Dear OP-- The problem with using a forum is that you have to sort through the BS in order to find real information. For instance, I recommended that you take a class. I believe that the instructor/student learning model is one of the best ways to learn a new skill. Someone else says that you shouldn't take a class because people who take classes aren't motivated to learn. Are you motivated to learn? I'm thinking yes, since you are seeking out information.
First and foremost, I -never- said or even suggested that people who take classes aren't motivated to learn!!! If you're going to bother to respond to my posts, even indirectly,
do -NOT- take my words out of context. What I said was"
a classroom can NEVER teach someone unmotivated to learn, however a truly motivated person WILL learn, REGARDLESS of a classroom"
. I'm sorry you were unable to recognize this distinction, however trying to twist it into something else does NOT change the sentiment of the comment.
Further, it is clear the OP is in fact interested in learning as they asked the question. That does NOT however suggest that such a person needs to go out an immediately dump money on "classes". As dennybeal essentially suggested, not everyone learns the same way...some folks
can benefit from classes (although I will ALWAYS advocated a degree of caution regarding such things) where others can benefit greatly from the use of books, the internet/Youtube, etc.. A person considering photojournalism as a career for example, should by all means take classes...if nothing else, so they can have that piece of paper that says "I iz edukated". However, it must be equally acknowledged that not everyone interested in photography has those specific aspirations! Some people simply want to take better pictures. My point on this issue is that for someone interested in learning, there IS a great deal of information available on this thing we call photography
outside a classroom environment.
I would also point out that your comment "
the instructor/student learning model is one of the best ways to learn a new skill"...such a comment seems to suggest that you believe you know what's best for everyone. Further, such a comment suggests that all instructors are worthy of the title "teacher" (MANY are not) and that such individuals are generically and globally qualified to instruct all students (MANY are not). The fact of the matter is that even on the college level, there are some VERY bad teachers out there and not all teachers are qualified to teach all students. A teacher with a background in photojournalism for example, may not be suitable for someone interested in artistic photography (and vice-versa).
The fact of the matter here is that the OP seems to be a COMPLETE novice (no offense to the OP). In such a case,
it's my opinion that such a person might benefit more from learning a bit on their own..."getting their feet wet" so to speak, BEFORE investing in something like formal education on the subject as you seem to have repeatedly suggested. Consider this; let's say that I just developed an interest in "quilting". Maybe I was at the local flea market and saw a few quilts that I found really interesting and thought to myself, "hey...I'd like to try that myself". Maybe I even bought some basic quilting supplies while I was at the flea market to get me started. Now here's the question - does this mean I should immediately run out and invest in "classes" just to get me started with this? Would it not be better to perhaps get a few books on the subject or maybe watch a few Youtube videos or wow...maybe ask a few questions on an internet forum...and just fool around with it a little to see if it's something I'm
really going to be interested in FIRST?
IF I decide that I do in fact truly enjoy quilting, perhaps somewhere down the road, I -may- consider some classes...perhaps something through a local crafting store or something...but does it
really make sense to just jump to that right off the bat? Hardly...
I think that its beneficial for beginners to learn manual mode, so that they understand how everything works together to create an exposure. I think manual mode helps you to capture the photo you want, and not the one the camera thinks you want. Semi-auto modes are a wonderful place to start, but you still need to understand the relationship of the exposure triangle. There are several instances where the semi-auto modes will work superior to full manual, but you still need to understand why it works and when to use it. Someone else thinks...
Again, you seem to be trying to take my comments out of context. The point I was trying to make is that a person does NOT need to use manual on a modern camera in order to achieve decent images and more directly that having such an understanding will NOT allow a person to capture good images if that person doesn't understand what constitutes a good image to begin with.
To use an analogy here, you're suggesting that a musician can't play music without a firm understanding of music theory or the ability to read sheet music etc., and you couldn't be further from the truth. Such concepts
can be an advantage to someone who knows how to apply them, but they're not specifically essential, or at the very least, they're not essential to ALL musicians or ALL styles of music. Likewise, having an understanding of the manual operation regarding exposure can have it's advantages to someone who knows how to apply it (again, tricky lighting situations and such) , but it's simply NOT essential for someone to know in order to take half way decent pictures.
The simple fact of the matter is that even in the days of film, people used simple "point & shoot" cameras and were able to take effective images without an in depth understanding of the nuances of exposure. Those old Kodak 110's and 120's that many of us grew up with in the 70's (and even the Kodak "Brownie" in the days of yore) often had little more than a film advance and a shutter button. Then of course there was the Polaroid Land Camera...just stupid simple to operate. MANY people were able to use such cameras quite effectively over the course of many years without ANY understanding of manual exposure.
Yes, with early 35mm cameras, having such basic understanding of manual exposure was indeed essential...it was quite difficult to take ANY picture without the risk of seriously over/under exposing it without such knowledge...and perhaps this is where so many people seem to have misconceptions. I did in fact grow up with this - I started shooting with a fully manual 35mm back in the late 70's when I was in my early teens (an old Canon FTb, which I still own). The fact of the matter however is that modern cameras have gotten
VERY good at "doing the math" and as a person who grew up doing it "the hard way" or "old school", I can't help but see this as a genuine benefit that should be exploited, particularly for a novice. Such capabilities allow a novice to get out there and start shooting instead of having to learn to twiddle those knobs and dials.
You said, "
manual mode helps you to capture the photo you want, and not the one the camera thinks you want"...in addition to all the points I've made already, consider this; do you use an auto focus lens? If so, could it not be argued that you're allowing the camera and/or lens to decide what needs to be in focus? And even IF you do shoot exclusively with old manual lenses (I like to play with them myself), does that
really suggest that EVERYONE should these days??
Think about it.
Then there is the chicken or the egg argument.... should you learn the technical side of photography first or the art side? Who's to say... if you have a background in art, maybe the technical side is all you need. If you don't know either, its really hard to create the art if you can't use the camera.
Again you seem to suggest that an understanding of manual exposure and such is somehow absolutely essential to creating a decent picture, however I would reiterate my previous comment...you can have a perfectly exposed image, but if the image is simply boring to look at, who cares? Exactly what benefit does this understanding of manual exposure provide?? Conversely, if it's a genuinely interesting, evocative or beautiful image, -why- should it matter what settings the person used on the camera?
You seem to be under the misconception that a properly exposed image is somehow a good image, when any experienced photographer
should know otherwise. It's akin to a lens snob who thinks a "razor sharp image" without regard to content is somehow a good image...there are a great many other considerations involved. Your comments also seem to insinuate that modern cameras aren't capable of properly exposing an image, which clearly just isn't the case (and even where the camera may miss by a stop or two, this can often be compensated for in post).
I certainly won't speak for everyone, however it seems to me that a great many people interested in photography from a non-professional stand point, at least to the point of asking a few questions on a forum, are simply interested in taking "better pictures" and whether you agree with this or not, that's simply
not about having an in depth understanding of the camera controls...a GOOD photographer CAN take great pictures with a simple point & shoot, however knowing all the nuances of exposure will NEVER make a great picture by itself.
Then we've got the Lightroom vs Photoshop discussion. Both are very powerful tools. Both are designed for photographers. They work together. Personally I think learning both is beneficial. Lightroom is probably easier to use. Photoshop is an extreemly powerful program that can do a varaiety of things. It does take awhile to master either program but Photoshop is a more in depth piece of software. I would say that a good number of photographers use Lightroom for 90% of their work and Photoshop for about 10%. There really isn't a right answer there. Its all personal.
In this case I do agree...and thought that my comments suggested as much (which is why I also suggested the likes of Elements, Gimp, etc). I was simply pointing out MY OWN VIEWS regarding this. I would however question your psychic abilities in suggesting that you believe you know what 90% of photographers use....after all, one might suspect that a fair number of pros also use Phase 1 software instead of Adobe. Certainly a good many people used Photoshop exclusively long before LR was around and for someone interested in "retouching", let alone image manipulation or composites, PS has
very clear advantages over LR.
Regardless, I do agree that it's more about personal choice than anything...whatever gets you where you need to go.
BTW...maybe try spell checking your posts.
So again-- I'm not saying that my opinion on the matter is the gold standard. Use your best judgement and sort through the BS to find the answer that works best for you.
Hmmm...first you say that your opinion isn't the gold standard, but then you suggest other posts are "BS" (you've suggested this twice in fact). Me thinks one could get some mixed signals from this.
Very simply, I've been doing this stuff for a very long time and my comments, experience and opinions are no more or less relevant than your own. I have made what I believe to be very valid points for the benefit of the OP and others and while I do continue to believe that your comments are anachronistic at best...
a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned...at the very least I have not taken your comments out of context or simply implied your comments to be little more than "BS".
______________________________________
To the OP: I am genuinely sorry to have high-jacked your thread here. My advice is simply to read through ALL the comments, both mine and others, and decide for yourself what makes the most sense to
you, based on your own needs and goals. If my comments make sense to you, use them. If not, I'm just some schmo on the internet just like everyone other person here
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42473-acff07bd005ae1bb1af25d5d00d0c437.jpg?1734177002)
