How to get better at photography

[KmH]

A good read, just be aware that the 'learning style' psychological theory was disproved almost 15 years ago.

Becoming a better Photographer by Thom Hogan

 

[quiddity]

here is a better recent one by him:

http://www.bythom.com/2011%20Nikon%20News.htm

ctrl-f then type "How many hours" enter
or scroll down to july 19, 2011

 

[pgriz]

Keith, I am curious about your statement that "Learning Styles" have been disproved. Do you have any links or material documenting that? I have looked and the sources I have found through Google and other search engines seems to paint an ambiguous picture: some claim that the four "learning styles" oversimplify the concept, others claim the "style" approach hasn't been proven, and others claim that since it cannot be disproven, it cannot be real. In my own experience tutoring and teaching people, I've found that I have a better chance of getting someone to learn something when I understand better their learning approach (let call it that instead of style). So to me, the "learning styles" concept has some merit. If it has been disproved, I'd like to update my own knowledge in this area and see how this may affect my teaching approach(es).

 

[KmH]

The concept of learning styles has been on shaky ground since originated in the 1970's. I haven't re-visited the psychology literature in the time frame I mentioned, 15 years.

A quick search yields; learning styles - Bing

Wikipedia notes:

the few well-designed studies conducted in this area have tended to produce results that "flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis".........empirical evidence underlying learning styles tests and theories has been severely criticized in recent years

No doubt people have learning preferences, but that is not the same as showing that those preferences result in more efficient learning.

 

[pgriz]

Yes, I came across more or less the same set of sources. It appears that most practitioners of the craft are for-profit organizations that have latched onto a simple concept. However, the fact that they may have oversimplified it doesn't mean that the underlying observations have no merit. On the other hand, there is a degree of polarization in the debate about the relative merits, that it requires some careful reading. Thank you for bringing up this topic - I'm going to have to dig a little deeper into it.

 

[KmH]

It's interesting that no one that could benefit from the link I posted has commented on it's contents.

I wondered if the article was WAY to long for many people to bother actually reading it.

 

[KmH]

If you want to get better at photography, read the link posted in the OP.

 

[Tkot]

I'm reading it. I read another article from this website (that I think you might've linked here) already, and it was a good read. About "magic settings" that people always ask about, which he then goes on to explain that the "magic settings" are really techniques, like controlling something (Av, Tv, etc).

 

[Derrel]

One of Hogan's comments in the article was, "Napster unleashed an army of people who no longer value intellectual property and have effectively devalued it." That statement is a load of crap. Total CRAP. Napster was a response by people who had ALREADY been exposed to receiving "free" information in MANY DIFFERENT areas, all over the 'net,and in everyday life. Usenet, for example, had a simply HUGE presence and participation before Napster was even up and running. Blaming Napster for unleashing an army of people who no longer valued intellectual property is like blaming the burning embers and smoldering rafters for starting a barn fire, and is pretty sloppy thinking.

Hell, the Xerox machine, and later photocopying machines made by Canon, Ricoh, etc. was one of the first technologies that "unleashed the army" of those who no longer valued intellectual property, and that happened some two decades before Napster premiered. Napster is a pretty easy target to point the blame finger at, but again, the idea that it was Napster that created or "unleashed" the army is utter crap. From a photography point of view, the development of the flatbed scanner unleashed the army of I.P. scofflaws; oince the flatbed scanner technology hit the $500 price point, the entire traditional photography business was imperiled,and was in fact, hurt terribly. Proofs could no longer be released without tremendous danger. Photoshop itself, which premiered well before Napster, allowed people to clone out copyright marks embossed on photo prints, and allowed retouching and enhancing; pointing the finger at Napster as the catalyst for the creation of the army of people who care nothing about copyright or intellectual property is a simply lazy,throwaway, shorthand comment.