The lack of knowledge in new photographers

[Lee Shively]

"What should The lack of knowledge in new photographers be known about global warming?"

Probably it's due to my blowing hot air, ranting in the original post.

Robin Williams said about cocaine that it was God's way of telling you that you have too much money. Maybe it's the same with the current crop of new cameras. Lots of new photographers buying lots of expensive cameras and their equipment outpaces their photographic abilities so they rely more on the tools in software.

I'm just throwing out thoughts for possible discussion. I've enjoyed reading the responses so far--even Andy's global warming gaff.

 

[Antje]

Hardly. Jerry Uelsmann creates cool pictures.

And what is scnr?

SCNR = Sorry, could not resist.

I find his pictures totally over the top. But that, of course, is just my personal opinion.

Antje

 

[rml]

Today I was sitting in Union Square in San Francisco and a fellow was giving an outdoor class to a group of youngsters armed with digital cameras. He said: "All the great photographers would go out and shoot 400 or 500 images and then come back and be happy with 3 or 4 of them."

No doubt he was talking about Gary Winogrand.

 

[rml]

1) Lust for instant results - instant being more important than results

That's nothing new. When did we first see polaroids? Not yetsreday, it was. And why the development of faster and faster film emulsions and dev'ing and fixing? Perhaps because (many if not most) humans like to use their precious time effectively and efficiently? I don't see many people do laundry by hand anymore. Neither do I see many people riding a horse and carriage to work anymore.

2) Lack of curiosity about how things work -- "where's the pushbutton?"

It was replaced with a curiosity about how things look, about creativity, about the result instead of the process and the technicalities behind the machine.

3) Low expectations in general (related to #1)

IMO this is nonsense. People expect more of their lives these days. A 9-to-5 job isn't the end station most strive for. Mere HS education neither. And a steady family with 2 kids, a dog, a white picket fence and a yard neither. People aren't satisfied with simply reading a book in the evening and going to bed when the sun sets. They want excitement, entertainment and be able to "dance the night away". And it must be good too, or else they'll go elsewhere. People expect more and more, and expect to pay the lowest possible price for it, to get it with the least possible effort, and gain the most profit and benefit from it. It's been like that forever.

 

[Lee Shively]

"People expect more of their lives these days. A 9-to-5 job isn't the end station most strive for. Mere HS education neither. And a steady family with 2 kids, a dog, a white picket fence and a yard neither. People aren't satisfied with simply reading a book in the evening and going to bed when the sun sets. They want excitement, entertainment and be able to "dance the night away". And it must be good too, or else they'll go elsewhere. People expect more and more, and expect to pay the lowest possible price for it, to get it with the least possible effort, and gain the most profit and benefit from it. It's been like that forever."

Man, that is sad. The saddest part about it is how disappointed people become when they have such high expectations and eventually face life's realities. It's no wonder that some of the most prescribed medications today are anti-depressants.

 

[rml]

Man, that is sad. The saddest part about it is how disappointed people become when they have such high expectations and eventually face life's realities. It's no wonder that some of the most prescribed medications today are anti-depressants.

In the USA perhaps. Maybe you should look a little further. Then you'll see that scores of people do have such high expectations for themselves and their children, and go for it. I have relatives who live on less than $50 per month in a place where you'll need at least double that to live a decent life. And yet they find time, money and resources to send their children to vocational school, even higher education. They work all day, do every menial job, save all their money, and yet make a decent home. All because they have high expectations. They're motivated to make something of their lives.

And I see the same drive and motivation in much of today's youth. Young people of immigrant stock breaking conventions and going for higher education. Others taking risks and setting up businesses for themselves, making use of all the technology and facilities available, and building a little empire for themselves.Yet others following their dreams and are highly focused on their careers (as artists, professionals, etc).

People, most of them old sour geezers, judge todays younger generation only by the few rotten apples and fail to see how many people are really going for it.Open your eyes, and smell the roses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"...People expect more and more, and expect to pay the lowest possible price for it, to get it with the least possible effort..."

Man, that is sad. The saddest part about it is how disappointed people become when they have such high expectations and eventually face life's realities. It's no wonder that some of the most prescribed medications today are anti-depressants.

Dear Lee,

I couldn't agree more. For many years, I have lived by the motto, "Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord."

Most are willing to take. Few are willing to pay for it, in money, time or effort. Nor are they willing to accept that you can't have EVERYTHING, because there aren't enough hours in the day or dollars in the bank to fit it all in. Then it's time for the antidepressants, or religion, or APUG, or alcohol, or something else to kill the pain of the unsatisfactory reality they have chosen.

