At some point photography does get easier

[Buckster]

Oh, you wanted to see an "abrupt game change with respect to rules of design and composition"?

I don't think I specifically called out "rules of design and composition" anywhere

What kind of "rules" did you think we were all talking about when mentions of "the rule of thirds" and so on are being bandied about.

Show me the changes that changed everything and make all that don't follow them "irrelevant". Your words, your claims - show your backup.

This is like the third time I've put the challenge to you to back up your assertions. Are you going to finally squirt some out or get off the pot?

 

[amolitor]

No, seriously, Buckster, I have said all I have to say on this. The examples are there, if you would read all of the words I wrote.

I was pretty sure we were about to enter the land of "no! You have NOT answered me!" "Yes, I HAVE!" "NO!" "YES!" and, lo, here we are, so I am most definitely done. You may now declare yourself the victor.

 

[imagemaker46]

Forget reading magazines, or books, or web based forums or ANYTHING written using words. Forget studying ANYTHING that has ever been written down in the entire 150+ year history of photography! Never, ever learn through that stupid old "reading". Reading is for squares. Instead, arrange to be born into a family with a talented photographer as your father, and then learn EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW to hold your own with the world's best sports shooters, all through the miracle of OSMOSIS!!!!!!!

Animation: How Osmosis Works

I was going to just drop this whole discussion but it seems Derrel has issues with it. I said that I didn't read books or magazines about "how to be a photographer" It was suggested by someone else using osmosis, it was not me. I learned how to be a good photographer from my dad, as well as working with and around other great photographers during my career. If you have a problem with how I learned photography get over it. I have been doing this as a living for a very long time. You can go back to your books and your magazines and however you learned to be an amateur photographer and I will continue to live in my world as a professional. I don't really care how people learn to take pictures, if it's looking at pictures in books, or reading or watching how to videos, thats great, good for them.

This is why I had stopped posting anything on this forum, other than comments on some images. I deal with enough people that annoy me in the real world, that have nothing better to do than pretend to understand photography. I don't need to deal with jerks on a forum. Enjoy your life doing whatever it is you do and I will continue to enjoy photography.

 

[Overread]

I dream of the day online debaters learn to separate the debate from cheap shots at each other and all those other silly things that move debates regarding situations/facts/learnings/different approaches away from the actual debate into a contest between egos (because I have to lock way to many threads because of that and that alone...)




imagemaker46 - I get what you are saying, but, with respect, you said it wrong. Or at least you said it in such a way that your message was lost and garbled up with something else that got presented somewhat wrongly as well. As a result it messed up the message and then - everyone got confused or insulted or both.

My view on things is:

1) Facts are facts and light itself follows physics. The technical side of the camera is bound by rules no one can argue against - you can see them, test them, repeat them and copy them over and over. The technicalities of learning to make an exposure - of how to balance and control lighting. This is all technical and hard facts no one denies this.
Yet saying that even this highly technical area can be learnt with what we might otherwise call "instinct". That is in such a manner that the person has no idea how light moves, or if its a wave or a particle or anything like that. What they know is how to control the tools they have to get an effect - further they learn how that effect can be varied by all kinds of different methods.
If you learn this when young you can pick up masses of tips, tricks and info. These might all be methods, they might have names and rules and guidelines of their own. You don't "need" to know the name if you've learnt the process by observation - however knowing the name helps when talking to others about it - knowing the ins and outs of what and how you do something also helps when teaching another.

This is why you see more technical talk - names and rules and the like - appearing in an environment where people can only teach or impart their view to others with words alone. You can't just "show them" here online you've got to tell them - that means getting technical with your craft; it means understanding what you're doing and how you do it. Not at an instinctive level, but at a technical level that you can impart to others and expect them to be able to understand and follow it.


2) As much as we like to think its not the case, it is the case that composition too has these "rules" and guidelines to follow. This is an area where more people are instinctive naturally than with exposure and thus you meet many who can draw or compose a scene with a camera and get a beauty of a photo but without actually understanding the technicalities of why the photo works. This weakens things if they try to teach - again if you can't explain things you can't share what you know or how you approach something.


