[angkymac]

I like photographing nature.
But I've seen some excellent images on this site that were not of nature.
Thinking I should learn to expand, I've taken a few shots as I walked the neighborhood.
This is not intended as a documentary photo, but more in the direction of "artistic"--a learning shot.
If a comment or suggestion is given, and I respond with my perspective, it is not to be taken as argumentative, but as my own particular style of learning--discussion.
Not really knowing if I'm seeing anything worthy of good photography, I'm posting a new experiment--can I learn a new style?
If anyone would like to critique, or to suggest improvements, I will appreciate it!
Angky.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Peter Rockstroh]

I’ve always photographed nature, usually avoiding man made structures or human presence in my images. I can’t remember when I started photographing churches. It is a subject matter that chose me rather than the other way around. If you feel comfortable photographing something new and you are pleased wit the outcome, keep working with it.

[angkymac]

I’ve always photographed nature, usually avoiding man made structures or human presence in my images. I can’t remember when I started photographing churches. It is a subject matter that chose me rather than the other way around. If you feel comfortable photographing something new and you are pleased wit the outcome, keep working with it.

Thank you, Peter. Appreciate the advice.
I'm not yet terribly comfortable with it, but am finding it a bit interesting, so maybe it will be fun to pursue.
Angky.

[CedrusMacro]

Keeping that interest with varying subjects has been important to me Angky, and often lead to easy self criticism as you adjust your eye to the new compositions (again, my experience).

Looking at your image, the window seems the focus of interest, and it's the play with the trees in the scene leading my eye; I'd have liked this shot more of the dominating foreground stem was out of focus or not there- I've got a mk3 version of the RX100 for work, and whilst it's pretty nifty and super compact, I find it's creatively lacking when I shoot with it- the sensor seems to flatten scene images.

For what it's worth I've appreciated your comments on a couple of my images in the past, learning through discussion points and statements of experience works well for some of us- I say keep at it 😄.

You could try to adapt what technique you have that works in your nature photography to this style to give you grounding- say it was macro you did, you'll probably have an eye for details and a dominant subject- see of you can blow that observation up to a scene (in this case, the window would be my equivalent).

[35mmfilmfan]

Peaceful without being sombre - nice. Have you thought of trimming the base from the trunk of the tree across to the lawn ? The curved line tends to draw my eye out of the picture. Also (and this is just personal preference) the venetian blind in the window is a distracting element - I find its geometric assertiveness attracts too much attention.

[angkymac]

Keeping that interest with varying subjects has been important to me Angky, and often lead to easy self criticism as you adjust your eye to the new compositions (again, my experience).

Looking at your image, the window seems the focus of interest, and it's the play with the trees in the scene leading my eye; I'd have liked this shot more of the dominating foreground stem was out of focus or not there- I've got a mk3 version of the RX100 for work, and whilst it's pretty nifty and super compact, I find it's creatively lacking when I shoot with it- the sensor seems to flatten scene images.

For what it's worth I've appreciated your comments on a couple of my images in the past, learning through discussion points and statements of experience works well for some of us- I say keep at it 😄.

You could try to adapt what technique you have that works in your nature photography to this style to give you grounding- say it was macro you did, you'll probably have an eye for details and a dominant subject- see of you can blow that observation up to a scene (in this case, the window would be my equivalent).

Thank you much for your observations--things I had never thought of. So I do value this!
Angky.

---------- Post added 01-05-22 at 08:40 PM ----------

Peaceful without being sombre - nice. Have you thought of trimming the base from the trunk of the tree across to the lawn ? The curved line tends to draw my eye out of the picture. Also (and this is just personal preference) the venetian blind in the window is a distracting element - I find its geometric assertiveness attracts too much attention.

Very interesting observations you make...
I'm seeing that there is a lot to learn in moving from one style to another.
Thank you so much!
Angky.

---------- Post added 01-05-22 at 08:43 PM ----------

I'm looking over that image with all of your observations in mind.
I think I'm beginning to see some new things!
Thanks to all you folks for what you've offered so far.
Angky.

[Peter Rockstroh]

Thank you, Peter. Appreciate the advice.
I'm not yet terribly comfortable with it, but am finding it a bit interesting, so maybe it will be fun to pursue.
Angky.

Looking at your images, you really don´t learn another style. When you take your camera and make a photo,
you select a rectangular portion of the visual chaos, in which you organize areas according to their
relative importance. Your style remains. Your sense of aesthetics decides what is relevant and what is
less important to you, and how they relate to each other.
Look at your photos upside down and you'll realize you tend to split your images into similar numbers of
areas, regardless of subject matter. Your style remains and what changes is what you point you camera at.

[CedrusMacro]

Looking at your images, you really don´t learn another style. When you take your camera and make a photo,
you select a rectangular portion of the visual chaos, in which you organize areas according to their
relative importance. Your style remains. Your sense of aesthetics decides what is relevant and what is
less important to you, and how they relate to each other.
Look at your photos upside down and you'll realize you tend to split your images into similar numbers of
areas, regardless of subject matter. Your style remains and what changes is what you point you camera at.

I like your views Peter, and hearing it phrased like this I'm going to see if this holds true on my images.

[angkymac]

Looking at your images, you really don´t learn another style. When you take your camera and make a photo,
you select a rectangular portion of the visual chaos, in which you organize areas according to their
relative importance. Your style remains. Your sense of aesthetics decides what is relevant and what is
less important to you, and how they relate to each other.
Look at your photos upside down and you'll realize you tend to split your images into similar numbers of
areas, regardless of subject matter. Your style remains and what changes is what you point you camera at.

This is an interesting perspective.
So if a person moves from one discipline of photography to another, that person's 'signature' or 'fingerprint' still remains.
I'll give some effort in experimenting with this.
Thanks for the perspective.
Angky.

[ramseybuckeye]

This is an interesting perspective.
So if a person moves from one discipline of photography to another, that person's 'signature' or 'fingerprint' still remains.
I'll give some effort in experimenting with this.
Thanks for the perspective.
Angky.

I think that is true, I wouldn't call it a style, but rather tendencies in composition. I guess it can be a style if you never break any tendencies. I shoot mostly nature subjects too, it interests me the most, I like being out in nature, and it's just always been more available to me. But I do like to shoot other subjects when I get the chance. A couple of those things have been barns and churches, and it seems like whenever I get the photos downloaded, I always wished I could have tried something additional. I don't mean that I didn't like any of the photos, but what did I miss? There's one particular barn near where I formerly lived that I've probably taken photos of on 30 or more occasions, all from 3 different roads that it is visible from, I've never been close to it, one road is maybe 200 yards away. The barn just is appealing to me as is the setting around it. I've tried to get it at sunrise, sunset, moonrise, you name it. Anyway, I'm suggesting picking something, such as a building, and shooting it as many ways as you can think of, from different sides, from ground level, from elevated if you can (don't fall out of a tree), different times if you can. And use the light to your advantage, which not only meaning the good morning or evening light, sometime shadows can be a good element. I've noticed sometimes when I've been doing a lot of bird or wildlife shooting, I'll sometimes go too fast shooting a landscape and need to slow down. When a warbler flies and lands close to you, you don't get a lot of composition time, you're lucky to get the camera pointed to them before the fly off, so you get conditioned to get what you can. I like to do sunrises, sunsets, and moonrises, which is also a shooting where you need to work pretty fast if you want a variety, but you can plan these out by scouting the site, even if it's just prior to the event, of course you can't control the weather, I've been shut out of many sun and moon rises by heavy clouds. But the idea idea is the same for shooting something new, go look at it, walk around, look at something up close, from afar. I think that's what can set you apart from other photographers too. The fact you're on this website makes you have a higher interest in producing good photos than most people that own cameras. I would say that because i've been on several photo walks, some with as many as 30-40 people. If you watch the people on these walks there might be 75% of them that will get to a place, and all shoot something from relatively the same spot. Now of course many of these are beginners and they want to learn, but many will be satisfied with that.

I think it true that you'll transfer your nature shooting tendencies to whatever you are shooting, but you can learn more too just by trying other things and getting out of what may seem normal. Another way to learn new thing sometimes is to force yourself to use a lens that you would not think is ideal for the subject. You just never know what you'll find. I'm kind of rambling here, I hope it makes sense, more than just a bunch of unconnected thoughts.

[angkymac]

I think that is true, I wouldn't call it a style, but rather tendencies in composition. I guess it can be a style if you never break any tendencies. I shoot mostly nature subjects too, it interests me the most, I like being out in nature, and it's just always been more available to me. But I do like to shoot other subjects when I get the chance. A couple of those things have been barns and churches, and it seems like whenever I get the photos downloaded, I always wished I could have tried something additional. I don't mean that I didn't like any of the photos, but what did I miss? There's one particular barn near where I formerly lived that I've probably taken photos of on 30 or more occasions, all from 3 different roads that it is visible from, I've never been close to it, one road is maybe 200 yards away. The barn just is appealing to me as is the setting around it. I've tried to get it at sunrise, sunset, moonrise, you name it. Anyway, I'm suggesting picking something, such as a building, and shooting it as many ways as you can think of, from different sides, from ground level, from elevated if you can (don't fall out of a tree), different times if you can. And use the light to your advantage, which not only meaning the good morning or evening light, sometime shadows can be a good element. I've noticed sometimes when I've been doing a lot of bird or wildlife shooting, I'll sometimes go too fast shooting a landscape and need to slow down. When a warbler flies and lands close to you, you don't get a lot of composition time, you're lucky to get the camera pointed to them before the fly off, so you get conditioned to get what you can. I like to do sunrises, sunsets, and moonrises, which is also a shooting where you need to work pretty fast if you want a variety, but you can plan these out by scouting the site, even if it's just prior to the event, of course you can't control the weather, I've been shut out of many sun and moon rises by heavy clouds. But the idea idea is the same for shooting something new, go look at it, walk around, look at something up close, from afar. I think that's what can set you apart from other photographers too. The fact you're on this website makes you have a higher interest in producing good photos than most people that own cameras. I would say that because i've been on several photo walks, some with as many as 30-40 people. If you watch the people on these walks there might be 75% of them that will get to a place, and all shoot something from relatively the same spot. Now of course many of these are beginners and they want to learn, but many will be satisfied with that.

