10 kinds of photographer.

[Wayland]

Dave, I'm just starting to look at how time lapse filming works so I'll know who to ask when I start banging my head against obstacles then.

[rpcrowe]

I don't think that I need to know the workings of the internal combustion engine or the vehicles drive train to drive from my home to the supermarket for a container of milk. However, that knowlege may or may not come in handy if I break down enroute. I do however, need to know where the various vehicle controls are located and what these controls will accomplish...

It was, handy to have a pretty in-depth knowledge of B&W processing/printing and color negative printing to achieve good imagery. OTOH, although I did process reversal film, it was far simpler and efficient to have that film processed. Although I did need to know the difference in capabilities of the Ektachrome type film and the Kodachrome type film, I certainly had absolutely no interest in how Kodak processed Kodachrome.

As far as improving photography, I am not at all sure that knowing the math would help digital photography. I would expect that a top artistic photographer, shooting in automatic mode would achieve better imagery than a top methematician who had an in depth knowledge of the workings of the digital system but, did not have the artistic capability.

Here are some questions I will offer along with my answers:

Q: Does a person need to know film photography to become a good digital photographer?
A: Certainly not! Many good digital photographers originally shot film but many have never run film through a camera.

Q. Does a person need to have shot with a 35mm or full frame digital camera to understand crop ratios?
A: Certainly not. Crop ratios are confusing and irrelevant and unnecessary to most photographers and just muddy the water.

Q. Do you have to shoot in manual mode to be a good photographer?
A. Certainly not. Manual has its place but, so does Aperture Prority, Shutter Speed Priority and Programmed exposure modes.

Q. Which is more important artistic capability or technical skills?
A. Both are important but for some of us photography is an art and for others it is a science.

Q. What is more important; the image or how you shot the image?
A. IMO, the resulting image is the most important factor in photography?

[Wayland]

Bill, I studied technical draghtsmanship at school just in time for the first CAD machines to render those skills useless. Photography became my next occupation but I walked away from that for almost seven years before picking up a digital camera, not through any conscious decision but simply because I couldn't work out how I could achieve things that had been second nature to me in the darkroom. You'll remember as well as I do that back in the mid nineties the internet was in it's infancy and hardly anyone had heard of PhotoShop. The wealth of information we have available now just wasn't out there then.

I teach 7 - 9 year olds in my daily business now and they're much smarter than most people give them credit for. Sure, you need to break things down differently for them but they are perfectly capable of understanding the basics of photography and your point about overriding the exposure system of the camera is frankly something that some adults struggle with until it is explained in similar ways.

My point is that despite all the sophistication of modern equipment and software we still need a level of understanding of the process, even if it is just "If the subject is in shadow, it will need more light."

There is a continuous spectrum of that knowledge from "which is the shutter button" right up to the physics of modern camera sensors. Certainly it is not necessary to know everything in the beginning but it definitely helps you to achieve better results the more you know.

[Wayland]

Richard, I've never said that technical know how is more important than artistic ability, far from it.

In fact I believe that innate ability, which is so hard to teach, is the essence of what makes a competent photographer a great one.

However, I have met many people with that ability that find themselves frustrated and seriously limited in what they can achieve simply because they lack the solid grounding in photographic principles and post processing skills which could really unleash that creative ability.

[Adrian]

Interesting. For me, the post processing is just using computers and software. Everything is reversible and each change is visible on the fly. Trial and error works as does knowledge. Operating the camera is easy peasy - even for a complex camera as once you have got the hang of the basic control of depth of field and exposure, you've pretty much cracked it. The very, very hard bit is seeing the image in your mind's eye and then capturing it. This can be partially learnt but natural talent is hard to replicate.

I am extremely glad that I don't have to mess about with film. You take the picture then have no idea what it looks like until hours or days later when it is processed at great expense.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Yes, I tend to agree.

Binary 10 = 2 in decimal notation.

Whereas B4 in hexadecimal = 180 in decimal or 10110100 in binary.

Masterful/wise use of the "blurring and masking tools" do help.

(I'm not going to be offended if you disagree. I enjoy a good debate.)

[Wayland]

Adrian, certainly trial and error are a great teacher but if we don't learn from it then we have to go through the same long winded approach every time.

I don't know about you but I'd rather be out there taking pictures at least some of the time.

Film was a real pain at times. As you say there was always a degree of uncertainty. I used one of the first batches of a film called Velvia and ran it through a commercial lab only to have some awful processing faults because Fuji had not made it public that anti foaming agents needed to be used in the first developer.

I lost almost an entire shoot and although Fuji stumped up with a generous offer of film stock and a big apology the shots were irreplaceable.

On digital I would have had the shots on multiple cards and I would have at least known I had something in the bag.

Although the early days of transition were painful I don't often dust off the old cameras any more.

[Wayland]

Victor, I've always enjoyed blurring the edges and sometimes masking a smile.

[Adrian]

I find that software like Aperture is very easy to use and there are a lot of tools that are really easy to experiment with. Tweaking shots to my preference tends to follow an established workflow and is fast. Software like Portrait Professional 64bit pro version is absolutely intuitive and although it can be a bit OTT at times, it is very fast to use. Stuff in the CS6 arena can be more demanding to learn but anyone who is computer literate can pick up PP quite fast. Another huge advantage is that as you learn more, you can go back and re-work shots that deserve it. Sharing and distribution is also very easy with digital work.

In practice the accessibility of photography has come a very long way in the last 5 years. Even camera phones can deliver creative results. Perhaps there is a tendency among photographers to claim that it is some special art that should only be practiced by the "creatives" among us, but the gamut from daily recording of life snaps to the high end truly memorable image means there is a place for everyone and fun to be had by everyone.

Digital imagery is becoming fundamental to our lives as we browse the web, share on social media, utilise you tube et al and our ives are punctuated with pictures. Google glass will be an interesting next step. I enjoy photography for the opportunity to try to create stand out images, not just add to the ambient noise.

[William W]

Bill, I studied technical draghtsmanship at school just in time for the first CAD machines to render those skills useless.

That’s again a mindset; a way of thinking into which you seem to be locked.

***

Photography became my next occupation but I walked away from that for almost seven years before picking up a digital camera, not through any conscious decision but simply because I couldn't work out how I could achieve things that had been second nature to me in the darkroom. You'll remember as well as I do that back in the mid nineties the internet was in it's infancy and hardly anyone had heard of PhotoShop. The wealth of information we have available now just wasn't out there then.

Then I would argue that you simply made poor choices.

I didn’t use a digital DSLR until around 2004. I chose Canon, (which meant a complete system change for me) I chose to get an EOS 20D (i.e. I purposely did NOT choose a D30 D60 or 10D), then a year later, I chose a 5D.

I had no problems using film SLRs until 2004/5. There were plenty of quality Photofinishing Labs running good businesses, even in country and rural areas, in 2005.

I see no necessity for any Photographer amateur or profession to HAVE TO change from SLR to DSLR until around the release of the EOS 10D (2003).

Adobe’s Photoshop “Creative Suite" was well understood and quite affordable by 2003 ~2004.

***

I teach 7 - 9 year olds in my daily business now and they're much smarter than most people give them credit for. Sure, you need to break things down differently for them but they are perfectly capable of understanding the basics of photography and your point about overriding the exposure system of the camera is frankly something that some adults struggle with until it is explained in similar ways.

One of my points, exactly.

Adults allow themselves to be locked into a particular way of thinking – your thinking as expressed in your words, is an example – I have highlighted such.

Kids are no smarter when they become adults as that when they were children.

You didn’t become less smart as you have grown older.

***

My point is that despite all the sophistication of modern equipment and software we still need a level of understanding of the process, even if it is just "If the subject is in shadow, it will need more light."

I agree.

But this is only ONE of the points you have raised: not “your point”

***

There is a continuous spectrum of that knowledge from "which is the shutter button" right up to the physics of modern camera sensors.

It is not just about knowledge, per se.

It is about the application of it: the thinking.

***

Certainly it is not necessary to know everything in the beginning but it definitely helps you to achieve better results the more you know.

I disagree.

IMO that is a very silly DEFINITIVE statement.

For example, you (and I) don’t really need to know about a “DSLR’s Light Meter and 18% Photographic Grey.

Certainly, even more so, you really don’t need to know that you were incorrect anyway and it is about 12% Grey.

Those facts (or errors), really will not help you, in 99.9% of your Photography.

*

Sure - “the basics”, as you refer to them are required – but, from what you write: your “basics” and my “basics” are worlds apart.

Also once you get the 'correct basics' you must have the correct thinking and the correct application of these basics . . .

I’d would NOT even give an 18% grey card to an 8 year old – and if I had my way neither would it be mentioned for a very long time in the adult curriculum I teach.

