Annotated Bibliography

RSL

For whatever it's worth, here's a link to the upated annotated bibliography I use when I lecture on the history of photography. I recently added some of the books I keep down here in Florida instead of at home in Colorado. There's some overlap with BD's list in the Recommended Reading thread, but it leaves out some of the stuff BD listed that I'm going to have to track down, and it adds some stuff that's not in BD's list. It's not confined to documentary photography, but it's heavy on documentary since that's my favorite kind. I try to update the bib at least once a year.

http://www.pkinfo.com/Bib/Bib.html

lensmole

Thanks Russ for the suggested reading and the link .
I am thinking of your favorite Bystander , it is expensive I might have to rob the piggy bank.

richardman

I think most photographers would improve faster by reading a good photography book rather than buying a new lens :-)

richardman

I just picked up Marc Riboud's book on China and it's quite good. I am definitely a book worm / collector. I have 4-5 big volume of HCB's books. All the Salgado books, Bruce Davidson's 3 volume set. Everything by Gene Smith that I can get a hand on etc.

bfjr

richardman wrote: »

I think most photographers would improve faster by reading a good photography book rather than buying a new lens :-)

Well to a point, but then you do need to buy a lens and go shot

richardman

I did say "new" lens, so one can buy as many old lens as they want :-)

Or may be shoot with pinhole :-)

torags

richardman wrote: »

I think most photographers would improve faster by reading a good photography book rather than buying a new lens :-)

Not really & not one lens.

Shooting across different disciplines & aesthetic conventions, you need more than one lens & more than one camera, at least that's been my experience.

Syncopation

Thanks Russ. I'll make an effort to take a look at those I don't already have.

I also came across a book by Jonathan Day entitled Robert Frank's 'The Americans': The Art of Documentary Photography which helped me to understand, appreciate and enjoy his work all the more. I thoroughly recommend it.

richardman

Lets just put it out there that I firmly believe, shooting with one camera, one lens, for 6 months to a year, will improve a person's photography more than buying different cameras or different lens. Of course it helps if you select a suitable camera and lens in the first place, but I do stand by that.

This is not just my experience, but advise given by many top photographers.

RSL

Strangely, I think both you guys are right. In the summer, when I can spend most of my time on the street, I walk the street with a 50mm or equivalent. Been doing that since the mid sixties. The advantage is that you get to the point where you can frame a picture exactly before you raise the camera, you can predict the depth of field, and you can predict the perspective in the final product. But in the winter, when I walk the Palatlakaha river for exercise, and shoot mostly birds, I put a 70-300 lens on my D3. In that environment I'm completely familiar with that lens and what it can do -- depth of field, perspective, etc. When I'm traveling back and forth between Colorado and Florida, or just cruising the west for pictures, I carry a 24-70 on the D3. The 50 would be too restrictive, and the 70-300 doesn't give me a wide enough short end. When I'm traveling, If I stop for a while and walk the streets of a town, I pull out the 50 again. But none of this is just switching lenses for the hell of it. I've worked with each of those lenses for a long, long time, so I'd agree with Richard, but I also agree with Rags, that different situations call for different lenses.

richardman

Russ, it goes without saying that my advice is for people to improve their craft. If someone is at a stage where they are producing "good stuff" already, then that's a different story.

RSL wrote: »

Strangely, I think both you guys are right. In the summer, when I can spend most of my time on the street, I walk the street with a 50mm or equivalent. Been doing that since the mid sixties. The advantage is that you get to the point where you can frame a picture exactly before you raise the camera, you can predict the depth of field, and you can predict the perspective in the final product. But in the winter, when I walk the Palatlakaha river for exercise, and shoot mostly birds, I put a 70-300 lens on my D3. In that environment I'm completely familiar with that lens and what it can do -- depth of field, perspective, etc. When I'm traveling back and forth between Colorado and Florida, or just cruising the west for pictures, I carry a 24-70 on the D3. The 50 would be too restrictive, and the 70-300 doesn't give me a wide enough short end. When I'm traveling, If I stop for a while and walk the streets of a town, I pull out the 50 again. But none of this is just switching lenses for the hell of it. I've worked with each of those lenses for a long, long time, so I'd agree with Richard, but I also agree with Rags, that different situations call for different lenses.