Should it rather be HOW TO or WHY?

[MrB]

Andre has made very good points and generated a very interesting thread.

Obviously people are different and will have different interests - some people will want to gain an understanding of the whys of photography. But wants aren't the same as needs, and it seems probable to me that understanding the whys might not be a requirement for good photography.

Consider any good pianist, who uses skills acquired through practice to play the instrument - the piano - using a knowledge of how it makes sounds and what the printed music means, together with emotion and creativity, to produce a wonderful aural performance. This needs no understanding of the mechanics of the levers between the keys and the strings, or the harmonics of vibrating strings.

Similarly, the good photographer uses skills acquired through practice to "play" his/her instruments - the camera and a computer program - using a knowledge of how they control and manipulate light, together with emotion and creativity, to capture and reveal a wonderful image. This needs no understanding of the physics of light, or the electronics of sensors, or the cost of PhotoShop CS.

Philip

[Brownbear]

Great thread, Andre...

Speaking for myself (an individual with no formal education in photography) understanding WHY is important (albeit not to the extent of understanding the science of the mechanical intricacies of the mirror inside my camera ) because I believe that "understanding why" will enable me to make informed decisions and provide me with the knowledge to break the rules, ultimately freeing up my creative process.

As someone who is just learning I am finding that there is a lot of misinformation in photography and/or that the information provided is not always reliable or valid. If I don't understand why I may accept everything I read or hear as fact which will likely slow down and/or hinder my learning process.

Donald most recently advised me that trying to take photos using a super slow shutter speed while on a moving boat in an attempt to blur the water was impossible ( by the way Donald was correct) because of the vibration of the boat, but moving forward with that knowledge, I built little pillows and placed them under the legs of my tripod... While the experiment didn't work out as I had hoped it would (ie; razor sharp mountains and silky water) the little pillows did allow me to use a slower shutter speed on a tripod. If I were more mechanically inclined I might invent tripod cushions so I could manage the silky water effect with tack sharp mountains in the background.

When I was trying to pan race horses at the track, understanding that the erratic movement of the horses bobbing heads makes it super challenging to pan at a super slow shutter speed, helps. When I try again this summer I believe that little bit of knowledge will help me to choose the ideal time to press the shutter button.

Knowing 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" will no doubt save me wasted time. However if I had a clear understanding of why I might enable me to figure out how to photograph reflections beautifully.

I'm hopeful that if I can figure things out by understanding why - or better yet get to the point where I "just knowing" (ie; no thinking required) will free up my creative process.

All that said... I've also most recently learned that too, many why questions can stifle the creative process by creating information overload.

[chauncey]

C'mon folks...how hard can it be...after all, people have been making pretty pictures for over a thousand years using nothing more than old fashioned paint on canvas. I would submit that nary a one knew what f/stop was, but they did know proper depth of field and the illusion of proper light and colors...how hard can it be.

[Brownbear]

True!

C'mon folks...how hard can it be...after all, people have been making pretty pictures for over a thousand years using nothing more than old fashioned paint on canvas. I would submit that nary a one knew what f/stop was, but they did know proper depth of field and the illusion of proper light and colors...how hard can it be.

[ajohnw]

C'mon folks...how hard can it be...after all, people have been making pretty pictures for over a thousand years using nothing more than old fashioned paint on canvas. I would submit that nary a one knew what f/stop was, but they did know proper depth of field and the illusion of proper light and colors...how hard can it be.

On the other hand people who get too obsessed with that form of imagery take out a magnifying glass and study the brush strokes rather than standing back and admiring it or even disliking it. It's even possible to take a course and have people tell why you should like it and if you want to pass the exam at the end you better had like it too.

John
-

[flashback]

I think what's important is to understand the relationship(s) between shutter speed, aperture and ISO. This triad is the basic foundation of photography. Since we've come into the digital age there are no film or development costs so the only thing a photo costs is some percent of the battery and one more shutter click.

Go take pictures.
Go take pictures.
Go take pictures.

Why spend hours inside reading, taking notes, working out formulae and taking a formulaic, mechanical engineering approach to photography. Take your camera, go outside and.....take pictures. A lot of photography is common sense once you understand the aforementioned triad. A slow shutter speed will blur the image unless perfectly still (tripod, remote release), as fast shutter speed will freeze movement.

I think what happens is a lot of people over think what they're doing. You're not splitting atoms, defusing a bomb or going into a burning structure so there's really no risk of fusion, fission, detonation, radiation, getting burned or any other catastrophic occurrence. You're pushing a button, and a fairly inconsequential one at that. One wants to avoid becoming anal retentive about something that is supposed to be fun, creative, expressive and fun! Did I mention you should be having fun?

[pnodrog]

Good thoughts.



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

As I read the responses I was wondering when I would see one that brings up the difference in importance depends a lot how we learn and remember things. I should have known Bill would point it out.

My wife is a how to person and is very good at languages and understands human behavior. She often spots and then points out photographic opportunities to me and is then happy to read her Kindle why I do the photography.

I am a why person and have a technical and logic approach and remember things when I understand them. Human behavior including my own often baffles me..

I think when you come across a new and technically challenging photographic situation the more you understand the why the better your chances are of success. However I think experience is often more important than the why. Probably my best photographs have been a result of experience and a recognition of the possibilities without any direct reference to the why. I suppose experience equates to the how.

[NorthernFocus]

This whole thread is the classic left brain/right brain discussion. IMO the real value of the thread is the discussion itself and what it demonstrates about human nature. We all see the world through our own frame of reference, through our own experience, base of knowledge, etc. It takes a lot of thought and introspection to understand how someone else views the world. Even if willing most of us don't truly succeed in doing so. But what one can successfully do is to recognize the infinite differences in those around us, how we learn differently, see the world differently. Looking back through this thread, for any one of the comments that makes a definitive statement that you must know x to achieve y, that's just flat wrong (speaking in reference to photography). Statement of that type simply reflect one's lack of understanding of our fellow man. What one is really saying in such situations is "I have to know x to achieve y". For to assume the same level of knowledge is necessary by others presumes that they have the same perception of the world as the speaker.

Good teachers understand this concept. As do most spouses in long lasting marriages, at least intuitively if not cognitively (i.e. they know how if not why).

Andre, it's quite a pleasure to see that you initiated this topic. It is reflective of a thoughtful acknowledgement of natural differences among us.

[Mike Buckley]

Great post, Dan.

any one of the comments that makes a definitive statement that you must know x to achieve y, that's just flat wrong (speaking in reference to photography).

When I first read that, I thought that surely I can think of any number of examples indicating that it's not true. In the end, I could come up with only two: to make a photograph, one must know to release the shutter and to do that one must know to turn the camera on, even though one must not know why that's so.

[dabhand]

Great post, Dan.

When I first read that, I thought that surely I can think of any number of examples indicating that it's not true. In the end, I could come up with only two: to make a photograph, one must know to release the shutter and to do that one must know to turn the camera on, even though one must not know why that's so.

Just thought of a third Mike - take the lens cap off - oooooopppppppppssssss

steve

[Mike Buckley]

Just thought of a third Mike - take the lens cap off - oooooopppppppppssssss
steve

No need to do even that if you like very black photos.

[ajohnw]

This thread tends to make me glad that I picked up a serious camera for the first time well before these sorts of discussions were even worth having.

How did I learn. As now the 1st thing is the camera. No problems with speed or iso but those dam things called f stops. It doesn't take many shots to find that these have more effects than just allowing different speeds to be used. ISO - much the same on film as it is on digital. Often mentioned on the packet. This was augmented by various articles in a magazine called Amateur Photography. Mostly subtle things like the effect of the 2 basic shutter orientations on objects moving at speed. The main reason for buying it as with most people was the adverts - which terraced house in the cheaper parts London had imported gear and was selling it cheap etc. And reviews of course. Useful content from the point of view of using a camera was very low. I can only remember a few over several years - shutters, lens focal length effects and one brief entry on one alternative film development regime that caused me to buy a book and try adding all sorts of things to developers. Even making up my own.

Actual photography. Trial and error largely. Eventually I joined a club. That lead to competitions, a feel for studio lighting and lectures once a month from well known photographers. They did that more or less for free. Competitions teach that there are 2 styles of photography. That which may win and that which wont. The win aspect as now is partly down to current fashion. The lectures provide different views on the subjects the photographers had decided to specialise in. I remember one person that just bought along shots of different species of duck. Processing was often mentioned and the intelligent use of colour. Some were purely on black and white photography where tone becomes important. Curiously some might think composition in modern terms didn't really feature at all. Just mentioned as pointers not rules. Exhibition work and large scale competitions also often showed a complete absence of them. Have things changed? No.

Then came commercial and social work. Not me but a friend who became fairly successful at it. I saw an awful lot of it. It's different. The aim is to give the customer what they want. Social work needs to flatter, commercial work can be highly technical in vanishingly small areas. Both need a thorough understanding of cameras, lenses and lighting even outdoors to do high class work. It's a different world and leads to viewing imagery in an entirely different way. How for one and is it effective for another. I find KR's web pages interesting in that respect. He shoots what he likes and notices and looked at that way a lot of his shots are interesting. He also illustrates another point. Well established people can get away with "throwing up" mediocre work at times. Maybe they like it but few others will. In general it wont be criticised - who dares basically at some level of fame. These people will also do something different just for the hell of it.