*

You could learn how to meter - the grass; the back of your hand; grey concrete or blue sky, that would be just as effective, for 99.9% of your shooting – it is all just about how the light falls on different tones.

If you are outside in the day time, then you could learn how to not use a light meter, in mostly every situation.

If you are inside – you can learn how to not use a light meter, also: it is more challenging, but it just requires the same thinking – just seeing the light on different tones. You might have to remember a few different types of lights, that’s all.
Have a play with my Guard Cat.

***

It is all about the light falling on different tones.
And correct exposure, doesn’t change.

It is just all about the light – not Grey Cards, or Evaluative Metering or Expose to the Right or Histograms.

Just see the light . . . that’s “the basics”.

THE Problem is – this concept and way of thinking is too simple for adults who generally strive to make it much more complicated.

WW

[GrahamH]

Love the first 10 lines of the original post .
Many good points (I tend to read the threads before I comment).
I am comfortable with the technical aspect (mechanics and math type stuff), even the technical side of composition. It's where I am comfortable and from where I can branch out from with a certain degree of success in learning new skills. Without my 'comfort zone' I would be a lot slower learner.
Basics are basics for everyone, but very one can have different basics depending on their mindset.
Graham

[rpcrowe]

I basically know what is meant when someone mentions an algorithm in connection with a digital image. However, in actuality, I probably wouldn't recognize an algorithm if I tripped over or bumped into one. However, as long as the Canon or Adobe folks know what to do with an algorithm, I am happy that I personally don't really have to do anything with it.

OTOH, I am totally familiar with such things as the difference between reflected and incident light metering because I need to know that in order to shoot acceptably exposed images.

I have a handle regarding the shutter speeds I need to stop or blur action. However, I probably would be mystified if someone converted the shutter speeds into a measurement of the movement of the image across the image plane.

I was pretty adept at the various formuli for concocting the developer, stop bath and fixer in B&W photography from the individual base chemistry; including how to determine the diferent amounts of a chemical needed when working with dessicated or dehydrated forms of the chemical. Once, the U.S. Navy began to purchase processing chemicals in ready-mix, just add water, Betty Crocker form; I totally forgot most of what I had learned about chemical mixing and never worried about the specific chemicals in my processing solutions.

I tend to pay attention and to learn the things that will impact my imagery and disregard or never learn things that might be interesting and fun for other photographers to learn.

[Wayland]

Adrian, I agree, the basics of LR and even PS are fairly straightforward now and the advent of tools like ACR made things a lot simpler when they first came along. I think PP has become one of those skills to which that old hackneyed saying "A moment to learn, a lifetime to master" can be applied.

Quite rightly you say that the accessibility of photography has expanded to a huge extent which perhaps is a double edged sword.

I think George Eastman would have been thrilled to see almost everyone with a camera in their pocket and I think it is great that people can record pictures of their every day lives at the tough of a button.

Sadly, some of the professional photographers that I know are slowly going out of business because of a corresponding lack of demand for the product they produce.

The internet, with it's demand for visual content, ought to have been a massive opportunity for pro photographers but the profits have been taken largely by the micro stock agencies while the public simply right click images they see for their own use on blogs and the like.

There is also a growing concern amongst archivists that although there is an unprecedented body of photographic work out there now, very little of it is being stored in ways that will make it available to future generations. (But that is a thought for another day.)

Do you think modern photography has become a victim or a beneficiary of the new technology?

Snip> I enjoy photography for the opportunity to try to create stand out images, not just add to the ambient noise.

I think that is the finest point anyone has made in this thread.

To me that is a great answer to my question.

[Wayland]

That’s again a mindset; a way of thinking into which you seem to be locked.

Bill, I am pleased that you show such concern for my state of mind, let me assure you that I have no problems on that front.

Then I would argue that you simply made poor choices.

Quite the contrary, I switched out of two career paths that were heading in directions I did not think had good futures, long before I found myself in a crisis and today I have an enjoyable small business, sufficient to our needs, that is unlikely to be replaced by technology and is in fact growing in strong defiance of current trends.

I am very comfortable with my choices.

I didn’t use a digital DSLR until around 2004. I chose Canon, (which meant a complete system change for me) I chose to get an EOS 20D (i.e. I purposely did NOT choose a D30 D60 or 10D), then a year later, I chose a 5D.

I had no problems using film SLRs until 2004/5. There were plenty of quality Photofinishing Labs running good businesses, even in country and rural areas, in 2005.

I see no necessity for any Photographer amateur or profession to HAVE TO change from SLR to DSLR until around the release of the EOS 10D (2003).

Adobe’s Photoshop “Creative Suite" was well understood and quite affordable by 2003 ~2004.

Seven years on from the mid nineties you might note and roughly when I came back to photography for my own enjoyment.

One of my points, exactly.

Adults allow themselves to be locked into a particular way of thinking – your thinking as expressed in your words, is an example – I have highlighted such.

Kids are no smarter when they become adults as that when they were children.

You didn’t become less smart as you have grown older.

Actually according to my IQ score, which has dropped from 172 to 168, I did slightly. (All in line with current research by the way.)

I agree.

But this is only ONE of the points you have raised: not “your point”

True, I have raised a number of points and could argue many others, quite in opposition if I felt like it, but that is the role of Devils Advocate is it not?

It is not just about knowledge, per se.

It is about the application of it: the thinking.

But I think most would agree that it is necessary to have knowledge if you wish to apply it effectively.

Certainly it is not necessary to know everything in the beginning but it definitely helps you to achieve better results the more you know.

I disagree.

IMO that is a very silly DEFINITIVE statement.

I'll concede that point, Most people achieve better results the more they learn.

For example, you (and I) don’t really need to know about a “DSLR’s Light Meter and 18% Photographic Grey.

Certainly, even more so, you really don’t need to know that you were incorrect anyway and it is about 12% Grey.

Those facts (or errors), really will not help you, in 99.9% of your Photography.

It actually varies from camera to camera according to the whims of photographic engineers but if you would prefer to define it as 12% I'm not going to argue, it's close enough in principle.

Sure - “the basics”, as you refer to them are required – but, from what you write: your “basics” and my “basics” are worlds apart.

Also once you get the 'correct basics' you must have the correct thinking and the correct application of these basics . . .

I’d would NOT even give an 18% grey card to an 8 year old – and if I had my way neither would it be mentioned for a very long time in the adult curriculum I teach.

You could learn how to meter - the grass; the back of your hand; grey concrete or blue sky, that would be just as effective, for 99.9% of your shooting – it is all just about how the light falls on different tones.

If you are outside in the day time, then you could learn how to not use a light meter, in mostly every situation.

If you are inside – you can learn how to not use a light meter, also: it is more challenging, but it just requires the same thinking – just seeing the light on different tones. You might have to remember a few different types of lights, that’s all.

It is all about the light falling on different tones.
And correct exposure, doesn’t change.

It is just all about the light – not Grey Cards, or Evaluative Metering or Expose to the Right or Histograms.

Just see the light . . . that’s “the basics”.

Everyone's definition of "the basics" is likely to be different but I still maintain that the wider and more solid that base knowledge is, the higher you can build upon it.

I don't recall making any mention of how I teach as is it not really relevant to our conversation.

THE Problem is – this concept and way of thinking is too simple for adults who generally strive to make it much more complicated.

WW

It's so easy to make such "very silly DEFINITIVE statements" when we're not paying attention isn't it?

[Wayland]

Love the first 10 lines of the original post .
Many good points (I tend to read the threads before I comment).
I am comfortable with the technical aspect (mechanics and math type stuff), even the technical side of composition. It's where I am comfortable and from where I can branch out from with a certain degree of success in learning new skills. Without my 'comfort zone' I would be a lot slower learner.
Basics are basics for everyone, but every one can have different basics depending on their mindset.
Graham

Graham, very well put.

[Wayland]

I basically know what is meant when someone mentions an algorithm in connection with a digital image. However, in actuality, I probably wouldn't recognize an algorithm if I tripped over or bumped into one. However, as long as the Canon or Adobe folks know what to do with an algorithm, I am happy that I personally don't really have to do anything with it.

Arthur C Clarke once famously stated "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I have met a few people for whom the workings of a digital camera come close to "magic" in their thinking.

"I wanted to photograph such and such. Why has it done so and so? That wasn't what I intended..."

If we fail to understand that the tools we use are just machines working within parameters designed by remote human beings, then it is all to easy for some to expect them to perform miracles and make concious decisions for us.

By understanding that, you are at least in control of your expectations.

OTOH, I am totally familiar with such things as the difference between reflected and incident light metering because I need to know that in order to shoot acceptably exposed images.

