So...How Did You Learn Photography?

Started with a box brownie
Then a Halina 35x with rangfinder attachment and separate light meter to set focus and exposure.
This was over 30 years ago and the principles I learnt there still apply to day and you just keep learning by reading and doing, All the time.
 
I'm completely self taught :). When I was growing up my father always had film SLR's although I never considered him particularly "into" photography. I often got told off for fiddling with his camera ;) I remember being fascinated with the intricacies of the mechanisms that made it work :shrug:. I think that kind of stuck with me as I've always owned some sort of camera or another all through my life. My first SLR was a Praktika fully manual film camera. It was only a couple of years ago that I actually bought my first digital SLR though, a 400D. From there my learning curve has been vertical! I've learned so much from being a member here and from various magazines and books. I've progressed to two bodies, a 30D and 5D, and a compliment of lenses. For me I believe photography is one of those things that you can never say you've learned it all. There's always something new to challenge you.
 
I learnt the same way as a lot of other people on here seem to have - a mixture of trial and error, the Internet and books!

My biggest problem is the creativity side, I'm pretty good with technical knowledge, but can I translate that into a great image?! rarely.
 
kh_42 said:
My biggest problem is the creativity side, I'm pretty good with technical knowledge, but can I translate that into a great image?! rarely.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that is totally honest, but you say what I was trying to get over - the technical side is important, but the creative bit must be included, and a good eye is a must - just looking at life around you and either other people photos or your own will help keep a good eye 'in shape'
 
I tried the going out and trial and error, but as someone said if you dont know what problem you are looking for in your photos you dont know how to fix it.

To help me understand the relationships between aperture, ISO and exposure im going to sit down with a pen and paper and start writing out everything I read, helps me learn quicker, and then carry the little notepad around with me.

Also I must say that reading the manua for the camera is a massive help.. .. Ive had my camera about 15 months now, and even today I cracked out the manual and went through some of the settings again.
 
Oh I would also highly recommend:

Understanding Exposure - Bryan Peterson

A very good read.
 
DiddyDave said:
I'm with CT too (in fact all of us older ones it seems!)

...

Carts & horses indeed!
Click to expand...

:D

Even ISO changes didn't really come into my early shooting. You stuck a 200 film in and that was it for 36 shots, shutter and aperture only, full manual, (auto what!?) ...took me a few months of poor exposures before I even tried iso 400 film. :lol:

--

I too learned from trail and error, a Zenit SLR of some sort around 13 years, full manual, but it did have a light meter, classy stuff for a budget camera, automatic stuff was for the comic books. Although I remember my first full auto Nikon many years later (still on film of course)...which blew my mind at the time.

I think those early days with B&W film, the Zenit and the darkroom under the stairs which followed....endless shots of friesian cows.... me playing with my equipment, reading all I could, testing the arts of exposure, on the negative and then again in the darkroom, hours and hours of timings and exposing things to light, really helped to add roots to understanding that photography is all about recording light correctly....or for best and full effect if you like.

I don't see my modern fully auto all the bells and whistles DSLR as any different to my Zenit ...its exactly the same tool, but now with addons... Well that and better glass, more flexibility, high speed, Oh, and ISO changes. :woot:


Saying all that, I don't actually feel I know that much at all concerning the deeper arts of photography. ... although this place has gone a long way to filling that void.
 
Well im grinding away with my books and manual out and google open infront of me.... looking through one page: http://kenrockwell.com/tech/shutteraperture.htm Helpful stuff but then at the bottom he says:

"Summary

That's it. I have no idea why people make this so complicated. It has very little to do with photography. If you want to spend more time on this any book on basic photography covers it."

Complete misdirection and misunderstanding?!
 
Nice answers...to make a point, I posted this purely out of curiosity, and to get an interesting thread going, not because I wished insight on how to learn myself... I already have that in hand after 8 years with a camera ;) although, only recently am I really working on fully understanding the keys to getting accurate exposures.

I have to say, I too have avoided using software because it does feel like a cheat, the same as using any automatic mode on my camera always felt like a cheat. I want what I show to be my work and my work alone. I remember arguing with my ex about this (he does photography and is the one who got me into it really, altho I did it as a child). I feel that by the time some people have done all their dabbling in cs3 etc, the photo contains no photography skill, but rather the skill of being able to use a computer programme to turn rubbish into wonder. This might be a controversial view, but I believe that unless someone is aiming for something composite etc, the photos should be as pure as possible.

I don't consider it true photography or a true art if someone goes out, gets a mediocre shot and thinks 'oh well, I can sort that out in cs3' etc. It should be right to begin with, and the editing should just be an extra to tweak. I have seen some fantastic work on flickr where extensive post production has been done, but the shots were also clearly excellent to begin with. An example is this guy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/sets/72157594427346861

Incredible work but you can see that he knows his art as well.
 
Did a little bit as a kid, then when I was 17 got a YTS at Southampton university in one of there photographic departments and went and did day release city and guilds. Worked in a gallery in Bath for a while and then worked for a large processor in Poole for a while then got a proper job and photography took a back seat for about 12 years till I took it up again last year. Boy the learning curve is steep on how much things have changed, I did nothing with digital when I was into it before.
As others have said lots of playing is a good way of learning as well as reading something like Basic Photography by Michael Langford. Not as basic as the title makes it sound, but will give you a very good standing on the science of photography.
 
The only book I have on photography is 'John Hedgecoe's the new manual of photography'.
It seems to cover a fair amount.
 
Graelwyn said:
Nice answers...to make a point, I posted this purely out of curiosity, and to get an interesting thread going, not because I wished insight on how to learn myself... I already have that in hand after 8 years with a camera ;) although, only recently am I really working on fully understanding the keys to getting accurate exposures.

I have to say, I too have avoided using software because it does feel like a cheat, the same as using any automatic mode on my camera always felt like a cheat. I want what I show to be my work and my work alone. I remember arguing with my ex about this (he does photography and is the one who got me into it really, altho I did it as a child). I feel that by the time some people have done all their dabbling in cs3 etc, the photo contains no photography skill, but rather the skill of being able to use a computer programme to turn rubbish into wonder. This might be a controversial view, but I believe that unless someone is aiming for something composite etc, the photos should be as pure as possible.

I don't consider it true photography or a true art if someone goes out, gets a mediocre shot and thinks 'oh well, I can sort that out in cs3' etc. It should be right to begin with, and the editing should just be an extra to tweak. I have seen some fantastic work on flickr where extensive post production has been done, but the shots were also clearly excellent to begin with. An example is this guy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/sets/72157594427346861

Incredible work but you can see that he knows his art as well.
Click to expand...

Just my view on this is, what is the difference between doing with photoshop and what is done in the darkroom.
In the darkroom people dodge and burn, print on different grades of paper, and all other types of little tweeks that people would not notice to improve the end result,
When these things are done on a computer it suddenly becomes cheating and they are not "True Photographers." When it was done in the darkroom most people didn't know and it was all part of the process.

I am sure others will add to this either positively or not and I am also interested to hear peoples opinions.
 
Ah, but those darkroom things are pretty basic compared to what people are achieving via the use of cs3 etc. You could not change the levels, sharpness, exposure in the darkroom. If you got it wrong in camera, you pretty much got it wrong and could do little about it. This is what I mean. I did not mean that when things are manipulated, the person is not a true photographer. What I mean, is that when the original shot is poor, and the individual who took it relies on cs3 etc to correct it rather than correcting their actual skills with the camera, this is cheating and yes, personally I do not consider someone who relies on software rather than honing their skills with the camera to correct bad mistakes, to be a true photographer.

However, if someone has got a decent shot and just wants to improve it a little, this is different. IF they have got good composition, exposure levels etc, but want to tweak or crop or turn it into something a little surreal, that is different. I believe the basic ability with the camera should be first and foremost.

