Primes. Do theu really make you a better photog?

[unpopular]

I guess one thing that kind of irks me is how many people are asking about basic exposure control in the "beyond the basics" section. There was a time when everyone had to learn on a manual camera, there was a time when the recommended equipment list in an intro class was a normal prime and a camera with manual exposure.

What has changed exactly? Why is it that not even ten years ago the photographic naive were able to learn basic exposure control, yet today manual reflective metering and exposure control seems to be such an "advanced topic"?

I've heard the argument that auto-everything helps students learn composition, but I am not sure that there is really much duality there, and the more you understand exposure the more you appreciate this...

of course, this is all pretty off topic.

 

[djacobox372]

Keep in mind that wide apertures aren't only about speed, they also narrow your dot for isolated subject effect.

 

[Markw]

I guess one thing that kind of irks me is how many people are asking about basic exposure control in the "beyond the basics" section. There was a time when everyone had to learn on a manual camera, there was a time when the recommended equipment list in an intro class was a normal prime and a camera with manual exposure.

What has changed exactly? Why is it that not even ten years ago the photographic naive were able to learn basic exposure control, yet today manual reflective metering and exposure control seems to be such an "advanced topic"?

I've heard the argument that auto-everything helps students learn composition, but I am not sure that there is really much duality there, and the more you understand exposure the more you appreciate this...

of course, this is all pretty off topic.

I learned on a Nikon FE and a 50mm F/1.8. I used the FE for roughly 18 months, then moved to an N65. Added a D90, moved to a D300s, then purchased the D800. I still use the N65, but I rarely touch the FE. I use one of my many home-made pinholes much more than I use the FE. I'll always have it, though.

I've always been a firm believer that you have to outgrow your equipment. You have to own something, and NEED some function that what you have now will not do, in order to know why it is you need to upgrade, or purchase different equipment. I don't think it does anyone any good to start off with gear that it will take years to learn. That's why I'm REALLY glad I started out learning fully manual. Moving to the D90 was a completely different world, but my first shot with the camera was shot fully manual with the 28-80/3.3-5.6G from my N65.

Today (and, mind you, I don't have experience with "yesteryear;" I wasn't around to experience the days of necessity. But, I can appreciate that world, having learned and grown in it for a while), there's simply nothing being created that is appealing to the new photographers that requires anyone to use any forethought. Everything is about accessibility. Just grab and go, and expect good results. Hence the auto-everything. It ensures good results at the push of a button. I mean, the D1 was like 2.1MP. The D3200 is 24MP. Nokia is selling a phone with 46MP. There is absolutely no necessity for something like that.

Auto-everything ensures students learn composition? My hide. Auto-everything just makes it so that the student doesn't have to learn the exposure triangle. It should be a necessity to learn both. It's a process, and it's natural. It will come with experience. But, experience isn't valued. There's no time anymore to gain experience. Everything's a production line. You need to get in, do what you gotta do, and hit the road. It's perceived that there's simply no time for the teacher to teach the student in the manner it should be taught. And, no time for the student to appreciate learning in the manner it should be learned. :er:

Off-topic, yeah. But much more prevalent an issue, I'd say.

Mark

 

[unpopular]

I also learned on an FM and Yashicamat 124G, from there I tried a few bodies before landing on a Contax RX, which, as far as high end bodies go, is pretty basic. I've been very stubborn about AF, and have been shooting with preset lenses up until a few months ago.

For 15 years I have never had full AF, and I never owned a Zoom. I am finally coming around and am considering a Minolta 17-35.

As for composition and exposure, I think the two are integral. I don't really see a lot of difference between the two.

 

[Markw]

As for composition and exposure, I don't really see a lot of difference between the two.

How do you mean?

Mark

 

[unpopular]

Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm having trouble explaining it. It's not like "I want this to be important so I'll expose this way", instead, I try to take an image with a more "holistic" approach, I'm looking at an image as if it's one unit, rather than thinking about composition as one aspect, intent as another and approaching exposure as a means to an end. I think a lot of times people think of exposure that way, this kind of not-so-nice technicality which is unfortunately needed to convey everything else.

I guess it's kind of a philosophic sort of thing.

 

[Solarflare]

OMG.

I SO should have resisted to necro this thread.

 

[Kolia]

It's been mentioned before. But if all we're concerned about with"learning with a prime" is to compose with a fixed focal length, an zoom lens with a piece of gaffer tape will do the job of multiple prime.

Now more off topic:

The whole nostalgia about the good old days is silly IMO. In the good old days of film, this forum would not exist and the camera market would still be minuscule. It was a total pain to write down all your setting s and wait a week for the films to return from the lab to figure out what you had done right or wrong.

The digital era has democratized photography, opening it to the masses and made it more accessible to everybody. Each of you prosumers who cares about the detail gain from the lower prices and availability of gear and information. Stop complaining about the people who don't care and from whom you buy you nice L and Nikkor lenses for less than MSRP.

 

[unpopular]

The more I think about film nostalgia the more I agree. It is pretty silly.

 

[rexbobcat]

I guess one thing that kind of irks me is how many people are asking about basic exposure control in the "beyond the basics" section. There was a time when everyone had to learn on a manual camera, there was a time when the recommended equipment list in an intro class was a normal prime and a camera with manual exposure.

What has changed exactly? Why is it that not even ten years ago the photographic naive were able to learn basic exposure control, yet today manual reflective metering and exposure control seems to be such an "advanced topic"?

I've heard the argument that auto-everything helps students learn composition, but I am not sure that there is really much duality there, and the more you understand exposure the more you appreciate this...

of course, this is all pretty off topic.

People have gotten lazier and want instant gratification.

I mean, students 60 years ago didn't have the ease of the accessibility of knowledge that we do today, but at least they were capable of some kind of critical thinking when it came to stuff they were interested in.

My parents weren't ever very big into photography it they had an old manual film camera and I rarely find an over or underexposed shot in our albums of several hundred 4x6's

 

[Dao]

I also do not have over and under exposed shots in my digital image album because I delete them.

I do not want to waste the space for storing them.

 

[rexbobcat]

I also do not have over and under exposed shots in my digital image album because I delete them.

I do not want to waste the space for storing them.

Digital being the operative word? lol We never threw away pictures. Film costs money and we didn't have just a whole lot of leisure cash floating around

 

[Derrel]

Prime lenses sure get a lot of romantic attention thrown their way....they are the sexy Hollywood actresses we all want to...take out to dinner...and then brag about to our friends.

I think the idea that primes "make one a better photographer" is an idea that has some holes in it. BUT, at the same time, primes DO bring several valuable qualities to the game: they bring CONSISTENCY of view, and consistency of operation. Meaning, a 50mm and an 85mm are always "just" a 50 and an 85, and they have only ONE SET of characteristics to become familiar with. The focusing system's performance is always pretty much the same...not slow at wide-angle and then hair-trigger and herky-jerky at the long end of the zoom focal length range. After owning and using a particular prime lens for a certain time, it becomes almost instinctive in its use; meaning you KNOW, from experience, exactly how that lens frames a scene; how it focuses; how well it shoots toward the light (does it flare or ghost?); and how well it performs optically for various types of situations. There is no need to worry that the lens is poor at one end or the other. The RIGHT prime is almost always pretty well the optimum, best lens for "some type of shooting". And so, yeah, a prime lens CAN, if used well, actually help to elevate a person's photography results.

 

[ghache]

I sold all my zoom lens for primes. does this make my photography better? I would say yes. i dont have to deal with distortion or shoot my lens in its sweets spot all the time to get better result. good prime lens are sharp, fast and have better IQ than most zoom lens. Money wise, they are cheaper and you get quality. if you cant afford a 24-70 and a 70-200 or any other top grade lens, i would say get a few prime that will cover the range you shoot at.

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

 

[Markw]

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

That sounds so lovely.

Mark