I don't think Tony minds sharing the how, it's the mindset that's slightly bothering. Since it's so easy to share the how, and to understand it, you have hundreds or thousands of photographers taking awesome-yet-lame photos, because they copy technique but have none of the "why".
It's not about "copying". It's about learning - plain and simple. Quite honestly, both sides of this debate are not exactly wrong. There have been great points on both.
amonline wrote:
It's not about "copying". It's about learning - plain and simple. Quite honestly, both sides of this debate are not exactly wrong. There have been great points on both.
Call it what you want... I see so much copying in this industry it's hilarious. Much of this originates from the forums.
You've gotta do what you gotta do I guess. As Chris suggested, there is little "original technique", but there are a few original ideas. Most of these ideas if they are good and easily repeatable have been copied by others many times over.
Backlit shots (especially in the rain/snow) are one example that immediately come to mind.
When I went to Art Center I was amazed at how sparse the "how" part of the instruction was. We did a year concentrating on basics and after that there was very little discussion of technique.
Even our creative assignments were often scarce on detail. I remember being assigned "for next week, shoot an album cover" or "shoot a liquor ad". We had to think through the "whys": why this concept, why this glass with this brandy, etc.
I've taught continuing education photography off and on for over 30 years. I have to cover a lot of how, but even in my introductory courses, I try to get them to think in terms of why.
People learn differently. Some start with the how, why, or both. It is what they do with those questions that matters, not "how" the questions started. It is important for the people that ask the "hows" lead their questions towards "why" and then try to figure out their own "whys."
deepbluejh wrote:
Call it what you want... I see so much copying in this industry it's hilarious. Much of this originates from the forums.
You've gotta do what you gotta do I guess. As Chris suggested, there is little "original technique", but there are a few original ideas. Most of these ideas if they are good and easily repeatable have been copied by others many times over.
Backlit shots (especially in the rain/snow) are one example that immediately come to mind.
I can pretty much guarantee that I can go to your website, or pretty much anyone's, and find pictures elsewhere that are exactly similar. Are you copying others? The question is pointless. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that you find your own style, your brand, and while you continue to experiment and grow, and add new shots that fit within your style -- you stay true to yourself.
Do you know how many photographers are getting paid to sell their "How"? The "How" is not just on how to shoot a photograph, but also how to run a photography business, how to market yourself, how to run a successful senior ambassador program -- and I can go on and on and on. So it's not surprising that people come to a forum and ask "How?", whether they're talking about a shot or marketing or websites or whatever.
So let's take it easy on those who ask "How?". Or we have to work on changing the entire culture of our industry. And I don't think Kelby and McNally and any others running a workshop, or getting paid to present at a workshop, really want people stop wanting to learn How.
I don't deny, however, that the "Why" is a critical element. But let's admit it, sometimes the "why" is simply: Because it looks good.
That does not mean great images are not being produced of course.
I make the distinction between technique and they way technique is executed to create an image. So silhouette is a technique but from there we are free to create that in many different ways (though most of us gravitate to the couple looking at each other pose most of the time).
Technique is like paint upon the artist palette. Those we consider great here I believe treat technique that way so apply it to create.
Thinking of silhouettes again. If you don't make that distinction then when you go to a brides home and want to make a silhouette you are most likely to put a bride between two curtains, back to camera giving a profile. Because technique means a specific shot.
When we start thinking in terms of technique rather than thinking of specific shots we are going to start creating. That is when the why will take precedence, hopefully.
Which is why i tend to think how precedes why.
Btw I know I am walking amongst giants here so not suggesting I think I have arrived in that place myself but just my thought processes and how i'm trying to work on my own growth.
friscoron wrote:
I don't deny, however, that the "Why" is a critical element. But let's admit it, sometimes the "why" is simply: Because it looks good.
You get paid a lot more money when you have a deeper "why" than that.
I'm sure some people take exception to the idea that those who know shouldn't be teaching how to manage technique to those that don't. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand you have to learn it somewhere. On the other hand for many of the advanced people learning had to hurt, and I think there is something to be said for what that provides you.
The other side of the argument is whether or not it is actually a benefit to easily show people how? Does it make someone a better photographer to hand them the technique without the wisdom of how to apply it? Is it a net benefit to have more and more people who can do the mechanics of the job but may not have an overall idea of everything it takes to to the job. You can teach a bunch of people to make a bomb, or transplant an organ (for example) but if they don't understand when and why you're not necessarily creating a benefit. Extreme example, but I'm trying to make a point.
