing your shot (I *would* count superimposition as cheating though!!).

Jerry Uelsmann. (WELSE-man) Look him up. I have three of his prints right outside my office/studio door. Prof Uelsmann is famous for shooting 35mm with the simplest of rangefinder cams, the Argus C3 'brick'. Ooh, it was so technical! And then, the print. He'd load negatives in up to 24 enlargers, all aimed at the same printing frame. Carefully arrange each projection; take sensitometer readings. Expose the paper from each enlarger in turn, masking as needed. Then develop and print. Extremely surrealistic work. Was he cheating? Each print might take days to construct, not counting the camera time. Now we can do that in minutes, shooping. Was he cheating? Are we? IMHO, superimposition is cheating only if you lie about it.

[MoiVous]

Creating a good image takes practice and patience. Many of us (and I'm one of them ) don't get the perfect image every time, but the number of keepers gradually rises....

As far as I'm concerned, the technical stuff comes second to the actual picture itself. Once you have the picture you can start improving on it with the technical stuff.

I'm also of the opinion that you have to know how to use your equipment. There's no point in just clicking and hoping for the best if your in the wrong mode, don't understand DOF and shutter speed and how to get there.

Once technically competent we are faced with a far greater challenge; i.e. how to make an interesting photo.
I find that looking at others work can hurt as much as help. My advice? Shoot what interests and pleases you.

A good image and understanding of your tools go hand in hand. A good artist knows how to prepare the canvas, build the layers of the painting, the effect of a brush stroke and which brush to use as well as what proportions, colours, textures and perspective apply to create their work. Look at an impressionist painting like Monet's Water Lillies and see how the subtlety of brush and colour create a tranquil vision.

You should similarly understand the camera and its settings and what you are trying to achieve to capture the image in your mind.

Practice, learn and and enjoy.

[keyser]

Was he cheating?

Yes! When you take several pictures and combine them into one then it's no longer a manipulated record of truth but a new construct. I'm not saying it's not art, just not 'photography'. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of HDR

[enderkasim]

Learn some post-processing too. White Balance, Crop and Curves are your friends. They can breathe life into your pictures.

[Gigahz]

i mainly shoot portraits, all i can say is that make it simplier and more natural.