I have a handle regarding the shutter speeds I need to stop or blur action. However, I probably would be mystified if someone converted the shutter speeds into a measurement of the movement of the image across the image plane.

Knowledge sufficient to the task at hand is usually all we require. The difficulties often occur when our knowledge falls short of that mark.

I was pretty adept at the various formulae for concocting the developer, stop bath and fixer in B&W photography from the individual base chemistry; including how to determine the different amounts of a chemical needed when working with dessicated or dehydrated forms of the chemical. Once, the U.S. Navy began to purchase processing chemicals in ready-mix, just add water, Betty Crocker form; I totally forgot most of what I had learned about chemical mixing and never worried about the specific chemicals in my processing solutions.

I had similar difficulties when I studied photography at college. My darkrooms skills actually took a backward step for a while because I lost control of part of the process.

I tend to pay attention and to learn the things that will impact my imagery and disregard or never learn things that might be interesting and fun for other photographers to learn.

One of the things I find so fascinating about photography is that it provides such a wide range of disciplines to learn about.

I've been trying my hand at really low light work recently and it's challenged me in new ways and my research is what actually brought me to this site.

Interestingly, my knowledge fell seriously short on one of my recent shots and I am now seriously looking for the information I need to prevent that happening again.

The quest for knowledge never really ceases.

[nimitzbenedicto]

I once heard it said that there are 10 kinds of photographer today.

(I'm not going to be offended if you disagree. I enjoy a good debate.)

Ok following Gary's satisfaction with Graham's method, I re-read the 1st post and noticed it is based on hearsay.

I once heard it said that

"hearsay" . [ an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay]

and it seems he isn't even sure if it' true or not.

While I'm not sure it is that black and white

Perhaps best is he show concrete/factual proof via his own actual pictures/images
( preferably, one each for portrait/landscape/macro/night scene/etc.) those which are a result of :

1.

a deep understanding of the technology and software is essential to the process.

2. pictures/images which are not.

and explain the actual process wherein he used deep understanding of technology and software.

Note: I'm not saying "put up or shut up" just asking for something factual and not hearsay.

btw, I also enjoy a good debate and don't get offended.

Thanks

[pnodrog]

Actually Victor it does not matter that the statement maybe hearsay because the statement is inherently true and is in logical terms an exclusive or (EOR) provided one excludes the possibility of someone both understanding and not understanding binary at the same time. However the outcome that they are a photographer is the same regardless. There is no reference to levels of competence or skill in photography in the initial statement so it is actually irrelevant in terms of the resulting discussion.

I understand both binary arithmetic and binary logic but this understanding contributes very little to my skill as a photographer.

P.S. Luckily the EOR logic will exclude anyone that claims to both understand and not understand binary from being a photographer.

[nimitzbenedicto]

..................

I understand both binary arithmetic and binary logic but this understanding contributes very little to my skill as a photographer.

Yes. I believe you. Binary/etc. contributes little to photography skills.

[Wayland]

Ok following Gary's satisfaction with Graham's method, I re-read the 1st post and noticed it is based on hearsay.

I once heard it said that there are 10 kinds of photographer today.

Those that understand binary maths and those that don't...

"hearsay" . [ an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay]

While I'm not sure it is that black and white I do think there is some truth in that statement.

and it seems he isn't even sure if it' true or not.

And of course the "10 kinds of photographer" quote is just an old gag to illustrate a point. As I suggested, I don't think we need to under stand how to multiply in binary or hex, I certainly couldn't, but I do think it is important to understand that behind the scenes it is all about the numbers.

My satisfaction with Graham's post is that he had obviously read the thread thoroughly and not got hung up on one small part of it.

Perhaps best is he show concrete/factual proof via his own actual pictures/images
( preferably, one each for portrait/landscape/macro/night scene/etc.) those which are a result of :

1.

I'll play Devil's Advocate here and say that I think a deep understanding of the technology and software is essential to the process.

2. pictures/images which are not.

and explain the actual process wherein he used deep understanding of technology and software.

I think the thread "24 hours on Anglesey" contains some recent good examples including one where my knowledge proved insufficient to the task at hand.

For more examples you could always try one of my websites, you could start with the link in my signature.

Note: I'm not saying "put up or shut up" just asking for something factual and not hearsay.

btw, I also enjoy a good debate and don't get offended.

Thanks

No offence taken, I find a good debate to be an excellent way to introduce yourself.