There are NO (none, zip, zilch, nadda) trade secrets out there. Google will almost always lead you to "how", should you poses the tenacity. You'll never have me believe otherwise.
"How" is ONLY important in that it should never be a roadblock for "why".
"Why" is earned "how" learned. The relationship is very simple. How you let one inform the other can be torturous for some, as we can clearly see.
Not the most in-depth answer, I know, but I do come across this discussion from time to time.
D-man wrote:
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....Show more →
Honestly I think what Tony is saying (and he's a big boy and free to speak for himself) is that a lot of people figured out the "how" for themselves. I know when I started there weren't nearly the tutorials and resources there are now and if we wanted to accomplish something we had to work it out on our own.
I think you either want to help others grow, or you don't.
Telling someone to figure out "why" to do something first really does not teach them anything. They will likely give up.
I always help others when they ask me "how" something is done. It doesn't bother me to share that knowledge. I know they will get the "why" through execution.
I prefer to "encourage" them to learn more through sharing knowledge. I don't try to teach them lessons by saying, "You need to figure out why you want to do this. They obviously know "why" already. It's a pleasing result. They wish to learn and see if they like doing it.
TRReichman wrote:
Honestly I think what Tony is saying (and he's a big boy and free to speak for himself) is that a lot of people figured out the "how" for themselves. I know when I started there weren't nearly the tutorials and resources there are now and if we wanted to accomplish something we had to work it out on our own.
- trr
Exactly... there's a lot of 'how' questions we all ask, but I think for a lot of us those how questions are inward-facing and we search and explore and do a little trial and error of our own to figure out the 'how'. There are any number of ways to do something, and not necessarily one right way. You'll learn and grow a lot more by finding your own way than by simply following a recipe handed down to you.
Be a chef or a be a line-cook, that's up to you and how badly you want something.
This is so true! I remembered the time I tagged along with Tony .. I didn't want to know the HOW he did it, BUT I wanted to see WHY he did what he did and WHY is it important.
One question I hate the most in any workshops are "what is your settings" or "how did you do that?"
Interesting read here. Thanks to all who share their opinion. As an Outlier here I have questions. Does Tony Hoffer have a unique style? Would you recognize his work as his if you saw it uncredited? If you answered yes and yes, is it his How that you recognize or his Why?
Can you recognize a series by Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Ansel Adams, or Annie Leibovitz? I respectfully submit that what you first recognize is their How. Their How is sufficiently compelling to pull you in long enough to get to know their Why.
I don't think asking How, in order to add more tools to one's box to help you achieve your own Why, is less legitimate than the time and expense of learning from scratch. One has to experiment with the given answer anyway to master the How. Mastering a photographic technique is unavoidably an iterative process, even if you start with the answer.
If you don't want to give up your How then don't. But you might want to let go of your anger for the question. It serves no purpose besides putting others on notice not to ask it - which some here have now successfully done.
PS - I have learned many techniques here by deconstructing the images you share. Whether you know it or not on some level you answer the How every time you post. Thank you.
TRReichman wrote:
Honestly I think what Tony is saying (and he's a big boy and free to speak for himself) is that a lot of people figured out the "how" for themselves. I know when I started there weren't nearly the tutorials and resources there are now and if we wanted to accomplish something we had to work it out on our own.
- trr
I think part of the point here is about giving a man a fish vs teaching him to fish.
- it's all very well to slavishly copy techniques, but you don't learn much.
However once a certain basic competence is achieved, the best photographers will work things out for themselves, allowing them to grow and set themselves apart from the crowd.
Experience (having a vision for a shot and trying to work out how to achieve it) is a much more effective teacher than just having a 'bag of photographic tricks' up your sleeve.
Dwerther the technique is nothing without the vision. You could use the same settings and lights as Annie or Tony or Ansel but that doesn't click the shutter at the right moment or with the right composition that is a big part of what makes it 'them'.
scottam10 wrote:
I think part of the point here is about giving a man a fish vs teaching him to fish.
- it's all very well to slavishly copy techniques, but you don't learn much.
I will be the first to admit that we do not take the most "advanced" photos in terms of lighting, posing, etc.
But I can explain exactly why we shoot what we shoot. I pass up a TON of "cool" photos because for me the why is just not there. Our goal is to tell a couples story even that that leads to simple photos of two people doing random things. Some people set out to take massively epic shots with amazing lighting and sweet skies. Unless that describes our couple we will 99% of the time pass it up.
^^
In the last Year an a half, I've gotten more like this. For the longest time, I was just obsessed with pulling off tricks. Like as many as I could, as fast as I could learn them. Don't get me wrong, people seemed to love it. But, what i found was that I was sort treating all of the other photos between the trick shots like filler. I think I'm finding more consistency these days. Not that gadgetry is out of the question. I usually allow myself one shot for wild mechanics per wedding, but I think I'm finding more heart in my work as my approach becomes more "why" driven.
hardlyboring wrote:
I pass up a TON of "cool" photos because for me the why is just not there. Our goal is to tell a couples story even that that leads to simple photos of two people doing random things. Some people set out to take massively epic shots with amazing lighting and sweet skies. Unless that describes our couple we will 99% of the time pass it up.
I have a hard time with this...not because I think you are wrong in your approach, but moreso because it is just REALLY tough for me some times to figure out how to get unique photos of a couple that stand out from the crowd without being, to use the current (and accurate) buzzword, "gimmicky."
I posted one of my photos on the Fearless page some months back...looking for critique on it. It was a photo that I felt like should have been a lock to win one (never seen another wedding photo like it before...it involves fire and such), but I wanted to get some feedback if others were seeing something negative about it that I was missing. Huy basically commented that it seemed like it had little to do with the bride or anything that would cause "connection." Basically, he said it was a really cool photo that had little to nothing to do with the bride...it was more about the gimmick. It really made me think about that image and so many others of mine. Am I really always telling the couple's story, or am I just using them as props in my strive for creative outlet or individuality?
I do not want to be gimmicky, but more and more I feel like I am. At the same time, though, there is a certain degree of gimmick that is probably not a bad thing. Where do you find the balance between showing them and injecting your creativity? Yes, ideally you combine those in the same image. But...some times, it is just tougher to get to that personal side of couples. So, I have been working very hard lately about trying to bring more of the couples' personalities into the sessions. We have received some feedback about the past few engagement sessions, and it seems to be working. Still, there be miles yet to go.
When I usually ask how a photo was lit its normally because some part of it got me stumped. I've asked Tony a few questions, hopefully it wasn't too much.
I 2nd shot a wedding last week. Very small affair. As in 15 people total there. Since there wasn't tons of photographic opportunities, it gave me a good chance to think "why am I taking this photo?". My own answers ranged from "oh the lighting looks cool", "I'll get a quick shot of person a", to "how can I compose this better" and "what is the purpose of this photo". After looking at the images when I got home I noticed that my candids were becoming more storytelling and not just a candid of a person.
TRReichman wrote:
Honestly I think what Tony is saying (and he's a big boy and free to speak for himself) is that a lot of people figured out the "how" for themselves. I know when I started there weren't nearly the tutorials and resources there are now and if we wanted to accomplish something we had to work it out on our own.
- trr
That's exactly it. When I started there was a local photographer who's work I loved. They would have been very easy to contact or ask questions. But I looked at their work then PRACTICED... then failed, then PRACTICED and so on... On and on. It seems like no one is even attempting to practice anymore. Someone emailed me recently and said "I know you did this one of two ways, which was it?" My answer was simply "Go out and try both, you'll figure it out." In my opinion, that's the best way to learn.
Scott Mosher wrote:
How come you decided to post this?
I've fielded a decent amount of 'HOW' questions lately and have been thinking about it. Then I clicked on the Best of April thread. Someone posted a photo and someone else asked how it was done. Then they just told them. As I read it, I couldn't help but think about how much educational opportunity was missed by just giving the answer.
When I first started I was obsessed with settings, lenses, f-stops, position and type of lights, strobe power settings, was that canon or nikon, yadi, yadi yada.... How? How? How did you do that?!?!?
But then I realized - unless I'm in a studio - that every situation is - as tony said - a math problem that you have to figure out.... It didnt take long to realize that the settings I was obsessed with from photo 'x' were meaningless because the situation I was in simply didnt call for those same settings.... I stopped asking the 'settings' question awhile ago when I finally figured out it was meaningless... Studio lighting in the studio somewhat excepted....
I've also learned that having a great rapport with my clients is just as important as understanding the technical... I can light someone perfectly, but if they're not comfortable in front of the camera who cares how well they're lit if they're uncomfortable with me and their expression sucks? I can *almost* get away with bad lighting if I am able to capture great expression.... Great expression is born out of comfort level... Comfort level and ability to build rapport for me anyway has come from confidence through experience....
Photography is a technical and creative art, not everyone is skilled in the technical, not everyone is a creative genius.... But having the ability to understand and to be able to pull off both results in images like Tony's.... It's one thing to have a creative vision, its another to have the technical knowledge and comfort level with our subjects to fulfill that vision. I'm grateful that I've gotten better - via a LOT of trial and error and frankly a lot of failures... I'm far from great, but I'm so much better than I used to be... Failure is a good thing!!! Nothing makes you learn faster than totally messing something up.... The process of learning never ends, for once you're done learning.... You're done....
Experience is a wonderful teacher.... The technical must be innate, I'm not sure creativity can be taught, sometimes the only way out is through, trial and error, failure, learn from your mistakes and experiences and ultimately you'll reach the level of understanding why you did something and the how becomes secondary....
joelconner wrote:
I have a hard time with this...not because I think you are wrong in your approach, but moreso because it is just REALLY tough for me some times to figure out how to get unique photos of a couple that stand out from the crowd without being, to use the current (and accurate) buzzword, "gimmicky."
I posted one of my photos on the Fearless page some months back...looking for critique on it. It was a photo that I felt like should have been a lock to win one (never seen another wedding photo like it before...it involves fire and such), but I wanted to get some feedback if others were seeing something negative about it that I was missing. Huy basically commented that it seemed like it had little to do with the bride or anything that would cause "connection." Basically, he said it was a really cool photo that had little to nothing to do with the bride...it was more about the gimmick. It really made me think about that image and so many others of mine. Am I really always telling the couple's story, or am I just using them as props in my strive for creative outlet or individuality?
I do not want to be gimmicky, but more and more I feel like I am. At the same time, though, there is a certain degree of gimmick that is probably not a bad thing. Where do you find the balance between showing them and injecting your creativity? Yes, ideally you combine those in the same image. But...some times, it is just tougher to get to that personal side of couples. So, I have been working very hard lately about trying to bring more of the couples' personalities into the sessions. We have received some feedback about the past few engagement sessions, and it seems to be working. Still, there be miles yet to go. ...Show more →
ya I completely agree. I think everyone is different and just because some people may shoot similar to one another does not mean they are the same. Their is no right or wrong way. In the end as long as the couple is satisfied (which they normally are) we did our job well.
We are artists but we also provide a service where consistency and some amount of "non-art" is sometimes necessary just to get the needed shots.
We pick and choose our battles with things that we want to try to expand and work on that may not necessarily "fit" our couples. For us its film, especially our large format film. Generally speaking I would say that 99% of people would not care either way if we used the large cameras or not. We do it because we like it and we think it adds something unique to their photos.
Like you said miles to go. That is what makes our job so interesting. We have the ability to tell stories, create art, and provide a basic service that people need. I personally never feel that strongly about our sets because I realize things we could have done differently as soon as I see the shots on the screen. As much as we try to adjust and perfect our shots from set to set I think our dissatisfaction keeps us going. If we came home happy every time it would be much less interesting.
amonline wrote:
I think you either want to help others grow, or you don't.
Telling someone to figure out "why" to do something first really does not teach them anything. They will likely give up.
I always help others when they ask me "how" something is done. It doesn't bother me to share that knowledge. I know they will get the "why" through execution.
I prefer to "encourage" them to learn more through sharing knowledge. I don't try to teach them lessons by saying, "You need to figure out why you want to do this. They obviously know "why" already. It's a pleasing result. They wish to learn and see if they like doing it....Show more →
