Photography Courses

[DoctorWhy]

I'm looking for a reasonably priced course in Bangkok, in English, preferably daytime, to get used to using a new digital SLR. Any ideas ?

[neverdie]

How bout : Bangkok photo school

Bangkok Photo School

[astral]

Photography School Or Workshops In Thailand - Thailand Forum

is a previous thread on the subject.

[IanForbes]

There are only a few basic things to know about photography and the rest is practise.

1. Learn to recognize a good picture as soon as you see it. Then be ready to shoot. You can't take a picture if you don't have a camera, and the camera you have with you all the time is the one you'll take your best photos with.

2. Remember the rule of thirds. Keep your point of interest either a third of the way from the top or bottom, or from either side.

3. Try to kee your horizons level. That is a common mistake with everyone.

4. Always remember where your light source is coming from.

5. If you are taking a photo of a person then have them entering the picture rather than leaving it... using the rule of thirds.

6. Take off people's sunglasses, and eyeglasses as well, unless they are necessary for the effect.

7. When taking pictures of people standing with the light source coming from behind them, then use a flash to highlight their faces.

8. Angles and triangles make for more interesting pictures. That means having a roadway or river entering from an upper corner to the lower opposite corner. The exception to that would be if there are a series of level planes of colour or hue that you want to emphasize.

9. When taking pictures of people, ALWAYS take more than you think you will need. There will always be one picture better than the others. The more people in the picture, the more photos you have to take.

10. Pictures of people are more interesting if taken at an angle rather than directly at the photographer.

11 When taking pictures of a model, get her to look in different directions with her eyes alone... eihter up, down or to the sides. It creates a story of what she is looking at.

12. Move as close to your subject as possible without changing the balance of the picture. There is no need to see the subject's shoes and a portion of the ground. Unless there is a reason to see someone's clothing, cut people off at the waist and just focus on the upper portion of the body or head.

13. Remove unwanted items in the picture that might distract the attention later. That means garbage in scenic picture or a messy table behind a person.

14, Don't place the subject where it might look like a tree or pole behind them is coming out of their head.

15 Always shoot at the highest quality the camera is capable of. It is easy to reduce the quality later, but impossible to make it any better. Memory chips are relatively cheap and it helps to have backups as well as a spare battery.

There are other suggestions, but those will do for now. Other than that, go somewhere interesting to shoot lots of pictures using all the various settings. Take a notebook with you and write down what you've done each time. Experiment with light direction, and notice how it affects the picture. A great photorapher once said that the best lens you can buy is useless if you don't use a tripod. A tripod is the great leveler when trying to compare results.

My neighbour is a professional photographer and he has a library of books that have different coloured covers. He tests various camera lenses by shooting pictures of the books at different settings to see how they compare. The beauty of digital is you don't have to wait for film to be developed. You can learn instantly what the camera can do.

[neverdie]

^ Congradulations Ian, you have successfully & single handly sent every photography business out of business.

I am surprised that you're photography advice, didnt include much technical data nor any example photographs.

[bprinceuk]

Thank you Ian for the valued information

Brian

[IanForbes]

^ Congradulations Ian, you have successfully & single handly sent every photography business out of business.

I am surprised that you're photography advice, didnt include much technical data nor any example photographs.

Too many pictures and too little time. I DO have examples of my own mistakes. Fortunately, with digital scanning and photoshop I can rectify some old slides that were unusable for magazines at one time.

As I mentioned, the technical advice is best learned by practise using all the settings on a camera. You can quickly learn what works best for you. Most often I'm just taking snapshots... like most people do, but occasionally, when I DO see a scene that is worth while I will experiment with different settings and slightly different view points. I can study the effects later on the computer.

This simple scene is what I mean about angles, lighting and the rule of thirds. Oh, and it's also a pleasant subject.

This simple nud_e study is not provocative. Nor does it show any private parts, but it DOES show all the triangle shapes I was talking about. The whole picture is basically a triangle and is taken at an angle that is more pleasing than straight on. And, the model has her eyes in a different direction than her face.

This is a river in British Columbia noted for its good steelhead fishing. What makes the photo interesting is the river flowing through from one side to another. And, the various colours are attractive.

Even though this photo has the river flowing through at an angle, it is a rather boring picture. The sky is blah and so are the colours because it was a dreary day. And, there is no real point of interest. It would have been much better if an angler was in the picture fishing.

