Taking pictures of structures does nothing for me (split thread)

Sorry but taking pictures of structures does nothing for me, maybe because there is no challange. By that I mean you have time to set up take a photo, check it for content etc and if its wrong you can take it as many times as you like until it is correct. Ok it is nice to be able to look back on holiday snaps and the like, but not for serious photography unless it is for commercial use

Sports photography or wildlife or nature often only gives you a one time chance to get a shot, same with transport or anything that moves. For me getting that one photo after having to wait hours or days possibly is far more satisfying

Bazza

Bazza they may not do anything for you, but lots of us enjoy looking and taking shots of architecture, and cityscapes.

So anybody who takes Portraits, still lifes, in fact anything that doesn't move, including Landscapes and Cityscape photographers are not as accomplished as someone who does Wildlife photography? Is that what you are saying.
I completely disagree, I find it just as challenging to take a shot of a something static, you have to use your imagination, and creativity to make that image work.

I didn't say " anybody who takes Portraits, still lifes, in fact anything that doesn't move, including Landscapes and Cityscape photographers are not as accomplished as someone who does Wildlife photography? "

What I said was "taking pictures of structures does nothing for me". it is still easier to take a picture of a structure (A) because it don't move, (B) you can keep retaking the photo (C) you can wait for the right light conditions (D) can be taken from different angles (E) Editing is easier, as a structure colour can be adjusted more.

This can't be done with wildlife. For example

.

How often would you get a photo like this of a duck just about to land on water against a photo of a building or landscape? The building/landscape is where you expect it to be so all you have to do is go take the photo. With wildlife you first have to be lucky/patient enough to be at the right place at the right time with the correct camera and lens to grasp the action as it happens, there is no second chance.

I said nothing about accomplishment, just that in my opinion wildlfe etc is more challanging because you usually only have one chance of getting the picture.

Bazza

wildlife CAN be more challenging - if you don't plan it, control the environment, or situation, in a similar way one might with 'still' photography. Most of the best wildlife photography you see is contrived, the animals' habitat and habits are recc'ed, the shooting point is deliberatley planned, that point is baited, the photographer takes a whole blast of images, mostly remotely or by trip switches, and then selects from them - in exactly the same way as in still photography.

You are missing some other factors that make still photography so challenging Bazza, composition, particular lighting conditions, human disturbance, technical mastery, just for starters.... thats not even taking what I consider one of the greatest abilities in mind - the ability to spot a good picture.

If it were that simple wouldn't we all excel at still photography?

Moonie - I'm assuming the three Graces you refer to are not the Three Graces of charm, beauty, and creativity in Greek Mythology?

such as this one I look in London Piccadilly (on top of the Criterion theatre)

Architecture is one of my favorite topics, and as someone has already pointed out, it can be challenging, especially to take a picture that looks great of a location that at first glance is nothing more than ordinary.

But as Bazza said, it doesn't light his fire, thats just his opinion. We all like different things, its human nature.

Alan.

Jack - The Three Graces in Liverpool are The Liver Building,The Cunard Building, and the Port of Liverpool Building, though to get the shot I want I am going to have to be the other side of the water so not sure if my lens is up to that, so may have to scrap that idea Love your shot by the way, great editing too,


WW- I agree we all like different things and subjects, but I did not think the comments were appropriate in a posters picture thread, which is where they were, before Azz moved them.

Bazza- I think all photography takes skill, technique, a good understanding of lighting and how to use light, composition, but most of all creativity and imagination to see the image before you.

Well whoopy do - good for you! If that's how you feel then in future, stay out of the Architecture section.

You think that makes it 'easy'? If it were so easy then everyone would be taking world-class shots of 'anything that doesn't move', but we all know that's not the case. If you think it's so easy go try it, and we'll give you a critique on your efforts.

Yes that type of photography may be more time consuming and with a limited time frame more challenging, but that doesn't mean you should bear that in mind when you are judging a photo on photographic merit. In my book if it's a crap photo it's a crap photo. Too many people out there think it's ok to take sub-standard photos and 'blame' it on the conditions. 'Oh the double glazing was dirty' (get the hell outside then!), 'Oh I was too far so had to crop in' (get closer then!) 'Oh but I can't do anything about the bird feeders or fence that just spoil the pic' (Get off your backside and go to a bird watchers hut to catch them in a nicer setting then - that's what they're there for!!).

If you want to take 'snaps' just to show people who would be impressed with seeing such and such bird then that's fine, but if you are posting on a photography forum your photos will be judged on photographic merit.

The comments posted about your own photos were in an attempt to help you take better photos. It really is quite sad that you now feel you have to attack someone elses photos, just because you think taking those type of pics is easier. All areas of photography are challenging, some more than others, but none are 'easy'.



Guess what, taken by the same person who's thread you posted this in to begin with. Nice composition, angle, setting etc It's not perfect (as I think was taken in low light/evening) but still a better example of a bird coming in to land.

Erm Azz

Quote " you have to attack someone elses photos " unquote

I would like to know whose pictures I "attacked"? I havn't mentioned any names or particular photos! again things are being read into what I have posted and again wrong assumptions and conclusions have been drawn.
It seems to me that one cannot express ones own ((( opinions ))) if they conflict with others.

This was originally under the heading Showcase and CC , but when a generalisation is made about a subject it appears that the CC part of it is not allowed.

As I have said, as you well know, it goes to prove that a Showcase and CC doesn't work when opinions are removed from that heading.

Ok I may be a bit of a Maverick- obstinant-stubborn but I speak my mind.
Others may not like some of my comments and they are entitled to their opinions as well, but if you read again carefully, I have never "attacked" as you say any other member or their picture.

Yes I have said I either like or disliked something but never ever "attacked " anything .

Bazza

Blimey Azz straight to the point there.

I cant see the point of this thread to be honest because if a CERTAIN TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHY does not do it for me thats my probelm not theirs.

Most of the people on this forum and other forums like one or two or maybe three different types of photography and stick to that.

Some people like everything and that is fine as well.

Its the old saying 'each to their own'