 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.193.224.132
In Reply to: RE: Camera posted by Grinnell on April 25, 2012 at 07:44:40
The 50mm on a 1.6cf body would end up about 80mm.....certainly a portrait lens?
On my 1.3cf body, it works out to about 65mm which is still sort of within 'normal' territory.
I can work with it as such.
As for a 2-d design classs and other education for budding photographers? I guess we'll just have to differ. Modern students get a digital and start banging away on assignments. Do you say to take only 10 shots? or just go for it? I don't know, but I've seen people who could get good results in half a dozen pictures OR miss it entirely in 200. That's why I believe some art education is important, to culture whatever 'eye' is there. Teach composition and 'elements' or whatever the current phrasiology is. Even spend some time looking at the 'classics'. Know the rules before breaking them.
Too much is never enough
Follow Ups:
My theory is that drawing and painting use a different process of creation than photography. Drawing and painting are synthetical and use composition as its basis where you build up an image bit by bit ( move the line over, widen the shape, bring the tree closer to the front).
Photography is analytical, we can't "compose the photo" its out there in front of us. If we want to move a tree out of the frame then everything else moves in relations. Photography is reductive, we look at the whole and reduce it to its essential meaning by using the frame.
Its said that painters start with the center of the canvas and photographers start with the edge of the frame.
This is why i think 2D design class do advance photographic vision.
imho :)
This is very interesting to me. Thanks for answering.
However, If the photo was just 'out there in front of us' all photographers would be essentially equal. The mule dragger with Ansel Adams on his treks thru Yosemite would be just as famous. I know.....Zone System.....
I do have a serious question. In a clinical situation where subjects are shown both photography AND serious art, does the same part of the brain 'light up' when viewing? Without knowing the answer I'd submit that it is the result that counts and the appreciation thereof. I would further suggest you CAN compose the photo. Point of view, lens choice, framing choice, film choice (old days) along with the physical controls of aperture and shutter speed, producing, with focal point the net focus / depth effect desired. I'm even able to do abstracts, usually of mundane things.
Painters and other fine artists manipulate these in their head while a photographer has to move around and is confronted with all the aforesaid choices....and more.
It is also interesting to me when photography and the visual arts cross paths. I've done photography for both media artists....one in particular used paint rollers.....and another glass artist which I am particularly proud of. I can without much trouble produce a reasonable oil painting in Photoshop. I'm not good at it, but have played. Maybe somebody that's real good could fool you from 5 feet away?
I've taken photographs both from center out and edge in. Finding an interesting natural frame than seeing what's in it VS finding something of interest and figuring out if it can be framed. Such a process usually goes too fast for me to analyze. If you photograph weddings, you know how true THAT can be. I was once given 15 minutes (no joke or exaggeration) to take some formal shots on the cliffs overlooking LaJolla Cove, here in SouthernCalifornia.
Enjoy and some interesting thoughts. thanks for sharing.
Too much is never enough
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
