Steve Dropkin wrote:
> Maybe add a
> macro lens if you have one (but, then, that's the kind of
> photography I like to do).
That brings up an interesting question -- I've taken a fair few macro
photos while travelling, and sure, there's some nice shots of
flowers/insects/etc that resulted, but when I look at them back home, I
always find myself regretting not taking more photos of the places I went.
Macro photography tends to be 'locationless' -- there's some shots
that I could only have taken in certain places because the particular
plant/butterfly/whatever only grows there. Personally, then, I'd keep
the wide-angle lens in favour of a macro lens if you're going to be
going somewhere you haven't been before.
Arguably, the same thing applies in reverse -- I've been getting a lot
of mileage out of wandering around my neighborhood with a macro lens
taking close-up shots of things that I wouldn't otherwise have looked at
twice. And while a close-up photo of (say) grass frozen in melting snow
is a neat way to make the end of our garden more photogenic, it's also a
photo that I could take in an equivalent garden anywhere.
Heck, I have way too many photos of beaches, mountains, forests, etc,
all of which tend to look pretty much the same after a while. This may
just be a personal thing, but I'm going to try and change the way I take
travel photos -- currently I tend to look for the impressive photo
opportunity in isolation of where I am, which is a good way to get nice
photos (or at least try..) but doesn't leave me with as many shots that
remind me of where I was.
Ideally, of course, I'd learn the skill of taking good photos that
also remind me of where I was -- but that's harder.. I think the problem
is that the cause of a lot of non-technically-good photos is too much
extraneous stuff in the background, the classic snapshot look -- but
it's very difficult (I find) to exclude extra background stuff but still
leave enough there to remind me where I am; I can isolate a particular
element of the location, but the trick is then getting that bit of the
location _on its own_ to also give the sense of being there.
Compare, for instance:
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/Trip/tahiti/gaugin_museum_3.jpg
This is a nice photo on its own (ignoring the awful scan quality) but
which doesn't really tell me anything about where I was. Later on that day:
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/Trip/tahiti/papeete_5.jpg
which is much more snapshot-y, but which does a far better job of
reminding me how it felt to be there at the time, and that's what I've
(belatedly) discovered I want out of travel shots..
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
