I think we all pretty much learned to drive a car by first having someone demonstrate how to adjust the seat, perhaps the mirrors, turn it on, and start the car moving by watching our parents go through the 'mechanics' of driving an automobile. When it came our turn, they were with us teaching us how the clutch and gas were basically opposite each other, and with a lot of bucking, we could actually make the car go forward. OK, I'm an old geezer! Automatic transmissions simply made driving easier. Now that we could make the car 'go' simply by starting it, pressing on the gas, and steering in the right direction, we were now classed as 'drivers'. We were certainly nowhere NEAR ready for driving in ice and snow, and definitely not ready for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but we at least thought we could...until sliding into a snowbank....or another car. How to learn to handle snow and ice? Practice, practice, practice...and more than a couple bent bumpers in my case.
Is this much different than photography? Simply pointing a cellphone in the right direction and clicking the shutter will yield a picture...typically reasonably lit, focused, etc. Not much harder than learning to drive a bumper-car in the travelling carnival. And when advancing to a point and shoot? I'm guessing 95% of the point-and-shoot people never get beyond the green "A" and are happy with the results. They're not out to capture or create 'art'. They want to record history...where they were, what Aunt Mary looked like when we saw her...Little Sarahs' high school graduation...and on and on.
Then they (we) discover we want to get decent looking shots in a very dark setting, or a beautifully blurred background, and the green "A" only produces a well lit photograph, not the scene as we see it...or want to record it. NOW comes the time of "OK, how do I do (or get) THAT image into the camera? Not what the camera wanted, but what I want!". THAT'S the motivation to learn the mechanics of photography. Some may become overwhelmed, confused, or just unable to 'figure out' how the exposure triangle works and the benefits and negatives of varying a particular setting. They go back to the green "A" or even try the 'scene' modes like portrait, sports, etc. They're happy enough.
But wait...where's the art in photography? As mentioned above, a skilled 'artiste' with a paintbrush or pen and ink has an idea in their head, but not a clue how to perform the photography mechanics necessary to achieve it. Similarly, a photography 'technician' may be able to make 1000 perfect exposures a day under all conditions, but every picture looks 'blah'. No art...no 'life'...no 'texture'...no 'feeling'. For many of the best-known artists, whether graphic arts or musicians, or actors, etc...they haven't a clue about what makes a car run (fuel, air, spark), but at least they can drive. They likewise have no clue about the exposure triangle. I've seen this first hand with a couple of performer friends as well as my retired university art department chair brother in law. And on the other side of the coin...the 'technicians' (I'm mostly in that camp) don't have a clue WHY the Mona Lisa is a great work of art any more than a 3 year olds' finger painting doesn't qualify as art. So when I try to take some 'artsy fartsy' photograph, I really don't have a clue whether it's art or just a waste of pixels. Every now and then, I get lucky and get a 'great' picture...but rarely of the 'artsy fartsy' kind.
As a retired computer consultant, I saw many that had a college degree in computer sciences and couldn't write a simple minded program without having their hand held the entire way. Knowing all the technicalities and details, they completely lacked the ability to visualize any logical 'flow' to get from 'this' to 'that' in a program. Some programmers will never 'get it'. The same holds true in photography...many will never see the 'art' in a simple shot of a lone tree on a small hill with the setting sun behind it AND know how to compose it and artfully capture it in pixels....I'm one of them. I'll take a dozen shots and hope one comes out 'looking nice'. I may trash them all, too. Needless to say, my photography falls entirely into the 'documentary' category...not 'art'.
In my mind, "A" is a great way to take a decent picture, 'artsy' if you will, without having to understand a thing about how a camera works. It frees the artist to capture the image, without having to fuss around with a lot of seemingly unrelated technical details. But "A" and its' brother "P", offer a great starting point to learn the details of photography from seeing what the camera would do and experiment from there. Is "A" and "P" (not the grocery chain) good for everyone? How many, or more appropriately, how FEW Ansel Adams were/are out there that have fully mastered the art AND camera?
:lmao:
