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 ;D) 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.
Good to meet you Stephen.
Hi, welcome to CC. :tup:
Welcome to CC, Stephen. I have no power here, ask Lurkalot for help here :)
Hi Stephen, and welcome to CC. Any problems questions or ideas regarding the site, just ask. :tup:
Quote from: donoreo on July 19, 2013, 08:01:18 PM
I have no power here,
That could be arranged, if you like? ;)
Quote from: Mick on July 19, 2013, 08:45:14 PM
Hi Stephen, and welcome to CC. Any problems questions or ideas regarding the site, just ask. :tup:
Quote from: donoreo on July 19, 2013, 08:01:18 PM
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 ;)
Well well well ...
Another name I recognise from 'the other site.'
Welcome to CC!
Quote from: Reinardina on July 21, 2013, 07:20:46 PM
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.
Quote from: StephenBatey on July 21, 2013, 09:20:02 PM
Quote from: Reinardina on July 21, 2013, 07:20:46 PM
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.
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.
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
Quote from: SimonW on July 22, 2013, 06:15:39 PM
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 :)
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.
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.
Welcome aboard Stephen! It's been a long time ...!
Indeed it has. But I have the night pictures to remind me :)
No other photographer will see what you see as you take a photo. It therefore follows that the photo you take can't be taken by anybody else, and if you are happy with it that's all that matters. Reinardina might have only a small camera, problems with her sight but it doesn't stop her from taking cracking shots and seeing things others might miss. It's not the camera or the technical skills that makes a photo but the person who presses the shutter release button. ;D
If no other photographer (why not "person?") will see what you see, haven't you failed in the final image, since they should be able to understand why you made the exposure and see or feel something equivalent to what you saw and felt? (Note the assumption in this question. I am well aware of it.)
One of my main points was that photographers are obsessed by equipment. It shouldn't have been necessary for you to make that point, and I therefore deduce that I am correct about the warped priorities photographers in general have.
As to the technical skills. We'll part company there. Yes, an artistic image will trump a technically perfect but sterile one (which covers an awful lot of what I see in galleries, both on the Internet and in high street galleries). But a technically imperfect image will still be imperfect; and the imperfections will certainly detract from the artistic impact simply because you are aware of them.
Quote from: StephenBatey on July 22, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
If no other photographer (why not "person?") will see what you see, haven't you failed in the final image, since they should be able to understand why you made the exposure and see or feel something equivalent to what you saw and felt? (Note the assumption in this question. I am well aware of it.)
I used the term photographer as we are talking about photographs not snaps. You are getting confused about composition which we should all see in the final image and perception which applies to the photographer taking the image. For example, Abbers sees the photo in black and white whilst I see the same scene in colour. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the finished photo and the skill involved but, it still isn't what I saw looking at the same scene. It doesn't mean Abbers is wrong or I'm wrong rather, that we see thing differently.
Quote from: StephenBatey on July 22, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
One of my main points was that photographers are obsessed by equipment. It shouldn't have been necessary for you to make that point, and I therefore deduce that I am correct about the warped priorities photographers in general have.
I didn't make that point at all, rather I was referring to the fact that any camera can take great shots. This doesn't mean that all cameras can take all the different shots, as a point and shoot isn't good enough for taking pictures of Swifts flying.
Quote from: StephenBatey on July 22, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
As to the technical skills. We'll part company there. Yes, an artistic image will trump a technically perfect but sterile one (which covers an awful lot of what I see in galleries, both on the Internet and in high street galleries). But a technically imperfect image will still be imperfect; and the imperfections will certainly detract from the artistic impact simply because you are aware of them.
