5+1 Tips for Good Photographs

I am getting ready to teach photography again this coming semester, and I also have some friends with new cameras. So I have been reviewing my basic rules for taking good photos, whether by smartphone or a more elaborate camera.

Here are tips, plus a bonus, to help YOU take better photos (and the rules apply to video photography, also).


1. Tell a story 

Your photo will have the most impact when it tells a story.  What are the people doing? What is happening around them?

2. Don't pose (or at least don't let your shot look posed)

Posed pictures are boring.  Better to take candid or impromptu photos that feel more spontaneous.

3. Plan your time and place

Often being at the right place and time makes the difference between a boring photo and a powerful one.  At events, figure out what the most interesting things are and figure out what the right angle to capture them is.  Wait patiently for just the right moment.

For outdoor photographs, time of day can also be important.  Early morning and late afternoon light is warmer and less harsh.   But also, avoid facing the sun while you shoot.  This will increase the odds of ending up with a silhouette (unless that is what you want).  It is often still a matter of finding just the right moment.

4. Take lots of shots and choose the best.

"One-and-done" is not the way to get great photographs.  Take a photo, look at it, and analyze "how could it be better?"  Then take another shot that makes it better.  Do this from several different angles, or in ways that capture several different elements of what is going on.

5. Don't center everything in your photo! 

This is the biggie, and is a principal you see across many realms of art. It is called the Rule of Thirds.  You mentally divide your shot into thirds, both horizontally and vertically.  Then you use these lines, in two complimentary ways.

One: The MAIN thing you are depicting should be at one of the intersecting points of those imaginary lines.  The rest of the shot should provide balance. Don't put everything right in the middle.

Two: Often, there will be a logical dividing line in a photo.  Outdoors, it might be a horizon line, or the edge of a tall building.  Indoors, it might be more than one person's face forming a sort of line.  Put those actual dividing lines along one of your imaginary thirds lines in a way that provides balance.  If people are facing left, put them at the RIGHT vertical line.  If you have a horizon line, decide what is more important, the sky or the land and choose your imaginary line accordingly.

Combining these two elements...matching horizontal and vertical lines in your shot with the imaginary lines of thirds, and putting your prime subject at an intersection of the lines...will give you strong, memorable photos.

6. Bonus: For cameras that are not in smartphones -- explore the menus and learn the settings, such as the various focus and exposure options.  Often the fully automated mode will not produce the best photos for advanced photographers.


There is a lot more to being a great photographer, but these 5+1 tips (rules) will help you stay on the right track.

The Star Wars Cycle of Storytelling

I've been surprised to learn that there are people who are quite unhappy with
The Last Jedi. One of the complaints is that none of the original heroes remain.

This article makes the point clearly that it is painful for fans to have heroes age and become secondary characters. There are also complaints that the film did not meet the expectations of fans, that we didn't really find out about Rey's family, didn't find out where Snoke came from, and many other complaints about details.

On the other hand, there were complaints that The Force Awakens was too much of a retread of A New Hope.

I see Star Wars as recurring cycle of tried and true storytelling, and The Last Jedi fits right in.

I have written before about "A Heroes Journey", the standard formula that pervades ancient Western myth, identified decades ago by Joseph Campbell, and which we see so often in stories today. A young reluctant hero is called to a journey that takes him out of his ordinary experience and discovers a villain or threat to which he has a hidden connection.  He has companions who help him as he is tested, and an older mentor.  The older mentor is "taken away", and the young hero most stand up to the villain alone, eventually triumphing and returning to his ordinary life.  (Note: In the ancient myths studied by Campbell, the hero was always male.)

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings are all basically this same "Hero's Journey" story.

In The Force Awakens, most of the focus was on the young hero, Rey, and her companions.  Han Solo became her older mentor, and he was "taken away."  In The Last Jedi, more of the focus is on Luke, now Rey's older mentor. In due course, he also leaves the stage, in a way that is similar to how Obi Wan left in A New Hope.

We know that Leia will not return for the next film, and other possible older mentors, like Vice Admiral Holdo, are also gone. In perfect keeping with Campbell, it is time for the young reluctant hero to stand up and directly confront evil.

We also know that the older mentors have histories in which they were likely the younger heroes.  We got the history of Obi Wan in episodes 1, 2 & 3.  The Fantastic Beasts movies will tell us more about Dumbledore's youthful adventures.  Gandalf implied past adventures with the family of Bilbo.

So in a story spanning decades, it is not surprising to see changing roles.

When we look at Star Wars as a recurring cycle of storytelling, which I am convinced is how the writers and producers see it, it allows us to project things we might see in the final movie of the trilogy:

1.  Luke will return in astral form.  Han might also.

2.  Rey WILL be revealed to have some sort of hidden family connection to Ben, in spite of what will turn out to be Ben's misdirection about her heritage. This also means a hidden connection to all of the Skywalker and maybe Solo ancestry. Whatever the answer is will explain the symbolism of Rey seeing multiple versions of herself, receding into the distance, in the mirror.

3.  Ben will have some sort of redemption and atonement, as Anakin did before him.  I still think that he wants to complete his grandfather's work by "balancing the force."  Nobody is clear what defines this "balance" but he presumably has his own ideas about it. 

Of course, these points leave out a wealth of detail, but they are the recurring plot elements to be expected from Star Wars as a Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey.  Remember, however, that as Campbell also said, it is not what is similar that defines a story.  Creativity is in innovation, i.e. how the formula is used in a way that feels new and fresh.

Why go to the Moon?

Going back to the Moon will be great -- if it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.

The Trump administration announced an initiative today to partner with private industry to return Americans to the Moon, and continue on to Mars.

I like the idea...if it's done right. But it could easily be done wrong.

First a confession

The starry-eyed idealist in me believes that we MUST establish a population of humans off the Earth, because there are SO many things that could destroy the Earth, or at least destroy civilization. I have thought this since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of the Cold War, and my ideas have been strengthened by the credible threats of climate change, big rocks from space, and even things like the Yellowstone super-volcano, not to mention epidemics, political stupidity, and other threats.

For the human race to insure that it will survive for the very long term, we have to distribute ourselves, in a way that is sustainable, on many different worlds, and eventually many different star systems.

Now back to today

Based on my logic above, having a significant human presence on the Moon, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would be a good thing. 

Having a significant human presence on MARS, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would also be a good thing, and possibly easier to sustain, in the long run, than the Moon.

There are other worlds in our solar system with lots of water and the possibility of sustainable colonies, as well.

Why return to the Moon now?

The biggest reason to go to the Moon now is to begin developing the technology we need to do the rest of this stuff.

A lander that can set down on Mars would also likely be able to set down on the Moon, which would be a good way to test it. The deep space outpost around the Moon, previously announced, can be the precursor of the orbit-to-orbit "mother ship" that takes people and landers to Mars, and maybe farther out.  We need to develop these things, step by step.

But we also need to start thinking not just in terms of reusable space vehicles, but also vehicles that can do lots of stuff.  Like the space opera fiction of the 1950s, our next generation of craft needs to be flexible enough to go many different places and land on many different worlds.

That's expensive, isn't it?

Yes, but the reusability brings the cost down a lot.  Partnering with private industry brings the cost down a lot.  Stable goals that do not get changed every time there is a new president would make a BIG difference. 

And remember -- every dollar spent on space is spent ON EARTH.  All the R&D and construction contracts go to companies and institutions on Earth which employ people, and have payrolls.  It would require a big push for STEM education, which would benefit lots of other technology programs and companies, also.  Face it, without the Apollo Program, you probably wouldn't have smartphones.

Is there a down side?

There is some concern that the Trump administration is pushing NASA to the Moon and Mars as a way of deemphasizing Earth resources programs and climate research.  It may be, and those programs will need protection in Congress. 

But going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is still a wise investment in the future of the human species.

Did Spock attend Starfleet Academy?

I have been reviewing what we learned about Spock and
Sarek from the first half of the Star Trek Discovery season, and now I am wondering whether Spock actually attended Starfleet Academy.

I have always assumed that he did but it has never been explicitly stated (except in the JJ Abrams movies, which are a different timeline).

Here's what leads me to this conclusion:

We know that Michael Burnham graduated from the Vulcan Academy of Science circa 2249 or 2250.

The episode Lethe tells us that Sarek secretly chose to keep her from joining the Vulcan Expeditionary Group (i.e. the Vulcan space service) in a deal to allow Spock to join instead.  The Vulcan snobs didn't want two human/half-human people in their space service and gave Sarek the choice of one or the other.  Spock, of course, did not take advantage of this opportunity and joined Starfleet instead. 

Sarek turned around and found Michael a post on the USS Shenzhou.  Within two years, Spock was a lieutenant on Enterprise during the Talos IV incident.  He prosumably could not have attended the academy AND risen to the rank of lieutenant in that time.

That implies that neither of them attended Starfleet Academy, because they got the equivalent of their college education on Vulcan, and that they are about the same age.  He may even be a couple of years younger than her.

Note that Sarek is revealed in Discovery to have sought a position for Spock in the Vulcan Expeditionary Group, however in the Original Series episode Journey to Babel we were told that Sarek was upset with Spock for 18 years because Sarek wanted Spock to join the Vulcan Science Academy, which is presumably something different.

I had always assumed that a) Spock was quite a bit older than he appeared, several years older than Kirk, and that he did attend Starfleet Academy.

Now it appears that he did not, which resolves questions about Spock's statements in The Wrath of Khan that he never took the Kobyashi Maru test.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about Star Trek has been the way the over 700 TV series episodes and the movies actually hung together in their continuity. 

I wonder if the Discovery writers KNEW what they were establishing on Star Trek continuity with respect to Spock and the Academy?