Geeks not wanted. Go away! Take pictures! Bah, humbug!

<p>Is Natasha a techie too?</p>

<p>I don't see any of the issues the OP has alluded to. Seems like self-manufactured drama IMHO. The vast majority of the posts on here are tech related. It's photography. You have to embrace the technological aspect of it in some fashion if you want to improve. Arguments may stem from different answers to the tech question at hand, but usually not the fact that someone even asked the question in the first place. Totally normal.</p>

<p>The fate of geeks--and other intellectual types--is to be always misunderstood. We live in an anti-intellectual world. I feel it most in philosophy and other areas of intellectual inquiry, but I understand how it could affect one's morale in photography proper as well.</p>

<p>I think that the best photographers are masters of their equipment and how it works, at the same time that they are persons of great creative vision and even passion.</p>

<p>But Sarah, please remember that very few people here or anywhere are going to have your intellectual insight on photographic gear or science and technology or anything else. Minds such as yours are very rare. You see things that many others will never see.</p>

<p>If you leave Photo.net, I will personally kidnap you and bring you back.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<I>"Which makes me wonder how I fit in to this forum as a technically minded photographer who has taken a lot of time to discuss technical sorts of things "</I><P>

 

You fit in fine. Most of the questions one sees, especially on the Beginner's Forum, are of a technical nature.=<P>

 

How to use a speedlight <BR>

Bracketing and using remote Nikon D5200 <BR>

Cleaning Canon 5D Mark II sensor<BR>

How to Spot Meter for Portraits <BR>

How to get this look for photos <P>

 

My problem when dealing with questions concerning exposure is how to answer without referring to the Zone system. "A spot meter sets the exposure for Zone 5. Since light skin falls on Zone 6 you would open up one stop". That is simple and concise. But I would have to use a few paragraphs to try to explain Zone system nomenclature first. Then many ignorant (and I use that word advisedly) people would scoff and dismiss the Zone system as a quasi-religious cult or some sort of zonal-zen of no value. <P>

 

People who dismiss the technology needed to truly understand photography belong in the same class as those who dismiss mathematics and are proud of it. "I can't even add two plus two and get the right answer" (giggle). <P>

 

The correct answer to a math question is not "There's no way of telling" (although the majority of people would give that answer) nor is the correct answer to why a photo of a white wedding dress came out gray is "There's no way of telling." To find the correct answer involves delving into the technological aspects of photography. If people truly want to know the answer then they should have no problem with that. Persevere!

<p>Like most things, there are shades of gray. You have to have some understanding how to focus and expose your shot to capture your vision. On the other hand, you can get lost in the mechanics while your vision withers away. Balance is required. Often people get caught up in the tech aspects of the cameras and software thinking that's going to improve their photography. It will to a certain point. But beyond that, learning how to find good content and exposing it artiscally and creatively are more demanding and in the end wil produce the most meaningful photos. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Everyone is enthusiastic about photography for their own reasons, and it's not always about taking pictures any more than we might love cars or planes for their stated purpose. In fact, aerospace designers never get to fly their creations, and it wouldn't surprise me if Nikon or Canon engineers are horrible photographers. </p>

<p>Pick any tiny sliver of photography in any of its diverse disciplines and one quickly realizes that it can involve a lifetime of study into infinite depth, and what we talk about in our forums barely scratches the surface of these expert disciplines, yet there is often the belief that somehow either none of it matters or some single parameter is the most important aspect of photography. Of course, neither is true.</p>

<p>Maybe we should simply accept our individual differences and our reasons for being here, and embrace the diversity of participants without thinking too highly of ourselves. </p>

<p>Sarah, Your rant makes me chuckle. Be assured you will never offend me by being too technically correct. I tend to agree with Michael Chang. There are varying degrees of 'Geek' in all of us. That said, my personal philosophy is that the content of the image trumps the technical aspects. In candid people shots expression is usually the most important element, other technical issues less so. Not to say it isn't nice when they all come together. Technical issues in portraits and landscapes, however, are usually more important because there is no excuse for poor quality where time is not of the essence. Good to hear someone sponsored you for another year. See you in 2014. Merry Christmas. LM.</p>

<p>Sarah,</p>

<p>I think I know where your coming from. The problem with photography is it is an ART and a SCIENCE. Some are much more biased toward one side of that balancing act than others. It's OK , as long as they don't start throwing broken lenses at each other over the dividing line. Personally, I think the best photographers know a lot about both sides. I know I spend way to much time reading and trying to learn, than practicing the actual art of photography. For me, then, " Go out and shoot. " is probably a good idea. As long as they say it nicely. </p>

<p>I'm glad it seems you're hanging around for another year. You must contribute a lot, because I know for a fact, if I got frustrated and said I would leave, no one would bail THIS George Bailey out of the jam ! </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem with photography is it is an ART and a SCIENCE</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />It's neither. It's a craft and a medium which can be use to create art and has some science involved in the process.</p>

<p>Isn't the term "geek" used by narrow-minded people to describe intellectuals?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Technology oriented geeks, in particular, now exert a powerful influence over the global economy and society.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- from Wikipedia article about term "geek" </p>

Although one needs a thick skin to contribute here, there will always be those who appreciate real expertise. They might

not write their thanks in person but they're there, behind the scenes, reading and learning. Just ignore the negative

comments by the have-not's and will-never-get's.

<p>Steve.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's neither. It's a craft and a medium which can be use to create art and has some science involved in the process.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Semantics. There is an art to getting the shot and and understanding of the science involved to make it come out the way you want. You can call it a craft, but I think there is plenty of art in the process. Either way, there is more to photography than simple going out and shooting. </p>

<p> </p>

It's craft for the photographer and art to the viewer.

<p>Not to side track Sarah's thread, but maybe it's still on topic. ( Sorry Sarah ! )</p>

<p>I think if a craft as something most anyone can do, given enough training. Being at "artist" at it takes something more. Something internal. You have to have an eye for it. That's hard to teach. I don't think you can come out with something good without seeing it when you take the shot. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"I don't think you can come out with something good without seeing it when you take the shot."</em></p>

<p>John, I know what you mean and think there's some truth to this. On the other hand, an important part of art is accident. Good artists are opening to things happening that they didn't intend and didn't necessarily see at first. That's why photographers hold onto old negatives and old files. Years later, they may discover something they didn't see originally or may look at something a different way than they used to. So, while it's often the case that a good photographic eye will see what's there when they take the shot, it's also the case that sometimes, and some very special times, they won't see it until later.</p>

<p>My friend Mel is an Illustrator. He mainly works from photos to develop his work in acryllics. The photos are often poor or at least nothing you'd call art. However, when he is done with his painting, most would call it art.</p>

<p>So, although I believe it is important to "get it in the camera" for us photographers, there are many of us who would take the raw picture and edt it to make art. Of course I now call that photo art, no longer a photo. But that's a discussion for another thread.</p>

<p>I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with tech talk, the sheer amount of archived resources here is what makes me want to come back to the site. But there are cases when some people, and *not* you Sarah, pound some technical thing into the ground to the point to where you want to look at their work and when you do....my god it can be soooo bad, LOL!<br>

I know some people who have an amazing eye but no real technical expertise. Then there are those who are very technically proficient but have no real inherent talent for seeing the goods. If I had to choose, I would pick the former, the tech stuff can be taught but individuality can not. </p>

 

<p>Glad your not bailing on us Sarah. Thank goodness someone stepped up with the dirty trick of buying you another subscription. Personally, I like the techie nerd talk. Great place to learn stuff, and I wouldn't be as knowledgeable as I am with out all that nerdy tech talk and reading. So let that techie geek freak fly. :-) I know we would miss you.</p>

<p>Actually, in the real world on this site, most folks are more interested in the latest camera, or, personal self aggrandisement.</p>

<p>The techy stuff most folks are happy with.</p>

<p>The photo posting is the poor cousin..... without much gold to their name.......cheap cams folk.</p>

<p>Ladies should always treated with respect....because that is what gentleman do.</p>

<p>Mothers of your children</p>

<p>The future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know some people who have an amazing eye but no real technical expertise. Then there are those who are very technically proficient but have no real inherent talent for seeing the goods. If I had to choose, I would pick the former, the tech stuff can be taught but individuality can not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This idea, "...the tech stuff can be taught but individuality can not.," is a point of contention with me. Probably the most fundamental of the tech stuff can be taught, enough for someone to be considered "competent." But much further than this takes that same sort of driving ambition as does developing "an amazing eye."</p>

<p>Anyone who demeans the other side, whether tech knowledge or artistic bent, just tells me that they don't have in-depth knowledge of the other side.</p>

<p>For myself, I've had a lifelong fascination with photography, and 100% of my adult working life has been in it. Although I've worked as a pure photographer, I found the technical side to be far more challenging. I've been involved in the tech at a level few have, but what I mainly see is the parts that I don't understand well. The farther you get, the more you see that you don't know.</p>

<p>Bravo, Bill C.</p>

<p>Technology, technique, and all that peripheral stuff are all necessary in order to facilitate the realization of ones vision at a high level. Nowhere is this more apparent than astrophotography. Not only do you need to understand gear and astronomy, but you need to be able to present the result in a creative and an aesthetically pleasing way; something few people do well. </p>

<p>More down to earth, guys like "<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=fotoopa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=U1S-UoW6A-XL2QW_zoGwBg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=769">Phootopa</a>" have brought macro insect photography to a new level of practice inspiring scientists and photographers everywhere. </p>

<p>I think anyone who places rigid boundaries on their technical exposure will equally limit their creative potential because having a vision doesn't do you a lot of good unless you have the technique to realize it. </p>

 

"This idea, "...the tech stuff can be taught but individuality can not.," is a point of contention with me."

 

Why on earth is that a point of contention? It's a simple fact that you can not and will not teach one individual to be

another individual, period. And that also does not mean that the person who displays a more pronounced form of inherent

individualistic style will become as technically well versed as they next guy or learn the ropes as quickly.

 

It simply means exactly what I said it did, that I personally would choose having an inherent individual style over technical

aptitude in place of it any day of the week. I was quite the pencil artist as a child, was pretty "well known" in school by age

7 for my predisposition for it actually. Photography took it's place within a couple years because of my love of the wrap of light and learning the tech stuff has been a wonderful part of that journey my entire career. But my most profound mentorships have been those that focused

more on personal style in place of technical mastery.

 

Most of my friends who are very famous and successful photographers hardly talk of tech stuff at all, instead preferring to

delve into more esoteric life insights that will see them continue to visually thrive as others quickly run out of creative

steam. Was it Ansel that was quoted with that phrase "A Sharp photo of a fuzzy concept?"

 

There is nothing wrong with the tech talk, when I need it, I have tons of it to use as a resource. But it's really second fiddle or even third fiddle to other parts of the equation that is individual style and personal vision, a personal preference.

<p>I have a friend who retired. He was an illustrator who taught himself as a youngster. He had a natural talent and was very successfull in his career.</p>

<p>After he retired, he taught art part time as well as took art courses. Once he told me that he just learned something in one of the classes he took about a way of illustrating an aesthetic concept that he never knew. It's made him a better illustrator. At 75 years old. (He still does painting in retirement).</p>

<p>The point being is that technique can be learned and help even people who have a natural talent.</p>

<p>I think when it comes to photography, however, many photographers think that learning isn't important. Somehow with these photgraphers learning concepts and techniques will remove their ability to be creative, to have vision, to be themselves. So you see all kinds of photos from these people that make you dizzy. Their theory of course is that they are expressing themselves. Well, two year olds express themselves too. But it takes learning and maturity for them to express themselves in a way that is receptive to other people. That's where learning technique is important. It will make you more creative as well.</p>

<p>Don't leave, Sarah -- mostly I lurk, but often find your contributions informative and helpful.</p>