Who should teach photography?

Started 11 months ago | Polls thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,178
Like?
Re: Might not...
In reply to MoreorLess, 11 months ago

MoreorLess wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

As much as it pains me to say it, it shouldn't be the guys with all the formulas, graphs, charts, etc.

All of that has more to do with picking a camera than taking a picture.

...some of the "guys with all the formulas, graphs, charts, etc." also have some knowledge about the artistic side of photography? Why do so many assume the two are mutually exclusive?

I'm thinking the best person for the job is the person who is best able to communicate the ideas of both the artistic and the technical to students who are there to learn.

I'd argue that as far as photography forums that's often(not always of course) not those who like to post excessive "formulas, graphs, charts".

Every forum seems to have a few of these guys who constantly butt heads on extremely indepth technical details in threads originally started by a beginner who'se question they've long since forgotten. Even when they do actually answer beginners questions there answers tend to be unhelpfully long winded because they fear a "rival" will challenge them if they offer any forum of simplified answer tailored to the knowledge of the beginner.

Equally while its obviously true that technical knowledge doesn't preclude artistic ability its also true that the latter doesn't automatically justify the need for all of the former. Its perfectly possible for a good photographer to pickup and debate knowledge that's not helpful to his own or others photography.

Auto Mode (A), Auto ISO, OOC jpgs. Be honest -- will that stop a great photo from being great? Will knowing all the tech stuff help a photo that sucks become good?

However, I will say this -- it's hard to overestimate the impact of good PP skills.

Theres a lot of middle ground between using fully automated modes and a sematic argument about the nature of exposure of course. I don't see anything wrong with the latter of course if its limated to its own thread between those who want to discuss it rather than diverting someone elses thread.

Honestly, though -- how often does *any* of it make the difference between a photo that's great and a photo that's mediocre?  I mean, can you cite me an example of a photo that would have been "less successful" if it had been captured instead in Auto or P mode with Auto ISO?

I'd agree PP skills tend to be more underestimated although I'd say again the larger underestimation is the application of artistic skill. Understanding the impact of your editing on the photograph and using it to enhance it rather than just sticking it though some standardised workflow/program that might shave 0.001% noise off of the final output.

That's what I'm saying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow