SDN Photography Talk Thread

[aerius]

Aerius is right about needing to spend time in post for any image you think is worthwhile. Digital camera lead people to think that post is unnecessary because an image file comes right out of the camera, but file is no different than a negative - it's raw, unrefined, and probably has at least one thing wrong with it. Fine printmaking requires darkroom work; there's really no escaping it.

And if you don't believe me or Simplicius, find yourself a copy of "The Negative" or "The Print" by Ansel Adams, and see for yourself what he had to do to make his photos look the way they do. His darkroom work was highly technical and involved to say the least, and he was way better in the technical & artistic skills of taking pictures than any of us ever will be.

Yes, we should all try to get the best possible pictures we can straight out of the camera, but in almost every case some editing will be required to make the pictures as good as they can be.

[Simplicius]

As for learning post-processing (and dealing with unsharp mask), try to find one of Tom Ang's books at a library or used bookshop or wherever. His digital guides are good.

When I unsharp mask, I don't sharpen more than 150 percent (more like 100, and go as low as 50 percent if it's a noisy image, even after noise reduction), keep the radius low (between 1 and three px, usually), and keep the threshold even lower (usually between 0 and 1). That keeps it subtle and doesn't kill fine detail. At that level it won't be too noticeable when you view the file at 100 percent, but that is fine - if it was very noticeable at 100 percent, your picture would look like crunchy eye-hurting shit. The same amount of sharpening (or perhaps a little less) applied after a resize (600-800 pixels on the long side) will be noticeable. In general, the greater the degree of resizing, the more pronounced the effect of unsharp mask.

[Simplicius]

It's not really interesting.
The same shot at sunset/sunrise/evening/morning with only the left chairs in the shot from a lower angle would be very nice (and you've probably seen something similiar)

itt we learn that Death thinks in cliches

In all seriousness, I had a different sense of "interesting" than "would make a pretty postcard." But I'm probably being reminded of the feeling I got from someone else's work. I think it's something to do with the deck chairs.

By the way, do you do much studying of other photographers' work? You'll find your understanding and approach immeasurably improved if you do. Hit up your local library, or see if you can grab a copy of The Photo Book - it's a good, inexpensive way to be introduced to tons of photographers from all periods and genres. Which reminds me, I should post an updated recommended reading list in the Talk thread soon...

it's a strong visual because, I think, it's a "still life" picture composed as a "people shot".

It might have something to do with that - it's almost like a clinical, detached perspective on what ought to be a warm, human scene. Or hinting at that, at least, because this was very literally a zero-effort shot. Anything I think about it now is layering on meaning that totally didn't exist when I tripped the shutter. That's why I brought it here.

Where was that taken?

My great aunt has a cottage on a small lake between the Adirondack Park and the Hudson River in mid-New York state. We took a family vacation there years ago after I got back from Europe.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's not really interesting.
The same shot at sunset/sunrise/evening/morning with only the left chairs in the shot from a lower angle would be very nice (and you've probably seen something similiar)

itt we learn that Death thinks in cliches

Yes, I do. What's your point?

In all seriousness, I had a different sense of "interesting" than "would make a pretty postcard."

Such as?

But I'm probably being reminded of the feeling I got from someone else's work. I think it's something to do with the deck chairs.

So, you were thinking of another, more interesting shot of deck-chairs, without naming the change you're thinking of?

By the way, do you do much studying of other photographers' work?

Yup. Picked up "The photographer's eye" and 3 textbooks in London.

You'll find your understanding and approach immeasurably improved if you do.

Hasn't helped so far, but I am aware of the approach and practice it. Imitation is sincere flattery and all that. Regardless, Thanks.

Hit up your local library, or see if you can grab a copy of The Photo Book - it's a good, inexpensive way to be introduced to tons of photographers from all periods and genres.

I have the pocket sized version. It's not anywhere near detailed enough, but it's excellent and easily available.

it's a strong visual because, I think, it's a "still life" picture composed as a "people shot".

