CMB Photo wrote:
good idea! And than it defeats the purpose of learning on your own.
it's already everywhere.... when people critique work there's often a bit of problem/solution built into some of the critiques. this helps reinforce the 'why' without really being explicit about it. anyway it was just a thought.
I'm still confused about this point...why is it that the doctrine of "don't ask how" seems like a good plan to many photographers who have gone to school for this and other vocational interests or hobbies...where asking the question "how" was a natural part of the learning process?
Seems slightly hypocritical and/or elistist. IMO. Maybe they just don't want to reveal trade secrets...or they don't know how to explain the how? These are both perfectly fair reasons, but I only hope that the pro-don't-ask-how people all are being fully honest with themselves and the rest of us when they tell why they don't want to tell how.
How is fine. Ask it all you like. But you better be asking "why" right after. Knowledge is fine, we're basically talking about also having the wisdom of knowing when to implement the knowledge.
TRReichman wrote:
How is fine. Ask it all you like. But you better be asking "why" right after. Knowledge is fine, we're basically talking about also having the wisdom of knowing when to implement the knowledge.
- trr
And of course this is one of the things I have trouble with. But, are we allowed to ask why? Since it seems that asking how is now being shunned, what can they tell us about the why if we have to learn for ourselves anyway? That seems contradictory.
D. Diggler wrote:
A lot of my clients would say Match.com is the way to do it these days.
I assisted a wedding photographer last week whose couple found each other on an internet dating site, flew out to the USA from Aussieland and got married at a Vegas chapel just off the strip. Shrug, whatever works.
I'd say this. While the basics of photography are relatively simple, mastery of the technical side of things is astonishingly challenging. I think the aspiration to achieve technical excellence lies often lies behind the question of 'how'.
The thing is, that knowing 'how' to achieve something technically is obviously essential, but the intricate specifics will differ for similar shots as the specifics of the environment (the ambient light, the relevant exposure etc) alter. This, I think, is why knowing 'how' is maybe less important than people think it is.
However, while 'why' is interesting, it depends what you mean by 'why'. When I read your original post I took 'why' to refer to the individual photographers artistic vision. While interesting, if that is the intended usage of your meaning, I'm not sure that's the right question. If instead 'why' refers to the underlying concepts that inform the end result, then I totally agree with you. Great photography isn't about learning specific camera settings for specific situations, but instead about understanding concepts that you can apply universally. I *think* that's what you're getting at and I wholeheartedly agree if I follow correctly!
Apologies for being so semantic, and thanks for starting an interesting one!
What's the difference between studying books and taking courses, and asking someone "How did you create that image?" I wouldn't assume that anyone asking 'how' is blind to the 'why'. I don't believe that is true, and I'd say most people who are serious about growing as photographers already know the why, and the hard part is building the knowledge and developing the skills to create the kinds of image they want to make.
The 'how' is more complex than ever because the image recorded on a camera sensor is just the beginning, and there is a whole world of post-processing that I suspect has more to do with the images we see than what the camera recorded. When I'm browsing FM the #1 how question for me is "How much of that is Photoshop?" Our tools shape what we can do, and when we learn a new 'how' it feeds and inspires the 'why'.
People who post responses that even slightly share or agree with any of the sentiment of my posts...stun me. They also never, ever, ever refer to anything I said, never say "I agree with form on x point" or say anything that acknowledges my existence. The last two posts both had some form of agreement with the thoughts I voiced...
form wrote:
People who post responses that even slightly share or agree with any of the sentiment of my posts...stun me. They also never, ever, ever refer to anything I said, never say "I agree with form on x point" or say anything that acknowledges my existence. The last two posts both had some form of agreement with the thoughts I voiced...
I just read the above and, not fully comprehending, I went back and re-read the thread. I'm still not 100% sure I'm following what you're saying, but if it looks like I'm agreeing with you without stating it, the main reason for that is simply because I didn't read the whole thread before I posted. I read the 1st post and then a few of the subsequent posts, but I simply don't have time to read every thread from beginning to end before contributing. Apologies if I came off as plagiaristic.
tonyhart wrote:
I just read the above and, not fully comprehending, I went back and re-read the thread. I'm still not 100% sure I'm following what you're saying, but if it looks like I'm agreeing with you without stating it, the main reason for that is simply because I didn't read the whole thread before I posted. I read the 1st post and then a few of the subsequent posts, but I simply don't have time to read every thread from beginning to end before contributing. Apologies if I came off as plagiaristic.
I don't feel plagiarized or abashed, just...the usual stunned. I'm half stunned again that you don't have me on ignore like many others do. My stunnery comes from 1. anyone agreeing with me directly or indirectly, 2. people not noticing that they are agreeing with me in some way. Perhaps being unaware of my posts is one of the reasons people even post a response that agrees with me, for to agree with me in any way is virtually an automatic guarantee of a fiery death...
Seriously, it's just rare that anyone agrees with me around here.
I think many photographers who reach a certain level of accomplishment forget that they got there by asking the question, "How?" When one looks down upon that question, he or she is attributing motive to the person asking. He assumes the person wants to copy his work and is therefor reluctant to share (you know, the "old grumpy"). I recently asked a "How?" question on this forum. What was my motive? I wanted to understand a particular technique so that I could have another creative tool at hand. There is no way I could copy the images I was asking about. I am hoping I can now apply the technique so many on this forum shared with me in new and different circumstances. I hope to make it my own and take it wherever it leads.
Certainly, "Why?" is important. But part of being creative is that each of us has his or her own "Why?" If "How?" is asked to copy, then it is the questioners loss. It is certainly your right not to share your techniques. Just understand why you are saying you won't.