I think it true that you'll transfer your nature shooting tendencies to whatever you are shooting, but you can learn more too just by trying other things and getting out of what may seem normal. Another way to learn new thing sometimes is to force yourself to use a lens that you would not think is ideal for the subject. You just never know what you'll find. I'm kind of rambling here, I hope it makes sense, more than just a bunch of unconnected thoughts.

You have some greatly helpful suggestions here:
*Intentionally breaking out of the normal topics to experiment with different subjects
*From different vantage points than usual.
*Scout the site prior to shooting
*Different lens than seems native to me in this setting

You specifically mention considering the light. That currently is a major developmental process I am working on--good support you give!
Thanks much for what you've written in your "rambling"--very good stretching exercises for me to work on.
I'll come back to this--as well as to the suggestions of the other folks--and re-read and practice bits and pieces as I learn this art.
Angky.

[Peter Rockstroh]

If photographic style can be described as a distinct and recognizable way of capturing and depicting your photographic subjects,
in my experience you go through different styles as you learn the craft with film, limited by your technical knowledge as you advance.
I think that using digital technology, most photographers achieve better or more pleasing results in less time, thus arriving at their
"Style" much faster than film users, especially in B&W.
The latter go through different phases, which usually involve: an initial very heavy (dark) printing phase with much contrast;
the mud phase (images with little or no contrast, while learning Multigrade or graded paper printing); the perfectly boring phase
(when you've solved all your technical problems and you manage to produce technically impeccable yet perfectly boring images)
and the high plateau (you've reached the level of knowledge you always wanted and now you're wondering what the hell you should
photograph ). Or is that just me ?
I still have images from all these phases, as reminders of how I solved technical hurdles to get closer to printing the mental image
I had when I exposed the film. Looking at them now, they look different from what I do today, but I still see my style, even in the
ugliest prints. I think Style is something difficult to change, even changing subject matter.

[luftfluss]

Looking at your images, you really don´t learn another style. When you take your camera and make a photo,
you select a rectangular portion of the visual chaos, in which you organize areas according to their
relative importance. Your style remains. Your sense of aesthetics decides what is relevant and what is
less important to you, and how they relate to each other.
Look at your photos upside down and you'll realize you tend to split your images into similar numbers of
areas, regardless of subject matter. Your style remains and what changes is what you point you camera at.

This is one of the most interesting things I've ever read on a photography forum.

[angkymac]

If photographic style can be described as a distinct and recognizable way of capturing and depicting your photographic subjects,
in my experience you go through different styles as you learn the craft with film, limited by your technical knowledge as you advance.
I think that using digital technology, most photographers achieve better or more pleasing results in less time, thus arriving at their
"Style" much faster than film users, especially in B&W.
The latter go through different phases, which usually involve: an initial very heavy (dark) printing phase with much contrast;
the mud phase (images with little or no contrast, while learning Multigrade or graded paper printing); the perfectly boring phase
(when you've solved all your technical problems and you manage to produce technically impeccable yet perfectly boring images)
and the high plateau (you've reached the level of knowledge you always wanted and now you're wondering what the hell you should
photograph ). Or is that just me ?
I still have images from all these phases, as reminders of how I solved technical hurdles to get closer to printing the mental image
I had when I exposed the film. Looking at them now, they look different from what I do today, but I still see my style, even in the
ugliest prints. I think Style is something difficult to change, even changing subject matter.

You very well described the technical changes I went through in my B&W film days. I didn't go all the way to the point you depict--reaching the desired level of technical knowledge--I didn't get that far. But up to that seems to be accurate to my experience.
The ability to manipulate digital data so completely and so conveniently certainly makes a difference in my "development" now.
Not sure if I have a "style" that I can define, but I am finding certain lighting preferences. That might change as I learn more.
Thanks for your observations!
Angky.

[Fotus Tuus]

This is one of the most interesting things I've ever read on a photography forum.

I think so too.