Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> What every new photographer should be told

What every new photographer should be told

&KEIFER
12/03/06 6:35 PM GMT
What every new photographer should be told ... @ .. dslreports.com

Interesting Discourse ...



I thought, maybe, we could disgorge our own discourse below


you start ...
0∈ [?]
*---===>>>>>(¯`·._(¯`·._.: Johnny Demonic :._.·´¯)_.·´¯)<<<<<===---*

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::third_eye
12/03/06 7:05 PM GMT
"Having the best camera does not mean you'll get great pictures. Spend time learning the basics of exposure, composition and depth of field. A great camera or lens will make your job easier and can make your photos better, but only if you know how to use them"

Could it be spelled out any clearer? this, to a certain degree is what I was driving at in the other thread concerning purity.
0∈ [?]
Hi,my name is Rob..ok, so I'm not the greatest at replies and comments. Sorry. For anyone needing to contact me, my email is back up in my profile. >> my cluttered mess of a gallery <<
::theshrew
12/04/06 1:08 PM GMT
I agree with third eye that having the best camera does not mean you will get the best pictures. I can't be alone in getting pretty fed up with friends and colleagues saying "you must have a good camera" when complimenting me on a photograph I've taken.
In my 'poor' days - I used to visit a 2nd hand shop in London which stocked great lenses. I wasn't fussy about the 'box' but the lens was the thing for me. I then studied at Brunel Uni for 2 years _OK not necessary, my interest and enthusiasm preceeded the photographic practical lessons, but it was good to learn lighting, composition, developing and printing etc etc.
I suspect there are now people like me who have made the transition to digital but still have the basics of using film and some great papers in our backgrounds.
A photographer 'sees' a picture. I'm not sure that can be taught.
0∈ [?]
If you want to find something - ask a photographer or camerman!
.noahnott
12/04/06 4:45 PM GMT
...i could so easily argue the other side...
0∈ [?]
::third_eye
12/04/06 4:52 PM GMT
then please do so, Noah. this shouldn't be one-sided. i've never had a problem with an opposing point of view, provided it's respectfully presented.
0∈ [?]
Hi,my name is Rob..ok, so I'm not the greatest at replies and comments. Sorry. For anyone needing to contact me, my email is back up in my profile. >> my cluttered mess of a gallery
.noahnott
12/04/06 11:36 PM GMT
actually turns out i cant 'so easily argue the other side...' but here's my best shot:

1) Aperature/shutter speed control something that doesnt come with a cheap(er) camera. One of the more important things to use, like...well flowing water! I like those shots for some reason and you cant do that with a cheapy camera...also if u can adjust the apature (i hate spelling), you can experiment with DOF and etc etc (that's important btw)....almost forgot, you can also experiment with wide angle lenses (cheap cameras usually focus on telephoto stuff).
2) With a point and shoot all you can do is capture what you see...thats about it. You can learn what is good to take pics of, composition blah blah blah, but some pics look like **** and when you finally end up buying a better camera you'll probably skip over the "good shots" cuz your used to taking the "point and shoot" type of shots...
3) Your going to buy that "better" camera sooner or later. Yes, the quality of digital photos will change over time, but if your hanging out on caedes.net, a 4mp is basically all you'll need. If you want to use it for other purposes, like printing, just buy an expensive film camera which will last a lifetime.
4) ...it's more fun when you have a big camera. =P (It's a psychological thing..makes you feel good). Buying a cheap camera is basically calling yourself a terrible photographer (even when you might be [like me]) and you dont deserve it.
5) However, if you dont have the *cha-ching* to buy a dslr, point and shoots will do fine....you can still take pictures of the "other" stuff around you (it's kindof like putting a 50mm lens on your camera and your limited to just that so you think in different ways that you would normally) and you'll learn all the basics of photography [which i still am clueless about] etc etc.

