Should it rather be HOW TO or WHY?

[Mike Buckley]

Have you never noticed how some have much to say but never post an image for critique?

Why would I care about that? If I pick up a good tip or two from people who don't post images I'll benefit just as much as if I pick up the same tips from someone who does post images.

If someone asked me who consistently provides reliably helpful information here, Dave, one of our moderators, would be on that list regardless of the fact that he posts few if any images.

[NorthernFocus]

Come on Dan, don't be so sensitive. You know I do regard your comment and images very highly. If it is a technical process for you so be it. You can produce the goods.

Have you never noticed how some have much to say but never post an image for critique?

Nothing taken amiss, Andre. No funny bones touched. Just typed out a response quickly. Reading back I can see my choice of words could seem heated but not so. Quite the opposite and were intended to be more of a lighthearted "there, there now..."

Regarding people not posting images, it's not that big a deal to me. Good advice is good advice. Though it's true that when dealing with strangers one needs some sort of data to weigh the value of their words. Example images provide it more quickly, perhaps. The alternative is to develop a reputation for accuracy over time.

CIC really is an amazingly diverse and eclectic bunch of folks. And I'm always amazed at how differently we view the subject of photography depending on what genre we shoot as well as whether we are how or why personalities.

You've made me think much too hard this early in the morning. I need more coffee...

[Brownbear]

I would like to say that I do not ignore the advice I receive. I am most appreciative of the help and advice that I have received from members of C&C. In fact, I treasure the experience and hope that one day I will be able to do the same for others.

I carefully consider all advice provided, think about it, read up on it, and try it out in the field. Albeit I may try some things that may be considered impossible but it is not because I'm ignoring the advice I have received. Perhaps it is how I learn, ie; seeing the results is knowing. As I child I wanted to fly like a bird (still do) and although I was told that was impossible, it didn't stop me from trying.

Thank you.

Not a good idea to ignore advice! Much better to investigate and find out if it works or not.

[Colin Southern]

I'll start by saying that I haven't read all the other responses thoroughly.

In my opinion, photography is where science and art meet. If one understands the science part (all the good stuff - shutterspeed and it's effect on motion, aperture and it's affect on DoF, ISO and it's effect on DoF) then that will greatly assist any photographer with satisfying the "science" part of the equation. This may allow them to capture boring test-targets with amazing fidelity.

On the flip side, the "artistic" side of the equation has to come from somewhere else. And of course it's equally as important. Can it be learned? To a degree, yes (I'm living proof). Does natural artistic ability also come into it? I believe yes, to a huge degree (I'm far stronger technically than I am artistically).

But to make a successful photo you need BOTH technical ability and artistic skill. I'm not saying the ratio between the two doesn't change on a case-by-case basis, but both are always required to some degree; it's of little use having the most wonderful artistic ideas if you can't make the right technical decisions that allow you to capture that vision -- and it's no use being a technical genius if you can't make artistic choices that satisfy the person taking the shot.

Personally (and this isn't black and white), I think it's easier to take someone with a great artistic streak and teach them the technical side than it is to take a great technician and teach them "artistic".

[Mike Buckley]

Colin,

Your thoughts about the science aspect doesn't address the HOW and WHY that Andre proposed. As an example, I know HOW to set the aperture to affect depth of field even though I'm clueless about WHY the aperture does so.

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Your thoughts about the science aspect doesn't address the HOW and WHY that Andre proposed. As an example, I know HOW to set the aperture to affect depth of field even though I'm clueless about WHY the aperture does so.

"Why" is the next step from "how" and represents a "deeper understanding" IMO.

An excellent case-in-point for me is an excellent book that I'm reading at the moment by Astronaut Chris Hadfield "An Astronaut's guide to life on earth" (If ever there was an over-achiever in this world it has to be that guy). I think that he'd agree that they run with the "why" and not just the "how" everytime.

Recommended reading by the way (and available on Kindle).

[ajohnw]

That's exactly what I meant by ignoring it Chistina. Try anyway.

None of the comments I have made were aimed at anyone in particular other than a maybe metering. I just feel that it's best to explore those as well. I suspect most people will find matrix the easiest to get on with once they are into adding compensation. :Basically the manufacturers put a lot of effort into it.

I'm one of the people who doesn't post many pictures for criticism. I recollect posting 3. One what the !!!!!!!!! should I do to this. Mixed reactions, some composition some on PP techniques which is what I was after. Another asked for criticism of sharpening. Some replies, One person even liked all the shots but one. They were all test shots just to see what D7000 centre weighted average gets up to. I like one but - so may go shoot it again with a more suitable lens. More recently a NEF file. One person really got down to it and produced a fairly decent 100% resolution image from it. Some wondered why I shot it at 1250 ISO when there was no need. Me - well I learned more technique and am more aware of the capabilities of the noise reduction software I use and how to use it. I obtained a near decent 100% res image out of it eventually. I posted another showing what 25600 ISO can look like via an EM-5. It can be used for some things. One person started measuring crops and appeared to think I was cheating . What cheek.

I'll be honest though I am likely to compose as I see fit. I often photograph things. That can dictate the layout and often little can be done about it. One thing for sure landscapes are tough but if everyone stuck to the "rules" and could see them through the viewfinder they might find themselves never taking a shot.

John
-
People who post bylines. Mine would be "Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
-

[NorthernFocus]

...Personally (and this isn't black and white), I think it's easier to take someone with a great artistic streak and teach them the technical side than it is to take a great technician and teach them "artistic".

I agree with this statement so much, that I would argue a technician doesn't need to, and perhaps can't learn to be truly artistic. For myself, the entire process of capturing an image is technical. Over time I've learned to some degree what does and doesn't appeal to people in imagery. Through reading, visiting these forums, simply trying different things, etc. Does that mean I've learned to be artistic? It doesn't feel like it. That knowledge just adds to the technical equation in my mind. Lighting, camera settings, and composition are all technical thoughts in my mind. It may simply be semantics. But to me someone who is truly artistic can start with nothing, create an image in their mind, then set out and create it.

[flashback]

I think we're forgetting one thing (which was touched on by a couple of others here) and that is, depending on how people learn is going to dictate how they approach photography. Like Colin pointed out, there are those that are technical and those that are artistic. I'm willing to bet that the technorati nearly memorize their camera manual while the artistes loose all track of it in their hurry to get the camera out of the box, into their hands and powered up so they can play with it.

[Colin Southern]

I agree with this statement so much, that I would argue a technician doesn't need to, and perhaps can't learn to be truly artistic. For myself, the entire process of capturing an image is technical. Over time I've learned to some degree what does and doesn't appeal to people in imagery. Through reading, visiting these forums, simply trying different things, etc. Does that mean I've learned to be artistic? It doesn't feel like it. That knowledge just adds to the technical equation in my mind. Lighting, camera settings, and composition are all technical thoughts in my mind. It may simply be semantics. But to me someone who is truly artistic can start with nothing, create an image in their mind, then set out and create it.

That's pretty much how it is for me too. I'd rate my technical skills as 9 out of 10 - and my artistic ones as being 1 out of 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10), which is why I struggle to think of my work as "art" and as me as an "artist". Then again, I have artist (in the conventional sense of the word) friends who are great with a brush, but only at "snap shot" level when it comes to photography; they sell their paintings, but they'd never be able to sell their photographs.

Would their artistic vision help me compose a better photo? Perhaps, but only a little at best. Would my technical skills help them paint a better image? No, not really. Interestingly though, they have their own technical side of things (knowing how to apply and handle the paints for example). Do they need to know "why" as well as "how"? Dunno, but I do believe it's beneficial for them, as it is for me.

[Colin Southern]

I'm willing to bet that the technorati nearly memorize their camera manual

Nah - hardly ever read it! (it's a guy thing!)

[NorthernFocus]

...I'm willing to bet that the technorati nearly memorize their camera manual while the artistes loose all track of it in their hurry to get the camera out of the box, into their hands and powered up so they can play with it.

Not sure that I'm in the "Technorati" demographic, but am definitely on the technical side of the scale and that would be a poor bet in my case at least. The manual is a last resort. That's almost as bad as stopping to ask for directions

[William W]

(and this isn't black and white), I think it's easier to take someone with a great artistic streak and teach them the technical side than it is to take a great technician and teach them "artistic".

I agree.

Historical evidence apropos how the great artists were taught, would support that view, I expect.

WW

[William W]

. . . Should it be? Is CiC not a LEARNING community for photographers?

I think we're forgetting one thing (which was touched on by a couple of others here) and that is, depending on how people learn is going to dictate how they approach photography.

. . . and, if one joins here "to learn" then what general type of learning person one is: is going to dictate how they interpret their membership; their involvement and their use of CiC.


WW

[AB26]

Nah - hardly ever read it! (it's a guy thing!)

Very interesting Colin. Yes it is a MAN thing – When all else fail, read the instructions!-
Your statement is actually proof that you are not technically inclined. You lean to the HOW rather than the WHY side of things. To you it is more important to DO IT rather than knowing WHY it has to be done.

The “engineering” type of technically inclined will leave the camera in the box and read the instruction book as to how to remove the camera from the box. To those, every little detail is important and a deep understanding as to every little WHY, is not negotiable.

Remember when you got your new D1x? You pulled it from the box turned up the ISO and shot in your office at a high burst rate. You raved about the high ISO of, what did you say, 204 800 000? A technical blunder. The technical “perfectionist” does not make mistakes like that. Does that blunder make you a lesser good Photographer?

Have you ever gone into your studio with a light meter and measured the LUX of a specific studio light, at a given distance, then sat down writing a mathematical formulae to determine the exact LUX of that specific light at any given output and/or distance? Just think how easy that will make it for you to set up your studio lights. Simply set up the studio the way you want to, do the mathematical calculation and set the output on the different lights to whatever result you desire, without ever having to use a light meter again. Will that assist you in making you a better Photographer?

All of us need to have some degree of technical skill and knowledge to be able to capture images. A basic understanding of the most important “elements” that will influence the outcome of our endeavour is imperative. However, grabbing a scientific calculator to do the maths of WHY it has to be done will not turn anybody into a “Super Photographer”. With basic skills and limited technical knowledge of HOW TO combined with lots of creative expressionism, you can be a very good Photographer.

Perhaps, Photography is like a bus ride: some will get off at the first stop and others will want to go all the way but not all will reach the final destination. Knowing where to get off or how long to stay on takes some self analysis and objectivity.

[Colin Southern]

Very interesting Colin. Yes it is a MAN thing – When all else fail, read the instructions!-
Your statement is actually proof that you are not technically inclined. You lean to the HOW rather than the WHY side of things. To you it is more important to DO IT rather than knowing WHY it has to be done.

The “engineering” type of technically inclined will leave the camera in the box and read the instruction book as to how to remove the camera from the box. To those, every little detail is important and a deep understanding as to every little WHY, is not negotiable.

Remember when you got your new D1x? You pulled it from the box turned up the ISO and shot in your office at a high burst rate. You raved about the high ISO of, what did you say, 204 800 000? A technical blunder. The technical “perfectionist” does not make mistakes like that. Does that blunder make you a lesser good Photographer?

Have you ever gone into your studio with a light meter and measured the LUX of a specific studio light, at a given distance, then sat down writing a mathematical formulae to determine the exact LUX of that specific light at any given output and/or distance? Just think how easy that will make it for you to set up your studio lights. Simply set up the studio the way you want to, do the mathematical calculation and set the output on the different lights to whatever result you desire, without ever having to use a light meter again. Will that assist you in making you a better Photographer?

All of us need to have some degree of technical skill and knowledge to be able to capture images. A basic understanding of the most important “elements” that will influence the outcome of our endeavour is imperative. However, grabbing a scientific calculator to do the maths of WHY it has to be done will not turn anybody into a “Super Photographer”. With basic skills and limited technical knowledge of HOW TO combined with lots of creative expressionism, you can be a very good Photographer.

Perhaps, Photography is like a bus ride: some will get off at the first stop and others will want to go all the way but not all will reach the final destination. Knowing where to get off or how long to stay on takes some self analysis and objectivity.

Hi Andre,

I'd have to say that you've pretty much completely missed the boat with your assessment of me; I've VERY MUCH technically oriented. Case in point - no - I didn't read the manual first when I got the camera; I'd had access to the manual many months before the camera arrived, but in all honesty, I'm not really a manual person -- but that doesn't mean I'm not technically oriented. In reality I've had such a depth of experience with Digital SLR technology that I don't need to read a manual -- my brain pretty much just soaks up the specifications as they're announced (it's actually pretty easy for me). Having just said that though, some areas interest me more than others; things like AF systems interest me more -- things like sensor technology interests me less. I guess I'm most interested in the things that have the real-world impact on the choices I make (I can make AF system changes - I can't make sensor changes).

[nimitzbenedicto]

How/ Technical: The initial 2 technicalities(?) I learned long ago ( 1950 or 1951) was when I got my hands on a box type Kodak, took pictures and took it to the town photo shop. The pictures came out fuzzy and dark. So, the photo man told me, "Hey kiddo. Next time 1. hold the cam steady; and 2. shoot outside in sunshine.

Why: still working on it.

[NorthernFocus]

...The “engineering” type of technically inclined will leave the camera in the box and read the instruction book as to how to remove the camera from the box. To those, every little detail is important and a deep understanding as to every little WHY, is not negotiable.....

Andre, you picked a poor example. Camera manuals are a book full of "how to" instructions. One of the very reasons I don't bother opening them is because they are so thin on why. The only useful information in them for an experienced photographer is to locate which button or menu path one needs to access a given function. To this day, I've yet to find any information in manuals or in any Nikon support material that adequately explains the "why" behind multipoint focus. And without that bit of information explaining to me "why" the camera picks a given point, I don't feel that I can predict which point will be active in a given situation. Therefore I still use single point focus exclusively. Is that technically anal enough for you? And yet I don't read the manual. Can you imagine? Apparently not

[NorthernFocus]

How/ Technical: The initial 2 technicalities(?) I learned long ago ( 1950 or 1951) was when I got my hands on a box type Kodak, took pictures and took it to the town photo shop. The pictures came out fuzzy and dark. So, the photo man told me, "Hey kiddo. Next time 1. hold the cam steady; and 2. shoot outside in sunshine.

Why: still working on it.

I love this example. So the "how to" person doesn't do it that way again because their experience tells them it results in a dark, fuzzy photograph. The "why" person doesn't do it because there's not enough light. Same end result, they both learn to shoot in the sunshine

[Mike Buckley]

I don't bother opening [camera manuals]

That's really sad, Dan. You have no idea how much fun you're missing trying to figure out what the English version that was poorly translated from Japanese is explaining.