My advice...just keep trying stuff until something hits you over the head and says...Man this is IT!
Nothing beats experimentation. Forget the tutorials, forget the suggestions. Try stuff! Shoot variations. I'm guessing this is for fun and not for commerce so budget and timing do not apply.
Hard light, soft light, lots of fill, no fill, rim light, no rim light...all are fine..IF THE DESIRED RESULT workd for YOU!
Nothing beat experimentation. But if photography was as simple as just grabbing a camera and trying stuff, and everyone was motivated to do that by temperament then there would be no need for fora like this. Trial and error works for people with well developed intuition who can grasp the cause and effect of what they are seeing and sort out what works and why. But things like the affect of aperture, shooting distance and sensor format DOF might take years for someone to figure out by themselves, but a few minutes to grasp using a DOF calculator (i.e. tutition).
All information, however gathered, must be validated by trying it of course. But learning from tuition and suggestions first before trying stuff takes some of the "error" and tribulation out of trials and gets one up the learning curve quicker by understanding the cause and effect of what they are observing. Its easier to see when something isn't working as well if you start from a baseline of convention which has been proven to work.
Fill placement is a good example. Starting from a baseline of centered fill its obvious by comparison when fill becomes shaded and dark voids occur in the lighting pattern. But left to their own devices 99.9% of beginners will place key and fill on opposite sides and never try "neutral" fill because they think all flat light sucks and come to accept the dark voids as "normal".
The fact, proven by testing temperament, is most people don't have well developed intuition, or for that matter innate curiosity about why things work on a cause and effect basis. That's why we humans have long tradition of systematic, progressive, pedantic education.
The people who find that approach to slow and "rule" bound tend to be the intuitive, curious types who tend to live by their wits a enjoy the challenge solving problems on their own. They are most likely than most to quit school, strike out on their own and wind up in a field like photography which is one of the few vocations where a person with minimal formal education and capital can run a viable one-man business.
I understand your point of view, but I don't see how "Just go off and just do it yourself and figure it out" - which is what you suggest -- is a better path to enlightenment. He did after all come here after doing that, looking for other suggestions. I credit him and other readers with the curiosity to try anything I and anyone else suggests and the intelligence to sort out what works best for them.
Creative vision is something you start with - the goal of how you want it to look. Knowing how to use the tools effectively is a basic step in transforming creative pre-visualization into the desired finished product.
Why is it better? IMO,(and thats all it is, just like yours) photography...creative photography... is not about formulas or digits. Its not computer science. Its all about vison. You can't learn vision by reading or following tutorials. You only get there by doing... and trial and error. Nothing beats lessons learned by experimention.
The real truth is that what starts in your mind is not always what ends up as a photograph. Even the very best at pre-visualization most often end up elsewhere at the end of the day. Why?, because the really inquisitive photographer will not quit until they have explored the subject to the fullest. When it comes to light, you get there by trying things until you "feel" it.
For all the tutorials in the world, nothing will prepare the photographer better...and teach him or her to know and use their tools effectively than use and experimentation. Its well and good to get wrapped up in arcane theory if thats what you enjoy, but if you really want to make compelling imagery, shoot, experiment...learn by seeing.
But hey, if photography is all "paint by the numbers" for some, more power to them. I perfer the emotion.
Brian, I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's supported by any DOF calculator. I think the zooming in that you mention at the end of your explanation is has exactly the same amount of effect (but in reverse) as moving farther away. If I had a lot of spare time, I'd do some experimenting with it, but as it is I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to finish up this shot...
It is for a client, but not a commercial one--and the deadline is fairly loose.
I don't generally worry that muhc about stopping down past the diffraction point. If the image calls for the depth then you do it, Usually the softness is not that big of a deal if you have a strong image, unless you need to print really large.
Shot film to 20+ years. Nobody gave a crap about diffraction for the most part (f22 or 32 on a blad, f64 or 90 on a 4x5). Pixel peeping has changed al that but its mostly still a wash once the image hits a press.
Focus stack is also a good option. Helicon Focus does a great job.
Greg Feldman wrote:
Brian, I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's supported by any DOF calculator. ...I'd do some experimenting with it, but as it is I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to finish up this shot...
I'd experiment, too, but right now my camera is in the shop. Maybe at some later date I'll do it just for giggles and post my results if I remember to do so.
