Short Lessons in Photography

just sitting on a terace might offer you a good picture

plants grow anywhere; see them

a glass of whiskey on a rough table on the balcony

and when you change the white balance to lightbulbs, it becomes interesting

one of those things: with your eye you see more then you can ever catch in a picture; then you try the picture anyway, and you see that it does not survive the third stage of taking a picture; what I saw in this occasion, in terms of perspective and colouring, is not pictured

this is much closer to the occasion -- the little boats at dusk -- however, there is a definite and unavoidable lens-flare in the picture; maybe I can use it some time

getting the right moment to catch someone's expression

and again; also mark the difference in light: this one with direct flash, the former bounced

even industrial sites (here the Hem-centrale in Amsterdam) make good objects with a wide-angle lens

and believe it or not, this picture was taken in the Thalys from Paris to Amsterdam (though not at high speed), 1 second without tripod; a staedy hand is handy (on request, I can send the original: you can read the newspaper)

Introduction

On this page I give some views that I have acquired on photography and which I rarely come across in other articles. My intention is not to give a comprehensive guide to photography. I want to share some experiences and insights which I have found to be valuable and helpful. The topics are grouped in alphabetical order, so one can start anywhere and hop through the page following the links.

Some information about myself, so you can at least value the bias I have: I have always been interested in photography, but had not had the opportunity to really develop this as a hobby or occupation, until digital camera's came around. Because I lack interest in the technique of processing and printing, I always considered photography too expensive and cumbersome as a real hobby. After I took up graphic design, I found that also the quality of the pictures I took improved. And now, with digital equipment, I am free to experiment -- with my Minolta D7 I took in one year about 3000 pictures, which would have cost me more than that camera if I would have had to pay for films and processing. I am not a full-time professional photographer. My main job is working as a consultant for social organisations. But a considerable part of my work is also graphic design and editorial work, and here I can put my principles into (paid) action. But above all, photography is for me a form of art.

Art

Art is telling a story, about what you see. Not an individual expression, but a communicable. The reference is what people understand -- you either follow the existing understanding, or go against that understanding. In both case, you communicate. Just following your own individual expression of an individual emotion does not communicate anything. That goes for all kinds of art. Avant garde use expressions that go against the common understanding. After a time, they become mainstream. Deliberately seeking the clash creates only a closed-off group of artist who mutually masturbate on their misunderstanding. The goal of valid art is communication.
The clash in figurative art is, is that the picture has its own esthetics, despite the thing being pictured. A horrible subject only communicaties when the picture is esthetic (see World Press Photo).

Composition

Composition is the most important for a picture. Yet, it is the hardest to learn or to formalise in rules. All rules that one can give can also be broken in order to get a good picture. In general, I try to frame something as a picture contained in it self. So no people at, say, the right side of the picture looking to the right, i.e. outside the frame -- what are they looking at then? Also, realise what it is that caught your eye: that you have to represent as well as possible.
With my bias to De Stijl, I like to follow horizontal and perpendicular lines in the composition. Someone once showed me a picture of a chanal in Brugge. The reflection was nicely captured, but I found the picture to be crooked. Not just the slight crookedness which sometimes occurs when not holding the camera still when pressing the shutter release (I tend to have an unbalance of about .5 to 1° clockwise), but really crooked. Well, he liked to take pictures at an angle. But hen, there was not a single line straight relative to the frame. And it took away from the serentity of the reflection of the gables in the water.

Equipment

What equipment should I buy? It is your eye that makes the picture, not the camera. So, never begin like some do on the forums: "I want to take up photography. Which 5 Megapix should I buy, or should I go for a DSLR?" If you are 'new', start with the simplest camera you can get, probably old fashioned film. Even, try some single use camera's (make sure that the factory re-uses them!!) and start your hobby. This is especially good to get the feeling for the three stages of taking a picture.
If photography is already your hobby, you possibly do not need advise anymore. You then probably know that there is no such thing as 'the best camera'. Being completely accustomed to your equipment, whatever that is, is much more important, and that will always mean working with, as well as working around the limitations of every camera. See also a nasty remark at the end of these lessons.

Experience

After my own camera was lost on a holiday and my friends 28-200 zoom lens had problems with its aperture, I had to revert back to a normal SLR with 50 mm. lens. Limited? Not quite, it forced me to carefully choose my subjects and frame them. What I discovered, for one, was that there is no point in trying to get complete buildings into the picture when they don't fit on the frame. Tilting the camera gives distortions, so I choose to either not take the picture, or frame it in such a way that I had only part of it, and still keeping the context of the building visible. Also, remember, you can chop off the top of someone's head when taking a portrait, but not a chin!

Learning

Learning by doing. The most important for learning photography is the lapse between the second and third stage. You have to become detached from the abundance of impressions which are with you at stage one. After some time, these are forgotten, and the picture can speak on its' own terms. Being conscious of this effect is an important thing to learn.
There are two basic things to be learned: the technical side (aperture, shutterspeed, lenses) and the artistic side. The technics can be learned from a book or a course; the artistic side can be learned in many ways. It is all about developing an eye for an interesting composition. Courses are important for this, but not necessarily photographic courses. I learned most on composition from my graphic design. The point of such a course is that someone gives comments on your images. The most important (sometimes deadly) question is: "Why? -- why did you arrange it so and so, did you choose this and this." Thus, you develop the attitude with which you can yourself handle the third stage of taking pictures: ask yourself "Why?" Here you develop experience.

Painting and photography

Most introductions of photography as a form of art start with the competition between painting and photography. The idea runs roughly as folows. Painting had developed into trying to represent reality as well as possible. With the discovery and invention of photographic techniques (Daguerro-type etc.), this goal had to be left to photographics. Thus, painting went on in more subjective roads, from impressionism to modern abstract art. Photographics only gradually developed into art when photographers used the photographic techniques to produce images that were not a representation of reality. Not just the portrait or the landscape are the subject, also e.g. strictly arranged still-life, or directly using light and objects to produce an image on the paper.
The point is that there is no strict 'representation of reality'. Every picture, be it painted or a photograph, tells a story. The image is arranged by the artist; the quality of rendering, say, a house with all the details in the masonry, is secundary to the complete image. Just taking a picture with a camera will not render anything interesting or satisfying. This becomes more clear when we look into the three stages of taking a picture.
Painting and photography are two ways of looking at reality, representing reality, and telling a story about reality. The conflict between painting and photography is thus coincidence. Magic realism shows that picturing reality 'photographically' in painting is possible. The 'Verfremdung' in magic realism is at the same time something which should be realized in photography: Taking subjects out of their immediate context and prolonging their existence as a story which speaks for itself.
Iconography is an important drive for photography, as it is, or at least used to be in painting. Like in the past painters had to prove their skill and artistic reason by painting a Madonna with child, etc., photography invites people to show their photographic abilities by taking their own pictures of the same environment -- everyone should take a picture of Dam square in Amsterdam, Times square in New York, etc.

Three stages of taking a picture

There are three stages in photography: First, looking for an interseting subject; second, taking the picture; third, looking at the result.
1 -- Looking around for something picturesque. Sightseeing with a specific mindset: what would be an interesting picture. What is the story that I want to tell with what I see? We have wide vision (stretch your arms out to the left and the right of your body and look straight ahead: you still see the tips of you fingers; we have just over 180° of sight); looking around in this stage will present an awful lot of possibilities. At a certain point, something catches your eye.
2 -- Now you have to take the picture. You get your camera, look through the viewfinder and frame the picture. Now the totality of your eye is framed by what the viewfinder presents to you. You have to decide what you need in the picture to be able to tell a story. Wider angle of view or more narrow? From above, from below. These are all dicisions you make, untill you press the shutter release.
3 -- In due time (directly when using digital; at least one hour when using film) you see the result. Now the picture is in a way objectified. It presents itself apart form the context in which you were looking for an interesting picture and in which you made all kinds of decisions about the picture you were going to take.
Time lapses between these stages can vary. Sometimes you first will look at a possible object without taking a camera. Later on, coming back, you have developed ideas.

Technique

Realism says that we will all go digital. Film will be reserved for very high quality professional reproduction, large formats, and purely experimental imaging. There always will be a place for people who are interested in the craftmanship of photography (playing with different kinds of papers, exposure times, etc.). Playing with these materials is an art in itself, and I think that there will be no PhotoShop plug-in or filter which can do what people achieve out of experience.
I am for myself not interested in this craftsmanship -- that does not mean that I do not appreciate this craft, to the contrary. And, I advise to start out learning photography with a simple film-camera. Let's say an instamatic, if they still exist. Anyway, something with fixed focus, fixed lens and normal film. In this way you force yourself to a fairly big lap between stage two and three, and you really have to think about the composition. See also 'Equipment'

Just some facts to end with

High quality pictures are taken on 6x6 film, preferably with film of asa 25 or 50 to get a smooth image. A high quality scanner will scan that negative on 4800 dpi, being 1890 dpc, which results in a picture of 11.340 by 11.340 pixels, about 128.5 Megapixels. Compute yourself the rest for a 12 bit RGB tiff file, and you see that this quality is not yet as portable as a decent Hasselblat with 10 rolls of film.
People who are most concerned about the technicalities never produce decent pictures. Technique is an aid to artistic expression, not a goal in itself. The representation of the subject is primary, the technical quality secundary -- a techincal 'flaw' can even be an enhancement of the quality. Only people who cannot take pictures think there is something like 'the best' camera.