Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · Improving photography

  
 
beanpkk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Improving photography


I'm going to take a page from Ben's book, a good book by the way and one I've enjoyed greatly, and ask a philosophical question:

Does the key to improving your photography lie in a better understanding of the technical details or a better understanding of composition (including angle, field of view, etc). Let's leave out entirely the subject of post processing for the purpose of this discussion.

Here's what motivates the question: an acquaintance at work took a beginning photography class to "improve" her photography, and the class was nearly entirely about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and other technical details of camera operation. I'd be willing to bet that in her case and perhaps for most people, an equivalent time spent analyzing non-technical things like composition would be time far better spent.

What do you think?

keith



Feb 25, 2015 at 08:51 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Improving photography


If we look to the master - apprenticeship relationship, we see that the fundamentals of the tools have to be learned. We also see that the fundamentals of applying those tools have to be learned.

Gonna sound a bit like a cop-out, but both aspects have to be learned. Where a person is in the learning curve with each kinda dictates whether more is to be gained on the technical side of basic operation vs. advanced operation vs. basic composition vs. advanced composition.

To that end ... growth is growth. Balancing the technical to a degree of utility with the composition is a bit of a Yin-Yang ... to a point. Then, there comes a time when the competency of technical operation affords a diminishing point of return, while the tenets of composition remain to offer more return ... and message to an infinite opportunity.

Simply put, whichever is the "weak link" in a persons repertoire ... that's the arena where they can get the best bang for their buck toward improvement. Imo, the ranking of ultimate influence on the growth goes:

Technical
Composition (and the multitude of its tenets)
Message

Meaning that the message can trump the composition and the composition can trump the technical, as long as the lesser contributor isn't a horrid detraction from the greater one ... if that makes any sense.

For folks starting out ... many need help in all camps of technical, composition & message. Hard to say which one offers more opportunity for gain, when you need all three.

However, with the ability of today's cameras to handle the technical and the latitude of PP that can rectify a variety of technical issues / concerns ... your point @ technical being a "lesser" concern has merit. It really just depends on so many factors, with but one being where the technical aspect of aperture having such an effect on DOF / selective focus ... it is a technical issue that intertwines with composition, making it hard to say, sure skip it an go on to composition. It is a component of composition, i.e. the control of sharp focus and the rate of transition of focus, although for many folks they consider composition relegated to framing position.

That's kinda like asking if spark, air or fuel is more important for building a high performance racing engine.



Edited on Feb 25, 2015 at 09:33 PM · View previous versions



Feb 25, 2015 at 09:11 PM
beanpkk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Improving photography


I don't think so, Kent. Imagine a person with a camera just out to take pictures of say his kids. The camera on auto does a pretty good job of exposure, so getting a good shot involves not aperture and shutter speed but timing, camera angle, background, lighting, composition, focus. Even focus the camera can handle pretty well. So what would improve this hypothetical person's photography the most? Learning about all the non-technical aspects of getting a good picture.

There will certainly be shots that this person didn't get because of technical things, but by and large I think getting good compositions backgrounds etc will make the most difference. When this person looks at a shot missed because, say, the shutter speed was too long, he can goggle "blurred picture" and learn about shutter speed in five minutes, and most importantly, he only spends the five minutes when he realizes that's what he needs!

If I were to characterize this hypothetical photographer, I would say that photography is not his major interest in life, he just wants to get some decent shots. My wife might be an example: she knows nada about ISO, shutter speed, or aperture. But she knows what she likes, and what determines what she likes is generally not some technical aspect of the image. It's composition, background, lighting, etc. In fact, obvious technical problems in an image don't present a problem for her. She likes the image anyway!

Just some thoughts,
k



Feb 25, 2015 at 09:31 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Improving photography


beanpkk wrote:
I don't think so, Kent. Imagine a person with a camera just out to take pictures of say his kids. The camera on auto does a pretty good job of exposure, so getting a good shot involves not aperture and shutter speed but timing, camera angle, background, lighting, composition, focus. Even focus the camera can handle pretty well. So what would improve this hypothetical person's photography the most? Learning about all the non-technical aspects of getting a good picture.

There will certainly be shots that this person didn't get because of technical things, but by and large I think getting good
...Show more

I think we're kinda saying the same thing in a different way. By that I mean

Message = good (kids)
comp = poor
technical = adequate

Then comp is needed to improve.

