Thoughts on photography
Feb. 24th, 2003 03:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jazzfishSo I have this cool digital camera that I got for Christmas, and I have a decently padded carrying case. (It doesn't clip on a belt very well; it's got a belt loop, but hooking it on is a pain. I may upgrade later to one like E's, with a velcro clip. I dunno. Irrelevant.) The whole point of getting a digital camera was so that I would take more pictures, on the theory that the hassles of film and the delay in actually seeing my pictures were what was keeping me from photography. Well, plus my lame little camera.
So I'm now carrying my camera around with me when I go places. And I had about two hours to kill today between the Chem lab exam and Shakespeare, so I wandered around the back of campus and took a few pictures. None of them really came out like I wanted them to, but that's not the point; with practice I'll either get better or I won't. The point is that it's (warning: cliche ahead!) an exercise in seeing. In looking for something interesting.
I had a semester-long photography class my senior year of high school, and I got to use my father's old camera. Photo was pretty cool, but I didn't take it as seriously as I could have. (Other stresses, occasional camera problems, blah blah blah.) I think I regretted that even at the time; I know I regretted it later. (Tech appears to not offer a photo class. Grr.) The result of this is that I know something about light and motion and shutter speeds and F-stops, and not so much about composition. This has two effects: point-and-shoot doesn't feel like I've put any effort into it (and thus isn't "worth anything"), and I'm stuck with taking pictures of what I like.
And based on what I noticed and what I actually shot, what I like is perspective. Parallax. Straight lines at odd angles. The way a wall can be in the foreground and still not dominate the picture, but rather focus your attention on what's past it. How different a fence looks if you look straight along it, as opposed to moving two feet to the left and looking down it again. Nature is interesting, too (the movement of muscle in a squirrel's body, for instance), but it's harder for me to find something worth seeing in a natural object. Clean straight lines are far easier to compose with.
So, anyone got a good simple photo editor (all I really want at this point is cropping and resizing) that they can recommend? The Kodak one that came with the camera is crap.
So I'm now carrying my camera around with me when I go places. And I had about two hours to kill today between the Chem lab exam and Shakespeare, so I wandered around the back of campus and took a few pictures. None of them really came out like I wanted them to, but that's not the point; with practice I'll either get better or I won't. The point is that it's (warning: cliche ahead!) an exercise in seeing. In looking for something interesting.
I had a semester-long photography class my senior year of high school, and I got to use my father's old camera. Photo was pretty cool, but I didn't take it as seriously as I could have. (Other stresses, occasional camera problems, blah blah blah.) I think I regretted that even at the time; I know I regretted it later. (Tech appears to not offer a photo class. Grr.) The result of this is that I know something about light and motion and shutter speeds and F-stops, and not so much about composition. This has two effects: point-and-shoot doesn't feel like I've put any effort into it (and thus isn't "worth anything"), and I'm stuck with taking pictures of what I like.
And based on what I noticed and what I actually shot, what I like is perspective. Parallax. Straight lines at odd angles. The way a wall can be in the foreground and still not dominate the picture, but rather focus your attention on what's past it. How different a fence looks if you look straight along it, as opposed to moving two feet to the left and looking down it again. Nature is interesting, too (the movement of muscle in a squirrel's body, for instance), but it's harder for me to find something worth seeing in a natural object. Clean straight lines are far easier to compose with.
So, anyone got a good simple photo editor (all I really want at this point is cropping and resizing) that they can recommend? The Kodak one that came with the camera is crap.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 12:37 pm (UTC)I have always had good luck with Photoshop. If you know someone with access to it (*ahem*), get it for free and use it. It is too expensive right now to buy.
Composition is always a problem, but I believe it is in the eye of the beholder. Depends on what you are looking to do with the pictures. The main thing about composition is not to have anything sticking out of someone's head, (branches, etc.).
I have lots of video tips that I have come up with, (mostly lighting, but still cool), that I can always post. Perhaps I will at some point.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-24 12:57 pm (UTC)The main thing about composition is not to have anything sticking out of someone's head, (branches, etc.)
Heh. I'm trying to leave people out of it for now; too much hassle. Inanimate objects don't complain. Or threaten lawsuits.