A Little Rant # 3

[DEvianT]

You actually have to LEARN photography to shoot?...

Interesting question really. On the one hand I'd say yes in order to have creative control. On the other hand I'd say no! As soon as you understand the technical put it to one side and focus on the creation of the image itself. End result is all!

An observation I'd make on a 'pro' vs. an amateur is there seem to be two stark differences:

1/. The 'pro' is not shooting a record or snapshot they have a goal, a target, a brief or a creative intent so their approach is very different and not as random.
2/. The amateur is perfectly capable of getting a good photograph but probably can't explain how come that shot was good and other shots at same time and place went wrong. The 'pro' can most likely repeat the process and produce a near identical shot again and again.

I would also add it's a whole different game when you have to produce a large series of shots with the same look or a narative. That's when you start to see many people flounder.
Just My Opinion...

[Didache]

May I add a little caveat to my original thoughts. I would hate for anyone reading this to feel they were somehow sub-standard as photographers because they didn't know as much of the science as others. That would certainly not be my intention.

Let me take my golf analogy again: if someone wanted to take up golf, they would probably get some lessons, or at least play a few rounds with a friend who knew how to play. That way, at least, the new player would learn to hold the club properly, learn some of the etiquette, and so on. He/she would probably practice a bit too - swinging at a plastic ball in the back garden, etc. Nobody taking up golf (or most sports) would think it at all unreasonable that there would be a learning process involved.

My point here is that photography is no different. There ARE some things to learn if someone wants to get the most out of that shiny new camera and start producing images that people admire and that they are proud of.

Does the learning process mean that the brand new golfer can't enjoy themselves? Of course not - they can still have a good time, even if they can't break 150, never mind breaking par!

Similarly, a photographer who doesn't know a lot of the science can still enjoy themselves with their hobby, and that's great. No problem! The beauty of our hobby is that people can enjoy themselves, no matter what level they are at.

My real point was that the technology can lead a lot of people to assume that photography doesn't have a learning curve. It is THAT which I am ranting about.

Mike

[Orgnoi1]

Interesting question really. On the one hand I'd say yes in order to have creative control.........

Actually it was just a joke... mainly to subscribe to the thread...LOL

Now as to my actual opinion...

The photography of old while remnant is not really the same as today... let me explain why...

With electronics as they are it allowed any Tom, Dick, or Harriet to get a *good* digital camera and with basic knowledge of how to turn it on or off they can get some decent shots.. No its really nothing to do with photography as a technical art, but their end result can be almost the same as any pros out there...

I am going to say that my opinion is fairly opposite of DEviaNTs as being a pro myself I have seen plenty of people who I would consider a "pro" meaning they work in the field of photography and thats where partial or most of their income comes from. That does not however mean they know a lick of photography really. I have seen people who work for LARGE newspapers that didnt know the difference between Tv and Av but what they DO know if how to market themselves and probably a bit of knowledge about the item they are shooting. I dont personally consider it as black and white, amatuer and pro... as most people who buy a camera arent amatuers... they are just people who want to take pictures of their kids.. the vacation they went on... or whatever... they really arent using the camera as much more then a tool for their own personal satisfaction...and theres nothing really wrong with that.

A hobbiest or amatuer are the people who I consider the most passionate about the *art* of photography. Generally they are the ones that seem to know quite a bit about the art... with or without schooling. They are the ones that will spend days on end to get that one perfect shot.. and wont give up till they get it. A pro is in the "hit it or quit it" mode usually and if they dont get the shot they move on to the next best item that can make them cash.

Now none of what I said is hard fast rule of course... I work as a pro and suppliment my income with it... but I am also extremely passionate about some forms of photography...

[readingr]

Interesting question really. On the one hand I'd say yes in order to have creative control. On the other hand I'd say no! As soon as you understand the technical put it to one side and focus on the creation of the image itself. End result is all!

An observation I'd make on a 'pro' vs. an amateur is there seem to be two stark differences:

1/. The 'pro' is not shooting a record or snapshot they have a goal, a target, a brief or a creative intent so their approach is very different and not as random.
2/. The amateur is perfectly capable of getting a good photograph but probably can't explain how come that shot was good and other shots at same time and place went wrong. The 'pro' can most likely repeat the process and produce a near identical shot again and again.

I would also add it's a whole different game when you have to produce a large series of shots with the same look or a narative. That's when you start to see many people flounder.
Just My Opinion...

So there must be an inbetween mode where you have a photo in mind and then take the photo and instantly know you got it wrong without looking at the result - is that the definition of semi-pro?:mad2:

I find my self more and more in the above category where I look at a shot which I have in my mind and take it and then instantly re-frame to get it right - or change settings on the camera to get the lighting I want. Still leads to a load of wasted shots which are binned but normally end up with what was in my head.

Roger

[DEvianT]

So there must be an inbetween mode where you have a photo in mind and then take the photo and instantly know you got it wrong without looking at the result - is that the definition of semi-pro?:mad2:

I find my self more and more in the above category where I look at a shot which I have in my mind and take it and then instantly re-frame to get it right - or change settings on the camera to get the lighting I want. Still leads to a load of wasted shots which are binned but normally end up with what was in my head.

Roger

I think there are loads of shades of grey between my very simplistic definition of pro and amateur. I was trying to stimulate a constructive discussion around that area really.

I liked the observation that an amateur may well be working out of a love and passion for photography and creativity and may produce 'professional' shots all the time. It's very true. I have also noted it's often the shots done by intuition rather than cold technicality that are the real barnstormers.

Cliche as it is I adore Henri Cartier Bresson's work especially some of his technical howlers.

[Glasstream15]

My father was a "Pro". He put food on our table by shooting weddings and babies. He was also determined that my brother and I would NOT be "Professional Photographers". And we're not. My brother flys for a major airline and I have retired as a Quality Engineer in aerospace.

My first camera was, like many, a box Brownie. In 6th grade a friend and I built our on darkroom using lawn mowing money and obsolete and out of date equipment and supplies that we could pick up for maybe sweeping the shop. We learned a lod Mike was lucky enough to be able to afford, well his father bought him, a used Leica 1d I think it was. I had a Petri. The only meters were external handheld and focus was rangefinder. But, with practice and time you could get good shots just judging exposure by eye. And we learned, as teenagers, about DOF and about shutter speeds and how slow you could go handheld. And we shot a lot of Panatomic X film and a lot of Tri-X. We bought most of our film in bulk rolls and spooled it ourselves. Cheaper.

We knew ALL the tech aspects of "photography" as teenagers and I still do. But photography to me today is mostly a means to capture records of events. Sometimes I will switch to manual settings. Actually, more & more since I got my XT. But mostly snapshots of freinds and family.

I bought the XT because next week will be the first family reunion in about 10 years and probably the last I will ever be around for. So I essentially wanted the best possible "snapshots" I could get. But, when I have a chance to do so, it will come off the "green square" and I will ry to do justice do recording our family event.

But still today, photography is not something that I really intend to take seriously. I enjoy, and freinds and family enjoy the records of the events and the records allow the memories to be a little fuller.

[another view]

I have also noted it's often the shots done by intuition rather than cold technicality that are the real barnstormers.

So very true.