On the hobby of reproducing reality.

[landscapephoto]

I will say this about music: if I were to listen to, say, The Beatles in order to savor the micing techniques of Geoff Emerick or the tape machine manipulation skills of Ken Townsend I'd be seriously missing the point. The techniques & skills are means to an end, but the end is the music itself. To put it another way: I record to document (sometimes "accurately," sometimes not so much) what I've played, not the other way 'round.

Exactly. And this is why recording is not suited to being a hobby, I found out.

I've found the best way to keep enjoying my favorite pursuits is to talk/type about them as little as possible while doing them as much as possible. Here I comment on this or that aspect of photography while saying very little about, and showing virtually none of, what I actually do with cameras & lenses. Same goes elsewhere regarding playing & recording music (I do both). This is how I keep my enjoyment of taking photos alive. YMMV.

So you are producing photographs and music recording that you show to nobody and that nobody listens to? Do I understand correctly?

[TomFrerichs]

I'm in sympathy with Telecaster.

Photography is my hobby, and while I may share some of my vision with others, it's the satisfaction I get from my own work that keeps me motivated. If I didn't enjoy what I was doing, then why would I want to spend time doing it?

Certainly I appreciate other's enjoyment when they look at what I've done, but that's the cream. Many photographers that I talk to are very interested in landscapes, flowers, and wildlife, but the kind of photographs I enjoy making speak to my own interests and don't fit into any of those categories. Seriously, I live in Colorado near the mountains and don't have a single photograph of an aspen grove in fall glory. I have two photographs of flowers, one of which is a dying sunflower.  And I jokingly tell other photographers that my only wildlife shots are one of my cat and one of a dragonfly.

As an example, I've got some damned good photographs of rodeo events. The landscape/flower/wildlife folks aren't all that interested--indeed, some are animal rights activists ready to string me up. That doesn't bother me, because the folks who participate in the sport appreciate what I did. And their approval means more to me.

Someone mentioned camera clubs.  My experience with the local clubs has been uniformly bad, primarily because the ones I've visited seem to have been co-opted by the "competition crazed." I've always believed that it's better to concentrate on better communicating what one saw and felt than worry about how many points or ribbons or awards you could get. There are of course other clubs that aren't so much into competition, but they concentrate on wildlife or landscapes. Not quite what I care about.

I guess the bottom line is this: for my hobby I absolutely refuse to depend upon other's approbation. My photographs may--probably do--suck, but it doesn't matter to me.  They're my creation for my pleasure, and that's enough for me.

[landscapephoto]

I'm in sympathy with Telecaster.

Photography is my hobby, and while I may share some of my vision with others, it's the satisfaction I get from my own work that keeps me motivated. If I didn't enjoy what I was doing, then why would I want to spend time doing it?

Certainly I appreciate other's enjoyment when they look at what I've done, but that's the cream. Many photographers that I talk to are very interested in landscapes, flowers, and wildlife, but the kind of photographs I enjoy making speak to my own interests and don't fit into any of those categories. Seriously, I live in Colorado near the mountains and don't have a single photograph of an aspen grove in fall glory. I have two photographs of flowers, one of which is a dying sunflower.  And I jokingly tell other photographers that my only wildlife shots are one of my cat and one of a dragonfly.

As an example, I've got some damned good photographs of rodeo events. The landscape/flower/wildlife folks aren't all that interested--indeed, some are animal rights activists ready to string me up. That doesn't bother me, because the folks who participate in the sport appreciate what I did. And their approval means more to me.

Someone mentioned camera clubs.  My experience with the local clubs has been uniformly bad, primarily because the ones I've visited seem to have been co-opted by the "competition crazed." I've always believed that it's better to concentrate on better communicating what one saw and felt than worry about how many points or ribbons or awards you could get. There are of course other clubs that aren't so much into competition, but they concentrate on wildlife or landscapes. Not quite what I care about.

I guess the bottom line is this: for my hobby I absolutely refuse to depend upon other's approbation. My photographs may--probably do--suck, but it doesn't matter to me.  They're my creation for my pleasure, and that's enough for me.

But you get approbation from others: you wrote earlier that "the folks who participate in rodeo sport appreciate what I did and their approval means more to me".

[TomFrerichs]

From an earlier message of yours:

All I want is to have a nice hobby and some friends to discuss and exchange. It used to be like that. Taking audio as an example, I used to frequent forums where people discussed which devices worked and which did not (e.g. the perils of real-time on older computers...), which ones of the early cheap Chinese microphones worked correctly (a few were good copies and worked surprisingly well), etc... I learned a lot and tried to give as much back.

There is a difference. The rodeo folks I was talking about don't give a damn about my f/stop or the DR of my sensor or how much I can push the ISO. I don't talk to them about the craft of photography.  But it appears that you're seeking a hobby where you can discuss the craft involved.

I was trying to say that I feel no need to talk about "photography" as a craft or to take part, either virtually via the web or in person, with photographers whose primary interest is in that craft. While I have an interest in the technical side and appreciate the work done by those that wring out every bit of detail, I don't really want to talk about MFT graphs or the effects of activating VR while using a tripod. Don't get me wrong. I'll cheerfully plunder their treasure chest full of knowledge; I'm just not interested in shooting test charts.  I figure it's much better to be a Viking than a monk. 

In other words, I don't feel the need to talk about photography as craft with anyone to enjoy it. I do admit that I appreciate in-person critiques of my efforts because I want to understand how someone else is reading my photographs, but that kind of interaction isn't common.

So, I guess I'll end up saying that I have nothing for you. From what I've read and understood from your comments, you are looking for a hobby where you can discuss the practice with other hobbyists.  I'm saying that I don't feel that need and, therefore, can't offer any constructive advice.

[Rob C]

Aircraft.

I know two guys out here who are into 'planes and especially anything that flew during WW2.

There are magazines to buy, all manner of stuff, and the beauty is, you don't have to produce a thing - just talk about it!

Perfect. If you dig aircraft.

Photo clubs. Waste of time today, when anyone can have a virtual darkroom right there on the monitor. You learn more about photography (if you feel like it) from looking at books from the past, or even at Internet collections of old snappers' efforts, than any bloody club has either the wish or ability to offer. As for techie books - why bother? It's all freely available here on LuLa, with so many people perfectly happy to help out with technical problems. I have sometimes been referred to books for advice, but, however, I have the mentality that learns best from demonstration, by simple example of steps performed on a single image. This seems more likely to be found person-to-person online than from any book I have bought. I had an original Photoshop book and it was so opaque I stopped trying. I bought the Photographer's Guide to Photoshop by Barrie Thomas and that remains as opaque as did the Adobe.

To learn, I need: Step 1. > Step 2. > Step 3. > Etc. That works! Once understood it can be applied as required. Maybe it makes digital look too easy, so there's no future in writing books if you actually make it easy too.

Then again, there's the side to photography digital theory beloved in other sections of this site, where they constantly talk way over my head about this graph or the other and the importance of so many things that, AFAIK, bear no relationship to my going click! at what I hope isn't a millisecond too late.

So, for me, clubs would offer nothing, not even drinking clubs, unfortunately. But even those are not democratic: there's always the richer guy who feels obliged to pick up the tab more often that he should. Interesting the many ways of saying thanks, but you really shouldn't, I'll get them next time!

Aircraft seems safer.

Rob C

[Justinr]

Aircraft.

I know two guys out here who are into 'planes and especially anything that flew during WW2.

There are magazines to buy, all manner of stuff, and the beauty is, you don't have to produce a thing - just talk about it!

Perfect. If you dig aircraft.

Photo clubs. Waste of time today, when anyone can have a virtual darkroom right there on the monitor. You learn more about photography (if you feel like it) from looking at books from the past, or even at Internet collections of old snappers' efforts, than any bloody club has either the wish or ability to offer. As for techie books - why bother? It's all freely available here on LuLa, with so many people perfectly happy to help out with technical problems. I have sometimes been referred to books for advice, but, however, I have the mentality that learns best from demonstration, by simple example of steps performed on a single image. This seems more likely to be found person-to-person online than from any book I have bought. I had an original Photoshop book and it was so opaque I stopped trying. I bought the Photographer's Guide to Photoshop by Barrie Thomas and that remains as opaque as did the Adobe.

To learn, I need: Step 1. > Step 2. > Step 3. > Etc. That works! Once understood it can be applied as required. Maybe it makes digital look too easy, so there's no future in writing books if you actually make it easy too.

Then again, there's the side to photography digital theory beloved in other sections of this site, where they constantly talk way over my head about this graph or the other and the importance of so many things that, AFAIK, bear no relationship to my going click! at what I hope isn't a millisecond too late.

So, for me, clubs would offer nothing, not even drinking clubs, unfortunately. But even those are not democratic: there's always the richer guy who feels obliged to pick up the tab more often that he should. Interesting the many ways of saying thanks, but you really shouldn't, I'll get them next time!

Aircraft seems safer.

Rob C

You always hated camera clubs, I don't know what they did to upset you but Like everything in life there are the good, the bad and the indifferent. I happened to fall in with a very good one, plenty of professional people in it (opticians, doctors, business managers and so on) who all took a keen and intelligent interest in the craft and, what's more, were willing to share their knowledge, very often on a one to one basis. Another club I knew didn't quite have that bank of expertise but were a cheerful bunch who just enjoyed their cameras and there is one around here who I believe are probably best avoided. Yes, there will always be prima donnas and know it alls who know little, that again is true of life generally. You have to take them as you find them.

[Rob C]

You always hated camera clubs, I don't know what they did to upset you but Like everything in life there are the good, the bad and the indifferent. I happened to fall in with a very good one, plenty of professional people in it (opticians, doctors, business managers and so on) who all took a keen and intelligent interest in the craft and, what's more, were willing to share their knowledge, very often on a one to one basis. Another club I knew didn't quite have that bank of expertise but were a cheerful bunch who just enjoyed their cameras and there is one around here who I believe are probably best avoided. Yes, there will always be prima donnas and know it alls who know little, that again is true of life generally. You have to take them as you find them.

Photography is a solitary art or it's nothing.

Rob C

[amolitor]

Photography is a solitary art or it's nothing.

Rob C

I find this to be true as well. Other people are great for answering technical questions beforehand. And of course it's nice if they like the things afterwards.

But at the moment it's just you and the stuff in front of the camera. Nobody can help you here. You either feel it or you don't.

[Rob C]

I find this to be true as well. Other people are great for answering technical questions beforehand. And of course it's nice if they like the things afterwards.

But at the moment it's just you and the stuff in front of the camera. Nobody can help you here. You either feel it or you don't.

In my own experience, I found that to be so true (aloneness) that I found it very, very trying even to have a client hanging about; I'm sure that my discomfort was tangible... sometimes. (Fortunately, either because of the era or because I was lucky, and certainly because I ended up self-generating a lot of work, it seldom happened to me.) My wife used to go with me on some of the better shoots and assist with sprays, wardrobe and so on, as well as provide the models some escape into a girl's world, which I didn't really want to have to provide during non-working hours. Even then, there were times where it just worked better being alone with the model, especially if there were several. I think most people work better without critical eyes upon them, however practised.

In the 'personal', amateur mode, I know perfectly well that, accompanied, I would probably have missed 90% of the stuff I have today. That it may or may not please others is neither here nor there: what matters is that I got the chance to see the thing, do it, and then play around with it later on. For example: if out with anyone else, the moment that person lines up a shot I know that however good it may be, I am instantly precluded from trying it too. Just can't do that, and dislike it in reverse.

Perhaps women are different and can photograph during conversations too - they can certainly conduct six conversations at one time and miss not a word - I wish more women would contribute to LuLa; they offer such a lot of different perspectives that males either don't get or don't want to discuss. So much to learn.

But, photography demands concentration. I believe it was Avedon who remarked that you can't photograph and eff at the same time. Clearly, he ignored video, and quite rightly too. How uncivilised that would be.

Rob C

[Justinr]

Photography is a solitary art or it's nothing.

Rob C

Maybe, or maybe not, we are not all the same, but it doesn't alter the fact that a well run and enthusiastic club can be a great place to learn with a wide range of views and styles to be absorbed if approached with an open mind.

[landscapephoto]

Just a small comment: the hobby I want to replace is recording, not photography. True, there are parallels, especially with the kind of photography which tries to reproduce reality (hence the title).

I don't plan to stop photography, even if it is a rather solitary activity, as noted by others. I like to be alone with my camera trying to find angles, etc... even if the pictures I produce do not interest many people.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Just a small comment: the hobby I want to replace is recording, not photography. True, there are parallels, especially with the kind of photography which tries to reproduce reality (hence the title).

I don't plan to stop photography, even if it is a rather solitary activity, as noted by others. I like to be alone with my camera trying to find angles, etc... even if the pictures I produce do not interest many people.

Never heard of "recording" as a hobby unless it's coupled with post processing (audio engineering). I'm a musician and very interested in many genre's of music as well as getting or finding the best sound quality, but mostly out of existing recorded content rather than capturing new content. I've got some early jazz/big band music the label rushed to CD's back in the mid to late '80's that sound anemic I've attempted to beef up in Audacity, a free digital audio editor.

Audacity's forums get into some very productive back & forth discussions for getting the best capture of vocals for voice talent attempting to make their own audio books using a DIY home recording studio. They give very detailed tips on mic placement, sound proofing and adding reverb and other Audacity plugins in post that clean up artifacts caused by electrical and room ambiance. They frequently post .mp3/.wav samples of their recordings to get others opinions. I've found the site to be very much like LuLa but for recording and editing and rarely ever saw shilling one product over another. Since Audacity is free there's not much incentive for advertising trolls to hang out.

Maybe you should look into similar DIY type forums instead of I'm having to assume high end professional audio forums whose discussions tend to veer into advertisements. I think all aspects of audio should make for a very fulfilling and interesting hobby and dont' see why one would have to limit themselves to just the act of recording.

This guy's YouTube site promoting his audio listening equipment uses the available mic on his Canon HD camera and captures better sound of multi-generation recorded content than most of my old jazz CD's...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9VTQdGRLHY

Now that's how a piano should sound!

[landscapephoto]

You are right: audio engineering, not just recording.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Besides I find audio history more fascinating on how some music was recorded than I do on how something was photographed. Just recently I found out what created the gorgeous reverb sound in Martin Denny's Exotica albums back in the late '50's using state of the art back then stereo recording techniques.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK-dU22IMWU

Come to find out the entire album was recorded in the Kaiser Aluminum Dome in Honolulu, Hawaii which offers a 3 second natural reverberation. And I found that out tunneling down a number of nested google links on reverb in Martin Denny recordings and ended up on this obscure page on Arthur Lyman, the Holy Ghost of Exotica...

http://flashstrap.blogspot.com/2011/08/holy-ghost-of-exotica-weaving-dreams-in.html

I had a lot of fun looking for this.

 

[Tim Lookingbill]

And I made an error in assuming Martin Denny recorded in the Kaiser geodesic dome by associating it with the Lyman wiki. Some further searching indicates that stereo version of Black Orchid linked above was recorded at Liberty Records Studio in Hollywood in '58 according to this thread...

http://www.tikiroom.com/tikicentral/bb/viewtopic.php?topic=31464&forum=11&start=15

It still doesn't indicate how the reverb was created which is what I'm interested in.

[Telecaster]

So you are producing photographs and music recording that you show to nobody and that nobody listens to? Do I understand correctly?

Certainly not! I do take photos & record music mainly for my own enjoyment, and with few exceptions I keep it out of the online world. OTOH I often play music with other folks. We rarely record ourselves…the playing is usually improvisatory, intended to be here & then gone.

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

I'd say "recording" is a hobby for me, but not in the sense of aiming towards a particular goal like "naturalistic sound" or whathaveyou. It's just one long experiment: try stuff and hear what happens. If I like something in the moment I go with it, if not I try something else. One piece I'm currently working on started off as an electric guitar improv recorded via battery-powered mini amp on a Walkman cassette deck in a hotel room in Singapore in October 1997. The friend who owned the Walkman sent it to me (still works!) along with the tape for my birthday. 

-Dave-

[degrub]

Woodworking 

[Rob C]

Woodworking 

Start with two thumbs, give up when there's but one.

Rob C

[landscapephoto]

Woodworking 

Now, that is a kind of hobby which is not related in any way to "reproducing reality". I should have thought of that.