It might have something to do with that - it's almost like a clinical, detached perspective on what ought to be a warm, human scene. Or hinting at that, at least, because this was very literally a zero-effort shot. Anything I think about it now is layering on meaning that totally didn't exist when I tripped the shutter.

If it takes effort to add meaning, then maybe you're literally adding the meaning as opposed to exploring it?

Then again, my mindset is one of being rather rabidly against adding layers of nonsesical artsy fartsy interpretations to art, so my basic POV is suspicious, paranoid, slanted, and against thematic content at the expense of what's in the artwork itself. (A viewpoint totally opposed to convincing others that you're makin fine art, hence the reason that i'll probably never be an artist, or a fine photographer making millions of prints of black, red or blue sheets!).
I'm overelaborating I think .

[Bounty]

Then again, my mindset is one of being rather rabidly against adding layers of nonsesical artsy fartsy interpretations to art, so my basic POV is suspicious, paranoid, slanted, and against thematic content at the expense of what's in the artwork itself.

I think the key thing to keep in mind is that you can talk about the themes you see in a picture without those themes being there by design. We all have a different background and a different way of seeing things, and that's on top of the myriad subconscious filters we use to process visual data. What looks like a photo of two deckchairs to you might trigger memories of past events in someone else, completely changing the meaning and value of the picture. There may be subtle references, deliberate or not, to parts of your social or cultural framework that someone else doesn't see or doesn't have.

The fault is seeing that analysis as being in any way objective - what you offer when you talk about the symbolism in an image is not an objective dissection of a work that is valid for anyone watching it; in a sense, it's an attempt to show the way in which a static photograph becomes a "living" image in your mind. It's not a comment on what is actually there, it's a comment on what it looks like through your eyes.

And in addition to that, even a snapshot can have, by accident, features that can't help but interpret differently (like Simplicius said, it's framed as shot that should have some life in it, and the subconscious picks up on that). Once again, it's not by design, but it still triggers a reaction as if it's by design, and hence is relevant when discussing the picture.

At the end of the day Simplicius made a snapshot of a pier. That's all the shot objectively is, and anyone who says he was making a deep exposé of the changing face of leisure in the north-eastern US is full of hot air. But that doesn't mean you can't personally see it as something more, even if that "something more" is just there by accident.

[Bounty]

What, like this shot from Iceland?

Suppose this was taken by someone else, and they asked you to describe what you think and feel when you see the image. Not the technical side, no artsy-fartsy dissertation, just what you think of it. What would you say?

[The Grim Squeaker]

What, like this shot from Iceland?

Suppose this was taken by someone else, and they asked you to describe what you think and feel when you see the image. Not the technical side, no artsy-fartsy dissertation, just what you think of it. What would you say?

I would say that it made me think of the great peaks of the world, the cold purity of ice, snow and the alpine heights. It makes me feel like going out with nothing but boots a coat and a hat to climb up that foggy peak and to slide down the snow through the gently curving side, the colours make me think of a fairy tale of the north, of ice hounds baying, of the day breaking from eternal snow (from the golden light of the sunrise).
Shall I go on?

Also, lastly I'd have to admit that I didn't see the shape of a face until someone pointed it out to me.

[Simplicius]

Yes, I do. What's your point?

Well, cliches are boring. They're boring because you - me - anyone - has seen them countless times before. One gets image fatigue, and when the n+1th example turns up there's scarcely any reason to look at it. The picture has been seen so many times that there is nothing new in it, and therefore there isn't any reason to look at it.

For instance, I live in a really scenic state. It's got lakes, rivers, forests, mountains, islands, rugged coasts, sailboats, lighthouses, villages, colored leaves in the fall...assloads of scenery. And it sucks, photographically. There have been so many shots taken of all that scenic shit - by tourists, by commercial photogs, for picture books and postcards and advertisements and travel albums - that is is very difficult to make photographs that are fresh and new, and therefore interesting.

So, you were thinking of another, more interesting shot of deck-chairs, without naming the change you're thinking of?

If I had known what I was thinking of, I wouldn't have had to ask here. But not "another shot of deck chairs;" there are elements of photos besides the objects that are in them. Color, pattern, and formal arrangement can be enough to link otherwise unrelated photos. Hell, even a similar emotional response in the viewer's mind is enough.

Then again, my mindset is one of being rather rabidly against adding layers of nonsesical artsy fartsy interpretations to art, so my basic POV is suspicious, paranoid, slanted, and against thematic content at the expense of what's in the artwork itself. (A viewpoint totally opposed to convincing others that you're makin fine art, hence the reason that i'll probably never be an artist, or a fine photographer making millions of prints of black, red or blue sheets!).
I'm overelaborating I think .

I also dislike that sort of thing, but fortunately adding interpretation isn't what makes art. As far as I care, the ultimate source of 'art' is the emotional reaction a work provokes; the stronger the reaction (and the more widespread), the better the art. That's something that's left to the audience; all the artist has to do is try and produce strong works that are likely to leave an impression.

So if you, Death, personally set out to make art, you don't have to frig around with textual interpretations or generating social commentary or any of that nonsense. Your job as a photographer isn't to tell people things (which is what you are suspicious of anyway). Your job is to grab their head, figuratively speaking, and command them, "LOOK AT THIS." If they see something that matters, it's art.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Your job is to grab their head, figuratively speaking

Then what's the point of making young hot models sign various legal forms before they come into my...studio?

, and command them, "LOOK AT THIS." If they see something that matters, it's art.

Actually, something that matters would be more the field of documentary or news, history, photography and less about art IMHO.

Personally, my knee jerk definition of art would be "something of interest" (and/or thought provoking/stimulating/greater than the sum of its components).
Be it due to a striking arrangement of elements (a baby tram left next to a graveyard for example), composition (a pile of wooden triangles thrown into a circle, or a bird touching the water), colours (No one needs an example of this ), an event depicted or occurring (an old man glancing shiftily aside), or a hundred and one other ingredients.

Yes, I do. What's your point?

Well, cliches are boring. They're boring because you - me - anyone - has seen them countless times before. One gets image fatigue, and when the n+1th example turns up there's scarcely any reason to look at it. The picture has been seen so many times that there is nothing new in it, and therefore there isn't any reason to look at it.

For instance, I live in a really scenic state. It's got lakes, rivers, forests, mountains, islands, rugged coasts, sailboats, lighthouses, villages, colored leaves in the fall...assloads of scenery. And it sucks, photographically. There have been so many shots taken of all that scenic shit - by tourists, by commercial photogs, for picture books and postcards and advertisements and travel albums - that is is very difficult to make photographs that are fresh and new, and therefore interesting.

It could be worse, your state is how many times larger than my country? Even with the cities... Well, let's see you make a picture of the Western wall or the buildings in Tel Aviv that haven't been taken a thousand times over. Heck, I live in a tiny village. It's got nature, but said nature is just lots of potato fields and some uniform trees in small rows.
Of course, since we're so awesome we work around those various issues, and an area being photogenic and photographed just means that it's easy for you too make excellent shots (just not exceptional ones). Think, would you really want to live somewhere with 2 hours of day where the scenery is just a vast white plain? .
(Dammit, now I want to go hiking again!)

So, you were thinking of another, more interesting shot of deck-chairs, without naming the change you're thinking of?

If I had known what I was thinking of, I wouldn't have had to ask here. But not "another shot of deck chairs;" there are elements of photos besides the objects that are in them. Color, pattern, and formal arrangement can be enough to link otherwise unrelated photos. Hell, even a similar emotional response in the viewer's mind is enough.

Have you considered working with models/humans? It might prove useful, I know it helped me improve and innovate, and I used to refuse to take pictures of humans (and the ones I did take were utter crap).

