The Art of Learning Photography

Rich_Ellis

Rich_Ellis

Suspended / Banned
Messages
510
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
No
I have just spent a few moments reading another thread on here and it got me thinking.

There is miles and miles and miles of text written about practical elements of photography like aperture, ISO, focal length, shutter speed etc etc etc on this and almost all other photography forums. Really, if I am ever unsure of how to shoot in bright conditions or flash in dark conditions whilst maintaining some ambient light etc then I can easily find some great and practical help via the search engines.

What seems to be hardly ever mentioned specifically in critique or 'help' threads, posts, blogs - is the emotion of a shot. Surely it all boils down to that?

Regarding portrait shots surely the art is in capturing that fleeting look or shape or style that leaves the viewer wondering. Wondering what the subject is thinking. Who is the subject, what do they do, want, feel etc? It is very hard to find any sound and good information on these emotional aspects of capturing an image. We seem to be obsessed with all things practical and never touch on the emotional.

Many aspiring photographers must get totally confuzzled with conflicting comments and advice from all sorts of practical areas of their work whilst learning and then I wonder whether they lose their excitement for what brought them to the medium in the first place. Isn't any form of photography about capturing the 'moment'?

I went to a brilliant lecture by a lauded Scottish Wildlife Photographer and although he wasn't explicit, his message was, look and try for the unusual. Look for it in landscapes, in wildlife, in all that you do. He hardly mentioned anything about shutter speeds and apertures.

I received a great book as a gift recently by Don McCullin - In England. In it are works by him that aren't war images. They are a mixture of his street work and landscape work. Scroll the pages and there are many shots that technically aren't great. Blocked shadows, sawn off feet, central subjects etc etc but the book is fantastic. It shows really great street photography at its height. Why then? Because he captured an emotion. The images evoke a reaction. A question, a surprise, a disgust or a sorrow.

This is Art. Can you teach Art? And now we are back to the age old question. Some people can paint, some can sculpt and some can create wonders on a piano, however, some of us just can't. We can't because we just weren't born that way. We are great at other things (although I haven't discovered my greatness yet and it is getting a little late in the day!). Photography is generally an art form, a way of expressing ones inner feelings onto an image (I realise this isn't always the case but is concerning most hobbyists).

Modern DSLR's allow us to take great snaps, great record shots of things we see, but they don't instantly turn us into artists. Just the same as anything else.

I am not sure of my point really but I guess it just saddens me when people are disappointed by their own efforts and don't understand why they cannot create amazing award winning images. On a practical level, I also think we could all help a bit more when we critique images. Maybe we should spend less time pointing out the softness, DoF etc and more on the emotional impact we got when looking at the image. I recognise it is touched on when we talk about composition but that is as far as it goes. Art is about more than that. I have reached a stage in my photographic life whereby if i show someone an image, I want them to either love it or hate it. I hate the 'Meh, yeah its good' response. I strive to invoke a reaction. A passion. I need to strive a lot more but I wonder if others would also benefit from this approach??

This isn't a dig at anyone or this forum, I have been as guilty as anyone else, I just wonder if others have had the same thoughts as me? Or am I way off the mark here?

Rich
 
Hi Rich,

Spot on! Photography is only part science, and while it's good to have a basic understanding of that science, for me it's the feeling the image conveys.

Look through any of the books of the most influential photographers works and you will find some glaring technical faux pas, and it matters not a jot!

Darren
 
If the image turns out to be how you visualised it to be then to me you have succeeded.
Of course it's nice to have someone praise your work but we don't all see things the same.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I went to a brilliant lecture by a lauded Scottish Wildlife Photographer and although he wasn't explicit, his message was, look and try for the unusual. Look for it in landscapes, in wildlife, in all that you do. He hardly mentioned anything about shutter speeds and apertures.
Click to expand...

That's because anyone can take a sharp, well exposed photo. It takes no time at all to learn the basic technical bits you need to know. A fully automatic camera will, more often than not, take a well focused, fairly well exposed shot. The content and meaning behind the photo are the important bits, as you say.

Rich_Ellis said:
This is Art. Can you teach Art?
Click to expand...

A lot of people try. And a lot of the great artists went to art school, or studied under someone. Art is part of the wider world, so knowing what has gone before you, will help shape your own work, and make it relevant.

Rich_Ellis said:
I also think we could all help a bit more when we critique images. Maybe we should spend less time pointing out the softness, DoF etc and more on the emotional impact we got when looking at the image
Click to expand...