I think we have a ton of people teaching tactics, and almost no one teaching strategy. While there are some people who are doing very well these days the overall industry is definitely in decline relatively speaking. More people know how to do the work, but they have know idea WHY people would want to buy it. Is it really a help to the industry to keep teaching more people how to do the work without understanding the significance and salability of that work?
I haven't often had the opportunity to attend workshops on photography. I attended the military's PJ school back in the 80s and didn't learn a whole lot there. So I attended Kelby's "Shoot Like a Pro" one-day seminar two weeks ago, along with 700 people who all paid something like $80 to attend, and then were in line to buy books and DVDs during every break.
People want to learn the How, and the industry is making money teaching them. Some of these ppl will never get to the Why, some already have a Why but can't figure out How.
Who cares? If they want to learn, what's wrong with that? Even if they never get to Why. And there are a lot of ppl wanting to learn the How right now. To ignore them would be irresponsible -- and when I say "them", I'm referring to everyone from neophytes to professionals who pick up new shots.
The "How" is what drives this industry. The "Why" is what professional work so outstanding. The How (and the Why) also separates the pros from the hobbyists.
ted nghiem wrote:
People learn differently. Some start with the how, why, or both. It is what they do with those questions that matters, not "how" the questions started. It is important for the people that ask the "hows" lead their questions towards "why" and then try to figure out their own "whys."
I'm with Ted here. Though at the end of the day I think that why is definitely the right question to be asking - especially when you're new, a lot of hows should be asked alongside the why.
When in your journey you are asking the question "how" can differ based on people's situations of course - you might be a newbie sitting at home without any shoots planned and you want to learn how to execute a specific shot or you can be shooting a free or paid gig and need to pull off a shot and want to know how to do so. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with learning new techniques - at some point no matter who you are, learning new things can probably help you execute your why better or allow your why to include a new technique you learned because you never knew how to do it before.
If you're asking how, hopefully that's leading you to be able to execute your "why" in any situation you're given rather than simply leading you to try to be the next "Tony" or whoever. I know that on the AMTF podcast, Todd is always saying that he thinks it's fine for people to do their one destination wedding, get it out of your system and then decide for themselves whether it's right for them. I don't see it being that different at times with why people ask how a shot is pulled off. It might not even have anything to do with a person's why, but maybe they feel like they just need to know how to do it or they want to pull off the shot once to get it out of their system? I'm not saying that's always true, but I feel like that's possible.
Yes - we should be encouraging others to ask why. And asking why rather than how will definitely push the industry forward in a direction where the work and experience is stronger not simply because of technique, but because of the authentic personal vision that each and every shot and brand decision is created through. But there's also a point where we all want and need to learn more and there's nothing wrong with that.
canerino wrote:
that's a good point, chris. i guess i would just expect someone who has the why figured out already wouldnt need to ask the how as he'd figure it out on his own.
You are thinking like a technician who has figured out the art, not like an artist that wants to know how to do something.
There are many paths, and not everyone comes at the problem from the same direction. I know people who make technically inferior photographs, but they have a connection with their subject, or a viewpoint that is different than mine. Should they be withheld information because they think differently than I do? I also know technical masters that make boring pictures that don't have vision. Each person approaches the problem from a different angle.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
How does one make the shadow transition softer or harsher on the subject is a how question.
I have been privileged to meet some truly talented photographers. A couple were just on another plane than us mere mortals. They tended to share a trait - the could see so well and were so in tune with what they wanted that they couldn't explain the "how".
I remember asking one, who was a fellow student, about an exquisitely lit portrait. I asked him "how" and his answer was: "Gee, I don't know. I just fiddled with the lights until it looked right."
I saw one of the best family portraits I have ever seen a couple of years ago and the lighting was amazing.
Same photographer has tried to replicate his own shot several times since but it just has not worked and that being due to his not knowing enough about light to know what he did right the first time.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
But could he replicate that shot again.
I don't think he was big into replication. He'd done it once, why do it again? I'm certain he could do something else just as amazing, though, with regularity.
It's not that he didn't have technical chops, he was probably the best in my class at Art Center, where technical proficiency was cherished. Ansel Adams was teaching at Art Center when he and Fred Archer codified the Zone System.
He had reached a point where technique was almost instinctive. It's kind of like typing. When I first learned to type (on a manual typewriter), I had to think of every letter. Now I just type, I don't think about what finger needs to press what key.
