Photography takes a long time to learn

Pete Millson · Feb 13, 2008

Hi everyone.

Just some thoughts.

I've been learning photography since 1992 and only last year (2007) did I feel I was beginning to really understand it. I don't mean the craft, though goodness knows that took long enough, I just mean that I feel I've finally stepped onto 'rung 1' of the ladder. For years when I first started I would often read about photographing 'what you feel' and 'how you see the world' but I was forever concentrating on the craft - this lens is good for this, that technique is good for that etc. How on earth could I photograph what I felt when my mind was on exposure or focus or whatever it may be. All I wanted to say really was that photography is something that takes a lifetime to learn and it only ever gets better.

Be good to hear if anyone else has had any 'penny dropping' moments.

PETE.

panastasia · Feb 13, 2008

Pete Millson said:
Hi everyone.

Just some thoughts.

I've been learning photography since 1992 and only last year (2007) did I feel I was beginning to really understand it. I don't mean the craft, though goodness knows that took long enough, I just mean that I feel I've finally stepped onto 'rung 1' of the ladder. For years when I first started I would often read about photographing 'what you feel' and 'how you see the world' but I was forever concentrating on the craft - this lens is good for this, that technique is good for that etc. How on earth could I photograph what I felt when my mind was on exposure or focus or whatever it may be. All I wanted to say really was that photography is something that takes a lifetime to learn and it only ever gets better.

Be good to hear if anyone else has had any 'penny dropping' moments.

PETE.

Pete,

It's multifaceted, unlike many other crafts, and not easily defined beyond the physical output. For me, I like doing it and that's all that matters.

I've mastered woodworking and believe I could also master stoneworking along the lines of sculpturing. I think it's in my Italian blood.

For the real Masters, working the craft is always lifelong. Unfortunately for me it's getting late, my life is getting short.

P.S. welcome to the APUG forum!

Regards,
Paul

André E.C. · Feb 13, 2008

It´s a lifetime path!

Cheers

André

Uhner · Feb 13, 2008

Pete Millson said:
Be good to hear if anyone else has had any 'penny dropping' moments.

PETE.

Nah, still struggling I’m afraid. But I am enjoying it. It makes me go and experience places I probably wouldn’t otherwise.

Being on a photo excursion also makes it easier for me to, at least for the moment, forget about work, the article I’m writing and the books I’m reading… etcetera…

Photography helps me to visually experience the moment instead of just living inside my own head, which I pretty much do otherwise - at least when I’m not engaged in a conversation.

mooseontheloose · Feb 13, 2008

Hi Pete

I feel very similar -- although I think there are many different kinds of 'ladders' within the field of photography. Although I've been taking pictures for quite a while, it's not until I got my first SLR that I really began to feel like a photographer. I had a goal at that time -- to know that each and every shot I took turned out well because I made the decisions, not the camera. It was a real eye-opener as to what I really didn't know. ;-) Over the years I've become much better -- I'm not anti-digital, but I often smirk (inside) at all the people I see chimping in order to see if their shot turned out alright. I don't need to do that (not that I could) -- I know it's good. Over the years my goal, photographically speaking, was to be a really good travel photographer. And I think I've gotten to a place where I'm happy to be, although there's a lot that could be improved. But....

But -- in taking up black and white photography (as opposed to shooting slides) that's when the penny really dropped. I've realized that there are two new ladders I need to climb. First - I've spent more time in the darkroom over these past few months than I did in a year of darkroom classes in Toronto, and I've realized that I'm not such a good photographer after all. Or that maybe I need a better camera system (for what I want to achieve). And that for all of my darkroom work, I really don't know anything at all, other than I've got a lot of problem negatives that are either the result of user error (me - I'm not that keen on the zone system) or developer error (not me). There's so much I want to know! I look at the work of people who have been printing for years, decades even, and that's what I want to be doing. Now. If I was wealthy enough to be printing full-time that's what I would be doing.

My second problem is that I've realized that I need to become more of a 'what you feel' or 'how you see the world' photographer, because the majority of my photos don't reflect anything about me at all. I've realized that I'm not really happy with my photos now that I'm spending hours with them in the darkroom. I have moments when I feel really down and unmotivated (but then maybe I'm being overly critical), but the positive side of working with mediocre negs is it forces you to be a much better photographer at the camera and developing end of things. So I'm not going to bemoan my lack of technique in the past, just will try to make it better from now on.

You know, for years, I was always told -- if you are going to do black and white, you need to do it yourself (developing and printing). Yeah, yeah -- who has time, money, and space for all of that? Well, I'm converted. Now that I'm really doing it all myself, I can't believe all the years and film and time I've wasted by not doing it myself! That's probably the most useful 'a-ha' moment I've ever had. And now my tiny kitchen is filled with paper developing trays, accordion bottles, chemicals, and whatnot; and half of my tiney fridge is full of film (which will only get worse in the coming weeks when I receive the brickloads of films and boxes of paper I've ordered!). And on it goes...

rachelle

jslabovitz · Feb 13, 2008

Someone once said that to really learn to photograph, you must take 1000 photographs. It's not important what camera, lens, film/sensor, or even exactly what you photograph. It's not important that you print, upload, or publish the photographs.

This effort helps to "photograph out" all those visual clichés we have stored up in our mind's eye. It also helps in just practicing the craft, getting used to the mechanics, so those become either second nature or just not as important.

In the days when film was king, this was a real effort and expense. Now with digital, the task is a little easier -- but I think a bit different, as it's so easy to take a dozen shots with little thought. So I guess I'd revise the original idea as "take 1000 photographs, each with intention."

Ed Sukach · Feb 13, 2008

I think, over the years, that I have learned a few things about photography ... but the more I learn, the more I realize how I continue to underestimate the extent of the field. The more learn, the more I understand how much more there IS to be learned - and the ratio is not 1:1 - more like 1:Infinity.
Extrapolating from where I am now ... I don't WANT to "know it all" ... that would necessarily mean no new worlds left to conquer - no new, bright flashes of discovery - no captured "mistakes" ...
I have a fairly good idea when I will give up photography - the day when everything turns out as planned - when everything is absolutely predictable, when there are no surprises, good or bad.

Recently, my eyes have been opened to a new and beautiful world. It is actually the same world as it has ever been... but my perspective has changed, and I have realized how much I have been missing.

Learning ... certainly a noble endeavor - but those who SEE most completely, most efficiently, see through the eyes of a child - pure and simple.

Uhner · Feb 13, 2008

Ed Sukach said:
I have a fairly good idea when I will give up photography - the day when everything turns out as planned - when everything is absolutely predictable, when there are no surprises, good or bad.

I totally agree.

wfe · Feb 13, 2008

It is truly a life long journey IMO and one never stops learning and growing. The light went on for me after about five years of serious dedication to photography when I discoverd that it is people that I need to be photographing. Now the fire is burning at full force. I have a few photos of other people that I consider self portraits because I see myself in them. For me this is pure magic.

I also believe that it takes steady and consistent practice. I've dedicated many hours and countless frames shooting and learning. I do 2-3 hour sessions almost once a week and sometimes twice a week shooting people.

Cheers,
Bill

panastasia · Feb 13, 2008

wfe said:
The light went on for me after about five years of serious dedication to photography when I discoverd that it is people that I need to be photographing...
Cheers,
Bill

Bill,

I agree, photos w/people are more interesting. When I began photographing, I shot color slides in a foreign country, mostly scenic stuff. When showing others my photos from the first few rolls, a question came up: "where are the people"? I've been including them whenever possible ever since, especially children, mostly my own. An early discovery.

Paul

Andy K · Feb 13, 2008

I've been practicing photography since about 1975... still learning.

Alden · Feb 13, 2008

mooseontheloose said:
My second problem is that I've realized that I need to become more of a 'what you feel' or 'how you see the world' photographer, because the majority of my photos don't reflect anything about me at all.

I second that one Moose.

For all the work I've done professionally, and personally, I still feel very little connection with these images. I truly am amazed sometimes when I ponder this. Where am I in all this stuff? It's something I feel a need to seriously address at this point. The experiences of working with photography are mostly well spent times, and I am grateful for the interaction and weaving of myself into this astounding world. And maybe that's enough. Maybe letting the self disappear into the experience is, if you're not seeking recognition anyway, a noble path. And that's the other side of that coin. Burn yourself up completely in the doing and leave no trace of yourself in the image vs. all this emphasis on personal statements and style, which if you think about it is really more commodification than art. Besides that the viewer will project themselves into your image anyway, good or bad. When I hear critics talk about Atget or Weston or Van Gogh or Mozart, I just wanna scream. It's such bull most of the time.

Technically speaking I have been through 30 b&w developers and now use D-76. Exposure is not too much for the shadows, and not too little. It's funny how all the hoops I've jumped through with exposure systems have come down to, incident meter reading without a hand over it, and one with the hand over it. Then decide what your subject would look best with.
Simplify all that you can, so you can forget it.

Practice wise, the most important thing is to work alot, concentrate on a given subject, and be willing to make revisions. Also, respect your subject. Who or whatever it is. Reverence yeilds revelation. It's an incredible privilege to be able to stop and ponder the world the way we do.

Christopher Walrath · Feb 13, 2008

Hopefully I've got a good 40-50 years of learning to go.

Jon King · Feb 13, 2008

Alden said:
Simplify all that you can, so you can forget it.

I've seen that feeling expressed before, but not so concisely before.

I know you mean to forget about it, not forget it, but you were able to simplify the sentence a bit more and still make it work

I've reached that point with a few of my photographic skills, still working on getting the rest there.

Black Dog · Feb 13, 2008

TJC quotes an old Native American saying in one of his books along the lines of ' to the man with no knowledge, rocks are just rocks, trees are just trees and sky just sky. To the man with some knowledge, rocks are no longer just rocks, trees no longer just trees and sky no longer just sky. But to the man with full knowledge, trees are once again just trees, rocks just rocks and sky just sky'. I feel I'm just starting to really get somewhere after more than 25 years!

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2008

I have been studying it since about 1950 in all of its phases. I can only say that the more I know, the more I know that I don't know.

PE

vdonovan · Feb 13, 2008

My own personal moment of growth came last year while on a week-long trip in the Sierra. I was lining up my ten millionth Ansel Adams-style tree-and-granite shot and suddenly thought "why am I doing this?". I don't mean to put down anyone who shoots landscapes but I realized suddenly that it was safe photography for me. Walking up to a rock and taking a photo wasn't challenging personally.

I've since turned to portraits, which are forcing me to deal with people, trying to draw something out of them and out of myself.

Anscojohn · Feb 13, 2008

Pete Millson said:
Hi everyone.

Just some thoughts.

Be good to hear if anyone else has had any 'penny dropping' moments.

*****
I had been shooting with the same film and developer combo, the same enlarger, paper, and paper developer for almost a year. I do not remember the exact photograph, but I remember that just after I released the shutter, I said to myself "Ill have to burn down that upper right corner when I print it." This sort of intuitive realization, I think, is what Edward Weston meant when he wrote about "Seeing Photographically."

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Jim Noel · Feb 13, 2008

Yes - a life long journey. My journey through the world of photography began about 1937, so it has been a long one which continues today.

IloveTLRs · Feb 13, 2008

I sometimes think a P&S is best for me. Some of my favorite photos have come from cameras where I've done nothing but push the button. For example the Olympus XA.

waileong · Feb 13, 2008

Well, I started seriously only in 2002, when I bought my first Leica. Then I was like all other serious amateurs:

a. Always reading the latest lens/camera/tripod/film reviews, wondering which lens was better than which, etc. and worrying that what I had was not good enough;

b. Buying and selling a lot of equipment as a result of the above agonising;

c. Trying all kinds of different films to get different looks;

d. Shooting a lot of mostly uninteresting photographs that lacked the ability to arrest attention, even if they were technically very sharp.

In the last year, I've begun to mellow a lot more. As far as equipment goes, I'm not bothered about lpm any more. Although I have the latest Asph lenses, I actually find I use my older lenses more, simply because they are smaller and easier to take with me. Of course, I do use my latest lenses when I need to, eg in low light, but frankly, I feel that the quality of a photo is more in the subject and composition than in their absolute sharpness. For instance, I've taken portraits using the older lenses which are clearly not as sharp and I prefer them because they look more real.

In the darkroom, I've been doing my own printing for 3 years now, and it's last week that I've understood how to control exposure and contrast. Sometimes it takes a lot of time for stuff to sink in.

The final part is that my back office can't keep up with my front office. I've tons of negs I haven't even contact printed. Guess what I'll be doing in my old age?

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 13, 2008

I think the first time the penny dropped for me was when I realized that I was able to think in terms of images. Most of the creative stuff I had done so far was writing, and for some reason I was never interested that much in painting, although I loved looking at drawings, etchings, and similar works.

It was a Polaroid by Walker Evans (may they both rest in peace) that made me click. The picture was very plain: a little covered balcony lit from the side by the sun. I've always liked very simple looking photographs, not sure why, even when I had no idea how to read them.

Then after a certain time, something clicked. It's called twofoldness: when you look at a picture, it is a 2D object, but you infer that the scene it depicts is in 3D. Twofoldness is our ability to switch back and forth between the two. It clicked because I realized that the picture had meaning in both 2D and 3D. In 2D, the picture was a balanced square composition, radiating perfectly from the centre. In 3D, it was a scene, a moment and a place.

That's when I understood what composition was about. It was the first element of picture-making that was drilled into my head, and that had nothing to do with camera, lens, or any other equipment.

So that's when I had my first "aha" moment. I'm not necessarily that good at composition, but I am so proud of having understood something about it, because it's not just notional: it's physical. You feel composition in your gut, not with a ruler.

I understand now more and more that understanding pictures is just a first step. What is really difficult, is to make these pictures talk, to design them so that they are meaningful, that they have a theme and content. It's really hard because it's not about taking a written statement and translating it into a picture. It's more like a jazz solo: it makes amazing sense, just not linguistic sense!

David H. Bebbington · Feb 13, 2008

Alden said:
... When I hear critics talk about Atget or Weston or Van Gogh or Mozart, I just wanna scream. It's such bull most of the time.

Technically speaking I have been through 30 b&w developers and now use D-76. ...

Without making this too personal, this is an example of someone in a prison of their own making. You are half-way to a revelation insofar as you have seen that technique alone does not produce art, but you have erected emotional barriers which are keeping you from making art. Some critics' writings are BS, but most have at least something to say which you could learn from.

This is a crucial point in artistic expression - the point where you realize that technique, while important, is totally secondary to emotional expression. I always think there's an interesting parallel with other art forms, such as acting. In the theater, actors accept without question that their task is to produce art within a certain time frame (by opening night), that technique is important (learning lines, working out stage moves, taking first decisions on characterization) but that artistic expression can BEGIN only AFTER the technical questions have been resolved. Contrast this with photography, which is more technological and therefore appeals to a certain extent to technologists,and you find people, mainly amateurs, who claim that art is undefinable and unpredictable and cannot be organized and who stay on the technical level forever.

As regards learning photography, there is one thing to be thankful for - 50 or more years ago, people's first pictures almost always consisted of tiny images of what they were trying to photograph surrounded by huge areas of extraneous background. Thanks to TV, we now almost all grow up seeing like cameras, and with the level of technical automation now avaialble, at least with 35mm and digital cameras, producing passable pictures is very easy. The challenge is to be great when almost anyone can be good!

Regards,

David

Phillip P. Dimor · Feb 14, 2008

I feel very similarly w/ Mr. David B. I spent so much effort and time focusing on raw technique. At some point you may realize that photography is really very simple but that creating an image that you feel to be 'perfect' is very, very difficult. I know that sometimes I wish I could take a picture without thinking so much.

jd callow · Feb 14, 2008

"This is a crucial point in artistic expression - the point where you realize that technique, while important, is totally secondary to emotional expression."

There is no crucial point or epiphany. You struggle to 'speak' as an artist, and use the 'voice' you have. You build the voice you hone the message. Technique and message are symbiotic.

You speak as if these two items are mutually exclusive and yet I'd argue -- and it is purely my opinion -- that the artistic paradigm is the attempt to balance the mundane and often physical with the esoteric and/or often emotional. The artist says, 'I need to express this thing.' The thing tends to be art for the artist when successfully 'expressed' by virtue of his/her technical facility in his/her chosen medium (spoken, sung, carved, depicted in pigment, captured on film or printed to paper). It is art for the first time for the artist whilst it is being created. Conversely the 'expressed' work -- the print, song, painting etc.. -- for the viewer is only art if the creator's technique was up to the task required by the item being expressed. It can be art the 2nd time for the artist as he/she switches from creator to viewer, but often not. Expression depends upon technique, otherwise the expression won't come through and technique is hollow on its own.

Meanwhile, there are no technical absolutes. You don't get done with the technical and focus solely on the message -- At least not in sculpture, painting, or illustration, and I suspect that writing, music are the same. Photography has a technical end which for some can offer huge creative power and for others TXP and D76 is all they will ever need. It may be that they slow their growth in one area for a time, but I'm hard pressed to believe that the message can grow much as the technique lay stagnant.

To the OP, I think it can be a life long pursuit.

Photography takes a long time to learn

Pete Millson

panastasia

André E.C.

Uhner

mooseontheloose

jslabovitz

Ed Sukach

Uhner

wfe

panastasia

Andy K

Alden

Christopher Walrath

Jon King

Black Dog

Photo Engineer

vdonovan

Anscojohn

Jim Noel

IloveTLRs

waileong

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

David H. Bebbington

Phillip P. Dimor

jd callow

Moderator

Photography takes a long time to learn

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency