Interesting article!

[ChrisGilbert]

I don't disagree, Robin, but now you can see *immediately* what a button does *and* practice with it. You don't have to wait several days for the film to come back from the lab and then be faced with having to remember what it was upi did to get the shot that you made. The skill still has to be acquired but the lifecycle is trivial compared with what we were faced with with film.

 

[RedRobin]

^^^^
Absolutely, Chris. It's the digital 'immediacy' which has played a major part in rekindling my interest in taking photographs.

Today I have been practicing leaning in and out for focussing the extremely shallow DoF on my Canon 100mm f2.8L Macro mounted on a fluid monopod, all indoors as it's crappy light outside today. 70D with articulated LiveView touch screen as well! Yippee! Great fun learning.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

....This is true, Chris, but the sheer volume of electronically controlled options which modern digital cameras offer is at first sight very daunting. They have their own learning curve, as I am currently finding!

There are still fundamentally only three settings though. My 5DMkII doesn't actually do much more than let me control the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. If you're letting it be much more complicated than that... well... perhaps you're getting too scientific about it?

 

[ancient_mariner]

It's not all bad. I have a younger friend who has had a few of her macro shots published - taken with an iPhone + close up adapter. She became aware of the limitations of the phone camera, recently bought a DSLR and has now the desire to study & learn how to use it - eventually she'll turn off 'auto' when she wants to do so.

Regarding intellectualism and snobbery, that is much more down to the manner in which an individual applies their learning in their interaction with the world. It can be used to increase understanding both personally and by sharing with others, or it can be used to place oneself above those without the benefit of that education. Possibly the most intelligent person I've ever known used her brilliance to help raise others up, rather than reminding them of their ignorance, and was a joy to be around.

 

[RedRobin]

There are still fundamentally only three settings though. My 5DMkII doesn't actually do much more than let me control the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. If you're letting it be much more complicated than that... well... perhaps you're getting too scientific about it?

.... Touche!

Yes, I fully realised as I was writing that that there are only three fundamental settings.

But play fair, Charlotte, just scroll through all the other settings options there are on a modern digital camera and when to use which and how easily to access them etc etc, has a significant learning curve.

 

[Phil V]

.... Touche!

Yes, I fully realised as I was writing that that there are only three fundamental settings.

But play fair, Charlotte, just scroll through all the other settings options there are on a modern digital camera and when to use which and how easily to access them etc etc, has a significant learning curve.

You can largely leave them alone though. With my camera set up how I generally use it, I make very few settings changes during a shoot.
I generally shoot AV
So when I reach for my camera I set an appropriate ISO
And when I shoot I just focus and then I may choose to adjust the aperture

I've taught several people to use a camera in the digital world, and almost everyone has a hit rate after 1 weekend that is better than mine was on film after a couple of years.

 

[RedRobin]

You can largely leave them alone though. With my camera set up how I generally use it, I make very few settings changes during a shoot.

....I generally agree but I feel the need to explore so that I know more about all the options I have at my disposal. Afterall, good quality DSLR gear is not cheap and so why not use it to its fullest potential. Different kinds of photography (different subjects) have their own best settings to suit an individual photographer's needs.

For example, use manual focus on a Macro lens but tracking autofocus on some moving subjects < Not rules set in concrete but good setups to start from. Exposure compensation is a setting I occasionally want to use and when I do, I want to access it fast. On my Canon 70D, hit the Info button and use the touchscreen in LiveView on the articulated LCD screen - Very easy and fast but I had to learn that. Look at the number of pages in the Manuals.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

.... Touche!

Yes, I fully realised as I was writing that that there are only three fundamental settings.

But play fair, Charlotte, just scroll through all the other settings options there are on a modern digital camera and when to use which and how easily to access them etc etc, has a significant learning curve.

Don't think I use any of them to be honest. The only 'features' I use are generally the aperture/shutter priority modes and the different types of focus. Everything else I've never touched. But they're all just available at the touch of a button on the top of the camera so they're not exactly a hardship to use.

I really do think sometimes people can overcomplicate camera use. But then I suppose it's a bit like a car. I've never been able to afford a nice car, I've always had either a fifteen year old escort or a fifteen year old mondeo. You just put it into gear and drive. My ex had a new Audi that had all kinds of on board computers and gadgets that he liked to play with, but it didn't make him a better driver than me, when I got in his car and just... drove it.

 

[RedRobin]

Don't think I use any of them to be honest. The only 'features' I use are generally the aperture/shutter priority modes and the different types of focus. Everything else I've never touched. But they're all just available at the touch of a button on the top of the camera so they're not exactly a hardship to use.

....Fair enough, we each use machines/cameras in the way we individually prefer. There's no right or wrong way.

I prefer to explore the full range of any machine's possibilities (including my high performance car) but will never lose sight of photography's three amigos.

 

[coldpenguin]

I prefer to explore the full range of any machine's possibilities (including my high performance car)

Hmm, not sure I would be wanting to test the air-bags, or the fuel shunt shut-off. (Although I have to admit the DSC has come on a couple of times :nuts

 

[RedRobin]

Hmm, not sure I would be wanting to test the air-bags, or the fuel shunt shut-off. (Although I have to admit the DSC has come on a couple of times :nuts

True! Not the airbags etc. You can switch off the DSC for trackdays etc. But I'm sure you get my drift, so to speak!

I think that the more you explore a camera, the more familiar and tactile it feels (same as a good car). Anyway, you still need to have an eye for it all.

 

[Pookeyhead]

ISO, shutter speed, aperture, AF point adjust... that's pretty much it for me. I sometimes use aperture/shutter priority. That's pretty much it.

I've occasionally used the artificial horizon, but still find it easier, and faster to use the little spirit level I keep in my camera bag.

Overall, I'm not sure what "features" my camera has that are actually useful.

As for gadgets in cars... they don't make you a better driver either.

 

[RedRobin]

As for gadgets in cars... they don't make you a better driver either.

....That's right - Professional driver training does! By all means remap your ride but also remap your brain and use your roadcraft for whatever you drive whenever you drive.

Even if many folks here don't use many of the 'features' which modern digital cameras offer, I'm surprised if you have never explored them. They won't necessarily make you a better photographer but such aids can sometimes be helpful to achieve an image you are after.

 

[Phil V]

Most of the menus on my camera are only suitable for JPEG style quality and file management, completely useless to me.

What's left are the customisation options, which I spent an hour setting up when I got the camera. I have the custom menu containing 5 items which I now use on a less than regular basis, 3 custom settings on the mode dial, which are fairly valuable. But generally it's a camera, there is nothing that it can do for me either quicker or better than I can do for myself. Bearing in mind I'm no Luddite, I'm taking full advantage of its metering and focussing and I have the controls customised to my preferred way of working.

 

[Phil V]

Double post

 

[Phil V]

Regardless... it should still be studied as both. It seems acceptable to study it as a science and get as geeky as you like in a scientific way. You can debate and be as pedantic as you like in here regarding lenses and f-stops and other technical matters, and no one accuses you of being snobby. The opposite is true: You are admired, and often revered for it. The minute you apply the same rigour to photography as an art form, and all of a sudden you're being elitist

Charlotte makes a good point. No one accuses scientists of being snobbish. Brian Cox is a good case to discuss: He's actually quite disparaging to those of the stupid persuasion, and has absolutely no hesitation in saying that anyone who doesn't agree with science, or believes in mysticism or religion, is an absolute idiot. He does this publicly and unashamedly, yet we still don't think he's a snob. He's young (actually 45.. but looks young), cool, and has a Manchester accent... so he can't be snobby, surely! Not lovely cheeky chappy Brian... LOL. Yet if anyone in here behaves the same way regarding art, and you're labelled as a complete snob and total elitist. What gives?

In answer to your question Robin... photography is both art and science, and academic rigour in the study of both aspects should actually be undertaken if you ask me: They're two sides of the same coin. I have done so all my life, and given the fortunate position of both being a professional photographer, and a professional educator, I kind of know a think or two here. The best photographers fully engage with both. My best students fully engage with both. If you think about it, why should that be a surprise to anyone?

In reality though, most people will happily engage with the scientific aspects of photography; They'll spend hours reading, watching videos and practising.. hours and hours every week. Suggest they study it as an art based subject however, and they look at you as if you've just grabbed hold of their genitals.

No one would be surprised if a painter can speak confidently and intelligently about art, yet when a photographer does, they get treated differently.

You either agree photography is art... shut up, and study art.... or GTFO and carry on taking snap shots and treating it as technical subject only. One or the other, but you can't turn your back on studying photography as an art form, and then pretend it's art only when it suits you.. and on your terms, depending on what you personally think is art That makes you an idiot. This is what happens though; People who never go to an art gallery, read a book on an art based subject, and couldn't name more than a couple of artists, or even photographers for that matter, suddenly have an opinion on what constitutes art. Well.. you're not qualified to do so if that describes you in any way.

I'd not considered this before, although I consider myself as much an 'arty' type* as a science type, I'm typical of the society you described. I'm happy to take the mick out of people who don't 'get' the importance of science, and to spend a lot of time explaining stuff like the ISL etc. I do struggle holding up a debate on artistic grounds.

I suppose people see it as 'elitist' because learning the arts is a luxury, whereas some scientific knowledge is a necessity. Although at secondary school level we are encouraged in the arts as much as science, it's importance is forgotten once we leave school. People spend their time being entertained without a critical thought crossing their minds. Maybe if people did continue critical thinking of the arts we wouldn't have to put up with so much crap telly. Even on a cost basis I'd rather the announcer say 'We've run out of programming for today, go read a book' than 'And now the latest from The Only Way is Essex'.

*As often seen at the Theatre as at a football match, regular gallery and museum attendee, but I wouldn't describe myself as any kind of expert, elitist or snob.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I suppose people see it as 'elitist' because learning the arts is a luxury, whereas some scientific knowledge is a necessity.

However if you actually look back through history, this is a relative recent development that happened kind of roughly only 150 years ago or less.

Da Vinci was a man of art as much as he was a man of science.

Men in the Enlightenment ages considered The Grand Tour an essential part of their education.

Even the Pre-Raphelite Brotherhood praised God through their meticulous attention to scientific details.

Science and art are pretty much useless without each other. That's the problem. However in my personal experience, people lean far too close to the science end of the scale. We are in danger of losing massive swathes of cultural knowledge and coherence in the race to know everything.

Science doesn't teach you how to be a better person, culture does. Without culture and social referencing we're all just doomed to create frankensteins for our own purposes.

 

[Phil V]

However if you actually look back through history, this is a relative recent development that happened kind of roughly only 150 years ago or less.

Da Vinci was a man of art as much as he was a man of science.

Men in the Enlightenment ages considered The Grand Tour an essential part of their education.

Even the Pre-Raphelite Brotherhood praised God through their meticulous attention to scientific details.

Science and art are pretty much useless without each other. That's the problem. However in my personal experience, people lean far too close to the science end of the scale. We are in danger of losing massive swathes of cultural knowledge and coherence in the race to know everything.

Science doesn't teach you how to be a better person, culture does. Without culture and social referencing we're all just doomed to create frankensteins for our own purposes.

I agree wholeheartedly Charlotte, but if someone like me, who does more art than the average has problems with critical artistic debate, and the average guy with a camera sees it as snobby, what can we grasp to help us back on track. Like I said, our schools and universities are trying to do their bit, but society seems to be fighting back with inverted snobbery.

When I visit a gallery, or go to see a Shakespeare play, I don't feel elitist, I feel lucky to be able to experience these things. I have brought my children up the same, however, if I mention something about it in passing the 'general view' is that it's highbrow or snooty or elitist. People are proud to be viewers of low brow TV and even high brow TV if it's nature documentaries or science. But they're a bit scared of the arts, perhaps it's because they were scared away by the critical thinking at school? They don't mind being entertained by it, so long as you don't ask them what they think.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I agree wholeheartedly Charlotte, but if someone like me, who does more art than the average has problems with critical artistic debate, and the average guy with a camera sees it as snobby, what can we grasp to help us back on track. Like I said, our schools and universities are trying to do their bit, but society seems to be fighting back with inverted snobbery.

When I visit a gallery, or go to see a Shakespeare play, I don't feel elitist, I feel lucky to be able to experience these things. I have brought my children up the same, however, if I mention something about it in passing the 'general view' is that it's highbrow or snooty or elitist. People are proud to be viewers of low brow TV and even high brow TV if it's nature documentaries or science. But they're a bit scared of the arts, perhaps it's because they were scared away by the critical thinking at school? They don't mind being entertained by it, so long as you don't ask them what they think.

I always think it's a shame when people seem afraid to think about art in the context of photography. There's such a fascinating world out there and you really can just jump right it. It doesn't matter if you get it wrong or if you don't understand it you can just have a go. It's not like science where if you get it wrong you'll set fire to the roof of the classroom (not that I did that at school in the labs or anything... promise...).

I have taken some sceptical photographer friends recently to the specific gallery within the Tate Modern that is called 'Energy and Process'. It's a set of rooms on the top floor of the gallery part. For me, it is easily the most 'difficult' gallery. It requires a great deal of mind opening to enjoy and that's kind of the point of why I take them there. It's like the bit in the Matrix... 'there is no spoon'. The gallery is all about your response to the works as much as what the artist is trying to tell you. It's like catchphrase... say what you see... and just let words, thoughts, feelings, emotions tumble out. And then you work backwards and you try to work out what in that work prompted you to have those feelings. Lastly I guess you try and apply it to your own work, although I rarely get that far! I wonder if people are scared as to what they might find inside of them. Perhaps we're too good as a society at hiding our emotions away from ourselves.

You don't have to be 'academic' to enjoy art, but equally you do have to try and enter into a dialogue with the works. I think that people too often expect the meanings to be given to them on a silver platter, or for there to be no meaning at all, and when people don't 'get' it straight away then they simply write it off as 'bad art' rather than actually a failure within themselves to communicate better with it.

 

[RedRobin]

It's not the actual going to 'cultured' events such as art galleries and theatre which makes someone highbrow or elitist but only when that person adopts a pretentious attitude about it. It's not the having of critical opinions about art either, but always down to how the individual expresses those opinions.

I think that if someone is scared of the arts it's likely to be that they don't understand or feel the emotions which art generates. Unfortunately some people, too many in my opinion, are brought up to think that all art is arty-farty gayness. The trouble is that such attitudes propagate more of the same - It also happens with the lack of school and parental discipline but that's another subject.

As someone posted earlier, the good thing about camera phones being within the reach of the masses is that it can prompt a degree of artistic awareness and creativity.

 

[RedRobin]

I always think it's a shame when people seem afraid to think about art in the context of photography.

....I agree. Photography is not only for coldly and scientifically recording things but can also be a medium for nothing other than pure art.

And, of course, it can be both.

 

[PMN]

You don't have to be 'academic' to enjoy art, but equally you do have to try and enter into a dialogue with the works. I think that people too often expect the meanings to be given to them on a silver platter, or for there to be no meaning at all, and when people don't 'get' it straight away then they simply write it off as 'bad art' rather than actually a failure within themselves to communicate better with it.

I agree to an extent but the way you're expressing this seems to imply if someone doesn't 'get' or like a piece of art then they're not trying hard enough, which simply isn't always true. There's a vast gulf between writing something off through ignorance and simply having different tastes, you don't seem to differentiate between the two and I think you really need to if you're going to put forward a balanced point of view.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I agree to an extent but the way you're expressing this seems to imply if someone doesn't 'get' or like a piece of art then they're not trying hard enough, which simply isn't always true. There's a vast gulf between writing something off through ignorance and simply having different tastes, you don't seem to differentiate between the two and I think you really need to if you're going to put forward a balanced point of view.

But to me 'taste' doesn't come into 'getting' a piece of art. You can understand a piece of art and not find it pleasant to look at.

 

[PMN]

But to me 'taste' doesn't come into 'getting' a piece of art. You can understand a piece of art and not find it pleasant to look at.

Of course you can understand it without 'liking' it, my point is that not putting in enough effort isn't the sole cause of people not 'getting' a piece of art. Not every human being is programmed to understand things on the same level. Thankfully.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Of course you can understand it without 'liking' it, my point is that not putting in enough effort isn't the sole cause of people not 'getting' a piece of art. Not every human being is programmed to understand things on the same level. Thankfully.

Go back to the earlier point about science... if you don't 'get' Newtons laws of gravity then you're probably not putting enough effort into understanding it but people wouldn't consider that strange. I appreciate that some people are better at art and some people are better at science, but if you're a moderately intelligent person then you should be able to 'get' most subjects on a basic level.

 

[PMN]

Go back to the earlier point about science... if you don't 'get' Newtons laws of gravity then you're probably not putting enough effort into understanding it but people wouldn't consider that strange.

In what possible way can comprehending a proven scientific principle be viewed in the same way as understanding someone conceptually expressing a thought, feeling or emotion through art? The technical and artistic sides are complementary but completely different in principle.

 

[Moreorless]

I agree wholeheartedly Charlotte, but if someone like me, who does more art than the average has problems with critical artistic debate, and the average guy with a camera sees it as snobby, what can we grasp to help us back on track. Like I said, our schools and universities are trying to do their bit, but society seems to be fighting back with inverted snobbery.

When I visit a gallery, or go to see a Shakespeare play, I don't feel elitist, I feel lucky to be able to experience these things. I have brought my children up the same, however, if I mention something about it in passing the 'general view' is that it's highbrow or snooty or elitist. People are proud to be viewers of low brow TV and even high brow TV if it's nature documentaries or science. But they're a bit scared of the arts, perhaps it's because they were scared away by the critical thinking at school? They don't mind being entertained by it, so long as you don't ask them what they think.

Part of the issue I'd say is that theres always going to be a high level of subjectivity about art. Holding a very critical view of a scientific viewpoint that's been objectively proven to be false is likely to entail a good deal less personal arrogance than holding a very critical view of a certain art form/style or artist.

Personally that's why I'm always always more interested in the art people love rather than the art they hate. I might dislike the music of someone like Justin Bieber but I feel no need to comment on it, I'd much rather talk about music I love like say Krautrock.