[Closed] Taking photography to the 'next level'.....

you need to 'purge'

for £600+ I'd like that to be automatic...

Oh, and I wonder how long it will take me to find out how to "purge" in the eccentric "help" system ?

it's in the edit menu about 2/3 way down.
there is probably a shortcut but as i have never had to use it (lots of ram and dedicated scratch disk) i don't know it.

obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states. no idea if it will delete a snapshot? it shouldn't do. this would be a good way of clearing your history but maintaining access to important history states.

but you're talking about dragging photography down to a commodity, not raising the bar...

No, I'm talking about taking the best picture that I can and not fixing it later. There's a difference in my mind. And my hit rate is getting better, I'm not deleting anywhere near as many as I used to. And my camera is now set to 'single shot' as I've found that trying to take 4,5,6 shots of action in the hope of getting the right one is too vague. But that's just me.
I'm even starting to think about where the light is coming from when I choose my shot, FFS..... 😉

I'm using it all the time now, with my misgivings on hold, though still present. For such an expensive program so many things don't work well. For instance, I created a button bar (panel in Adobe-speak), and every 3rd time I invoke the program it forgets how wide I set it and gets 3 times wider. It never seems to give up any memory it allocates, so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded I still don't understand how copy&paste works as it often has no visible effect at all unless you use "copy merged" or "paste special..."

I believe I could write some UI stuff as it supports ActionScript but I got bored with the copious documentation. The underlying tools are good. If it cost under £100 I would have few complaints.

Aww, now if only you could do away with the need for Photoshop.......Hmmm......How could one do that I wonder...? Let's see now....

😉 🙂

obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states

surely if I close a file that's a reasonable indication I've finished with it for now ?

you need to 'purge'

[img] [/img]

. But as PeterPoddy says, it's much harder to get things right in camera, than sort them out after. There's also nothing wrong in using Photoshop etc to do things to a picture, but I think if you need to do that to improve weak pictures, then your photographic skills maybe aren't up to much.

Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!

But taking into account how the photo was taken, does the client/person viewing the photo really care if it was taken fully manualy/with photoshop/full frame/cropped etc?

My random views about improving as a photographer are:

Look at other photographers work- go to exhibitions & get some books out of the library etc. Allow your work to be influenced and experiment. I love William Eggleston's work and spent half my post uni european travels taking photos (with a super sexy Contax T3) of ceilings and under beds etc...

A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.

I want to say buying a new camera won't improve you as a photographer- but I kind of think swapping between a few cameras and learning to get the best out of them does improve your photography.

A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.

Christ I was trying to avoid this, for fear of incurring the wrath of the Digitally Correct Brigade, but it's true...

Being forced to work within a rigid set of constraints can encourage you to get the best out of yourself and your equipment. I was taught using just a simple Praktika SLR with a 50mm lens, Ilford HP5 and a basic darkroom. I am always grateful I wasn't spoiled by technology.

(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal...)

Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!

a matter of personal preference, but if you spend too much time thinking about the mechanics of 'perfect' exposure and composition the moment may be lost or the subject downgraded...

(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal...)

at the root, what pleases you is all that matters. I prefer to take 5 bracketted exposures and merge or select and to crop heavily down to what I was looking at, as after all, those looking at a picture don't give a fig about how it was made 🙂

surely if I close a file that's a reasonable indication I've finished with it for now ?

that's irrelevant. the history states will go if you close an image but the point of purging is to clear cache's and tempory files used by photoshop, if you have been working on images for a while you may notice a slowdown in performance if you don't have a decent computer.
not having a dedicated scratch disk slows things down too.

but the point of purging is to clear cache's and tempory files used by photoshop

and my point is that I've paid enough for the program to do that for me!

if you have been working on images for a while you may notice a slowdown in performance if you don't have a decent computer.

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded 🙁

a matter of personal preference, but if you spend too much time thinking about the mechanics of 'perfect' exposure and composition the moment may be lost or the subject downgraded...

But equally if you leave the camera on auto or f8 or something, you may capture the image in a rather unimaginative way. As you say personal preference, I prefer losing an image than having a regular image that anyone could take. When eveything falls into place, you choose the right location to improve your chances of a good shot, you set up correctly for the light, you wait patiently then you have a chance of getting a good shot.
I've missed loads of good photos, but you learn to live with the fact that you can't be everywhere all the time.

I've also taken quite a few nice photos too. 😆

I'm more a fan of the simple image as it's initially captured.

Yeah but don't get dogmatic about it. Cropping is not a fancy technical thing. £000s on a zoom lens? Break your neck scrambling to the best vantage point? Or just crop it?

Plus, using photoshop can be done at leisure. You don't just have one fraction of a second to get it right.

Later on when paper, canvas or boards were used, it was a purely practical matter to use a rectanglar shape, not related to artistic merit.

Hmm.. heard of the golden rectangle?

To the OP - a DSLR does allow you to do more than a compact, typically. I never saw the point until a mate showed me some of his pics. He had one action shot of a pigeon that was beautiful, captured so much action, and I'd never have got that with my compact in a million years. DSLRs are faster, which makes a huge difference to anything with movement in it.

Having got one now, I just love using it. And it has more features than my compact did - like being able to select the focus point; more metering options; raw shooting; continuous focusing; image stabiliser etc etc etc. These things DEFINITELY give you the opportunity to get a few more shots in a few more situations than you would with a compact.

It's true that you can take fabulous pics with a compact - I've not taken anything with my SLR yet that I'd put on the wall, unlike my compact - but you have the chance to get that one shot you'd not have made with a compact.

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded

fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down, plus you may not have changed any of the defaults so not optimised for your system, you may be better off running as 64 not 32 bit and you may want openGL turned off.
seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down

with respect, it's slowing down other applications due to using all the free RAM, even when Photoshop is idle. If I close PS everything returns to normal. A 'scratch disc', whatever that is, cannot be relevant to other programs

seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

'working with computers' is not the same as knowing all Adobe's bizarre design choices. I'm already running 64 bit everything.

Hmm.. heard of the golden rectangle?

yes of course, and no camera I have ever heard of uses that aspect ratio, but having a nicely shaped border doesn't make a fine photograph 🙂

but having a nicely shaped border doesn't make a fine photograph

Well quite spectacularly obviously!

My point was that simple things like the shape of the image can help a lot. I've lost count of the number of landscapes I've taken where a simple crop of top and bottom have transformed the image.

Your brain focuses differently in different situations in real life; I think cropping photos to reflect this is perfectly acceptable. After all, a photograph is always a terrible compromise. You can't replicate what it was like to be there, so you might as well use what you've got to best effect.

You can't replicate what it was like to be there, so you might as well use what you've got to best effect.

moley, I think we're actually agreeing on something :o) I think the shape (or rather, confining the photo to the things I was looking at) matters far more than fitting to some predefined norm, which is why I crop 99% of all my shots in postprocessing.

One....

...Hundred.

So, Simonfbarnes, what shape should a photograph be, then? Eh? Come on.

which is why I crop 99% of all my shots in postprocessing.

Maybe you're just rubbish then. 😉

I think the vast majority of photographers are happy to crop images. Just some purist up there ^^^ who said it was bad.

It's not inherently 'bad', but if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit. Most viewfinders will only give you 90% or so coverage of what the camera will actually photograph, so a little bit around the edges is ok. Sometimes you might want a narrower rectangle or a more square frame, for best effect. Fair enough. But most images tend to work best with the classic rectangular format.

with respect, it's slowing down other applications due to using all the free RAM, even when Photoshop is idle. If I close PS everything returns to normal. A 'scratch disc', whatever that is, cannot be relevant to other programs

it will use the free ram, all the ram you can give it. 6gb is not much if you are using PS a lot (even my little laptop has 8gb).
limit the amount of apps when using photoshop or close it when doing other things.
a scratch disk isn't relevant to other programs but is important to how photoshop works if you want it to work better you may need to find out what one is.
if you have no separate scratch disk then things will slow down. computers set up for intensive image editing/processing will have a separate scratch disk (a SSD if specced recently) and a separate drive for the actual files you are working on.
i guess it's only important if you work on a lot of files and get impatient waiting for the computer to catch up.

So, Simonfbarnes, what shape should a photograph be, then? Eh? Come on.

the shape dictated by the effect of the content on the photographer and their visualisation

Maybe you're just rubbish then.

what I can and cannot do isn't relevant to the ideas involved

then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit. Most viewfinders will only give you 90% or so coverage of what the camera will actually photograph

my D300 has 100% coverage, but usually the things I point the camera at don't fit the 3:2 format of the sensor, and in general I prefer a widescreen format closer to the 180° x 70° field of view of the eye 🙂

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded
fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down, plus you may not have changed any of the defaults so not optimised for your system, you may be better off running as 64 not 32 bit and you may want openGL turned off.
seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

over 100mb!
try working on 50mpixel 300mb files then having a few more layers plus adjustment layers. it's not difficult to end up with files of 1-2gb
i doubt you old mac would open them

if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit

That's bullcrap. If you take a lot of landscapes, the interesting bit tends to be in the middle, does it not?

Gonna tell me off for zooming in next?

It's not inherently 'bad', but if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit.

What a load of bollox.

if you have no separate scratch disk then things will slow down. computers set up for intensive image editing/processing will have a separate scratch disk (a SSD if specced recently) and a separate drive for the actual files you are working on.

with the RAM available there shouldn't be any need for disk other than reading the original file

That's bullcrap. If you take a lot of landscapes, the interesting bit tends to be in the middle, does it not?

Only if that's how you frame it.... If you think that, then with respect, you don't know diddly squat! 🙂

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

with the RAM available there shouldn't be any need for disk other than reading the original file

if you click on the bottom left hand corner of an image window and choose 'efficiency' this will tell you if you have enough ram and are not using scratch disk (which is the same disk as your applications if you have no separate disk) the value will change as you work on the image. if it dips below 100% you will reading/writing swap files to your system disk as there is insufficient ram. if you are only having 1-2 layers of 8bit 30mb files it should be o.k. if it's still slow or is less than 100% you have probably set your preferences wrong.

So anyway, once everyone's finished waving their RAM and playing whose most like henri cartier bresson...

Justa, I agree with whoever suggested picking up a cheap film slr and getting to know how that works - with only 36 shots to play with and with each one costing money to be developed you'll end up forcing yourself to find 'the right shot'. That done the controls on a dslr will make more sense and you can use them intuitively rather than struggling against them or ignoring them.

Only if that's how you frame it.... If you think that, then with respect, you don't know diddly squat!

That first one's not a landscape, and the other two are shots with stuff in the foreground lower down. So obviously no cropping required 🙄

I said the interesting stuff TENDS to be in the middle, and you found two shots where it wasn't. Doesn't prove a fat lot 🙂

I've got lovely landscape shots where it's all in the distance, and cropping makes them look lovely.

Except I'm sure they're not really lovely since I don't know diddly squat 😉

I agree with whoever suggested picking up a cheap film slr and getting to know how that works - with only 36 shots to play with and with each one costing money to be developed you'll end up forcing yourself to find 'the right shot'.

I don't agree. You'll teach yourself how to take a hobby really really slowly, since you'll rattle off 36 shots and it'll take you a week to get any feedback as to what you did.

Far better to snap, look, tweak, snap, look, tweak etc as you go - you only have to wait a second to see if you're doing it right instead of a week.

careful you don't criticise Peter's work or he goes "ballistic" :o) All great snappers do it seems...

Ignoring the willy-waving and bickering...

I'm not convinced a film SLR is much help to be honest.
With a DSLR (or decent compact with manusl controls) you get instant feedback on what works, rather than waiting a week for prints then having to consult your notes to figure out what your exposure settings and shoot conditions were at the time.

Heh. Just judging by my time scales of juggling work, family, bikes, etc - I only tend to grab moments here and there so there's not much 'waiting' involved in teh average week 🙂

But yeah, I can see the other side of teh argument.

I'm too tired to type out a considered, thoughtful and reasoned response as I've just come in from football and I'm knackered. I think I may also have sustained a broken foot, 'cos it hurts like a bastard and is swelling up. Probably not the ideal state to be in to tackle Simonfbarnes really. Best I have a Valium and an early night to be honest.

Poor Justa is probably sitting there crying to themselves, sobbing 'I only wanted a bit of advice'. 🙁

Heathen: But, ignoring the wait factor, when you do get your print can you really remember what your exposure settings and conditions were?

Ooh! Clockwork Orange is on!

Only if that's how you frame it....

Last one appears to have a post or something in the bottom right that you should have cropped out really. 😉

chasing the SLR with 25 bizzilion pixels is like insisting on spending £5k on a 7" travel 25lb trail bike.

why not do the true STW thing, and go single speed?

seriously.

get yo'self a little dark room setup in the bathroom (its easy peasy) and do it yourself?
My old man was a photography lecturer for most of his working life.

year one of the course involved getting the students to make a wooden box, with a 1" window in the front, and a mount for a sheet of photographic paper in the back.
a piece of beer can went in the 1" window, with a hole nailed in it

PROPER camera :p

Heathen: But, ignoring the wait factor, when you do get your print can you really remember what your exposure settings and conditions were?

You're absolutely right - there's very few people who will take the time to log every shot. I never took one note when I was using a SLR but still got the hang of it - wish I could remember *how* lol. But all the lessons I learnt from using it still hold true now. [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographers-Handbook-Comprehensively-generation-photographers/dp/0330390139 ]The 35mm Photographer's Handbook[/url] certainly helped along the way. For a penny, it can't be bad.

there's very few people who will take the time to log every shot

I'm not sure what use it would be anyway. The eyes are so non linear that you cannot accurately assess the light level, or the speed of a moving object or the depth of a scene

why not do the true STW thing, and go single speed?

seriously

Cos it's stupid 🙂

Well a light meter would give you accurate light levels, and if you are going old school with fully manual on 35mm film then you may well be using for one for exactly that reason.

My point was more that shooting digitally can aid learning because you get instant feedback on whether your exposure is half-decent or not, and later when reviewing your images in more detail on a monitor, you have a perfect record of all the various camera settings.

Conversely I agree that the cost of film and limited number of exposures probably makes people more rigorous and disciplined, but it also means they are less likely to just experiment and try things that might not work.

So on the whole I'm not convinced by the whole "you must learn on film" argument.

Last one appears to have a post or something in the bottom right that you should have cropped out really.

🙂
I think that's probably my handebar. Schoolboy error!

Molgrips, are you saying a landscape shot can't have anything in the foreground? I'd post some more but the oudated browser on my work PC here won't work with Flickr any more and I can't get the links.

Sure, some landscape shots look better cropped wide, but if they mostly look like that then they'll all look the same. I do like some foreground to give depth to landscapes.
That top one of mine there was shot very, very quickly on an old compact as Kirsty came past me, literally without even looking at the viewfinder, from the hip if you like. That was a lovely day's riding, we were all alone seemingly in the middle of nowhere and it's the shot that describes the day best. Couldn't have wished for a better pic TBH. I might print it and frame it at some point. 🙂

So on the whole I'm not convinced by the
whole "you must learn on film" argument.

Having said that, I learnt on digital and my images are distinctly average, so maybe I shouldn't spout off like I am some kind of authority! 😳

but if they mostly look like that then they'll all look the same.

unless you look at the actual scene portrayed ? You might just as well say there are only 7 bike shots: going left, going right, going away, coming towards, mid air, upside down and underwater 🙂 I suppose some people might judge a picture "too square" or "not square enough" as if that mattered...