If it were:

Message = good (kids)
comp = adequate
technical = poor

Then technical needs to improve

and of course:

Message = poor
comp = good
technical = adequate

Then message needs to improve.

If the camera is handling the technical side "adequately", then it isn't until the other aspects are consistently good that the technical is the weak link. Conversely if the camera is not handling things adequately or above, then the technical can be the weak link again.

Which of the three is the weak link ... that's the one that needs worked on. For some folks, they can go a long way at learning message / comp before the technical is their weak link (with today's camera). I think that is your point and I can't disagree ... except that it is an "it depends" ... i.e. in context of the "weak link" relationship. Over the long haul, I still think message trumps composition trumps technical ... as long as the others don't negatively detract from their shortcomings to the point that they grossly impede the others.

Case in point ... I started to teach my wife about the technical aspects of her camera. She really wasn't on board with learning them. Her camera adequately handled things. In fact, I closed my eyes took about six or seven different pictures of things in the room (eyes closed) and the images came out fine via auto exposure and auto focus. This to relieve her of the burden of considering the technical aspects.

I handed her the camera back and said all you have to do is push the button and trust the camera. She was a happy camper making nice images. Her aspirations for growth do not exceed the adequacy of what the camera provides her. Should she want to learn how to use her camera to do things (such as selective focus, dof control, exposure control, etc.) then the camera's automation will now be the weak link as it isn't adequate to the task of it's own accord. As such, then she will need to learn more of the technical in order to execute the command & control to that level.

The "it depends" kinda depends on what "improvements" a person is desiring to learn as to whether composition, technical or message is the area to garner the most improvement. I guess it goes along with the comment regarding by Ansel Adams:

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/anseladams106035.html#rSOmhhs7X9I1RbWM.99

Which infers that message is more important than technical ... but technical does remain to be at least adequate, with improvements to good to great still being improvements as long as they don't leave the message behind in the dust.







Feb 25, 2015 at 09:39 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Improving photography


I think the single most important thing cannot be taught, that being the natural ability to the game. I used to be into pool, and knew everything but how to sink the ball. Another vision problem. I taught more guys how to beat me after 4-5 games than I care to remember.

After all the technical things are learned two very important things remain.

1. What to point your camera at.

2. When to stop processing it.

Both of those as far as I can tell cannot be learned. It can be aped by repetition, but the naturals have both of those skills hard wired in and may take some instruction to unlock, but thats fairly easy to do.

Those who master all but those two skills are technicians. I think that is where I am.





Feb 25, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Improving photography


beanpkk wrote:
...............

Does the key to improving your photography lie in a better understanding of the technical details or a better understanding of composition (including angle, field of view, etc). ......What do you think?

keith


Photography involves the capture, the processing and the presentation (printing). Your initial question seems to involve only the capture and ignores the processing and presentation.

Restricting our view only to the capture, I see three components. First are the technical aspects involving the camera and the gear. Second is the arrangement of all of the elements of the image; i.e., the composition. And finally is the artistic goal, intent and vision. I think the last component is by far the most important when it comes to the outcome and the potential for improvement. I consider composition to be a technical skill.



Feb 25, 2015 at 11:11 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Improving photography


Learning the technical aspects of photography is like learning how to make music with an instrument or sing. Learning how to construct/select/imagine/see/capture and render images as art, is like learning how to compose music. Hard to compose music if you can't play an instrument or sing.


Feb 26, 2015 at 04:38 AM
beanpkk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Improving photography


First and most important, thanks to you all for your comments. I enjoy these discussions and hope you get something out of them too.

In the music analogy, there are many many people who sing or play something who can't read a note of music. Plenty of people who play piano by ear, and some who can do it well enough to do it on stage (!!), without music. Understanding the nuts and bolts of how a piano works (hammers, strings, pin block, tuning pins, bridge, soundboard) has almost nada to do with playing well. Understanding key signatures, time signatures, flats, sharps, major and minor, triads and arpeggios helps but there are good musicians out there who know little about that stuff at least in its paper, academic form. I think they have an intuitive understanding -- what ~sounds good~.