But that is my opinion and as such, I can understand others might not share my view and think that the end result is more important than how they got that end result and the abilities involved.

Personally, my aim is to get great shots out of the camera, with little to no editing needed to make them presentable.
 
Very interesting thread :)

I learnt from my dad who was a Photographer/Cameraman when I was born. I have pretty much been brought up around either video or stills cameras, so photography is sort of in my blood. I dont remember my dad ever sitting me down and teaching me how the camera worked, but he must have got it accross some how as it has always sort of made sense to me. I have never read a photography book, hadnt even really read a photography magazine until fairly recently. I think a lot of my learning has been through mirroring my dad and trial and error on my own. I pretty much grew up on fully automatic film cameras, getting to play with my dads Pental SLR etc occasionally, so composition has always been my main concern, and I think I have been able to advance my understanding of shutter speeds and depth of field etc since I got a DSLR and could see the results instantly.
 
Graelwyn said:
You could not change the levels, sharpness, exposure in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but my limited understanding of darkroom work is that changing the equivalent of 'levels', sharpness and exposure is EXACTLY what you can do in a darkroom - it just takes more skill than with CS3 and costs more in materials


You are right on one point though - you can't polish a turd even in CS3. Get it right in camera as much as poss and tidy-up afterwards is my aim too. I'm only fair/competent in CS3 compared to many I know & hereabouts

:thumbs:

DD
 
Albedo said:
But... since then I feel like perhaps the whole 'photography thing' has changed in a way that seems to destroy the need for this kind of knowledge. The thing is, I have taken over or underexposed photos (in RAW) and corrected them in two seconds and the shift of a slider in Lightroom. I am still trying to find out about metering, exposure compensation, etc but I do feel there is ultimately a hollowness to the information nowadays. Why do you need to learn how to meter off someone's face if there's a bright background when you can pull a "recovery" or "fill light" slider to correct it? All RAWs need some sort of processing, so even the "it saves time" argument is a bit weak.
Click to expand...

This is exactly where the differences lie between a good photograph and a bad photograph. No amount of computer editing will compare to a well exposed, well metered out of camera photograph (don't get me started on HDR!). This is the point CT and I made at the beginning of this thread. The basics of photography are pushed aside because everything can be "fixed" later on. The realization is that every adjustment you make on the computer degrades the image quality. With regards to your fill light fix I would suggest reading up on exposure pushing and how it effects the image quality. Perhaps then you will appreciate the importance of correct in camera exposure.

Graelwyn said:
You could not change the levels, sharpness, exposure in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

Of course you can change those factors in a darkroom.

:)
 
King_Boru said:
This is exactly where the differences lie between a good photograph and a bad photograph. No amount of computer editing will compare to a well exposed, well metered out of camera photograph (don't get me started on HDR!). This is the point CT and I made at the beginning of this thread. The basics of photography are pushed aside because everything can be "fixed" later on. The realization is that every adjustment you make on the computer degrades the image quality. With regards to your fill light fix I would suggest reading up on exposure pushing and how it effects the image quality. Perhaps then you will appreciate the importance of correct in camera exposure.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. That's why I am learning to try to get good in-camera results every time. But learning, and reading around forums etc, I get the impression that ISO, aperture, shutter speed formulae aren't given as much precedence as they must have been given in the past. I think that's a shame.
 
I shot film on and off for many years and didn't learn that much because I didn't have the discipline to keep technical notes and assess my shots.

When I retired I did the first year of a City and Guilds and it was incredibly helpful in terms of learning the basics. Unfortunately my local college was very traditional in its approach and continuing with the course would have meant what seemed like years in the darkroom processing black and white film, which is not what I wanted.

Digital really does it for me and that's when I really started making progress. Took lots of pictures and reviewed them after. I'm not sure if it's stressed often enough that one main advantage of digital is that you can review all your shots together with the camera settings. So if your shots are soft and you see that shutter speeds were low (for example), you can really begin to understand why. The biggest advatages of digital for me are exif and the fact that you can shoot to your heart's content and learn from it.

I completely agree with the view that shooting digital should not be an excuse for not bothering to get it right in camera.
 
I bought (and still have) a fairly basic SLR sometime around the late 70's and had to learn how to use it. Learning was library books and some experimenting - but not much as developing and printing seemed expensive then. I managed to take some well exposed photographs but had never heard of worrying about 'composition'.

The SLR eventually lost out to convenient film compacts and my interest faded too. Many years later we needed to keep records of custom products we manufactured in my business and to cut the cost of polaroids we bought a VGA resolution (a whole 640 x 480 pixels) Epson digital camera. Naff as it was it rekindled my interest and a series of upgrades later I discovered Internet forums and photography discussion and the realisation there was more to a picture than the right settings :)

So I've known how to operate a camera for quite a while but how to use it for not quite so long :lol:
 
Well over the last 4 months of being into photography I have been learning from reading up on cameras, techniques etc, using talk photography (thanks all) and most of all just getting out ther with trial and error with the camera. Think im getting somewhere with it but also considering an evening course at college for further progression.
 
I got my dads 35mm manual slr out the cupboard and asked him how it worked... he taught me about apature, film speed, shutter speed, flash sync and then i gorged on internet knowledge. I cant pretend to be particularly good yet... but I'm having lots of fun
 
foz said:
Whats the problem with HDR?
Click to expand...



Not really a problem, I think King Boru said it slightly tongue in cheek ...its more of an assumption that new photographers have, in that, if they use hdr it will somehow improve an image just because its been hdr'd. ...

But, as has been said, its greatly irrelevant, as you can't polish a turd. So its more a question as the viewer, IMO, of learning to look passed the process of production and decide if the image itself has merit, either composition, beauty, interest, exposure and all the rest.


Im certain a large part of good photography is seeing and learning what others do with their camera, you can only really do that by studying their photos. ...which is one of the reasons this TP forum is such a good place to study I find.
 
I only got into photography by accident a couple of years ago and mainly through horse shows but its very addictive. Very steep learning curve and boy do I wish I had a more technical mind to understand (and remember) all that I should be doing.... maybe I should stick to horses :o)
 
I bought an SLR and did an evening course. Decided that i wanted to become really good and learn a lot more so have started a two year BTEC National Diploma at a local college. Its full of 17 year old girls which can only be classed as an additional bonus....im' learning loads as well though!
 
Graelwyn said:
The only book I have on photography is 'John Hedgecoe's the new manual of photography'.
It seems to cover a fair amount.
Click to expand...
That's a good start Graelwyn, he certainly knows an f stop from a bus stop, he was the professor of photography at The Royal College Of Art.
 
Eh, been such a long time since I used a darkroom,but I do not recall ever being able to sharpen things in there at the time. But then again, maybe we did not cover that at A Level.
 
Ben Myerson said:
That's a good start Graelwyn, he certainly knows an f stop from a bus stop, he was the professor of photography at The Royal College Of Art.
Click to expand...

It is a nice book. Covers a lot of different essentials, as well as illustrating studio lighting which is something I really need to learn.
 
I've had no formal training with SLR's. I got my first film one about 11 years ago. I'd no idea what I was doing at the start. Thank Canon for the green square mode, then P mode then Av. In that order. (Tv and M get used when it makes sense).
However since I bought my first "proper" camera (not just a point and click 125 thingy) "it" [meaning the latest version of "it"] has gone practically everywhere with me and since that point.

I've read a few books, but after the 3rd one I discovered they all tell you the same thing, using different words. So I stopped reading them about 5 years ago. I've always been an engineer so the relationship between ISO:FNo:Shutter speed:etc wasnt that hard to grasp. Took a while, but once it was in my noggin I found I could see what was wrong with my shots. Didnt mean I could do it any better next time, but I could curse much sooner when I got them home and looked at them (dohh again!). That's where practice comes in, and being prepared.

King_Boru said:
No amount of computer editing will compare to a well exposed, well metered out of camera photograph (don't get me started on HDR!). This is the point CT and I made at the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...

:agree: totally 110%

I dont claim to have anywhere near the number of years or hours of experience that some (CT and others have), nor have I ever thought of trying to go pro. and make a living from 'togging, but the above statement is gospel.

As to CS2/3 whatever...
If I decide to muck about with an image in PS then you wont know what I've done when I've finished (if I dont bin it before). No I'm not bragging, just practised, but it does mean I know where to draw the line. If an image is Carp then its just a fish and will always be a fish.

.. I'm still learning and guess I always will be.
 
I think the "you can't polish a turd" thing, used to be true.
Day by day this statement holds less and less credibility with the advancement of software and to a lesser degree, camera technology.
The camera already plays a much smaller part in image production than it did 10 years ago.
Hardly helpful to those wanting to learn photography skills, there is little motivation for new starters, by the time they decide they need to learn more about the art of photography, its pretty much too late
In the "I want it now" society ethic so prevalent these days, those skills learnt over time and with experience cannot compete with 20mins in photoshop.
So the "art" is diluted.
 
joxby said:
I think the "you can't polish a turd" thing, used to be true.
Day by day this statement holds less and less credibility with the advancement of software and to a lesser degree, camera technology.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no substitute to getting it right in camera.
 
King_Boru said:
There is absolutely no substitute to getting it right in camera.
Click to expand...

From a learning perspective...that's obviously true.

I think its becoming more and more about personal choice.
To shop, or not to shop...that is the question.

:)
 
Started reading books about 15 or so years ago and had a lot of crappy experiences when shooting film in the early years-a lot of wasted film-thank god for digital.

After about 3 years I went on an A level course-which i found taught me nothing more than I already knew.

You learn from experience in photography-backed up with a few good books and folk like on here offering advice.

After all once you have gotten past correct aperture-exposure-composition and iso. The remaining elements of photography are very much superfluous really.

Its a bit like being a lawyer-seeing what is at hand and giving the best damn brief you can with whatever is at hand.

Then it becomes an art and not a science.IMHO
 
King_Boru said:
How do you mean?
Click to expand...


If you force yourself to get it right in camera, you will learn how to do it, eventually.
For instance, how many peeps shooting #subject on white, actually shoot it on white, and can you tell the difference in a well manipulated shot, between a white background and an added one.
If you can't, where is the motivation to shoot on white.

Personally, pp bores the flippin pants off me, that's my incentive, to not be pantless & bored at the same time :lol:

err

:suspect:
 
joxby said:
If you force yourself to get it right in camera, you will learn how to do it, eventually.
For instance, how many peeps shooting #subject on white, actually shoot it on white, and can you tell the difference in a well manipulated shot, between a white background and an added one.
If you can't, where is the motivation to shoot on white.

Personally, pp bores the flippin pants off me, that's my incentive, to not be pantless & bored at the same time :lol:

err

:suspect:
Click to expand...

I see. Thanks for clarifying.
 
I started by copying my dad who had an Ilford Sportsman. (There a blast from the past!) I can still remember it now. I joined the photography club at school and learned how to develop and print in our school darkroom. I then went down the library route and came to a dead end when I started college and then work because I could not afford the bus fare never mind a camera!

Scroll forward several years and a decently paid job saw me with a Canon EOS film camera which I used to take some of the worst pics I ever managed. (There was just too much automation on the blasted thing) So I sold the lot and went back to an Olympus OM10 which was fab!

I went properly digital with an Olympus E100RS bridge camera and got the bug again. They did not do DSLR's at the time so I ended up with a Canon. At that point I started buying books again. Then I did the OU course on digital photography because I wanted to refresh and update my knowledge.

I also did a studio seminar day to start learning in that direction.

I do still think I'm a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none. I can be quite technically competent and still miss a blooming fence in the background. I would like to get to the stage eventually where I develop my own "style" but I recognise that I am some way off that yet.

And yes I'm still learning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top