You also need to be a photographer!

[Ronniebootwest]

PTE is a wonderful piece of software and it is getting better all the time! Since I have been involved in making slide shows I have come to realise that the best shows are those that tell a story in pictures. The better the picture, the better will be the show. There are some superb examples on Beechbrook. Some of the best I have seen are those contributed by Barry Beckham (www.beckhamdigital.co.uk). Barry is clearly a 'prodessional photographer' because it shows.

I wonder if we could discuss (in this thread) some of the ways in which you all take your pictures, e.g. do you always use the smaller apertures to keep a good DOF - do you just take the picure and worry about cropping later in photoshop. Also, how many of you use photoshop (or other image editor) to prepare slides for inclusion in your PTE show, I guess that you must because, otherwise how could you get the size of each image to be correct. (presentation)

What I am really trying to say is this, 'please remember that you must be a reasonable photographer in order to produce a good slide show'.

I hope to learn some good pointers from this thread, so please do join in.

Ron West

[ContaxMan]

You raise a very important issue here and it's nice to take time away from the technicalities to consider the actual pictures themselves.

Whilst it would be pretty pointless including weak images in a show, the overall aim and purpose of the show is equally important. (And is the part I find most difficult).

There's plenty of advice available on getting good quality images (see

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/l...ng-to-see.shtml

for an interesting article recently posted on this very topic)

But let's discuss how one goes about making a "storyboard" then shooting sufficient relevant, high quality images and combining them to tell a story - i.e. to make an AV rather than a slideshow with music.

I thoroughly agree with you about Barry Beckham's shows & we have also seen excellent examples from other workers via Beechbrook. A visit to the AV World website will provide information on where to see other examples (http://www.avworld.org/)

Let's hope this strand develops with expert users providing their hints & tips on the overall development of an AV rather than just "technical tips".

[Marianne]

Hi,

I agree with Ron where he says you can see the difference in quality of shows coming from professional photographers or non-professionals. But... I also think this is always a fact. When you do something for a living you ought to be good at it. Otherwise you better search for another living. On the other hand there are a lot of people on a non-professional base pretty good at what they are doing. Question is, who decides what is good or what is very good if we are talking about photography and AV shows?

Yesterday my sister asked a photo from me as a birthday present. I asked her what she liked best and she chose a macro photo of two bees on a flower of which I earlier had decided it was not good enough (not as sharp as I wanted it to be).

What I want to say is that on the artistic side it is also a matter of taste.

Furthermore, I think everyone wants to improve the quality of his own work. When I first saw the Black Country show of Barry I knew I wanted to reach his level. Now, knowing he is a professional photographer I am back with my two feet on earth . But I keep on trying to at least satisfy myself.

[ContaxMan]

Barry B might have something to say about whether he is a "professional photographer"! But he does produce a very professional standard of work.

Come in Barry - speak for yourself.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi all,

This has to be the hardest part of AV to quantify. A great show is always more than the sum of its parts. If you take any of the great shows and view them slide by slide, you will see that while all the images are of a high standard, some may not be stand alone images which would win or even do well in competition. These are the glue which hold a show together. The true craft of AV is knowing what is needed to make the show a unit, and not to include an image just because it is good.

Some of the great shows come from committed amatuers as well as professionals. The way to learn from these shows is to enjoy them on the first showing, then view them from a techinical perspective on the second showing.

Ask why the author did what they did at this point?

Why did the music start/change at that point?

Why were those images used?

Did the author achieve what they set out to do?

If we only see the great images it is great!

If we see the Audio Visual it is fantastic!

The high standard should strech across the whole AV.

These high standards are achivable by all if you relise you are making an AV and not showing your best images.

Alan

[alrobin]

I agree with Alan - IMO he has hit the nail right on the head.

I can't add much to it, except for the following observations about "professional" photographers:

- First, I think we need to make a distinction between "professional" and "commercial" photographers. Many amateurs are "professional" without being "commercial".

- In general, and without taking anything away from "commercial" or "professional" photographers, I have found that advanced amateurs are often more proficient, particularly from a purely artistic point of view, (if there is such a thing), than a lot of commercial photographers. After all, the difference between the two is that an "amateur" is making photos for the love of it, and the "commercial" photographer is in it for the money. Of course, this is over-generalization, and probably does not apply to most of the "commercial" photographers making slide-shows and contributing to this Forum. I have had commercial photographers tell me that we "amateurs" are so lucky, because we can concentrate on making the photographs that we love to do.

However, this is detracting from the original topic of this thread.

More on track, I agree with Ron's observation that one needs to be a good photographer first in making an AV. (we could spend a lot of time discussing the definition of "good photographer"). While I believe Alan is correct in that not all the images in an AV show need to be award-winners, I also believe that the majority of them should at least be able to stand on their own and be reasonably good photographs. "Poor" photos can detract from an otherwise excellent show. Of course there are exceptions to this rule in the choice of images to include in the show, if they are absolutely essential to the telling of the story.

In answer to Ron's question, I first try to obtain the best image in-camera, but then I use Photoshop extensively in preparing it for a show, just as I often use PS for preparing a single image for presentation in a photo competition. I use PS not only for resizing, but also for colour correction, sharpening, brightness and contrast adjustment, cropping, elimination of distracting areas, addition of other elements, etc., etc. In my mind, an effective photo should be "made" not "taken".

As with most things in photography, there are many exceptions to the above remarks - that's the beauty of it, and one reason why photography is truly an art form - there are no hard and fast rules.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi all,

one thing I forgot to mention. The amatuer photographer has one tool in his arsenal which the professional cannot always use. We can wait for the weather/ light/ photograph. If it rains today we can roll over, the professional has a deadline.

Alan

[Ronniebootwest]

There have been some good replies so far, thanks for getting involved. But let's think about the nitty gritty, starting with a need for a 'storyline', an agenda if you like. How many of you (like me) just search through your existing images and compile them in to a slide show? I am sure that the dedicated audio visual expert will first think about a story line and then go out and take the images required. Or am I on the wrong track here?

Is there an expert member who can help out with this one, perhaps with a slide show that has been created already?

Ron West

[Alan Lyons]

Hi Ron,

you asked for an expert, but he is having his tea now so will I do.

I tend to be of the latter in that I shoot to a script. I find this way more productive as you are forced to consintrate on a given typr of image or a given style. I find that the images collected when you have no theme in mind tend to be either poor or indifferent.

Shows taken from stock, I feel tend to be a little forced either in the images or the soundtrack.

A finished AV should be like a well composed image. All the elements are nessary for the effect, and the final result owes as much to what's left out as to whats left in,

Alan

[Ronniebootwest]

Thankyou Alan, I am glad that you are responding. I am keen to get involved with digital audio visual (I make the distinction because I realise that the old film based method is so different to digital). I am glad that you support the view that working to a script is the way to go. I am sure that you have more advice that you can offer us as well. Do you have any slide shows that you can point us to - either your own work or the work of others that you can recommend?

Ron West.

[ContaxMan]

It would be great if someone was able to take us through the whole process, with examples, starting at the storyboard and going on to image selection and arranging, choice of transitions, choice of music, editing done on individual images, sync. of images to music, etc.

Maybe I sense a new PTE tutorial show here - who's prepared to accept the challenge?

[denwell]

Just what I've been suggesting here for some time now !

But there have been no takers so far. I too am interested in the whole AV process as you Roger (a fellow Yorkshireman) are .

Most of the 'shows' I see are just merely images arranged to music and don't go beyond this. Fair enough, nothing wrong there, but to take a subject of depth and some meaning and create a visual statement/entertainment or comment is what it's about, I feel.

Let's try to keep a thread ( or new forum even!) going to discuss and develop the AV topic, as well as the technicalities of the (excellent) software we all use. There seems to be a great lack of written reference around - or am I looking in the wrong places?

DEN (NE UK)

[Ronniebootwest]

Great idea, but an awful lot of work. Maybe a little to much to expect, but we can but hope!

Ron West

[Alan Lyons]

Hi all,

The crew from the UK should have a look at www.avworld.org they have a link to all the workshops and competitions around the area. If you look you will find you lot have an AV group almost on every corner.

Speaking of workshops, at a recent RPS AV worhshop in Belfast we desided to ask these very same questions. Alas for the 20 or so people there, there seemed to be 20 different ways to arrive at the same place

The shows I tend to complete are the ones that haunt you in the night and wont go away until you finish them. A lot of the production can be done just by trying to imagine how the show will look in your mind. It helps if you have this notion in your head when you shoot the images. The trick then is not to compromise

As these threads get longer we tend not to read down to keep up so perhaps we could launch a new thread now and again on related topics,

Alan

[ContaxMan]

I second your recommendation of AV World - the site's OK the magazine is excellent value for money and full of useful stuff. But let's keep this thread going and see how many modes of working we can come up with.

For myself, I can't wait until we get Alan Green at our local camera club (www.bishopthorpe-camera-club.com) next Weds (20th Oct). I just hope he brings his "Pictures at an exhibition"!

[Gérard de Lux]

I recommend warmly reading AV World magazine, full of everything related to audio-visual sequences and where the best UK authors meet !

Now, just to show that a PTE show can be produced in many different ways, we (on a French forum devoted to AV) have launched a little game this summer... The principle was very simple: 22 images were put at the disposal of the forum members; with at least 14 of these 22 pictures they had to produce a full show with sound track, not exceeding 7 MB.

The results are totally stunning and prove that even with such a set of 'strange' pictures people can produce such different shows, full of creativity. If you wish, you can download the shows and watch them, it's free ! Most of them have a text (spoken or written) in French (although there are some without text and 4 UK shows made by members of this Forum); even if you don't understand the text, you'll at least see what has been done with these quite 'difficult' pictures.

If you register on the forum, you can cast your votes for the shows presented. The software used for the forum being the same as this one (Invision Board), you shouldn't have much difficulties to find your way...

The link to this 'fun game'. There, you open every thread starting with the words 'Le montage de xxxx', and on the first post you click on the underlined words; this opens the download window. If I may, I just recommend that you do not open the threads 'Le montage de Ehrard' and 'Le montage de PBoucher' as these two shows have not been produced with PTE and may prove difficult to run. You could start by viewing the following sequences as they have been produced py UK authors : Galloise, Avpeter, Ronwill, Bucky.

Enjoy the shows !

If you want to see the original 22 pictures you can go here... and try to produce your own show with at least 14 of them... why not ?

[Maureen]

Hi

Good to hear such good reports of AV World and its web site .

When I get two minutes I'll be up-dating digital-av.co.uk too.

So many people have different ways of creating their sequences.

As has been said before here, those which are led by the idea or concept usually work better than those which start from a collection of images. But of course its not a rule .......... there are always the exceptions which are little "gems" !

Both UK magazines, AV World and AV News (which is only available to members of the RPS AV Group) have run articles about how some of the top award winning sequences were created.

I do think two important points to note if you want to improve is having contact and communication - contact with others to share skills and experience , and communication so you have good feedback about your work ....this may only be the comments from the audience or remarks from more experienced judges. However to really improve - ask about the weaknesses or faults and take note for any future sequences. (Also - don't take offence if you ask for the weak points)

Thankfully with digital AV we can exchange our sequences by e-mail and obtain some feedback even if we are alone and away from any local AV groups.

For anyone UK based, (or you could travel over for a visit - I know we do see Continental friends there) ........ there are also weekends organised around AV - the "Great Northern" at Wilmslow (Nov 27th/28th) and next Spring we'll have another digital AV weekend again at Aldbourne (April 16th /17th 2005)

Hope this helps

Maureen

[Kenneth]

What an interesting topic -so valuable and perhaps justifies a separate topic area . sorry if I get some of the technical names of forum activity wrong but on the topic itself I feel able to comment on some of the aspects so well raised already on the basis of "me" in particular. Remember we all have a "me".

To explain the above comment this is "me".

I like being called Kenneth. Thats the name my mother gave me, not Ken.

I,m an oldie, I'm 74. I discovered music at about 17 years old and this has been my visual inspiration ever since- To hear great music to me is to see great images. Not however to be overdone-see later. I,m a long standing member of a ,first cine, now video club.

At about 24 I took alpine slides but moved on to film later but do not subscribe to the view that movies are superior to AV (I have friends who do)

My view is that there are subjects which cry out for movie treatment and others which need the details inspection of a fixed image- AV. I see videos which ought to be AV and the sometimes the reverse.

Now you know me I will comment on some of the issues raised in this splendid topic.

Alan Lyons mentions rolling over in bad weather. This one I do have some reservation about. My wife (Eileen) and I went on a trip to the Westonbirt- It was a organised visit so the date was fixed and the weather was very wet.

(Westonbirt is the UK's National Arboretum-Tree garden- wonderful in Autumn)

The point to mention is that inclement weather can produce some beautiful images- you have no deep shade to contend with allthough depth of field may be problematic. (Actually late afternoon sunlight is the last thing you need because only the tops of the trees are lit and the many acers are in deep shade)

Ronnie speaks of "old film based methods so different to digital" to which I agee but there are things to be learned from each of them. One important device the film editor requires is what is termed "cutaways"- these are used to compress time and DenWell referes to "merely images arranged to music"

I have a derogatory remark covering this which is "wall to wall music" and this insills boredom in the audience as does a continuance of very simular images. In my case following yesterday, a sequence of beautiful trees fadeing one into another. What is needed is a cutaway- something associated with the main subject line but quite different too it. In my example a pile of logs- and the colour and detail were made more distinctive because they were WET.

MUSIC. My inspiration here was the film Henry 5th.

prolog comes onto stage and says something like "On your imaginary forces call"- and it is here that William Walton's wonderful score comes in. Then Prolog says "imagine you see the upreared horses.....) and the music goes up.

I call this "Music, the flux of immotion" In other words only use the music sparingly and to immotionally to fit the imagary.

I did'nt know I was going to wax so lyrical for so long and I apologise for that. You might well disagree with a lot I have mentioned but so be it.

A final point is that I cannot spell- but you have probably realised that by now.

Cheers, Kenneth.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi Kenneth,

Just a rush to defend myself The point to "Roll uver on rainy days" was aimed at the amatuer/ professional devide. We amatuers can wait for the weather / conditions we want where as the professional can be tied to a given day as you were on your trip.

I agree with what you say about Cinema v Audoi visual. The diciplines are close but the choice of medium is important to the work. I often tell poeple starting out to watch how Cinema and TV complie their works and imagine how the direction could be applied to A/V. As you say about cut aways they are a vital part of the show as are things like, shot- counter shot and mixing the type of shot used. Recognizing the skills of film editors and directors will help your A/V work, but be warned all, I now find I pay more attention to how the film was compiled than to the plot. Although with some of the plot lined offered recently this can be a major advantage

Alan

[ContaxMan]

Thanks for your contribution, Kenneth. It's given me something to think about in planning for an AV I have in mind. Despite having many images available for this already, I still intend to take fresh pictures once I've a clear idea of what I wish to convey & how it will all fit together. (By the way, it's to be about "Fountains Abbey" & I hope to do justice not merely to the beauty of the place as it is now but also to its religious significance and original foundation).

[Ronniebootwest]

This threads has certainly cought the moment! To date there have been 411 views and 19 replies. What happened to the 392 people who viewed but didn't reply I wonder. I am gratified that this topic has produced such good help and advice, particularly from Alan Lyons, Contaxman and Gerard de Lux. I want to say a special thankyou to Kenneth (not Ken) for his contribution, at 74 years of age he has a lot of experience that he can share with us.

Keep it coming folks! and thanks again.

Ronnie West

[Kenneth]

Yes Alan, sorry you thought it an atack, I,ve never knowingly attacked anybody particularly such interesting people as AV and film amateurs.

And yes I know what you mean re TV.

Comments in my household- Wife- wasn't that beautiful

Me- yes but I wouldn't have put the cut there !

nuf said, regards from kenneth.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi Kenneth,

no offence taken, I just get a bit grumpy when I roll over and then someone wakes me up

We have just finished our National Championships and there was a lot of discussion about the "glue" which holds a show together. When does a sequence shange from a slide show to a sequence? We saw every thing from slides set to the author's favourite piece of music, to sequences which toyed with our emotions, or made us think in ways we may never have done before.

I have no problem with the "slides to music" type of show, but when the author moves into the type of show which is a package all of it's own, they tend not to go back to slides to music.

It has to be the hardest idea in A/V to get across, the only way to explain it is to get the willing student to go see A/V in competition or demonstration.

Alan

[Barry Beckham]

I have only just picked up this thread and would make a few comments. The first being that I am not a professional photographer. My work is operating buses in London, which is as far as you can get from photography.

However, in my view a professional is someone who carries out their photography for a living, it does not mean they are any good at it. Some are pretty lousy in my view, lacking vision and technical ability. That doesn't seem to stop them from earning a living for years though.

In the UK the word professional has been misused in my view to indicate something good, well made. Oh yeah, apply that to the building trade, plumbing, car repairs etc etc. Find me just one of those who is reliable and good, or professional come to that.

The amateur can often do a better job than the por for one good reason. They have interest, committment and apply tender loving car to what they do.

Shooting for AV you need some vision and as Keneth has said we need to consider other subjects, linked to the one we are shooting. At a steam railway we may shoot a picture or two of a pile of coal, which on it's own is not that inspiring. add AV techniques and a steam train fading up from within the black coal and you have a whole different thing.

We are shooting digitally now, so we can shoot loads of bits and pieces that can be used as Keneth suggests. A pile of logs, close up of the bark of a tree, the pile of coal or a flake of rust on the side of an old loco. In my view that is what makes a slide show interesting.

On the quality issue, there are no tricks or special techniques, but if you are aware that camera shake is an issue for you, then fix it by using a tripod. We don't get good quality without making an effort. I put in heaps of effort.

I also think that one of the most important parts of putting together an AV or a slide show is editing the images. I would hazzard a guess that many AV workers are struggling for slides when they put their shows together and the issue should be the reverse. We should be taking out good images to make our show, not squeezing in those that probably shouldn't be in there in the first place. If you run your own slide show a dozen times, you can soon spot the weak areas. They jump out and bite you.

Someone in a postal photographic club some years ago asked me how I got my images so sharp. Well, of course I didn't and I had my share of failures like everyone else. The difference between us was that I recognised my own failures and did not show them. The other guy wanted to show everything he did and the quality wasn't up to it.

Be very critical of your own work and even then that creative mist will still cloud your judgement at times. It does to us all in varying degrees

On the subject of AV/slide shows...........well. I have seen some great ideas that fall right into the AV ideal, but the picture quality and execution was awful and the resulting show lacked appeal.

The word slide show in AV circles seems to be used sometimes as a derogatory term meaning not as thoughtful or appealing as a true AV. I don't go along with that (generally speaking) and my view is that you can make an AV of almost anything, if you get it right.

Alan Lyons has a point, be we don't all want to get bogged down into AV competitions producing AV's with deap meanings. Well, I don't anyway, but if that is your thing, then great.

The ingrediants to getting it right is also obvious, The correct choice of soundtrack, quality images, well edited and sorted and with that variation in images that maintains the interest. We could have 50 perfect landscapes, but could we watch them all in a slide show? I doubt it, they need to be broken up a bit. It would be rather like reading a newspaper that has blocks and blocks of text and no images to break it all up.

Some of the obvious things I see in shows that I download are titles that stay on the screen far too long, we only need a second or two to read them so don't bore your audience right at the start of the show and have them willing the the next image to appear.

The same is true of images in general, where they stay on screen far too long. Better to have your audience regreting the fact that the last image is disappearing into the next rather than have them longing for the next image.

I don't agree that there is a great deal of difference between the film based AV and digital. I have done both and if someone can point out the techniques that are so different please do, perhaps my memory has let me down. I seem to recal employing the same techniques with 2 projectors and used to get asked back to clubs quicker than I could make the shows, so I figured we had something right.

I do think it is much easier to produce slide shows/av now than it was with film and I don't miss the wirr, clatter of the slide projector. I also recall the AV workers who spent the entire eveing trying to keep up with the focussing of their slides as they popped in an out throughout the entire sequence. I could not be having with any of that and carefully glass mounted every slide in the sequences Carol and I made.

At the end of the day, if a real beginner threw 30 images into an automatic slide show with a bit of music, even that would be an improvement in the presentation.

Does that lot make any sense?

I doubt it

Barry B

[LumenLux]

Sure it makes good sense, as does most all that has been said so far on the topic. And you say it well.

Clearly those of us who are not into the competitive arena of AV can enjoy hearing and learning of the different levels of interest and skill. There are, as you point out, a wide range of presentations that are "worthwhile" for different reasons. For example, the Marks of Time, recently posted by Sam (cici) is superb in my view. He has wonderful photos, creatively presented, and utilizes pc technology that I barely begin to understand. On the other hand, most my own presentations probably fit into the somewhat deragatory category of "slide show to music." But I do try to make a reasonably appealing presentation for my expected audience. I love the great AV's that meet the critical eye of the UK AV community. Most of my own shows are made however to share an experience that is not soley the creative experience. I think that even if I were to have the skill and time to make the finest (judged) sequence, that might not always improve the "sharing of an experience." But I also know, that more time, patience, and effort could probably improve almost every show I do. But then again, I would still be working on my first show.

It's a wonderful world/life!