In photography, what ~looks good~ to people like my wife and I think most of the non-photographer public, isn't the technical details. It's the composition. My wife will see something on a wall somewhere and tell me "You would have thrown that out" because it's blurred or whatnot. That picture would get laughed off the board at FM, but it got sold nonetheless and hangs in a public place. Technical details matter far less to her and I suspect to the general public than non-technical ones and also, I submit, to beginning photographers.

So backtracking away for a moment, my original question relates to teaching beginning photographers how to improve their pictures. I do not minimize the importance of understanding technical things, I only think that for most beginners, an understanding of non-technical aspects might improve their photography more and more quickly than lectures on aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. I think this is particularly true in the age of automatic cameras that do quite well in normal situations at getting technical details done pretty well. Eventually, every one who wants to aspire to taking really great pictures in all possible conditions will need to understand technical details. My context here is only beginning photographers and improving their photography. A picture that is perfect technically gets trumped easily by a picture that has a masterful composition, background, angle, etc. Just ask my wife!




Feb 26, 2015 at 08:34 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Improving photography


ben egbert wrote:
After all the technical things are learned two very important things remain.

1. What to point your camera at.

2. When to stop processing it.

Both of those as far as I can tell cannot be learned. It can be aped by repetition, but the naturals have both of those skills hard wired in and may take some instruction to unlock, but thats fairly easy to do.

Those who master all but those two skills are technicians.


I have taught photo courses off and on for 40 years, mostly continuing education courses for enthusiasts.

I split my time between the technical and the aesthetic. Back in the film days, there needed to be more of a concentration on the technical because there was no "A" anywhere on the camera.

I spent practically all of one of the six evenings of the course showing slides of both famous photographs and famous paintings. I discussed with the class what made the photographs classic. When illustrating concepts like basic composition patterns, I illustrated with classic photographs (e.g. Adam's Snake River as an example of the "S" composition).

Most of my students were able to absorb the more aesthetic elements of photography and incorporate them in their work. A few were naturally talented and honed their technical skills to complement their innate photographic talent. Some were visually "tone deaf". They just couldn't see. They'd shoot boring subjects in the most pedestrian way. They never got better.

This experience mirrored what I found in photography school. There were three or four students who were amazing photographers. The bulk of the class were proficient and could certainly earn a living (Art Center is just a fancy trade school). There were a couple that slugged it out, but just weren't talented, although one got a job as a photographer for the city of Los Angeles.

I would never think of teaching enthusiasts just technique or just aesthetics.



Feb 26, 2015 at 08:54 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Improving photography


The music reference made me think of a couple of things. Tchaikovsky wrote great music, but his lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of instruments make some of his works devilishly hard to play. As a violinist, I know this first hand.

Frank Sinatra never learned how to read music. When a young Duane Allman was hired as a session musician at Fame Studios to work on a Wilson Pickett session, he pitched recording some songs like "Hey Jude" to cover up the fact he couldn't read charts.

I worked with a photographic equivalent. When I was at Art Center, I did some assisting and darkroom work for Norman Seef. He was actually a South African psychiatrist before going into photography. He signature look came from he lack of technical knowledge. He developed his film (usually Plus-X) in Dektol, a paper developer. He then used D-76 for printing. Of course the prints looked flat and muddy on regular paper. Everything I printed I printed on Agfa 6. It was diffused in printing using a certain brand of panty hose stretched in an embroidery hoop.



Feb 26, 2015 at 09:25 AM
eeneryma
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Improving photography


As with any discipline, the old adage applies: To succeed, it's 95% perspiration, and 5% inspiration. Learning the technical aspects of operating a camera and the elements of composition and lighting are the perspiration. Inspiration and to some extent luck are far harder to "acquire."

For most of us, having "fun" and a sense of personal satisfaction is ultimately all that matters!



Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Improving photography


eeneryma wrote:
For most of us, having "fun" and a sense of personal satisfaction is ultimately all that matters!

I think that should be every photographer's goal.

I have always been internally motivated. I've had enough training and have been doing this long enough to have a pretty good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of my work. I don't have to look to others for validation. I spent a long time as a professional seeking the ultimate validation - getting hired and paid for my work. Now I shoot for one person and one person only - myself.



Feb 26, 2015 at 10:07 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Improving photography


+1 @ Doug.

beanpkk wrote:
A picture that is perfect technically gets trumped easily by a picture that has a masterful composition, background, angle, etc. Just ask my wife!


Which is very much in line with my assessment that if the lesser contribution (in this case the technical) doesn't negatively obliterate the greater contribution of composition, then the greater contribution trumps the lesser one.

The point of constraints is really in play here @ which aspect of any given image ... technical, composition, message ... is the restraining aspect.

A picture of a rock can be made technically awesome, and can have incredible composition and still be a picture of a rock. It can be an awesome display of lighting, scale, mass, tonal values, detail, hue, etc. ... or it can be a boring pic.

A picture of a child crying can be a technical mess, with poor composition and still have a powerfully emotive message that tugs at your heart.

My mother recently posted up some pics of her as a child on FB. They were a wreck @ poorly focused, lousy contrast (poor scan to boot) and composition that wasn't anything to suggest any knowledge of such things. However, they captured a moment in time that delivered a message of her youth and the spirit she had as a young girl.

I get what you are suggesting that folks can skip out on the technical and still get "improved" pictures by advancing themselves in the area of composition. I would add that they can improve their overall images, by improving their message content, even if they don't improve their technical. I can't disagree that an improvement in composition is a contribution to the overall improvement of the image, anymore than I can disagree that an improvement in message content is an improvement.

I get that many folks don't want to get bogged down by the technical aspects. Many a great image has been made from "f8 and be there". Where a person deems technical, composition, message content "adequate" and has no perceived gain from one of the attributes is a matter of personal discretion.

In the case of "birders" or "floral" for instance ... the message content remains relatively consistent within the genre. As such, the relative value of increasing the technical and/or composition becomes more paramount than changing from a white orchid to a purple orchid. A picture of a cardinal with poor technical and poor composition pales in comparison to a picture of a cardinal with excellent technical and excellent composition (i.e. same message content).

The crux of the question lies in the context of "improve" ... which I still maintain that it is going to be relative to current state of adequacy and competency for each of the areas of consideration. If the "A" on the camera is "A"dequate for technical competency, then it is not a major deterrent to the other aspects of image making and one can proceed to improve in the areas of composition and content without improving their technical skills. I agree that today's camera's can indeed be very "adequate" in many regards, but that adequacy does provide a degree of limitation ... which takes us right back to the points of constraint.

Short version ... what is holding you back the most?

A) Technical (yours or the camera's)
B) Composition
C) Message

Whichever is a person's weakest link ... to the point of interfering with the delivery of the message ... that is where the most immediate improvement can be made. If the technical is sufficient via the camera, then yes it may very well be that a person can focus to improve in the other areas before reaching a need to concern themselves with improving their understanding of the technical, while remaining dependent on the camera for such technical adequacy. My wife has some awesome images from our trip to YNP that was without her having any real knowledge of the technical aspects. Some of her images are worthy of competition, while others could be much improved technically.

That said ... teaching a group (teachers jump in here) in a one session seminar is a different matter from teaching a curriculum or mentoring an individual person. Could some individuals who took the "technical improvements" course been better served by taking a "composition improvements" course ... sure, but that depends on knowing where the individual is on the matter. Once again, point of constraints.

I can't help but wonder if the course outline indicated a concentration on understanding your camera vs. understanding composition or was it balanced or Matching one's current (in)adequacy of skill set (self or equipment) to the area of improvement being addressed is always going to have a better gain of improvement than a mismatched one. I don't think you can isolate one as being the more correct for all ... imo, it really depends on where the person is and where they are trying to go as to which is the better path for improvement to be addressed at any given time in their growth.

In other words ...

You can't know what to improve, until you know where the weak link is.

Just be glad the course didn't include how to improve your images with CMYK color correction theory.



Feb 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Improving photography


dmacmillan wrote:
I have taught photo courses off and on for 40 years, mostly continuing education courses for enthusiasts.

I split my time between the technical and the aesthetic. Back in the film days, there needed to be more of a concentration on the technical because there was no "A" anywhere on the camera.

I spent practically all of one of the six evenings of the course showing slides of both famous photographs and famous paintings. I discussed with the class what made the photographs classic. When illustrating concepts like basic composition patterns, I illustrated with classic photographs (e.g. Adam's Snake River as
...Show more


You said what I meant only better.



Feb 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Improving photography


Here's my 3 Step approach ... YMMV

Step 1.
Know your intended message.