Again, you are reading things I didn't write. A bad photo is a bad photo but you don't need to know about the 'rule of thirds', to take a good balanced photo, to some people it just seem right. :tup:
Welcome Stephen. I can see we're going to get along just fine! :tup:
Quote from: Oldboy on July 22, 2013, 10:35:16 PM
No other photographer will see what you see as you take a photo. It therefore follows that the photo you take can't be taken by anybody else, and if you are happy with it that's all that matters. Reinardina might have only a small camera, problems with her sight but it doesn't stop her from taking cracking shots and seeing things others might miss. It's not the camera or the technical skills that makes a photo but the person who presses the shutter release button. ;D
Thank you for this OB!
I think I'll bow out now, as I haven't been 'into photography' long enough to have developed strong opinions on anything.
I'm a simple soul who 'likes what she likes,' and happily continues on the learning curve, gleaning a bit of wisdom here, a valuable tip there, till ... well, I don't know till when.
Oldboy makes some good points here.
Different people enjoy photography for different reasons and want different things from their hobby.
Whatever their experience or skill level, surely the key point is that they enjoy it.
Quote from: Reinardina on July 23, 2013, 08:31:54 AM
Quote from: Oldboy on July 22, 2013, 10:35:16 PM
No other photographer will see what you see as you take a photo. It therefore follows that the photo you take can't be taken by anybody else, and if you are happy with it that's all that matters. Reinardina might have only a small camera, problems with her sight but it doesn't stop her from taking cracking shots and seeing things others might miss. It's not the camera or the technical skills that makes a photo but the person who presses the shutter release button. ;D
Thank you for this OB!
I think I'll bow out now, as I haven't been 'into photography' long enough to have developed strong opinions on anything.
I'm a simple soul who 'likes what she likes,' and happily continues on the learning curve, gleaning a bit of wisdom here, a valuable tip there, till ... well, I don't know till when.
I would say that makes you "Open minded", a major asset for a photographer I would say. I find folks with "Strong opinions" to be a bit, you know, blinkered, surely a drawback for a photographer. :)
Quote from: Graham on July 24, 2013, 06:16:40 AM
Quote from: Reinardina on July 23, 2013, 08:31:54 AM
Quote from: Oldboy on July 22, 2013, 10:35:16 PM
No other photographer will see what you see as you take a photo. It therefore follows that the photo you take can't be taken by anybody else, and if you are happy with it that's all that matters. Reinardina might have only a small camera, problems with her sight but it doesn't stop her from taking cracking shots and seeing things others might miss. It's not the camera or the technical skills that makes a photo but the person who presses the shutter release button. ;D
Thank you for this OB!
I think I'll bow out now, as I haven't been 'into photography' long enough to have developed strong opinions on anything.
I'm a simple soul who 'likes what she likes,' and happily continues on the learning curve, gleaning a bit of wisdom here, a valuable tip there, till ... well, I don't know till when.
I would say that makes you "Open minded", a major asset for a photographer I would say. I find folks with "Strong opinions" to be a bit, you know, blinkered, surely a drawback for a photographer. :)
You've got me blushing here Graham.
Welcome Stephen. I suspect most of us feel that we don`t fit the standard photographic forum profile - no-one wants to be catagorised ;).
I don`t know what the standard is to be honest. I don`t see a lot on here of peopel obsessing / arguing / challenging about gear and equipment. You get requests for information about all sorts of things photography and non-photography related met with a genuine attempt to help by those that may know a little more than the one asking which I find useful. Other than that it is a place to hang out and share your snaps/ images / artwork - call it what you will. I shoot for myself and for customers daft enough to book me but even then shoot what interests me alongside any client requests. I started in film more years ago than I care to remember, went the B& W self printing route and avoided digital until satisfied I could get a camera that at least got close enough to film and must say the learning in getting into digital processing opened up a whole new world to me that I would never have got in film days. I don`t expect people to see any meaning in what I shoot - sometimes there is an emotion there for me , other times a memory but as it`s for me I don`t really care what others see.
