Should it rather be HOW TO or WHY?

[AB26]

How much value is there, for a Photographer, in understanding Photographic Technicalities?

This post is inspired by Christina. Her battle to understand technicalities and her search to find a “recipe” for taking better pictures.

For a few days now, I have been wondering, what is the best way of assisting those whom have difficulty in understanding the basic principles of taking better pictures. Do we need to get into complicated discussions about understanding technical jargon. I am referring to exactly understanding some of the more complicated technical issues like, how DOF is “generated”, how ISO works, why a lens needs to have 9 shutter blades and not only 7. What does all of that confusing technical terminology and twaddle have to do with taking better pictures? Are we not perhaps getting into too much technical detail and missing the point of of our Photographic endeavours?

More than year ago I attended a photographic show where a very well known, respected Photographer, by the name of Brett Florence (http://www.brettflorens.com/), was talking about the Nikon D600. (I am sure Brett will not mind me saying what I am about to say. Sorry Brett, this is the truth.) He was standing with the D600 in his hand and he said something like this, “The Nikon D600 has a 24MP sensor, 240 million pixels”. Someone else had to correct Brett that 24MP means 24 million pixels.

Was Brett making a fool of himself? NO, I do not think so. Some may say YES, he should know better. Brett may not be a technical genius but Brett is a PHOTOGRAPHER. Not just any Photographer, he is a very good Photographer. Does it make him a “lesser” Photographer if he is ”technically disadvantaged”. Does Brett need to know the difference between 24 million and 240 million pixels? Does he need to know how analogue is converted to digital to make him a better Photographer? No, Brett Florence is not a Nikon engineer or technician, he is a PHOTOGRAPHER. Brett Florence understands what it takes to capture superb images.

Look at the images captured by Brett Florence, keeping in mind the man who captured those images blundered about the resolution of a Nikon D600.

What I have learned, from Brett Florence, that day, is that technical knowledge, of how an image is “created”, is not the crux of capturing good images, it is the end result of what the image looks like that matters. Knowing what the pixel pitch of the sensor of your camera is, is not going to make you a better Photographer.

The magic question is always, “What makes a Photographer a better Photographer”? I do not have the magic answer, else I would be rubbing shoulders with the Brett Florences of this world. Form looking at the images of world renowned Photographers I draw conclusions as to what makes them better than myself.

Understanding WHAT makes a better picture is probably worth much more than understanding HOW the picture is created. Understanding HOW to use settings to capture an image is better than understanding WHY you use those settings. Understanding WHAT specific setting will do to improve the image is better than understanding WHY those settings will improve the image. Knowing that 9000K will render an image much warmer than 2500K is better than knowing WHY 9000K will render the image much warmer than 2500K.

Are you more eager to know WHY rather than knowing HOW to? Should we not perhaps pay more attention to the HOW TO rather than WHY?

[Mike Buckley]

Great post, Andre. You obviously put a lot of thought into it. More important, it will surely motivate a lot of people to think about it.

Should we not perhaps pay more attention to the HOW TO rather than WHY?

I tend to agree with your conclusions except that I've got a little bit different take on that one. You asked that question in the context of how much value it provides the photographer. There are two fundamental components of photography: making photographs and being a photographer.

I would say that we should pay more attention to the HOW TO when it comes to making photographs. However, when it comes to being a photographer, each of us has different interests and its important that we pursue whatever passions are important to us. If our passions of being a photographer happen to include understanding the WHY of photography, that's no less important than understanding the HOW TO.

[Manfred M]

Andre - in my view photography is not nearly as simple as trying to do things by formuala. Whie certain genres in photography do tend to follow a bit of a formula-like approach; at least for the individual photographer - wedding photographers will often do so, as an example.

Photography is far more about just HOW an WHY, but also WHEN, WHAT and WHERE come into play as well. It is a balance of many different things, that only a good solid technical knowledge, good compositional skills, great people skills (more important in certain photographic genres than in others) and lots and lots of PRACTICE.

Bottom line that Brett made an order of maginitude error in something that has very little impact on most photography, does not at all reflect on his skills as a photographer. On the other hand, he does seem to understand the exposure triangle...

[lukaswerth]

Andre,

Apart from the fact that Brett Florens' images are certainly not my cup of tea (to put it gently): I think you have a point, but I still think a certain stock of basic knowledge about photographic principles may be very useful. In brief, to know what is going on helps in your craft, to understand your possibilities. Otherwise it's perhaps a bit of a blind ride in which you slacken the reins and leave the work to the camera.

Lukas

[Nancy Moran G]

Thank you Andre for this post.
First, there are many wonderful teachers, helpers and wonderful photographers here.
But I have to admit, I click on a topic that I am anxious to learn from, and my eyes glass over
with some of the technical talk and graphs etc.
I know that is helpful information and some one will benefit and understand it, but not me, sorry.

When I want to know the weather, I open the door and assess. My husband looks at weather radar, winds,
And analyzes it before making a decision. He would love some of the explanations on this site
Thanks all,
Nancy

[Donald]

I have no need or desire to understand the science behind why, for example, I get a greater depth-of-field at f22 than I do at f2.8. I do need to know that I do and need to have a good feeling for what DoF is going to look like at various settings on my camera/lens combinations.

I do know, but don't necessarily need to know, why I run the risk of more noise if I use a high ISO than if I use a low one. But I do need to know that is the case and have a good feel for how my camera/lens combinations will perform at different settings

Start talking science and technical stuff and my eyes glaze over.

So, no, there are lots of 'Whys' I have no need to know about. I just need to know that it is so.

I don't agree with Lukas that I therefore take a bit of a "blind ride". I like to think I know exactly what I'm doing and that I'm in full control of what's going to come out at the other end. But I don't need the scientific explanation as to why something acts/behaves/performs as it does in order for me to make, what I think, are semi-decent images.

[terrib]

So, no, there are lots of 'Whys' I have no need to know about. I just need to know that it is so.

I don't agree with Lukas that I therefore take a bit of a "blind ride". I like to think I know exactly what I'm doing and that I'm in full control of what's going to come out at the other end. But I don't need the scientific explanation as to why something acts/behaves/performs as it does in order for me to make, what I think, are semi-decent images.

Exactly. Saying otherwise is like saying I have to know why gasoline makes a car go in order to get to where I am going.

[dabhand]

From Manfred's post

"Photography is far more about just HOW an WHY, but also WHEN, WHAT and WHERE come into play as well. It is a balance of many different things, that only a good solid technical knowledge, good compositional skills, great people skills (more important in certain photographic genres than in others) and lots and lots of PRACTICE."

I would suggest there is a key element missing and that is an understanding of the why, how etc of the subject matter of the image itself and that that is at least as equally important if one is to achieve the best possible portrayal of it.

[Donald]

I would suggest there is a key element missing and that is an understanding of the why, how etc of the subject matter of the image itself and that that is at least as equally important if one is to achieve the best possible portrayal of it.

But is that not getting into the aesthetic rather than the technical as that term is being defined and used in this thread?

I agree totally with the sentiment expressed, but don't want those less experienced to be confused by the inclusion of the subject under the category of 'technical' for the purposes of this discussion.

[Manfred M]

I would suggest there is a key element missing and that is an understanding of the why, how etc of the subject matter of the image itself and that that is at least as equally important if one is to achieve the best possible portrayal of it.

I think it depends on what you mean by understanding the subject. I some cases, for instance it can be critical; for instance in wildlife photography, but in others, it really does not make a lot of difference.

[AB26]

I would say that we should pay more attention to the HOW TO when it comes to making photographs. However, when it comes to being a photographer, each of us has different interests and its important that we pursue whatever passions are important to us. If our passions of being a photographer happen to include understanding the WHY of photography, that's no less important than understanding the HOW TO.

Thanks Mike.

I agree with you. For you and for me the WHY is important, we are inquisitive minds. I want to know WHY. Not all people are the same and to some the only importance is HOW.

What I am trying to say is that, I believe, it is not the WHY that will make better photographers but rather the HOW TO.
Let me give you an example:
Shooting a (full length) portrait into the sun (no flash) you would use Spot metering rather than Matrix metering. The reason is that Matrix will render your subject underexposed whilst Spot might blow out the highlights but you will get the correct exposure on your subject. Knowing WHY Matrix will render the subject underexposed is less important than knowing it will render the subject underexposed and the solution to the “problem” is using Spot metering.
Of cause, as you get more experienced and the more you practice you find different ways of solving exposure “problems”, not necessarily because you know WHY but rather because experience has taught you HOW TO.

You might become a Photographer if you know HOW TO without the WHY but knowing WHY without the HOW TO you will never be a Photographer. Will you agree with that?

[Manfred M]

You might become a Photographer if you know HOW TO without the WHY but knowing WHY without the HOW TO you will never be a Photographer. Will you agree with that?

