10 kinds of photographer.

[RustBeltRaw]

Interesting comments about white balance. Considering how often I use a manual or pre-set balance, I guess I wouldn't miss AWB that much. But regardless of the technical limitations, AWB generally gets you close enough that PP corrections are straightforward. In that sense, it strikes me as more useful for reducing a photographer's task load than for nailing the light temperature.

I do wish Canon would display the temperature determined by the AWB system, or as determined in an image used for custom balance. That would take some of the guesswork out of gelling my flashes.

We've strayed a bit, but it seems tempers and rhetoric are getting a little heated, so maybe the turn's for the best. I suspect if we were having this conversation over a pint, it'd be perfectly civil. Words on a forum lack the friendly inflections we can add vocally, which I suspect is at the root of lots of escalating web debates.

[Simon Garrett]

I’ve taught (talented) 8 year olds who know nothing about Photographic Grey Cards and 18% Reference (actually about 12 % for a DSLR if you want to get pedantic ) – all they need to see is the light and how it falls on different tones in the scene.
WW

Quite true, you can know little or nothing of the technology and still get decent pictures.

Technology provides a set of tools to help the creative side of photography, and knowing a bit more about the technology can help the creativity. Your talented 8 year olds may have known little or nothing about focus, aperture, shutter speed... but we all know that a grasp of those technologies can expand your horizon as a photographer.

Since we've gone digital, there are a whole load of new technologies, and we can make personal choices about how far we want to learn about them to advance our art, or whether we don't need to know. In the latter case we either wing it, or perhaps don't take advantage of those technologies.

A few examples:

• White balance: as mentioned, we could just go auto. It works. But if you want full control of colour, you need to understand what's happening.
• Colour management: the science and technology behind it is fiendishly complex (anyone that says otherwise either has a brain the size of a planet, or probably doesn't understand it , IMHO). Most photographers don't know much about it, and get results by trial and error. That works, most of the time; you learn what works for you.
• Computer technology: most photographers are not computer techies, and learn only what they need to carry out the immediate task. However there is less obvious stuff you should know, or you are unwittingly taking risks. On the Adobe Lightroom forum, almost every day there are posts along the lines of "all my pictures have been deleted, can you help me get them back, no I don't have any backups I didn't think they were important". There's another technology you really do need to understand.

Personally, I don't think you can get very far with photography without some knowledge of the application of the science and technology behind it. The amount you choose to know is an entirely personal choice, but may impact the scope of your photography.

Almost all forms of creative expression involve use of tools, and you need to know enough of the technology of those tools to use them in order to be creative with them.

[Wayland]

Interesting comments about white balance. Considering how often I use a manual or pre-set balance, I guess I wouldn't miss AWB that much. But regardless of the technical limitations, AWB generally gets you close enough that PP corrections are straightforward. In that sense, it strikes me as more useful for reducing a photographer's task load than for nailing the light temperature. <Snip

I tend to leave my camera on AWB because I shoot RAW and the "As Shot" setting just gives me another handy preset to look at before I make an informed choice.

[Wayland]

Almost all forms of creative expression involve use of tools, and you need to know enough of the technology of those tools to use them in order to be creative with them.

Artists used to serve apprenticeships in order to learn how to mix paints or make a fresco. The techniques is not what made them artists but it was difficult to be an artist without knowing the techniques.

[Inkanyezi]

Please supply a first reference source to substantiate this statement which you claim is fact, that which is underlined in the quoted section.

WW

Did you pose that question to Canon about their purported evaluative metering? It's them you should ask, not me, it's them that are up to proof or be ashamed. I just stated that their cameras do not have any hardware to meet the task. It is as pure a marketing lie as anything, but of course they are not alone. I can prove it with any off the shelf item, that the camera will not evaluate anything from different fields, but just measure what it takes in through the lens, as a whole, even though it is somewhat distorted by viewfinder optics.

I think a better question would be to ask: "Do you understand exactly how "center weighed" differs from "average" and how both these concepts differ from "evaluative" and what impact it will have on your images?

As a photographer, I think these concepts must be understood, in order to use them in a creative way, otherwise, we simply don't know what we are doing. And I think this was the bottom line in many of the postings here. In order to know what you are doing, you must, as a minimum requirement, have a basic understanding of how the process influences your image. That carries us back to the binary 10 (decimal 2) kinds of photographers, those that care about knowing what they do and why, and those who don't.

So, there are so far three measuring methods possible, averaging, evaluating and spot. Spot can have different angles, and needs a reference area in the viewfinder. Average can be from a smaller or larger area, and may have its sensitivity unevenly distributed over the area. Evaluating needs as a minimum requirement that each one of several measuring elements will only measure a specified part of the image area. The number of such measuring elements and their distribution over the image area also is important in that equation, as for example the old sixties Minolta system used two cells connected in series for their CLC metering that started the trend, and Nikon has two different types of minuscule cameras mounted in the viewfinders of different models, where one has few and the other has a larger number of specified areas. Any camera taking its reading directly from the image sensor could have virtually infinite such measurement areas, and it is possible to acquire an integrated evaluative system in such a camera. If such areas are few, the camera will be less able to identify a highlight or shadow than if they are many.

So I won't present any such source that you ask for. First, you need to present evidence for the original statement, that there is an evaluative measuring system. And if Canon wants to pop in here, I simply dare them to present evidence. As long as there is no positive evidence, I shall refrain from further proof of my claim. It is, just as theirs, an unsupported statement, although mine is based on physical realities.

[Wayland]

Well, this got complicated. If I may step back for a minute, did Wayland refer to binary math as a rhetorical, geeky inside joke, or as a legitimate suggestion that photographers should know it? I strongly suspect it was the former.

Snip>We've strayed a bit, but it seems tempers and rhetoric are getting a little heated, so maybe the turn's for the best. I suspect if we were having this conversation over a pint, it'd be perfectly civil. Words on a forum lack the friendly inflections we can add vocally, which I suspect is at the root of lots of escalating web debates.

But for all that I've been very impressed how long such a contentious topic has run before things did get a little heated. I was branded a "Troll" and thrown off one forum just for asking such a question once.

As you say, part of the problem we face on an internet forum is that in face to face communication there are all sorts of inflections and body language clues that help up to gauge peoples intent when saying things, those clues are missing online.

Around a pub table it would have been very clear that my tongue in cheek opening and "Devils Advocate" position was just a tool to provoke an interesting conversation. It's the sort of thing I do a lot with my friends.

Hopefully, after a good nights sleep we can settle back down to that friendly conversation here.

The balance between art and science, instinct and knowledge in photography does really interest me.

I think Photography has had a slight inferiority complex about it's position in "The Arts" for years which probably dates back to it's earliest days when it was unfavourably compared to painting.

Would you say digital photography has improved that position by making it so universally accessible or has that technology somehow devalued photography as a result of it's all pervading saturation?

There are indeed many talented photographers out there that are quite happy to let their cameras handle most of the image making process. If the picture doesn't work they simply move on and take another. No great worry, memory is cheap after all.

There are others for which the pressing of the shutter button is the culmination of a long thought plan and the start of a complicated technical journey.

When all is said and done, for the viewer at least, it is the picture that counts but how enduring will those pictures really be under the endless tide of digital snapshots?

[Mike Buckley]

Artists used to serve apprenticeships in order to learn how to mix paints or make a fresco. The techniques is not what made them artists but it was difficult to be an artist without knowing the techniques.

I'm reasonably confident that those apprenticeships had to do with business practicalities that served both the apprentice and the artist. (Apprenticeships were common in many vocations, not just art.) The artist needed the apprentice to be financially successful and vice versa. That isn't to say that an artist could be successful without having a command of the techniques.

In the world of photography today, I gather that assistants have a relationship to the photographer that is similar to the relationship between the apprentice and the artist of earlier centuries.

[GrahamH]

......In a written forum we only have the written word.
Perhaps this thread was meant to be “a discussion” – in which case maybe the introduction should not have been so specifically directed toward “a debate”?...

There are many people who sole purpose in life it to nitpick about the words used - lawyers and diplomats to name but two. However, when they do their thing, they tend to produce vast amounts of extra words, defining every possible little thing and redefining when someone finds the slightest amount of ambiguity. Politicians are known to use weasel words and then claim ignorance when their words are found to be offensive. Laws are purposely written to allow loopholes that can be created by those people who insist on the words as written and deliberately ignore the spirit of the message attempted.
Language is too complicated to be able to provide a clear unambiguous message in all cases.

If you follow the guidelines (usually referred to as a 'rule', e.g. rule of thirds - cos the sound bite is easier to remember and hence is more functional - yet is inaccurate as a rule, but accurate as a guideline) of communication as being ABC - where usually only two of the three can be satisfied.
A - Accuracy.
B - Brevity.
C - Clarity.

A scientific paper has to be accurate and brief (printing space is limited) and so only those versused in the vernacular can understand it - most people would find it rather less than clear.
.... and so on for similar examples.

The written word as presented in an internet forum, assuming that you actually want people to read your posting, is likely to be brief. Again, it needs to be clear otherwise people wouldn't read it. Hence it is likely that accuracy is going to suffer. Would civilised people realise this? And act acordingly? Or nitpick over the inherent inaccuracies as their priorities and ignore the spirit of the posting?
I try to give the benefit of the doubt (sometimes fail, but I'll accept that) to the poster and assume that they are honest and forthright in their intent and not trying to create a pratfall for me.

In summary, the written word has limitations - is there anyone who disagrees with that? Is this not obvious? Or is it only me who thinks this (in which case I may be wrong about communication skills).
From that answer the discussion (rather than debate) can go several ways. However, if the individual is more interested in nit picking minor inaccuracies (that would - and have - taken pages to attempt to address) rather than a friendly conversation, then I can make my own decision as to whether or not continue.
Personally I would far rather converse with friendly minded people attempting to come to some form of consensus or understanding, than with those with a more contentious mind.
Graham

[Mike Buckley]

how enduring will those pictures really be under the endless tide of digital snapshots?

That's a really good question. I liken digital photography to speaking and writing in the sense that everyone lacking disabilities can take a picture as easily as they can speak and write. Just as great speakers and writers are appreciated for their skills that the average person does not have, great photographers will also always be appreciated for their superior skills that relatively few people have.

[Wayland]

In the world of photography today, I gather that assistants have a relationship to the photographer that is similar to the relationship between the apprentice and the artist of earlier centuries.

I guess that's a fair comparison.

Historically, almost all the crafts, particularly those that were controlled by the guilds, had an apprenticeship system you simply couldn't be a blacksmith or a cordwainer etc. if you hadn't served your apprenticeship. Which of course provided a cheap source of labour for many guild members.

Today of course anyone can pick up a spanner and call them selves a mechanic, which is a scary thought, and in some ways that is true of photography as well.

An 8 hour workshop and the right equipment makes you a wedding photographer according to one advertisement I read. (Now that's a really scary thought.)

[Wayland]

That's a really good question. I liken digital photography to speaking and writing in the sense that everyone lacking disabilities can take a picture as easily as they can speak and write. Just as great speakers and writers are appreciated for their skills that the average person does not have, great photographers will also always be appreciated for their superior skills that relatively few people have.

But how many of those great speakers or writers would we know about if their words had not survived in books or perhaps in recordings.

Coming back to my earlier point:

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.

To use my own library as an example, though I doubt there are any great works in there, LightRoom tells me I have around 43000 images on my current hard drive and I have a few hard drives sitting in the fire safe as well.

On my wall there are a few prints and on the internet a few hundred small copies of the better shots.

I guess this is not un-typical of many photographers out there.

Now lets say I get hit by a bus tomorrow. How much of that library will survive the house clearance?

In ten years time will any of those hard drives still be accessible?

When the ISP bills stop being paid the internet content will all disappear...

It makes me wonder if in fifty years time, Ansel Adams will still be the only photographer most people have ever heard of.

[RustBeltRaw]

The staying power of digital photography is probably our greatest unknown, and the volume of "content" out there makes me pity future historians. Maybe for their sakes we should leave folders named "For Posterity" on our hard drives.

Photography's place in the pantheon of fine art pursuits is also something I find interesting. I had an excellent figure drawing professor who told us photography was too technical to be art, then taught us how to hold and angle our pencils properly, how to select the appropriate media, how to see the underlying volumes in a pose, and the typical proportions of the human body. All rather technical. But I saved my breath. No art form is completely free of a technical side. Eventually, you have to produce something, and that will always require tools and techniques. But the sheer number of new photographers has probably cheapened the art in the eyes of many.

[Wayland]

Some of the first anatomical drawings were made by artists wanting to understand the body so that they could draw or paint it better.

Art? Science?

[RustBeltRaw]

Art? Science?

Both. And science isn't half as soulless and dry as ahhh-tists in pointy alligator leather shoes and Buddy Holly glasses would have us believe. It is the underlying force behind every single technique used for any creative endeavor ever undertaken.

The end (I wish).

[Mike Buckley]

[Science] is the underlying force behind every single technique used for any creative endeavor ever undertaken.

Not talking, singing or any use of the voice without assistance from external aids. However, I will concede that understanding the science pertaining to the human anamoty will improve one's use of the voice, especially for creative purposes. The same is true for dancing. All of that proves that you were correct when you wrote:

The end (I wish).

[nimitzbenedicto]

There are many people who sole purpose in life it to nitpick about the words used - lawyers and diplomats to name but two............
. Politicians are known to use weasel words and then claim ignorance when their words are found to be offensive. Laws are purposely written to allow loopholes that can be created by those people who insist on the words as written and deliberately ignore the spirit of the message attempted.
Language is too complicated to be able to provide a clear unambiguous message in all cases.

If you follow the guidelines (usually referred to as a 'rule', e.g. rule of thirds - cos the sound bite is easier to remember and hence is more functional - yet is inaccurate as a rule, but accurate as a guideline) of communication as being ABC - where usually only two of the three can be satisfied.
A - Accuracy.
B - Brevity.
C - Clarity.

A scientific paper has to be accurate and brief (printing space is limited) and so only those versused in the vernacular can understand it - most people would find it rather less than clear.
.... and so on for similar examples.

In summary, the written word has limitations - is there anyone who disagrees with that? Is this not obvious? Or is it only me who thinks this (in which case I may be wrong about communication skills).
From that answer the discussion (rather than debate) can go several ways. However, if the individual is more interested in nit picking minor inaccuracies (that would - and have - taken pages to attempt to address) rather than a friendly conversation, then I can make my own decision as to whether or not continue.
Personally I would far rather converse with friendly minded people attempting to come to some form of consensus or understanding, than with those with a more contentious mind.
Graham

Hi Graham,

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your post. But I respect your right to put forth your opinions/comments.

To add to your list of "nitpickers", are doctors, police, teachers, pilots, drivers, soldiers, officers, food producers, and so many more.

Perhaps, people who were not born English-speaking. Those who have to resort to dictionaries to make sure they understand what native English-speakers are talking about. If , I assume you refer to such people as nitpickers, then so be it.

You also mention guidelines of communication as A-B-C. But you omit the other half important part of communication. The "receiver". Is it wrong for the listener to make sure he understands what you are saying?
And, if he questions your meaning, you just brush him off as "nitpicker"?

There are some more points you mentioned I want to reply to , such as your downplaying of laws and politicians, but let's just say I disagree with them.

I don't see any reason why you imply Bill is a nitpicker. His desire to be clear about "discussion" and "debate" is his call. Not mine or whoever.

Oh, another nitpicking of mine. I had to look up your word contentious.
But could not find "versused ".

Would you agree, we, perhaps, should agree to disagree.

Moving on................

Thanks and have a good day.

[GrahamH]

Hi Graham,

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your post. But I respect your right to put forth your opinions/comments.

To add to your list of "nitpickers", are doctors, police, teachers, pilots, drivers, soldiers, officers, food producers, and so many more.

Totally agree, they are nitpickers in that in CERTAIN circumstances, clarity is more important than brevity - THAT was my point about nitpickers. There are certain occassions where being nitpicky about words IS very important and necessary.Would you say that an on-line discussion board (not a debate board as I understand it) is an IMPORTANT place for communication of information or a speakeasy type location where friendly/amicable discussion can take place. BTW I am a doctor, have been a teacher and a police officer, driver and soldier/officer. When imparting information as an integral part of the job when ACCURACY if the most important factor, often CLARITY suffers. I have spent a lot of time in training so that I understand a certain number of terms. When used in the appropriate context (typically by someone of similar training) the message can be brief as the numerous qualifications surrounding the phrase/words are understood implicitly due to the training. Popularisers of science struggle with this very issue. The untrained person doesn't have the background knowledge to be able to understand the complexity and issues about the subject. Richard Feynman was on a talk show when a caller asked him what magnetism was (if memory serves correctly). Feynman said that he couldn't answer. The caller asked if he (Feynman) didn't understand magnetism. Feynman replied that the level of knowledge of the caller was not sufficient for him to be able to explain it. When I wrote my thesis I had to put into the appendix MY definition of the terms 'melting' and 'freezing' as it was not the COMMON understanding of the words, but rather more detailed. I recall it took half a page of explanation per term. A discussion board such as this one, I would suggest, is not the venue in which to go into such detail. In my thesis I had to be a nitpicker as it was the correct venue to do so. I would not do so here for the reasons previously stated.

Perhaps, people who were not born English-speaking. Those who have to resort to dictionaries to make sure they understand what native English-speakers are talking about. If , I assume you refer to such people as nitpickers, then so be it.
When the situation calls for it, go for it. In those situations, then yes the commentator would be a nitpicker - and rightly so. Nitpicking when the situation does NOT call for it (subjective of course) is inappropriate.

You also mention guidelines of communication as A-B-C. But you omit the other half important part of communication. The "receiver". Is it wrong for the listener to make sure he understands what you are saying?
And, if he questions your meaning, you just brush him off as "nitpicker"?
It seems as if you seriously misunderstood my meaning. However, you are asking questions appropriate to the discussion and in an appropriate tenor. To make strongly emotional comments about semantics and how the goalposts keep changing (e.g. due to revised definitions) as if it was intentional in the first place to cause controversy (as opposed to amicable discussion) changes the original tenor. Asking MANY questions seeking understanding may be nitpicky, but in an appropriate manner. Seeking to cause argument, and nitpicking with that intent, is (in my mind) inappropriate.

You can see how easy it is to rapidly become more verbose in attempting to cover as many ambiguities as possible. Unfeasible on a 'discussion' board'.

There are some more points you mentioned I want to reply to , such as your downplaying of laws and politicians, but let's just say I disagree with them.
Do you think that lawmakers do NOT make laws that can benefit themselves? - at least in some cases.

I don't see any reason why you imply Bill is a nitpicker. His desire to be clear about "discussion" and "debate" is his call. Not mine or whoever.
I attempted to specifically NOT imply anything about anyone, but take several comments used in this thread and many others to make the point about communication. Obviously I was too brief and should have spent many thousand more words in attempting to make myself clear - but then no-one would read it.

Oh, another nitpicking of mine. I had to look up your word contentious.
But could not find "versused ".
Typo - should read 'versed'. Thank you. And I am sure that there are many more typos here. Limited time to check.

Would you agree, we, perhaps, should agree to disagree.
not sure as to what we are disagreeing on.
Moving on................

Thanks and have a good day.

And thank you for trying to understand.
Graham

[RustBeltRaw]

Not talking, singing or any use of the voice without assistance from external aids. However, I will concede that understanding the science pertaining to the human [anatomy] will improve one's use of the voice, especially for creative purposes. The same is true for dancing.

And that, my good man, is the extent of my point.

[William W]

Did you pose that question to Canon about their purported evaluative metering? It's them you should ask, not me, it's them that are up to proof or be ashamed. I just stated that their cameras do not have any hardware to meet the task. It is as pure a marketing lie as anything, but of course they are not alone. I can prove it with any off the shelf item, that the camera will not evaluate anything from different fields, but just measure what it takes in through the lens, as a whole, even though it is somewhat distorted by viewfinder optics. . . etc . . . So I won't present any such source that you ask for. First, you need to present evidence for the original statement, that there is an evaluative measuring system. And if Canon wants to pop in here, I simply dare them to present evidence. As long as there is no positive evidence, I shall refrain from further proof of my claim. It is, just as theirs, an unsupported statement, although mine is based on physical realities.

No, I have not asked Canon. I asked you because you clearly made a statement – just as bold as the one you now make, that you can prove it.

Have you looked at the other thread?

I ask, because as it has relevance: in that thread you also made bold statements about what was impossible -which in theory were in contravention of the mathematics of the situation and in practice has subsequently been disproved.
It is easy to make bold statements – not so easy to back them up it seems.

WW

[Wayland]

I think it's actually quite difficult to separate the technical and aesthetic skills in any of of the arts really, and yet it is often those technical roots that are used to dismiss any artistic credentials for photography.

It's very sad really...