Then again, my mindset is one of being rather rabidly against adding layers of nonsensical artsy fartsy interpretations to art, so my basic POV is suspicious, paranoid, slanted, and against thematic content at the expense of what's in the artwork itself. (A viewpoint totally opposed to convincing others that you're makin fine art, hence the reason that i'll probably never be an artist, or a fine photographer making millions of prints of black, red or blue sheets!).
I'm overelaborating I think .

I also dislike that sort of thing, but fortunately adding interpretation isn't what makes art.

But, far too often it adds market value. (and dollar signs).

As far as I care, the ultimate source of 'art' is the emotional reaction a work provokes; the stronger the reaction (and the more widespread), the better the art.

More like modern art. A rotting donkey corpse? Picture of a baby with it's brains smashed out?

That's something that's left to the audience; all the artist has to do is try and produce strong works that are likely to leave an impression.

I still agree with you on most counts

[Bounty]

Maybe this discussion is better off getting split into the Photo Talk thread? If only there was an AMP moderator here...

[Simplicius]

Maybe this discussion is better off getting split into the Photo Talk thread? If only there was an AMP moderator here...

Hold your horses, man; these replies take me a long time to finish.

Then what's the point of making young hot models sign various legal forms before they come into my...studio?

Not quite sure what your punchline was meant to be, but potentially really unfunny.

Actually, something that matters would be more the field of documentary or news, history, photography and less about art IMHO.

Matters to them, personally, I meant. Beethoven's Symphony V doesn't matter much in any absolute sense, really - but if someone listens to it and is absolutely transfixed by the music, if it moves them to heights of emotion above what they feel on a daily basis, then that is one argument in favor of it being art. The same goes for any photograph, painting, sculpture, book, etc.

Personally, my knee jerk definition of art would be "something of interest" (and/or thought provoking/stimulating/greater than the sum of its components).
Be it due to a striking arrangement of elements (a baby tram left next to a graveyard for example), composition (a pile of wooden triangles thrown into a circle, or a bird touching the water), colours (No one needs an example of this ), an event depicted or occurring (an old man glancing shiftily aside), or a hundred and one other ingredients.

But you are basically saying the same thing I am, only more vaguely - if art is defined as being stimulating, then it is the viewer reacting to something that makes it art. That reaction will almost certainly be a visceral one initially, which gets right back to emotion.

Even with the cities... Well, let's see you make a picture of the Western wall or the buildings in Tel Aviv that haven't been taken a thousand times over.

Precisely...

...an area being photogenic and photographed just means that it's easy for you too make excellent shots (just not exceptional ones).

...but not this. Think of the Taj Mahal. It's a beautiful building. It is not hard to make a pretty photo of the Taj Mahal. Lots of people have done it. So many, in fact, that it is very difficult to make a photograph of the Taj Mahal that is worth caring about. It will be pretty, but so are everyone else's photos of the Taj Mahal. All the good angles have been covered, all possible lighting conditions have been covered, and there will be no reason for your picture even to exist except for your self-satisfaction.

To be good, excellent, worthwhile, etc. - to an audience - you have to bring something new to the table. Unique and unusual are the watchwords; they've seen all the Taj Mahal pictures already.

It could be worse, your state is how many times larger than my country?

About four times larger. There are advantages to living in a small place, though: there are parts of Maine that I've never even been, because to really canvas them would require a trip of many days, and money for lodging, etc. One-quarter of the state would still be a sizable chunk of land to cover, but I could do much more of it in day trips.

More like modern art. A rotting donkey corpse? Picture of a baby with it's brains smashed out?

Yes, those too. And Duchamp's urinal. And Chris Burden lying in a gallery under glass for 45 hours until someone gave him some water. The art may fail, or it may just be in poor taste - the gallery and the museum are just places for people to see it, not some final judgment that It Is Good. But it's no less art than the stuff everybody likes. It all operates on the same mechanism of trying to provoke an audience reaction, whether it's pure emotional abstraction (Beethoven) or world-class trolling (Duchamp).

[The Grim Squeaker]

Maybe this discussion is better off getting split into the Photo Talk thread? If only there was an AMP moderator here...

Hold your horses, man; these replies take me a long time to finish.

Ride a pony?

Then what's the point of making young hot models sign various legal forms before they come into my...studio?

Not quite sure what your punchline was meant to be, but potentially really unfunny.

Sex with photomodels joke .

Actually, something that matters would be more the field of documentary or news, history, photography and less about art IMHO.

Matters to them, personally, I meant. Beethoven's Symphony V doesn't matter much in any absolute sense, really - but if someone listens to it and is absolutely transfixed by the music, if it moves them to heights of emotion above what they feel on a daily basis, then that is one argument in favor of it being art.

That matches my definition though, not "something that matters". . And mattering to someone personally is tricky, a lot of people like Britney Spears and very few appreciate Peer Gynt or Dvorak's new world by comparison, does that make one a better form of art?

...an area being photogenic and photographed just means that it's easy for you too make excellent shots (just not exceptional ones).

...but not this. Think of the Taj Mahal. It's a beautiful building. It is not hard to make a pretty photo of the Taj Mahal. Lots of people have done it. So many, in fact, that it is very difficult to make a photograph of the Taj Mahal that is worth caring about. It will be pretty, but so are everyone else's photos of the Taj Mahal. All the good angles have been covered, all possible lighting conditions have been covered, and there will be no reason for your picture even to exist except for your self-satisfaction.

Actually, I have seen some excellent original photos of the Taj Mahal. (Even of the Statue of Liberty, from a docking container for example).
But yes, it is extremely hard, especially when you're travelling and don't live there and you're dependent on the local weather and you don't have the time to visit at the "magic hours" for example.
On the other hand, people have been trying to make imitations of Ansel Adam's work in Yosemite for decades using GPS trackers and satellites to get the exact location, weather and time of day, and his originals still reign supreme .

To be good, excellent, worthwhile, etc. - to an audience - you have to bring something new to the table. Unique and unusual are the watchwords; they've seen all the Taj Mahal pictures already.

Still, there's something to be said for documentation - an excellent accurate picture through your POV. (Unusuality for it's own sake is a tempting fruit, but can lead to cavities for those who indulge in it, excessive photoshopping and overly blurred shots too greatly).

It could be worse, your state is how many times larger than my country?

About four times larger.

Only? Well, 2/3 of mine is uninhabited desert, with large chunks being problematic to visit .

There are advantages to living in a small place, though: there are parts of Maine that I've never even been, because to really canvas them would require a trip of many days, and money for lodging, etc. One-quarter of the state would still be a sizable chunk of land to cover, but I could do much more of it in day trips.

Yup. Are you still a ship's cook? That's absolutely perfect for travelling around, the only thing that could possibly be better would be to be a proffessional photographer in terms of travel. (Even pilots aren't as good, they're more limited in locales ).

More like modern art. A rotting donkey corpse? Picture of a baby with it's brains smashed out?

Yes, those too. And Duchamp's urinal. And Chris Burden lying in a gallery under glass for 45 hours until someone gave him some water. The art may fail, or it may just be in poor taste

If your definition is based on impact (not people liking it, or thought provoking, or inspirational), then it's hard to argue with those art examples. Impact is impact.

- the gallery and the museum are just places for people to see it, not some final judgment that It Is Good. But it's no less art than the stuff everybody likes. It all operates on the same mechanism of trying to provoke an audience reaction, whether it's pure emotional abstraction (Beethoven) or world-class trolling (Duchamp).