Umm, *cough* i brewed that up really fast and there are probably tons of contradict--- statements in there, errors, confusion causing babbling, false statements, etc etc. You get the idea. :-S
0∈ [?]
.noahnott
12/04/06 11:38 PM GMT
PS: it's kindof like saying "You dont NEED toilet paper...but it sure is good to have a roll."

...off topic, but how did the settlers back in the day when going to the west coast (you get the idea)...i dont think cacti made for a good alternative.
0∈ [?]
::third_eye
12/04/06 11:58 PM GMT
*arches an eyebrow* my response to that will be the same that my high school photography teacher once said to me..and i'm trying to get as close to a quote as i can from a 20 year+ old statement:
"get that crap out of here. i know you can do better, much better, and don't come back until you've proven me right"

in his case, he was (rightly so) criticising an assignment i sloppily tossed together. and i don't think any one person did more for my advancement. he introduced the concept into my head that, "gee...i can do better...?"

in the here and now, i say it to you,if not exactly in the same context, but in the same spirit. it's an acknowledgement of your intelligence and talent (i've read the things you can put into words when you put your mind to it) It's also a challenge and an admonishment, not to add sloppily to an intelligent conversation or debate, as it will make quite the opposite impression. so.. prove me right :o)
0∈ [?]
Hi,my name is Rob..ok, so I'm not the greatest at replies and comments. Sorry. For anyone needing to contact me, my email is back up in my profile. >> my cluttered mess of a gallery
.noahnott
12/05/06 12:06 AM GMT
I actually dont believe in what i said which is why it wasnt very professional...it's also why i cant make it any more "intelligent". :-S Lol, i just did it to keep the thread going.

PS: On second thought, i dont know what side i'm for...why did i even buy a d50 in the first place!?
0∈ [?]
::mimi
12/05/06 9:20 AM GMT
I disagree with the statement that a photographer ' sees' a picture and you don't think that can be taught Kate. I was taught. I have never, ever in my life prior to joining Caedes composed anything that closely resembled an image. I have shoeboxes filled with the back of people's heads, under exposed, flash too far away, flash too close, motion..you name the wrong, & I did it. I found this site & I wanted to be a part of it, so I watched the images closely and chose my mentors carefully and read the discussion threads diligently (there was no separation back then) & learned through trial and error and strong positive critique from fellow members what composed a good photo. I have since taught myself fractal-making since that is part of what I vote on and that knowledge has proven invaluable and I have also dabbled in CG although it is not a preferred area for me.
So as you can tell, I was 'taught'....just ask my high school teachers. They know the artistic eye wasn't in the room when I was there in school :)
Oh, and I shot my first image posted here with a second hand 2.1 MP clamshell cover dig camera. I have since upgraded, but I really miss the other one. FYI, my first image still has my highest c-index of all other images shot with a fancy camera. (the c-index still stayed high even after the c-index voting changed)....that is the real proof for me ;=)
0∈ [?]
~mimi~
::theshrew
12/05/06 1:10 PM GMT
Well done mimi! You obviously proved me wrong - and I'm delighted for you. If the c-index is the proof - then I'd better go back to school! LoL, Kate
0∈ [?]
If you want to find something - ask a photographer or camerman!
::mimi
12/05/06 11:00 PM GMT
I don't often look at the c-index Kate, but in this case, it is only offered as other's opinion of what composes a good versus not so good wallpaper image. I actually had to check prior to posting my above comment so I could state with accuracy :)
I just think that with the right amount of motivation and willingness and humility a lot can be taught and doesn't have to be a genetically instilled gift. Now if we would discuss my singing, well, no amount of willingness etc. will help me there. I just don't have the voice and would probably need extensive training....so there are differences and it really isn't in the c-index. Trust me on this one ;=)
0∈ [?]
~mimi~
::theshrew
12/06/06 10:26 AM GMT
mimi says:
"Oh, and I shot my first image posted here with a second hand 2.1 MP clamshell cover dig camera. I have since upgraded, but I really miss the other one. FYI, my first image still has my highest c-index of all other images shot with a fancy camera. (the c-index still stayed high even after the c-index voting changed)....that is the real proof for me ;=)"

"so there are differences and it really isn't in the c-index. Trust me on this one ;=)"

Kate says:
Confused?? Help - with humility...
0∈ [?]
If you want to find something - ask a photographer or camerman!
::mimi
12/06/06 5:34 PM GMT
My statement that you directly quoted had to do with the difference being in the quality of the camera and not the c-index. It was poorly worded on my part.
0∈ [?]
~mimi~
.Canuck_Photo_Guy
12/10/06 3:02 PM GMT
I think what theshrew was saying with regards to a photographer seeing a picture and not being able to be taught is bang on the nose. But, I might add, an experienced photographer to that statement. I know at least for myself, I've tinkered with photography since junior high school (10+ years ago). This is of course pre-digital, so I took part in taking pictures with old-school (fully manual slr's, which then were close to 20 years old) and did the developing as well. Of course alot of the pictures were not that great, actually were pretty bad. I eventually bought some books on how to shoot better photos (just some little pocket sized ones from Kodak I think). Even though I did learn things from these books (rule of thirds etc) it's still in my opinion that it is up to the individual photographer to take what they've learned and actually be able to "see" a photo before taking it. This came with a lot of practice, but with that practice experience came as well. The experience I gained indicates when the so called rules (thirds etc) should be implemented but also when they can be broken to increase the strength of the photo.

Back in the day (if I might use that term), it was necessary to try and apply the basics in order to avoid wasting film, developing and money. I have since changed to digital slr, but I wonder since many people getting into photography now (with digital cameras) are not having that same foundation to build experience on? Of course it could be argued that the introduction of digital cameras and the way you can review images right on the camera has increased the ease at which a photographer can progress. To that I would agree for sure. But still, I wonder if digital camera's are not giving the beginning photographer these days a proper foundation because of that speed of review?

Anyways, this is just a rambling off the topic of my head while I sit and sip some delicious Starbucks Holiday Blend. Thoughts? Comments?
0∈ [?]
"To photograph is to hold one's breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It's at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson
::theshrew
12/10/06 3:17 PM GMT
Well obviously I'm going to agree with you on this. To me photography isn't taking a picture and tweaking out all the imperfections afterwards, with no conscience at all. It is understanding what makes a good picture - pushing yourself (ah the days of pushing film!), learning and trying something new, but above all, trying to take that perfect shot 1st time!
I actually miss developing and darkroom work, using new papers, getting different effects when printing. In my old days, 1 or 2 good shots per 36 was a good hit! Now, I suspect, all shots are considered 'possibles' from our digital results.
0∈ [?]
If you want to find something - ask a photographer or camerman!
.Canuck_Photo_Guy
12/10/06 11:46 PM GMT
Haha, yeah I can kinda miss the developing too. I remember once I got the wrong kind of developer, it was a "soft" developer which really oversoftened the photos from that batch! Oh well :), maybe I'll dig out my old darkroom gear when I get home and take a look at it. Maybe the urge to try developing again will catch...
0∈ [?]
"To photograph is to hold one's breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It's at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson
®mar
12/15/06 6:45 PM GMT
I'm with theshrew on this too. Macros, portraits - lots of good photos can be made without having "the eye". If you're only shooting one subject, and the subject is isolated for you already you really just have to know how to use your camera aand editing software, but if you're shooting multiple subjects interacting, or one subject with which you're trying to tell a story you have to be able to see the image before you shoot it. Maybe not exactly, but you have to understand in advance what you're trying to accomplish.

The DSLR's do allow you more control over your equipment to help you tell that story, but the really good photographers seem to instinctively create what we poorer photographers create using compositional rules. If you always shoot using compositional rules most of your shots will be good, but if you know when the rules need to be broken, then you have the abilities to become great. This is where learning the rules can only take you so far. At some point instinct has to take over or you remain an amateur.
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: