10 kinds of photographer.

[Wayland]

Snip> provided one excludes the possibility of someone both understanding and not understanding binary at the same time. < Snip

Hmm... Schrödinger's Photographer, now there's a thought...

[Dave Humphries]

hmm... Schrödinger's photographer, now there's a thought...

lol

[pnodrog]

Hmm... Schrödinger's Photographer, now there's a thought...

On this site as in programming you have to allow for all possibilities even dead and alive cats.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Gary,

First of all, your images on your "24 hours on Anglesey" thread and site are really fantastic and awesome.

On the other hand, as I understand it, ( sorry but I'm not a native English speaker.), all statements in a debate are supposed to be factual/truthful and should be taken as important and relevant to the issues at hand. So, if you consider your thread title, your hearsay statement and your admission you are not sure if it's black or white are insignificant, then, so be it.

Maybe we can consider small items , for instance, the use of singular "photographer" for 10 photographers.

Lastly, may I say, your images are awesome and I hope to learn from you.

Thanks

[Wayland]

Don't worry about it, the complexities of the English language still catch me out from time to time.

I think my usage is correct because the plural is indicated in the word "kinds" but I am willing to be corrected on that if I have butchered my grammar. My school teachers often despaired at my ability to twist the language out of shape. Fortunately it tends to be flexible enough that I don't often break it.

The "10 kinds of photographer." premise is intended of course as a joke based upon our natural assumption that the number presented is decimal rather than binary. It was used in this case purely as an entry into a deeper question about the role of technical knowledge in modern photography.

Had I just asked a simple question like "How important do you think it is to understand how digital photography works?" and then sat back waiting for answers I would have been surprised to get any meaningful response.

As it is we have run to three pages or so and almost 500 views. Far better than I got by posting a simple introduction in the "Meet the Members" forum.

I have as a result, gleaned much about members that I did not know before, not least of which is that we can have a vigorous debate without it descending into a fire fight, as such threads often do on other forums. (or should that be forii ???)

I've long been a believer that if you want to take part in something then you don't do it just by sitting on the side lines. I have tried a fair few photography forums over the years and found most to be quite unfriendly. So far I'm liking the look of this one and I certainly found the information in the tutorials very informative.

As for my photography, I still have lots to learn but I am always willing to share the little I do know.

[William W]

Hang on a second: you’re changing goal posts and selectively quoting – the purpose of which is not 100% clear, but I can make a guess at it.

There are several examples, this is just one. . .
You wrote:

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.

Clearly you wrote that you walked away from FILM Photography BECAUSE you couldn’t work out how to do things with DIGITAL Photography.

I wrote:

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.

Clearly I wrote that you made poor choices giving up FILM Photography as there was no need to have to change to DIGITAL Photography i.e. you could have continued using FILM.

You wrote:

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

So clearly you are discussing your career path . . . and you are covering up or dismissing your previous REASON why you gave up Photography i.e. that being that you could not get it together with Digital . . .

As it occurs to me this is just one of several examples of selective quoting and changing meanings and directions to suit “a debate” rather than “debating” those issues which you began.
As it occurs to me you want to debate for debating’s sake. That’s fine, but it is not what you requested in the first inst.
I am not interested in debating, for debating’s sake.

WW

[Wayland]

Hang on a second: you’re changing goal posts and selectively quoting – the purpose of which is not 100% clear, but I can make a guess at it.

Do tell.. It should be easy enough because it is written in the post above yours.

So clearly you are discussing your career path . . . and you are covering up or dismissing your previous REASON why you gave up Photography i.e. that being that you could not get it together with Digital . . .

In the mid nineties the first viable consumer digital camera started to appear and to anyone that had seen how such technology had affected other industries it was clear to see what was going to happen. Personally I did not want to sit around and watch the carnage that would follow.

At about the same time I decided to follow other, more interesting options so that is what I did. No great mystery or conspiracy.

I returned to photography, purely for my own pleasure this time, after the dust had settled. I'll leave it for others to decide whether or not I was "able to get it together with Digital".

As far as I can see, you are the one that decided to make your argument mostly about career choices and character. I was simply making a point to Donald at the time that I had needed to make a big shift in my previous skills base.

You do seem to feel that you know an awful lot about me from just one thread. Perhaps your career path should have been in the direction of psychology.

As it occurs to me this is just one of several examples of selective quoting and changing meanings and directions to suit “a debate” rather than “debating” those issues which you began.
As it occurs to me you want to debate for debating’s sake. That’s fine, but it is not what you requested in the first inst.
I am not interested in debating, for debating’s sake.

WW

I do not particularly think I have changed any of my meanings, I have in some places attempted to clarify matters when people have set out to re-interpret my words according to their own arguments. I do not think that is unreasonable.

Perhaps you need to take a step back and check what the issue actually was that I raised in the first place.

As I recall there is only one question mark in my first post.

[GrahamH]

For those who don't know - Schroedingers Cat is a thought experiment. In part it indicates the influence and OBSERVER has on the experiment being performed.
We all know that the photographer is always 'in' the image as the viewpoint has been chosen deliberately (monkeys aside). The resultant image is an indication of what and how the photographer sees and interprets the scene.
As I said, I see things in a technical manner. Many an image has been created by me by seeing a great sky and then looking around for other components to put together. For example, foreground interest, guideline of thirds, leading lines and so on. This is why I have often said I struggle with creativity as I tend to follow a rather formulaic response (accepting that the more factors I can introduce into the picture taking process - including consideration of the post processing - the wider the array of images possible).
Perhaps it is a case of me KNOWING that I factor into the image many aspects, whereas a person who is designated 'creative' applies the same factors but subconsciously (I don't know, mere speculation).

On another note. Saddleworth Moor in the UK is an apparently stark and barren. A good place to hone image making skills - cos there are no grand vistas easily seen. Great walking country however.

Graham

[GrahamH]

I found this topic started off in a very light hearted manner and some people seem to be losing sight of the entertainment value (unless you consider an 'argument' or debate tending towards the picky (my definition) entertaining). Other threads are started with a very serious note, but this started with a joke.

On the topic of 'naturally creative', and how it is connected with level of understanding of the process (whatever that process is, photography or other).
I have been heavily involved in martial arts as well as dance (leaving aside chemistry and a few other activities). I have so often heard of people being a 'natural'. I've been around long enough to come into contact with many hundreds/thousands of individuals in both activities and so far I have never met anyone who I would consider a 'natural'.
Those who apparently pick things up quicker than most are usually already experienced in some related field. Martial arts and dance - both physical and requiring co-ordination. I have been told my many that I am a 'natural' dancer of fighter. I always disagree - with humour - saying that the only thing I am naturally good at is being stubborn, so I stick at the topic in hand and eventually get good at it, DESPITE my abilities rather than as a result of them.
In photography, I believe that there are those who understand the relationship between the many factors - be it consciously (me) or subconsciously. Many of the photographers I have spoken to in various camera clubs, or met out in the field (real world) have a great amount of experience and/or opportunity and/or background in artistic expression (be it members of the family or supportive teachers while at school).
Being able to USE the various tools at hand it the important thing rather than consciously being able to understand said factors. HOWEVER, I would rather be instructed by someone who does understand as it allows me to ask questions so I can find the information that 'I' find of use. Everyone learns in a slightly different way. Being taught by a 'natural' I have found almost useless (and I've spent a great deal of money taking instruction - thousands wasted until I changed instructor) as they are unable to answer questions in a manner that I can understand.
One certain dance couple lost me as a student as they insisted that I 'JUST' did certain actions. I never understood what they meant an they never articulated it in a manner that I was able to understand. They kept reverting to 'JUST'. Useless, and a costly lesson it is when you don't get anything in return.

Vive la difference - life would be so much boring if we were all the same (or would we know the difference).
Graham
(lacks creativity, but is stubborn enough to try to develop more tools)

[Black Pearl]

Well I made it to the end - and - I'm going out with my camera to take some pictures.....its kind of the reason I bought it after all.

[Mike Buckley]

I have read the entire thread just now and have a few comments.

I had completely forgotten that there is a thing called binary math, having been trained in it probably when I was about 15, which was almost 50 years ago. (Those two numbers are in the other kind of math. ) Thank you for reminding me of binary math and the great fun I had trying to explain it to my parents, who had never heard of it.

The idea that there is only one way to acheive anything is nonsense to me. The romantic element in me always wants me to hold to the belief that one of the great characteristics of humanity is that there are many roads that lead to the same result; cherish all of them rather than deny any of them. So, I believe that the knowledge of the math that exists with anything is helpful to one person and that another person needs no such knowledge and might even be hindered by it.

I have a strong musical background, so I compare learning to play the saxophone with learning to make photos with a digital camera. The saxophone is probably the easiest wind instrument to learn how to play to the point that it becomes relatively enjoyable for both the performer and the audience. (It's actually probably the easiest of all instruments in that regard except perhaps the piano and maybe drums.) The digital camera makes it similarly easy for the photographer and viewers to enjoy photos. However, there is a point that is achieved relatively early on when the learning curve suddenly becomes very steep for both playing the saxophone and using a digital camera. It is at that point that a significant amount of work is required to get past the point where the music or the photos is merely acceptable and to the point that they are consistently at a relatively high quality. I believe that's true whether or not one has an understanding of the math.

[William W]

There you go again . . . changing the goal posts - wanting now to change definitions. As mentioned, you are simply debating for debating’s sake:

Perhaps you need to take a step back and check what the issue actually was that I raised in the first place.
As I recall there is only one question mark in my first post.

The question has little to do with it other than to set a background.
You made ONE TOPIC for debate.
A topic for debate is a statement, NOT a question.

The OP:

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

The topic which you stated that you wished to debate (and for which you tend to change the goal posts) is quite clear.
The OP is quite clear.
The topic in debate is:

"that [ . . .] a deep understanding of the technology and software is essential to the process [of photography].

***

As I mentioned, debating for debating’s sake is OK, but, thank you: I am not interested in so doing.

WW

[jcuknz]

I understand what 10 and B4 mean in respective systems but fail to see what they have to do with photography.

I believe that I didn't start to appreciate what I could do until digital and computer post processing arrived. So despite sixty plus years as professional and amateur I only started to really learn with digital and the web. But then I was an operator not a technician.

[Wayland]

Graham, that is a good illustration of what I mean.

There is a famous quotation, usually attributed to Gary Player along the lines of "The harder I practice, the luckier I get."

The evidence I see of this in my own work is that I sometimes revisit old images that I took years ago and with the skills I have developed since those days I can often produce far better results from the same files today.

Certainly there has to be the core of good composition and exposure in the first place but I have become able to produce better results because I know more about how it all works now.

[Wayland]

Well I made it to the end - and - I'm going out with my camera to take some pictures.....its kind of the reason I bought it after all.

Always the best response, If I wasn't stuck in the house doing my paperwork that's what I would be doing too.

[Wayland]

Mike, very helpful. My point about it not being that black and white was that I don't believe we need to understand the maths but to progress beyond a certain point, as you say, I do think it is important to understand that the maths is there.

Think about one of the great "principles" of modern digital photography. "Expose to the right". I first came across in an article by Micheal Reichmann on "Luminous Landscape" and It's something that is often taught now and arguably, you don't need to understand the maths behind it, but it works entirely because of those maths and it only really makes sense if you know that is why it works.

Music is something I have always struggled with, I suspect because I never practiced hard enough. I have great admiration for good musicians and I can see how similar principles might apply.

[Wayland]

I understand what 10 and B4 mean in respective systems but fail to see what they have to do with photography.

I believe that I didn't start to appreciate what I could do until digital and computer post processing arrived. So despite sixty plus years as professional and amateur I only started to really learn with digital and the web. But then I was an operator not a technician.

As a small example, when we record an image as an 8 bit JPEG we limit the colour values that can be assigned to each pixel to a range between 0 and 255 in each of three colours, red, green and blue. These values are a direct consequence of binary maths. 00000000 to 11111111 = 0 to 255 in decimal notation.

For convenience, mathematicians used to write such binary numbers in groups of four. 0000 0000 to 1111 1111 just like we often divide large numbers to make them easier to read. 2000000 as 2,000,000 for example.

Hexadecimal, or base 16, can be used as an abbreviation of those groups of four binary digits. 0000 0000 to 1111 1111 are transcribed as 00 to FF for example. Any old web designer will tell you that "web safe" colours used to be, and still sometimes are, defined using hexadecimal notation.

It means that such math is actually fundamental to the way digital photography works. Whether we know it, need to know it or not.

[Colin Southern]

Think about one of the great "principles" of modern digital photography. "Expose to the right". I first came across in an article by Micheal Reichmann on "Luminous Landscape" and It's something that is often taught now and arguably, you don't need to understand the maths behind it, but it works entirely because of those maths and it only really makes sense if you know that is why it works.

On a side-note, expose to the right usually DOESN'T work as well as the theory, and in many cases that (seldom mentioned) down-side out-weighs the up-side.

A cut/past from the past that I wrote ...

"It's a torch that Bruce started and Jeff (Schewe) carried on after Bruce's untimely passing. Technically it's quite correct, but my personal opinion is that it's a little misleading for 3 reasons.

1. In any given scene - when using ETTR - it would be normal for at least one of the channels to be close to clipping. In fact it would be correct to say that it would be normal for one channel to clip before the others. Couple this with the fact that although sensors are linear for the majority of their operating region, they start to exhibit non-linearity as saturation is approached. So ETTR runs the risk of pushing you right up to the "danger zone" - and if one goes INTO this danger zone (keeping in mind that ETTR is all about discarding the normal safety margin) then you're likely to capture information for one of the channels in a non-linear way ... that in turn will give you a weird colour cast in those highlights that's nigh onimpossible to correct in post-production.

2. Deliberately "over-exposing" a scene by up to 2 1/3 stops means that the data then has to be shuffled down that amount in post-production. I'm not sure I quite understand why, but in my experiments back in the days when I was an ETTR person I found that I couldn't quite get the midtones where I wanted them. Close - for sure - but there was usually "something not quite right about them". It might be something to do with the gamma conversion - dunno - never quite got to the bottom of it.

3. The advice (a) doesn't take into account the dynamic range of the scene -v- the dynamic range of the camera (although Jeff does expand on this point in his latest book) and (b) it doesn't take into account more modern sensors. Case(s) in point ... if I'm shooting into the light and want to protect foreground shadow detail then you can bet your sweet bootie that I'll be using ETTR - but on the other hand - if I'm copying prints (that have a maximum dynamic range of only about 4 stops) then using ETTR with a camera that has a 12 stop dynamic range is simply pointless because with even a regular exposure (that typically has about a 2 stop RAW safety margin) I'll STILL be 6 stops from the noise floor (12 - 2 - 4 = 6). If we take a more typical example of bride in white dress - groom in black suit (so 4 stop range) - plus a couple of stops of shadow detail - with a normal exposure - then we're down to 12 - 2 - 4 - 2 = 4 stops above the noise floor -- probably a good "practical limit".

So what does all this mean? It really means that any potential benefits from ETTR are really proportional to the DR of the scene you're capturing. If it's a very high DR scene (eg shooting into the light but still wanting to protect foreground shadow detail) then ETTR is essential - but if it's of an average outdoor scene or something else of a limited dynamic range then it usually doesn't offer much benefit. And in the first example I'd normally either use a GND filter or bracket my exposures and produce an HDR composite to "hedge my bets" rather than rely on ETTR.

I admire Jeff's knowledge and skills immensely, but I do feel he's a bit like a "dog with a bone" on this one. It's a great theory, but any advantages aren't so clear cut in many (low to normal DR) situations. Keeping in mind too that today's camera typically captures 12 stops of info - but we display on monitors that can only display 6 or print on paper that can only display 4 ... so as a rule, the DR of the capture isn't the limiting factor ... even with modest DR compression.

EDIT: Keep in mind too that that article is now 9 years old ... it keeps appearing on every edition of Real World Camera RAW because each new edition is based on the old edition -- and I guess it's still "good padding"

[Wayland]

Good solid caveat.

As with all these techniques it's a matter of understanding them properly and therefore knowing the advantages and disadvantages of each method so that you know when it is appropriate to employ them.

[Inkanyezi]

Nonsense. /.../
That level of technical detail is not required. /.../
Set the DSLR to Evaluative (Canon) or Matrix (Nikon) and the camera’s TTL Meter will do a very good job most of the time.

Evaluative? Anyone care to explain? And why a DSLR? Although not Greek, I don't fully understand, but maybe it is because I do understand the technics behind the scenes?

Canon does not have any evaluative metering, they don't even include the hardware necessary to evaluate light in their DSLR cameras. There is no such animal.

So I prefer to set my non-DSLR to the true psychomatic exposure mode that never makes a mistake. And if you don't understand what I mean, I can be a lot meaner... Anyway, stay in full Auto, and you'll be safe. Anyone can make a camera produce an image. But some of us prefer to control great parts of the image-making process. Seeing the light is a great help. Knowing what it accomplishes in the final image is even better. To know it, you need a basic understanding of what Ansel Adams formulated in the Zone System, even if you don't apply it in the same way. Whether you set your camera to one or the other measuring method is irrelevant to the final result, as long as you know what you are doing. If you believe that Canon DSLR cameras can evaluate light through the lens with their measurement system, you don't know what you are measuring, and become handicapped in the process of visualisation, as you don't really know what the camera does, but are a believer. You'll mostly get close enough, but sometimes you're in for a surprise (or revelation).