Knowledge or Chimping

[CT]

I would like to add this to my previous post. Having found out how to alter the ISO when I took this I did seriously chimp to my wife about how I have now moved my abilities a step forward. So the point is, I chimp but I learn at the same time. So to the OP I do both and look forward to more chimping because I'm learning too. If this makes sense then I'll chimp about that also.I'm chuffed with that image. I would have needed a tripod and many exposuers to get that in the old days. I took 2 of this to make sure I have something, but in fact 1 would have done.

This is a classic example. Nothing wrong with being pleased with the image, but there's a powerful orange cast from the tungsten lighting and the highlights are clearly blown around the upper chest areas of the mannequins. In those old days you'd have had to either buy film for tungsten exposure, or take the shot with daylight film and a Wratten blue filter to correct the white balance.

You had a simple solution with your DSLR by setting the wb correctly. It's far from a particularly bad shot and you may even prefer the orange cast, but the fact is that technically, it's not right and there was an easy solution. Ignoring the rules is fine, but not knowing about the rules is a different matter.

Don't misunderstand me please, but your whole tone in posting this is that your 'suck it and see' approach has worked for you, when based on this example, I'm sorry, but it hasn't.

 

[Trailertrash]

Actually CT the whole point is, its another step in the right direction. Now that I know what one function does I can move on to another and learn a bit more. Eventually I'll get there. That particular exercise was about the ISO settings, which I now understand. So next, I'll get to grips with Histrograms.
Its all about learning.

 

[pxl8]

Okay, 1.4 is the commonly used shortened version of the square root of 2.

Yes it has real relevance when designing a lens and you can use it to get an approximation of a full f stop from another, but it isn't too difficult to learn the basic numbers from f1 to f64 really.

I guess it is something to do with the fact that 1.4 is the square root of 2 to 1 decimal place and if I remember correctly, light and distance works on the inverse square law for point source lighting.

Taking these answers to the original thread adds to the discussion and understanding of the basics of light and exposure. Simply memorising the numbers from f/1 to f/64 doesn't.

 

[CT]

Actually CT the whole point is, its another step in the right direction. Now that I know what one function does I can move on to another and learn a bit more. Eventually I'll get there. That particular exercise was about the ISO settings, which I now understand. So next, I'll get to grips with Histrograms.
Its all about learning.

Fair does.

 

[theMusicMan]

Its got to be quite complex. Only the OP and the selected experts can reply.

Very easy to set up such access privileges using vBulletin software Pete. Not so easy to manage such a process though, and is one I feel would undermine the whole ethos of what I understood to be tP.

There are ways to accommodate subject matter experts on fora, but IMHO the one being touted now is not the best way to accomplish this and could soon lead to arguments and elitism.

 

[EdBray]

Taking these answers to the original thread adds to the discussion and understanding of the basics of light and exposure. Simply memorising the numbers from f/1 to f/64 doesn't.

Maybe not, but the original poster wanted to know what dropping the aperture one stop down from another meant and gave examples neither of which were correct.

You can get too technical too!

 

[CT]

There are ways to accommodate subject matter experts on fora, but IMHO the one being touted now is not the best way to accomplish this and could soon lead to arguments and elitism.

I didn't know I was touting - it's just an idea. Tell us how you'd do it then.

 

[Emita]

If I am honest, when I first got into Photography seriously a few years ago I did chimp around. And I still do now, and I don't see it as a bad thing.

I believe that if you knew everything about your Camera and how to use it, it wouldn't automatically make you an amazing Photographer. As creativeness and vision is what obtains that, understanding the appartus is only a small step to it. Sometimes I think learning things the wrong way will help you and can be the right way in the long run. It's better to know the wrongs and the mistakes rather than what you should be doing right in the first place, it can even make you more creative and take a different perspective on things.

I know only of the basics, that is all I need to know unless something was mechanically at fault with my Camera. As Fabs said, we are blessed with technology which ehnaces our learning dramatically and we know where to not fault again straight away. Not in a week or so when the Film is processed.

 

[markta]

Is there a tutorial on this subject then, written by an expert, that a newbie could refer to? If so, I guess it'd need to be easily accessed.

This may save wrong figures being quoted etc. and prevent confusion as it must be daunting enough buying your first DSLR. I know it was for me, without terminology like "stopping down" coming into the fore.

 

[CT]

Is there a tutorial on this subject then, written by an expert, that a newbie could refer to? If so, I guess it'd need to be easily accessed.

This may save wrong figures being quoted etc. and prevent confusion as it must be daunting enough buying your first DSLR. I know it was for me, without terminology like "stopping down" coming into the fore.

I say 'stopping down' or 'opening up' which instantly shows whether you mean bigger or smaller aperture without having to explain that the bigger f number is the smaller aperture (and vice versa) that's where a lot of the confusion comes from.

The term 'stops' comes from the very earliest cameras long before diaphragms were invented. They regulated the amount of light entering the camera by simply sliding wood or metal plates into a light trapped slot behind the lens. They had several of these all with different sized holes, and they literally thought of it as 'stopping' or admitting light.

The term f stops is derived from that and is widely used to this day.

 

[Albedo]

Personally, I started reading about photography long before I touched a DSLR. It was only because I had become fascinated by the relationships between f stops and shutter speeds (for example) that I actually went ahead and forked out for the camera. Having said that, I am far from an expert - although I think I would know how to shoot in most situations: using ISO... knowing at what shutter speed I can hand-hold... knowing how to get a shallower DoF to isolate a figure... knowing when to bump up ISO or widen aperture (depending on the effect I am after).

I have mixed feelings about an "Ask the Experts" subforum. Maybe an "Ask a Question" forum would be better. The disadvantage of asking experts is that, whilst the information might be correct, there is a lot to be gained from explaining WHY it is correct. I have learned more on this forum from people debating a point than from individual posts. There are not many people who would be so arrogant to argue they are correct even in the face of evidence. And the explanation process (demonstrating why they are wrong) can be valuable education to someone else.

Two minor points: it is always worth saying thank you if someone gives advice (otherwise why should they?) And offering a comment of "great!" is also generally unhelpful. Why is it great? How could it be better? A bit more analysis wouldn't go amiss!

 

[Dangermouse]

My program mode is set to iso 200 f9 and i just adjust from there and every shot is a good one (not a geddy shot ) but a good un

 

[EdinburghGary]

Well.....I chimp. I like the instant feedback, a lot. I also struggle (a lot), to know if...

A: I am using the right settings (I think I am)

B: I have a good compisition (I struggle a HELL of a lot here)

and

C: Is the light good enough bang: :bang: :bang

D: Quality Control, after the event. Which photos work, which dont. Its easy to get lost, and forget simple things such as foregroung lighting, and make other mistakes.

I am 100% sure on one thing though, i have a great hunger, desire to learn - and then master. I will ask, ask and ask until I am blue in the face. I will read guides and books, and I will try my hardest to remember all the bits of info, in the hope, that one day, it will all fall into place, and it will just click.

With regards to giving advice, I simply tell people how I might go about a particular problem, without pretending to be an expert.

 

[theMusicMan]

I didn't know I was touting - it's just an idea. Tell us how you'd do it then.

Sure CT, touting probably not the best choice of word to use there, I agree. Sorry.

As for how I'd do it, well... I don't have the magical answer here I'm afraid, but what I was alluding to that I felt wouldn't necessarily be the best approach would be to set up a forum where only the OP and select experts could reply. This I feel would be prone to the issues I mentioned.

What I have seen on other forums where this type of support and expertise could help the membership, and where there are recognised experts, is that their expertise is acknowledged by perhaps an indication of some form of 'Mentor' rank in their profile - allowing the membership to see they are subject matter experts. Often, these people are nominated by members and then perhaps ultimately decided upon by the owners/team of the forum itself. I guess there are several methods of selection process here, the best ones for tP I am sure you guys - as the management team - would be able to fathom out.

I don't think any restrictions should be placed on any person being able to provide an answer, but that given time, and the right process, the 'Mentor' approach could yield positive results... especially if the membership are given the opportunity to input into the process per sê.

 

[Daysleeper40]

Where do you stand, are you photographically aware? Are you a chimp? or do you not care?

To answer the original question:

a) I am very new to photography and am doing my best to learn. I'm more "photographically aware" than I was a couple of months ago but clearly still have a lot to learn.
b) I do "chimp" (if I have understood the term correctly... although I dont actually make chimp noises as far as I'm aware!) but I see it as a way of learning and becoming more photographically aware. I'm happy to read a book and study theory but sometimes trial and error is the best way of getting to grips with a subject IMO...

I can see why some have taken issue with this thread - the tone does suggest that if you "chimp" then you have no desire to learn and progress. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone and we all have to start somewhere - the learning process will be different for everyone.

 

[Chappers]

To answer EdBrays question

Yes I am Photographically aware, like him I grew up on manual cameras, and that teaches you a lot. I've also had a lot of experience in the industry over the years. so yes I know MY stuff. but I don't know everything

Do I Chimp. Hell yes. Check the Histogram, exposure data and that the image has been recorded. . Don't make Chimp noises, but make others if the shot hasn't worked out

 

[48thEagle]

I have no idea of the technicalities of photography, and the various relationships within.

My area of interest is aviation, and a burst mode is my friend, I have taken many pics, with a 'hit and hope' mentality behind it, got some I like, many I know would encourage C&C.

If anyone knows a definitive dummies guide to the photographic relationships, i.e. ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed etc, then please could you pass it on?

 

[markta]

I have no idea of the technicalities of photography, and the various relationships within.

My area of interest is aviation, and a burst mode is my friend, I have taken many pics, with a 'hit and hope' mentality behind it, got some I like, many I know would encourage C&C.

If anyone knows a definitive dummies guide to the photographic relationships, i.e. ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed etc, then please could you pass it on?

I believe "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson covers it IIRC, but haven't read the book for ages.

 

[whiteflyer]

I believe "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson covers it IIRC, but haven't read the book for ages.

A must have for anyone looking to learn about Exposure, and well worth reading more than once.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I think EdBay raises a interesting and important point, we should aim to keep the bar high, … I mean that thread was rather shockingly inaccurate for much of the way down wasn’t it, thankfully saved by a few good members at the end.

I don’t think an experts forum would work as nicely as we’d wish though, I can see it developing into either a ego fest or an over questioned desert of exhausted experts. Overall not conclusive I feel to the friendly manner in which we usually deal with these repeated basic questions, which is mostly quite well I think, although we do seemed to have gotten a little lose recently .
Selfishly I think Id miss out too, some times the most basic of original questions can develop into the most interesting of threads, simply because of the misinterpretations or again inaccuracies being corrected. If they’d been posted in an experts forum then those conversations will never take place… like the few f22/wide against dof discussions we’ve had recently.
In affect, I fear it would dilute the general TP photographic enthusiasm and reduce the those smaller photographic details of learning that helps us all; the new users, and the long term users like me.

I do think we should address this hiccup and find a cool answer that works in the TP way we all love so much. I notice a few members have also mentioned the overzealous ‘great shot’ comments, which I feel we can link into this.

For an idea; I suggest the experts whip us into shape by leading by example more often, that'll soon sort out the ranks...


.

 

[Yantorsen]

I know what I'm doing enough to get a the photos I want, and I understand most the technical side, but despite this I still go around in auto unless I'm specifcaly wanted a longer/shorter exposure, and I usually keep the ISO at 200 unless it need to be higher or lower because of lighting.

I'll also manually change the F-Ratio if I'm doing macro shots, but don't bother if I'm not, because it doesn't make much difference with my kit.

Also I always use auto-focus unless doing macro, it's just easier and works perfectly well.

 

[markta]

I think EdBay raises a interesting and important point, we should aim to keep the bar high, … I mean that thread was rather shockingly inaccurate for much of the way down wasn’t it, thankfully saved by a few good members at the end.

I don’t think an experts forum would work as nicely as we’d wish though, I can see it developing into either a ego fest or an over questioned desert of exhausted experts. Overall not conclusive I feel to the friendly manner in which we usually deal with these repeated basic questions, which is mostly quite well I think, although we do seemed to have gotten a little lose recently .
Selfishly I think Id miss out too, some times the most basic of original questions can develop into the most interesting of threads, simply because of the misinterpretations or again inaccuracies being corrected. If they’d been posted in an experts forum then those conversations will never take place… like the few f22/wide against dof discussions we’ve had recently.
In affect, I fear it would dilute the general TP photographic enthusiasm and reduce the those smaller photographic details of learning that helps us all; the new users, and the long term users like me.

I do think we should address this hiccup and find a cool answer that works in the TP way we all love so much. I notice a few members have also mentioned the overzealous ‘great shot’ comments, which I feel we can link into this.

For an idea; I suggest the experts whip us into shape by leading by example more often, that'll soon sort out the ranks...


.

Just my 2p worth...I agree it would encourage elitism, the experts would probably clash due to overinflated egos (it happens at or near the top of any profession).

IMHO, all that is needed is perhaps a tutorial, written by an expert on the f-stops of lenses and their correlation to shutter speed and ISO, pretty much like "Understanding Exposure" lays it out, posted in tutorials. Also, again IMHO, the forum is crying out for a beginners section, with perhaps ISO, f-stops, shutter speed correlation and other such tutorials posted as a sticky...

When a newbie comes to ask this regularly asked question, then whoever replies, can post a link to that tutorial, which will save explaining it all again and also keep the information consistent. I realise that there won't be as much for people to reply to, still loads though, but it will prevent confusion to a beginner who already has a lot to take in, as DSLRS (to get the most out of them) is a very large learning curve.

There could then perhaps be a message to ask that the forum author or perhaps someone who he/she appoints only can reply, and state the reasons why. I guess you could allow an original post, and from post number 2 onwards, block any replies except those from the author and appointed person and the OP (if that's at all possible).

If the newbie then asks questions based on that, then perhaps the author of the tutorial can reply (perhaps someone like Cedric (CT).

No pressure eh

On a side issue, posting loads of exclamation marks (verging on capitals) etc. really doesn't help in encouraging people to post, so perhaps more use of emoticons should be encouraged as I've said previously, and/or use tact more openly.

We're all here to learn. I for one do understand the correlation between stops etc. but don't know everything and I've found this forum invaluable in increasing my knowledge

Hope this helps, or perhaps an idea can follow on from this

 

[kiasdad]

I like to think I know my way around a camera and how to get the result I want - sometimes.
Knowing the relationships between shutterspeed, aperture, ISO setting (or film speed), focal length, depth of field etc is very important. For some. I'm interested in the technicalities, others aren't or are intimidated by them.

I was very lucky to have a couple of very good photography teachers, who took the subject right down to first principles, so I had a pretty solid foundation to build from. The problem with most digital cameras is that they are far too complicated for their own good. As a consequence, it's difficult to find the things that are important, as they are often hidden under various menus or multi-function buttons. So they are not intuitive to use.

As far as chimping is concerned, I do - mainly to check composition (this is important when using a digital rangefinder, as the framelines aren't as accurate as a reflex finder), or to check the exposure to make sure the highlights aren't clipped.

I think it's a shame that some people on this thread take the mickey out of chimping. What's the difference between this and someone using polaroid film on MF or LF to check exposure, lighting, composition etc, or a modern-day professional 'chimping' shots on Mac with a camera tethered to it?

 

[realspeed]

Surely the end result is all that matters no matter how one got there. If taking photos as a profession then I would agree that knowing the ins and outs of settings-camera use- lighting- etc etc is really a must know. However there are a lot of us that have a camera just record places-people-events and such like and as the photos taken are for personal pleasure, quality and results arn't always of prime importance.

Realspeed

 

[EdBray]

I think it's a shame that some people on this thread take the mickey out of chimping. What's the difference between this and someone using polaroid film on MF or LF to check exposure, lighting, composition etc, or a modern-day professional 'chimping' shots on Mac with a camera tethered to it?

i think you would find that most professionals using a polariod either on medium format or large format will be using it to check the lighting ratios/contrast and not the exposure which for poloroids are notoriously poor. That is why most professionals will rely on a quality exposure meter that they are fully confident in. They will also have previously decided exactly how they want the image to come out and will have set the controls and lighting to acheive the image they want. The poloroid (if used) will be a belt and braces check before shooting actually commences. They may well take hundreds of images depending on the type of image (fashion, sports etc) but again this is to ensure that they have a complete image which meets all the requirements of the commission.

I see no harm in anyone using their camera however they want if it makes them happy and they are happy with their end results, and as I have said previously, using the preview function either for evaluation or to learn how the various camera controls work in conjunction with each other is a valuable learning tool and makes life a lot easier and more condusive to quicker learning than film used to be. This can be a good thing.

I would not pretend that I do not use the preview screen for evaluation even after I have decided how I want the image to look and setting all the controls to acheive that result either in manual mode or aperture priority (I rarely use shutter priority and I have never used a program mode). I also use AF as standard although have no problem reverting to MF when the need arises.

I do feel that the Digital format whilst offering the opportunity for people to learn about photography in an easier and cheaper way than film formats has also diluted the need to learn as most of the decisions can be set by the cameras software and a reasonable image will often be captured.

If you use an average shutter speed, with an average f number, based on an average meter reading, at an average ISO setting utilising auto white balance of the most fantastic subject it is more than likely you will end up with an average image, whereas if you can select the correct aperture and shutter speed combination whilst using the best ISO to give the result you require after visualising how you want the image to look and what you want the dynamic range of the sensor (or film latitude) to cover then it is likely that your image will be better than average and if not then it will at least be different to that taken by someone else from the same position.

One of these examples would be taken by a photographer, the other by a person with a camera.

 

[EdBray]

Surely the end result is all that matters no matter how one got there. If taking photos as a profession then I would agree that knowing the ins and outs of settings-camera use- lighting- etc etc is really a must know. However there are a lot of us that have a camera just record places-people-events and such like and as the photos taken are for personal pleasure, quality and results aren't always of prime importance.

Realspeed

I agree that if you are happy with the end result of your images then that is the most important thing, as one of the best things about a photographic image is that it often evokes a memory regardless of the quality of the image.

I was once asked to give some advice to a colleague who whilst having an SLR camera and a zoom lens did not know how to use it and he was unhappy with most of his images which were to be honest pretty poor.

I first explained about exposure (centre weighted meters only in those days no multi-matrix metering then) and told him about how the cameras meter was stupid and that it was unaware of what you were pointing it at. I told him that the meter was balanced to 18% grey (mid grey) and that whatever you pointed the camera at it assumed that it was looking at a grey subject hence if you pointed it at a white wall it said that's a very bright grey and reduced the exposure (giving underexposed poor images) and if you pointed it at a dark wall then the meter would think it was a very dark grey, overexpose the image again giving poor results. I then told him to look for things that were the same tone (not colour) as mid grey (green grass, blue sky, light tarmac etc) meter from that and then set the controls and take the image.

I then gave him a quick run through on composition, the rule of thirds and leading lines and changes in tone and colour. probably took a half hour at most to go through it all whilst ensuring that at each stage he understood what I was saying.

We then went through his album of photographs one by one, and I explained where I felt he had gone wrong and could have improved things. Out of a couple of hundred photographs there were probably 2 or 3 that could be classed as good to someone from outside of his family, but, we came across one photograph of a washed out sky with a couple of small dots in it. "Okay" I asked, "What can you tell me about this?" his face lit up and he said, "that's the only time I have ever seen Eagles flying." To be honest, the picture was absolutely pants, had no photographic merit whatsoever, you could not even identify that the dots were birds let alone Eagles, but as a reminder for his memory that photograph was priceless.

I do agree that not all photographs have to have photographic merit and that to invoke a memory almost anything will suffice if the memory is strong enough, but for those of us who are without that memory then in order for that image to be appreciated it has to have some photographic merit.

Oh, and from that day forward the chap started to take some outstanding images and his enjoyment of seeing them printed increased dramatically.

 

[kiasdad]

Surely the end result is all that matters no matter how one got there. If taking photos as a profession then I would agree that knowing the ins and outs of settings-camera use- lighting- etc etc is really a must know. However there are a lot of us that have a camera just record places-people-events and such like and as the photos taken are for personal pleasure, quality and results arn't always of prime importance.

Realspeed

Realspeed,

I agree with you. I happen to like knowing about this stuff and applying it. That doesn't stop me bunging the camera into 'program' mode when circumstances dictate.
If the end result really matters though, whether you are an amateur or pro, then knowing how to arrive at it and taking control of the situation is surely better than taking pot luck? By this I mean:

• 
  if a scene is likely to have overblown highlights - applying exposure compensation to allow for it;

• 
  choosing the right aperture to throw a background out of focus to emphasis the main subject

• 
  choosing the right shutter speed to freeze motion or blur it

Having the knowledge is just a means to an end. Having it gives the photographer a huge amount of creative freedom.

 

[malla1962]

I know how to use my camera but do I chimp? yes I do but not all the time. if I am doing a powerboat doing best part of 100mph @1/80th I want to see if it is sharp or total pants. I see nothing wrong with chimping. Even the pros chimp.

 

[EdBray]

I know how to use my camera but do I chimp? yes I do but not all the time. if I am doing a powerboat doing best part of 100mph @1/80th I want to see if it is sharp or total pants. I see nothing wrong with chimping. Even the pros chimp.

Just curious, but how many other shots have you missed whilst looking at your image? And if it is unsharp, how do you propose retaking it? surely once it's gone it's gone.

I can understand someone in this position taking many hundreds of shots as they need to be certain that they have what is required but then ask yourself what do you think photographers did before digital?

When someone takes many hundreds of shots at a wedding, well to be honest I think that is just ridiculous, why do they? because they can! Does that make them a good photographer, probably not! I would doubt that it instills confidence in their ability either, but that is just how I would perceive it if someone spent many hours at a wedding to ensure they got enough decent shots for an album.

Good job they aren't using a Hassie that would be dozens of rolls of film and the resultant costs and wastage.

Giving someone a camera does not make them a photographer, it just makes them a person with a camera.

Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave.

 

[jennyandernie]

When I first got serious about photography; a very long time ago; you had to take a light reading, decide on suitable aperture and shutter settings, set the camera, focus the camera and compose your shot before taking. You had by that time thought a lot about the shot.

When I progressed to an SLR which had through the lens metering the quality of my photographs actually got worse because I tended to take a photograph without thinking as much about the shot; just point and click.

Now with digital I use both; some times it is point and click; other times I put a lot of thought into the shot. However my early "training" has not left me and I still set the camera manually for anything special.

 

[jpwone]

I chimp all the time when shooting sports. I'll regularly check the histogram and whenever there is a break I will quickly review images and delete the obviously out of focus. Spray and pray - never. A typical soccer match I will take between 800 and 1200 images. All in manual and generally all exposed correctly. Catching the peak moment in action photography demands a lot of a camera and we have the tools now to get a series of shots covering a key moment. Selection of the good ones and discarding the others is a chore but a necessary part of the process when shooting sports.

Shooting events it largely depends upon the event but as an example at a recent 50th held in a marquee at night and lit only by the DJ's lights I shot about 800 images over a 6 hour period. You would not have done this with film but with digital I will and do. I can shoot a series of 'safe' shots with the flash dominating the lighting and know that I will have the subject correctly exposed. I can then shoot some riskier shots, dragging the shutter to retain the ambient and use a tad of fill flash. I can also look for opportunities to shoot ambient only and position myself accordingly. For group shots I will also take multiple shots to minimise the 'eyes closed, face pulling, not looking my way' lost shots. I will also bracket exposure, focus and depth of field on occasions to capture multiple 'looks' of the same scene.

Digital has allowed us to change our working method and allow us to take a few more risks with our photography. I nearly always look for the safe shot and then once I am happy I have that in the bag go for the riskier more creative shot. It is a very different way of thinking to the traditional 'pose and expose' but the freedom it gives me creates opportunities to do some of my best work.

So, just because the photographer is working his/her butt off and actually taking pictures don't assume that it is a 'pray and spray' merchant. It could be that he/she actually really does know what he/she is doing and is striving to create a range of superb images for his/her client.

John

 

[EdBray]

So, just because the photographer is working his/her butt off and actually taking pictures don't assume that it is a 'pray and spray' merchant. It could be that he/she actually really does know what he/she is doing and is striving to create a range of superb images for his/her client.

John

Fair comment, although I suspect you are the exception rather than the rule.

There have been threads on here and other forums where someone has had a digital camera for a few weeks/months and they have just undertaken their first wedding and shot hundreds of images. Then they add some to show and to be honest most of them are pants!

 

[CopeImages]

It's been a bug-bear of mine for 2 or 3 years but it won't go away I assure you....

It's also the exact same discussion me and my mate had whilst we were cowering in the van at 0645 this morning waiting for the sleet to stop before we went out and filmed Red Deer stags.

The advent of cheaper DSLR's does mean that there's more of them out there than TV licenses etc. It's the new "great British hobby".

Great for the camera and ancillary supplies manufacturers but perhaps not great for the "profession" of photography.

Regardless of what people say, it (the profession) has been devalued by the advent of everyone having a DSLR.

Images are an easily obtainable (and almost throw-away) commodity now. It's one of the reasons I gave up my motorsport career.

I got tired of standing next to people who sounded like they had a gattling gun rather than a camera and of magazines using images that were quite frankly, shoddy (in terms of technical quality). Why should I try and be "professional” at what I did when those individuals who didn't have a clue about composition, what their camera was doing, how it could work for them etc just rattled off as many frames as their camera would handle and then went home and trawled through 20 shots of a segment of action and picked one frame out and sent it to a mag (and yet, neither him or the mag editor spotted the bluddy great white ambulance in the background for instance)? Where's the profession and "skill" in that????

From the "new breed" there are some good photographers out there, there are some keen learners out there, and there are some damn decent people out there (many of whom appear to be on TP I hasten to add), but.............

there are also some complete muppets who don't have a clue and show you shots that they think are the danglies that if you really spoke your mind, they'd probably never pick up a camera again. My mate from this morning teaches photography so he sees such individuals attending his 10 week ("beginners") course and then, what can only be described as, "charging out there", and setting up as a photographic studio or such like when he knows they’re no where near knowing what their camera is doing let alone having a grasp of the fundamentals of composition through the viewfinder, not manufactured in Photoshop later.

We used the analogy this morning, the building trade has cowboys..................and they get labeled as such....The photography trade has similar people but the trade just accepts them yet gets devalued as a whole.

As my signature says, I speak my mind and that what it's telling me. I've had a camera in my hand for nigh-on 30 years so I do have an inkling of what's it about, but I'm not akin to turning down someone else's experience or too arrogant to acknowledge their experience...Also if someone’s keen I’ll help them where I can and impart some of my learnings, but on the other hand if they’re in my face and other people’s arrogantly churning out cr@p, I’ll gladly put them straight on a few things.

The enthusiasm I see on TP is heartening as is the apparent willingness to learn. It’s a great environment to share knowledge and learn from. Just don’t sprint before you can crawl for the sake of our “profession”.

I know I’ll probably get flamed but I am saying what is obviously a bit if a bug-bear to the “older schoolers” I meet who do take a pride in what they produce, and how they produced it but perhaps aren’t quite as vocal in stating it.

Regards, Guy

 

[Deleted member 3428]

Only a fool doesn't chimp, it a natural behaviour and should go hand in hand with digital photography.

 

[jpwone]

I must admit to getting frustrated to the point of despair at times at the number of people with very basic questions (there are some examples currently running in the forum) who have slapped up a web site and are prepared to undertake professional work. I turn work down were I feel the client would be better served using some one else. I had shot a good number of events in all sorts of locations and lighting conditions before I undertook my first wedding and even now I will spend a significant amount of time with the client and preparing for a 'one off' event. For a wedding I will visit the venues, speak to all concerned, identify any restrictions on movement, flash usage and location and take test shots if necessary. My preference is not to shoot weddings but I can and will do when it feels right and I believe I am the right person for that client.

To me reading the light should be second nature before you even raise the camera to your eye as a professional. I can look at a scene and make decisions with respect to white balance, ambient lighting, artificial light, exposure constraints (dynamic range), aperture and shutter speed. I will then adjust using the meter as a guide but will be aware of the metering mode I have chosen and will decide to under or over expose relative to the meter as I think is required. Experience has taught me that the meter is a guide and further experience has taught me how to compensate to correctly expose depending upon the lighting and image I wish to create. I will change the composition to change the emphasis of lighting elements and perhaps bring the whole within the dynamic range of the camera. I do wonder how many of this fresh generation of photographers really have the skills they purport to have.

The shame of it is I believe it is about to get far worse than better. We are about to see a significant number of people with redundancy payments fresh in their pockets set themselves up as photographers. They will shoot for credits (when my kids start eating credits I'll shoot for them), shoot for exposure, give away rights, fail to understand or even be aware of their responsibilities, be uninsured and the majority will in the end fail. Tough times are ahead for pro photography.

Having said all that I am tempted to step back and start offering training. It does look like it could be a nice growth area for the next few years

John

 

[mr_pants]

When someone takes many hundreds of shots at a wedding, well to be honest I think that is just ridiculous, why do they? because they can! Does that make them a good photographer, probably not! I would doubt that it instills confidence in their ability either, but that is just how I would perceive it if someone spent many hours at a wedding to ensure they got enough decent shots for an album.

I remember reading a thread on another forum, where a poster mentioned that he would be using a film body as his back-up. It caused quite a bit of spluttering among those bragging about how many thousands of shots they took at a wedding.

 

[jpwone]

At the end of the day I would adjust my work method to suit the medium and and equipment I had. If I was shooting film then I would 'pose and expose' and perhaps test the boundaries for the last two frames of any roll. So, yes I would shoot less if using film but I really don't think frame count is a good measure of a photographers skill regardless of the medium used. A good clay pigeon shooter may hit 80 out of 100 clays, a poor shooter may hit 10 out of 100. They have used the same number of shots but one has a far better result than the other with far more consistency.

I think you have to look at the end result to judge a photographers work and the chances are that the photographer that knows how to use his/her equipment fully and properly will get a good image far more often than someone 'praying and spraying'. The good photographer can put the 'safe' image away and then concentrate on the art of photography and if that means taking 20 images for every 1 finally used then so be it. If the end result is an image that will satisfy the client and the photographer and stands as a image in its own right then surely the fact that it took 20 images to create it is irrelevant.

John

 

[jpwone]

Just as an example of the kind of risk taking I am talking about that brings out real creativity I saw an image of a wedding created by Jeff Ascough. The image was taken from a balcony and was of the bride stepping from the wedding car to enter the church and looking upwards as she stepped from the car. The image was stunning but what struck me was the creativity to see the image and the preparedness to take the risk to get the shot. The safe shot would have been to stand on the steps and then get a number of shots of the bride entering the church. Tried and tested and pretty much guaranteed to work but he chose not to do that and go for an image that he would have one chance of getting. If he had failed there would be no images of the bride entering the church but if he succeeded then he would have a unique image.

Would I have risked it? Probably not. Would I have even seen it? Probably not!

I can only assume that Jeff Ascough would have some sort of backup shot in mind when he took the risk and when he took the shot probably rattled off 5 or 6 to have a choice of moments in time for the final selection. This is why I think digital has opened a new way of working to wedding and event photographers. You can take chances and take shots that you know may not be used but if you get the timing and composition right you will have a superb shot.

Anybody who shoots multiple shots hoping to get the exposure right has missed a step in the learning and creative process which if they only realised it is actually stopping them from taking the next step towards being the photographer that they really want to be.

John

 

[subseasniper]

Just to throw in my tuppence worth. I think this is one of the only disadvantages about digital, the lack of cost when taking a picture (beyond the initial cost of the camera) encourages people to take hundreds of shots. To me this is the total antithesis of creative image making. Its like giving a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters, sooner or later they will create something of merit by accident. So it is with the scattergun approach to photography, you see people walking about with little thought being given to intended audience or what the intention is behind the image. They take hundreds of images from different angles, hoping for something decent.

The sad thing is when something decent is obtained the photographer often credits themselves with some creative spark when really it is just an accident, a lucky juxtaposition of elements. This can be a very dangerous road for photographers to walk on.

I am very much of the less is more school. I think before taking a picture, try my best to control the elements and arrange them. I will not for a second pretend I am hugely competent at this but to me the whole point of photography is to go on a journey of understanding and appreciation for scenes that inspire us.

This sounds kind of corny but I firmly believe it is true. I have loads of photography monographs and love the books containing contact prints. You see how a picture is slowly built up over (relatively) few exposures. To me, these contact prints let us see something of genius at work. Check out Cartier-Bressons books for a prime example. Just absolutely awe inspiring.

Work created by an act of volition and not accident is the only way forward. Anybody who thinks taking a thousand pictures and having five or six keepers makes them a decent photographer is totally deluded.

As for chimping, why not. I often look at my lcd for exposure feedback. I am sure that if Bresson or Frank worked in digital they would be doing the same.

Digital photography is rapidly coming of age and we are now on the cusp of the Aldous Huxley bit.

These are exciting times people, exciting times.

 

[jpwone]

subseasniper, I totally agree with you if you are for example shooting landscape or architectural photography. I shoot a reasonable amount of architecture and have had a busy day when I create 5 images. A single image on a typical project can take a hour or more to plan before I have even set a camera up never mind taking a picture. A day of photography can require a day of planning and site visits to ensure I fully understand the client brief and can create an image that reflects that brief.

Event photography is a different beast. The planning and if necessary the site visits should still be part of the process but on the day of the event you have a relatively fast moving fluid scene which does not allow for the careful positioning of all elements of the composition. Sometimes you just have to compose and shoot and know that you may have missed the moment or captured it.

I absolutely agree that anyone doing an event and shooting a thousand images and having five or six keepers is deluding themselves and unfortunately also deluding their client. Without the basic skills that ensure that the 1000 images are exposed as they expected, focused where they wanted, have a DOF that they planned and are composed by the careful selection of lens length, height, distance from subject, angle of shot and inclusion/exclusion of objects that enhance/detract from the image is not planning their shots or responding properly to what is happening in the scene that is unfolding.

As an example, at a recent event a light was at head height and shining into a group of dancers. I realised that the subject of the event was backlit by this light and would stand out from the other dancers when directly under another light and looking upward which would light their face. To get the shot required being in the right place, selecting a focal length etc. In the end I had to take about ten shots (without interrupting the dancing or directing the subject) before I was satisfied that I had captured the shot I had envisioned. In this example all the requirements for planning a shot are met but to get the shot required that I take multiple shots. Does that detract from the shot or me as a photographer? In these circumstances I think it demonstrates the point that taking a number of shots to get one you will use is not necessarily a lack of skill but perhaps the nature of the type of photography being done. She loved the image by the way

John