Ryan Brenizer's Amazon Blog

 
« Go to Ryan Brenizer's full Amazon Blog

Point and shoot tips from the old masters

8:45 AM PST, February 17, 2009, updated at 8:53 AM PST, February 17, 2009

When you're just starting out as a photography enthusiast, life doesn't seem fair. Many of the pictures you admire were taken by people not only with a lot more experience, but with equipment you couldn't come close to affording. They've got incredibly light sensitive cameras like the Nikon D3 and Canon 5D Mark II. They've got f/1.4 lenses that can turn night into day and let photographers focus on only the details they want, throwing unwanted backgrounds into blurriness. With a point-and-shoot, you have the limitations of poor light sensitivity, no depth-of-field control, slow frame rates, limited flash control, etc. Someone with expensive equipment could be standing next to you in and indoor event getting great shots while yours are a blurry, muddy mess. You can only learn so much from people who frequently work in ways that are impossible for you. What if there were truly masterful photographers who worked with cameras with all the limitations of yours and more? Couldn't they be role models?

Luckily, there are boatloads of them: every documentary photographer working from the 1930s to the 1980s. Low-light sensitivity? Ha! Your point-and-shoot may only be noisy at ISO 200 and below, but these guys were working with things like Kodachrome 25, eight times worse. Depth-of-field? Ha! Partially because of the style of the times, and partially because they didn't want to deal with careful manual focus, most photojournalism of the time tended to have everything in focus -- "f/8 and be there" was the rule. Many of these photographers, especially the ones shooting in 35mm, were using tools more limited than most point-and-shoots, but they churned out great art, and studying there work can give you lots of pointers.

Here are a few cheat sheets. Henri Cartier-Bresson is a great example, because he worked almost entirely in 35mm, even most people considered the quality unusably poor. He mastered capture of "the decisive moment," which usually meant fast shutter speeds. How do you get there with insensitive film and small apertures? Simple: His most famous photos are almost all taken outdoors. The first rule when dealing with poor cameras is Be selective. Shoot where the photos will be good. If you really want to get great photos of your children running around, encourage them to play somewhere well-lit.

Another great example is W. Eugene Smith, a master photojournalist if there ever was one. The LIFE photo archive on Google images may be the best, easiest place to find lots of photos from old masters, including Smith's "Spanish Village" series, one of the most famous photojournalistic pieces in history. Almost everything is well-lit. When people are indoors, they are right next to an open window. If not, then he's blasting the frame with off-camera lighting (warning, potentially disturbing image). This was not the age of PocketWizards -- there are ways to use off-camera lighting with at least as much precision as he had, generally finding cheap flashes that support optical sync -- i.e. they'll go off if your on-camera flash does.

Other than being selective, what are some rules we see?

1. Compositions matter. If everything in your image is going to be in focus, then everything has to add to the photo. Select your backgrounds carefully.

2. Don't be afraid to have deep black tones in your photo. By default, digital cameras are trying to capture everything, aiming for neutral gray. But that's not always what you want, especially in darker places. Don't be afraid to use negative space. A manual mode on your camera is the best way to achieve this, but you can also play around with just lowering the EV compensation.

3. Black and white can save an image. Sometimes you'll be shooting in places that are just way too orange, lit by old tungsten lights, or sometimes the light is just too mixed. If all else fails, try it in black and white.

4. Windows are your friend. You don't always have to take people outside if you want sharper photos. If the sun's out, just open your blinds, or get people closer to them. Even small changes in light can help. Much of Steve McCurry's famous Afghanistan work used the harsh Afghan sun filtered through windows.

5. Shoot like heck. LIFE photographers, National Geographic photographers, etc. had a major advantage over the rest of the world … someone was bankrolling their film costs. So they shot a lot. But you can still fit more photos on a $40 memory card then they could pack in a backpack full of film. Use the advantage, but then use their other advantage… a ruthless photo editor. Be merciless with your photos. If right now you're showing almost everything, try showing half. If you're showing half, try showing a quarter. Try showing your best five of the day. Best one of the week. Depending on your uses, editing alone will immediately improve your work.

Obviously there are thousands of lessons in composition to draw from them. I encourage you to spend some time with the LIFE archive, and leave any favorite photos or lessons in the comments.


[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 17, 2009 4:55 PM PST
 Dennis R. Pike says:
This is true... it does not take expensive equipment to take great photos. In fact, I'm glad I that I had limitations with my equipment when I started shooting. It made me figure out how to do things better. Then when I really, really knew what I was doing I was able to upgrade to more light sensitive equipment and faster sharped lenses. It is never the camera that takes an amazing photo, it is the person using the camera. Good post Ryan

Posted on Feb 18, 2009 1:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2009 1:17 PM PST
 Rishi Oswal says:
Don't forget Alex Majoli

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Rishi O.

Posted on Feb 20, 2009 4:48 PM PST
 Ivan S says:
Thank you, this is really inspiring!

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 3:36 AM PST
 William Binns says:
I recently moved up to an SLR from a P&S. The one advantage point & shoots have over more serious equipment is portability. I have gotten most of my better shots because I happened to have a camera with me at the right time. I had developed a habit opf always dropping my little Canon A570IS in my coat pocket as I walked out the door.

It has been much more difficult to to try to "always" have the SLR with me. I recently picked up a LowePro "Slingshot" backpack I hope will makeit easier for me to grab the SLR everytime I head out the door.

I have also noticed that you attract far more attention on the street shooting with an SLR than with a P&S. I have been forced to explain to security guards and police what I was shooting and why several times already. This never happened with the P&S.

I have been able to things with the SLR I never could have accomplished with my P&S but I'm glad I didn't give the smaller camera away or sell it. I expect I will still use it a great deal.

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 6:41 PM PST
 D. Yuhas says:
"f/8 and be there" was never used to "get everything in focus." Hyperfocal distance was, and you had to know where to focus your lens for commonly used apertures. Some photographers resorted to marking their lens' focusing scale. Actually, for candid photos there was/is no need to get everything in focus. If the background is cluttered or unattractive, why would you want it in focus?

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 6:47 PM PST
 D. Yuhas says:
Gene Smith was a master photographer, no argument there. But he was also a master darkroom technician. He rescued a lot of poorly exposed or unevenly lit negatives with darkroom techniques that are now lost to history.

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 7:58 PM PST
The art of darkroom developing was also very important. Many pictures by Ansel Adams illustrate this. In effect, Lather, rinse, repeat till you can't get any better.

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 8:04 PM PST
 C. Johanesen says:
You make a lot of great points, but there's one area where the old masters had superior equipment: speed. Their old cameras, with manual focus and poor light sensitivity, still took a photo the instant you pressed the button. Modern digital point and shoots are so slow it's almost impossible to capture the "decisive moments." To me that's the biggest reason to use an SLR (although light sensitivity is a big plus, too).

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 8:09 PM PST
 Aldo says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2009 9:18 PM PST
 M. Mills says:
I put up a lengthy reply to your post at my blog (because I thought it a bit rude to darken your comment threads with that much of my opinion). http://www.photographermattmills.com/blog/2009/02/you-camera-does-matter.html

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2009 3:19 AM PST
 D. M. Rogers says:
With a P&S, you anticipate the "decisive moment," and pre-focus (half-press the shutter). It's not hard. It's all about understanding your tools and how they work. It's not "impossible to capture the 'decisive moments,'" you just have to be a bit smarter than the camera.

Posted on Feb 26, 2009 9:08 PM PST
 J. Martin says:
There's a book titled "W. Eugene Smith and the Photographic Essay" that has great background and additional photo's from the "Spanish Village" series. Found a copy at the library tonight and it's a must see if you're interested.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
 
RSS Feed for Ryan Brenizer     

Bio

Professional photographer -- editorial, wedding/event

Amateur camera geek.



Where's My Stuff?

Shipping & Returns

Need Help?

Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2009, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates