Yeah Right!

[iresq]

If you have not read it.. please try Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure... he explains it all in very simple terms... might help! Amazon.com: Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera (9780817439392): Bryan Peterson: Books

It's been mentioned a few times and I am currently working my way through it. A good read and you can practice as you go.

 

[o hey tyler]

Navigating an iphone is very complicated.

...For the elderly.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Navigating an iphone is very complicated.

...For the elderly.

Or those with leprosy.......

 

[Ysarex]

This is sooooo true. I am one of those right brained people who is a visual learner....Reading about photography is torture for me, so I try to find different ways to learn. I prefer watching videos and seeing examples. I would love to find someone who would be willing to teach me a few things!!

I'm going to rant about this (warning). Tami, this is widespread throughout our society now so please don't take personal offense. I have spent decades being very disturbed about this brain-sides-learner-type education babble. If it is true, and I don't believe it is, but if it is, then it's very unfortunate that those poor people are so disabled. And that's because there is a qualitative difference in what can be learned and how learning can take place if that, "I'm right brained, I can't do math cr*p," is true. The Inverse square law is a good example. That's a very powerful principle particularly because it has application not only to photography but to physics and science in general. It also applies to electricity, gravity, etc., so that best expressed we say the strength of a signal is inversely proportional to distance.

Abstract learning is powerful and efficient and it empowers the learner by improving their ability to learn. Another lighting example is helpful: You set up a studio product shot using strobes and when you finally meter the shot you get f/5.6 given your ISO. You're unwilling to raise the ISO, but you need f/16 for adequate DOF so what to do? Just fire the strobes multiple times with the camera shutter held open. How many times? That's easy; 2 cubed. For over twenty years now in a college classroom I've had to teach and explain this to a room full of college students, most of whom had long ago convinced themselves they were "visual learners." So I could never just say, "You're trying to alter the exposure by three stops: f/5.6 to f/16. A stop is a factor of 2 so the answer is 2 cubed." Maybe once every three years one of them would hear me say that, look at me, and thumbs up, lesson learned. The abstract principle of exponentiation applies. It's a core mathematical principle of immense power. You're mentally crippled if you can't use it.

And so what did I have to do for the "visual learners?" I'd collect the empty soda cans in the room. "OK, fire the flash once and that's one soda can" and I'd put the can on the desk. "Now how many more soda cans do you need to double what you see? One more? Good! OK, now it's going to get hard. Richard, how many more soda cans do you need to double what you see now?" OK, OK double is a difficult concept. Count the soda cans on the desk...

This was a class of college students -- I shouldn't have had to waste that time so the "visual learners" wouldn't be left behind. What if you needed f/22 instead of f/16 -- a four stop move? 2^4 or are you going to start stacking soda cans?

This learning modality nonsense is far less and explanation of how learning and teaching takes place and far more an excuse for failure.

Joe

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

This is sooooo true. I am one of those right brained people who is a visual learner....Reading about photography is torture for me, so I try to find different ways to learn. I prefer watching videos and seeing examples. I would love to find someone who would be willing to teach me a few things!!

I'm going to rant about this (warning). Tami, this is widespread throughout our society now so please don't take personal offense. I have spent decades being very disturbed about this brain-sides-learner-type education babble. If it is true, and I don't believe it is, but if it is, then it's very unfortunate that those poor people are so disabled. And that's because there is a qualitative difference in what can be learned and how learning can take place if that, "I'm right brained, I can't do math cr*p," is true. The Inverse square law is a good example. That's a very powerful principle particularly because it has application not only to photography but to physics and science in general. It also applies to electricity, gravity, etc., so that best expressed we say the strength of a signal is inversely proportional to distance.

Abstract learning is powerful and efficient and it empowers the learner by improving their ability to learn. Another lighting example is helpful: You set up a studio product shot using strobes and when you finally meter the shot you get f/5.6 given your ISO. You're unwilling to raise the ISO, but you need f/16 for adequate DOF so what to do? Just fire the strobes multiple times with the camera shutter held open. How many times? That's easy; 2 cubed. For over twenty years now in a college classroom I've had to teach and explain this to a room full of college students, most of whom had long ago convinced themselves they were "visual learners." So I could never just say, "You're trying to alter the exposure by three stops: f/5.6 to f/16. A stop is a factor of 2 so the answer is 2 cubed." Maybe once every three years one of them would hear me say that, look at me, and thumbs up, lesson learned. The abstract principle of exponentiation applies. It's a core mathematical principle of immense power. You're mentally crippled if you can't use it.

And so what did I have to do for the "visual learners?" I'd collect the empty soda cans in the room. "OK, fire the flash once and that's one soda can" and I'd put the can on the desk. "Now how many more soda cans do you need to double what you see? One more? Good! OK, now it's going to get hard. Richard, how many more soda cans do you need to double what you see now?" OK, OK double is a difficult concept. Count the soda cans on the desk...

This was a class of college students -- I shouldn't have had to waste that time so the "visual learners" wouldn't be left behind. What if you needed f/22 instead of f/16 -- a four stop move? 2^4 or are you going to start stacking soda cans?

This learning modality nonsense is far less and explanation of how learning and teaching takes place and far more an excuse for failure.

Joe

Did you happen to teach typing or grammer? I am just busting your stones, no serious offense meant. While I don't think that people can ONLY learn visually, I think that its a tool that can cause some people to learn faster or atleast retain that information much easier. As a teacher that should be your job to do all that you can to ensure that what you are espousing, sticks. For instance, I can memorize a phone number much faster by memorizing the pattern shape that it creates when entered into a phone. Eventually I remember the digits themselves, but that is more because of repetition. It just depends on the person.

Its easy to double an ISO number. However, some people are not as good at math. Talking about square roots may confuse them and cause an adverse reaction to your teaching. Does that mean they should not be permitted to learn photography? No, it means you are the teacher, so make them understand. Whether that is with soda cans, or flash cards, or whatever else, at the end of the day, if they do not learn, you fail.

 

[Ysarex]

Did you happen to teach typing or grammer? I am just busting your stones, no serious offense meant. While I don't think that people can ONLY learn visually, I think that its a tool that can cause some people to learn faster or atleast retain that information much easier. As a teacher that should be your job to do all that you can to ensure that what you are espousing, sticks. For instance, I can memorize a phone number much faster by memorizing the pattern shape that it creates when entered into a phone. Eventually I remember the digits themselves, but that is more because of repetition. It just depends on the person.

Its easy to double an ISO number. However, some people are not as good at math. Talking about square roots may confuse them and cause an adverse reaction to your teaching. Does that mean they should not be permitted to learn photography? No, it means you are the teacher, so make them understand. Whether that is with soda cans, or flash cards, or whatever else, at the end of the day, if they do not learn, you fail.

Well I do know how to spell grammar.

I did use the soda cans -- I did get the job done and unfortunately I had to teach less. My point is that there is a qualitative difference in what is learned. The best way to learn is of course by doing and it's always valuable to approach a topic from multiple directions. But if you can take that learning and connect it to abstract principles it becomes much more powerful. It's good to know a fact. It's better to know a concept and be able to apply that concept across disciplines. There's also the efficiency factor. Identify the solution as 2^n is vastly more efficient than stacking soda cans. There's only so much time in a day and there's always more to learn. If you learn slow you learn less.

Joe

 

[KmH]

The notion of 'learning styles' and using educating methods that are presumed to allow individuals to learn best, called the 'meshing hypothesis', first appeared back in the 1970's.

Although children and adults express personal learning preferences, in the intervening 40 or so years no evidence has been produced that identifying a student's learning style and applying the meshing hypothesis produces better learning outcomes.
Actually, significant evidence has been produced in the last 40 years demonstrating the exact opposite, that the widespread notion of the "meshing hypothesis" (that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style) is invalid.

In othe words, well-designed studies flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.

As recently as 2009 The Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned a panel of leading psychologists and cognitive scientists to evaluate the meshing hypothesis and learning styles, and published their reports in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

Basically the panel re-iterated what has been know for well over 30 years now.

The notion of learning styles is psychobable bull****, but sure gives many a convenient tool for self-speak denial.

Photography has technical elements that have to be understood. Anyone not having a decent grounding in general technical knowledge will have difficulty coming to grips with those technical elements. A good understanding of basic math is essential. when I shoot I'm often doing various photography related calculations in my head.

In short, some people discover that doing photography is a hell of a lot more involved than they suspected .

Interestingly, many very technical people are also very good artists. Einstein played the violin, and many mathematicians are accomplished musicians becuase math and music are directly related.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Well I do know how to spell grammar.

:lmao: Touche , but to be fair, I wasn't the one on the rant.

Yeah, I don't completely disagree with that point. I think a big thing is people that relegate themselves to ONLY wanting to learn visually or whatnot. I know that is the main point you were trying to make. However, I think it becomes a fine line between excluding people from learning or segregating people. I don't think that the whole "special ed" Or "Remedial Math" etc. does justice to the student. In a way this is why parents should take more of a hands on approach to their childrens education. Part of this is just the nature of the beast that is the school system. As you said, there is only so much time in the day. However, just as the "visual learning" excuse doesn't fly with you, I assure you that the "only so much time in a day" excuse doesn't sit well with a parent that is worried about whether or not their child will have the skills to function as a member of society. On the flipside, if they were that concerned they could pitch in and help themselves ( A Major problem with todays society in my opinion ).

 

[Infinite_Day]

I think there is credence in both approaches. I know some students in Biochemistry who could look at formulas on paper and construct a mental model of a molecule in their head to understand interactions. I could do that sometimes but often I had to draw the structure out before I could then manipulate it mentally. Likewise, my wife did better in college by creating flash cards and other visual aids to repeat to help her learn while I could simply memorize, interpret and comprehend more complicated biological course material. Either way, stating that you can't read something and understand it is often just the result of somebody who is impatient and/or easily frustrated. This is the principal reason why my wife and I argue about the overwhelming use of technology in the classroom. You have to use powerpoint presentations and visual aids just to keep kids interested. It's all due to technology in the first place because kids are used to having immediate gratification thanks to cell phones and the internet. When we did research papers when I was in high school we had to *gasp* go to the library and manually find information! Kids are just lazy now because everything is handed to them or immediately available. No offense to the OP intended.

Oh, and to Goonie - you said something about kids not having the skills to function as a member of society. Kids already lack those skills on a very disturbing level. I think it's funny that we call things like Facebook, Twitter, etc. "social media" because all they do is promote a greater decline of actual social interaction. It's been studied and proven in recent years that children no longer exhibit emotional responses to various traumatic stresses because they don't actually have a grasp of society. I'm predicting a generational collapse within my lifetime because the kids coming up in schools right now have no idea how to do anything for themselves.

 

[OrionsByte]

Yeah, I don't completely disagree with that point. I think a big thing is people that relegate themselves to ONLY wanting to learn visually or whatnot. I know that is the main point you were trying to make. However, I think it becomes a fine line between excluding people from learning or segregating people.

I completely agree. Our society is becoming more and more entitlement-oriented. Someone decides they're a "visual learner" and then rejects all attempts to teach them something that is not presented visually.

When I'm training someone at work, or teaching my daughter how to do something, or helping my parents figure out a computer problem - whatever it might be - I try to adapt my teaching style to their learning style to make it stick better for them. But ultimately, they also have to adapt their learning style to my teaching style if they actually want to get anything out of it. That's such a vital social skill - not just for learning, but for communication in general. If someone is so set in their way of thinking that they can't see it from someone else's perspective, well that's their problem, not mine.

So all that to basically say that yes, there is validity to the idea that there are different learning styles, but that doesn't mean we need to constantly cater to each and every style. The learner is responsible for the learning, not the teacher.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Why do so many threads in so many forums get off tracks right from the start?

Even Bitter must be feeling under the weather...

Shouldn't the first response to the OP have been: Yes, photography can be an art but since when is art easy?

 

[Infinite_Day]

Who says all threads have to stay on topic? Just because posts meander doesn't mean they aren't tying in on the original topic. It's called the art of conversation/debate (albeit via text instead of verbally). I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything - I just don't understand why some people get so uptight when a thread moves in multiple directions. Everything doesn't have to be "on-topic" 100% of the time. You're right, though. Art is not easy and some people have to work at it more than others. It is both a natural and developed skill and each individual has varying degrees of success based off of a multitude of factors. I can't write worth a crap though I can draw fairly well and I used to be pretty good at woodworking. Some people can grasp certain things and be substantially less adept at others. C'est la vie!

 

[ph0enix]

So it's been known that Photography is a form of Art. So why in the world is it way too hard to understand?

I don't get it and I'm going insane reading and reading, watching YouTube videos after videos, asking my professor question after question...and I still DON'T get it.

I don't get the technical part of it. Any suggestions or anyone know of a book, website that explains it in a friendly manner for a photography dummy like me self?


Thanks!
Zoe

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

What exactly don't you get? I get most of the stuff I read. Being able to effectively put it into practice is another story. It takes years or decades to get good at it depending on how naturally talented you are.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Who says all threads have to stay on topic? Just because posts meander doesn't mean they aren't tying in on the original topic. It's called the art of conversation/debate (albeit via text instead of verbally). I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything - I just don't understand why some people get so uptight when a thread moves in multiple directions. Everything doesn't have to be "on-topic" 100% of the time. You're right, though. Art is not easy and some people have to work at it more than others. It is both a natural and developed skill and each individual has varying degrees of success based off of a multitude of factors. I can't write worth a crap though I can draw fairly well and I used to be pretty good at woodworking. Some people can grasp certain things and be substantially less adept at others. C'est la vie!

I don't read you as argumentative, fwiw.

And, no, threads don't need to stay on topic. They can meander. But shouldn't we answer the question BEFORE we meander? What I'm talking about is the thread where the OriginalPost is never answered because it meandered right off the bat.