There's better things to worry about than mastering your camera

[Helen B]

... i meant absolutely no disrespect.It was just too long for me.It's kind of funny,tho,that what I've been looking at is the darkness/shadows.Some video I watched gave an Italian name for it which escapes me,but it had to do with the play of light/dark.

Curioscuro? The use of light and dark in composition...is that what you mean?

Chiaroscuro.

 

[ralphh]

Careful, half the people will say your photos are under exposed and the other half will say they're over exposed or worse, you'll get advised to use HDR to tame the dynamic range in the scene :lmao:

 

[Garbz]

Then I'm going to be disingenuous. Anybody who can read can learn to operate the camera. The "art" in photography is in composition and the use of light. Someone on this forum has a quote on his posts "The amateur worries about gear, the pro worries about time, the master worries about light." I don't change cameras very often. Why? I use them until the operation is second nature to me. I don't want obsessing about gear issues interfering with the creative process.

No but yes but no but yes.

What were you trying to say here? That you disagree with me? That learning the camera isn't important. Followed immediately by the fact that you learn the camera till it's second nature to you? I'm not sure what to read into your post.

People who obsess about gear issues in terms of this thread are the ones in the process of learning. It's a fundamental requirement to the art. There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese.

I was thinking about beginners and the things beginners tend to photograph - their friends, their children, their cat....

In which case I fully agree

 

[ralphh]

There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese.

To counter that, I would suggest that people shouldn't even be thinking about what camera seetings you need for high key/low key portraits until they can properly light a kid sat on a bed by a window

I was thinking about beginners and the things beginners tend to photograph - their friends, their children, their cat....

In which case I fully agree

:thumbup:

 

[Overread]

I agree with Garbz - you don't have to go in and learn all the physics properties of how your lens works - but you do have to learn the basic controls. For those who come to a forum to ask "how can I improve" chances are they are looking to improve beyond just finding out the on button and pointing and shooting. Even if they are just taking photos of family and such chances are they want to improve themselves to a much better standard - heck they've often just bought a DSRL to do just that.

Starting teaching right at the very beginning with how to use the tool that they have is - well its just the very basics. You can just use auto-mode, however you won't always get consistent results; especially if you leave the camera in auto and then go and try to be creative with the composition and the lighting because chances are the camera might well keep picking totally different settings each time just because you've adjusted the lighting and moved the frame around (thus the metering is different).

Once someone has control over the tool, once they can select the right mode for the scene before them and for their own shooting style then its time to build upon that first building block. You can then start to bring in new elements such as how metering works - hot to control the lighting and how to vary the effects of it in the shot. You can also start to make better use of composition teaching -especially as the person progresses and the aperture, shutter speed and ISO slip further and further back in the mind into more instinctive use instead of having to be at the forefront.


Also remember if you just read the beginners section here you are often seeing the same kind of person appearing over and over again and thus you will see the same topics and the same replies over and over because those people are at that very same entry level point. Some only get that far and leave before learning further; others learn offsite and some move into other sections to learn. If you follow any one person who sticks at it you'll see the nature of conversation change from the "What settings" through to "ok how can I control the lighting here or work with the lighting I have" and into "ok so I can control the camera and the lighting now how is my composition?"


There are, of course, many ways to teach and often as not if you're teaching someone in person on a regular basis you can use various teaching methods which might focus upon other segments of learning earlier than others. The thing is in that type of environment you've control over the situation - you might well teach composition first, but you (the teacher) are also there to provide help in the other areas such as camera control. When you're not there and when the student has to learn it for themselves I think that its very key that they learn to control their tools first and foremost - because only then will have they have the confidence in their own equipment to be able to trust it to do what they want and to then be able to more clearly focus upon other areas.

 

[cgipson1]

If you really want to get the “basics” right, it’s light and composition you need to be thinking about. Camera settings can come later, or even not at all…

Yea, right! that is why we get all the questions of "uhh... what should my setting be for such and such"? Because they have no clue of how to setup their gear to get the shots they envision!

you could be taking good photos on green-box-auto

Good and Auto in the same sentence? That is an oxymoron! Adequate might be a better term!

There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese.

To counter that, I would suggest that people shouldn't even be thinking about what camera seetings you need for high key/low key portraits until they can properly light a kid sat on a bed

Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

you don't just learn one thing at a time. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition... especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes.... what kind of shots are you going to get?

You will get well composed and framed, underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!

 

[jake337]

Next, Post production will be up on the chopping blocks........

 

[ralphh]

I agree with Garbz - you don't have to go in and learn all the physics properties of how your lens works - but you do have to learn the basic controls. For those who come to a forum to ask "how can I improve" chances are they are looking to improve beyond just finding out the on button and pointing and shooting. Even if they are just taking photos of family and such chances are they want to improve themselves to a much better standard - heck they've often just bought a DSRL to do just that.

Starting teaching right at the very beginning with how to use the tool that they have is - well its just the very basics. You can just use auto-mode, however you won't always get consistent results; especially if you leave the camera in auto and then go and try to be creative with the composition and the lighting because chances are the camera might well keep picking totally different settings each time just because you've adjusted the lighting and moved the frame around (thus the metering is different).

Once someone has control over the tool, once they can select the right mode for the scene before them and for their own shooting style then its time to build upon that first building block. You can then start to bring in new elements such as how metering works - hot to control the lighting and how to vary the effects of it in the shot. You can also start to make better use of composition teaching -especially as the person progresses and the aperture, shutter speed and ISO slip further and further back in the mind into more instinctive use instead of having to be at the forefront.


Also remember if you just read the beginners section here you are often seeing the same kind of person appearing over and over again and thus you will see the same topics and the same replies over and over because those people are at that very same entry level point. Some only get that far and leave before learning further; others learn offsite and some move into other sections to learn. If you follow any one person who sticks at it you'll see the nature of conversation change from the "What settings" through to "ok how can I control the lighting here or work with the lighting I have" and into "ok so I can control the camera and the lighting now how is my composition?"


There are, of course, many ways to teach and often as not if you're teaching someone in person on a regular basis you can use various teaching methods which might focus upon other segments of learning earlier than others. The thing is in that type of environment you've control over the situation - you might well teach composition first, but you (the teacher) are also there to provide help in the other areas such as camera control. When you're not there and when the student has to learn it for themselves I think that its very key that they learn to control their tools first and foremost - because only then will have they have the confidence in their own equipment to be able to trust it to do what they want and to then be able to more clearly focus upon other areas.

I can definately see a lot the sense in what your saying, but i'm not sure that consistently getting bad results builds confidence in a tool - it tends to teach you that your mastery of the tool is what is at fault (as where this may not be the case), which is what results in "what settings do I need for".

Perhaps the placement of my argument is too far from centre, but the main point of writing it, and demontraitng that reasonable results are achieveable in auto was to open peoples eyes to the idea that camera mastery alone will get you no-where, and if your photos are bad, it is important that you learn lighting and composition to get better, not just hammering away at trying to master the tool.

 

[jake337]

It's not one or the other.....




Understanding your tools and understanding the principles of arts design come hand in hand when creating.



I'm sure I'm a master sculptor!!

Now how do I use these chisels and hammers??






Now think about it, what is there really to master in a camera???

Shutterspeed
aperture
Iso/Asa
WB
How to connect or trigger off camera flash



There really isn't much more than that. Understanding how those few simple items will effect the outcome of an image is too much to worry about? Too much to read up on? Should be forgotten or never thought of?

Seriously, these basic controls are too much to handle?


I personally feel there is nothing wrong with shooting in full auto, but what is one to do when full auto isn't giving desired results? Without a basic understanding one wouldn't have a clue as to why auto isn't giving them what they want or how to achieve what they want when auto isn't cutting it.

 

[ralphh]

Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

you don't just learn one thing at a time. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition... especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes.... what kind of shots are you going to get?

You will get well composed and framed, underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!

And yet.... the only photo I could find on your photostream with exiff intact was shot on a compact in program AE with no exposure comp, and auto WB, and yet it wasn't blurry, DoF was appropriate, and the white balance looked fine

 

[cgipson1]

Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

you don't just learn one thing at a time. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition... especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes.... what kind of shots are you going to get?

You will get well composed and framed, underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!

And yet.... the only photo I could find on your photostream with exiff intact was shot on a compact in program AE with no exposure comp, and auto WB, and yet it wasn't blurry, DoF was appropriate, and the white balance looked fine

BULL... which photo? if you are referring to a landscape taken with an old canon point and shoot while hiking... yea, that was shot in in program (with a LOT of correction in POST!). I NEVER use a DSLR in Auto.. and I strongly resent the implication.

I noticed you DIDN'T answer the LAST question I put to you? Care to do so?

 

[ralphh]

East inlet Wetlands | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[jake337]

Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

you don't just learn one thing at a time. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition... especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes.... what kind of shots are you going to get?

You will get well composed and framed, underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!

And yet.... the only photo I could find on your photostream with exiff intact was shot on a compact in program AE with no exposure comp, and auto WB, and yet it wasn't blurry, DoF was appropriate, and the white balance looked fine

And that image is also a Landscape shot. Not a kids and family shot.

 

[ralphh]

sooo, auto only works on landscapes? or composition on works on landscapes?

It's a good image that woks because of the composition, not because of carefully selected camera settings.

 

[cgipson1]

Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

you don't just learn one thing at a time. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition... especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes.... what kind of shots are you going to get?

You will get well composed and framed, underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!

And yet.... the only photo I could find on your photostream with exiff intact was shot on a compact in program AE with no exposure comp, and auto WB, and yet it wasn't blurry, DoF was appropriate, and the white balance looked fine

And that image is also a Landscape shot. Not a kids and family shot.

Yep.. several OLD images were shot with a Canon S5 PnS while hiking... and then required a good bit of massaging in photoshop to correct the issues AUTO caused. And the point Jake makes, No additional lighting was involved! Nice overcast day....