The lack of knowledge in new photographers

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm of the opinion that whether you know what you're doing or not, if you're able to get an interesting or thought provoking photograph, or provoke an emotional response from whatever your process is, it doesn't matter how you got there.
Usually, however, it seems that a photographer that really cares about the subject matter is also one that is well versed in the technique required to get to the good results.
I think it's too drastic to generalize about photographers with a certain degree of experience. I do however agree with the notion that many consumers settle for mediocrity in photography. Why shouldn't they, most other things around today are mediocre. The whole aspect of real craftsmanship has been lost, trained away by commercialism and efficiency. It's really sad to see.
- Thomas

 

[Vonder]

Monkeys take great pictures

Seriously. A full memory card means you have at least one or two good shots. Even a monkey can do that. Or even a whole townfull of humans in Appalachia, according to Nikon.

Give a monkey a camera and he'll shoot for a day. Teach a monkey HOW to use a camera and he'll throw poo at you for trying.

 

[Morca007]

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

So, are you saying they should, or that they have become lazy in some manner?

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).

Again, the argument that digital allows people to shoot without thinking, is the same as that used against every new camera technology which has allowed us to shoot more, it's not unique. And thanks to the instant gratification and speed of digital, I was able to learn proper exposure much faster than by using film. Experimentation unbridled by financial and temporal, limitation.
As to Photoshop, yes, it is an enabler to lazy photographers. But, as with anything, people who care will still get it right the first time.

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

I'd rather listen to those with talent.

 

[DrPablo]

So, are you saying they should, or that they have become lazy in some manner?

No, they've become efficient. When I first got into film I would go around metering everything for every shot. Now, especially when shooting E-6 roll film, I tend to take a single incident reading when I know I'll be shooting under constant lighting. And then I can just set my exposure settings and not worry about it at all for every shot I take under that lighting.

And thanks to the instant gratification and speed of digital, I was able to learn proper exposure much faster than by using film. Experimentation unbridled by financial and temporal, limitation.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I would have never developed photography as a hobby at all, let alone film photography, had I not been able to spend a couple years rapidly learning and assimilating photography with my DSLR. It so happens that it spurred my interest in a different direction, towards LF and MF photography. But my DSLR was an exceptionally rapid learning tool. Though like all learning tools, you have to want to learn for them to make a difference.

As to Photoshop, yes, it is an enabler to lazy photographers. But, as with anything, people who care will still get it right the first time.
I'd rather listen to those with talent.

I think people realize the difference, though, given enough time. I'm just as guilty of trying to atone for my exposure/development errors with film via my printing techniques.

What bothers me more with Photoshop is the indiscretion and/or carelesseness people have when using it. Oversharpening, oversaturating, screwing up levels and curves, etc, destroy an image, whereas an underprocessed image can still be acceptable. I also don't care for some of the new aesthetic styles that have been borne of Photoshop -- but that's ok, I produce the type of pictures I like and I don't care if people want to create artificially shallow DOF or transplanted skies using PS. If they make a good image, then good for them. If they make a bad image, then it doesn't matter how they got there.

 

[Morca007]

No, they've become efficient. When I first got into film I would go around metering everything for every shot. Now, especially when shooting E-6 roll film, I tend to take a single incident reading when I know I'll be shooting under constant lighting. And then I can just set my exposure settings and not worry about it at all for every shot I take under that lighting.

And that's a great way to shoot, if it's under constant lighting, and you don't have different DOF/Blur needs for each shot. I'm thinking more of people who never take their camera off of Automatic, and just shoot.

Though like all learning tools, you have to want to learn for them to make a difference.

Exactly my meaning.

What bothers me more with Photoshop is the indiscretion and/or carelesseness people have when using it...If they make a good image, then good for them. If they make a bad image, then it doesn't matter how they got there.

Again, couldn't agree more.

To me, it's not that people in general are more guilty of any of these problems we point out, but that the dissemination of capable gear has reached an apex, along with a concurrent rise in the ability for people to share images. It's not that there's a greater percentage of crap, but that the sample size has increased.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not that there's a greater percentage of crap, but that the sample size has increased.

Superb analysis!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vonder]

And alludes to photography no longer being "Art"

Superb analysis!

Cheers,

R.

If Photography ever was "art" (whatever THAT means) it was because there was some rarity to the great images. Look at your own negative collection. Go back 20 years, or 40 years, and see how many truly excellent images you made. I won't speak for everyone but I made a lot of crap, so I truly treasure those few images that came out great and carefully preserved their negatives or slides. The rest are lost and probably, rightfully so.

I personally never think of any photograph valuable above its sentimental value, but the hordes of good digital images certainly don't meet the rarity test.

 

[jd callow]

Value might benefit from rarety, but I do not think art requires it.

 

[roteague]

So, are you saying they should, or that they have become lazy in some manner?

It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with having a good understanding of exposure. Modern matrix meters are VERY good, and will work under most situations. But they are not infallible. Many of the pros you have watched have learned the limitations of these systems, and how to get around them. For example, my Nikons all have a "AE-L" button; this allows me to set the exposure in a way the meter won't be fooled, the to shift (while holding the button) to my intended composition before pressing the shutter.

Again, the argument that digital allows people to shoot without thinking, is the same as that used against every new camera technology which has allowed us to shoot more, it's not unique. And thanks to the instant gratification and speed of digital, I was able to learn proper exposure much faster than by using film. Experimentation unbridled by financial and temporal, limitation.

Nonsense, there has never been a technology that has allowed indiscriminate shooting, without regards to cost. Digital, while it does have its positive points, is not a good tool for learning exposure (unless you only plan on shooting digital) - because of its rather limited range. But there is a lot more to photography than learning proper exposure; there is composition. The shotgun approach to taking pictures will reinforce whatever you are learning. Good composition is learned by observing, reflecting and paying attention - it doesn't come from experimentation or blazing away, shooting hundreds of images.

As to Photoshop, yes, it is an enabler to lazy photographers. But, as with anything, people who care will still get it right the first time.
I'd rather listen to those with talent.

Then I suspect APUG is the wrong place for you. Every person who has responded to this thread has a lot of talent and experience.

 

[Morca007]

It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with having a good understanding of exposure. Modern matrix meters are VERY good, and will work under most situations. But they are not infallible. Many of the pros you have watched have learned the limitations of these systems, and how to get around them. For example, my Nikons all have a "AE-L" button; this allows me to set the exposure in a way the meter won't be fooled, the to shift (while holding the button) to my intended composition before pressing the shutter.

'Will work' is a rather weak term. There is no such thing as a perfect overall exposure, since it encompasses far more than getting an evenly distirbuted light over the scene. Unless you are making concious decisions about each element of the photograph, you are letting the camera do the thinking. Using the meter reading as a guide is different than simply using it as a substitute.

Nonsense, there has never been a technology that has allowed indiscriminate shooting, without regards to cost. Digital, while it does have its positive points, is not a good tool for learning exposure (unless you only plan on shooting digital) - because of its rather limited range. But there is a lot more to photography than learning proper exposure; there is composition. The shotgun approach to taking pictures will reinforce whatever you are learning. Good composition is learned by observing, reflecting and paying attention - it doesn't come from experimentation or blazing away, shooting hundreds of images.

Perhaps not completely without regard to cost, but every time there has been a technology that has made it easier to shoot more, and cheaper, photographs, the same argument is applied.

For it's value as a learning tool, I can only say that it was invaluable to me. My understanding of a camera's funtions, and their resultant impact on images is influenced heavily by the experience I had with a dSLR. The difference is nowhere near as vast as many people like to make it out to be.

As to composition, of course it doesn't come solely from experimentation, but it can benefit from it. I learn composition from every source I can, painting, other people's photographs, books, and my own experience. The crux isn't the number of frames, but the critical eye applied to it.

Then I suspect APUG is the wrong place for you. Every person who has responded to this thread has a lot of talent and experience.

:rolleyes:
Missing the point, I see.

 

[wheelygirl]

Into the fray. . .

Every person who has responded to this thread has a lot of talent and experience.

I, personally, do not have much experience, and sorta 'iffy' on the talent part; however, I do know one thing: I want to learn to take excellent photos!
And the only way I can do this is by way of a 40-year-old camera and film.

Any d____l camera is way too expensive for me, being on a limited income. So, I am proud to say that I will be attending my first formal class in b&w photography, on August 20th. OOOHHHH, boy, look out World--wheelygirl may snapping a shot of ya!

 

[roteague]

The difference is nowhere near as vast as many people like to make it out to be.

As to composition, of course it doesn't come solely from experimentation, but it can benefit from it. I learn composition from every source I can, painting, other people's photographs, books, and my own experience. The crux isn't the number of frames, but the critical eye applied to it.
:rolleyes:
Missing the point, I see.

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people here, even those reponding have DSLRs - I do as well.

I don't think I'm missing anything, since you have basically dismissed anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[roteague]

'Will work' is a rather weak term.

I'm a large format landscape photographer, but when I use my Nikon F5, it stays on "A" program. I know very well where the meter will fail and where it won't.

 

[bjorke]

Shooting a lot is always good.

My friend Dead Link Removed used to hang out with Jousef Koudelka. The guy used to pace around in the morning shooting even if there was nothing to shoot, just to keep his chops active.

Every shot you make can be a learning and refining experience. THAT INCLUDES SHOTGUNNING IT as anyone working at Sports Illustrated will be happy to tell you. It's about your approach, not the technology.

Anyone who tells you different is just puffing themselves up. This is the same self-important attitude that used to get W. Eugene Smith fired from jobs because he liked using one of the cheap medium-format cameras instead of a proper 4x5

 

[roteague]

And the only way I can do this is by way of a 40-year-old camera and film.

What kind of camera do you use? I've forgotten.

 

[DrPablo]

Digital, while it does have its positive points, is not a good tool for learning exposure (unless you only plan on shooting digital) - because of its rather limited range.

Don't a lot of photography courses begin with slide film specifically because of its limited range? It forces you to get the exposure right. And I think Velvia for one has a considerably narrower range than most digital cameras.

 

[copake_ham]

....

Originally Posted by roteague:

Nonsense, there has never been a technology that has allowed indiscriminate shooting, without regards to cost. Digital, while it does have its positive points, is not a good tool for learning exposure (unless you only plan on shooting digital) - because of its rather limited range. But there is a lot more to photography than learning proper exposure; there is composition. The shotgun approach to taking pictures will reinforce whatever you are learning. Good composition is learned by observing, reflecting and paying attention - it doesn't come from experimentation or blazing away, shooting hundreds of images.


Perhaps not completely without regard to cost, but every time there has been a technology that has made it easier to shoot more, and cheaper, photographs, the same argument is applied.

For it's value as a learning tool, I can only say that it was invaluable to me. My understanding of a camera's funtions, and their resultant impact on images is influenced heavily by the experience I had with a dSLR. The difference is nowhere near as vast as many people like to make it out to be.

As to composition, of course it doesn't come solely from experimentation, but it can benefit from it. I learn composition from every source I can, painting, other people's photographs, books, and my own experience. The crux isn't the number of frames, but the critical eye applied to it.
:rolleyes:
Missing the point, I see.

I just spent a weekend at a family wedding event. Since I wasn't the "hired pro" I was able to combine my shooting b/w film and film and also digital.

I used my Cosina R2S with both my Nikkor 5.0cm/f1.4 and Cosina 85mm/f3.5. Shot Ilford HP-5+ in that one.

I also employed one of my F-100's using my Nikkor 35-70mm/f2.8 and (cheap and light) Quantary 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5. Shot both some Fuji Superia 400 and Kodak Porta 160.

And I further included the D-70 (which "shared" the lenses with the F-100).

Though I used the D-70 only about 20% of the time - I shot about the same number of frames with it!

Robert's point is right on. The DSLR allows me to machine gun shoot - with the "comfort" of knowing that at least some of the shots will be okay.

BTW: I watched the "pro" through both the wedding ceremony and the reception. She must have shot (no exaggeration) at least 750 "images".

Figure a 10% "hit" rate. That earns her fee - the customer is satisfied - and all is well.

Except, was it photography she performed - or "imaging"? :confused:

Oh, BTW, as to composition, Robert is a highly-regarded photog here. You might want to check out the APUG home page and the "featured portfolio". Robert's "composition" is a valuable learning tool.

 

[eddym]

But my DSLR was an exceptionally rapid learning tool. Though like all learning tools, you have to want to learn for them to make a difference.

Interesting... I've had my D200 for about a year and am still learning it. It's one of the SLOWEST "learning tools" I've ever owned! And I can assure you, I wanted to learn it!
My "learning tool" was a Rolleiflex TLR. It taught me a helluvalot more than the D200 ever has, and a lot quicker!

 

[Morca007]

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people here, even those reponding have DSLRs - I do as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely missing the meaning here. What does your ownership of a dSLR have to do with anything? I know many of you do. This isn't a dismissive response, I just don't quite understand this post.

I don't think I'm missing anything, since you have basically dismissed anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I've done no such thing, I made a flip remark implying that talent is to be more regarded than time served. I never said anything to dismiss you, or anyone else, implicitly, or explicitly.

copake_ham- I checked out his gallery and website after his first post responding to me, I enjoyed it. No one is doubting his status or talent.