As I recall provoking a reaction is only the definition of modern art, but I might be wrong, i've never taken an art class in my life. (and never will the way my coursework is piling up).

the creation of beautiful or significant things
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression
The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans.[1] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

I could check my sister's textbooks for a better definition (something about how pure art is something done for only it's own sake, and not for any other purpose)

[Simplicius]

Sex with photomodels joke .

I'll go with unfunny, then. Terry Richardson does it, but he also comes off as a narcissistic douche. Don't be "that guy."

And mattering to someone personally is tricky, a lot of people like Britney Spears and very few appreciate Peer Gynt or Dvorak's new world by comparison, does that make one a better form of art?

It all depends, insofar as it matters. Ranking art is less important to the world at large than it is to one's personal canon. But consider: J. S. Bach's music still matters to people around the world hundreds of years after it was first written, so it must have some actual strength. Compared to that sort of thing, it's still far too early to estimate the total artistic strength of modern pop, modern art, or anything else that's new.

Actually, I have seen some excellent original photos of the Taj Mahal. (Even of the Statue of Liberty, from a docking container for example).

But see, that's something unusual - it's a fresh perspective on the Statue of Liberty. You have to see past the cliches. and that takes skill and vision.

the "magic hours" for example

Themselves a cliche. Pretty, useful, but still timeworn.

Still, there's something to be said for documentation - an excellent accurate picture through your POV. (Unusuality for it's own sake is a tempting fruit, but can lead to cavities for those who indulge in it, excessive photoshopping and overly blurred shots too greatly)

Documentary is just one of many styles. It certainly doesn't have a monopoly on striking and valuable images, and it's really not any easier than any other style to do well.

Let's not forget in all this that a certain amount of skill or talent is always necessary to make something good. Dumb kids who pile Photoshop filters onto pictures of a trash can might please themselves and their friends and compatriots, but no-one else cares which makes it weak art at best.

Only? Well, 2/3 of mine is uninhabited desert, with large chunks being problematic to visit .

I could fit one and a half Israels into Maine's unorganized territory, with room to spare. And you wouldn't make it far enough into the North Woods to get lost, because the blackflies would gnaw your bones bare first.

Are you still a ship's cook?

If I were ever a ship's cook, wouldn't I have posted photos from abroad by now?

If your definition is based on impact (not people liking it, or thought provoking, or inspirational), then it's hard to argue with those art examples. Impact is impact.

Why should a definition of art be exclusive rather than inclusive?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Sex with photomodels joke .

I'll go with unfunny, then. Terry Richardson does it, but he also comes off as a narcissistic douche.

Never heard of him, though his site has some decent pictures.

Don't be "that guy."

Says someone with a GF. What's the point of a socially applicable skills if you don't use it for ulterior goals.

Actually, I have seen some excellent original photos of the Taj Mahal. (Even of the Statue of Liberty, from a docking container for example).

But see, that's something unusual - it's a fresh perspective on the Statue of Liberty. You have to see past the cliches. and that takes skill and vision.

Making original photos that have a fresh and creative outlook on something requires skills and vision? No!

the "magic hours" for example

Themselves a cliche. Pretty, useful, but still timeworn.

I used to think that, but shooting mid-day in Israel is HARSH light wise. It's not essential, and it doesn't need to be on the half hour, but morning and late afternoon shots have a Lot going for them. It varies on your location, in Alaska for example it didn't matter if it was 8AM or PM or 2PM.

Still, there's something to be said for documentation - an excellent accurate picture through your POV. (Unusuality for it's own sake is a tempting fruit, but can lead to cavities for those who indulge in it, excessive photoshopping and overly blurred shots too greatly)

Documentary is just one of many styles. It certainly doesn't have a monopoly on striking and valuable images, and it's really not any easier than any other style to do well.

I was using it as an example for your previous

, and command them, "LOOK AT THIS." If they see something that matters, it's art.

Let's not forget in all this that a certain amount of skill or talent is always necessary to make something good.

