# Working about Life Photography concept. New Blog.



## Benjo255

I hope you like my new blog!
It's about Life Photography.


----------



## tirediron

Putting aside some of your '10 points' with which I might take exception, it desperately needs a spelling & grammar check!


----------



## Benjo255

I would love to know your exception about my 10 points! Feel free to comment! About spelling and grammar, you're right. I am italian,english is not my mother tongue and I do what I can with it. I am more worried about spelling than about grammar. Did I write any word in the wrong way?


----------



## Didereaux

tirediron said:


> Putting aside some of your '10 points' with which I might take exception, it desperately needs a spelling & grammar check!



What TI said 2X.   That's just embarrassing.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> I hope you like my new blog!
> It's about Life Photography.



Some of your points are well taken, but some I strongly disagree with. I have a very recognizable style, and I use a wide variety of focal lengths.


----------



## tirediron

Benjo255 said:


> I would love to know your exception about my 10 points! Feel free to comment! About spelling and grammar, you're right. I am italian,english is not my mother tongue and I do what I can with it. I am more worried about spelling than about grammar. Did I write any word in the wrong way?


Fair enough; your English is 1000x better than my Italian, but the people reading your blog aren't likely to know or care that English isn't your first language, and simply see it as poorly written and unprofessional.  If you want this to become a blog that you can monetize, you need to run it past a proof-reader.  If it's just for fun, then no worries.  

With respect to the actual points in the article, these two jump out at me...

1.  I am equipped from 16 to 300mm; I use all of them, as the situation dictates.  I would hardly think it prudent to photograph, say a police/protester clash with a 14mm lens.  Using the appropriate focal length for the situation I would agree with.  

3.  What's the point of being a photographer if you don't try and create great images?  Isn't this like suggesting to a painter or sculptor, 'Just do it, don't worry about what it looks like'?


----------



## Benjo255

tirediron said:


> Fair enough; your English is 1000x better than my Italian, but the people reading your blog aren't likely to know or care that English isn't your first language, and simply see it as poorly written and unprofessional.


I got the point and I absolutely trust your point of view about it.  My english is enough for fun and communicating on forum, but not rich and clear enough for a professional blog (this wasn't a professioanl blog yet, anyway). My main problem is that the translation service from a mother tongue is so, so expensive. I looked for some services on the web and prices are around 100$ for a 1300 words post. But thank you anyway for your feedback. It's been important to me.



tirediron said:


> 1. I am equipped from 16 to 300mm; I use all of them, as the situation dictates. I would hardly think it prudent to photograph, say a police/protester clash with a 14mm lens. Using the appropriate focal length for the situation I would agree with.


The post wasn't about being prudent or using appropriates focal lenghts. It was about creating a signature style. And they were just tips, not orders, not rules. I hope you don't run in a police/protester clash with a 14mm...but if you're able to do it, you'll probably take an unforgettable photograph (while most of your photography mates will take very good images, yet very similar being taken with the "appropriate focal lengths"). 



tirediron said:


> 3. What's the point of being a photographer if you don't try and create great images? Isn't this like suggesting to a painter or sculptor, 'Just do it, don't worry about what it looks like'?


Exactly. I would never suggest to a painter "paint a beautiful picture" or to a sculptor "carve a beautful sculpture from this rock".
I would rather suggest "be happy while you paint" or "express yourself through the scultpure and enjoy the process". The point of being a photographer, for me, it's not about trying to create great images. It's about trying to deliver a message through your photography. The photography is just a medium.
That's the main message of the post and of the blog. It's not a blog dedicated to professional photography. It's a blog dedicated to people photographing their life.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> I would rather suggest "be happy while you paint" or "express yourself through the scultpure and enjoy the process". The point of being a photographer, for me, it's not about trying to create great images. It's about trying to deliver a message through your photography. The photography is just a medium.
> That's the main message of the post and of the blog. It's not a blog dedicated to professional photography. It's a blog dedicated to people photographing their life.



This is dead wrong. None of my best photos is contrived, nor do they have a 'message'. They may be 'observations', but seldom with any forethought.


----------



## Benjo255

Ornello said:


> This is dead wrong.


No. It's just my point of view.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's just my point of view.
Click to expand...



You don't say that. You are offering advice. Developing a 'style' happens without really trying. What many photographers call 'style' is simply a technique used without sensitivity. I generally like strong light, and close cropping. I like to pick out and show details.

