Is photography hard?

[reg]

If you have to ask....

 

[mallard]

photographic equipment are just tools to photography the way brushes, paint and canvas (lenses, film and paper) are to a painter. Having a brush in my hand does not make me a Monet any more so than purchasing a Leica would make me a Bresson.

understanding how to use the tools is about a quarter of the work in my opinion...the rest can be learned to a certain extent, but some just "have it" while others dont. Photography is no different than anything else in that regard


Start by getting the book "Photography" by Barbara London and read it cover to cover. Get the books the Camera, Negative and Print by Ansel Adams. get books by Edward Weston, Edward Steichan, Minor White, Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Margaret Bourke-White, WeeGee, Paul Strand, Robert Capa, Walker Evans, Berenice Abbott, Mann Ray, Robert Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann, Alfred Steiglitz, Helmut Newton, David Muench, Joel Peter Witkin and go over them cover to cover taking in all they produce, study every aspect of how and why they do it....but most of all try everything and find something you like.

 

[slapshot™]

photographic equipment are just tools to photography the way brushes, paint and canvas (lenses, film and paper) are to a painter. Having a brush in my hand does not make me a Monet any more so than purchasing a Leica would make me a Bresson.

understanding how to use the tools is about a quarter of the work in my opinion...the rest can be learned to a certain extent, but some just "have it" while others dont. Photography is no different than anything else in that regard


Start by getting the book "Photography" by Barbara London and read it cover to cover. Get the books the Camera, Negative and Print by Ansel Adams. get books by Edward Weston, Edward Steichan, Minor White, Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Margaret Bourke-White, WeeGee, Paul Strand, Robert Capa, Walker Evans, Berenice Abbott, Mann Ray, Robert Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann, Alfred Steiglitz, Helmut Newton, David Muench, Joel Peter Witkin and go over them cover to cover taking in all they produce, study every aspect of how and why they do it....but most of all try everything and find something you like.

Excellent advice and good selection of photogs to study.

Food for thought on the comparisions between a photog and a painter:

A painter looks at a blank canvas and decides what to put on it.

A photog looks through the viewfinder and decides what to eliminate.

 

[Easy_Target]

I use another couple of forums, and a small discussion has arose on the difficulty of obtain a good shot - Person A claims its a case of "snapping away...its not rocket science" While person B says its much more than that.

What do you think

Snapping away is easy.

Photography...that's another story.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Also, in this case quality might be in the eye of the beholder, to your friend a typical vacation photo of a dark mountain from 2 miles away is a Fantastic photo.

 

[tasman]

What if you had no fingers? That would certainly make things more difficult.

Not really, NASA put a big shutter release button on the cameras the they took to the moon. So if you had no fingers you could use whats left to press the button.

 

[mrodgers]

Photography is not hard. It's just learning the equipment tools being used and how the features of the equipment affects the image. Other areas to learn are composition.

It's no different than learning how to drive. Driving a car is very easy. Though, it appears to me that there are millions out there on the road who can't seem to drive.

To take a camera, point it and shoot it without any thought is the same as the millions on the road every day who take their cars, and point them and shoot them without any thought.

Take that same driver and get them to learn how to actually control the vehicle, not just point and shoot it. Get them to learn how to drive a manual and when to select which gear. Get them to understand what weight transfer during acceleration, braking, or affects the car. Get them to learn the limits and how to feel the limits of the traction circle.

Photography is no different. Learning how to actually drive a car rather than point and shoot it is no different than learning how to actually create a photograph rather than point and shoot it. Take that snapshooter and get them to learn what depth of field is and what setting will adjust it. Get that snapshooter to understand that to stop action or to prolong movement that you have to adjust shutter speed. Get that snapshooter to learn that if he can't use the settings that he wants for DOF or action, the ISO can be adjusted to bring the other settings within range. It just takes a little understanding, which sadly, not many are capable of the understanding of anything whether it is something as simple as taking a photograph, or something as simple as actually driving and controlling a car.

But, I guess that is why there is auto mode and scene selection on cameras as well as auto trannies, antilock brakes (worst things EVER invented) and traction control on cars.

 

[Bifurcator]

I agree with the above. I used to think that if I take a huge amount of photos that some of them will turn out good. One of them will have to have all of the eyes open etc.

There seems to be some truth to this, however, I would say that a truly great shot generally requires knowledge thought and preparation. There are some stunning shots that that were taken in a matter of moments, but in general it seems that shots that stand out from the average are ones that have had thought put into them.

Yeah, the laws of averages and statistical sciences do clearly imply that if you set 1000 monkeys in front of 1000 typewriters and had them all bang on the keys that sooner or later they would reproduce the works or William Shakespeare (or whatever authors actually wrote that stuff). That said, you would still improve the odds drastically by teaching the monkeys to type first and anyway, think of all the wasted pages.

--
BTW, having no fingers would NOT make photography any more or less difficult. It would only change the user interface. My camera is 100% controllable from a laptop - everything except zoom, even focus-point cursor movement and my laptop handles voice recognition pretty well!

 

[zandman]

just have fun, it would be easy,

 

[K_Pugh]

not saying anything that's not already been said but taking a photograph is easy, taking a photograph that's technically perfect takes knowledge, experience and some thought.

snapping away you will end up with a few good/reasonable shots but when you put thought into you're shots beforehand you get a better percentage of good shots and hopefully some on the very good/perfect side.. saying that, it's still not that easy..

it's like anything i suppose, the more knowledge and experience you have the easier it will get.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

taking a photograph is easy, taking a photograph that's technically perfect takes knowledge, experience and some thought.

And herein lies the problem.
Is a 'technically perfect' photograph the same as a 'good' photograph?
And the answer is, of course, no.
Firstly, what is 'technically perfect'? How do you judge? What do you measure it by?
Is it an image that is in focus?
I have seen images that are intentionally out of focus that I still consider amazing.
Is it an image that is correctly exposed?
Before you answer that work out what 'correct' exposure means and under what situations you will ever get it.
Colour balance? Depth of field?
It's not as easy as it seems to define 'technically perfect' when what works for one image will not work for another. Although there are one or two people on here who like to give 'crits' who think they have the answer.
And even if you did come up with what everyone would agree was a 'technically' perfect photo the chances are that it would be boring.
And all the time you see people hammering away at an image with Photoshop - adjusting contrast, saturation, cloning out trees and wires - in an endless and delusional pursuit.
If you have to do work on an image in Photoshop then the image must have been far from perfect to begin with - which should be an indication that the photographer still has a way to go before they achieve competence.
Technical perfection is not at all easy but it isn't everything either - in fact it is very little in the scheme of things.
I have been privileged to handle original prints by a lot of famous photographers and believe me a lot of them were far from technically perfect.
Technical control, now... that's a different matter.
But even if you worked hard and achieved technical control there is still no guarantee that you would ever produce a 'good' picture.
There is a great deal more to Photography than using a camera but most people don't seem to be aware of it. Which is why people think that it is easy.
But nothing worthwhile ever comes easily.

 

[Alex_B]

It is as hard as you make it!

It really depends what challenges you take up

 

[dEARlEADER]

And herein lies the problem.
Is a 'technically perfect' photograph the same as a 'good' photograph?
And the answer is, of course, no.
Firstly, what is 'technically perfect'? How do you judge? What do you measure it by?
Is it an image that is in focus?
I have seen images that are intentionally out of focus that I still consider amazing.
Is it an image that is correctly exposed?
Before you answer that work out what 'correct' exposure means and under what situations you will ever get it.
Colour balance? Depth of field?
It's not as easy as it seems to define 'technically perfect' when what works for one image will not work for another. Although there are one or two people on here who like to give 'crits' who think they have the answer.
And even if you did come up with what everyone would agree was a 'technically' perfect photo the chances are that it would be boring.
And all the time you see people hammering away at an image with Photoshop - adjusting contrast, saturation, cloning out trees and wires - in an endless and delusional pursuit.
If you have to do work on an image in Photoshop then the image must have been far from perfect to begin with - which should be an indication that the photographer still has a way to go before they achieve competence.
Technical perfection is not at all easy but it isn't everything either - in fact it is very little in the scheme of things.
I have been privileged to handle original prints by a lot of famous photographers and believe me a lot of them were far from technically perfect.
Technical control, now... that's a different matter.
But even if you worked hard and achieved technical control there is still no guarantee that you would ever produce a 'good' picture.
There is a great deal more to Photography than using a camera but most people don't seem to be aware of it. Which is why people think that it is easy.
But nothing worthwhile ever comes easily.

:thumbup:

 

[Alex_B]

:thumbup:

I still think that my short reply was easier to read

 

[dEARlEADER]

I still think that my short reply was easier to read

lol... yes but the forum has been slow lately so I enjoyed Hertz's blithering rant better...