I was thinking yesterday what the ratio would be for a good image.
1/3 the image itself. (what you're taking a picture of and light)
60% the photographer.
The remaining 6% - equipment.
Maybe a bit more weight to the conditions at the expense of the photographer, but that would require empirical field testing with better photographers than I in identical conditions .

Dumb kids who pile Photoshop filters onto pictures of a trash can might please themselves and their friends and compatriots, but no-one else cares which makes it weak art at best.

... Wanna see my HDR?

Only? Well, 2/3 of mine is uninhabited desert, with large chunks being problematic to visit .

I could fit one and a half Israels into Maine's unorganized territory, with room to spare. And you wouldn't make it far enough into the North Woods to get lost, because the blackflies would gnaw your bones bare first.

No ticks? Bears? mountain Lions? Hillbillies? Sounds rather sedate compared to the usual places I hike in the US.

Are you still a ship's cook?

If I were ever a ship's cook, wouldn't I have posted photos from abroad by now?

Dammit, thinking of Publius. I keep filing both of you under the same mental category, I blame the black and white cigars.

If your definition is based on impact (not people liking it, or thought provoking, or inspirational), then it's hard to argue with those art examples. Impact is impact.

Why should a definition of art be exclusive rather than inclusive?

Any club that would have me as a member can't be worth anything?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Edit, not Publius, some other dude with a BW av who used to take quite a lot of photos. Air something? No, I forget. ..
Well, who cares. So, what is your job anyway?

[J]

I used to think that, but shooting mid-day in Israel is HARSH light wise. It's not essential, and it doesn't need to be on the half hour, but morning and late afternoon shots have a Lot going for them. It varies on your location, in Alaska for example it didn't matter if it was 8AM or PM or 2PM.

On the other hand harsh lighting can be made to work for the photographer with the right choice of subjects, the documentary photos of the Great Depression taken by Dorothea Lange come to mind. The hard lighting helps to emphasize the grim suffering of the people in the photos, examples here and here.

And if Dorothea Lange isn't your thing there's also this photo which was taken near noon in the middle of summer under a blazing sun with clear skies.

[RRoan]

And on a completely random note, ISO 12800 is pretty funny. It's absolutely useless due to noise, but wildly overexposed shots at midnight=lulz.

[The Grim Squeaker]

And on a completely random note, ISO 12800 is pretty funny. It's absolutely useless due to noise, but wildly overexposed shots at midnight=lulz.

Cameras have had stupidly high ISO settings for a very long while now. Turns out marketing gets the final count? (Iso 3200 on a compact camera is hideously grainy. On the other hand, Iso 6400 on a D3 is a thing of smooth beauty )

[Simplicius]

Cameras have had stupidly high ISO settings for a very long while now. Turns out marketing gets the final count? (Iso 3200 on a compact camera is hideously grainy. On the other hand, Iso 6400 on a D3 is a thing of smooth beauty )

At least some camera manufacturers recognize this. When my Canon is on Auto it won't go higher than 400 unless I switch to the High ISO setting.

I had to force high ISO a couple of weeks ago when I covered an auditorium dedication; for some stupid reason they lit the audience brighter than the stage. High ISO made everything noisy as all fuck, but the lens was so slow that the exposure was still too low.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Cameras have had stupidly high ISO settings for a very long while now. Turns out marketing gets the final count? (Iso 3200 on a compact camera is hideously grainy. On the other hand, Iso 6400 on a D3 is a thing of smooth beauty )

At least some camera manufacturers recognize this. When my Canon is on Auto it won't go higher than 400 unless I switch to the High ISO setting.

I had to force high ISO a couple of weeks ago when I covered an auditorium dedication; for some stupid reason they lit the audience brighter than the stage. High ISO made everything noisy as all fuck, but the lens was so slow that the exposure was still too low.

Indoor lighting with a stage and auditorium and crowd without a tripod? I wouldn't hire you after that .

Well, too be serious, short of altering the lighting or using a flash/biggr gear, there wouldn't be anything you could do, even a tripod won't help much due to the people's movements. (I'll be shooting a week straight in similiar crappily light indoor conditions next week, but at ISO 1600 and with my 17-55 2.8 and maybe my camera's flash to help if i'm really desperate).

[Simplicius]

Indoor lighting with a stage and auditorium and crowd without a tripod? I wouldn't hire you after that .

Photojournalism, you doofus. I need to be mobile.

Not my fault that my camera's not suited for the job. I wonder if I could count an upgrade as a business expense...

[aerius]

(I'll be shooting a week straight in similiar crappily light indoor conditions next week, but at ISO 1600 and with my 17-55 2.8 and maybe my camera's flash to help if i'm really desperate).

Make sure the venue allows flash photography first, if they don't and they see your flash go off you'll get escorted out the door or have your camera confiscated for the duration of the event.

Not my fault that my camera's not suited for the job. I wonder if I could count an upgrade as a business expense...

I am not familiar with US tax codes, but in Canada I could write it off as a business expense if I were doing paying work as a photographer or if my pictures were exhibited in a gallery.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Indoor lighting with a stage and auditorium and crowd without a tripod? I wouldn't hire you after that .

Photojournalism, you doofus. I need to be mobile.

And what do you think i'll be doing in Israel's geek con for a week straight in lectures, landscapes? Nudes? (Well, that would be nice actually ).
Indoor events are where compact digital cameras go to show how in various situations, DSLR's really do kick the crap out of them :d.

Not my fault that my camera's not suited for the job. I wonder if I could count an upgrade as a business expense...

And it's not my fault I don't have a telephoto prime lens to get good shots at concerts or indoor venues, but it doesn't change the fact that I lack that gear and simple physics result in it being very hard if not impossible to get good photos from lectures and many events in those circumstances.

(I'll be shooting a week straight in similiar crappily light indoor conditions next week, but at ISO 1600 and with my 17-55 2.8 and maybe my camera's flash to help if i'm really desperate).

Make sure the venue allows flash photography first, if they don't and they see your flash go off you'll get escorted out the door or have your camera confiscated for the duration of the event.

Don't worry, they know me and i'm working the con. I do limit the flash out of politeness, and an unholy loathing for the results of an on camera, non softened flash. (Attempts to make a flash bounce with socks, fabric and plastic have not succeeded).

Not my fault that my camera's not suited for the job. I wonder if I could count an upgrade as a business expense...

I am not familiar with US tax codes, but in Canada I could write it off as a business expense if I were doing paying work as a photographer or if my pictures were exhibited in a gallery.

Depends if you earn enough to pay taxes

[Simplicius]

Indoor events are where compact digital cameras go to show how in various situations, DSLR's really do kick the crap out of them :d.

I would question the intelligence of anyone who claimed the compacts were superior in any regime other than size and cost. Compacts and bridges are poor cameras overall, but they have a market because not everyone needs or can afford a full-spec camera.

I am not familiar with US tax codes, but in Canada I could write it off as a business expense if I were doing paying work as a photographer or if my pictures were exhibited in a gallery.

I'm at that uncomfortable stage where I'm trying to figure out how to present/sell photos without doing any presenting/selling yet. I know fuck-all about small business and self-employment, so I really don't want to mess around with that unless I have a good reason to do so.

On the other hand, I have this pretty little Reimbursed Expense Items sheet with nothing on it but a packet of AA batteries...and I certainly wouldn't be contemplating buying a new digital camera if my present one wasn't deficient for the purposes of my job...

[aerius]

I do limit the flash out of politeness, and an unholy loathing for the results of an on camera, non softened flash. (Attempts to make a flash bounce with socks, fabric and plastic have not succeeded).

I've had pretty good results by taping a piece of notebook or computer paper over the flash. You'll have to redo the white balance in Photoshop afterwards since it tends to make things a bit too warm & yellow. Either that or you do a custom white balance setting with your camera.