Step 2.
Know how the tenets of composition influence your intended message.

Step 3.
Know how the tenets of technical & technique influence your composition and intended message.


Rinse, repeat & enjoy the journey.



Feb 26, 2015 at 11:28 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Improving photography


What if nobody likes the message? Does not matter if shooting for yourself, but it does if shooting for others.

You use message. I use the idea of learning where to point the camera. That of course includes when (light etc), where (subject) and composition (refinement) etc.

So if you are shooting for others, you need to learn what messages are going to please your audience.

Since that is an art I have not learned, I shoot for myself which of course is an admission of defeat.



Feb 26, 2015 at 12:37 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Improving photography


ben egbert wrote:

I shoot for myself which of course is an admission of defeat.


Au Contraire ... it is just knowing your audience.

There is no one that can satisfy all audience(s).



Feb 26, 2015 at 01:32 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Improving photography


RustyBug wrote:
Au Contraire ... it is just knowing your audience.

There is no one that can satisfy all audience(s).


So knowing your audience is another skill.



Feb 26, 2015 at 02:20 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Improving photography


As a wildlife wildlife photographer I love how technology has freed me from having to think about tedious crap like focusing, metering, exposure, etc. Choose the desired f-stop, done. Heck, with current sensors the very concept of "correct exposure" has become obsolete, so I don't stress out about that either. Except in extreme lighting, an EV or two over or under is now irrelevant.

Room for improvement, then, lies in timing, lighting, composition, and color. My subjects furnish me with the data from which I make images. I have no interest in laying claim to any sort of naturalist correspondence between my subjects and my images. I don't really think about "what I saw" when I work on an image (mostly what I see is color, planes, spatial relationships, textures, expression, emotions, which don't really add up to an image by themselves.) Plus, who cares what I saw? I couldn't even tell you what I saw, nor could the sensor, which "sees" something completely different than I do. Viewers of my images see a two-dimensional image, created from sensor data by the photographer. So to me it's that product that matters. When I shoot I may have an inkling of the image I might be able to create from the data. Or I'll have an image in my head first, and then I'll try to find subjects that will help me realize it. I try not to overthink this stuff, but I'd be willing to commit to the idea that the file captured by the sensor is pretty much a blank canvas.



Feb 26, 2015 at 02:23 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Improving photography


beanpkk wrote:
Does the key to improving your photography lie in a better understanding of the technical details or a better understanding of composition (including angle, field of view, etc).

Here's what motivates the question: an acquaintance at work took a beginning photography class to "improve" her photography, and the class was nearly entirely about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and other technical details of camera operation. I'd be willing to bet that in her case and perhaps for most people, an equivalent time spent analyzing non-technical things like composition would be time far better spent.

What do you think?

keith


I think that if someone is interested enough in photography to take classes then this person needs to understand the technical aspects first and then the composition aspects later. If your friend already had a good understanding of the technical details then she simply took the wrong course. Assuming there were different courses offered for different levels.

IMHO, the technical details of the camera are the foundation of GOOD photography. Once the tech details are understood, then comes the ART of photography via proper compositional skills AND proper use of said learned technical details.

So to answer your first question, my answer would be both. The key to improving my photography is to learn every aspect of my camera that pertains to my type of shooting and also learning compositional skills to make my images stand out from the guys standing next to me with a P&S. Can the P&S guy get lucky and capture a great image? Maybe, but I choose to not depend on luck and I enjoy the feeling of accomplishment knowing that my personal taste and knowledge created my image.
Of course it probably still sucks but that's another story.

With that said, as most of you know, I am one of the students around here and I am very much trying to learn both aspects as I move forward.

Just this morning I went to do a shoot rather than go into work. I've been wanting/waiting to do this shoot for a long time but had to wait for the rare snow storm down here in SC. I can not tell you folks how many times your advise and wisdom went through my head while I was there shooting. You all helped me this morning a great deal and just want to say thanks. I hope a few of my shots will show that I've been listening and taking good notes. I will say that I have never seriously shot snow scenes before and didn't realized how hard it can be to do it well. Thank god for AEB.

That thar AEB as well as closely watching the histogram is one of those "technical details" we were talking about btw. Hopefully by knowing about those "in-camera tools" it will help me achieve my desired images. And hopefully my compositions were good.






Feb 26, 2015 at 02:40 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.