preston_merchant Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Funny how this thread has devolved into a manual v. automatic debate--when nearly every photo posted on this board is a stock-still compositional exercise in the effete manner of Magnum in the 40s. Really putting that $4,000's worth of equipment through its paces. And, as we all know, learning about aperture and shutter speeds is HARD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 "...IMO this is the forum where people worry more about their photos than anything." Replace "photos" with "equipment" and you'd be about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 " I suggest photography 101" I'll look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 George, do it at your own pace. Film or digital? Well it's a matter of perspective and needs at different times of your photographic journey. Sure, you can make pix without knowing shit about how the camera works (like apertures or shutter speeds), but then it's good to know why they're there. I shoot a lot of films because I like developing them. I like working with chemicals. The apertures I use most are f11 and f2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 The fact is that shooting a great many images and reviewing them quickly is a great way to experiment and develop a style and interests. Fiddling about with the process, on the other hand, is not going to get you very much further with photographic seeing. It's true that aperture and shutter speed affect the final result, but I'd suggest that simply making lots and lots of pictures is going to contribute much more than humming and hawing over which knob to twiddle - you can do that later when you've actually got some photographic aims. After all, it isn't rocket science - getting a ood exposure with slide, for instance, is really very very easy, and so is playing with the aperture and shutter sped combinations. Nonetheless, these things can get in the way. Of course, many people prefer the process and the charisma of camera makes to the result, which is fair enough. It's only a hobby, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 XInbad, shooting a lot isn't rocket science either, even with films. Once you get the processes in place, reviewing is just as quick , perhaps not instant, but still quick enough, and at the same time, you get all the basics right from the word go. Seeing is always without the camera first. You learn to see without the camera. Nothing much to do with digital or film. See a lot instead. The rest will fall into place. i think..;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_matsil Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Georges....if I were you, I'd run from this forum. Fast. Come on guys....we're setting a bad example for Georges. Every post on this thread has at least a kernel of truth in it; something that works well for the author. Look at photographers as diverse as Adams to Arbus and you'll realize that photography has room for an infinite number of approaches. So why should we fight with each other to prove that our way is valid and yours is not. That's what I'm hearing, anyway. Georges is just looking for a little bump this way or that way, and not a lot of judgement about what is valid and what is not. By the way....Xinbad's "what the hell" approach has produced some fine photojournalism. Photojournalists are realists, in my experience. They take the shutter speeds and apertures that god gives them at that moment and they try to make something with it. That's perhaps his particular experience....so just accept it and move on. Georges sounds intelligent enough to realize that and decide for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Xinban, I can see why, though you've rated pretty well every image on photo.net you don't actually show any...you don't really have any idea how the process works. You can look at images till the cows come home...if you don't know why or how a particular image works you'll never replicate the effect again. Realzing that in a given situation F5.6 is going to give just enough, but not too much depth of field (for example) for the effect you want is paramount to going into a shooting situation and being confident that you'll get the image your after. It's kind of like Jay saying "hey, I've stuck myk fingers in a lot of peoples mouths...I don't have any training but let me have a go at your dental surgery". Count me out. (no offense Jay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_perkins2 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Aperture and shutter speed are, as Rob said, the last of your worries. Getting access, making friends, being in the right place at the right time, these are important. What are you shooting? Why? Who will see the pictures? Have these pictures been done before? What are you trying to say with the pictures? Why do I care? Why will anyone else care? No, "I thought it looked kinda pretty" is not a valid answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lloyd1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Oh dear what started off as a some sensible help has degenerated into a bun fight. Xinbad's replies have got to be the most ill infomed drival I have seen for a while. The basic's of photo composition are far more coplex than just what is in the frame, it is of paramount importance that you can learn to visualise how things relate and the effect of depth of field and shutter speed. In fact Xinbad has shown exactly what a lack of knowledge and pseudo technical expertease can lead you to believe. Unfortunately digital has bought a lot of twits out of the woodwork. I have reshot many portraits for people who have been dissapointed by shoddy work done by charlatons with a dSLR who think they can become a pro over night. You only have to look through the other forums here to see many example of people who have bought a dSLR and with no knowledge or photographic expertease are asking what lighting to use etc... to turn pro. As with all things, learn the basics first and then you can use whatever you like to make the job easier. I am not anti digital, in fact I sometimes use it in the studio but.... Generally it has not reached the quality of film and is still in it's infantcy. Once it has matured and stabalised then I am sure I will start to invest until then I will stick with film, scanning whan required. Just remember you will learn far more from £2-300 of second hand manual film equipment than you ever will from a £2-300 point and shoot low res digital box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 <i>In fact Xinbad has shown exactly what a lack of knowledge and pseudo technical expertease can lead you to believe. </i><p> Yeah, it's shown us exactly, given that he's got done some of the finest photography work I've found through this site. If that's what it takes to make grat photographs, it's what everyone should follow. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_matsil Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I wish Xinbad were here to defend himself....hello Zinbad! Anyway, I agree that Xinbad came on a little strong in his language at first, but his work does reflect his no nonsense attitude and his work is good. Yo, Bob!....Xinbad's profile includes his website which contains a number of projects for your review; several clicks of the mouse and you're there. Boy, when Georges gets home from work, he's not going to believe the mess we made of his thread. Like I said before Geroges.....run! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I think the point Xinbad was making is that the technical details of a photo are usually its least important elements. There's a lot of technically competent, boring photography out there, and the photographer's mastery of all his little knobs doesn't matter a bit. A wonderful moment captured with less-than-ideal exposure still trumps a technically masterful, but otherwise dull image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikal_grass Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Georges, As a recent newcomer to photography and one who is afraid of digital but realizes its potential, the only thing I can tell you is to shoot as much as you can regardless of the camera. The only drawback to digital is that you may be in too much of a rush to delete what you may consider to be a lousy photo, when in reality and after a bit of time, it has the potential to be a great photo with a bit of work. (For those of you who think that any kind of photo manipulation is blasphemy, grow up!!!). Many of us review our contact sheets or negatives after a long while and find long overlooked gems that we later develop. And for those of you who diss Xinbad, bad move. The guy is a great photographer. He may not post anything on photo.net but his stuff is very easy to find through photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Thanks Micheal...I did go back and check Xinbads website. As you say there is some very good stuff...obviously he knows what he's doing, which makes his remarks all the more confusing. I can only surmise that he is self taught, may have spent years gaining an intuitive knowledge of the basics...so much easier just to spend a little time learning the basics in the beginning. I deal with pros and 'serious amateurs' on a daily basis. The difference often is little in their ability to take a good photograph. The difference is that the pro, who probably went to school has learned those basics in, say two years...the serious amateur hopefully learns it by the time he's 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lloyd1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I to have had a look at Xinbads work. Yes it is good and fair play he can take a decent picture. I am totally confused then as to his recommendations. His pictures show he has a good knowledge of dof and therefore to dismiss any camera controls as not needed is a total mystery also given the time he has been taking pictures he certainly learned on film cameras. I don't believe he would be making the same recomendation to just get a disposable of point and shoot film camera and use that to learn photography. Digital seems to have fried some peoples brains, yes you need to be there to take the picture but knowing how to capture that image and how it will appear once taken is basic knowledge. I stand 100% behind what I said earlier - you will learn much more using a manual film camera than you ever will using a cheap digital point and shoot box. Sometimes it appears that probably some peaple would be better off with a video camera and a image capture software rather than a stills camera. Then you could shoot 1,000s of frames and surely one of them would be good (Joke I don't think so). Good photography starts with seeing a strong subject and then you need to understand exactly how to capture that image and how the final product will appear. As for the manipulation debate. I am sure no-one thinks this is wrong in order to help create the image you saw in your minds eye but as a tool to make a silk purse out of a sows ear - FORGET IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliu Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 My 3 year old photographer even didn't know how to look through a viewfinder, let along aperture and DOF. But that single shot is better than most of mine ;-) You don't have to shoot a lot. You just need to know when to push the button, or more important, when NOT to push the button. BTW, that is not a digital camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_matsil Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Bob: I'm glad you looked at his work. It isn't just very good, it's excellent and of high technical quality which is a testament to the learning experience that brought you these pictures, regardless of whether he is self taught or school trained. You are being presumptuous to state here, what method or experiences provided him with his abilities and how long it took. You could be entirely wrong.... or you could be right! The important thing is that he did what he did and he's benefited from it. Georges (remember the guy who started this thread?) will look over everyone's experiences here, and as I said earlier, he sounds intelligent enough to take what he needs and leave the rest behind. Below I've pasted in all of Xinbad's posts, without the one certain incendiary sentence that I think got everyone hot and bothered. I find the statements to be reasonable, helpful to a beginner but with a healthy dose of personal attitude. Please also note that his recommendations to Georges are quite different than the methodical ways I preach in my first post. No complaints here. Xinbad: Nothing bogus about digital. Photography is not a strait gate - or at least, doesn't need to be. But it should be evident that on the Leica group lots of people will tell you that only film gets their juices flowing - which is fair enough. In the end, the image is all that counts, not the method, so go digital if it'll solve your problems. I have, and I have found it very fruitful. Take pictures - that's all. Digital makes that quick and easy and allows you to explore the pictures rather than fiddling with diddly adjustments. You can get an excellent 3 or 4 mp camera for 200 US, and no doubt you already have a computer. Then eventually, if you find you want to do more, you can consider playing about with the little dials on a more expensive camera. But for developing an eye, digital would be hard to beat, IMO. The fact is that shooting a great many images and reviewing them quickly is a great way to experiment and develop a style and interests. Fiddling about with the process, on the other hand, is not going to get you very much further with photographic seeing. It's true that aperture and shutter speed affect the final result, but I'd suggest that simply making lots and lots of pictures is going to contribute much more than humming and hawing over which knob to twiddle - you can do that later when you've actually got some photographic aims. After all, it isn't rocket science - getting a ood exposure with slide, for instance, is really very very easy, and so is playing with the aperture and shutter sped combinations. Nonetheless, these things can get in the way. Of course, many people prefer the process and the charisma of camera makes to the result, which is fair enough. It's only a hobby, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_anonymous Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I agree that you will learn more with a manual camera BUT if Georges is having difficulty finding time to develop his shots, then at least with a digicam, he can see the results of his shots regularly. The faster he gets feedback, the more likely it is that he'll learn from it. Trying something out and then trying to remember what it was a week later doesn't impart a strong lesson. Sure, he could write notes etc but a digital would make the learning easier. I've shown some friends how to use their digital cameras (most decent digicams costing USD$200 and up have manual modes these days) and it is very easy to explain and illustrate the effects of aperture and shutter selection on the final image. It's even easier to show them why you'd want to combine a long shutter speed with flash, etc. He doesn't _NEED_ to a prosumer digicam nor does he need to manipulate all of his images in Photoshop. Just seeing the results on the LCD or on his computer screen can provide very valuable feedback. Freeing himself from the cost (time-wise and money-wise) of film processing allows him to experiment with different techniques as much as he wants. Everything he learns can be applied to film work. He can do the experimentation with the digital...a kind of proof-of-concept test tool, and then using what he's learned, try the shot using film for the finished product. FWIW, I don't have a decent digicam but I even sometimes find myself using my beater Epson 850Z to test my strobe setup (no Polaroid back available for my camera...not that I could justify the cost, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Of course Xinbad(Rob) is a great photographer. No question. The thing is we are all here to share our experience and our way of working and our way of seeing things and hopefully Georges can find his own way about it. No one is right and no one is wrong. Im sure no one took this personally. At least not me. PS: I personally think Bob Todrick has a lot of nice stuff to show that he knows what he's talking too? But so what? good luck Georges.;0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Which means we are not actually here to compare one's work and see who's opinion has more credibility. We are here basically to help Georges with his dilemma and that I feel, none of us is more right or wrong than anyone else. Just opinions of our own world. Which is a healthy thing, IMO(pun). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliu Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 IMHO, there are basically two types of photography: Ansel Adams (AA) style and Henri Cartier-Bresson (HC-B) style. AA photography is an art of making impressive image out of ordinary scene. HC-B style is an art of capturing impressive image in the ordinary world. If you want to practice AA photography, take your time and do it as slow as possible (it doesn't matter what camera you use, even digital.) If you want to practice HC-B photography, you need a sharp eye and you should shoot as fast a possible. Some people can not shoot fast so instead they shoot a lot, hope to catch some good shots. But a sharp shooter doesn't need a machine gun. I had a look at your PN photos and it seems that you are more interested in AA style. If that is the case, advice from Leica forum is not as useful as some of AA's books. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliu Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I have to correct myself: When I said "Sharp shooter doesn't need a machine gun". I don't mean that he doesn't need practice. It is not shooting as much as you can, but as much as you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georges Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 Wow! What can I say guys, thanks a lot for all this input. All these different opinions really brought out good ideas! I feel like shooting a lot more now. First off, as I don't mind developping film (20mins for 2 rolls in a double tank), I'm going to shoot as much B&W as I can. I was worrying about not really learning from contact sheets, but as most people said, with experience, only looking straight at negatives will tell me a lot about my photography. I like developping film, it's just printing that takes a lot of time. I guess prints (except favorites, of course) would only be ego-boosters, as someone said. So 3-4 rolls of B&W a week and a few color films a month (hey, color is nice too) would be pretty good for my situation. Maybe I should consider thinking a bit more for every shot too, AA style, and some other times do it like HCB. From what I understood, shooting styles are all different and a little of everything can only be good. Damn, there are so many responses, I'd like to reply to them all! To those who suggested digital P&S, it's a pretty good idea, you can shoot like crazy, but I feel I would be restrained by not having to play with slow shutter speeds, variable apertures, DOF and light burning film emulsion. And I'm not talking about lenses. Well thanks all, I hope to post some good stuff on your W/NW threads, in which you seem to welcome any nice photo. Georges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_harting Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Georges, S.Liu says there are 2 kinds of photography. I would suggest to you that there are 3 kinds of photographers 1. The artist 2. The technician 3. Those that are lucky enough to be a combination of both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now