Note: I would love to get comments/feedback from those of you who have less experience taking photographs too. What is it that you want to know when signing up for a class?
As you might imagine, I had a number of good conversations last week. It tends to happen when photographers get together, thankfully. I’ll try to bring those conversations together as well as some other things that I’ve heard, in particular, concerning the future of photography.
I was talking to Anita and she was saying that she’s learned which questions to answer and which to not answer. She indicated a willingness to share information such that when someone comes up to her at an art show and asks: “How did you do that?”, previously, she would launch into a detail technical discussion of how she did the photo, including post-processing information. Often, she said, they would get a glazed look in their eyes, probably sorry that they asked the question. She learned that the question was basically, rhetorical, and only meant as a conversation starter. Now, she answers the question with ease and moves on to other things, glossing over the details and just making conversation.
In talking to Ibarionex about a class that he is teaching, based on his book, Chasing The Light, I told him about a post that I had written about aperture not being important anymore and asked if he taught it. The answer was, no. He said his class focuses only on exposure, light, color, and composition. It’s a one-day class. The students are not interested in the technical details of photography, only the result. Even though I like to know the “how”, this seems to make sense. I watch the number of technical things that Tony uses, on a daily basis, especially his smartphone, and he hasn’t a clue of how it works, nor does he care. He only wants it to work, same for the wireless connection – the how is strictly unimportant.
In a comment here, Cedric posited that in the future, such words as aperture, ISO, etc, might become obsolete and camera operation would become, in essence, a side affect of getting the photo. Further, perhaps things like depth of field would be handled in-camera, with software, making sensor size immaterial. Users would want to point the camera, have it make the decisions, and get the photo, much like cellphone cameras work now. No muss. No fuss. However, I think that the professional market, and those hangers-on, such as myself, will still like a bit of control in the whole thing.
As photography evolves I guess that I have to agree with Cedric, things will get simpler, more abstract. To form an analogy: When I took carpentry in high school, they taught us how houses use to be built, and we were building them a different, ‘better’ way. We learned how to read blueprints, etc; Now, houses are, for the most part, prefabricated at the factory, placed on a flatbed truck, and driven to the site. There, they are assembled in the manner same as a child’s toy: Tab A, goes into Slot B. In the end, it’s a completely constructed house. The guys who built it may have never seen a ‘real blueprint’, nor know how to read one, but it doesn’t make it any less of a house just because it was built without knowing every detail.
As the sun was setting and the light was getting that beautiful evening warmth, I saw streams of people coming out, some with cellphones, others with point & shoots, and a few with SLRs and tripods. They all came to take photos. I couldn’t help but wonder what, if anything, did they want to know about making more satisfying photos, if anything, or where they just there to take a few snaps to put on their Facebook page? Also, as the thought always occurs to me, what would I teach in a one-day, 4 – 6 hour class that was open to anyone with a camera, regardless of the type of camera? I enjoy the details, but not everyone does …
Related Posts :
Addendum 2012-12-23 Generally, the smaller sensors found in compact cameras will produce i ...
Photography, for me, is about seeing. Seeing things differently, with all the senses involved ...
Lunch: Leica M9 - ISO 200 - f/13@ 1/90 I've read a number of photography books and seem to enj ...
It is an interesting thing to think about Paul, because there is such a WIDE range of how people use cameras. I personally don’t see all the manual controls going away, it would be the death of the art in photography. I admit I also struggle a bit when someone asks how I did a certain image because I have seen that glazed look in their eyes when I tell them. I guess I would like to know more about Anita’s approach there.
I suppose therein it is like teaching any particular subject. There are people that are going to just want the functional basics to get by, and those that really want to go into the details.
Mark recently posted..Southern Stingrays
Mark, I don’t think that the manual controls will go away. There will always be some market for that, I believe; however, in general, I think that as cameras get better and better at making the theoretically correct exposure, people will care less about how it arrived there. In the meantime, they may still be frustrated that they cannot pull of the type of work that you are able to as you understand exposure and creating mood with same.
I tend to agree with your assumptions about where camera functionality is heading. Cameras to date are almost perfect for those with a non-technical understanding about its working.
By using either Auto mode or one of those predefined setting Macro, Portrait, Landscape, etc a person can capture perfectly their desire, at least most of the time.
It only when a photographer needs to go outside the bounds of every-day settings that the camera workings needs to be understood.
A lot depends on whether you want to capture an image in front of you or whether you have a vision you’re tying bring into focus (so to speak). Its with the latter where composition and artistic principles comes into play. Its here that camera positioning, lenses and camera settings all help to re-shape the image. With post-processing even more can be modified to reach the final goal.
Classes are great for getting an understanding of the basics of how the camera works or when a photographer has a style that you want to explore your self.
I find the best method to improve your skills at least when you have progressed from a raw novice is to undertake a project. There is really nothing like taking hundreds of photos of a subject under varying conditions to really understand composition and how light effects ever aspect of the image.
Niels Henriksen
My Camera World recently posted..Flickr Update for Niels Henriksen
Cameras are so good these days that it is hard to mess up a shot in terms of exposure. When a friend asks me what to look for in a photography course I usually say, find someone who tells you to stick your camera in auto and then talks about how he/she feels about photography. Find someone who talks about seeing and sensing and about the link between emotions and photos. Find someone who talks about light like it’s something emanating from inside you. At that point my friends usually give me a queer look, shake their heads and mutter something like “You freak, be serious”. LOL.
Cedric Canard recently posted..Hello…
Cedric: I got a hardy laugh out of this comment! Of course, that would be the response, especially if you said it to a guy. Now, if you said it to a girl, you might get a different response. Were I to teach a class, and I’ve thought of this much, it would be structured like that. If it were a beginner’s class, it would start with some very basic technical, how-to stuff, basic camera operation, then graduate quickly to quantity/quality of light, composition, and emotion. The same would be true for a more advanced class, but skipping the techy stuff.
George Eastman, about 100 years ago, said “you press the button, we do the rest” when promoting photography to the average family. Of course, it was never really that easy but with the automation built into cameras today, it’s difficult to take a technically bad photo. I agree with Cedric about what to look for in a photo course but only after you learn to use the “tools of the trade”. That was basically the philosophy at RIT photo courses – you have to know what you’re doing to realize your vision. Even though courses like printing, processing, solution chemistry, sensitometry and densitometry are not required, there are a whole bunch of digital courses to take their place. But a short course (4-6 hours) could have some background information about photography and I think it would be helpful. I’m assuming anyone taking a class is primarily interested in taking better photos and is would want to understand the equipment well and the techniques available to them so that they might realize their potential.
ken bello recently posted..Window to the Wall
Ken is right. You do need to know your equipment intimately but that takes time, more time than most people are willing to give. I haven’t met a single photographer in the last few years who has owned a camera for more than 18 months. As soon as a new model comes out they dump the old one which they were on the verge of becoming intimately connected with, for a new younger model. Has their photography reached a state of near perfection that can only be improved by technology? Of course not. But they don’t seem bothered by that. The promise of a quick fix to their average (by their own admission) photos, is too hard to pass up and far easier than practice, practice, practice.
Cedric Canard recently posted..Hello…
Cedric: You say the most interesting things. Dropping into lawyer mode, I guess that I’ll let you slide with a technicality since, technically, we’ve never met.
I had a D2x for nearly 3 years, but during that time, 2 years in, I bought a D300, which I have had since 2008 and which I still use. That would be going on 5 years. However, during that time, I have had other cameras, such as the M9, a D40, and a host of film cameras.
I don’t know if I necessarily agree with your premise here, but I shall have to think on it some more. I believe that once you reach a certain level of competency, the camera does not affect the outcome so much. You learn the operation quickly, dispense with the bells and whistles, and function unimpeded. However, that may be because I usually buy Nikon products and the menus and idiosyncrasies are the same between cameras.
Wonderful post and comments so far! It reminds me of wedding photographers seminar I attended 6 or 7 years ago. One of the students asked one of the seminar leaders what setting he used during a wedding. His response was the Professional Mode (P). He allowed the camera to make most of his exposure choices, allowing him to focus on the artistic side of his craft. As others have mentioned practice is the best thing we can do for learning our tools and developing our eye. At the present time I feel a class for me would be one on Lightroom. There is so much craftsmanship in the post processing that I could use.
As with most serious photographers, we know that understanding our subjects is just as important as understanding our tools. We will come bring home better images when we understand how the light in nature works, what are the best times to be there or when certain animals are active. There are a lot of photographers who get 3-6 good images in a year because they have good equipment and were there and ready. I hope to be one who gets 12 or more in a year.
Monte Stevens recently posted..Sunset at Pawnee Grasslands
Pingback: The Myth of Manual? | Tom Dills Photography Blog