Look at page 384 here. I spent about 1/2 second thinking about it, just shot. Afterwards, I came to recognize some interesting aspects. The building is light, the girl is dark. The building is 'classical' and orderly. The girl is disheveled, barefoot, with torn jeans. Tradition vs rebellion. Age versus youth. Dark versus light. None of this was in my mind at the time I took it. Because the girl's long hair is hanging in her face, she is anonymous. She represents college youth in rebellion. This was taken about 1971. There is nothing 'affected' about it at all.


----------



## Benjo255

Ornello said:


> You don't say that. You are offering advice


I say quite everywhere they're not rules, they're just tips that helped me as a photographer.
You are now giving me _advices_ (and I say thank you for that and also for the time you're spending to read me and answer me), but...are you giving me these advices _from your point of view_ or from John Doe's point of view? I bet from your point of view. And that's how I listen to them. From your point of view about photography. *My advices to my readers are from my personal point of view*. I'm not interested in writing a blog about what everybody else already think. If I invest time in writing a blog it's because it gives me the freedom and the chance to share my point of view. I am not God. Everybody can disagree with me. I don't give commands, I share advices, thoughts, photos, experiences... May be you like them, may be you don't. It's ok.

I can't find your picture. The link goes to a page where I don't know how to search page 384.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say that. You are offering advice
> 
> 
> 
> I say quite everywhere they're not rules, they're just tips that helped me as a photographer.
> You are now giving me _advices_ (and I say thank you for that and also for the time you're spending to read me and answer me), but...are you giving me these advices _from your point of view_ or from John Doe's point of view? I bet from your point of view. And that's how I listen to them. From your point of view about photography. *My advices to my readers are from my personal point of view*. I'm not interested in writing a blog about what everybody else already think. If I invest time in writing a blog it's because it gives me the freedom and the chance to share my point of view. I am not God. Everybody can disagree with me. I don't give commands, I share advices, thoughts, photos, experiences... May be you like them, may be you don't. It's ok.
> 
> I can't find your picture. The link goes to a page where I don't know how to search page 384.
Click to expand...




I uploaded a pdf.


----------



## Benjo255

Ornello said:


> Developing a 'style' happens without really trying



Who says that?


----------



## Benjo255

Ornello said:


> Look at page 384 here. I spent about 1/2 second thinking about it, just shot. Afterwards, I came to recognize some interesting aspects. The building is light, the girl is dark. The building is 'classical' and orderly. The girl is disheveled, barefoot, with torn jeans. Tradition vs rebellion. Age versus youth. Dark versus light. None of this was in my mind at the time I took it. Because the girl's long hair is hanging in her face, she is anonymous. She represents college youth in rebellion. This was taken about 1971. There is nothing 'affected' about it at all.



Of course you're right, editing has a great importance. I never said that it's necessary to be always total aware of all the meaning of the photograph when you shoot. This awareness can gel also during editing.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> Developing a 'style' happens without really trying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that?
Click to expand...



I do!


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at page 384 here. I spent about 1/2 second thinking about it, just shot. Afterwards, I came to recognize some interesting aspects. The building is light, the girl is dark. The building is 'classical' and orderly. The girl is disheveled, barefoot, with torn jeans. Tradition vs rebellion. Age versus youth. Dark versus light. None of this was in my mind at the time I took it. Because the girl's long hair is hanging in her face, she is anonymous. She represents college youth in rebellion. This was taken about 1971. There is nothing 'affected' about it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you're right, editing has a great importance. I never said that it's necessary to be always total aware of all the meaning of the photograph when you shoot. This awareness can gel also during editing.
Click to expand...



This has nothing to do with 'editing'. Quit trying to twist and distort what I say! There is no 'editing' on that photo. It's a straight print. What I am talking about is something completely different. What I am saying is that you can often identify a good photo possibility without always understanding it at the time you take it. It can later turn out to have more 'meaning' than you saw at the time. The point is to take the damn photo first and ask questions later. Don't think, just shoot, just 'react'. If you think too much you ruin everything. You can 'train' yourself to do this, to 'recognize' photo opportunities without thinking. I did. This is one of my favorite photos, simply because it's so simple yet effective, because of the rich interpretive possibilities, none of which occurred to me at the time I took it. It's not luck, it's the aptitude to identify and capture things that make good photographs, and do so instantly.


----------



## Benjo255

Ornello said:


> This has nothing to do with 'editing'. Quit trying to twist and distort what I say! There is no 'editing' on that photo. It's a straight print.


