A Little Rant # 3

Hi all .. the third in a series of rants and rhetoric! It's been a little while since #2, but please bear in mind that I do this in order to raise issues, not start arguments - and my tongue is at least partly in my cheek! :aureola:

This one was prompted by someone I know who has quite a high end DSLR. He was looking at one of my pictures and commented on my differential focussing. He asked how I did it and I started to talk about an open aperture leading to a small depth of field, etc. It suddenly occurred to me that he really didn't have a clue what I was talking about. His high end camera was always set on the little green icon and, as a result, he had no idea how to use apertures, shutter speeds, ISOs, etc for creative effect. Nor did he have even much of a notion of the principles of composition. In short, he had a great camera, but knew next to nothing about the principles and science of photography.

Now, please understand that I am not knocking him (he is a friend) and I am certainly not trying to be elitist, but it made me MIGHTILY glad that I learned photography when cameras were manual with fixed focal length lenses. Why? Because it forces you to actually LEARN your art.

I appreciate that we cannot turn the clock back, and I appreciate also that quality pictures are now within the grasp of most people - in that sense, modern camera technology is a great thing. Almost everyone, these days, can buy a camera which will produce good results and that is an immense leap forward from the day when only the enthusiasts had SLRs and everyone else had an instamatic!

However, everything has its price and the price, to me, is a generation of people who can take half decent pictures without actually understanding photography. The problem comes when they feel the need to be creative - and they find they don't have the tools or the skills to pull it off. What is worse, sometimes they don't even WANT to develop those skills, because it is easier to just leave it on the green icon. Even worse to me (and I see it in these forums often enough) are those who think they can cut it in the pro arena - even though it is obvious (to me anyway) that they are severely limited in basic photographic skills. :mad2:

I know this will never happen, but wouldn't it be a good idea (I think so anyway) if you weren't allowed to buy an automatic high-tech camera UNTIL you have used a manual camera with a fixed focal length lens for 3 months?

Who knows? They might even learn about photography :D

Cheers
Mike

Amen - Let's pass a law!

Seriously, I agree -- seems there are just more and more folks who don't know what an aperture or shutter speed is, much less a hyper-focal distance or something more advanced like that, using high-end cameras.

Reminds me of when I took a Philosophy of Art class in college. One of the subjects it discussed was whether photography was art. One argument against was that someone could just mistakenly take a great photo w/o any knowledge, but they couldn't paint a masterpiece or draw an accurate figure without skill. The thing is, can you do it consistently.

I think most beginner photo classes used to make the students use Pentax K-1000 cameras, a pure manual camera with only a crude meter.

Another interesting sub-topic is how this relates to writing. When PCs got cheap and word processors became popular, they expected a flood of new writers, meaning everyone was going to be a writer. I don't know if that came about or not. There has probably been an increase in the number of submissions for book publishing, I would think (I've heard it's definitely not easy to get a book published).

-gb

When you don't know (try to remember when you didn't if possible) marketing and the other things you DO know (or think you know) lead you to believe that it's the camera, not the photographer. So it's easy to see how one can quickly conclude that a nicer camera makes better photos and assume that is all that matters. Same thing goes for all hobbies and sports.

One of the very reasons, I have not been active lately on the forum is that I am doing what you said. Learning about photography. It’s a summer class so its 16 weeks crammed into 8. That said it’s amazing what I didn't know and continue to learn. This is a BW class using all manual settings. You develop the film and make your own prints. This class is absolutely awesome. I was just a little awed when my first print came alive in the developer mix.

I had hoped to blog my experience but there is hardly time to get my class work done. I went from P&S to SLR because I could no longer get the results I wanted. My first SLR was film and I struggled learning the manual settings until I abandoned them all together. When I went digital things got better, but things really started coming together when I joined this forum. Which got me even further INTERESTED to the point I wanted to invest the time and money to learn more. Until I made the turn I was the very person you were describing.

Don't give up on your friend or others like him/me. We sometimes see the light. I do agree however with the type of P&S you can buy today you are just wasting your money on a SLR film or digital if your not going to take the time to learn how to use it beyond the auto settings.

I'm trying to learn Mike :o

Just picked up a Nikkormat EL with a 50mm f/2. Also will be starting a class soon to learn film processing and basic print making. Lately I find that the more I learn, the more I want to learn. I'm just glad I found this place as it has proved to be an invaluable learning tool :)

I'm just an amateur hobbyist and sometimes I'm overwhelmed, especially with technical talk but I litterally spend hours every day seeing what others are doing and learning how they did it. I just looked up hyper-focal distance which I pretty much knew what it meant but I do need to learn how to achieve it when I want.
Sometimes I wish the dslr cameras didn't have so many settings. I'd seriously consider one that was totally manual with a good sensor. Well, I'd probably need auto-focus too at the age of my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

When you don't know (try to remember when you didn't if possible) marketing and the other things you DO know (or think you know) lead you to believe that it's the camera, not the photographer. So it's easy to see how one can quickly conclude that a nicer camera makes better photos and assume that is all that matters. Same thing goes for all hobbies and sports.

---

Yep - just talking to my new neighbor the other night about this same thing, and the subject was cooking. There is a point that you may need to upgrade the equipment to solve a specific problem, but you'll figure out when that happens. Because I have a DSLR (and an old one at that), I've had friends and co-workers ask me to come and shoot a portrait or a kid's soccer game since my camera is so much better than theirs. Doesn't work that way...

Some people will always have top of the line stuff, and I think for a lot of them the equipment itself is the enjoyment - again, not only in photography.

Your friend only hurts himself in the long run. It reminds me of someone who lives their whole life and never learns to read. When he jumps in the pond with the big fish he won't be able to keep up.
I agree that when you start out, if you want to do it right, you should start out with a manual camera. I am just glad the with technology the way it is that the basic camera set up is still the same. I am sure a camera that can be hand held in almost any lighting situation is just over the horizon.
There are already a bunch of youngsters out there that have no clue. I am glad I found this forum. It has about the most well rounded group of photographers in the world. You can ask almost any question and have an answer in seconds.

Thanks guys for the responses so far - I thought it would strike a nerve. I'm thinking that maybe it ties in with the whole attitude to life these days which is to make things as easy and as instant as possible: why bother to learn something when the technology can do it all for you?

The problem is that it can't! To use an analogy, I could go out tomorrow and buy exactly the same golf clubs as Tiger Woods uses. But it certainly wouldn't mean I could hit a ball like he can. He has coaching, talent, ambition and, not least, tens of thousands of hours on the practice range hitting ball after ball after ball. Why should photography (or any other skill) be different?

You can have the greatest camera in the world, but you are always going to be limited unless you learn the basics and then practice. I am really glad to hear Xia_Ke and MonkeyWrench are doing exactly that.

Nor is it a process that ever ends - I still consider it a week wasted where I don't learn something new, and I hope it always remains that way.

(For the record, my friend's camera is a Nikon D80).

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GB1

I think most beginner photo classes used to make the students use Pentax K-1000 cameras, a pure manual camera with only a crude meter.

---

Yes, that's what we had on my course, also had to use the studio 6x4 view camera.
We did all our own B&W D&P in the department darkroom.
I tried the Pentax, even though it had a TTL meter I decided it wasn't much better than my Zenith with selenium cell match needle meter.

Eventually I ended up doing the coursework with a pocket Halina.
Focus by guesswork, between the lens shutter, no meter, with a short, fixed focus lens, I learned about composition as well as exposure.

Mike,

Your friend sounds exactly like my sister-in-law and her husband. They spent a week in Hawaii and never once took their XTi off the green square - even when they couldn't get the shot they wanted because the camera wouldn't let them (night luau shot that prohibited flash photography).

I'm not sure I lay the blame at their feet though. I asked them why they bought this camera and their response was partly that it was like mine (I shoot with the XT) and partly because the salesman at the store said it was what they needed. They never asked, but I would have recommended a different camera for them and the salesman should have done so as well.

I think the photographic community also shares some of blame. It seems weird that in many forums people obsess about the image quality, color rendition, megapixels, or lines of resolution of different cameras and lenses without considering the value of the shot they're taking. I've seen some incredible shots taken with pretty mediocre cameras.

I too am trying to improve my photography which is why I switched from lurking here to participating. I didn't upgrade my camera, I'm trying to upgrade my skill (however frustrating that may be:p )

PC

This reminds me of when I was in Alaska several years ago. I was at Brooks Falls at Katmai National Park, photographing brown bears catching salmon at the river and at the top of the falls. The weather was sunny and when the sun hit the water, it was extremely bright. Of course, the viewing platform was quite a distance from the bears so you couldn't help but get a good deal of the water in the photo. Of course, the water was part of the picture. I metered on the water and came up with 1/2000 of a sec. at my desired aperture. I then metered on the foliage and found a difference of 2 to 3 stops, so I compensated accordingly. I asked this guy from New York, who was a cabin mate of mine, how he was shooting the bears. He said he shoots all his pictures on automatic. This guy had 2 Canon cameras around his neck and they each had a long lens on them, along with other photo gear. He looked the part of a professional. I can guarantee you, his photos didn't appear professionally taken. Another cabin mate of mine was from St. Louis. Him and I were going to exchange our favorite photo with each other, after we got them processed. I sent him 2 of mine, but never heard from him again. I have a funny feeling that his brown bears were black bears on his photos. I do remember questioning a couple other photographers and they all said, shoot on automatic. What a shame. Some of these people have spent thousands of dollars on photo equipment and then another couple thousand to get to this awesome place, only to obtain lousy photos because they didn't take the time to learn a little about photography and their equipment. I had maybe a total of $1000 invested in my equipment and was very pleased with the results.

I just talked to another acquaintance a couple nights ago. She started taking pictures several years ago and actually had one chosen for a weather calendar. She switched to digital about a year ago by buying a Canon XT. She emailed me a couple photos of a bird she shot with her new Canon 300mm lens. They weren't bad, but they were far from sharp. But then, she did shoot handheld at 1/60 second. I asked her if she ever used the histogram. She had never heard of it. She asked me how to spell it so she could check if her camera had such a thing. In the meantime, I did a bit of research and found out that her camera does have that feature. This is just another example of a person not really even reading the user manual.

There is another forum I check out once in awhile. The photographer with some fo the sharpest and most eye pleasing photos is from a person using an advanced P & S Olympus with a 1.7 conversion lens. He has also sold more of his photos off this site than any other member.

Yes, it's more the person behind the camera than the camera itself. Don't get me wrong. I do believe, in the right hands, the better equipment, the better results in many cases, but not all.

this is the effect of a market where DSLRs and digital cameras are getting much less expensive. Many more people can afford that 30d, and while they may not know how to use it, all the ads and marketing have led them to believe that if they get it, their pictures will automatically improve. Just take nikon's foolish little "picture-town" ad campaign for example. Most of the people they gave cameras too probably didnt know a whole lot about cameras/composition or anything, and nikon could have you fooled at least part of the time with the images on the site (probably picked one out of 1000 to put up). Some of the images were probably luck. As my engineering prof said, "even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while." But what this showed the consumers is if they buy this camera, since they are just like those other people, their images will automatically improve. Granted it's very intelligent marketing, but false marketing at that. your image quality will improve from a p&s to a DSLR, but thats about it. Until you get to know the basics of photography you won't really go many places. you'll continue to be that blind squirrel, sometimes starving to death and sometimes getting food.

And yes, a lot of people simply are measurebators. They care more about the size of their lens than what they can do with it. I'll admit, I fall into this category some of the time, but I think about 90% of the people out there do as well.

But like MANY things, the camera vs. the photographer is not a black and white issue. Yes, it is the wizard and not the wand some of the times, but some of the times the camera does make a difference. But 99% of the time that a camera makes a difference is with someone who actually knows what they are doing. For example, when I started sports photography I had a 300d (digital rebel). Within a year, i grew out of it and purchased a 1d. It was killing me how the camera held me back. But in the beginning, when I didn't know anything about sports photography, a 1d probably wouldn't have made my images any better. There's a reason why they are called "entry level DSLRs"

in the end, it just sucks to see people with really crappy photos have all the nice gear while those who really create art can't afford the equipment that has the potential to improve their photos.

and though many people may think of me as one of those kids who relies on the expensive automatic equipment, I was using my mom's MF Pentax camera at about 12 years old to take pictures of my bunnies. Sure, she said "spin the knobs until that little needle is in the middle of the frame" but still... :)

As an amusing addition to this topic I was on top of the cathedral in Florence when a flash and brash guy with a 1DsMK2 and a 70-200mm L IS lens asked me how to take a picture of his girlfriend and get the background out of focus... It was almost enough to bring tears to my eyes. What a waste. I offered to swap him my Old OM1 and chuck in a 50mm f/1.8 for free...

I've interviewed a few well regarded professional photographers over the last few years and have out of personal interest asked each of them how they feel about this very topic. In fact i've yet to meet one who actually gives two hoots about the equipment they use other than for very practical reasons or historical ones.

One of this years Deutsche Borse nominees couldn't even remember what camera he used for his series of prints and believe me they are some of the finest I have ever seen anywhere ever.

A sucessful and well regarded photo-journalist (Johnathan Taylor) uses old Nikon FM3 film bodies because they are small and tough. His results are exceptional. A world renowned portrait photographer and personal favourite of mine (Hellen Van Meene) said the only camera that mattered was a plastic pink one her mother bought her as it started her interest in photography.

I agree with the whole premise of the post so far. Focus on the creative process not the tools for the job.

It's funny I have a DSLR with a lot of bells and whistles but I still shoot with it much like I did with my Yashica. All in manual. I play with the white balance some but that's about it. AF only because I can't see as well as I use to. Cameras are like cars. If you learn to drive a stick you can drive them all.

I never took formal classes in photography. I learned it all on my own reading and studying what I could on this site (I joined a couple months after getting my first SLR camera back in 2004, a Minolta SRT-102) and for the first several months I used nothing but fixed focus lens (50mm f/1.7 and a 200mm f/3.5). First four rolls, I got one good photo out of each roll.

So I agree with you, however, with the massive influx of digital cameras, why not let someone use their fancy dSLR but have them slap on a 50mm lens and run the thing fully manual (it'll save money on film development).

I guess it's all about the person. There are those who buy dSLRs because they like high tech things and *think* it'll let them take better photos, and then there are those who buy it because they really want to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Cameras are like cars. If you learn to drive a stick you can drive them all.

---

Yes, but you can get rusty. Many years ago I was really into 35mm and traveled hither and thither for good photo ops. Then my carrer changed, my income dropped dramatically and I quite travelling. I then lost interest. I just started to think a little more seriously about it a few months ago and find that it's real easy to forget about things that used to be an automatic response. Now I have to purposefully stop and think a bit more before I take a picture, and with the current cameras it's so easy to just point and shoot. But it's starting to come back, thanks to this forum.

Great thread, Mike. You're making me think again:cool: . Although I'm getting a little better, I still need to learn a lot. For instance, recently I've started going manual instead of AP or SP on my D70. I sometimes go back to the other two, but learning to master manual settings is more important the further along I get. I am also contemplating going back to square one and taking a class.
John

I think that like anything, if your really care about something, you are more likely to try
to achieve better results. When I first bought my Rebel 2000 35 mm camera, I wanted to take family pictures and some of my son in sports. When the photos of the sports didnt come out the way I wanted, I read my manuel front to back and asked a few friends some questions. I was shooting in the green box. As I learned and I started to get better, I wanted to learn more. Then I bought a digital rebel 300D, but I never shot in full auto again. I also did not shoot film again for a long time. Now after a few years of lurking, and some posting on this forum, I shoot M almost all the time. Now I read this and other forums all the time and sometimes post. I am even enrolled in an online photo class,(it is all that I have time for.) I am nowhere as good as I would like to be, but I am better than I
used to be. ( p.s. I am even shooting film again.)

I do find that after a while I find that certain f/stops work well for most things that I shoot and I tend to stick with them. And I then work the shutter speed around what f/stop I want.
I guess my brain is aperature priority.LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

I guess my brain is aperature priority.LOL

---

Oh me too!! It's the best way to control creativity in most cases.

Actually I have an event this coming Saturday which illustrates all this. Being as I live in London, I will be there on Saturday to photograph the prologue time trial of the Tour de France. The barriers will be packed with people all firing away like machine gunners on everything from cheap P & Ss to expensive DSLRs. And you can bet that a LOT of those people are going to be very disappointed with the results - simply because photographing something like that takes some thought.

The riders will be going at something like 30mph so there is a need to freeze them while, at the same time, keeping the crowds in the background a little out of focus. So: high shutter speed (1/500 or so) and openish aperture will be the order of the day. I will experiment with fill flash too if I can get a suitable place to shoot from.

Here's the really good thing. My camera (K10D) allows you to set BOTH f-stop and shutter speed, and it automatically selects the appropriate ISO. I will try that too.

Cheers
Mike

I was teaching a new photographer recently who really did want to escape the point and shoot mentality and take creative control. I made his switch his camera to manual and use the built in spot meter to find mid-tones and judge exposure.

He said he hated me for the first couple of weeks for the headaches it gave him and the shots he screwed up. He added that two months later he was really glad I'd made him start like this as he now understood what he was doing and though he had a lot to learn he felt that when he went wrong he knew why.

So yeah I tend to agree starting on manual and slowing down will help people develop. Conversely I do think the instant feedback from a digital camera is a great learning aid and can help people progress in leaps and bounds. So it should be embraced (with caution!)

I am an hobbiest at best with some really nice equipment that is a lot better then the person behind it. This I'm aware of and is why I'm always trying to suck up everything and learn. I am proud of myself and the past two years at the advances I've taken, but I know my knowledge is the bottom of the barrell. So I trudge along & keep on sucking in all my widdle brain will take in.

This will probably never be a career for me and my life is too busy at the moment to take a class. So for now I learn from you, from practicing, my manual, my Hedgecore book and that's it.

For the life of me I can't imagine having my camera and shooting auto.

Another thing that has cracked me up is a few times I've got attitude about my gear. I don't have an attitude about it and can't figure out why it's anyone else's biz.

Also I remember with my 300D JS and a few of the boys over at the sports forum were amazing with me. They'd give me something new to learn b4 each game and within a few games I was shooting manual. It's kinda embarrassing to admit now, but I will forever be grateful for those lessons and the ones I will get in the future.

This forum is amazing and the overall attitude and kindess of the members is what's kept me hangin' around. Thank you EVERYONE! Especially JS and OT. I adore those two nutters. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didache

Nor is it a process that ever ends - I still consider it a week wasted where I don't learn something new, and I hope it always remains that way.



Mike

---

Beautifully put Mike! :)

Quote:

---

So I trudge along & keep on sucking in all my widdle brain will take in.

---

You just put me in mind of one of the pro photographers who tutored me for many years. He said the fact I was questioning my ability and always feeling I wasn't quite there was what would make me good in the end. It sounds like that's where you are coming from. Always aiming a little bit higher and learning all the time.

His exact words where "it's always the ones who are never satisfied with their work always feel they should have or could have done better, who become something special..." He then laughed and said "get used to that feeling of almost but not quite being there". He advised looking back at old photos from a couple of years back to re-affirm in your head that you are improving, it's just rising standards make you feel stuck in one place. That works for me.

Anyway my impression of you from what you say in your post is you'll suprise yourself how far you'll get in the end. :)

Nice comment Mike also!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orgnoi1

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by readingr

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by livin4lax09

"even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while."

---

Funny - exactly the analogy I was thinking of when I first posted. A former co-worker used that one a lot. And I think it applies to the topic - top end gear may have a slightly better chance of creating that lucky shot. Yes, in this case it would be the camera that creates it... However, someone with technical skills and an old manual camera will have a much higher "keeper rate". Learn the technical stuff so you don't have to really think about it when you're shooting. It's like learning to speak English (or whatever your native language is). You really don't think about every word that you say when speaking, it just happens because you know it so well.

If you don't know the technical stuff very well but have some good shots, that's great! Hopefully that will inspire you to see why the shot worked, what the camera did - and how you can repeat this again in the future. This is really important.

It is a lifelong process - that's part of the fun. If you mastered everything you could learn in a month, year or a decade then what would you do?

Excellent points above about being pro. I've seen plenty of full time professionals that probably didn't know the technical stuff as well as a passionate amateur. Which one is the better photographer? Neither, really - different goals. With any business, marketing and business skills are really the #1 consideration whether you're a photographer, a plumber or anything else. And having the latest gear might be fun but it doesn't always make the best business sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

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

---

So very true.

I'm all in favour of the family grab shot it's just they often don't have a meaning for anyone other than the family of the person involved. That said they are a very valid form of photography and vertainly give tons of happiness to everyone concerned which has got to be a good thing.
Attachment 43133
I attached a snap of my own to the post. My dad at a friends wedding just after recovering from a long illness. He had a mischevious grin I know well. One of impending fun as he has an irrepressible and wild sense of humour. Now I just processed 1800 pics for a job but none have the impact for me as the one of my own father looking happy.
D

Ooops I attached two files. Still second was a lucky grab shot so I guess it still has relevance to the post. Also it's mixed lighting temps so it is not a bad illustration of daylight and halogen mixed up.

I really like the comments I've seen so far, but I'm wondering if we may be focusing a bit too much on the technical aspect and not enough on the creative? I will restate what I said earlier in that I've seen some amazing shots coming from basic point and shoot cameras. The difference is really in the ability to "see" the great shot and capture it. The ability to find a compelling subject, nicely lit and framed doesn't require a knowledge of f-stops and shutter speed, although those can certainly help capture the shot the way you want it.

Furthermore, I don't think that the creative side of photography necessarily requires considerable training for some people. Most people have been seeing things their entire lives and many recognize what looks good and what doesn't. Going to classes and practicing can certainly refine these innate skills, but some people are just better at this than others.

PC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrevailingConditions

I really like the comments I've seen so far, but I'm wondering if we may be focusing a bit too much on the technical aspect and not enough on the creative? I will restate what I said earlier in that I've seen some amazing shots coming from basic point and shoot cameras. The difference is really in the ability to "see" the great shot and capture it. The ability to find a compelling subject, nicely lit and framed doesn't require a knowledge of f-stops and shutter speed, although those can certainly help capture the shot the way you want it.

Furthermore, I don't think that the creative side of photography necessarily requires considerable training for some people. Most people have been seeing things their entire lives and many recognize what looks good and what doesn't. Going to classes and practicing can certainly refine these innate skills, but some people are just better at this than others.

PC

---

Very true. I really beleive thats why everyones creative eye is so different. I wrote about it a bit a while ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

You just put me in mind of one of the pro photographers who tutored me for many years. He said the fact I was questioning my ability and always feeling I wasn't quite there was what would make me good in the end. It sounds like that's where you are coming from. Always aiming a little bit higher and learning all the time.

His exact words where "it's always the ones who are never satisfied with their work always feel they should have or could have done better, who become something special..." He then laughed and said "get used to that feeling of almost but not quite being there". He advised looking back at old photos from a couple of years back to re-affirm in your head that you are improving, it's just rising standards make you feel stuck in one place. That works for me.

Anyway my impression of you from what you say in your post is you'll suprise yourself how far you'll get in the end. :)

---

Thank you so much. You were lucky to be tutored by such a person.

I've done just what your pro told you to do. Look back at old pics..... Which reminds me. I need to delete some out of my gallery. :D

Thanks again for your comments. I find them very inspiring.