Are people going for imsge quality more then actual photographic skills?

[minicoop1985]

One of the problems about discussing "actual photographic skills" is that these skills vary, tremendously, from person to person, and the skills themselves vary with the type of photography being done. Focus stacking for example, is a very new technique in photography, and some people have great skill with focus stacking, while other people have no use for it, and literally ZERO skill in that area. Cameras, and lenses and other equipment by contrast, can be "shared" by every person who shoots or owns the equipment. Because equipment in inanimate, and mass-produced, and is basically "the exact same thing, no matter who uses or buys it", it's very easy to discuss equipment.

A Canon 5D Mark III is a Canon 5D Mark III. It's a specific, defined, finite "thing", and many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of people will own and possess one, and will want to talk about it. Photographic skill on the other hand is a huge field, with many,many different "parts", and NO TWO PEOPLE SHARE the same,exact photographic skill set, so it's often difficult to generate much discussion across a broad range of widely-differing people.

This. This this this. And one little thing to add: much like cell phones, game consoles, TVs, and laptops, cameras are electronic gadgets too, though they definitely have a VERY different use than the others (well, some will argue cell phone cameras, but take a good look at what's in my phone and that argument's gone). Gadgets and toys are fun to talk about and discuss, and when it comes time to upgrade, it's best to have AS MUCH information as possible. It's incredibly stupid to walk in to Best Buy, completely lacking any other information about cameras, looking for a real, photographic tool and what's best for YOU, then ONLY listen to the kid who sells Apple products about this Nikon because it comes in red. Nothing against Nikon, but it pays to be an educated consumer. The person who buys that camera just because it's red has a MUCH higher chance of not being happy with it. It might have way more or way less features than they want (hell my 7D has more on the dial than I want, but a lot less than my wife's camera has...), or just plain not do what it is they want. Besides just take a damned picture, which is what I like about higher end cameras...

 

[Sventek]

... barely do I see the peeps discussing photography as an art by itself.

After frequenting many photography forums over the years, I have now concluded that almost all the participants are incapable of doing this. People are very quick to tell you that you've "done it wrong" or "I don't like it" or "I would have done it this way" - but very few people actually take the time to consider what the photographer was trying to achieve, reflecting on that, and entering into a discussion about it. Everyone seems to have their own particular views and, while that's fine and to be expected, they then behave as if their opinion was fact and ridicule and disparage people. Now that I've established my own forum (no, I'm not advertising or soliciting), I do realise how difficult it can be to encourage people to think differently, but I hope to get there one day, even if it means restricting the membership to photographers with a brain as well as artistic sensibilities.

 

[JerryLove]

How do you tell someone else how to do their art anyway?

I mean: I can help someone with how to manipulate the camera and light to achieve what it is they are wanting to achieve; but I cannot tell them what they should want in the first place.

There most certainly are discussions on image composition, and use of DoF, and downright debates on things like "the right distance for most flattering portraiture". Most of the tutorials I spend time watching are on image composition, lighting models, etc.

But the thing about art is there isn't "right" and "wrong" . There is "in focus" and "out of focus", though only you can say which you preferred.

BTW: In audiophile boards there's almost no discussion of whether Jazz or Blues is artistically better.

 

[The_Traveler]

You can nurture talent and creativity but without an acorn, no oak.

 

[Gavjenks]

What is the point trying to be made here?

Pablo Picasso spent almost a decade receiving rigorous formal academic drawing and painting education from his father who taught such things for a living.
He undoubtedly spent many long hours debating EXACTLY such things as brushes and paints and hand techniques long before he started doing anything innovative or that he would later be known for.

The same is true of almost every famous artist. You need to master the technical details of the tools in your toolbox before you can wield them instinctively well enough to create art with them.

A photographer in the age of film would need to rigorously study and practice exposure and technical lens movements and chemical formulae and mixing and handling and flash powder mixing and handling and blah blah blah. In the digital age you need to learn photoshop and when to use image stabilization and when not and different metering modes and blah blah blah before you can free up enough mental space to start creating art.

 

[bribrius]

so you think everyone should go to a photography school for a decade? Sure, put ten years of student loans over their heads and they have to find a entry level wedding cam.

 

[Derrel]

What is the point trying to be made here?

Pablo Picasso spent almost a decade receiving rigorous formal academic drawing and painting education from his teacher who taught such things for a living.
He undoubtedly spent many long hours debating EXACTLY such things as brushes and paints and hand techniques long before he started doing anything innovative or that he would later be known for.

The same is true of almost every famous artist. You need to master the technical details of the tools in your toolbox before you can wield them instinctively well enough to create art with them.

A photographer in the age of film would need to rigorously study and practice exposure and technical lens movements and chemical formulae and mixing and handling and flash powder mixing and handling and blah blah blah. In the digital age you need to learn photoshop and when to use image stabilization and when not and different metering modes and blah blah blah before you can free up enough mental space to start creating art.

I've noticed that an infant learns to roll over. Then the infant learns how to sit up. Then how to "pull up". Then, a few halting steps, and lots of falls. Then the little tyke learns how to walk. After a while, the child learns how to run. In the pre-Renaissance and Renaissance eras, artists made their own paints for Chrissakes. MOST of them kept their exact, specific formulations secret even from their wives and their assistants and their pupils as well. What I find amusing is the new class of shooter that wants to buy a d-slr and become a "professional photographer", but has never taken a single class, nor studied art, design, composition, nor read anything scholarly regarding visual communications, but plans to learn all that is needed to become a full-fledged "pro-level" shooter by watching...YouTube videos...

 

[Derrel]

so you think everyone should go to a photography school for a decade? Sure, put ten years of student loans over their heads and they have to find a entry level wedding cam.

How about this: read some f****** books written by leaders in the field. Seek out a real mentor. Strive to learn more than what can be learned from other newbies making dreck YouTube videos and teaching you obscenely erroneous methods and ridiculous "noob knowledge". Learn the craft from high-level practitioners, not from anonymous YouTubers. Study composition for Gawd's sake. Learn what composition and design really mean. Learn how to shoot from MASTERS, not from apprentice-level shooters and self-taught gearheads.

 

[bribrius]

so you think everyone should go to a photography school for a decade? Sure, put ten years of student loans over their heads and they have to find a entry level wedding cam.

How about this: read some f****** books written by leaders in the field. Seek out a real mentor. Strive to learn more than what can be learned from other newbies making dreck YouTube videos and teaching you obscenely erroneous methods and ridiculous "noob knowledge". Learn the craft from high-level practitioners, not from anonymous YouTubers. Study composition for Gawd's sake. Learn what composition and design really mean. Learn how to shoot from MASTERS, not from apprentice-level shooters and self-taught gearheads.

Different level of seriousness.
Most people probably don't want to actually learn to be photographers or photography. They want to learn to take pictures. Big difference. What you speak of is a extremely high level of knowledge and skill in photography. Most people on here, probably aren't even real photographers and have no intention of being one as a full time occupation. They don't plan on devoting their life to photography. They want to know enough, to take good pictures. Its a side hobby, maybe a moonlight job. Not Pablo Picasso

 

[Derrel]

Different level of seriousness.
Most people probably don't want to actually learn to be photographers or photography. They want to learn to take pictures. Big difference. What you speak of is a extremely high level of knowledge and skill in photography. Most people on here, probably aren't even real photographers and have no intention of being one as a full time occupation. They don't plan on devoting their life to photography. They want to know enough, to take good pictures. Its a side hobby, maybe a moonlight job. Not Pablo Picasso

Yes, I totally understand what you mean.

What I mean is this: even if a person simply wants to, "Learn to take pictures," it's a very wise course of action to learn from people who are MASTERS at the craft. Not from nincompoops that happen to own a camcorder, and who have a YouTube channel.

I advocate that people learning the craft of photography do this: Buy ONE actual, real, on-paper BOOK. Hardcover, or softcover. OWN the book, for life. READ IT. And study it. And in that way, learn the basics from a skilled practitioner. Total cost? I dunno... $ 14.95 to $34.95.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Even something as minimally important as recording one's life and times and family with a camera.

I'm not advocating that people spend an inordinate amount of time in formalized, institutionalized "school" or "university" settings. FAR from it. I am advocating that people learn something about photography from people who are MASTER-level practitioners. Learn from those who have devoted their life to photography, or to teaching it. Not from people who have a year or two of experience, and who "do YouTube videos" about a subject they really have little experience with.

 

[CmazzJK]

Honestly, I can say with conviction that I was one of those people who thought you bought a nice camera and good pictures automatically come out. I used auto mode for the first month and didn't care until I started reading a Scott Kelby book and my eyes were opened to how stupid I was(am). Now I find myself hiking around local parks at 6:30 am in sub freezing temperatures after a night shift, haven't had any sleep in 24 hours and loving life hoping I will get that picture that's good enough to hang in my living room. I'm nowhere near there yet but I will be. I will continue to buy nicer equipment as my financial situation allows too even if I suck... Does it really matter to anyone else? Honestly?

 

[photofree]

I've always just called it development of your eye. The ability to see the print. I come from the film era, and I read books too. Good equipment is great, but the eye makes the image.

profound thinking about stuff

 

[Gavjenks]

so you think everyone should go to a photography school for a decade? Sure, put ten years of student loans over their heads and they have to find a entry level wedding cam.

No. I think that people who want to be the Picassos of photography might have to study technical details (whether that be a formal school or not) for a decade first.

Random wedding photographer =/= Picasso of photography.

 

[petrochemist]

Lew's triangle is at great over simplification of matters.
There are loads of people who have a natural eye for composition, they can create good images without any training on photography - not all the time but today's auto settings work fairly well for many situations.
I don't believe there's anyone who doesn't have anything to learn about photography. The mere fact you can produce good pictures (or true photographic art) doesn't mean your no longer gaining skills and experience.

The proportion of good photo's anyone takes is likely to increase as they learn more though it can mean they take on more advanced technical challenges - which often involve a larger ratio of failures.

bribrius what exactly do you mean by 'real photographers'? It sounds like you are meaning those who do photography as a profession. I have no intension of becoming a professional photographer. There are many 'professional' photographers whose technical knowledge is far less than I had 20 years ago, and sadly some who know nothing about composition as well.

 

[Braineack]

How about this: read some f****** books written by leaders in the field. Seek out a real mentor. Strive to learn more than what can be learned from other newbies making dreck YouTube videos and teaching you obscenely erroneous methods and ridiculous "noob knowledge". Learn the craft from high-level practitioners, not from anonymous YouTubers. Study composition for Gawd's sake. Learn what composition and design really mean. Learn how to shoot from MASTERS, not from apprentice-level shooters and self-taught gearheads.

I heard Rothko bought a canvas one day on a whim, and just started painting boxes; no formal training in the arts, no hard work to develop his style, no years of practice learning his craft.