Calm down my friend. Nobody is twisting and distorting what you say.  By "editing" I mean choosing a photo over the other. I can shoot 5 photographs of the same subject, but, when I look at them, I feel only one is worth the social sharing. That's what I mean with editing. I edit my photos (separating the keepers from the crappy ones), not a single one. It has nothing to do with processing. 



Ornello said:


> What I am saying is that you can often identify a good photo possibility without always understanding it at the time you take it. It can later turn out to have more 'meaning' than you saw at the time. The point is to take the damn photo first and ask questions later. Don't think, just shoot, just 'react'. If you think too much you ruin everything. You can 'train' yourself to do this, to 'recognize' photo opportunities without thinking.


I agree with this.
In fact I said: 

"I never said that it's necessary to be always total aware of all the meaning of the photograph when you shoot. This awareness can gel also during editing.". With editing I mean the review of your own photographs, as I said before.


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with 'editing'. Quit trying to twist and distort what I say! There is no 'editing' on that photo. It's a straight print.
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down my friend. Nobody is twisting and distorting what you say.  By "editing" I mean choosing a photo over the other. I can shoot 5 photographs of the same subject, but, when I look at them, I feel only one is worth the social sharing. That's what I mean with editing. I edit my photos (separating the keepers from the crappy ones), not a single one. It has nothing to do with processing.
> 
> 
> 
> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that you can often identify a good photo possibility without always understanding it at the time you take it. It can later turn out to have more 'meaning' than you saw at the time. The point is to take the damn photo first and ask questions later. Don't think, just shoot, just 'react'. If you think too much you ruin everything. You can 'train' yourself to do this, to 'recognize' photo opportunities without thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with this.
> In fact I said:
> 
> "I never said that it's necessary to be always total aware of all the meaning of the photograph when you shoot. This awareness can gel also during editing.". With editing I mean the review of your own photographs, as I said before.
Click to expand...



Your language is odd, so I misunderstood you. I would not use the word 'gel'. Most people today use the word 'edit' to refer to Photoshop manipulation. The printed reproduction is all I have of that image today (I have the negative somewhere, but it would probably take weeks to find it). Unlike most of my favorites, it was taken in softish light. There are no big dark shadows that I often incorporate in my photographs. It is therefore 'atypical'. What makes it work, what makes it interesting is the symbolism, not the shadows. As I said, this is not my typical work. I will attach some more 'typical' ones here. Bear in mind these are scans from printed reproductions, which unfortunately were way too contrasty. The prints were just fine. I was quite angry with the publisher, but that is ancient history now. I think you can recognize a consistency of style here, do you agree?


----------



## Benjo255

I like the portrait of the guy with the corn cob pipe. 
May be my english is quite odd (I am an italian stranger in an english mother tongue forum, so I do the best I can), but in all the other forums on the web  the expression"edit your photos" is different from "processing your photos". Also here, when I posted some pictures for C&C, somebody told me "I like how you *processed* the image" or "too heavy *processing*". Nobody ever told me "I don't like how you *edit* your photograph".
And if I look here:
edit Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
The meaning is closer to what I said.
May be the difference is between "editing a photograph" (PS manipulation) and "editing your photograph*s*" (choosing which ones are the keepers).


----------



## Ornello

Benjo255 said:


> I like the portrait of the guy with the corn cob pipe.
> May be my english is quite odd (I am an italian stranger in an english mother tongue forum, so I do the best I can), but in all the other forums on the web  the expression"edit your photos" is different from "processing your photos". Also here, when I posted some pictures for C&C, somebody told me "I like how you *processed* the image" or "too heavy *processing*". Nobody ever told me "I don't like how you *edit* your photograph".
> And if I look here:
> edit Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> The meaning is closer to what I said.
> May be the difference is between "editing a photograph" (PS manipulation) and "editing your photograph*s*" (choosing which ones are the keepers).




You are correct, you would use the plural to mean selecting negatives to print or slides to keep. Today, 'edit a photograph' means to play with it in Photoshop or a similar program.

I had to ask the guy with the pipe not to move when I approached him, just to stay the way he was. I used a 20mm lens.

Do you see what I mean about 'style'? It is pretty easy to see these photographs are all by the same hand. The girl under the tree and the guy with the pipe were both taken on the same day, I believe, on the campus green (called 'The Oval'), just a few feet away from one another, with the same lens.


----------