Although this shot would be rather boring on a bright sunny day, it is much more dramatic with the stormy clouds. And, all the pastel colours at various levels make a nice contrast.

this simple picture of a fisherman at rest works because it tells a story.

[IanForbes]

With this stock car race I could have gone for two different settings... either a slow speed shutter to emphasize motion with a blurred picture of the car, or, a high speed shutter like the one in this photo. The picture "works" because of the curving track and the car coming INTO the picture at an angle. And, also because of the rule of thirds. Had it been a simple side on shot it would have been boring.

This picture of my back yard is boring and blah. There is no point of interest and it has no redeeming features other than illustrating what my yard looks like before I've done any gardening.

It is much better with a deer standing in the same spot.

This photo of Lee is much better than the second one where she is looking directly at me

The angler in this photo makes the picture. It tells a story other than just being a pretty spot.

Contrast that with this rather boring scene without an angler ...

[neverdie]

Some nice shots their Ian, I like the one of the River Zig Zagging thru the photo and the last one in particular.

[endlessimage]

Whoa! what a lot of drivel. Obviously you've followed your own advice from what I've seen from the work you have posted. If you would like me to publicly critique your work please let me know.

Oh, by the way I'm speaking as a professional photographer with 40+ years of experience worldwide and having lectured in it at some of finest universities around the world, where I guess their 4 year degree courses are simply a waste of time and money.

To the OP PM me with your details and I will show you the basics free of charge.

Edited June 28, 2010 by astral
No need to quote the entire post. Just pick out the relevant points, please - Astral

[Tingnongnoi]

why don't you put some of your own work up to critique before you start having a go at others? No one cares how long you have been a pro and there are plenty of top photographers out that that never did a 4 year degree course

[VerbalKint]

Rule 16 to Mr. Forbes' list of rules.

16. photography is an art form, there are no rules.

[IanForbes]

Whoa! what a lot of drivel. Obviously you've followed your own advice from what I've seen from the work you have posted. If you would like me to publicly critique your work please let me know.

Oh, by the way I'm speaking as a professional photographer with 40+ years of experience worldwide and having lectured in it at some of finest universities around the world, where I guess their 4 year degree courses are simply a waste of time and money.

To the OP PM me with your details and I will show you the basics free of charge.

And which one of my list of suggestions would you, in your considerable background in photography, consider to be drivel?

You can critique my work any time you wish. Most of what I photograph is for information sake only. That is why I call them "snapshots". I doubt if I would have more than a dozen true artistic photographs in my collection of over 20,000 slides.

I never knock study in any field, but I do know you learn more by hands on practise rather than just book learning. That is why there are craftsmen and there are artists, but the two are not necessarily the same. You can train someone to have a better photographic eye, but it helps to know the basics first. I was just pointing out some of the basics. Tell me which ones you disagree with. I also know that a degree in photography is not worth the paper it's printed on. There are thousands of unemployed photographers, and many are just hacks and wannabes. The stock companies that used to buy slides from professional photographers haven't raised their rates in 30 years. We don't need people who can run a dark room any more. It's all done digitally today.

People like Ansel Adams and Karsh probably couldn't make a living today.

[neverdie]

Whoa! what a lot of drivel. Obviously you've followed your own advice from what I've seen from the work you have posted. If you would like me to publicly critique your work please let me know.

To the OP PM me with your details and I will show you the basics free of charge.

Clearly you are not a PR MAN!

[neverdie]

why don't you put some of your own work up to critique before you start having a go at others? No one cares how long you have been a pro and there are plenty of top photographers out that that never did a 4 year degree course

& thats sir, is one of the reasons you won't find photo's ive taken posted on the forum or for other peoples displeasure.

[astral]

Lets make sure we keep this civil, please.

Blanket comments like

Whoa! what a lot of drivel

are not acceptable.

Considered discussion and critique is what you must offer.

[The Vulcan]

I'll answer as per your request as I was intrigued by your resume "he is also an accomplished photographer" Here Seemingly you have a "background"?

There are only a few basic things to know about photography and the rest is practise.

1. Learn to recognize a good picture as soon as you see it. Then be ready to shoot. You can't take a picture if you don't have a camera, and the camera you have with you all the time is the one you'll take your best photos with.

How do you recognize a "good picture" and what makes you think the camera you have is the appropriate camera for the environment. Many times I've been angry with myself for traveling "light" i.e. I wished I'd had a different option. But please - expand, maybe something I've missed!

2. Remember the rule of thirds. Keep your point of interest either a third of the way from the top or bottom, or from either side.

This rule is absolutely old hat and not seen as an attribute in "modern photography"

3. Try to kee your horizons level. That is a common mistake with everyone.

Again - poor advise. Racing cars (E.G) at a "slant" actually have MORE impact than level - use your eyes and decide.

4. Always remember where your light source is coming from.

Which means what? Please explain - I'm intrigued

5. If you are taking a photo of a person then have them entering the picture rather than leaving it... using the rule of thirds.

NOT TRUE - Absolute rubbish. If it's a portrait type image why would the subject be leaving or entering the frame? And why is the rule of thirds appropriate to portraiture - IT IS NOT! Get up to date - this is 60's thinking and we're 50 years on!

6. Take off people's sunglasses, and eyeglasses as well, unless they are necessary for the effect.

Rubbish. Total rubbish. What constitutes "necessary" - accuracy, realistic, appropriate. If a person wears spectacles so be it. Can you imagine Eric Morecaombe WITHOUT spectacles. Very poor advice. Capture the person, their personality.

7. When taking pictures of people standing with the light source coming from behind them, then use a flash to highlight their faces.

Agreed, but how do you meter and configure the flash - I'm intrigued! ETTL, +/_ 1/2 stops, DOF, aperture/TV - tell me the technique for balance or otherwise. I'm really looking forward to this response as I consider this area my forte'! Let's say it's a bright, sunny, contrasty day with a DR of some 12 stops. You're shooting (say) a wedding (brides white dress needs retaining in FULL) or kids leaping about, and say a 24-70 lens. What settings would you advise to control the light and the subject? An "accomplished" 'tog will regard this as basic.

8. Angles and triangles make for more interesting pictures. That means having a roadway or river entering from an upper corner to the lower opposite corner. The exception to that would be if there are a series of level planes of colour or hue that you want to emphasize.

That's merely an opinion and NOT artistically essential.

9. When taking pictures of people, ALWAYS take more than you think you will need. There will always be one picture better than the others. The more people in the picture, the more photos you have to take.

Why - lack of vision? Pictures as you call them (images to everyone else) are constructed NOT snapped - universally accepted that good (great) images are MADE - not snapped. Realistically inappropriate

10. Pictures of people are more interesting if taken at an angle rather than directly at the photographer.

I've never read a more inappropriate piece of advice in my 55 years of photography - OP - do not follow this "reasoning" - respondent - tell me why? Show me an example.

11 When taking pictures of a model, get her to look in different directions with her eyes alone... eihter up, down or to the sides. It creates a story of what she is looking at.

Oh dear - oh dear! OP - ignore this or fail. You're photographing a model - not a bloody story - if the latter is the case introduce a background viz PBSI (do you know this rule IAN?)

12. Move as close to your subject as possible without changing the balance of the picture. There is no need to see the subject's shoes and a portion of the ground. Unless there is a reason to see someone's clothing, cut people off at the waist and just focus on the upper portion of the body or head.

And no mention of FL and possible perspective anomaly's ! And why is the upper portion relevant and the lower portion irrelevant. viz a cripple/disabled/wearing clogs etc. Another pearl of wisdom to ignore.

13. Remove unwanted items in the picture that might distract the attention later. That means garbage in scenic picture or a messy table behind a person.

Do you have Photoshop CS5! Your "opinion 1" was see it and shoot it - now we have to clean up the environment first!

14, Don't place the subject where it might look like a tree or pole behind them is coming out of their head.

Agreed

15 Always shoot at the highest quality the camera is capable of. It is easy to reduce the quality later, but impossible to make it any better. Memory chips are relatively cheap and it helps to have backups as well as a spare battery.

Agreed

There are other suggestions, but those will do for now. Other than that, go somewhere interesting to shoot lots of pictures using all the various settings. Take a notebook with you and write down what you've done each time. Experiment with light direction, and notice how it affects the picture. A great photorapher once said that the best lens you can buy is useless if you don't use a tripod. A tripod is the great leveler when trying to compare results.

Who the hel_l said this? A tripod is the best asset? Are you joking? That's complete rubbish! Ask ANY photojournalist, war, action, sport, impact photographer was is THE LAST THING in his equipment - A TRIPOD! Have you heard about IS?

My neighbour is a professional photographer and he has a library of books that have different coloured covers. He tests various camera lenses by shooting pictures of the books at different settings to see how they compare. The beauty of digital is you don't have to wait for film to be developed. You can learn instantly what the camera can do.

What does your "Pro" friend learn from shooting books covers - I'm keen to learn!

I'm really looking forward to this response!

OP - learn DOF, aperture influence, lens perspective, lighting control, and most importantly - FEEL!

And anyone who tells you that study is worthless - is indeed worthless!

Edited June 29, 2010 by The Vulcan

[The Vulcan]

You can critique my work any time you wish.

Ok Here we go as invited

Image 1 - you talk about "rule of thirds" so where did you apply it and incidental to this, the image is bland to say the least. Poor color, dissected content, inappropriate exposure, lacking in detail, contrast, blown highlights and basically a snap - sorry - poor.

2 - unnatural, ungainly, unrealistic and your insistence of thirds applies where? Blocked up shadows, colour caste. That's enough I think

3 - PP is exceptionally poor and you've cut off the lead-in line (if you know what that is)

4- waste of space

5 - Boring, boring and boring. God knows what you saw here. Utterly bland and without "direction"

6- And exactly what story does it tell? Beats me> A guy, seemingly as bored (boring) as the image - the fishing rod is cut off, your rule of thirds insistence is non-existent and all-in all a very uneventful and dreary "capture"

Your stock car - might as well as been parked. No sense of movement, action or intent. It does NOT work irrespective of your view. Dreary, UN-imaginative, and completely amateurish. Don't get confused, as an ex F1 photographer I can tell you - this ain't your bag!

Your garden with the deer is so poor - throw-away camera?

For me and indeed the "industry" as a whole, the shot of Lee looking at the camera is better than the previous shot which frankly is awful and amateurish. However, is so pixelated as to be unusable

The next 2 "shots" I guess were an accident!

In short my friend, as opposed to your claim to be an accomplished "tog'........... stick to fishing! You ain't gonna catch as many here!

Edited June 29, 2010 by The Vulcan

[endlessimage]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

[fotosanook]

hey there, what I usually do is to go out and do some shooting. Revise my picture and next time do better. I read mostly in flickr and that is it, why pay money? The technique must be written to only yourself. I think

[Tingnongnoi]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

from one pompous full of their own importance so called pro to another thats hardly suprising, no wonder not many people want to get involved with this section of the forum when you two are around

[IanForbes]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Vulcan. I won't disagree with your comments, but I won't agree with all of them either. And, I'll still stand by what I said. Every discussion on photography is a learning one, and if you keep an open mind, then a critique of any kind can be valuable.

All I was pointing out were some basics to getting started, and the photos were rough illustrations on what I was talking about. Nothing is etched in stone as far as art and photography is concerned. As far as your critique on the photos, well that is your opinion. I have mine, and I'm more likely to follow what a magazine editor wants or needs rather than some art critic. I've seen more good photos get turned down by editors because of a sloping horizon (that should have been level) than just about every other mistake. I've seen otherwise good photos turned down because the subject's eyes were shaded by a hat or he was wearing sun glasses. And, although blurry objects might have a place in some art shots, they'll get tossed in the trash can by most magazines demanding fine detail. That is why I mentioned the tripod. Fortunately, some of the more expensive digital cameras today have such high quality that they compensate for lack of a tripod. However, the average photographer can't afford a $10,000 plus, outfit. Even though I take hundreds of pictures of birds and wild life, I wouldn't submit any of them to magazines. They aren't of the quality necessary, and I just don't want to spend the time or money to get that perfect shot needed. Mine are just snapshots.

I have said many times that I don't take pictures as an art form. I take them to illustrate magazine stories, or just as snapshots of places I've been. Many I use as subjects for the water colour painting I do. And, I always reduce the quality of all my photos in the open forums where they are visible to everyone. If they are grainy or a bit out of focus then that is intentional. That is to prevent other photographers / writers from stealing them for their own use. I also take photos to have a laugh at my expense, or in response to some funny topic. I find that if you make fun of yourself then it eases the tension between others who have a more fragile self image.

What does your "Pro" friend learn from shooting books covers - I'm keen to learn!

I'm really looking forward to this response!

Mike uses the multi-coloured books with the fine print as a subject to compare different lenses and cameras. Not all lenses or cameras are similar in quality, even though they might say they have the same pixels, etc. By making a comparison study using the exact same lighting from a solid position (tripod) it becomes obvious which are better.

OP - learn DOF, aperture influence, lens perspective, lighting control, and most importantly - FEEL!

precisely why I said to practise and try every option available while making notes...

quote: ... <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">As I mentioned, the technical advice is best learned by practice using all the settings on a camera. You can quickly learn what works best for you. Most often I'm just taking snapshots... like most people do, but occasionally, when I DO see a scene that is worth while I will experiment with different settings and slightly different view points. I can study the effects later on the computer

And anyone who tells you that study is worthless - is indeed worthless!

I couldn't agree more, and that is just what this topic is all about... study and learning.

<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Edited June 30, 2010 by IanForbes

[neverdie]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

from one pompous full of their own importance so called pro to another thats hardly suprising, no wonder not many people want to get involved with this section of the forum when you two are around

As usual, well said Ting. I think the guys that are critical of Ian's work failed to notice or make any mention of the positive aspects of his work.

Of course my initial sarcasm in my earlier post where I said about Ian putting photography schools out of business may have been misunderstood, I feel his choice words with his photography advice wernt that good. I believe Ian has displayed some reasonable effort with some of the photos he has placed on TV over the years. I don't think the photos displayed in this thread were Ians best work, although IMHO the one with the river is a nice shot, could of been slightly better by showing more of the background mountains.

Again, Im glad I don't post any of my pictures here, I have some absolute blooooody shockers

[Tingnongnoi]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

from one pompous full of their own importance so called pro to another thats hardly suprising, no wonder not many people want to get involved with this section of the forum when you two are around

As usual, well said Ting. I think the guys that are critical of Ian's work failed to notice or make any mention of the positive aspects of his work.

they are to busy telling everyone how many years they have been pro and showing off their vastly superior knowldege to everyone to do anything positive like that or actually try and help the op

[neverdie]

Hey Ting,

Psssst, off topic I know, but Ive decided to get a new lense to add to my kit & I went to check her out the other day and she's very nice.

check out this baby http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=1327-06b93960b8

Cant wait to start botching up fotos with that one.

[Tingnongnoi]

thats a beautiful lens mate, rather pricey, but as good as it gets zoom wise, just don't go shining a torch inside and you will be fine

[neverdie]

^Shining a torch inside, can't say that would be high on my list of things to do. Is that the same thing as taking a photograph of the large burning sun directly? Big trouble in little china stuff?

[Tingnongnoi]

nah there was a fair bit of controversy when this lens first came out, someone shone a torch inside one and saw whet looked like some flakes and not perfect moulding and you would have thought the world was about to end on the internet sites, loads of people returning perfectly good lenses, while the more sensible actual stuck theirs on their cameras and went out and took pictures. I shone a torch in mine and saw the same thing, but was just to excited by the sharpness and everything else about it to get caught up in all the hype.

[endlessimage]

The Vulcan - you take the words right out of my mouth.... Well said.

from one pompous full of their own importance so called pro to another thats hardly suprising, no wonder not many people want to get involved with this section of the forum when you two are around

Yawn.... Don't confuse knowledge and experience with being pompous. Would you call an expert in another field, say like an engineer or an architect or a doctor or a lawyer or some other QUALIFIED professional pompous because they offered you their professional opinion of an obviously amateur reply to a question? Probably not. There is no substitute for experience but you need to be educated on how to obtain that experience or else you may not progress.

IF you actually read my post I did invite the OP to contact me where I offered to instruct them on the basics.

This forum is an exchange of information and ideas but if I see a post that is so full of holes it would sink faster than the Titanic then I'll say so. Up to you take that advice, or not...

[IanForbes]

Hey Ting,

Psssst, off topic I know, but Ive decided to get a new lense to add to my kit & I went to check her out the other day and she's very nice.

check out this baby http://www.nikon.com...1327-06b93960b8

Cant wait to start botching up fotos with that one.

I've got the 18 to 200 lense and it covers most of what I want for "snapshots" but leaves a bit to be desired for telephoto. I do like the 18 mm wide angle, though. I'd rather have a 300 mm lens or stronger if I wanted to take wildlife photos. The 2.8 lens is pretty good for available light, though, and will give you some latitude in lower light conditions. Sometimes it's awkard to carry too much photography equipment, and we leave stuff behind that OCCASIONALLY we might use.

You were right that the photos I used to illustrate what I was trying to say in the original topic were not my best. But, I'm not going to waste hours scanning slides into digital format just to make a point. It's often hard to find something that illustrates exactly what you are trying to say, and all you can do is post something close.