The great thing about the explosion of photography for me is that people can record personal histories and share them through social media / print - even i9f the abuse of that leads to situations such as when at Whitby last week when I was showered with small pebbles from the prom way up above with shouts of "Hoy - paedo with the camera" from 2 small boys above.Quite what was paedo about shooting ships at sea just then is beyond me but maybe I am lacking in levels of sexual deviancy :uglystupid2:
BT tried to find you on Flickr with a name search in people to see your stuff but no sign. You can embed it in your signature
Best bit of advice I was given is -
"Remember, good photography has very little to do with the camera – it's just a recording device – your eyes and brain are what matter most."
Quote from: jinky on July 24, 2013, 09:24:36 AM
The great thing about the explosion of photography for me is that people can record personal histories and share them through social media / print - even i9f the abuse of that leads to situations such as when at Whitby last week when I was showered with small pebbles from the prom way up above with shouts of "Hoy - paedo with the camera" from 2 small boys above.Quite what was paedo about shooting ships at sea just then is beyond me but maybe I am lacking in levels of sexual deviancy :uglystupid2:
Funny you should say that but, I was called that and a perv by two chaps in Dartmouth Park a couple of weeks ago. I had just taken a picture of a woman sitting on a bench in the sunlight checking her phone. A woman around forty I might add. I went over and explained to the two chaps that I took photos in the park for the newsletter/website of the Friends of the park. They told me to go over and speak to the woman which I did. The first words she said were, " Are they giving you grief." I explained who I was and where she could see the results of the shot but she was OK about it. I then went back to the two chaps who said sorry and then asked me to take their photo. :(
Quote from: jinky on July 24, 2013, 09:24:36 AM
BT tried to find you on Flickr with a name search in people to see your stuff but no sign. You can embed it in your signature
I just tried and found me. StephenBatey - no space - and make you you specify search members. A general search does fail .
I'm not putting up a flickr link because I find the new flickr layout terrible, and disapprove of my images being displayed that way. I copied them all over to ipinfinty (which looks exactly as flickr used to) and will remove the flickr account in due course.http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbatey/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbatey/)
I'm afraid I take the view that a person's opinions and advice should be judged on their own merits and the reasons behind them; I've found that many people prefer to take a short cut and look at the photos, decide if they're any good, and accept or discard the photographer's opinions/advice accordingly. I don't believe that (for example) you have to be able to play better tennis than Andy Murray to act as his coach; and I even saw a TV program where a football coach said that he didn't think that a coach needed to have been a player. Be that as it may, I react adversely to the idea that my views are to be accepted or rejected based on irrelevancies (in my eyes).
I know that you didn't say or imply anything that required this response - but I have met it several times on other forums, and only created a flickr account in the first place to shut someone up.
That`s what I did Stephen - and just did again searching all Flickr members / people with your name and no result again. Bit odd! Very defensive / bristly there! I was merely looking to see the style of photos that you shoot and have no interest in attacking people`s views whatever level of photography they are at. You seem to assume I would be looking to then criticise opinions based on your photography. Not my style.
Maybe you have been hanging out on the wrong forums if you expect that and you`ll find it more tolerant here - if a little quiet of late.
PS - used your link and some nice shots there including a few from Yorkshire where I now live. Took a similar shot of the Whitby pots last week - we must be similar types ;)
Sorry for being bristly - or perhaps even beastly :)
You're right, it is a defence reaction brought about by experiences on other forums.
Who knows, I may even eventually decide that I can get away with making a reply to people who disagree with me without expecting to be told that that displays arrogance (because I can't accept that I'm wrong and need to defend my position) and browbeating (because I give reasons and try to convince).
I have come to expect that sort of thing...
I have no idea why our flickr searches work so differently. I just tried using Go ogle, and was fascinated to find a page showing my greatest hits - well, my most popular flickr photos according to flickr users!
(Note: I spell checked this, and decided to accept the correction for Google which appealed to me. Is it accurate, I wonder?)
OK, I'll pitch in, why not?
For me photography is a bit of (sometimes frustrating) fun. I muck about with ideas and have a punt at the weekly challenges most of the time just to see if I can come up with something. Most of the pictures I take (not make, sorry but using that word to describe creating an image seems to me to be a tad precious) are for my own enjoyment, and lots of those are simple family record shots. I do not compartmentalise taking pictures. They're all for the joy of it. The explosion of digital photography has been a boon to the storage of precious memories for most of humanity. Agreed most of the resulting images are not technically great, but they capture the moment and that is what they are for.
Arty photography is, of course, a worthy, sometimes inspirational, and often emotional thing. But it is incredibly arrogant to judge the images others take on the basis that they are not gallery material. Who, quite frankly, cares? Certainly not the people who take the pictures. Exif data is sometimes nice to know, in case someone looking in wants to have a stab at taking a similar style of picture, as are details about how editing might have been done. I either do very little editing or lots, the latter just to see what will happen. But mostly I play my guitar.
There are undoubtedly photography trolls about the place who delight in sneering at the internet publications of others. That's just the way it is unfortunately.
So what am I saying? In a nutshell, the content of a picture is what makes it. If it's stonkingly brilliant technically then more power to it, but that is so secondary. The only role equipment has to play is as Oldboy says is simply if the kit enables you get the picture that some other kit might not.
I do like go ogle, that's special :)
BTW, flickr's member search function is case sensitive, but that doesn't matter because it's not working anyway. Just typed my Flickr moniker into the search box and it came up with only 4 pictures, and two of those weren't mine.
Let's make a few assumptions, not always a wise path to take, what's the saying 'assume' makes an ass of you and me! :uglystupid2: but nevertheless here goes.
Nobody takes and publishes their pictures unless they are satisfied and pleased with them, why would they? This discounts those that ask for help with something that they can't quite 'get right'.
Everyone enjoys their chosen hobby and is striving to and acknowledges that they can become better at it.
Each photographer has a bent towards a certain genre and is influenced to some extent by what they see either published, displayed in galleries or on various forums and web sites. This however doesn't make each one unique.
Commenting on pictures is an art in itself and should only be undertaken if a picture really grabs you visually or emotionally, and if possible say why that is the case. If it doesn't say nowt.
A little photographic knowledge is a dangerous thing, a lot of photographic knowledge can be worse if conveyed in certain manner.
Lots and lots of pictures impress no one. No pictures also impresses no one.
Most photographers are like Sunday morning footballers. Out in their thousands, all dreaming they are Beckham or Messi for 90 minutes or so, some hoping against hope that they'll get discovered but mostly enjoying themselves.
Just a few thoughts whilst drinking my early morning cuppa! ;)
"Commenting on pictures is an art in itself and should only be undertaken if a picture really grabs you visually or emotionally, and if possible say why that is the case. If it doesn't say nowt."
Hence the reason I comment little. Somehow makes me feel like a pretentious prat. :-[
I am well aware that my default setting is Snidley Scathing (hmm a new user name) and
I fight hard to overcome it. :-X
Hi Stephen,
Did you completely close your photo-answers account? And if so, how - I can't figure out how to do it - I've got bored with that site now...
Paul
I just left a goodbye post (I was a moderator, so people had to know that I wouldn't be replying to (or looking at) PMs, altered my sigature to name the person who drove me off, and told admin they had to find a new moderator.
You can delete all your own posts if you so wish (unless you started a thread and people replied to it - you used to be able to do it even then but it was one of the few software bugs that they fixed). There is no mechanism at all in the forum software to globally remove all posts by a member - which is why whenever a far eastern spammer posts 60-80 posts they have to be removed individually. With the software automatically taking you back to the first post in the thread (no matter how many pages back) whenever you do.
Sorry - moan over. Just delete what you want and walk away.
Unless you want a chat room. It's very good for that, just avoid photography and you won't fall foul of anyone.
Thanks for that.
You're right, not much photography related chat on there - I think I'll just ignore it.