Learning the technical side of photography really does have its place after all

[luis_g]

<p>John, art is a three-letter word.</p>

<p>V, IMO, there's no dichotomy between the technical and the artistic. One has to use some technology. That point has been made.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Joe Pass, perhaps the ultimate American guitarist, DID think about technical aspects constantly while he played.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What would be considered a technical aspect ? Frank Zappa, in explaining what went through his mind when playing his guitar and directing the musicians of his band, said that in his minds eye he saw shapes like triangles, rectangles... and colors, as a primal aspect ( technical ? ) of how the music was being played / couldn't possibly be played any other way. Was Zappa envisioning the technincal or inspirational while playing ? I don't really see this happening with photography ( while being in the act of ), this way of ' seeing ' in the moment. Maybe guitarplaying is more akin to painting when it comes to blending the technical with the inspirational. With photography, it feels that there's more distance ( to cover ) between the two.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<blockquote>

<p>What would be considered a technical aspect ? Frank Zappa, in explaining what went through his mind when playing his guitar and directing the musicians of his band, said that in his minds eye he saw shapes like triangles, rectangles... and colors, as a primal aspect ( technical ? ) of how the music was being played / couldn't possibly be played any other way. Was Zappa envisioning the technincal or inspirational while playing ? I don't really see this happening with photography ( while being in the act of ), this way of ' seeing ' in the moment. Maybe guitarplaying is more akin to painting when it comes to blending the technical with the inspirational. With photography, it feels that there's more distance ( to cover ) between the two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />When I am shooting photojournalism of people, I am simply trying to be as aware as possible of the behaviors I observe, and I am constantly relating what I see to my own past experiences. I strive to deduce and re-experience the emotions that may be causing the behavior I am observing in the person or people I am photographing. Ultimately, if I can succeed in putting myself in that person's shoes for a short time, I can increase my chance of bridging the gap between me and the person and thus translating some of what they are experiencing into a picture. It works best when we are both mutual participants in an event that is mutually meaningful. But I can't qualify the difference between the technical thoughts and the creative impulses...I don't think they can actually be separated. And any attempt to do so is impossible. As my eye searches for the composition that feels right, I'm not thinking in terms of "art" or "technical correctness". I may inadvertently use a particular compositional technique, or inadvertently evoke a sense of balance or discord. But I'm not consciously saying "I am going to use the rule of thirds", "I am going to break the rule of thirds", "I am going to evoke a sense of balance", or "I want the viewer to feel discord". I guess in the beginning I did consciously say such things, but now that I'm used to taking pictures I don't have a need to label and judge things anymore. I simply react. But when a composition clicks in, I feel something. And when I set what I think is the right aperture or shutter speed or focal point, I feel a sense of order. And when a shot is captured at the right moment, I feel that I have successfully depicted that moment. It's all intuition; intuition that seems automatic and effortless but which was accrued over time by looking at photographs and reading technical descriptions. This is a learning and revision process which will never end.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>I feel compelled to include a documentary photo I took that goes along with the description I just wrote.</p>

<p>To me, this photo is not art, nor is it technical. It's simply a photograph that serves as a visual record of what I saw. I have seen photos similar to this one labelled as "Art" (either great art or horrible art). But to me, there's nothing artistic about the photo. It's not conceptual in nature; it is simply a snapshot that was caught at the right time. And it's not a technical masterpeice either. Yet I still think there is some definite dynamic feeling and / or emotional evocation inherent in this photo. You can almost feel her pain as the garments she is wearing smash into her eyes and she cringes while her partner is caught off-guard. It just IS.</p>

<p>Let me know what you think of this photo.</p><div></div>

[saskphotog]

<p>If you watch someone who is good at something, you soon realize that they are not thinking about the "technical" at all. Their bodies know how to do it; they just have to get out of the way and let their bodies do whatever the art is that they are doing. Practice is the only way to get a body to work like that.</p>

<p>Sports analogies are very easy to understand here. An athlete trains, works, studies, until it can be done without thought. Athletes talk about being "in the zone" or "unconscious", and know full well that "thinking too hard" can ruin performances. Athletes are just one type of artist with which our culture commonly communicates a bit, and athletics is something many have tried in one form or another, so there is good understanding of those terms. I think all those terms can be applied to any art form. </p>

<p>But there is no doubt in my mind that mastery of technique (even a limited amount of technique in some cases perhaps, but mastery of it nonetheless) is essential for artistic performances of all kinds.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>It's simply a photograph that serves as a visual record of what I saw</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I understand that that what you saw has become a part of that what you choose to react to as a photographer, resulting in the photograph. The reaction indeed might have gone along with thoughts about composition, light, etc... in an effortless, quick manner, without thinking too consciously about the how and why behind such 'photographer decisions' after the initial reacting or seeing of the moment. But is that what you saw also how and what you felt ?</p>

<p>I ask because I think that there's more distance to cover between the inspirational ( feeling ) and the technical ( seeing ) in the act of photography when compared to guitarplaying, painting. I don't photograph what or how I feel, which is not to say that, after the photographing, I don't feel what I have photographed (In context of photography I emphasize on feeling when it comes to inspiration, and seeing when it comes to technical ). But it's not like the solo guitarplayer playing his guts out,what he feels, and immediately recognizing and having an acknowledgment of that feeling in the sound of the music being played. The technical and the inspirational blends and becomes one in this immediate moment. In the act of photography, there's more distance, more steps to take between idea - execution - print.<br /> <br /> Ofcourse, music also involves having to write the music down on paper first, sitting down for it, before one can play it. But the essence of the music is in the performance, the actual execution, where technique and inspiration blends together. If, in photography, the print is the performance, then the inspiration for having arrived at it, might be somewhere in the past, several steps back. It makes photography strange and interesting, it's what makes it photography, but also, at times, not as liberating as the painter ' throwing paint on a canvas ' or the guitarplayer ' just playing ' in moments where technique and inspiration truly blend.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<blockquote>

<p>I ask because I think that there's more distance to cover between the inspirational ( feeling ) and the technical ( seeing ) in the act of photography when compared to guitarplaying, painting. I don't photograph what or how I feel, which is not to say that, after the photographing, I don't feel what I have photographed (In context of photography I emphasize on feeling when it comes to inspiration, and seeing when it comes to technical ). But it's not like the solo guitarplayer playing his guts out,what he feels, and immediately recognizing and having an acknowledgment of that feeling in the sound of the music being played. The technical and the inspirational blends and becomes one in this immediate moment. In the act of photography, there's more distance, more steps to take between idea - execution - print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, photography feels the same way as your description of the guitarist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ofcourse, music also involves having to write the music down on paper first, sitting down for it, before one can play it. But the essence of the music is in the performance, the actual execution, where technique and inspiration blends together. If, in photography, the print is the performance, then the inspiration for having arrived at it, might be somewhere in the past, several steps back. It makes photography strange and interesting, it's what makes it photography, but also, at times, not as liberating as the painter ' throwing paint on a canvas ' or the guitarplayer ' just playing ' in moments where technique and inspiration truly blend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's how photography is for me. I think about the settings and approach a little bit beforehand, and then I get everything set and into position. And then when that moment hits, and the shutter opens, it's like everything just stops and merges into one.</p>

<p>The subsequent computer or darkroom work doesn't add much to the enjoyment for me; It's simply part of the process. The final fun is viewing the end result.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> " The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner: not for the sake of being different, but because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize we all do express ourselves. but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves."</p>

<p> --- Harry Callahan, 1946</p>

<p> "Thinking should be done beforehand and afterwards. Never while actually taking a photograph. Success depends on one's general culture, on one's set of values, one's clarity of mind and vivacity. The thing to be feared is the artificially contrived, the contrary to life."</p>

<p> --- Henry Cartier-Bresson (Harper's, 1961)</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If you watch someone who is good at something, you soon realize that they are not thinking about the "technical" at all. --Larry Cooper</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this is the point of emphasizing the technical aspects from time to time, and you have said it well, Larry. You also say, "Practice is the only way to get a body to work like that," and you go on to say that "mastery of technique (even a limited amount of technique in some cases perhaps, but mastery of it nonetheless) is essential for artistic performances of all kinds."</p>

<p>If one combines what you have said with the concept of "effortful study" which appeared in the article cited in the original posting, one is reminded that the point of "effortful study" is to analyze for the sake of perfecting the technique. The athlete knows that it is important to practice with the same intensity and attention to correct form as one expects to play. Those who practice with sloppy form will play with sloppy form, and their game will show it.</p>

<p>Good athletes across the centuries have also had coaches who analyzed them (as shown in the movie <em>Chariots of Fire</em> ), and today's athletes also have video cameras which allow them to analyze themselves.</p>

<p>This analysis, this reflexive (<em>qua </em> self-reflective) process, is there for those who want to get better. It is essential, for it is above all about mastery of technique. Only when one has gotten the technique and the technical aspects so nearly perfected that one does not have to think about them can one easily go on to put one's full attention into the "artistic performance," which for photographers is about getting the shot, processing the shot, and printing the shot--all of that, not just one part of it. There are a lot of different techniques worthy of being studied and mastered at every phase if the final output is going to reflect true mastery.</p>

<p>As for the artistic vision, where does one analyze and master that?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>"As for the artistic vision, where does one analyze and master that?" - Lannie<br>

Creation of distinctive and significant-seeming approach to images requires intentionality and dedication, framed and guided by experience...including observation of the work of others and, of necessity, trial and error. Lannie's "where" is here and now and it extends into the future.<br>

By contrast, art is easier than the dedication and labor to produce significant work. We use the word "art" for ducks, wizened elders, and sunsets. Art is a label.</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>It seems that the idea of the closed-loop feedback system is key.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[John Kelly] "... art is easier than the dedication and labor to produce significant work."</p>

<p> Maybe bad art. And bad art does not constitute the entirety of art, any more than the legions of hacks define poetry.</p>

<p>[JK]We use the word "art" for ducks, wizened elders, and sunsets.</p>

<p> "We"? MPD or who _are_ you talking about, John? People who don't understand art say that, and much worse. What you mention are ancient cliche's that were never considered significant art by reputable institutions, directors, owners, curators, critics, practitioners, etc.</p>

<p>Sidewalk art shows and pieces painted on black velvet hanging from clotheslines at abandoned gas stations, maybe. Small galleries in the middle of BF Egypt or on the tourist trails, maybe. Nothing more.</p>

<p>[Lannie Kelly] "As for the artistic vision, where does one analyze and master that?"</p>

<p> Where? Internally and externally.Ten thousand hours of Practice, mentorship, looking at art, learning, in or out of institutions (academic or mental!), endless study, life experience (inner and outer), creative thought, letting go, intoxication, discipline, travel, displacement, insatiable hunger, passion, acculturation, embracing, concerns for things/people/ideas, specially outside art, constant self-development, and one begins to talk the talk and walk the walk, insofar as your talent can be developed. You become it.</p>

<p>As Grover soulfully sang on Sesame Street: "<em>If you want to sing the blues</em> , <em>you gotta live the blues" </em></p>

<p> Here's a few paragraphs I ran across recently by artist Tracy Emin, that may help shed light on Lanny's question, and I believe they're applicable to photography:</p>

<p>"Nought for Design. Nought for Life Drawing. Nought for Fashion Illustration. Nought for Individual Flair."</p>

<p>When I asked my teacher why, she said, "Let's face it ducks, some of us have got it and some of us haven't. And you just haven't."</p>

<p>Six months later she was dead and everyone was crying. But I wasn't. I bought myself a pair of glasses, and suddenly the whole world changed - foreshortening, shadow, depth. I went to every drawing class possible for the next seven years, never missing one.<br>

It took me years to understand the magic of drawing. For years, I tried to make things look how they are - instead of being what they are. Drawing is an alchemical language. Some of my favourite drawings I have done with my eyes closed - or so drunk I do not remember making them.<br>

I like to record the moment, the event of the memory. I remember an event from my childhood. I pull it to the front of my mind. My emotions force the drawing out of my hand - this explains why so many of my drawings are repeated images. It's not because I draw the same thing, but the same moment wants to be redrawn. I am the custodian, the curator of the images that live in my mind. Every image has first entered my mind, travelled through my heart, my blood - arriving at the end of my hand. Everything has come through me.<br>

--- Tracy Emin</p>

<p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/25/tracey-emin-drawing-art</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis, thanks for the clarification:</p>

<p>According to your definition, "significant art" is defined by high class institutional acceptance, and the high classes use "bad" for the taste of the miserable lower social classes...</p>

<p><strong>Your definition of "significant art" would evidently have excluded that of Matisse</strong>, and other fauvre painters two centuries ago, just as the most "reputable" critics identified Andy Warhol's 1960s work as "bad art".</p>

<p>Having spent hours with the Matisse/Picasso exhibit in Paris, my own single most moving "art" experience, I did prefer Picasso, true. I'll admit with embarassment that it never occurred to me, until your instruction, to think of Matisse's paintings as "bad art"...you're right, and the French Academy would have agreed with you, 200 years ago..</p>

<p>More recently I spent hours with 50 of Warhol's paintings (and similar trailer trash work) at DIA/Beacon Gallery in New York...without your insight I might still think Warhol's work "significant art."</p>

<p>I guess I'm too easily moved. Live and learn.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> You're way off the mark, John. Wrong, to be precise.</p>

<p>John Kelly wrote in another tread today: "Luis, I appreciate art as we all think of it.... museums and galleries, a (sic) focussed collection of books"</p>

<p>Then he attacks me 4 hrs later with: "According to your definition, "significant art" is defined by high class institutional acceptance, and the high classes use "bad" for the taste of the miserable lower social classes..."</p>

<p> After which he proceeds to name-drop some of the biggest, high-class venues/artists to impress us.</p>

<p>Forgive me if I doubt your sincerity, John. Like others here, I have zero interest in jousting with you. It's a waste of my time, and you seem to enjoy it too much. I'm out of this thread, too, and if you persist, I'll happily stay out of this forum.</p>

<p> The truly odd thing is that facially, we look alike.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis, perhaps I misunderstood... but a couple of your personal comments seemed unfair. One example: ""We"? who _are_ you talking about, John? People who don't understand art say that, and much worse."</p>

<p>You questioned my "understanding" of "art" (which is your right). In response, I spoke of my recent experiences with two "famous artists" who had at first been rejected by high-class critics: Matisse's by the French Academy, and Warhol's by the American art establishment.</p>

<p>You seemed to advance a social class analysis of "art" merit, so I pointed to other examples of that type of analysis.</p>

<p>Please clarify.</p>

<p>My "focussed collection of books" consists almost exclusively of work I've envied/studied in original prints, and have been moved strongly by. Weston books but no Adams books (save "Zone System" and "Artificial Light": I've seen dozens of Adams prints but have never wanted to work in anything like his vein, dozens of Westons and envied them...so I own several fine old Weston books. None by Lee Friedlander despite seeing literally hundreds of his ...no Robert Frank or HCB but two Robert Capa.<strong> I don't think I'm making social class distinctions, and I don't find "art" relevant when responding to photos (or paintings, for that matter).</strong></p>

<p>I'm interested in photographic delivery of something emotional, to which I resonate. It's my personal wave-length.</p>

<p>Gallery and museum curators rarely seem to resonate to the photos they display, as evidenced by the blather they provide by way of "explanation." They do, however, assign great importance to that "art" label.</p>

<p>Evolving a personal aesthetic is taking decades, so mine will never be as "completed" (frozen, terminal, right/wrong) as the summaries of critics or most museum and gallery curators. I invest time in galleries, museums, and books, and with prints of other photographers, but this doesn't seem related to "art" ...no matter what label happens to be applied by people who get a thrill from the word.</p>

[chris_waller]

"Mechanical excellence is the vehicle for genius" - William Blake.

 

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book entitled 'Outliers' in a similar vein. I shall definitely read this again and at length.

[don_e]

<p>"Through the <em>habitus</em> or virtue of art superelevating his mind from within, the artist is a ruler who uses rules according to his ends; it is as senseless to conceive of him as the slave of the rules as to consider the worker the slave of his tools. Properly speaking, he possesses them and is not possessed by them: he is not <em>held</em> by them, it is he who <em>holds</em> -- through them -- matter and the real; and sometimes, in those superior moments where the working of genius resembles in art the miracles of God in nature, he will act, not against the rules, but outside of and above them, in conformity with a higher rule and a more hidden order. Let us understand in this manner the words of Pascal: "True eloquence makes fun of eloquence, true morality makes fun of morality, to make fun of philosophy is to philosophize truly," to which the most tyrannical and the most radical of academy heads [David] adds this savory gloss: "Unless you don't care a rap about painting, painting won't care a rap about you"" -- Jaques Maritain, Art and Scholasticism</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Any athlete will tell you that you don't learn to play well by playing games; you learn to play well in practice sessions. Unless you train, you won't improve. Musicians know you must do technical practice and exercises to play well. You can't paint unless you understand the medium. You don't learn to drive race cars in the Indianapolis 500.<br>

I thought this was well understood.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While this opinion has merit, it is at best half true. No, you're not going to learn the fundamentals of your sport/art on the football field, the basketball court, or the magazine photo shoot. That said, there is a great deal of information about operating in real world situations that you can't learn in practice. </p>

<p>You see this phenomenon in sports all the time. A team that was mediocre last year may get to the playoffs this year, but they'll rarely win a championship. It's only once they've been tested in the playoffs by more experience teams that they can go back the next year and refocus their efforts into becoming a championship caliber team.</p>

<p>If you were an ad executive, who would you rather shoot your next bit campaign? Someone with a little bit of training and a lot of experience in fashion/adventising photography? Or someone who has two MFA's from distinguished institutions but has never worked on a real commercial photo shoot?</p>

<p>The information that we gain in the classroom and the practice room/studio is only so useful. It has to be tested and tempered by real world experience before we can elevate our craft to its highest potential.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Too many people obsess on the technical, and it stunts their artistic growth. Worse, they begin to think that it is part of a grand formula. Acquire the right hardware, learn some things, extract a little mentoring, and the rising tide will float the rest.<br>

Remember learning to drive a stick-shift (manual) car? It's awkward and clumsy until you get past it. Then you can focus on driving. In photography, it is the same. The technical gets in the way until you know it well enough to forget it. No internal dialogue about anything but the visual enables one to stay focused.<br>

In the end, you can only see what you're ready to see. If you want your photographs to change, a new fat white lens or a DX3 isn't going to do it. You have to change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well stated. Once technique is mastered and internalized it enables creativity to flow more and more effortlessly. Bach could improvise 4-voice fugues, but he could not have done so had he not first put a LOT of time and effort into developing both is compositional technique and his playing technique. Technique has the ability to liberate our creativity.</p>

<p>However, we've all met people who devote all of their focus on technique and the technical aspects of their activities. They obsess over camera stability and white balance and exposure calculations when they should be contemplating compositional ideas, evaluating the quality of light, and observing their subject in anticipation of the magic moment. When the latest and greatest technical advance is announced they'll proclaim that it's "not good enough" because they need Feature X.</p>

<p>Art isn't about having access to Feature X, no matter how helpful it may be. Art is about combining elements to create meaning and/or an emotional response. Technique and technology can help us create that meaning as long as it doesn't become our primary concern.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The other great finding is that expertise is a product of willful effort, not inborn talent. Too often high achievers are billed as "naturals," which does a disservice to their hard work and discourages others from trying. The few, absolute best in each field probably have innate talent in the area, but there's nothing stopping the rest of us from developing into highly skilled practitioners.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People do have different levels of talent and ability. Some people will learn much faster than others. Some folks with very limited technical knowledge will take better (more impactful) photos with a point-and-shoot camera than people who've taken classes, read books, and know every feature of their shiny new DSLR. If you want evidence of this, take a look at the photos on the websites of certain well-known "gear experts." It's a good thing that they know a lot about gear, because some of them don't have a clue as to how to compose a memorable and emotionally moving photograph.</p>

<p>This is true in any discipline. Some people who've never taken a lesson are better dancers/singers/fighters/musicians/photographers than other people who've studied for years. That's life, and it's not always fair. The good news is that through work and study, we have the ability to elevate ourselves from where we are today to a new level. Some people will improve more quickly; others will take longer than we do. "Naturals" exist in every field of endeavor, but that doesn't matter. We are who we are, we learn at our own pace, and we all have something of value to offer, even if someone else can get by with less effort.</p>

<p>The guy who writes the Dilbert comic strip was the worst performer in his drawing classes, but he found a way to get his ideas across. In the end, his technical limitations might have worked out to be assets. Does Dilbert really need to have a neck and a mouth? The creativity and humanity shines through no matter how roughly the strip is drawn. The "hot shots" in Scott Adams' drawing classes are probably working at Starbucks.</p>

<p> </p>

[jack_mcvicker]

<p>So the gist of the argument is if you can just pick up a camera and take stunning photgrpahs.<br>

Of course you can.</p>

<p>Well, if you beleive that you will believe anything.</p>

<p>The quote from the guitarist, how would you know which chord, how to form a triad of notes, to even play in tune. The use of the plectrum.. oh yer, just pick it up and play...</p>

<p>How would you know how to switch on, select apeture and what exposure ... OH just pick it up anyone can do it.<br>

For some the technical side epitomises the essence of photography as they capture a moment in time, the words of Henr cartier Bresson or to use the exposure system to capture the reality of a landscape, Ansel Adams. For each there is an answer, but what best suits the individuals is a matter of trial and error. With eveything, the detailed knowledge of the performance of the camera, be it, pocket, medium or large format must be learnt. practice makes perfect, regrdless. The quick to learn have an advantage over their slower learners but the learning curve is ever present.<br>

Some hate to admit the hours, days of practice and minimise the effort that really led to their mastery. Other will plead for hours the anguish and the terror of the first print, the first exihibition the first prize winning ... it's all about humans with all the idosyncratic behaviour inherent.</p>

[frankie_bellocchio]

<p>as in any artform, there are rules, and those rules are often broken with considerable success by the truly talented.<br>

yes, practising makes a better musician, but not necessarily better music: this is, apart from anything else, a matter of taste.<br>

the punk period has been cited above as one example. another might be hip hop in its early days: the pioneers generally didnt even know what a musical key was, never mind what key they were composing in.<br>

i can think of many examples of photographers who produced groundbreaking work using nothing more than an automatic point and shoot camera. Richard Billingham's book Ray's A Laugh is one clear example.<br>

Nick Waplington's early work is another (although he was a little more technically sophisticated than Billingham)<br>

Of course, to anyone who values correct exposure over all else, this work will no doubt be ultra-offensive to the eye. But this is just your personal opinion, and many others (including major collectors and museums) beg to disagree.<br>

However, yes, technical knowledge and know-how is rarely a hindrance. And those who get lost in the technical side of things to the detriment of creativity probably do so out of choice and would have never produced anything significant anyway as they revel in the technical rather than creation.</p>

[douglas lee]

<blockquote>

<p>The quote from the guitarist, how would you know which chord, how to form a triad of notes, to even play in tune. The use of the plectrum.. oh yer, just pick it up and play...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Glen Campbell was a pretty fair studio guitarist back in the day. He doesn't read music. Plays by ear. Story goes he was guitarist at a Frank Sinatra recording session and Sinatra was getting upset and talked to the musical director about the guitarist who kept looking at him and not the music. Campbell was in awe of Sinatra and couldn't get over it, so kept staring at him. Similar story involving Charlie Christian and Benny Goodman. Some people just have a natural talent. I could never learn to play like that. I've tried. Fretboard freaks me out. I mean, you can actually play the same note in more than one place on a guitar. Never got beyond that. Don't have that problem with a piano.</p>

[thomas_barnes1]

<p>Photography is like all modes of personal expression. You need to learn the basics of the "tool" you work with. It is like a pencil: don't get obsessed with the pencil. It is only a tool. That takes a visual education. And that's not something you can get in an ART school. After that, you need to explore what YOU want to express. To go beyond "snapshots" there needs to be more depth to your visual images. The great thing is that You are the student And the instructor at the same time!</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Just because you buy a $6K Trek bike like Lance Armstrong doesn't mean you'll ever be a good cyclist. It's a start for sure, just a start.</p>

<p>Photography is no different (though I do think it's MUCH easier to excel at photography than pro cycling and it's far less dangerous).</p>