Canon ae-1 or Olympus om-1?

[enzodm]

Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.

although I'm not yet able to fully interpret a picture, most of time there are visible hints on how picture has been taken. Not at the most precise level, but slow or fast shutter, large or small aperture , light direction give signs that can be interpreted by a careful and trained observer. Exact values depend also on camera and scene, so are up to experimentation (and thus quicker with digital).

 

[BKMOOD]

Don't get me wrong. I love my DSLR and it has paid me well (still does). However, I get no real sense of accomplishment as a photographer using it. The thing is so damned automated, a monkey could probably get a good shot out of it. But with film, it's a whole other story.

I love film. I still shoot film. My DSLR feeds my wallet. Film feeds my creative soul. I have one medium format camera and 27 35mm film cameras (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and so forth). I use them all. In some of them, the meter doesn't even work. I use a 40 year old handheld meter to get the shot. Works out just fine.

Film is a challenge. Can I get this shot? I love a challenge. My DSLR is not a challenge to me. Each role of film is like a Christmas present I can't wait to open when I get home, lock myself in a dark closet and develop it. I'm nervous and excited. Did I get it? Did I get it? My DSLR offers no such excitement.

After the processing, I am always shocked with childlike amazement: Cool! I got pictures -- and they came out! And there's nothing like holding a negative in your hand and putting it in a book. No computer glitch or virus will make it disappear.

Don't get me wrong. I love my DSLR. I am planning to buy another one. It has paid me well. But it bores me creatively. It is a business tool, much like a hammer. My customers expect it so I deliver it. However, it is a godsend when shooting sports.

My 20-something film cameras make me a kid again everytime I use them, nervous and excited with anticipation. Did I get the shot?! And I love that feeling. My DSLR never gives me that feeling. Never, no matter what mode I shoot in, and I usually shoot manual.

Recently started shooting with Ektar 100. Pictures are just as sharp as my DSLR. I'm even more in love with film. LOL!

 

[Chamelion 6]

I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it. I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such. By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.

But you spent "some" time learning about composition, so that you could at least recognize it, no? If you don't know the language...

I get from your post that you don't feel it is important to learn.
To anybody that feels that way, and puts that view forward on a beginers forum, I have to ask...Are you selling your work? Does your work hang in art galleries? Are you making more than 50% of your income from your images?

The "rules" are for analyzing the finished item.

That's laughable.

I make $0 from my images... On purpose. I went that rout in my early days, even went to school majoring in photojournalism. I discovered not everythng you love is what you should do for a living as it sometimes sucks the life out of it. None of my work hangs in a gallery, never really pursued that. Wasn't aware it was a requirement... I do have a little pile of awards from waaaaay back when, but that's past history.

I don't question learning. I don't question craft. What I question is the stuffy way learning and craft are approached. Knowing a bunch of stale dusty rules isn't much of an asset when you're out shooting and things are moving in changing all around you. Photography is a VISUAL art, learn to VISUALIZE... You don't do that by memorizing a lot of vague composition rules, you do it by studying photos, lots of photos... Good ones and bad, they all teach something. I still do that, and that's where I use those dusty old rules. To identify what works and what doesn't; what could be better and what stands out. But only after I digest the photo on it's own merrits. What is the point of the shot? What is the photographer trying to say?

I just see all those rules, all that techinical knowledge, and those gribbly details are a means to and end, and if the photo they support has nothing to say then who cares how crafted it is... On the other hand, if you give me something with a clear and powerful statement... I'm gonna over look a lot of technical imperfections, especially if they aren't getting in the way of what the image says.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I make $0 from my images... On purpose. I went that rout in my early days, even went to school majoring in photojournalism. I discovered not everythng you love is what you should do for a living as it sometimes sucks the life out of it. None of my work hangs in a gallery, never really pursued that. Wasn't aware it was a requirement... I do have a little pile of awards from waaaaay back when, but that's past history.

No it's not a requirement, but some weight can be placed on that when armchair quarterbacks are telling beginiers that learning composition is not important.

I don't question learning. I don't question craft. What I question is the stuffy way learning and craft are approached. Knowing a bunch of stale dusty rules isn't much of an asset when you're out shooting and things are moving in changing all around you.

The stuffy way way learning is approached? C'mon.
The photographer that has a firm grasp of composition makes it a part of him/herself, and can roughly frame up a shot using all they know, on the fly, just like the split second decision to turn your camera to shoot portrait, instead of landscape.

I like how you call tried and true, dusty and old. We can equate dusty old rules to language. Those dusty old rules are still being used and still being taught.

Photography is a VISUAL art, learn to VISUALIZE... You don't do that by memorizing a lot of vague composition rules,

Why yes, you do! There is a VISUAL LANGUAGE. Yes they are vague. Thats why calling them "rules" is a bad thing. They are vague, because the can be applied to billions of combinations of subjects.

you do it by studying photos, lots of photos... Good ones and bad, they all teach something.

Yup, they show you how the theories of composition have been used. It's all around us.

I still do that, and that's where I use those dusty old rules. To identify what works and what doesn't; what could be better and what stands out. But only after I digest the photo on it's own merrits. What is the point of the shot? What is the photographer trying to say?

You're using those dusty old rules to see if the photographer used them in the first place. Isn't that the gauge you are using to decide if an image works or not? If it's not then what are you using as a gauge?

I just see all those rules, all that techinical knowledge, and those gribbly details are a means to and end, and if the photo they support has nothing to say then who cares how crafted it is... On the other hand, if you give me something with a clear and powerful statement... I'm gonna over look a lot of technical imperfections, especially if they aren't getting in the way of what the image says.

Well, yes, there are images that ignore everything and have a strong emotional impact. But just because they exist does not mean you should throw what has been proven over time in the bin. But this really doesn't apply to people in a beginners forum, to people learning portraiture, wedding photography, macro work, abstract work, landscapes...I feel you or anybody that says there is no need to learn the rules, to study them, to understand them, are doing people learning this craft a huge disservice!

Knowledge of composition and technical know how are indeed a means to an end. Great images are more often than not, not random. Otherwise, the mantra to teach all these new people to photography, would be the new rule of "spray and pray."

 

[Chamelion 6]

Let's back up a bit, I don't think we're connecting on where I'm coming from.

I think composition is ALL important. It's the means to telling your visual story. Without it you really have nothing.

What I'm saying is I don't think very many people really learn good composition by beating on the rules themselves as much as they learn from simply seeing good composition. The rules, when applied without really understanding what they mean, drive towards very formulaic, uninspired photos.

The rules are seldom in the forefront of my thinking when I'm composing or shooting. I developed my sense of composition by training my eye to recognize what I like and I did that by studying other people's work. There is, in my opinion, no substitute for that. That's the real ticket to learning composition.

You're right, it get's you to the same place, but I think, for most people, learning to see it, to pick it out of the visual clutter around you at the moment, yields far better, more intuative, and creative results than , say, trying to visualize a grid over your image and mentally lining things this way and that.

On the other hand, when you're sitting looking at all those images and trying to decide why something fails, drawing all those grids and lines gives you a measureable way of understanding what you are looking at.

In otherwords, when you teach composition as a bunch of rules first, too many people get tangled up in them and never really SEE the composition itself. They simply see a bunch of rules. I never tossed them out, I just seem them as tools. I just don't hold them in the same reverance that I think most do.

Sane with technique. I spend a lot of time looking at my stuff and others asking how it could have been done better. If my skills at shooting at night are ruining my ability to take good shots at night, then my technique is failing me. But the final product drives that, not some vague notion that I must always produce technically perfect images.

So there we agree, the better your vocabulary the better you communicate. But reading a dictionary is a not the key to better writing. You have to have a clear idea of what you're trying to say first, that drives the word choices.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ok, I see where your coming from.

I can sum up a response by saying:

You can't learn french just by looking at the words. Somebody has to teach you what the words mean, and the correct way to put them together. When you write your first sentence you are gonna draw from what you have been taught before you put pen to paper, not afterwards. Then, the more you practice it, it becomes second nature. It is the same with the visual language.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Ok, I see where your coming from.

I can sum up a response by saying:

You can't learn french just by looking at the words. Somebody has to teach you what the words mean, and the correct way to put them together. When you write your first sentence you are gonna draw from what you have been taught before you put pen to paper, not afterwards. Then, the more you practice it, it becomes second nature. It is the same with the visual language.

Exactly. Learning to think in that language is the key really learning it. Eventually you begin to refine your understanding of the definitions of the words... Your first steps are to simply communicate, then you start refining the grammar...