Some one has all ready pointed out the answer to the whole of this area - use your camera and note what happens. Read as many books and articles etc as you like but the world would be full of famous photographers if it was as simple as that. Other people can help too. Instead of viewing photo's purely on compositional aspects or different crops get the technical photographic things over and done with 1st. Dark areas, crispness etc etc and anything else in that area that is noticeable. When people look at others work and like it these are the aspects they need to study as well. Basically PP is a pain but it counts rather heavily. Going back to Christina as a for instance the biggest problem with the cloud reflection shot was the ripples in the water which will make it extremely difficult to do them justice. Reluctantly I destroyed the composition but there wasn't any point really as rules couldn't be applied to the shot anyway. Other comments about the difference in line of sight distances between the clouds and the clouds via the reflection are useful but the aim was to capture the whole scene so where to focus. On the ripples I should have added that at certain times of the year wind levels are low or even absent early in the morning or as evening is getting nearer. so I am as bad as the rest really and also have a very cynical sense of humour.

I'm glad to here that she is prepared to ignore advice and give things a go anyway. It's a very rational point of view.

John
-

[AB26]

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

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

Perhaps Donald has joined the wrong forum?

It can only be as technical as some of us wish to make it to impress others with words instead of images.

[AB26]

I wish to express my gratitude to all whom have contributed with very interesting perspectives.

Every single contribution is highly valued and much appreciated.

I believe Donald has emphasised what I am trying to say by starting this thread. A smaller aperture gives Donald a greater DOF, so does it for me and any other user of a camera. Does it matter if Donald knows what diffraction is or what causes diffraction and how to determine the degree of diffraction for a given aperture and specific lens. If Donald knows that an image goes “wonky” at an aperture of F32 (or any other aperture for that matter) he will avoid shooting at that aperture. If I am Mr. Genius and can do a complete analysis of the diffraction for Donald’s given lens it does not make me a better photographer than Donald is. Donald might just be capturing much better images than Mr. Genius and that is when I start asking WHY?

I am a WHY person, the inquisitive one, the one asking too many questions and getting into trouble for doing so.
I will now be pondering on HOW TO, for a few days or weeks. I will be walking around with my camera looking at subjects and think, HOW without asking WHY. I would like to invite all the WHY brained people here to join me in looking for subjects to shoot only asking HOW without thinking of the WHY.

[NorthernFocus]

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

Perhaps Donald has joined the wrong forum?

It can only be as technical as some of us wish to make it to impress others with words instead of images.

Now there you go, Andre. Suggesting someone be who they are not. Is the only reason one provides technical explanations that he/she is trying to impress? I can only speak for myself, but that's how I see the world.

Photography for me is not a creative endeavor. It is a technical process. I've mentioned in other posts, I believe, that is one of the reasons that I shoot wildlife. The creative aspect is minimal due to not having much control over the situation. The animal does what it does and it is a technical process to capture the action. So if someone asks me how I created the image, I naturally start to describe the camera equipment and settings and maybe the animal behavior and why I chose that particular spot at that particular time. The behavioral aspect of the subject requires analysis of things like time of year, time of day, food/water sources, etc, which is also a technical exercise in that it involves data analysis.

We are who we are. Please don't ask this cat to change his spots. Being skinned is very painful and most don't survive it

[AB26]

I'm glad to here that she is prepared to ignore advice and give things a go anyway. It's a very rational point of view.

John
-

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

[Mike Buckley]

some of us wish to make it to impress others with words instead of images.

For the record, I don't come here to impress anybody with words or images. I come to share and learn, with learning being a natural outcome of the sharing.

[Mike Buckley]

Other comments about the difference in line of sight distances between the clouds and the clouds via the reflection are useful but the aim was to capture the whole scene so where to focus.

I made that comment and I think you're taking it out of context. The context was that Christina explained that she was using a focusing distance that was in the foreground and the object was the reflection of a cloud. I explained to her that the reflection was in the foreground but its focusing distance was very different from other objects in the foreground. The fact that it probably didn't matter where she focused in that particular scene using the equipment she was using is irrelevant to the need to understand the focusing distance of reflections.

I'm glad to here that she is prepared to ignore advice and give things a go anyway.

Me too, especially when it's my advice. The proof is in the pudding. If she can make the pudding that proves me wrong, more power to her. Moreover, if she learns what NOT to do by doing it, the impression gained from failed results will probably be longer lasting than merely accepting when someone like me comes along and tells her not to do it.

[AB26]

For the record, I don't come here to impress anybody with words or images. I come to share and learn, with learning being a natural outcome of the sharing.

I know Mike, you are not guilty.

[AB26]

Now there you go, Andre. Suggesting someone be who they are not. Is the only reason one provides technical explanations that he/she is trying to impress? I can only speak for myself, but that's how I see the world.

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?