EOI - A different kind of Exercise

[Aussie Dave]

I have been pondering about posting this idea for a while now, but have been unsure about how interested everyone would feel in participating.

Regardless of this, I have decided to seek your thoughts and if enough people feel it a worthwhile exercise, perhaps the mods can officialise it, to some degree.

My idea was to have an exercise (I did not want to use the word "challenge" as that seems to conjure up images of winning prizes) whereby a topic or subject is chosen & all entrants must only take ONE photo.

"How are we going to police this", I hear everyone say. I would like to think that we can trust one another and for the purposes of this exercise, there is no advantage to cheat (other than to cheat yourself).

My way of thinking is that with the digital camera, it is so easy to snap half a dozen images, all with varying exposures, then pick the best one (in which we post up here for all to see). I'm sure most, if not all of us, do this all the time.

I thought it might be interesting to see what happens if we are all limited to the one shot - forcing us all to think carefully about what we are doing "before we press the shutter button". The standard PP rules would apply (as per the challenges), but the basis would be that each person goes out and only takes the ONE photo of their intended scene/subject.

I imagine this would be very hard for most of us to do, but that's what would make it so different (and hopefully refreshing). Each of us would need to use our photographic knowledge/skill to its upmost to hopefully pull off that one shot.

I know we have other exercises that usually run throughout the year, along with the challenges, but I look at this as a one-time exercise that may be a fun way to kick off 2006.

Those that do not want to participate do not have to, though I imagine there are quite a few people who are keen to get back into the mix again....

Thoughts/ideas/suggestions/comments welcomed.

[stubbsy]

Dave

I think this idea has merit, choosing a time will be the challenge. We have our next challenge due to start soon for example.

[MHD]

Very soon

[Aussie Dave]

Thanks Stubbsy. I thought that may have been the case.

If enough people think this idea is worthwhile, I am happy to let you guys (mods) run with it and introduce it sometime, when more appropriate

I, for one, would be interested to see the images that everyone would produce.

[wendellt]

why don't you propose to introduce this 1 shot rule to the current monthly themed challenge

you wont be able to police it but it will be an honour system

[Alpha_7]

why don't you propose to introduce this 1 shot rule to the current monthly themed challenge

you wont be able to police it but it will be an honour system

I personally would find that rather prohibitive, infact most of the challenge entries in the movement were the result of many shots and refinement, I'd hazard a guess at more then 50 shots between first and second.

I do like the 1 shot I kill, kind of idea, but not for a challenge.

[wendellt]

why don't you propose to introduce this 1 shot rule to the current monthly themed challenge

you wont be able to police it but it will be an honour system

I personally would find that rather prohibitive, infact most of the challenge entries in the movement were the result of many shots and refinement, I'd hazard a guess at more then 50 shots between first and second.

I do like the 1 shot I kill, kind of idea, but not for a challenge.

fair enough craig but i meant introducing aussie dave's idea into the monthly challenge the one where you don't win any prizes, e.g August's 'Blue theme'

[krpolak]

Quick though about one shot exercise. What if:

1. I use manual lens in manual mode (so dont have metering in camera body)

2. I dont have ány light meter

How can I make proper exposure with one shot?

Regards,

K.Polak

[wendellt]

Quick though about one shot exercise. What if:

1. I use manual lens in manual mode (so dont have metering in camera body)

2. I dont have ány light meter

How can I make proper exposure with one shot?

Regards,

K.Polak

thats the challenge and an ppropriate handicapped for advanced contributers
the more i think about this idea the more i like it

now that's a challenge

[krpolak]

Wendellt,

I cannot agree. There is noting about challange in this case. It is all about luck. If you cannot measure a scene the only thing you can do it is set up something and pray you are not too much over/under exposed. There is simply no control. And if luck is going to be a indication of photografic skills, why not pick up lomo camera?

Obviosuly users with modern lenses will have very great advantage. So going futher I would say that gear starts to mean more then photographer and I hope that is not point we wantto reach

Regards,

K.Polak

[birddog114]

krpolak,
Agreed, as said in another thread, it's " blind shooting"
The case is with D70/s and AIS or MF lens.

[wendellt]

Wendellt,

I cannot agree. There is noting about challange in this case. It is all about luck. If you cannot measure a scene the only thing you can do it is set up something and pray you are not too much over/under exposed. There is simply no control. And if luck is going to be a indication of photografic skills, why not pick up lomo camera?

Obviosuly users with modern lenses will have very great advantage. So going futher I would say that gear starts to mean more then photographer and I hope that is not point we wantto reach

Regards,

K.Polak

not getting into an argument here
but i know the results a shutter speed of 1/250 and f/8 produce in certain light conditions, I also know how much darkness in the image i get if i set the shutter to 1/300 so using this i can do an educated guess and take a shot without metering

best example fashion shows with standard light

always shoot 1/250 f/2.8 and ISO 400 i get the same results all the time unless the lighting changes, i don't need metering then

anyway i thought for a photographer of your calibre and experience you woudl know your settings off by heart and what kind of images they produce negating the need for automatic metering

just my thoughts

[Aussie Dave]

kpolak
I can see your point, and where you are coming from, however I would think that vast majority of people on this forum have AF lenses with cameras that have AF systems.

For those people that are shooting "completely" fully manual, and do not have a light meter, then perhaps this exercise is not suited to you. It is not a mandatory exercise (and was only a suggestion).

You would still be able to participate if this were the case. However, as you say, the outcome may be more to luck. The main idea of this exercise is to not rely on taking a memorycard full of photos to pick the best one. You get one shot at it, so you best have everything correct BEFORE you press the shutter.... I would think that is much more of a test on the photographer than anything else (IMHO).

How many other people out there would be shooting with AIS lenses in manual mode ??? if there are too many, the idea can be abandoned !

[krpolak]

That is true, with common or well know lighting situation. But ie. what setting would you use in small scene setup on the table and lighted up with 30W fluorescent bulb? Target is to have subject neither overblown nor underexposed.

Well you can measure your scene well before you will make actual shot and "gain experience", but than it would be in fact cheating, would be? In total you would take at least tow shot, one for checking lighting conditions and second for subject

Also notice that limit ourselfs for know lighting conditions (and we have to because we have only one shot, which we cannot miss) somehow limits us to find new creative shots.

EDIT: Dave, I see an idea, but I think you put equal sign between thinking before press shutter and taking only one shot. It is not the same.

EDIT 2: Dave, we dont have to abandon this idea. It is great! We just need to find other critieria.

Regards,

K.Polak

[wendellt]

[quote="krpolak"]That is true, with common or well know lighting situation. But ie. what setting would you use in small scene setup on the table and lighted up with 30W fluorescent bulb? Target is to have subject neither overblown nor underexposed.

Well you can measure your scene well before you will make actual shot and "gain experience", but than it would be in fact cheating, would be? In total you would take at least tow shot, one for checking lighting conditions and second for subject

Also notice that limit ourselfs for know lighting conditions (and we have to because we have only one shot, which we cannot miss) somehow limits us to find new creative shots.


no just if your experienced enough to know what settings to use in a varied number of situations you can make best educated guess, your using your memory and intelligence, i call that skill
anyway if you were to enter the challenge why not shoot under a lighting situation you are more than familiar with or have mastered, if i shot a runway shot for the challenge i woudl use my best knowledge to get the right shot and enter that in the challenge

[xorl]

One way might be to hand out a single marked 4x5" neg and tell people to go nuts with their large format camera. We might need to rename the forum tho' .

[Aussie Dave]

Hhhmmm...I'm not sure if we're starting to get into semantics here, but I don't agree, sorry kpolak.

Perhaps we are thinking about this in different ways.

Nevertheless, I'll leave this idea with the mods. If they choose to implement the idea, in whole or in part, sometime in the future (and it doesn't have to be within a challenge), so be it. If not, nothing lost - nothing gained

[krpolak]

Wendellt,

But in this way we put whole competition to "who remember better that specific lighting condition" or in other words "who will #### image less"

I recon the whole point is to have a thought and clear idea what will come up before pressing shutter in therms of visualisation and creativity. Technical abilities and exposure table is pretty much second importance thing.

Regards,

K.Polak

[Aussie Dave]

Technical abilities and exposure table is pretty much second importance thing.

but only if you shoot in full manual with AIS lenses.

I think the majority of people would use their cameras metering system, and AF lenses to achieve the exposure they desire. Whether this is the correct exposure for their intended photo would be the outcome (and point) of the exercise.

[wendellt]

Wendellt,

But in this way we put whole competition to "who remember better that specific lighting condition" or in other words "who will #### image less"

I recon the whole point is to have a thought and clear idea what will come up before pressing shutter in therms of visualisation and creativity. Technical abilities and exposure table is pretty much second importance thing.

Regards,

K.Polak

there are lots of interprestations to this idea, but essentially if it did go ahead i think you would manage regardless with your gear and submit somethign without giving second thought to mentioning you took it in full manual, there is so much more to a photograph than mere technical skills, what about concept, intent, the storytelling in the image itself, you can't ay war photographers back in world war 2 took the best technical perfect shots, but the image taken itself told the whole story even when obscured by under or overexposure film grain etc

[krpolak]

Ok, but it means that this excerise "discriminate" people with manual lenses Event if they are minority still there might be a few.

Regards,

K.Polak

[krpolak]

Wendellt,

this is what I said. It is all about creativity, so why would we like to stuf up us with technical limitations?

Regards,

K.Polak

[wendellt]

Ok, but it means that this excerise "discriminate" people with manual lenses Event if they are minority still there might be a few.

Regards,

K.Polak

i don't think that should bother you so much you have a clear advantage skillwise over most

[krpolak]

It will bother me completly if I will over/under exposed my great and one in kind shot by 5 EV simply because I cannot measure that

Regards,

K.Polak

[gstark]

Wendellt,

I cannot agree. There is noting about challange in this case. It is all about luck. If you cannot measure a scene the only thing you can do it is set up something and pray you are not too much over/under exposed.

Krystian,

Sorry, but you're way off beam here. What sort of metering systems do you believe that Ansell Adams had at his disposal?

Picking the correct exposure for a scene, without the use of a meter, is actually pretty bloody easy. Particularly an outdoor scene.

Film boxes (remember film?) used to come with an exposure guide, relating a range of lighting conditions to a basic set of exposures.

Before exposure metering became a common occurrence (not that long ago - I was doing this less than 40 years ago) manual estimation of the EV of any scene was a must, and of course you needed to wait about 5 days after dropping your film off at the chemist for your prints to return before you could see the results of your efforts.

Unless you had your own darkroom, of course.

Today photographers have it so easy ... built in metering, and very sophisitcated, makes this a no brainer, but even 50 or so years ago, the application of a few simple guidelines meant that correct exposure could easily be guaranteed.

There is simply no control. And if luck is going to be a indication of photografic skills, why not pick up lomo camera?

Luck has nothing whatsoever to do attaining the with correct exposure. Not if you know what you're doing.

And it probably takes less than two minutes to learn the basics of how to not use a meter.

[Aussie Dave]

kpolak
I do not want to start this into a personal attack - as this whole thing was only an idea.

However, I am interested to know if you have any non-AIS lenses and if not, do you have a light meter ? If you have none of these, how do you usually meter for your photos ?

[krpolak]

Aussie Dave,

I have manual lenses and use them quite a bit. I estimate exposure by eye in well know lighting condition or by histogram in difficult lighting conditiion, which by definition needs at least two shots.

Gstark,

You are pretty right about gelatine and so on. But you forget about one thing: all of us work with digital which happens to be bloody sensitive for wrong exposure. And I cannot see any point to be forced to lower photo technical quality. Please, explain me, in sake of what? Shooting blindly will make me more creative, thoughtfull photographer? PS: What is your answer about 30W bulb question? Can you say me right now what is right setting for that (iso, apperture and shutter speed). Please, proof me that all skillfull photographers will know the answer in fraction of second

Regards,

K.Polak

[nito]

It would be easy to police. Make people submit one image before the comp entry and give notice of submission. Then they submit the actual entry and the mods look at the shutter release count recorded on the camera to see if it matches on shot.

But I suspect the quality of the entry would be restricted to static images which are easier to control.

[gstark]

You are pretty right about gelatine and so on. But you forget about one thing: all of us work with digital which happens to be bloody sensitive for wrong exposure.

The exposure lattitude - contrast range, more correctly - of a D70 is very similar to that of E64. If one can shoot E64 unmetered, what's the difference?

And I cannot see any point to be forced to lower photo technical quality. Please, explain me, in sake of what? Shooting blindly will make me more creative, thoughtfull photographer?

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

As far as 'm concerned, the greater my skill level, the better that I'll be able to cope with changing and/or difficult situations. If that means that I need to learn how to meter light by using my eyes, where's the problem with that?

Why is that a disadvantage?

How does that not enhance my photographic skills?

And there's a hell of a lot more to being a phptographer than being creative and/or thoughtful. I had the recent privilegde of seeing some original prints of some classic images. These were peress images, where the baseline require is to not be creative or thoughtful, buit to go out and get the image.

You can, of course, be as creative and thoughtful as you like, but if you're coming back home without the goods as specified, your images won't even be worth shit.

PS: What is your answer about 30W bulb question? Can you say me right now what is right setting for that (iso, apperture and shutter speed). Please, proof me that all skillfull photographers will know the answer in fraction of second

Well, you've not provided anything like enough detail.

What's the light to subject distance?

Is the light direct, or diffused?

Are reflectors involved?

How much ambient light is there?

What's the subject matter?

And what's the goal I'm after? D

o I want good shadow detail?

Or do I want a high-key image?


For the purposes of this discussion, using the 30W bulb example is actually quite useless, truth be told. How old is the bulb? Is the internal surface showing signs of singeing, which might reduce its output?

The correct approach is to not worry about the irrelevant details, but to simply come into the scene and make an assessment based upon the situation that you're seeing.

You use your eyes and your brain, and your experience, for this.

It really couldn't be much easier.

[xorl]

It would be easy to police. Make people submit one image before the comp entry and give notice of submission. Then they submit the actual entry and the mods look at the shutter release count recorded on the camera to see if it matches on shot.

Not all digital cameras maintain a permanently incrementing shutter counter in the EXIF header - some can be reset. Also, it would be very easy to fake.

[krpolak]

Gstark,

>I'm not sure I understand your point here.
>As far as 'm concerned, the greater my skill level, the better that I'll be >able to cope with changing and/or difficult situations. If that means that I >need to learn how to meter light by using my eyes, where's the problem >with that?
>Why is that a disadvantage?

Because it is enough to overexposed digital by 0.5EV to get nice areas of pure white. And it is enough to underexposed by 1EV to start have nice, grainy noise in shadows. Some people might dont mind it, some do.

>How does that not enhance my photographic skills?

Becasue pure technical mistakes does not say good about an artist.

>And there's a hell of a lot more to being a phptographer than being
>creative and/or thoughtful. I had the recent privilegde of seeing some
>original prints of some classic images. These were peress images, where
>the baseline require is to not be creative or thoughtful, buit to go out and
>get the image.

Question is why. Because there where so great photos or because there where so unusual for you? We start to go really off the subject here

>You can, of course, be as creative and thoughtful as you like, but if
>you're coming back home without the goods as specified, your images
>won't even be worth shit.

For you. For somebody else might be. Becasue at the end of day it all depends of tastes.

And should I care about that? No, I should care for what matters for me, not for unknown viewer in a future.

>Well, you've not provided anything like enough detail.

OK, here is specific setup. I would like to check it tonight and post the image in this thread

Scene is setup in completly dark room. As the subject we have got whitish cardbord box. It is lighted up by typical table lamp with 11W Nec fluro bulb (I have got that so I can really check). Lamp is placed 50 cm from the box kind of (very roughly) in front of the vertical edge and lets say 45 degrees above. Lamp is about 5 month old, but rarely used. Seems to be quite new.

There is no reflectors except wall and ceiling placed few 2-3 meters from the scene.

Goal: I want to explore how square it this box It is going to be a metaphicical research of people's life

I will make the task easier: dont care about detail in shadow, I just want to not overblown the shot with D70, but I dont want to have maximum highlight lower then 0.5EV from "the right" of histogram.

This is what I ca see and will setup.



Regards,

K.POlak

[Nnnnsic]

This isn't blind shooting.

When you "shoot blind," you don't look through the camera.

This is understanding light, and that's something you get through experience in learning about light and how it relates photographically.

It is a very easy thing to do once you get used to it.

[wally]

Dave, I rekon that is a reel tops idear

Mr Poleak, you mite hav the wrong camera for youre lens. I red the D2x meeters with aI lens. I reely like youre snaps of tv aireeals. i was fassenated by tv aireeals wen i was a kid. i didnnt know how the tv pics new how to stop at the aireeals and not go to the washhing line? are you fassenated by tv aireeals too? i think yous are. my mum had too hid the tv aireeals from tax man but not thee tv pics. the guvernment used to tax tv. guvernments always tax fun thinggs. they cant tax wot i does to me girl friend

do you new why the tv pics stop at the tv aireeals and not go too the wash line? hav you seen a tv aireeal close? theys are just metal no wires or nuffing juz like a wash line

[wally]

mr poleak, maybee u shoold take snaps of wash lines

[Nnnnsic]

Stay on topic, Wally.

[krpolak]

Wally,

I have got perfect camera for my 105mm manual (and others). I cannot see any point to spent extra 1.5k$ on updated version just to have metering. Fortunatelly I also dont have to be limited to one shot only  BTW, I am still waiting for proper setting on my test scene. Any other real photographer would like to take a chance and guess it? It supposed to be matter of seconds not days

Regards,

K.Polak PS. Sorry to be sarcastic, but situation starts to be funny. I am really looking forward how it will develop.

[krpolak]

Wally,

I really appreciate your tweeky sens of humour, but my surname is POLAK not Poleak. Lets dont lower below certain level

Regards,

K.Polak

[wally]

sorry nnnnnnnsic for oof topic

sorry polak for misspell i am bad speller sorry

mr polak i wooldnt spend $1.5k eether



nnnnnsic do yous now why the tv pics stop at the aireeals?

[gstark]

BTW, I am still waiting for proper setting on my test scene. Any other real photographer would like to take a chance and guess it? It supposed to be matter of seconds not days

Might I suggest that you not hold your breath, as I suspect you may be waiting for quite some time.

As I said, I prefer to look at a scene - physically see it with those funny things that sit above my cheeks and behind my glasses - and make an assessment based upon my observations.

Anything else is, with respect to the situation you've given, is purely waffle, and not worth the investment of my resources. Sorry.

As a further clarification, the short list of variables I described was given purely as a form of describing the sorts of things that might affect any given scenario, and while you might describe a setiup in great detail, it is, at the end of the day, of little real value.

Putting it another, there is no substitute for actually being there, and actually being there is how I make my images.

[Aussie Dave]

kpolak
I am not sure why you refer to "any other real photographers" taking a guess at this proposed test scene. I don't believe that I, or anyone else has made mention that one is not a real photographer if they cannot meter a scene (manually or otherwise).

I don't even know why this bothers you so much. If you are not interested, or the equipment you own does not allow you to participate (which technically it doesn't), then so be it. I don't hear people jumping up and down because our international members cannot win prizes from our Challenges. Aren't they disadvantaged ?

This was a simple idea that I put forward, to find out how many people would be interested in partaking in such an exercise. It was not setup as a test, to see who is better than who. If anything, it was for the less experienced members to have a go at something different & perhaps learn something along the way (with the help/suggestions of other members, once the images were posted).

I am saddened by what you have turned this thread into and in future perhaps I will keep my ideas to myself.

Dave

[Glen]

Dave,

Please keep up the suggestions and don't worry about digressions from the topic, many threads go off topic (but do you know why the tv pics stop at the aerial? )

We all have limitations (one of mine is not having an eye for composition like others on this board ) and krpolak brought up one of his. This board prides itself on the diversity of opinion and robust debate, don't interpret this thread as anything more than that.

Thanks Dave and lets keep this thread on topic (unless anyone knows why the pics stop at the aerial and not the clothes line )

[Alpha_7]

Thanks Dave and lets keep this thread on topic (unless anyone knows why the pics stop at the aerial and not the clothes line )

This might be as a TV isn't hooked up to the clothes line, were it is to most TV aerials. But I've been know to be wrong, I would also suggest that on washing day your reception may stuff

[Aussie Dave]

Dave,

Please keep up the suggestions and don't worry about digressions from the topic, many threads go off topic (but do you know why the tv pics stop at the aerial? )

We all have limitations (one of mine is not having an eye for composition like others on this board ) and krpolak brought up one of his. This board prides itself on the diversity of opinion and robust debate, don't interpret this thread as anything more than that.

Thanks Dave and lets keep this thread on topic (unless anyone knows why the pics stop at the aerial and not the clothes line )

Thanks Glen. And believe it or not, you actually made me laugh

Unfortunately, my only summation as to why the pics stop at the aerial & not the clothes line, is that I suspect the "Hills Hoist company" made their clothes-lines with "in-built" image deflectors.

Does that sound possible

Yet we digress.....

[Aussie Dave]

Good idea Scott.

I imagine we all have a reasonable understanding on what my idea entails.

Perhaps a simple reply of "I'd be interested" OR "not for me, thanks" may give everyone an idea on whether this is worthwhile for future use.

Just "another" suggestion....

[Nnnnsic]

I've split this topic into another thread showing how far off-topic we were getting.

I've left a few of the questionable entries in here as discussion points formed from them, however, don't make me delete or split other posts, gentlemen.

Let's keep this idea, a good one from Aussie Dave, on topic.

[MHD]

Aww... you beat me by about 20 seconds...

Any case... I to think your idea has good merit Dave... perhaps under the frame work of the old assignments we used to have...

[MHD]

 BTW... if you want gallery space for this on http://www.potofgrass.com you only need to ask...

[Aussie Dave]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your enthusiasm & help.

I am happy to run with this if enough people will be interested in participating (which reading this thread there are a few already keen).

OR, if you guys want to include this idea into an upcoming challenge or exercise, I'd be delighted to see that happen also.

Perhaps you MODS can have a chat about it and PM me with what you prefer. If you'd like me to come up with the exercise, I'll put something together and run it past you first.

Scott - using your webspace would be ideal, and I appreciate your kindness.

Shall wait to hear from you...

[MHD]

I'll set up a gallery for you to play with...

[radar]

Dave,

not sure why my approval was moved , anyway, great idea, looking forward the the "official" announcement and rules.

Cheers,

André