3) All rules of composition and exposure are basically guidelines and theories. Each part has to be learnt, practised, repeated, learnt again until its second nature. When its second nature then you can start chopping; changing, breaking, twisting, combining. Because at that point you've got the info in your mind - you understand "why" it works so you can then understand when it will and when it won't work - and why it won't work and what then might work if you break one guideline just a little or a lot.

 

[shefjr]

It's more of a statement than anything else and it's directed to the amateurs and camera owners new to photography. I read a lot of the posts on the forum and many I don't respond to because they are being written by the magazine readers, the ones that read an article on photography and spew out the information so they can sound like they know "how" to take pictures. I have to say that there are a lot of people that can tell people what is wrong with the photos that have been posted and yet they have no clue what they are talking about. I don't read magazines or books, never have, certainly not anything related to photography, but I do know that the more information you can aquire the better. I grew up in the business, it's been a lot of years. I can also say that I don't find photography hard or difficult, I understand light, I can walk into any room/venue and know where the best pictures will come from, it takes only a few minutes to figure everything out. Like anything, the more you do it the easier it gets. Don't give up because you've had a bad shoot, don't give up because you find it too much of a challenge. Every professional has gone through the same things.

Most camera owners will never make a living doing this, many will try and many will fail, but just enjoy it. When you start to doubt yourself, you add stress and that's not what the hobby is all about. Always remember to be ready for a picture, when you are walking around, keep the camera turned on, throw the lens cap in your pocket, have your settings all set, if the light changes, change the setting, don't wait for the picture to disappear because you weren't ready.

Photography doesn't have rules, you don't need to know or try to understand half of what is said on this forum, just learn what you need to know, some great pictures just happen, be ready. Have fun. It does get easier.

I just wanted to let you know before this thread gets locked that I (as a slow learning constantly frustrated noob) appreciate what you said in your original post. Thank you. :thumbup:

 

[manaheim]

^ nicely said.

And image maker, I understand your frustration but your last post reveals a seriously elitist attitude. Intended? Honest? Or just frustration talking.

I don't profess to be a full time pro, but most of the ones I know will- at worst- smile and make some vaguely encouraging remark to someone of lesser skill... You pretty much just flamed the life out of everyone on this forum, and placed them all beneath you at the same time. Harsh.

 

[imagemaker46]

^ nicely said.

And image maker, I understand your frustration but your last post reveals a seriously elitist attitude. Intended? Honest? Or just frustration talking.

I don't profess to be a full time pro, but most of the ones I know will- at worst- smile and make some vaguely encouraging remark to someone of lesser skill... You pretty much just flamed the life out of everyone on this forum, and placed them all beneath you at the same time. Harsh.

It seems that I have a way of portraying myself as an egotistical elitist jerk in many of the posts I write, which is about as far away from who I really am. I am honest about my abilities as a photographer, I won't deny or underplay my skills or experience. In this business you have to believe in your abilities and be able to back them up every day, and with that comes a hidden attitude, on this forum I have the habit of not hiding it, in the real world, I just do my job, help out anyone who has a questions, point other photographers in the right direction and offer assistance to anyone who asks for it.

So I will apologise for any comments which offended any camera owners. The intent was to offer some reassurance that it does get easier. I make a living with pictures, not with words. With words I'd be very successful pissing the world off.

 

[JAC526]

You didn't offend me.

 

[Overread]

I don't think people were offended so much as concerned. We've a good few here who are very keen with their hobby (or indeed profession) and like many with a keen interest they too wish for others to soak up that keenness and eagerness to progress. As such they take great concern when one of the "advanced" group is suddenly appearing (even if they did not intend) to say that "learning" is a false step.

Just as when someone gives poor advice they chime in to correct, here again they attempt to disprove the notion that learning isn't needed to further ones craft in photography (mostly because they know this to be a true fact). This is why some get a little testy when they think this is being said. What is in actuality is a great eagerness to help others, which sometimes can get a little heated at times.

 

[imagemaker46]

If it came across as my saying there is no need to learn about photography it was completely unintended. I had the opportunities in life to learn from a master of photojournalism and I continue to learn from him. I never saw the need to read books about photography, turns out that reading about other subjects would have greatly enhanced my abilities in school. I will finish with this. In my final year of high school the guidance councilor called me into his office because of my grades, he asked me what I planned on doing after high school, I simply told him "I am going to be a photographer" his exact words to me, "It's a great hobby, but you'll never make a living at it" I ran into him 10 years later at a MacDonald's he didn't remember me when I said hello, (he was wearing a name tag on his minimum wage security guard jacket) We talked for a few minutes and he did remember me, I mentioned to him what he had said to me in high school, he didn't, but I told him and he then asked what I was doing, I told him I was the personal photographer to the Prime Minister of Canada. It's a great hobby. Keep learning, and how you learn doesn't matter.

 

[shefjr]

I think that the original statement was subjective and many took it the wrong way. My perspective in the first paragraph is mostly his experiences until the last few and to me inspirational sentences. I have come close to giving up because of my only support/help system, this forum. Not trying to sound like a baby here more to the point these last sentences were reinspiring.
The second paragraph was to me good advice. And the third paragraph was opinion. The way I interpreted it was, go out and take photos of what you like and you'll learn or figure out what the rules are.
i never read that I shouldn't eventually follow the "rules" or read books. I read that image maker didn't have to do that for him. He is blessed with a talent that I don't have.
All of this is my opinion and I may get slammed for it but, I think there should be perspective from the new photographers on this since it was directed at the new photogs.

 

[amolitor]

I'm with the "I love imagemaker" crowd as well. I had no trouble reading the original posting in the spirit it was intended, as a "don't give up, you'll figure it out, don't sweat the small stuff, it's gonna work out"

The Bitter Jeweler had to seize on one phrase and trigger an all out war about "rules" which I regret I allowed myself to take part in. It was everything else AFTER the first post that made this thread miserable.

 

[imagemaker46]

thank you

 

[Designer]

Two words.

Post-modernist art

Here is a dollar bill being blown against a plate of glass. Marvel at my genius. Lol

The new artistic trend is the absence of art. Haha

I've known some artists who do that. Frankly, it just pisses me off. I'm sure their intent was to p!$$ me off, so in that sense it was a success, however I still maintain it is crappy art.

 

[pgriz]

To know the influences that Imagemaker had, check the work of Ted Grant.

I've read several interviews done with Imagemaker's father, and was struck at his insistence that he "just took the photo - there was no planning!" And yet, it reveals the degree that the computing process that most photographers have to go through, was so internalized, that it did not even reach his level of awareness of it. When the interviewer for the Leica magasine was trying to ferret out the thinking process behind the images of doctors (Interview here: http://blog.leica-camera.com/photographers/interviews/dr-ted-grant-a-canadian-national-treasure/, subject matter see Ted Grant photos take us behind the scenes with Island Medical Program students | The Ring), he expressed some frustration with that - “I shoot by what I feel. There isn’t anything analytical going on. It’s like ‘Geez, look at that.’ Click.”

Looking at the images, the exposure, the composition, and the timing, I would guess that most of us would blow all of those if we had to do it on the spur of the moment. I aspire to that level of skill and essentially automatic response, but I am very far away from that. While I have not read Imagemaker's idea of how he constructs him images, I suspect that a similar answer will come from him as well.

I have been fortunate to be able to discuss photography with a very accomplished local photojournalist, and his command of all of the technicalities of the trade is such that it never even enters his conscious mind - it is as automatic to him as is his heartbeat or his breathing. His attention is focused on the subject, the story, and the context. Subconsciously, he has determined his optimum exposure, the vantage point from which he needs to shoot, and whatever sources of light he is going to use. Haven seen the images that Imagemaker has posted on TPF, I'd say he's in the same and maybe even better level of performance - can't really tell until I see him in action.

Yes, it does get easier - but it also takes a friggin' quantity of talent, hard work, skill and experience.