It's far easier to pick holes in the technical stuff when you see a photo, than to offer insightful feedback regarding the artistic qualities. Also, a large percentage of people on internet forums aren't all that interested in that side of things. They're interested in taking 'better' record shots of things they enjoy. Which is perfectly fine of course.
 
Great post and interesting thread. I posted something along the same lines a little earlier this evening (here), I wish I'd seen this thread beforehand.
 
Great thread.
When I started out on photography 4 years ago, I learned everything through internet especially boards. But most bords where so focussed on technical aspects..only later on I got myself thinking about more artistic stuff. I wonder if that helped or harmed my "career". It surely helped me to get good gear and see a clear difference between a sharp and not so sharp image. I can't look at my old digicam pictures ever again :-P

But it may also harmed me ion restricting my thinkgin too much on technical perfectness.

Well I changed that habit slowly. Wedding photography and the input i got helped me to focus more on emotions. But I ant moooore. More creativeness I know I am creative. I like painting, drawing, writing (even when I'm not very good at this one) and had a bright imagination.
 
I can absolutely relate to this. All the technicalities came fairly easily to me. Where some folk struggle with learning about aperture and shutter speed and ISO and how one affects the other, I just got it. What I really struggle with is, as you say, capturing an emotive shot. Will be interested to see others input into this thread. I have often asked if it can be taught/learned or if it is indeed a lost cause and I should perhaps stick to things that I take to naturally like sports and exercise.
 
Great response! I wondered if it was just me!

I can so relate to the gear and practical issues. I was chatting to a guy the other day that was just starting out in photography and I said I envied him! Envied him because he had no pre-conceptions and was free! When he asked me for some advice I told him to always ask himself the question "Why?" Why are you taking this shot? What mood/reaction are you trying to evoke? Learn the technical aspects sure but then 'create'. I am not sure whether he understood or just thought I was bonkers but hey ho.

Most artists go to Art Schools to improve their art. Learn more about the technicalities. I dont think you can 'learn' it as such. What creativity we all have is obviously improved with practice but how many of us spend too much time on the tech and not enough on the why and what emotion we are trying to capture. Does this then get in the way of our creativity?

There is always a time and a place for record shots. I recently went on holiday and told my wife to make sure i took some 'snaps' of the family and where we went. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken my camera out of the bag unless I can 'see' a shot that would 'feel' good or interesting, processed this way or that.

I find it all very interesting indeed and constantly battle with myself over this...
 
What's "art" in photography?
Is it the light?
Is it a "moment"?
Is it a story?
Does the image create an emotional impact (this may be very viewer dependant)?>
If it is any of the above they can be taught (mainly when to recognise them)

I am just a hobbyst who shoots what I see around me.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure I agree with you. Isn't art about all those things and more? Its about feeling, emotion, inspiration and many other things on top. Each piece of art is different and therefore has different aspects to appreciate, love, hate or simply not understand. You can hone artistic skills but you cannot learn them if you don't have them in the first place.

For years I tried to be able to play a musical instrument and whilst I could play mechanically with a piece of music in front of me, the minute someone took that away from me, I collapsed. That wasn't because I don't have a good ear or can't appreciate music. (I now realise), It is simply that I had no flair for it, no base artistic 'soul'. Photography is no different. Millions of people can understand and learn the technicalities but only a few use those technical skills as a base to produce amazing, creative and emotional images.
We have all seen or met someone with very little technical skill produce some really clever or interesting images deliberately? Unusual but it does happen. Of course having a technical base improves results but I wonder how many of us then get 'overburdened' with the tech and 'smother' whatever creativity we had?
 
I can relate to your musical experience as my career (and training) was very technical and not "art" in any form at all.
For years I havn't had any real problem (and if I do I work to solve them) with the technicalities of photography howver I must admit I do not understand a lot of art.
 
The basic - and many of the more advanced - technical skills of photography are fairly straightfoward and can be learned with a bit of effort. Some people find this easier than others, but they're well within the capabilities of most people. The artistic part of photography is more difficult for many of us because it involves completely different, and often intuitive, thinking.

My daughter is a scientist and has very few problems with things that rely on rational, logical, learning processes but has no real interest in the technical aspects of photography. She is quite artistic though, has a gift for "capturing the moment", and has been able to do this since she was quite young. I wish I could do this too!
 
Rich_Ellis said:
For years I tried to be able to play a musical instrument and whilst I could play mechanically with a piece of music in front of me, the minute someone took that away from me, I collapsed.
Click to expand...

I'm the other way round. I can read music but not fast enough to play at the same time. It's improvisation all the way for me.


Steve.
 
Haha, now that is a question! I mentioned McCullin's non-war stuff. But look at anything on the British Journal of Photography (BJP) sites/mags. Good photography is everywhere when you look for it. I am not wanting to turn this into a "Whats Art" discussion - we will all differ in our opinions. Its simply a discussion around do we spend too much time learning, talking, critiquing others on the practicals, and not enough on the artistic elements.
 
Funny that this thread should turn up. Jut last night I was thinking I have all the gear, understand how it all works but my images still lack something. Whilst my photos have improved, I still don't get that WOW feeling like I do when I look as 500px.

I'm now looking for resources on understanding and improving composition, but as you say there's not really a lot of good stuff out there.
 
Thanks for the suggestion re the British Journal of Photography. I will spend some time on their site.
Personally and talking to other photographers (some who have been shooting for years) I some times shoot with we don't spend much time on the technicalities. With the landscape guys it is always the "light" and with the motor racing guys it is the "light" and and the motor racing itself. However for the "new" photographers it is almost always technicalities and techniques.

I think with the artistic elements, and creating a "feeling", it is very much dependant on who is looking at the photograph.
For example my wife doesn't like B&W mainly because it is not at natural for a lot of subjects.

@ Elliott.
I have written a few tutorials, but not much on composition etc, over at Digital Photography School however you may find this one on on isolating a subject of interest.

http://digital-photography-school.c...g-separation-focussing-attention-subject.html
 
Last edited:
I think Richard you have just done exactly what i was talking about. The link you give is to your article on practical issues. Arguably it helps to be able to create bokeh in artistic imagery but there are few artistic photographs of racing cars. Most are action shots therefore record shots.

Landscapers often make the mistake of taking record shots of a nice scene with little artistic interpretation. Light helps but just makes the record more colourful.

You, due to your experience, dont need to spend too much time on your practicals cos you know it, but it still doesnt mean you are thinking artistically. This F1 top photographer manages to to get 'arty' motor racing shots and is one of the best i have seen to demonstrate my point. There is emotion in his imagery. Buckets of it. http://www.darrenheath.com/season/2013/belgium-2013/image-gallery

Not much said on how you teach/learn that ability!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. Whilst I don't particularly like some of the "arty" trackside pics as I like to be able to identify the car for most photgraphs, whilst for most of the "competitors" photographs I do like very much.
It appears I am at the bottom of a learning curve in the 'artistic" world.
It has given me a new challenge for the next couple of years!
 
Last edited:
And such is art. You will either like it or not like it. I guess the photographer himself will say that if you want to see a Red Bull or McLaren or Mercedes as a record shot, look at everyone elses pics. He at least tries to give his shots emotion....
 
What art may be is rather subjective - however it is something beyond craft, which at root is utilitarian (more obviously mechanistic).

How can we convey and apprehend emotion through photography? I suggest that it can't be explained, only intuited. Can it be faked? I think that fakery would need a certain coincidence of author's and viewer's self-delusion ... !

An intuitive reading of a work can be surprisingly incisive though, and any self-doubt may be quelled by a discovery of consensus (the tallying responses of others).

Interesting thread!
 
After sleeping on this overnight some more thougths;

Who do you shoot for?
If shooting for yourself, if you are happy with the final image that is probably all that counts.
If shooting for others are you meeting their needs and are you are happy with the images that is good.
I feel you can create emotion, and not just show it, by content only (this is very rare in my own photography)

Re motor sport photography:
I try to show competition (and don't always succeed) in my photographs of cars racing. Competition is not real evident in a lot of Darren's Heaths trackside photographs, however that may be due to the nature of F1.

On a different subject (although very similar to shoot) is bird photography where technical image quality, including composition, seems to be the prime objective. The exception may be some birds in flight showing subject motion for the "arty" look.

(Edit).
Thanks for the links Darren.
 
Last edited:
A thought-provoking thread Rich, and one that I feel has a different meaning to each person. As an Art teacher to both children and adults, I have had to try to find methods, which allows different people to access "art" in a way they feel comfortable with. In relation to basics, I always say that anyone can draw. I have spent the last 10 years doing just that. If a student is willing to try, and persevere over time, I can get them to draw to the level they wish to attain. The first hurdle is to try to convince them that its a pencil, a piece of paper and their time. If it goes wrong, they have lost a little time, nothing else.
Relate that to photography, the tools are a lot more expensive, and complicated. (I have never had a student rant about a new Faber/ Derwent/ Rotring pencil with 2mm propelling action, that will ensure their next drawing will be in the Tate. Or what eraser should I get next?, will a pencil case or tin be better? Is an A4 or A3 sketchbook the way forward ). Therefore, the second hurdle is to master the equipment, so that you don't think about using/operating it. Once this is overcome, the next and biggest problem is "What do I want to draw/photograph?" This is the crux :bang:
A record or an emotion? The vast majority of people want to record the moment (Which I (mostly) have no problem with). The problem comes with trying to record the emotive/artistic side in photography. A tutor of mine, from many years ago, told me to try to draw/paint things from my life. The reason being, I had lived it, and had a particular view/experience upon it, which would encompass my feelings, and hopefully get this across to others.
I still struggle with this area of photography, I know the Tech side to a fair degree, but am still looking to master the emotive side of it. Pascal Rabin, (If you have to ask "Who?" don't bother/worry) with all his many faults, really made me look at what I want out of photography.
Anyway, here's a quote from my tutor as to what the definition of Art is;
"Art is the dis-preportioning of realities, in order to make those realities more apparent" Dr. Robert Poutney C.1998
 
Some really great comments. I too have done some more thinking on this and I agree, some people are quite happy to 'record the moment' and there is nothing wrong with that at all. "Who are you shooting for?" is also a great question. It obviously is different for each individual but with forums like this, a great many people post images for comment, some for help but a lot for support. There isn't a button for "record" or "arty" to differentiate the intention.

What I do notice is that many state they are 'unhappy' with their results and I have often wondered if it is because they are trying too hard to be technically perfect instead of living the moment and immersing themselves in the shot. How many of us organise a model and have no idea of what or how to shoot, pose or get them to express themselves.

Rob, your comments re teaching art is interesting and I can relate to the investment of time approach. I have often 'gone for it' in terms of both approach to shooting and processing (hours often) and sometimes I wake the next morning and laugh at myself. Occasionally I re-look and think, yeah, I like it, its different.

Totally agree about your comments of mastering the tech side of your equipment so you dont really have to think too hard about it as well.

Good stuff and very interesting
 
Excellent post - I know exactly what you mean. I've got all the gear and take can take good quality images. But, when I look at these images, I see that they are just snapshots - a bird, a building, a river - all totally meaningless to another person. The "moment" is something you have to feel and I don't have that.
 
Bipod said:
Excellent post - I know exactly what you mean. I've got all the gear and take can take good quality images. But, when I look at these images, I see that they are just snapshots - a bird, a building, a river - all totally meaningless to another person. The "moment" is something you have to feel and I don't have that.
Click to expand...

+1 :)
 
This is an excellent thread and one i shall subscribe too.. For me it's all about emotion, if i feel something about where/what i am shooting etc it does seem to reflect on my images... I could be totally honest and say i don't really know the how i get my shots, as in settings, i can't look at something and thing oh yes f8 at blah blah blah... i guess i know enough to fiddle and somehow get what i want tho... and then PP i do sometimes like to get a little creative....

Maybe i'm slightly off course here but emotion also depends on what you are shooting..

for example... i started my 365 1st jan... the first few shots i was very excited and keyed up, the emotion was there in what i wanted to do...
After a while it got harder, especially with winter weather and not being outside, but also because i didn't fully understand my settings and lack of equipment to function indoors properly...

Anyway come April yet again i suffered another prolapse disc, this put the 365 on hold and 3 weeks later major catch up with random indoor still lifes, but they were boring, i look back now and i took them because i had too...

I decided then, that a 365 wasn't for me because my heart wasn't in taking random shots because i had to not wanted too.

As soon as i stopped and started taking photos for me again, they improved....

I guess what i am saying is everything i do is based totally on emotion...i get the shots by no means saying i am wonderful, far from it, but it is all down to emotion and artistic sides that i see, than the know how of settings...
Does that make sense?....

I need to learn the tech side seriously!... but i do believe the arty/emotional side plays a huge part..:D
 
.
 
Last edited:
Bipod said:
I've got all the gear and take can take good quality images. But, when I look at these images, I see that they are just snapshots - a bird, a building, a river - all totally meaningless to another person. The "moment" is something you have to feel and I don't have that.
Click to expand...

You probably DO have it, being human, but maybe don't understand how to recognise it or express it through photography.

It's true that technical competence doesn't in itself express emotion. I suspect that communicable emotion in a photograph can arise in at least two ways: the subject portrayed is in itself full of an emotional charge, or that the image has been processed by its originator in a way that intensifies its emotional potential.

Many of us produce a range of work - not everything in our catalogue has the the same remit. Take off your socks, adopt a semi-foetal posture (or something), & look at this working photographer's personal work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robspages/
 
Last edited:
Never mind.
 
Last edited:
@ Rog

Thanks for that link.

----------------------

I think the emotion in an image, depends a lot on the person viewing that image especially with their relationship to the subject.
As photographers we can sometimes be too close to our images due to the content or the experiences we had whilst shooting them.

----------------
@ Gareth and Dave.

With "snapshots" you need to choose the moment and/or the light.
The main things I find are to be very observant and take your time. Just sit and look for a while and you will see photo oportunities popping up. Just use your mind to "take" pictures. Even the most mundane subjects can make for reasonable photographs.

----------------------
@ CG Girl
I like your flickr photostream.

Re the basics (how to get a "correctly" exposed and "sharp" image) so that when you see the emotion you will not have any problem capturing it.

Re 365's etc. Shoot what you like or want to shoot and your skills will pick up and if you find you do not have the skills to shoot what you want then work at it 'till you do.
One way to improve is to shoot "challenges" (there are a few flickr groups around who have challenges for a month or so). These will improve your ability to see things as well help increase your technical skills.

----------------------

@ Rich
Re the "arty" photographs. I think there are a couple of ways of looking at it.
You can try to emulate the "art world" by modifying the "reality" of some of your photograph - I tried that with a couple of my motor racing pics, with quick edits, and I think they look "ok"
Or you can be very observant and pick out "design elements" from the world around you.
Or you can pick out 'moments' that are not "arty" in the conventional sense but still appeal to you/other viewers/the subject(s).

Do you mind if I post a few examples (photographs) in this thread of what I am talking about?
 
Last edited:
Cg_Girl said:
That is totally unfair my issue with 'that' person if you read all was 99% his need to direct to his website and the fact he blanked anyone that didn't say his work was awesome,

He wasn't interested in learning anything from anyone, which everyone found out..
i never attacked that person, you are right his birds were not my thing and never will be, just like someone else that has a passion doesn't mean it's going to be the same as someone elses...

I am not an attacking person, i do not go around threads causing upset at all, and find you making out i am is not fair
Click to expand...

My sincerest apologies to you. I just felt that the OP was attacked for things not related to his photography, and people couldn't/wouldn't look deeper into his work, instead of worrying about other issues. Having looked at your Flickr account, what saddens me, is that some of your work is so good, that actually, you have an eye for composition that is similar to his, and are able to spot juxtapositions that work so well (imho). If certain factors hadn't have been so important to some (including the person we refer to) we could have had a contribution that would have helped all of those that would like to understand how to introduce emotion/feeling into our work.
 
So, getting back on topic of THIS thread - the thing I am talking about is shooting and processing with a certain artistic freedom. It doesn't matter what the subject is, it could be anything at all. My whole point was that often we get sucked into tech details and 'light' and 'lighting' and pay little attention to what we are actually shooting in the first place. As we improve our skills, we get lost in terms of composition because we get hooked on tech rather than the actual results.

The reality is that finding guidance/inspiration on improving the artistic 'eye' of shots is sadly lacking on this or most other forums and other commentary on the net. There are articles and sites that go some way towards it but few centring on it.

How many times do you see threads and discussions, even on this great site, with tons of comments made about all the tech and 'rules' and virtually none on the actual image in the first place. Some say they are a newb and want tech help, thats fine, but most are just record shots in the first place and no thought really given to how a viewer might 'react' to it. I have even seen some complain they dont get any comments but when you look at the image you find it difficult to comment because it gives you no emotion.

I think Richard that posting images in this thread just means it will become a debate on 'what is art' and that isn't what i set out to discuss here. It was about, "Where do we go to improve our eye" and that maybe we should focus more on that aspect when we critique and advise.

I like to take shots of people. I am also a pro, I do this for a living and sometimes because of that I find myself shooting for a particular medium or brief rather than for myself. Some are record shots cos they have to be. However, when I get to shooting for myself or am given some freedom, I sometimes find it difficult to get back into the mindset I want and strive for. It often takes a lot of hard work and mental effort to 'see' what I want before the shoot. It then got me to thinking "What do others do?" and when I looked, I found it hard to find anything.
 
Still loving this thread as it's something that I have tried to say before but struggled to articulate my thoughts. This thread sums it up very well so far.

I believe there was a piece of research done where children were given a camera and told to go out and shoot stuff. Their photos, whilst not being very good technically, were interesting and fresh. You could tell what they were trying to portray even without the technical aspect. Then, they were taught about composition and 'rules' and technicalities. Their photos improved in that respect but became less exciting and interesting because they were then focussing (no pun intended) on the technical issues more.

I'd love to be able to find the original material from it to illustrate but I think it's a great point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top