Hello

[StephenBatey]

I made my first exposure sometime in the mid 50s; got my first enlarger in 1961 and 35mm SLR in 1965. I subsequently saw the light, and switched to first medium format (Mamiya RZ67, currently used when I want a small point and shoot) and then large format (5x4 film).

I do still have a permanent darkroom, but these days it's only blacked out when loading film into darkslides, unloading darkslides or loading developing tanks. I scan (Epson V700) and print digitally (Epson 3800).

I use black and white film, and my favorite subjects are landscape and architecture.

As to background - degree in chemistry, career in computer programming (mainly assembler on mainframes and later C on PCs). Now retired (but often not retiring  ) and just about completed writing what started as a FAQ for another site and turned into a 400 A4 page book on photography.

You can see some of my photos on flickr (same name there). I don't post many as I don't own a digital camera and my basic scans are about 300-400 KB if I choose a reduced resolution; 4 times that size if I don't. I'm not overly bothered about displaying my photos as I take them to please myself, not others.

[SimonW]

Good to meet you Stephen.

[Oldboy]

Hi, welcome to CC. 

[donoreo]

Welcome to CC, Stephen.   I have no power here, ask Lurkalot for help here  

[Mick]

Hi Stephen, and welcome to CC.  Any problems questions or ideas regarding the site, just ask. 

I have no power here,
 

That could be arranged, if you like? 

[donoreo]

Hi Stephen, and welcome to CC.  Any problems questions or ideas regarding the site, just ask. 

I have no power here,
 

That could be arranged, if you like? 

I almost hit "report to moderator on this post" LOL!  If you need assistance I can.  As long as you have some guidelines to follow and read staff posts.  You know how some admins are

[Reinardina]

Well well well ...
Another name I recognise from 'the other site.'

Welcome to CC!

[StephenBatey]

Another name I recognise from 'the other site.'

But which one is "the dark side"? 

I hope I'm not too much of a fish out of water here, because the one thing I can say with confidence about myself is that I don't fit the standard photographic forum profile.

[Reinardina]

Another name I recognise from 'the other site.'

But which one is "the dark side"? 

I hope I'm not too much of a fish out of water here, because the one thing I can say with confidence about myself is that I don't fit the standard photographic forum profile.

One side cannot exist without the other!

What is the 'standard photographic forum profile?'
We are all interested in photography, and some of us have decades of experience and started out as 'proper photographers.' (For me, someone working with film is still a proper photographer. Shows my age, I suppose.)

I have only taken up photography seriously, when I discovered I could actually get a focused shot, thanks to digital technology. (I'm partially sighted.)
I'm still learning, and have a long way to go yet, but thoroughly enjoying the learning process.

Do I fit the 'standard profile'?

Every forum is different, I suppose (I'm not familiar with too many), and I think some forums suit some people more than others, so it's a question of 'matchmaking,' till you find what suits you best.

[StephenBatey]

AH, the dreaded "standard profile"! Based on an in depth knowledge of the posters on one forum (gained over years on it) and a more superficial view of three others (this site is not included, in case you're wondering) the common features of the majority of people who post on forums seem to be:

1. Art is boring and irrelevant. Modern art isn't even art. All opinions on art are just that, there is no objective right or wrong. And if you see a contradiction between saying there is no objective standard and that some "artists" are con artists, well, you're using sophistry to get over a gut reaction that is infallibly true.

2. Photography is all about the equipment you use. Popular Photography (American Magazine) had a question in a Christmas quiz in the 1960s that I always remember:

Q. What's the difference between a painter and a photographer?
A. Two painters can get together without talking about brushes.

3. Going on from that, all photographic problems can be solved by technical means. Problem with the composition? Easy, fix in Photoshop. The idea that camera position influences the placement of objects in a scene might be acknowledged in theory, but is hardly ever seen as a compositional device. (Note - I mean very small changes in position, not the change that gives a JCB ("Joe Cornish Boulder", a term I heard in a talk by David Ward) in the foreground).

4. Good composition is a matter of following the rules. I often seen photos introduced along the lines of "I positioned the lane to make a lead in line and placed the windmill on a third" and see the result praised for those reasons, when objectively that scheme simply didn't work.

I once adopted a signature along the lines of "A photograph is a mechanical capture of a scene, so it is entirely appropriate that the photographer should similarly work in a mechanical manner in operating the camera".

5. An obsession (almost) with the means rather than the end. Does it matter whether a digital compact or a 10x8" film camera was used? (Well, it does insofar as the resulting image quality and image qualities will differ greatly if the print is sufficiently large - say over 6x4".) Yet photographers are keen to know the camera and lens used, as well as the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO or film type. But not interested in why the photographer produced the photograph, or the mental processes used to arrive at the technical combinations and camera position. In other words, skipping the beginning and the end of the process in favour of the relatively unimportant middle.

There is another, and perhaps shorter way of expressing the above. An interest in photography as photography, not as a means to any end other than the pleasure of snapping. That manifests itself in many other ways than the above.

NOTE - I'm not saying that any of the above is wrong - just not the way I see things or view photography. All I'm saying is that the above appears to be the position of most posters on the photographic forums I've looked at. By no means all the posters - just enough to make me think that it's a generic profile.

My first introduction to photography was when I was allowed to use a borrowed box camera for a single exposure when on holiday, aged about 5-6. I produced the only level horizon (I photographed a bush in the landscape). I was later given a small plastic camera that took 828 film (35mm with no sprockets and backing paper, like the larger roll films). Then I saw a TV program that showed how to make your own contact prints, and I never looked back.

That gives you all a clear idea of where I'm coming from - and you now have to opportunity to tell me where to go on to...

It also shows that short posts are not my forte.

[SimonW]

I do agree with you Stephen. However, I think it's probably quite hard to talk about the enjoyment I get from using a well engineered tool, composing a shot and pressing the button.

I do enjoy all that even though I can't really explain why, and would certainly bore you if I tried. I also enjoy looking at my photos later on a larger screen although I often can't explain just what it is I like about a photo. Even when I find none at all worth keeping or showing anyone else it somehow doesn't diminish that enjoyment.

It's so much easier to talk about the technical details.

Simon

[StephenBatey]

I think it's probably quite hard to talk about the enjoyment I get from using a well engineered tool, composing a shot and pressing the button.

I wasn't actually referring the first and last items on the list. It shouldn't matter what tool you use, or what pleasure button pressing gives you.

I think you may have confirmed my beliefs - at least in another of my "profile characteristics".

Yes, it is easier to talk about the technical details, because they are largely cut and dried (though you'd be surprised at how much variation you can get amongst photographers if asked to quantify a perfectly simple quantity). And that makes another profile characteristic - taking the easy or convenient route. I've heard many people on many forums extol the superiority of digital photography over film based photography. But I have never, ever, heard anyone say that they switched because it gave better quality. It's always a convenience issue. Now, I don't want a film/digital debate; I'm just using an illustration. (Aside - I've also noted that on many forums people will insist on ignoring the big principles and go chasing after the minor illustrations. So this will be an interesting experiment  )

I wasn't referring to the enjoyment of composing an image. It can be hard work, and the enjoyment is in the result, not the process. I meant the why did you decide to make an exposure at this place?  Why did you place the camera in that exact position? Why did you choose that focal length lens (or the exact equivalent question - why did you crop in exactly that place? What did you intend to convey?

If those questions (and others like them) can't be answered, then I'd say that the photographer didn't fully know or understand what they were doing; and the result is down to sheer dumb luck. I'll make an exception for those who can instantly "see" an image, but still think that they should be able to amplify at least a little on those questions.

The technical details are fine, because they can indicate the level of equipment you need in some cases; but they are of maximum help when you want to stand by the side of the photographer at the same time he made his exposure and make yours exactly the same.

You can learn so much about seeing and composition by trying to work out exactly what you like and don't like in an image. There are mental checklists you can use of points to look out for, but really looking and thinking are the biggest aids.

OK, I've revealed more about myself than I suspect was anticipated 

[Reinardina]

I only recognise glimpses of the 'typical' person; haven't been on enough photo forums, or not often enough.

Wasn't it Adam Ansel who said "You can't take a photograph, you make it."
So it's all about the eye, seeing, and knowing where to stand.

I know equipment is only a means to get to wherever you want to be.

I am interested only in exif data, if I see something I have tried to do and failed.

And the photography/art question is too difficult to answer, for me anyway.

So, I don't think I fall in the average forum user profile.
I'm an amateur photographer who enjoys doing what she's doing and is still trying to find her strong points.
So far, I've been having a go at everything that takes my fancy and I think I'd like to keep it that way.

I don't really think too deeply about why I take a shot in a certain way, I just 'do' what feels right.

[StephenBatey]

I'd already come to the conclusion that you weren't my "typical profile type" 

I don't know if that quote is Ansel Adams, but... If anyone reads Practical Photography they'll find a piece in (I think) the current issue where Ben Hawkins has a go at (amongst other things) the way some photographers use "make" and others "take". He thinks it doesn't matter. I do. "As a man thinks, so is he". If you're accustomed to use "take" it carries the connotation of helping yourself to something provided; "make" suggests a more active involvement. So long as you take photographs, you're just a spectator who happens to have a camera. If you make them, you're an artist. Potentially, anyway.

I always look at photo critique on forums, and am constantly disappointed. Either people are blind to the obvious faults, or my sense of what is and isn't "right" is way off beam. OK, I'll name names. I saw a couple of photos critiqued on (I'm fairly sure) Digital Camera World, and I thought that every suggestion made to "improve" them would have made them worse; and in addition, no one had actually seen the strengths. They failed to conform to the rules of composition, and therefore the comments were made to make the photographer fall into line. The results would have been far worse (in my eyes). I therefore took what is probably an unusual step and discussed those photos with someone on another forum. By personal message - I found the hard way that any such discussion on open forum wasn't acceptable. And we both agreed that the images as presented were excellent, and the comments made were simply wrong.

It can be hard to find your own strong points. I've listed what I prefer to photograph; but when I reviewed my "lifetime output" a few years ago, I found I was better with people.

What feels right. Edward Weston defined composition as "the strongest way of seeing". I like that definition.

[Delamanda]

Welcome aboard Stephen!  It's been a long time ...!