If you are saying you need to know your tools, your subject and your shooting conditions to be a good photographer, then I agree with you 100%.

[AB26]

Bottom line that Brett made an order of maginitude error in something that has very little impact on most photography, does not at all reflect on his skills as a photographer. On the other hand, he does seem to understand the exposure triangle...

Manfred,

Is the exposure triangle not perhaps very basic to understand? It is like the fire triangle, fuel, heat and oxygen = fire. Remove one and there is no more fire. Very basic. Learning not to try and remove heat by adding fuel is common sense, or you will find out, form experience, by making the mistake of trying to put out a fire by using petrol.

Do you really need to know how many blades the aperture consists of to capture an image? Does it really matter how many photons hit the sensor to capture a stunning image?

[RustBeltRaw]

Do you have to know the exposure triangle, and when and how to push it one way or another? Yes. The advantages of crown vs. flint glass? No. How many pixels your camera has? Maybe. I'd call that a borderline case, and even though I may know that the D600 has 24MP, that flint glass has a high refractive index, and the operating principles of ultrasonic focus motors, but I am not a better wedding photographer than Brett, and once I pick up a camera, I stop caring about that stuff. Before I pick up a camera, I think the "why" helps me explain to myself why that particular lens/camera/flash setup is the right answer for the situation I'm headed into.

I think there are advantages to deep technical knowledge. You know the exact weaknesses and strengths in your tools, and you're better-equipped to deal with oh-crap moments. But that knowledge will not compose or conceptualize a shot. It won't call clients or indicate when an image sings or a moment's strong.

I agree that "how" is the limit of necessary knowledge. But shooters like Adam Magyar, David Hobby, and Paul Buff, with their incredibly detailed, deep knowledge of their tools (the "why"), have plenty to add to the craft.

Is the exposure triangle not perhaps very basic to understand?

For most people, yes. Remember, CiC is considerably more technical (even in the we-read-manuals sense) than most groups.

Do you really need to know how many blades the aperture consists of to capture an image?

Depends. Do you want a particular bokeh shape? If so, then yes, it matters.

Does it really matter how many photons hit the sensor to capture a stunning image?

Yes. See your exposure triangle comment.

[AB26]

If you are saying you need to know your tools, your subject and your shooting conditions to be a good photographer, then I agree with you 100%.

Does a welder need to know what happens inside the box when he turns up the power except that more power will flow to the welding rod he is using and what the result will be?

Of cause the welder needs to know how to use his tools but he needs not be an electrical engineer to be a good welder.

[chauncey]

Christina's battle is one that most of us have faced and some of us still do.

While Donald doesn't need that "scientific explanation" of what makes a pretty picture...the left-brained folks, like myself, find that sort of information very helpful. The concept of what works/doesn't work is not something that comes easy to some of us. Picture a methamphetamine addicted blind squirrel groping for an acorn and you have an idea of the difficulties that we face in this insane hobby.

In my own quest for improvement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic in which Kelby indicates an attractive subject really makes a big difference in what you cough out...Dah.
Otherwise, it's a great video.

Trying to tie the How and Why together is what Alain Briot's treatise attempts to explain here...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...t_skills.shtml.
But then I'm a little biased as he once said that he liked my stuff...for someone with no specific style/genre.

[FrankMi]

This is an interesting exploration of a useful topic Andre, particularly to beginning photographers I would think.

To my way of thinking, the WHAT, HOW and WHY is part of a progression in learning photography. For example...

Once you decide that you want to learn photography, I would start with the WHAT – the scene, lighting, view angle, action, in short, the composition. Everything you see is a scene, but to consistently capture compelling images takes skill to ‘see’ and identify an outstanding composition within the scene. WHAT to photograph would be my first learning priority.

To capture the scene you need the HOW – the camera with its appropriate settings and the processing of what the camera captures into a displayable image. The more skillful you are in using the camera and processing tools at hand, the more technically appealing the result will be. To grab a camera and learn HOW to use it to its best advantage would be my second priority should be done hand in hand with learning how to ‘see’ a great composition.

To fine tune the result to meet a specific goal you will need to understand the WHY, knowledge of the underlying detailed workings of the camera and processing and their relationship to the desired outcome. This can help you determine, for the specific photography task that you are trying to accomplish, WHY a different piece of hardware, software, or technique will provide a better result and will give a clear indication of what to improve or upgrade next.

Depending upon your current knowledge of the craft, you may find yourself spending most of your time in one of these areas but in order to become really good, you need them all.

[Mike Buckley]

For you and for me the WHY is important

Actually, I rarely have a personal need to know the WHY. As an example, Christina recently conducted my suggested exercise proving that the focusing distance of the image in a mirror is relatively far greater than the focusing distance of the mirror's non-reflective frame. I don't need to understand WHY that's true (indeed, I don't), but understanding that it is true can be extremely important to anyone photographing reflections especially in certain situations.

As I read the thread, I've come to the conclusion that it can be potentially very confusing about how important the WHY is because each of us probably defines WHY a bit differently. As an example, some people think the WHY relating to a smaller depth of field is the use of a smaller aperture number. Others think the WHY is the use of a larger aperture. There are probably better examples of that but you probably get what I mean.

Chauncey's point that all of us learn differently is really great. If understanding WHY helps some of us to learn HOW, then understanding WHY is just as important if not more important. That's because for many people understanding HOW simply doesn't happen until they first understand WHY.

Moreover, it's one thing to learn HOW and quite another thing to retain that knowledge. A lot of people will much more easily retain an understanding of HOW if they also understand the WHY that makes the HOW happen.

[ajohnw]

Books are full of instant result how too's and they don't seem to do a lot of people much good. I also don't see how depth of field can be reduced to a how to. It just has to be a why that suits what ever it is that is being photographed. Same with shutter speeds, apertures and even ISO to a certain extent.

I think you quoted a bad example there Andre. Spot metering will generally meter to mid grey. Fine if the subject is suitable. Matrix on many camera will heavily bias what ever is in the centre of the field providing it's over a certain size. Centre weighted average varies enormously from camera to camera. Gone are the days when it was mainly a below centre large vertically orientated oblong spot that also metered to mid grey. Basically pick one and learn to compensate. I'm not saying that decent shots can not be obtained without doing that but if some one wants to use the dynamic range that is available at some point they will have to learn to apply compensation when it's needed.

It is possible to spot meter a scene and do some mental arithmetic and set an exposure based on that. It's also possible to meter of one's hand or something convenient. The hand can even be back lit or incident. People have tried all sorts of thing even sunny 16 and variants on that. It isn't always that sunny.

All of the above in my view comes down to learning just how capable a persons particular camera is and what it's exposure system actually does in practice.

Then comes PP probably the worst learning curve of all. People can make suggestions but proficient people look at the shot as it comes and decide what to do with it. That takes time. Even the max ISO that can be used on the camera comes into this area. That can be subject dependent as well. Personally I feel that the best way in this area is to concentrate on producing photographic excellence. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Could even be a landscape, portrait or garden shed or what ever. The more variety the better really Each picture has a learning curve and may need doing 1/2 dozen times to get it as far as it can be got. The metric here can be other peoples shots in terms of crispness in particular. Some obviously over sharpen from time to time. Colour is another matter. If some peoples colours are to some ones liking that may take some time to master. Bets leave this till latter. Cameras and the usually raw development software will generally produce a pleasing style of colouring. On initial aim would be to set the jpg aspects up to there best and then set about producing better from raw.

The last thing is composition. A really tough nut full of "rules" that in practice can't always be followed yet people manage attractive shots without sticking to them. In my view How Toos are a really bad idea in this area if they are taken too much to heart. Perhaps one thing that might help here is spending more time looking at what ever it is in the viewfinder. What stands out what doesn't etc even some rules 1/3's leading lines, interest etc. Many people look around them and see something wonderful the problem is translating that impression to what the camera can see and record. Often on landscapes a small part of it is likely to to turn out to be better than the whole. For the whole thing think post card - a record. Often little more than that can be done. Some will like these some wont. Landscapes can be a particularly good way of learning to exploit a cameras full dynamic range and getting to grips with PP.

John
-

[William W]

Good thoughts.

Should we not perhaps pay more attention to the HOW TO rather than WHY?

For some people it is generally easier for them to learn HOW to, if they know WHY.
People learn differently.

So, in answering this question, I would answer: NO, it is not a matter of dictating a "One learning solution fits all".

I would generally fit into wanting to know “WHY?” and also “HOW TO?”

Usually the question "WHY?" would come after I was shown "HOW TO?" . . .

Also, for me, knowing the answer to "WHY?" leaves the door more easily opened to ponder "What are the other 'HOW TOs'?" . . . some people might term this aspect a valuable part of the creative process.

WW