RML: your point is rather different. Lee and I are not talking about people working to better themselves. We are talking about people who expect everything on a plate, at no real cost. At least that's how I read his post: I apologize to Lee if I am misreading him.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Chan Tran]

Back to the original poster's comment. May be it's true that new photographer's knowledge level is low but simply by shooting RAW isn't the indication. I frequent this forum so I still use film but if I shoot digital I would certainly shoot RAW almost all of the time if not all the time. I would certainly have to set the right ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focus and framing right to get a good pic. But I would let the building of an image out of raw data to be done in my computer which has faster CPU, more memory, possibly more sotisphicated algorithm and also has much more time to do the job. I can also decide on the white balance setting at this time.

 

[Lee Shively]

Roger, you read me perfectly.

rml, I understand where you're coming from. My family was poor. They had higher expectations but they knew how to be happy. I'm sure their expectations motivated me and influenced me more than anything else in life.

Chan, it's not that people use RAW or JPEG or Photoshop or whatever, it's that people ONLY seem to know how to use the computer and not understand how to use the camera. But it's true that photography is just a distraction to the vast majority so they only consider themselves playing with their toys. Those of us who get serious about photography (I conclude that's just about everyone who visits this website) may use other methods of making pictures but we probably care enough to learn good techniques.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Tape Over the LCD Screen

Today I was sitting in Union Square in San Francisco and a fellow was giving an outdoor class to a group of youngsters armed with digital cameras. He said: "All the great photographers would go out and shoot 400 or 500 images and then come back and be happy with 3 or 4 of them." I almost had to say something but held myself. With that bit of questionable wisdom he unleased his charges out into the city snapping away at everything in sight, not seeing, not engaging the subject, until their collective memory cards were exhausted.

I give you the future.

And thank God for APUG!

George

One useful technique for teaching students is to have them tape over, or otherwise cover up, the LCD viewscreen on their electronic camera. The purpose for this is to force them to use the optical viewfinder, and then at a later time review the resulting images (just like we had to do during the film era of photography).

Often having an interval of time between the taking of the image and its viewing helps one to learn from one's mistakes much faster than electronic preview prior to exposure. In fact, this is one useful feature I find indispensable in electronic point-n-shoot cameras: having an optical viewfinder, and the ability to turn off or disable the LCD display.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...it's not that people use RAW or JPEG or Photoshop or whatever, it's that people ONLY seem to know how to use the computer and not understand how to use the camera.

Dear Lee,

A wonderful observation I heard recently (I forget from whom). I paraphrase:

A lot of people rely on their automatic cameras to do everything, because they can't do it themselves. Then, when their automatic camera can't do something, they complain, but they don't know WHY the camera can't do it, because they can't do it themselves...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Morca007]

Objection

As a young photographer, one who takes the time to learn, I take umbrage with your assertion.

In general, I have encountered far less knowledge in older, supposedly more experienced photographers. The wedding photographer who just sets his camera on P and lets his flash do the work, the local photojournalist without the least sense of composition, the teacher who has no idea who Cartier-Bresson was, the list goes on. This is not to say that I do not also know a lot of people who have just gotten a new camera, film or digital, and will not hesitate to go snap as many pictures as they can without the faintest idea of what they are doing.

The problem lies not in young people specifically, or digital, but in people in general. By and large people are content to do the bare minimum in order to achieve mediocrity. And, of course, they're fine with that, because all they want are snapshots.
But those who really are interested in producing art, those with passion, are always able to seek out sources, and to learn.

To blame photoshop, or digital cameras for the lack of knowledge, or creativity is a strawman. They are also excellent learning tools. I, for one, would never have become enamored of photography if it were not for the intial freedom I had while I used my fathers dSLR. I was able to take as many pictures as I wanted, without paying for processing, and I used these to learn how to expose properly without wasting film.

So please, stop damning those darn young fools, and start teaching them. I know that I would be appreciative to have a source other than the internet to learn from.

 

[davetravis]

Morca,
Welcome to APUG!
I hope you will join in other discussions about film, paper, and chemistry.
DT

 

[Jim Noel]

Well said Morca.

I learned photography in the 30's by being where photographers were, listening to them, asking questions, reading and experimenting.
Now 70 years later I am a professor of photography and always look forward to each new class in the hope that there will be someone like yourself in the class who is really there only to learn. Most of the time I do have such students.

However I must say that too many today,regardless of age, enter class thinking there is nothing they can learn and their only desire is to use the facilities of the college which they do not have at home. Most of these can soon be converted with good teacher skills, but not all.

When cameras are sold with slogans indicating they will make the buyers a good photographer too many people believe the advertising.
Someone has said,"Buy a camera-you are a photographer. Buy a piano and you own a piano."

 

[Roger Hicks]

As a young photographer, one who takes the time to learn, I take umbrage with your assertion.

I didn't see it as a question of age, but rather as one of how recently they've taken up photography, and how seriously they take it. It becomes ever easier to ignore the technicalities while using quite complex cameras: many of todays DSLR users would have been using a box camera 50 years ago, but today they think they're taking photography seriously (equating it with buying an expensive camera) when they are making no effort to understand anything. Remember too: 'there's no fool like an old fool'.

Cheers,

Roger (who got his first serious camera 40 years ago -- www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[ilya1963]

I am under my dark cloth in east village (NY NY) ,I hear somebody's footsteps coming towards me , the footsteps stop and for about two minutes I don't hear anything , not untill after I get out for some air that I see that there is a young man with a long hair and what appears to be pijamas is standidg next to me , in the past all this proceeded by a conversation of sort , but this time the only thing that came out of him was - WHY?

My answer : It's my tool, it works for me

He smiled and said : I understand
_______________________________
My after thought

I believe that one has to know the past in order to understand the future , but I also believe that you CAN NOT MAKE someone want to learn , they MUST WANT to learn

Tools SHOULD be passed on and not forgotten, but what MUST be passed on is passion no matter the tools

ILYA

 

[mabman]

Just to chime in, I'm under 30 and decided last year to get into film to learn something, and hopefully someday take shots half as good as some of the greats.

My main complaint about digital is the exponential growth of really bad pictures - a similar argument can be made for P&S film cameras, but what I'm seeing (at least locally) is that with this digital flood the attitude is starting to spill over into (supposedly) professional photographers - eg, a "wedding photographer" who buys a Rebel XTi, hangs out a shingle, is cheap, takes poor pictures (poorly exposed, "racoon eyes", random compositions, etc), but everyone's happy with the pictures - even though these are the "forever" pics, supposedly professionally done. If increasing numbers of people are happy with the low quality, ultimately I see it dragging down the value of "good" professional photography.

Actually, in one area I see digital P&S as an advantage over film P&S (other than convenience) - Fuji's fairly recent "face detection" feature on their "fd"-badged cameras, which in theory can detect a face or faces in a scene and properly focus and expose for them. I personally haven't used one with that feature, but if it works then hopefully we can start seeing a reduction in lovely photos of properly exposed white tablecloths at wedding receptions

 

[reub2000]

I didn't see it as a question of age, but rather as one of how recently they've taken up photography, and how seriously they take it. It becomes ever easier to ignore the technicalities while using quite complex cameras: many of todays DSLR users would have been using a box camera 50 years ago, but today they think they're taking photography seriously (equating it with buying an expensive camera) when they are making no effort to understand anything. Remember too: 'there's no fool like an old fool'.

Cheers,

Roger (who got his first serious camera 40 years ago -- www.rogerandfrances.com)

It's not about experiance. I got serious with photography less than 2 years ago. It's mostly about someone's interest in photography. Certainly the equipment is not the problem.

To be truthful, understanding of exposure and focus is secondary to creativity, composition, and a good eye. My photo teacher would often say that I was being too technical.

 

[aldevo]

CO2 causing global warming is a lot of nonsense. The Earth is warming because the Sun is warmer at the moment. See The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I would humbly suggest that anybody who believes this alternative explanation be dispatched to the surface of Old Sol to take a temperature reading firsthand...

Switching political mode off now...

 

[aldevo]

Dear Lee,

I couldn't agree more. For many years, I have lived by the motto, "Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord."

Most are willing to take. Few are willing to pay for it, in money, time or effort. Nor are they willing to accept that you can't have EVERYTHING, because there aren't enough hours in the day or dollars in the bank to fit it all in. Then it's time for the antidepressants, or religion, or APUG, or alcohol, or something else to kill the pain of the unsatisfactory reality they have chosen.

RML: your point is rather different. Lee and I are not talking about people working to better themselves. We are talking about people who expect everything on a plate, at no real cost. At least that's how I read his post: I apologize to Lee if I am misreading him.

Cheers,

Roger

Interesting post, Roger.

What you are saying is certainly true. But let's look at this from a slightly different viewpoint.

Most people who pick up a camera want an easy way to capture images of their friends, family, and pets at a particular moment and an easy way of sharing those images. I believe these ambitions cover about 99.5% of the photographs ever taken by 99% of all photographers. Moreover, I suspect that this has been true for about the last 100 years. Kodak was running adverts as far back as about 1910 with the motto "You push the button, we do the rest". Little has changed except what that button is attached to.

We may look upon that with a certain contempt, but to argue otherwise would make us guilty of an exaggerated sense of self-importance. But then that's probably a pre-requisite to becoming an effective photographer in the idiom that most of us would approve of...

 

[Bob Carnie]

This is a very good point. My mother had a Kodak box camera and took thousands of images with it . These are my memories of my very young youth and I do appreciate having them today. She would be in the 99% group that used a camera for pure pleasure without any thought of composition , longevity, lighting ratio's and chemical formulas.
The 1% of photographers that pick a camera*digital or traditional* *young or old* that really want to explore photography should be encouraged to do so and forget the tools used, but look for light and the moment.

Interesting post, Roger.

What you are saying is certainly true. But let's look at this from a slightly different viewpoint.

Most people who pick up a camera want an easy way to capture images of their friends, family, and pets at a particular moment and an easy way of sharing those images. I believe these ambitions cover about 99.5% of the photographs ever taken by 99% of all photographers. Moreover, I suspect that this has been true for about the last 100 years. Kodak was running adverts as far back as about 1910 with the motto "You push the button, we do the rest". Little has changed except what that button is attached to.

We may look upon that with a certain contempt, but to argue otherwise would make us guilty of an exaggerated sense of self-importance. But then that's probably a pre-requisite to becoming an effective photographer in the idiom that most of us would approve of...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Most people who pick up a camera want an easy way to capture images of their friends, family, and pets at a particular moment and an easy way of sharing those images. I believe these ambitions cover about 99.5% of the photographs ever taken by 99% of all photographers. Moreover, I suspect that this has been true for about the last 100 years. Kodak was running adverts as far back as about 1910 with the motto "You push the button, we do the rest". Little has changed except what that button is attached to.

I agree completely. All I meant was that many who are still box-camera users in spirit now think of themselves as 'real' photographers because their camera can do so much more than a box camera (take pictures in poor light, 'freeze action with fast shutter speeds, give very long shutter speeds...) and because it has far more buttons, switches and controls than a box camera. Their knowledge has not really increased much compared with the box-camera user -- they camera is doing it all for them -- but they think that they know a lot more than they do, and that this is all they need to know.

Needless to say, they know (and think) even less about the aesthetic side, but then, they don't separate that from buying the camera. "That's a nice picture. You must have a very good camera."

Cheers,

Riger

 

[Drew B.]

I cringe every time I see this thread. Lets end this thread! Just the title which has been near the top of the charts for too long would surely be a hindrence to some newcomer joining apug. They would say, well, they don't want newcomers on this site...

 

[removed account4]

As a young photographer, one who takes the time to learn, I take umbrage with your assertion.

In general, I have encountered far less knowledge in older, supposedly more experienced photographers. The wedding photographer who just sets his camera on P and lets his flash do the work, the local photojournalist without the least sense of composition, the teacher who has no idea who Cartier-Bresson was, the list goes on. This is not to say that I do not also know a lot of people who have just gotten a new camera, film or digital, and will not hesitate to go snap as many pictures as they can without the faintest idea of what they are doing.

The problem lies not in young people specifically, or digital, but in people in general. By and large people are content to do the bare minimum in order to achieve mediocrity. And, of course, they're fine with that, because all they want are snapshots.
But those who really are interested in producing art, those with passion, are always able to seek out sources, and to learn.

To blame photoshop, or digital cameras for the lack of knowledge, or creativity is a strawman. They are also excellent learning tools. I, for one, would never have become enamored of photography if it were not for the intial freedom I had while I used my fathers dSLR. I was able to take as many pictures as I wanted, without paying for processing, and I used these to learn how to expose properly without wasting film.

So please, stop damning those darn young fools, and start teaching them. I know that I would be appreciative to have a source other than the internet to learn from.

thanks, you rock !

 

[roteague]

As a young photographer, one who takes the time to learn, I take umbrage with your assertion.

In general, I have encountered far less knowledge in older, supposedly more experienced photographers. The wedding photographer who just sets his camera on P and lets his flash do the work, the local photojournalist without the least sense of composition, the teacher who has no idea who Cartier-Bresson was, the list goes on. This is not to say that I do not also know a lot of people who have just gotten a new camera, film or digital, and will not hesitate to go snap as many pictures as they can without the faintest idea of what they are doing.

The problem lies not in young people specifically, or digital, but in people in general. By and large people are content to do the bare minimum in order to achieve mediocrity. And, of course, they're fine with that, because all they want are snapshots.
But those who really are interested in producing art, those with passion, are always able to seek out sources, and to learn.

To blame photoshop, or digital cameras for the lack of knowledge, or creativity is a strawman. They are also excellent learning tools. I, for one, would never have become enamored of photography if it were not for the intial freedom I had while I used my fathers dSLR. I was able to take as many pictures as I wanted, without paying for processing, and I used these to learn how to expose properly without wasting film.

I'll have to disagree.

It is precisely because of the knowledge of how exposure works, that many professionals can work on automatic mode.

The problem with Photoshop and digital cameras is they tend to reinforce bad methodologies. The attitude becomes to blaze away taking thousands of images, without really thinking. Learning tools yes, but not good ones. They encourage action without thought. Let's just fix it later in Photoshop becomes the thought, which too often leads to leaving it the way it is (Photoshop becoming too much effort).

Rather than taking unbridge, you would be better served listening to those with expericence.