One thing that I have seen recommended quite a lot, which I feel helped me learn, is that to start with I only had one fixed focal length lens. I still quite often go out with just one prime lens attached and see what I can do with it.

They say zoom makes you lazy, and having just a fixed focal length makes you think about your composition a bit more, and gets you moving around more. Dunno if it's true for everyone but I think it helps me.

Couldn't have wished for a better pic TBH.

To me it just has far too much blown highlights, but horses for courses eh - good example of why a photograph isn't just about technical correctness and often capturing memories is at least as important I suppose.

They say zoom makes you lazy

rubbish 🙂 It's handy if you ARE lazy, but otherwise it just allows you to shoot things around you which may be near or far, big or little or just innaccessible - it's not "lazy" not to swim a river or jump a canyon, and also, by the time you get to the ideal spot the moment may be gone 🙂 I often find myself walking *away* from the subject to flatten the perspective, which a fixed focal length would not allow...

Molgrips, are you saying a landscape shot can't have anything in the foreground?

Clearly not! However, many don't. And if you want to capture a wide open vista, then cropping is useful - or a panorama tool.

God forbid I might use anything so high-tech and automated as that tho!

But going out with just a prime lens on does force you to think about the shots you can take, and it pushes you to experiment with different framing and think more about composition because you can't just "lazily" dial in the one you are comfortable with.

(i.e. I think grum means mentally "lazy", rather than physically, simon)

They say zoom makes you lazy

"They" spout a hell of a lot of bollocks.

Take the tools you want and go and take pictures. All you have to do is think about what you're doing. Never mind all this stupid 'advice' and 'rules'.

Photography is more about doing your own thing than just about anything else, now that cameras are so good at automating the tech side of it.

Imagine if someone out there was telling you you had to ride a certain kind of bridleway to get a 'pure' riding experience, or that there's a formula for the correct amount of singletrack vs fire-road and number of jumps in a ride to get it properly satisfying. Total bolx.

(i.e. I think grum means mentally "lazy", rather than physically, simon)

as evidenced by his remark :o)

Imagine if someone out there was telling you you had to ride a certain kind of bridleway to get a 'pure' riding experience...

That's not what is being suggested though (to my mind anyway).

It's more like someone suggesting that if you want to [u]really[/u] focus on learning to ride smoothly then it can be an informative and fun learning technique to put down the full-susser for a moment and try it on a rigid.

To me it just has far too much blown highlights, but horses for courses eh - good example of why a photograph isn't just about technical correctness and often capturing memories is at least as important I suppose.

Indeed. My point exactly. But that's what it looked like as we rode along into the September evening sunshine, before the final descent. I know it's probably technically crap but that's what that part of the ride was like, captured in a pic

I happen to have the latest STW mag here with me which I was reading whilst eating my lunch. if you look at pages 18,20,21,66,67,68,69,75,76,96,116&118 you'll see some lovely scenic shots presented in pretty much the same aspect ratio as a camera will give. They might well have been cropped, in fact I'd imagine they all have been, but none of them just have the interest in the middle. 🙂

Oh, and this 'zoom makes you lazy' thing seems a bit harsh to me. If 'lazy' is trying to frame a shot properly, than I can live with that! (I'd struggle like buggery to do landscape shots with my 50mm prime) 🙂

Take the tools you want and go and take pictures. All you have to do is think about what you're doing. Never mind all this stupid 'advice' and 'rules'.

Whoa there! As GrahamS said...

And I said 'dunno if it works for everyone but I think it helps me' - jeesus some people are touchy on here. 😕

I'm not talking about 'you must never use a zoom or you are a bad photographer' - but that it can be useful to have limitations sometimes. Can you think a bit more and force you to be a little more imaginative.

'd struggle like buggery to do landscape shots with my 50mm prime

But making yourself try doing landscapes with a 50mm prime could be a good creative exercise.

because you can't just "lazily" dial in the one you are comfortable with.

In other words, you can't get the shot you want, you just have to snap something else instead.

Sounds great!

🙄

but that it can be useful to have limitations sometimes

Depends on why you are taking photos, and what you want to get out of the experience, doesn't it? Personally I find the whole thing cripplingly limiting sometimes - I often find myself wishing for a video camera that took high quality movies that I could print out on a bit of paper (Red Dwarf style)

In other words, you can't get the shot you want, you just have to snap something else instead.

Sounds great!

At the risk of sounding like Elfinsafety - I wonder how the great photographers of the past managed to get any shots at all without zoom and autofocus? Before they were invented all photos were rubbish weren't they.

Ok so I'm dosed up with Morphine for the pain so I'm almost compus mentis. Can I blame Simonfbarnes for my foot injury? I mean I know he didn't cause it, but can I blame him anyway? Is that ok?

I've had a think about Simon's comments about not following the conventions of picture aspect ratio, and I do agree with some of his points. Rules are there to be challenged, certainly. HCB and others were masters at working within the constraints of the medium, and their talent cannot be denied.

As for digital v film etc; I would say that simple equipment forces you to think more about the image you want to produce, but needn't be limiting. Some folk don't like to be encumbered and befuddled with too many options. As for digital giving you the ability to instantly assess the picture; if you aren't blessed with the talent that enables you to take great pictures, then it doesn't matter how many thousands of shots you rattle off. You just end up with a lot more crap ones.

Getting back to the OP; being in an environment where you can share ideas with other passionate people, and receive constructive criticism about your work is going to be far more valuable over time than buying the latest flashy cam the industry wants you to splash your money on.

Simonfbarnes; I've had a look on your bogtrotters website, and there are one or two nice pics, but mostly just snapshots of your friends riding, albeit good quality snapshots. A good visual record of events. And an awful lot of bottoms.

Do you have some other stuff that's maybe a bit more 'arty', or are you a recorder of facts more than you are an artist? Equal validity in both areas of course.

An interesting discussion, although I think we've strayed from the point a bit. Which is that in order to take great pictures, you do need a particular talent. Which can't be bought, but which can be nurtured.

In other words, you can't get the shot you want,
you just have to snap something else instead. Sounds great!

Exactly. And yes it is great, because it forces you to look for the "other" shot that you would have ignored.

I was at Baddesley Clinton (National Trust property) at the weekend and I walked about with the 50mm on just trying different things. Some worked, some didn't.

Yes it was frustrating at points when I couldn't fit in what I wanted, but it made me look for other shots. Which is the point.

I wonder how the great photographers of the past managed to get any shots at all without zoom and autofocus?

Crap logic. Why not ask yourself how many great shots went begging because they didn't have the kit? We will never know 🙂 Plus, I bet they cropped and resized plenty of images! Do you think if zoom digital cameras had been invented they, that they would all have shunned them? And then gone on to take worse images?

Of course not!

It's like bikes - it's certainly possible to do lots of rad/amazing/inspiring things on a £500 hardtail and have great rides, but it's defintely better to do some things on an expensive specialist machine. Which is why you don't see many pros on £500 hardtails through choice.

because it forces you to look for the "other" shot that you would have ignored

But it might not be as good a shot..?

I don't take pictures based on what my kit does - I look at what I see, find a great picture then try and get it on camera.

but that it can be useful to have limitations sometimes. Can you think a bit more and force you to be a little more imaginative.

here's a handy test of discipline/imagination: stick with your zoom lens but leave it at the focal length of the lens you would otherwise have selected. If you like, use some tape to stop the zoom ring turning as a reminder. How long would it be before you rip off the tape in disgust at its arbitrary restrictions ? Think of it as a thought experiment. For me, the tape would never be applied :o)

Might one not apply a similar philosophy in other circumstances? Try tying your legs together and imagine creative new ways of getting around, or invent new sign languages after stuffing your mouth with marbles etc etc

But it might not be as good a shot..?

If you are unwilling to take risks and challenge yourself how are you going to improve as a photographer? Or are you not bothered about that?

If you are unwilling to take risks and challenge yourself how are you going to improve as a photographer?

good point, but why not do it through real imagination and insight instead of trying to trick yourself into it with a handicap ?

it's certainly possible to do lots of rad/amazing/inspiring things on a £500 hardtail and have great rides

amusingly, I find myself in the other camp on this one, as in the end I decided I prefered the hairier riding on a hardtail to the excess ability of full suss 🙂

why not do it through real imagination and insight

Is that what you are doing when you use your superzoom to get close ups of muddy girls arses? 🙂

But it might not be as good a shot..?

True... so?

I'm not convinced that continually repeating different versions of the safe shot that I know will work, will make me any better photographer.

By enforcing a restriction on myself I'm trying to instill a little creative thought and force myself to look again.

If you are unwilling to take risks and challenge yourself how are you going to improve as a photographer?

I agree with Barnes. Setting arbitrary restritctions for no reason is not a productive way to challenge myself, I feel. That's why I don't singlespeed 🙂

I don't challenge myself when taking pictures. I just look, snap and learn. The more I look, the more I see, and the further down the path I find myself travelling.

I don't wake up one morning and say 'right today is 50mm day'.

By enforcing a restriction on myself I'm trying to instill a little creative thought and force myself to look again

I do this anyway without the restrictions. Restrictions are so.. restrictive 🙂

I don't wake up one morning and say 'right today is 50mm day'.

Why not try it?

Why not try it?

Cos I don't see the point! The idea does not appeal to me...

Is that what you are doing when you use your superzoom to get close ups of muddy girls arses?

I'm relying on basic instinct :o) But I don't claim to have either imagination or creativity, you can get good photos by passively waiting for them to appear in front of you and allowing the machine to do its function 🙂

For day to day shooting, and certainly while on holiday I'd stick to a superzoom for the freedom and flexibility it gives you, but every now and then going out with just a 50mm can be fun - being limited by the technology definitely does force you to search out different photos - which might open your eyes to new ways of looking at things. Assuming we're talking about a 50mm f1.8 lens, the increased depth of field also opens up other possibilities.

Still, it's not (IMO) the best way to learn, to my mind criticising and being criticised is a far better method - I'd also include reading other people's critiques as a particuarly interesting insight (albeit one that may well be wrong...).

Assuming we're talking about a 50mm f1.8 lens, the increased depth of field also opens up other possibilities.

Surely f1.8 would be a [i]decrease[/i] in DoF? 8)

which might open your eyes to new ways of looking at things

OTOH, I'm fine with looking at things and just want a thingy that captures what I've found, not a pair of blinkers to modify my looking.

Surely f1.8 would be a decrease in DoF?

he means increased fuzziness 🙂

I'd also include reading other people's critiques

but they're always going on about my shots of girls' arses 🙁

Still, it's not (IMO) the best way to learn, to my mind criticising and being criticised is a far better method

Probably. So where do you go for that though?

I thought about joining the local photography club, but my father-in-law is in one near him and the photos I've seen from it are distinctly uninspiring.

Still, it's not (IMO) the best way to learn, to my mind criticising and being criticised is a far better method

Probably. So where do you go for that though?

You could join Flickr and look for a suitable group (though most seem to be aimed at increasing comments and views rather than proper criticism).

I would have thought a class with a teacher and some passionate, enthused young people would be a healthy learning environment. 'Camera Club', to me at least, brings to mind an image of a group of grubby middle-aged men sitting round showing off slides and sometimes getting some poor student lass who needs to pay her rent in to take her clothes off so that they can point their zoom lenses at her. Dirty bastards.

Is Amateur Photographer the STW of the photographic world?

Assuming we're talking about a 50mm f1.8 lens, the increased depth of field also opens up other possibilities.
Surely f1.8 would be a decrease in DoF?

Of course I meant that, just checking you were paying attention 😳

Photo.net has a forum for critiques, I'm not sure how much traffic it gets, and a lot of the photos seem to be fairly high standard - fishing for compliments rather than a genuine urge to learn... At least one of the UK mags also has them, I think it's the weekly one (can't remember the name).