Learning - What works for you?

[chuasam]

While all photographers need to learn how to "see" in order to create interesting pictures, I think it's also possible only after you understand the fundamentals of photography. Just like you need to learn the alphabet, learn how to write, then read lots of books, if you aspire to write the next bestseller. I also strongly beleive in learning from those who were there before. You can learn a lot by looking and studying millions of pictures taken in the last century. Once you have that kind of background, you can start thinking by yourself. But no one will reinvent the wheel in 2015, so any style you may want to hum-hum "create", chances are pretty high that it's been done zillions of time before. I don't mean it's impossible, but there are just so many ways of shooting sports, that it's not the next newbie who will revolutionize the world with his/her style... But anyway... I digress...

I respectfully disagree, one can know all the alphabet in the world and still write a horrible story. Storytellers of old could weave amazing tales without even being literate.
First learn to see, learn to communicate visually, and when you hit the limit and find that you can't take the picture that you see in your minds eye...learn to control the camera.

This is the difference between ending up a Great photographer vs one who is merely good.

 

[Nettles]

Perhaps it's impossible to learn to see. Mere guidelines and textbook instructions may be a mechanical alternative to talented vision and the dynamic gift of compositional creativity.

 

[Microbois]

I respectfully disagree, one can know all the alphabet in the world and still write a horrible story. Storytellers of old could weave amazing tales without even being literate. First learn to see, learn to communicate visually, and when you hit the limit and find that you can't take the picture that you see in your minds eye...learn to control the camera.

This is the difference between ending up a Great photographer vs one who is merely good.

Let's not get into a deep philosophical analysis of my writing analogy. How one can learn "how to see and communicate visually"? Which book do you suggest then? Where to start? I think learning photography is essentially technical at the beginning. Most beginners will want to take pictures of their surroundings, their family, or even their own hobbies. At the very beginning, you have to learn how to capture a picture that is correctly exposed, and in order to do that, you have to have some basics of photography. Then, when beginners become comfortable in pretty much all situations thrown at them, they can start experimenting or developing their own "style".

When I said to look at old pictures, I didn't mean to look at everyone's pictures as long as they are old. There is crap today just as there was crap in the old days too. No, I mean looking at pictures of known photographers like Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Ray, Doisneau, Ansel Adams, to name a few, to study their style and acquire a certain "language" of photography. Even books of the most important pictures of the century can be very useful in this process. More pictures you see, more you accumulate information that may prove useful in developing your own style.

That being said, I also advocate to not get into an elitist approach to learn photography. Photography can be practiced and enjoyed by everyone, and we make pictures because we like to do so, not because each of our pictures must make it into an art gallery. Those who are true artists will eventually rise at the top, don't worry about that, but for everyone else, I strongly beleive they need to learn the basics of photography even before learning to "see".

 

[robbins.photo]

I respectfully disagree, one can know all the alphabet in the world and still write a horrible story. Storytellers of old could weave amazing tales without even being literate. First learn to see, learn to communicate visually, and when you hit the limit and find that you can't take the picture that you see in your minds eye...learn to control the camera.

This is the difference between ending up a Great photographer vs one who is merely good.

Ok, well took a while to do some in depth research to probe deeply into the philosophical underpinnings of the writing analogy. I consulted with experts, spent hours and hours at the library, really pulled out all the stops for this one...

Let's not get into a deep philosophical analysis of my writing analogy.

Ah crap. Ok, nevermind then. Sheesh.

How one can learn "how to see and communicate visually"?

See and Say. Point the arrow to the cow, pull the string, it goes moo.

 

[chuasam]

My cynicism comes from attending photo art clubs where the photos are all the same sharp technically perfect cliches. They take the photos to impress others rather than scratch this inner itch within oneself.

Conversely to argue my opposite and yet not, in 2007 I met a girl who loved taking pictures. She took pictures of the farm she grew up on. Pictures of animals and people. Her pictures were instinctively good. She said f stop was rubbish and she did not want to learn technical stuff. 3 years later she changed her mind and took photo courses at the local college. 2 years later she was a photo tech at the London Olympics.
She recently shot a bunch of world class equestrian events and today's she's applying for her photographer accreditation for the 2016 Olympics in Brazil.

Oh yeah knowing the technicals before knowing what you want to shoot i feel puts a psychology limit on what you feel you can do when at that time you should be learning to explore.

 

[Microbois]

My cynicism comes from attending photo art clubs where the photos are all the same sharp technically perfect cliches. They take the photos to impress others rather than scratch this inner itch within oneself.

Conversely to argue my opposite and yet not, in 2007 I met a girl who loved taking pictures. She took pictures of the farm she grew up on. Pictures of animals and people. Her pictures were instinctively good. She said f stop was rubbish and she did not want to learn technical stuff. 3 years later she changed her mind and took photo courses at the local college. 2 years later she was a photo tech at the London Olympics.
She recently shot a bunch of world class equestrian events and today's she's applying for her photographer accreditation for the 2016 Olympics in Brazil.

Oh yeah knowing the technicals before knowing what you want to shoot i feel puts a psychology limit on what you feel you can do when at that time you should be learning to explore.

Ok, I don't see how this prove that it's the only right way to learn photography.

If your friend has already a good artistic eye, sure, with a bit of luck, she can manage to take some great pictures in full auto mode. More over, if you are truly creative, you can even make great pictures out of shots that would be considered missed otherwise. To each his own. Some people like to learn how to walk one step at the time before attempting to run, while others want to start running first, and figure out how to walk later. I have no problem with that. But quite frankly, you're pointing out the exception rather than the rule.

The OP was looking for the "most efficient way" to learn photography, and I doubt that responding to learn "how to see" first, without providing any further details is really helping him. And what's wrong with making those "sharp and technically perfect cliches"? If I'm into sports photography, what's wrong in getting a sharp action picture that freeze a moment your eyes can't even see?

 

[Buckster]

My cynicism comes from attending photo art clubs where the photos are all the same sharp technically perfect cliches. They take the photos to impress others rather than scratch this inner itch within oneself.

Maybe they're just scratching their own itches, instead of yours.

 

[chuasam]

Always in such a rush. Better to learn effectively than learn efficiently