Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

  1. #21
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt
    by looking can know exposure? like shooting studio with strobes?

    hmm maybe i should stop relying on my metering... use the force...
    Alamak!
    If you always shoot studio shoot, you should know what f stop to use when you place the light here or there, eg at this distant you can get f8, half the distant f16, or with softbox is f5.6.without is f11...etc, shoot with 2 or 3 lights also no problem, all you need to do is some simple calculation, last time still use flash meter is just to confirm reading not taking reading, every piece of Polaroid cost money, use it to test exposure for the set up is wasting money.

    Now shoot with digital, hardly use light meter at all, but sometime is just need to check the lighting evenness, like shooting copywork, you have to make sure the exposure on 4 corners and the center are all the same.

  2. #22
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    a more experienced photographer + some friends/assistants
    will know how to make use of the light to the max.

    Of course with a really good understanding of exposure and their tools

  3. #23

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    For those who think that one cannot make great pictures without meter, my suggestion is to study a little of history in the working methods of some great photographers.

    Some of you may have heard of Steve Anchell, author of "Film developing cookbook". He once interviewed Brett Weston, son of Edward Weston.

    He asked Brett why he did not use light-meters, because Brett did not use meters. Brett answer was "what would happen if there were no batteries!"

    If you guys have never heard of Brett Weston, do a search on his photographs and see his works. Whether his kind of images appeal to you is another matter. But they are as beautiful as Ansel Adams, who advocated exact measurements of light with all sorts of means including ight meters etc.

    For those who harped about the better accuracy of meters over the humen eyes. Yes, you are right. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether a "pro" can take good pictures under the mercy of natural lighting. On this issue, yes, a pro who trains himself to use natural light, with or without meters, can make very good images.

    Composition is only one aspect of photography. The other very important aspect is light. And for those who chose not to use meters, but rely on their eyes, their perception of light might be even better, because they have trained to use their visual sense better. Unfortunately I am not able to work like Brett, because, like most of you, I had also surrendered my light perception to the meters.

  4. #24
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by singdude
    It looks like when taking photos under an uncontrolled or are the mercy of natural light, even a pro can't produce well exposed photo. Am correct to say this ?
    It depend lar, any experience photographer (I would not need to use the word Pro), will know some kind of limitation, like shooting in the night without tripod, I can give you well expose photo, but all are blur blur photos.


    But if you talking just exposure of the photos only, many people can train to shoot without rely camera meter. Camera meter is just a aid to help you determine what are the exposure being read. You need to know about What is Exposure first, before you learn How to Use the Exposure Meter.


    Hope this help

  5. #25

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    I think the original ques by the poster is: is the lighting impt even to a pro photographer? Not so much what happens if his equipment breaks down.

    MY answer is Yes, definitely. There's no point arguing how good a pro photographer is. We can go on and on about over used statements like It's not the camera that creates an image it's the photographer... blah blah.. What's the point?

    Many top-notch images we see and often take for granted are taken after long hours, days and weeks of patience. Sometimes even under harsh conditions.

  6. #26
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt
    i think we can start by throwing stones at the hobbits... see how they duck... then bb guns... finally... matrix style shooting... then send them to the field...

    hahah....okay I could conduct the course. Use my tennis racket and tennis balls to whack at them. heh..once they are better, use golf ball and driver....

    Might be a market for such course...."thinking while underfire"

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East of Singapore
    Posts
    1,750

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Most PAs during the days of shooting film/slide can tell f. without a light meter. It do not matter studio falsh of outdoor, the meter is just to confirm it.
    I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Good exposure only a pro does not make. And it doesn't mean a less than perfectly exposed shot is a bad shot. I don't think there is one perfect lighting solution to suit all conditions.

    I personally find shooting with ambient light only produces highly desirable results. Of course the right equipment needs to be used, a fast lens and body tolerable of high iso speeds are necessary. Colors tend to come out more saturated and you'd be surprised by details that can be captured with the slow shutter speeds you'd have to work with. Of course I'm no pro la... so what do I know?

  9. #29

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Photography is not only about painting with light.
    It's more of freezing a moment in time.




    .

  10. #30

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by photobum
    This also goes back to our initial question of whether or not a person will have a higher chance of getting employed if he or she has a diploma or degree in photography.

    I think you may have been confused by several threads.

    The initial question/statement in this thread is "even a pro can't produce well exposed shots. Am I correct?" - referring to "uncontrolled " and "at the mercy of natural lights".

  11. #31
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    these photos are supposedly by a "pro photographer" of my favourite band.

    http://soft.com.sg/2006/modules.php?...wtopic&t=12176

    *cough cough*

    so says the photog on the forum....

    "I was covering the stills picture for Soft, I am one of the pro photographers right in front of the stage."

  12. #32
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    tell me what you think after you read the case between this "pro photog" and myself (with myself as a fan/photog).

    http://www.soft.com.sg/2006/modules....12176&start=15

    f/2.8 lens enough for concert? i didn't know that.

    sigh.

    talk about how people market themselves. faux art.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    hmmmm. usually pros have their external lightings. some even carry out 3x1600ws lights for location shoot.

    I'm not sure about others. but i shoot almost exclusively with GMB colorchecker.

    almost.. even without light meter. there are people who can meter with their naked eyes. for both flash and ambient. and they can meter almost 0.5 -/+ accuracy.
    Last edited by anka; 29th January 2006 at 02:13 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member icarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East
    Posts
    3,874

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    tell me what you think after you read the case between this "pro photog" and myself (with myself as a fan/photog).

    http://www.soft.com.sg/2006/modules....12176&start=15

    f/2.8 lens enough for concert? i didn't know that.

    sigh.

    talk about how people market themselves. faux art.
    Man! Those photos are indeed crappy. He made Petrucci and Labrie looks bad...


