Maybe the how is all you can teach to someone...you can tell your why and try to explain it, but it is something that everyone has to experience by themselves, each one has their own why about things...people also ask the how as some sort of validation for things they are doing but aren't really sure about it.
Like Tony, I learned off camera flash and failed a lot at first. Failing gave me feedback on what worked, what didn't work and forced me to come up with ideas on how to do better next time. That is part of being creative with my photography.
My goal as a photographer is to be able to pre-visualize things in my head before I even access my gear. I find that asking myself why in every situation helps cut down the time wasted on fiddling around with lighting equipment and other shooting techniques so I can focus more on the subject interaction.
I do feel there is a lot of merit in asking the how. But there are photographers I know who want to achieve final results without putting the work into it.
"How" is a question of technical proficiency with a tool.
"Why" is a question of purpose, vision, and style.
Asking "how" is a crucial part of learning a tool. Tony mentions some great photographers that are problem solvers. These people ask themselves "how?" (rather than asking another expert) and experiment until they decipher the approach.
But to do even this requires significant basic competence with the tools. There's no reason to criticize or be frustrated with people who ask "how" an expert did something -- it is the primary means of learning to use a tool, whether you get the "how" information from a person, a blog, or a book.
To ask "why" is the next step, but it must follow "how." I can't behave creatively about "why" I would use a technique (outside of the specific example given) until I understand "how" to accomplish that technique. From that point, my understanding of "how" to apply a technique will greatly increase as I explore various visions of "why" I might use it. But to have a vision requires understanding of the approach to get there. Otherwise, the idea is not feasible.
People who copy a photograph or a technique ("how") have not copied a style ("why") by that single act. I don't know anyone who has successfully copied Tony's style, but many people have tried using some of his techniques. Some use them once or twice, and decide the technique does not address any "why" question in their heads. So their styles will differ.
First, learn the tool. Second, develop vision -- your style in the application of that tool.
Let me be devils advocate here, so WHY are big names running workshops and lecture series if HOW is not important ? I've bought one of those DVD workshops and it states HOW we do things and upto some extent WHY we do this things so you could follow some of this things and could work more efficeintly instead of wasting countless hours. Did I learn something from it ? YES. Am I working more efficiently and producing better results ? YES. Did I copy everything that is said in there ? NO because some of things I found obsolete and not what fits in my current workflow.
So yes WHY is important but HOW is what brings you closer to WHY.
mjoshi wrote:
Let me be devils advocate here, so WHY are big names running workshops and lecture series if HOW is not important ?
This one's easy.
It's because there's a constant stream of amateurs with money in their pockets who think it's all about how.
A significant portion of the students in my continuing education photo classes and a fair number of people at FM think that photography is like cooking - if I buy the right mixer and I copy down the recipe you tell me, I can be a master chef.
The truth is many of the "big names" are flashes in the pan. They do something different, get noticed, have just enough success and then they hit the lucrative workshop circuit. They often end up making much more from workshops than they ever did from photography. Many end up legends in their own mind, who, if you scratch the surface, are much better marketers than they are photographers.
For the amateur wanting to learn, I totally disagree. It is the logical but faulty trap of New Math.
Human learn by skills first, then concepts second. How first, why second. It is just the way we wire ourselves. Evolution was not logical.
It seems counter intuitive but this is the way humans learn. New Math is to teach why... the concepts, then the skills should be obvious or, at a minimum, the student can now apply the concepts and figure it out. Sounds good, but humans just don't learn this way.
Tell me how. This builds a reference point in a person's mind. Add a few more hows, and then the person can compare and contrast and will develop knowledge derived from the emergent patterns. The concepts, or whys, come second and when they do, they are much more powerful when it comes to approaching the next situation for problem solving.
This is one case where over-thinking is messing it all up. It is like Communism... sounds really great and logical but just doesn't work in the real world. Humans are not linear, one-on-top-of-another learners. Show me the end state, and I will figure the how from there.
Bruce n Philly wrote:
It is like Communism... sounds really great and logical but just doesn't work in the real world.
The same could be said for Representative Democracy.
Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I teach how. That's what my students expect and pay for. I try to slide in a little why. Maybe 10% will ever understand the need of the why.
Too many people who ask the HOW thinks the WHY automatically comes with it. Worse than that, there are those who think the HOW is an end in and of itself. They work real hard on the HOW. Some end up being able to take technically competent photos the are soul crushingly banal and boring.
Bruce n Philly wrote:
For the amateur wanting to learn, I totally disagree. It is the logical but faulty trap of New Math.
Human learn by skills first, then concepts second. How first, why second. It is just the way we wire ourselves. Evolution was not logical.
It seems counter intuitive but this is the way humans learn. New Math is to teach why... the concepts, then the skills should be obvious or, at a minimum, the student can now apply the concepts and figure it out. Sounds good, but humans just don't learn this way.
Tell me how. This builds a reference point in a person's mind. Add a few more hows, and then the person can compare and contrast and will develop knowledge derived from the emergent patterns. The concepts, or whys, come second and when they do, they are much more powerful when it comes to approaching the next situation for problem solving.
This is one case where over-thinking is messing it all up. It is like Communism... sounds really great and logical but just doesn't work in the real world. Humans are not linear, one-on-top-of-another learners. Show me the end state, and I will figure the how from there.
I'm not a big name, and I may very well be a flash in the pan. But I've been teaching people a method to develop the "WHY" for years and I'm convinced that it works. "How" is easy - it is all about tactics. "Why" is about strategy. Once you have a strategy it is easy to figure out which tactics you need to accomplish that strategy and plug them in. Business isn't about the "end state" it is about knowing what the core purpose of the business is and finding ways to execute on it.
If you help a creative person find the "why" then they can figure out a bunch of cool ways to execute the "how" - that's what is so exciting about it. When you start with the "how" you just copy the same shit everyone is already doing.
I've got a tasty amount of anecdotal proof to back this up.
Chris Fawkes wrote:
I would dare say most of the truly unique photographers in the world will tell you they learnt how first.
I'm not sure that's true. But the ones who started by understanding "why" (i.e., they had vision early), are the ones who have significant raw talent -- an inclination to see the world in terms of the pictures they could create.
Most of us (meaning most of us normal, non-superstar photographers) don't see that way before we learn how to use the tool. Most of us need to learn how to make the tool work and understand what kinds of images we're capable of making before we decide how to turn our skills into a discernible style.
Not to resurrect an old thread, but I just wanted to say that I was sitting there, editing pictures, thinking that I so dearly wished I could get the skin tones the Hoffer Photography has mastered, and after trying different editing styles, lighting techniques, and asking and asking everyone else for almost 2 years, I had a light bulb moment to check the FM forums. Maybe I'd learn something there.
Irony abounds further that when I put in the term skin tones, this popped up. So FM Forums, thanks for telling me to hustle harder, and keep practicing. Both the how AND the why are important, and when I've mastered this, I'll be proud to come back and let you know what I've learned.
