CCC Forum

One of the ways to develop your photography is to take inspiration from others are doing. I am not suggesting straight copying of images, rather learning from how other people approach their craft and seeing the results of their efforts. Aside from exhibitions, talks are are a good way of achieving this as it allows for greater interaction. The best series of presentations of which I am aware in the South East are the eight meetings held annually by the Thames Valley Region of The Royal Photographic Society's Digital Imaging Group. So far this year Jerry Webb, Tom Way and Eva Worobiec (supported by equally capable photographer husband Tony) have spoken there and all were excellent. In the past people such as Ken Scott and Rikki O'Neill have been.

Admittedly, I do wish that the venue in Wokingham was closer as it is a 100 mile round journey with the trip taking an hour or so each way, but the journey is more than worth it for the quality of the sessions. Well recommended.

http://rps.org/digtv

I have just returned from the latest session, a joint presentation by husband and wife team Adrian and Jane Lines. Those who enjoy surrealism would have been interested in seeing their work, which Adrian seems to do more of than his wife, while those who want to find out more about using Photoshop would have appreciated Adrian's talk after lunch. To my mnd it was of far greater practical benefit than what we were given at the club's last meeting. I know that if I can absorb the lessons from today, there will be a far greater uplift in my photography than applying what was shown at the club which was mainly Photoshop trickery for its own sake so far as I am concerned. It's kind of a mystery to me why no one else from the club who is interested in photography and wants to improve their skills does not attend these meetings, which are open to all regardless of RPS membership.

I guess not everyone has the time or resources to travel and attend these sessions, especially f they're not already a RPS member.

Rose wrote:I guess not everyone has the time or resources to travel and attend these sessions, especially f they're not already a RPS member.

That seems to be pretty much the entire club .....

Hi Mike,

I agree with Rose regarding people's ability or free time to attend such talks.

Irrespective as to whether or not that applies to the whole club is debatable and should not be seen as a slight on them in any way. As a club, we should be fostering the very points that your raise in the first post. However given the depth of knowledge and skills of some members isn't this an ideal opportunity to feed back the experiences gained from such talks to our members during say a 'Members' Evening'. This surely must fall alongside your suggestions for a SPA image review.

I am particularly taken by the comment about 'trickery'. Having been brought up in the expectation of trying to get it right in the camera to start with, personal experiences within club competitions especially have highlighted the never ending call for post production editing, whether by Lightroom or Photoshop. That brings into question the whole aspect of digital photography. Was it the author's work or was it skilled use of software? This is an on-going debate which I'm sure will run and run.

Regards,

Tom

I too have reservations about the degree to which people are encouraged to 'Photoshop' their images beyond standard processing. Indeed there seems to be a strong move towards highly manipulated images in exhibitions and PAGB awards etc. I have absolutely nothing against such images, or the development of digital photography, but I do think there is a line between photography and digital art. What comes to mind is whether 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' would even recognise such an image as a photograph ?

Mike,

I totally agree with your comment.

Tom

toms wrote:I agree with Rose regarding people's ability or free time to attend such talks.

Irrespective as to whether or not that applies to the whole club is debatable and should not be seen as a slight on them in any way.

No offence was intended, rather it was meant as an indication of differing approaches and aspirations.

toms wrote:As a club, we should be fostering the very points that your raise in the first post. However given the depth of knowledge and skills of some members isn't this an ideal opportunity to feed back the experiences gained from such talks to our members during say a 'Members' Evening'. This surely must fall alongside your suggestions for a SPA image review.

I am due to do a members' evening at the end of October and I can include something there. It seems a shame to wait that long, though, and I saw the forum as a useful way of informing other members. Incidentally, the next DIG TV presentation in April, which I am unable to attend, is about boudoir photography if anyone needs an incentive to go.

toms wrote:I am particularly taken by the comment about 'trickery'. Having been brought up in the expectation of trying to get it right in the camera to start with, personal experiences within club competitions especially have highlighted the never ending call for post production editing, whether by Lightroom or Photoshop. That brings into question the whole aspect of digital photography. Was it the author's work or was it skilled use of software? This is an on-going debate which I'm sure will run and run.

I believe that's a topic for discussion almost as old as photography itself, although there is no doubt that many things which would have been complex or even impossible to do in the darkroom have been made much easier since the introduction of Photoshop. Personally, I have always considered photography to be a two stage process when making prints and the final result owes as much to what happens after the shutter is pressed regardless of how it is achieved. Yesterday Adrian Lines went through his processing of a straight image and he made the point that much of what he was doing could have been done, albeit with greater difficulty, under an enlarger. I am currently working through my own example, although I am having some trouble in getting Photoshop to play ball, but if I do succeed maybe I'll post it as an Image Critique to see what people's views are. I do agree with Rose about the tendency within the PAGB and elsewhere to favour more heavily manipulated images, although looking at the results from the last two SPA Biennial Exhibitions the top images appear mostly free of extensive reworking.

toms wrote:Mike,

I totally agree with your comment.

Tom, I think that you meant Rose.

Mike,

No for once I was agreeing with your posts. posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=2025#

I also agree with Rose's observations, so perhaps I should have put an 's' at the end of 'comment'.

Having just finished running a photographic workshop for the past five weeks it is apparent to me that the average person just wants guidance regarding what makes a good picture, composition, use of depth of field etc. The thought of using Photoshop to some is alien.

Regards,

Tom