 

[DrPablo]

Interesting... I've had my D200 for about a year and am still learning it. It's one of the SLOWEST "learning tools" I've ever owned! And I can assure you, I wanted to learn it!
My "learning tool" was a Rolleiflex TLR. It taught me a helluvalot more than the D200 ever has, and a lot quicker!

Well, you need the right tool at the right time, and that's quite individual.

Digital holds little allure for me right now, but I'm hardly alone in crediting it for creating a hobby that I'd never have otherwise. And with instant feedback and free experimentation, I was able to learn extremely quickly.

I can envision the opposite scenario. I mean I never really understood what a camera was until I got my first view camera. That is a much different type of learning tool, and extremely effective. But sometimes you just need to take a lot of pictures and experiment until the camera becomes a sort of extension of yourself.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I keep hearing the words, digital allows us to shoot like crazy and then edit back to 10% for a completed assignment/job.
Two things in my past come to mind that I think goes against this thinking.
1.When I graduated from photo college my first job was at a wedding studio.
My first day shooting solo on a wedding I was going to *suprise* my boss by overshooting and being creative, I brought two extra propacks along that was over the film I was given and used up all the film. All finished rolls were then put into a bundle and sent off to the lab and processed and proofed. Before the next wedding day we all had to look at the film with our boss. He almost fired me when he realized how much film I shot without capturing the *look* that was required for his shop.
He taught me to control my trigger finger and spend more time composing and getting the right expression rather than random shooting.
2.Does anyone here remember the National Geographic image of the flying bat poised to swallow a frog on a lilly pad?
I cannot imagine how much time/genius/energy/patience that went into that shot.
That one image is stlll in my mind and if there ever was a case for creativity over equipment that would be it.
I wish I could direct you all to the image , but I can't *maybe someone here could* but that image could just as easily been shot on a digital dslr, or a manual film camera , it would be strong either way.
This thread goes on and on , *so am I* but I think Lees original point about young photographers and their digital cameras and lack of knowlege , pisses off those of us who are new to photography , because I know thirst for knowlege was and is strong in me, as well some of the experienced folks here know he is right about learning the basics.
This is an endless pissing contest as Drew points out, but maybe our energys would be better served by working on tutorials for this site which spells out all the basics and different theorys of photography from light, developement, colour theory. We could satisfy all our needs.
The old farts here can take credit for passing on their knowlege,
and the young newbies can feed from the vast knowlege base provided.

From day one joining APUG , I have seen this possibility and I believe it would be the most enduring and benificial part of belonging to this niche community.

 

[Steve Smith]

My first day shooting solo on a wedding I was going to *suprise* my boss by overshooting and being creative, I brought two extra propacks along that was over the film I was given and used up all the film. All finished rolls were then put into a bundle and sent off to the lab and processed and proofed. Before the next wedding day we all had to look at the film with our boss. He almost fired me when he realized how much film I shot.

For his first wedding assignment, my father was given ten glass plates and told not to waste any. A few years later, he was allowed a whole roll of 120 film!

Steve.

 

[Lee Shively]

Many years ago, when I bought a 4x5, I had big plans to shoot a lot of transparencies and become a famous nature photographer (right!). I bought a lot of packages of mylar film preservers to hold the thousands of brilliant photos I was going to make. By the time some SOB stole that camera a few years later, I still had not opened the more than 3-4 of those packages. Color transparency film and processing meant about $3.00 (at that time) for every photo I made--good or bad. I couldn't afford to shoot bad pictures at that price.

Shooting a lot of exposures does work for a lot of photographers. If it works--it works. Can't argue with it at all. Others only make exposures when the subject interests them and the light is right. That can work too.

 

[bdial]

Here's a scary thought, start a "photo business" with a digi P&S...

From Craigslist...
I have a Canon A640 PowerShot with an additional high resolution Flash used once in the house.. I have the box, manual. I am starting a photo business and didnt get the right camera..

At least they have the good sense to figure out that something else may be more appropriate.

 

[Early Riser]

Here's a scary thought, start a "photo business" with a digi P&S...

From Craigslist...
I have a Canon A640 PowerShot with an additional high resolution Flash used once in the house.. I have the box, manual. I am starting a photo business and didnt get the right camera..

At least they have the good sense to figure out that something else may be more appropriate.

Well they have a camera doesn't that make them a "photographer"? That's all you need to be a pro right?