Three Quick Questions vs The Enjoyment of Photography

Started Jan 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,665Gear list
Like?
Re: Three Quick Questions vs The Enjoyment of Photography
In reply to Great Bustard, Jan 2, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50578121

Perhaps you should consider that for the great majority of people, the enjoyment of both taking and viewing photos is based on emotional response, not intellectual grasp of technical principles? With that in mind, maybe most people simply don't consider your attempts at "education" to be as important as you consider it to be?

I honestly don't see understanding the technical to be at odds with the enjoyment of photography. Does know what horsepower means interfere with the enjoyment of driving a car?

For instance: I've reached the conclusion that your "3 quick questions" directed to me were less about learning my point of view or opening up mutual dialog as much as simply a way for you to set the stage for your own efforts at showing us all your depth of knowledge. If that's the case, you're simply patronizing people here. If I'm mistaken, then understand my perspective:

Here are the "3 quick questions" I posed to Charles:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50576217

  • Do f/2.8 1/100 ISO 200 and f/5.6 1/100 ISO 800 have the same exposure?
  • If you answer "yes", which is the "correct" exposure? If you answer "no", why are the exposures different?
  • Why do we care about exposure at all?

Why someone would accuse me of "patronizing" when those questions were in response to:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50573256

It can be a matter of perceived semantics.

GB, you are using the term "exposure", I think, as in "I made an exposure of the sun shining through the trees". In that usage, including factors such as depth of field, blur et al is relevant.

is puzzling. If the term "exposure" is a matter of "semantics", then those Three Quick Questions would get to the bottom of it rather quickly, wouldn't it?

Charles continues:

As far as I'm concerned the technical aspects of the difference between exposure and brightness are, and always will be, secondary to how my final images look. Photography is an art form which depends heavily on technology. As such, it attracts a lot of technology minded people (who aren't necessarily adept at the artistic aspect of photography.) The technology is secondary to the intention of the photographer in producing the image. That goal is invariably to communicate information and/or evoke certain, often specific, emotions and thoughts in the viewer. The average person is only impressed by technique to the degree it stimulates or aids the emotional response they have to the image.

If the technical didn't matter, Charles, we'd all be using the camera in auto mode and call it a day.

Belaboring points about technical aspects, without adequately demonstrating how they will aid in the actual purpose of the photograph, is like explaining how an internal combustion engine works to someone who simply wants directions to get across town.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a technical forum, is it not? Wjy so snippy on a discussion of the technical matters of photography? There are other forums to discuss the artistic end in, not that one cannot do that in this forum, but to chastize me for discussing a technical point in a technical forum, well...

Hi Joe ,

Firstly ,a very happy new year to you and your family. I am always surprised by some peoples venomous responses to any technical threads on what is after all {in theory, at least} a technical review site. In some folks view they seem to see a direct {negative} correlation between a technical and an aesthetic perspective. While in reality no such link is present there are wonderful images {and not so wonderful images} created by those of a technical inclination just as there are by those motivated solely by aesthetics.

Photography is no doubt about creating an image that reflects the photographer’s vision. However even for the most “artistic” users there is a fundamental need to understand at least the basic technicalities such as understanding the implications of for example ISO, aperture, shutter speed and so on. There is a certain group of posters who see any technical data that they interpret as showing their chosen religion sorry format at a disadvantage, will invariably launch an offensive and we know how that works out. The small inconvenience that the data point is correct is neither here nor there.

I am also pretty certain that participation in threads which you have no interest in is not yet compulsory {thank god}. The bottom line is that we all pay more than a few bob ,for our respective gear so any technical discussion that eventually helps us squeeze the most out of it is surely valuable to us all.

There seems to be a number of different factions at play , let’s use equivalence as an example { that always goes down well} .When equivalence is mentioned we get the , oh god not again we all know what equivalence is , then we have the F2.8 is F2.8 camp who do not or do not want to understand the concept [ yet they all mange to work out the difference in AOV }. Then the most problematic group, those who are simply looking for a fight because they feel slighted will invariably jump in and that is pretty much the end of any potentially constructive discussion. At least in this forum we are lucky that there are a number of well informed technically capable posters who are prepared to step up. Some seem to see any point that does not boost mFT and presumably the ego of those smart enough to choose mFT [ that is me } as a declaration of war.

Sadly no system is perfect and we have to pick and choose our compromises, want a smaller lighter camera, sure do! But ,you will not get the absolute best image quality, bummer. Want the best quality, yes please! ok but it will be a lot larger ,heavier and can be very expensive ,damn!. I think that a lot of the confrontational posts are just a consequence of ego.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow