Learning to walk around the subject

[Speck Tater]

10. Interesting points

I didn't like the look of the over exposed, washed out background. That's why I bracketed exposures and cut the properly exposed background into the properly exposed foreground with Paintshop Pro.

On several other pictures I took that morning I blurred the background by using AP and opening up to a wide f-stop, but in this case I really wanted the whole thing in focus. In my mind the steel framework was the frame, establishing the foreground, and what looks like "background" is actually the subject. I should go back to that spot and try other options, including your suggestions, so I can compare the results. (I have just made a habit of using AP mode since I'm not shooting anything that moves.)

At any rate, "walking around" should include "fiddling with settings" as well.

There is a difference between "documenting" what we see and "interpreting" what we see. I'm still experimenting to discover what I'm most interested in accomplishing with my photos. It can be fun to document something that is intrinsically interesting, and to dramatize something that is intrinsically boring. I'd like to try both for a while to see what suits me.

Thanks for your suggestions.

On Edit: I should add that I've seen exactly what you talk about when you point out that photos are two-dimensional. It has happened to me over and over in the last few weeks that I will spot some dramatic scene with depth and drama, so I take a picture of it and the picture turns out flat, uninteresting, and bland. It lacks the depth that the real-life scene had. I'm still trying to learn how to see that in real time and somehow capture that depth in my photos.