    Those pix will not do justice!
    Yngwie J. Malmsteen - "...I've never considered myself a fast guitar player..."

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by singdude
    It looks like when taking photos under an uncontrolled or are the mercy of natural light, even a pro can't produce well exposed photo. Am correct to say this ?
    A really good photographer (I wun use the term 'professional' since its not appropriate) is able to adapt to the environment and surroundings and change himself to fit the ground to his personal advantage.

    Its all abt adapting and changing oneself according to how the environment goes. Like the weed vs the oak against the hurricane. The oak refuses to bend and was ripped frm the roots and torn to shreds by the hurricane. The weed bowed over, survived and emerged a stronger weed.

    A photographer shld be the chameleon, blending in, changing with the environment and not like a polar bear in the amazon forest.
    "Wonders of the Human Mind. Unfathomable to the highest degree."

  16. #36

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Okay, if I claim that I am a pro photographer, many people on this forum will voice their opinions. Let's consider I take photographs for a living.

    In difficult or uncontrollable outdoor lighting situations, an experienced photographer will usually improvise. Such photographer will utilize his or hers best effort and instincts to make use of the available conditions. Being resourceful is also very important.

    A commercial shoot usually runs between $1,000~$3,000 a day. So, postponing a shoot or reshoot may not be the best option. There is a time-crunch too, as most commercial shoots have deadlines to adhere. In such cases, the art or creative director has to work very closely with the photographer to produce the concepts that our client wants. Also, since both time and money are the main running factors, an experienced photographer will try to keep post-production (DI) work to the minimal.

    Let me OT a bit to answer a question from another thread of whether or not a person will have a higher employment chance if he or she has a diploma or degree in photography. Of course, an employer WILL consider your education, but it all boils down to the kind of experience you have. It is how you can help the studio save time and money with your expertises. Therefore, being an accomplished apprentice photographer with a studio adds value to your hard-earned education. A recommendation letter from your former boss helps greatly too.
    Last edited by photobum; 30th January 2006 at 10:53 AM.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Its all abt adapting and changing oneself according to how the environment goes..... A photographer shld be the chameleon, blending in, changing with the environment and not like a polar bear in the amazon forest.
    I couldn't agree more.
    Last edited by photobum; 29th January 2006 at 05:07 PM.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    .... a pro who trains himself to use natural light, with or without meters, can make very good images.
    I agree with student on this issue. When I first started photography in 1978, I did not have fancy equipment like many of you now; just a 1960's Yashica Mat TLR camera and a miniture tripod, both handed down from my father. The light meter on this camera did not even work. Nothing in it is automatic or computerized.

    I was a primary 4 student then. Many aspects of photography was very raw to me. Even if I had a photography book to read, I did not understand many words in it. I would just stare and admire those beautiful pictures. With limited budget, I shot rolls and rolls 120 films. Avoiding repeated mistakes and learned from them. I relied solely on my instincts and a die-hard spirit.

    Three years later, I submitted one of my images into my secondary school's art and craft contest. Even though it was a photograph (not a drawing, painting or sculpture like others), it got me a first prize. I was later asked to present a reprint of the same photograph to the chairperson of the school's board on speech day. This was my first achievement in photography, using nothing but an old TLR camera, a roll of Sakura 120 film and plenty of instincts, plus loads experience learned from trial-and-error. I wished I had a light meter then, but now I am glad I didn't. This experience helped me to see light and its surrounding ambience better.

    FYI, I bought my first handheld light meter in 1995 because I needed it for studio work in school.
    Last edited by photobum; 30th January 2006 at 10:56 AM.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888
    I can't agree with that trail of thought. Given he is a professional photographer which would mean someone who has been shooting for a relative lengthy period of time commercially and pressure to produce results, I would wager he/she would still be able to do better then the "regular sunday shooter" and maybe even your "above average shooter" Again it will depend on a number of other factors too. But time and again, a professional photographer would do better given his experience and years of trouble shooting and improving ways around tricky situations. Just like I think the above average shooter would be better at then your newbie.

    The ideal being that the more you shooot and practice will make you better at anticipating and overcoming bad situations like lighting. Lighting is just one of many factors that is always a constant challenge to all level of photography. If I may add...anyone can buy a light meter but if you don't know how to use one, it is of no use to anyone too.

    Let me give you any example, if you take your regular "joe" hobbist photographer and team him with Steve Curry who shoots war pictures in Afghanistan. Send them both into a battle zone with the assigment to shot pictures of the enemies in action against their own forces. Who do you think would most likely come back with the most pictures? We are not talking just quality of the shots but also how much is shot. Your hobbist who have never shot pictures while under fire would most likely be ducking behind barrier to avoid bullets and bomb then shoot most of the time as this scenario is new to him/her. Curry would still be nervous and fearful too but he is use to performing under fire in those kind of situation...thus he should and IS expected to come back with not just lots of shots but quality ones. Would the hobbist ever be as good? Sure. Throw him/her into as many as those situation enough times he too would be just as good. But we are talking from a controlled point of view and if so....well that is why I can't agree with your statement

    That's my CNY two bits.....heheh
    I think it should be Steve McCurry, and I don't think he does conflict shooting. He's more of a documentary photographer.
    Maybe, James Natchwey or Robert Capa would be a better example.

    Nevertheless, good point

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •