Young, new photographers. Do they miss basic skills?

Andreas Stuebs said:

Ron Poelman said:

How are their photos ?

The real questions are:
Has technology improved "the average photo" ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

No: The number of photos taken has increased by multitudes but mainly bad ones. This is not to say that the number of good ones may also have increased - but no nearly the same amount. So on average the quality has decreased.

Click to expand...

Bull. You're just upset that more people who would have never used a camera back in the old days are now shooting photos. Yes, many of the photos they produce are "bad", but more excellent photography is now being produced by more new photographers than in any time in the history of photography.

Andreas Stuebs said:

Andreas Stuebs said:

Has technology improved professional photos ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

No. It has increased the workflow speed but not necessarily the quality. It has also changed the style of how photographs are takes and as a consequence the style of photographs. No quality change implied in that last sentence.

Click to expand...

Bull. The quality of photography has definitely gone up. Today's photographers are able to maintain a high level of image quality in conditions that would have practically been impossible to shoot under in the past. Plus, if you're talking about "quality" in terms of the artistic and creative quality of photos, that's gone up too, because today's photographers are able to shoot more, which allows them to learn quicker, master and hone their skills quicker, learn from their mistakes quicker, and essentially become better photographers faster than we did back in the film days. The ability to not only quickly review images, but also review all the technical data used to produce those images, is a huge learning tool that helps today's photographers achieve quality in their photos faster and more effectively.

Andreas Stuebs said:

Andreas Stuebs said:

Has technology improved enthusiast photos ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

qustionable: It has made tha hobby more accessible. Does that improve the result?

Click to expand...

Sure, it improves the result. One of the best ways to improve your results is to practice a lot. This is true of any skill, whether it's shooting free-throws, or hitting baseballs, or playing chess, or taking photos.

Andreas Stuebs said:

Andreas Stuebs said:

Has technology improved the path to a good photo for learners/beginners ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

b#llsh#t: The path of mastering any art is work. period. It has made it easier to make technically good photographs. But the essence of a good photo is beyond that.

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of "work" you're talking about, but when I think of "work", I think of shooting a lot of photos, reviewing those photos, learning from them, then shooting more photos. In this context, you can get a lot more "work" done with digital than you could with slow and expensive 36-shots-per-roll film. Maybe you were independently wealthy when you were learning photography, but I wasn't. That meant that with a limited budget, I did limited shooting. And when I looked at my processed images, I couldn't review the EXIF shooting data or look at a histogram, or see my mistakes and immediately re-shoot when I was still on location.

Dave_Anderson said:

mamallama said:

Should one who drives a car with an automatic transmission know how to drive a car with a stick shift transmission?

Click to expand...

At the very least they should be aware of the limitations of cars with manual transmissions, for example the morons with automatic transmissions who creep up on the rear bumper of the car in front of them, not allowing for the fact that it's typical for a car with a manual trans to roll backward on a hill when starting off, need to have some sense slapped into them. That's a safety issue though, and a pet peeve of mine.

Click to expand...

That just means people driving manual transmission cars should know how to drive them on hills. I drove a 1950 Chevy with a basic 3-speed manual transmission on the hills of San Francisco. Never had any rollback problems.

On the very steep hills, like the California Street hill above Powell, the trick is to use a combination of hand brake and foot brake since you can't transfer your right foot from brake to accelerator fast enough without rollback. That's what I mean about skills.

I think the driving test in SF checks you out on hill driving. If you are driving a manual transmission you better be skilled to drive on hills.

Dave_Anderson said:

A better example might be, should everyone who rides an elevator have to know how an elevator works?

Click to expand...

Knowing how to operate something is different from knowing how something works.

--mamallama

drmatiz said:

Just wondering:

Do you think (as a professional or amateur) that younger people are spoiled with all the auto settings and so on? Younger people grow up with their camera phones and don't know anything about exposure.

Click to expand...

Are people more spoiled with auto settings now, compared to when they were using the Brownie when all they had to do was push the button (and wind the film); after filling the roll they'd send the camera in to have it unloaded and another roll loaded.

While automatic cameras can shoot in more situations today, cameras like the Brownie used to be more simple to use than cameras are today and people are no more spoiled in terms of ease of use.

An American friend of mine come to Europe on holidays, rented a car, and had hell with the manual transmission!

OTOH, when I first rented a car in the US, I just had to look around the car for 3 or 4 minutes, and off I went, no problems! (I have lived in Europe all my life).
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

They asked a similar question about the calculator.

Modern capturing devices--p&s, dslrs--free the photographer (if they choose) from managing the basics and focus on composition and image control.

As a modern photographer, you still require the knowledge that governs photography--and it is here where advantage is lost or gained.

My roots are deep in film--35mm and medium formats; in the digital age, my knowledge of photography has expanded by orders of magnitude--allowing me as a working professional, to take advantage of the digital camera. My level of image control today wasn't even a twinkle in my eye.

For the photographers that decide to rely on the intelligence of the device, image control will limit their results. This group will "miss basic skills."

I think you are talking about two different sets of people.

If you are referring to PHOTOGRAPHERS then, no they haven't missed out on anything because they will have learned or been taught about shutter speed, exposure etc and how to influence it.

If you are referring to people whose main/only camera is their phone, well then they are not exactly ardent photographers and won't care about shutter speed, exposure etc.

It all depends on how much into photography you are as to how much you learn about it.
Rhetorically:

If I only ever use my phone to take snapshots and memories then why should I need to know about exposure, but in the same breath, would you really refer to me as a photographer?

drmatiz said:

Just wondering:

I'm always glad that my dad bought an old manual Fujica Camera. I started working with manual exposure and manual focussing (with a beautiful screw-on 135mm Carl Zeiss Jena) and am happy to know these basic skills.

Do you think (as a professional or amateur) that younger people are spoiled with all the auto settings and so on? Younger people grow up with their camera phones and don't know anything about exposure.

Curious about your opinion.

For the record. I'm 27, still have my old Fujica, a D80 and an iPhone.

--
you don't need eyes to see, you need vision

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand - the limitations are with the Automatic car not the manual...

As for the "roll backward", I'm afraid that only speaks about your ability to drive a manual gear car.

When driving a manual you learn the ability to pull away on a hill using the handbrake and the action of "holding the car on the clutch". This means that you get the car to biting point of moving away and hold it there. You can sit on a hill like this with the handbrake off until your clutch burns out!

When I was tested for my car license here in the UK I was tested for hill starts, which you will fail the entire driving test if you roll backward.

Dave_Anderson said:

mamallama said:

Should one who drives a car with an automatic transmission know how to drive a car with a stick shift transmission?

Click to expand...

At the very least they should be aware of the limitations of cars with manual transmissions, for example the morons with automatic transmissions who creep up on the rear bumper of the car in front of them, not allowing for the fact that it's typical for a car with a manual trans to roll backward on a hill when starting off, need to have some sense slapped into them. That's a safety issue though, and a pet peeve of mine.

A better example might be, should everyone who rides an elevator have to know how an elevator works?

Click to expand...

I still agree with my original reply, but I thought a bit more about it from a younger person's perspective. I have been in the IT industry for many years, and I used to manage a university IT support help desk that and hired both full-time staff and part-time college students. It was interesting to me to work with college students who grew up immersed in technology and the Internet from a very young age. I learned to type on an electric typewriter and never saw a computer until I was in college. Now when I started working with computers and networks in the early 90s you still had to be a bit of a tinkerer. You had to understand the basics of how hardware and software worked, how computers talked over a network, etc. You had to know a little DOS, and maybe a little Unix. And when the first Web browser was released you had to know how to write your own Web page in HTML using a simple text editor (which for me was vi editor on the Unix server that ran our university web server).

Year after year as I worked with college students who were born increasingly closer to the year I graduated high school, I of course witnessed a growing interest in the use of technology. Just about every student used text messaging on their phones, video messaging on their computers, social networking, etc. E-Mail was actually kind of an old person's form of communication as far as many of them were concerned. While it seemed that more students were using technology, it still seemed like the only ones who really understood the technology they were using were the ones who had a special interest in that knowledge. I think it's the same for photographers. Some just want to use the camera to take photos and they aren't concerned about the outcome looking perfect. The ones who get really into it will learn to understand exposure so they can have more control and so they can achieve more consistent results.

If they want to learn it, they will. Understanding exposure is not that hard. I'm quite sure my 11-year-old niece, who reads a ton and seems to retain it all, could understand exposure after a brief overview. By the end of the week she would have the zone system memorized and would be able to get properly exposed photos out of a manual camera. And if she ever gets bitten by the photography bug, I could see her doing just that even if she had a fully automatic camera. She already collects old typewriters.

mamallama said:

Dave_Anderson said:

mamallama said:

Should one who drives a car with an automatic transmission know how to drive a car with a stick shift transmission?

Click to expand...

At the very least they should be aware of the limitations of cars with manual transmissions, for example the morons with automatic transmissions who creep up on the rear bumper of the car in front of them, not allowing for the fact that it's typical for a car with a manual trans to roll backward on a hill when starting off, need to have some sense slapped into them. That's a safety issue though, and a pet peeve of mine.

Click to expand...

That just means people driving manual transmission cars should know how to drive them on hills. I drove a 1950 Chevy with a basic 3-speed manual transmission on the hills of San Francisco. Never had any rollback problems.

On the very steep hills, like the California Street hill above Powell, the trick is to use a combination of hand brake and foot brake since you can't transfer your right foot from brake to accelerator fast enough without rollback. That's what I mean about skills.

I think the driving test in SF checks you out on hill driving. If you are driving a manual transmission you better be skilled to drive on hills.

mamallama said:

A better example might be, should everyone who rides an elevator have to know how an elevator works?

Click to expand...

Knowing how to operate something is different from knowing how something works.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

I can start off just fine on even a steep hill with minimal roll-back. The thing is, when someone is inches from your bumper, it then makes it necessary to do the dance with the handbrake. That's what annoys me. Normally I'm fine, I get by with my skills, but occasionally someone's ignorance makes the process more complicated than it needs to be.

Smudger79 said:

I'm not sure I understand - the limitations are with the Automatic car not the manual...

As for the "roll backward", I'm afraid that only speaks about your ability to drive a manual gear car.

Click to expand...

I've been driving MT cars for 27 years. I rarely use the handbrake, as I can start on the steepest hills I encounter without rolling back more than a couple of inches. However, my car is a somewhat rare classic, not cheap to repair, so when someone is inches from my bumper on a hill it makes me nervous. I respond by taking my time, using the handbrake, and even finding a moment to respond to their honking with a one-finger salute.

Smudger79 said:

When driving a manual you learn the ability to pull away on a hill using the handbrake and the action of "holding the car on the clutch". This means that you get the car to biting point of moving away and hold it there. You can sit on a hill like this with the handbrake off until your clutch burns out!

Click to expand...

If you did that to my car it would be the last time you ever drove it! I would take such action to mean you don't know how to drive MT properly . At the first opportunity to pull over safely you would find yourself switched over to the passenger seat or, if you gave me enough backtalk, you would find yourself walking! Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Smudger79 said:

When I was tested for my car license here in the UK I was tested for hill starts, which you will fail the entire driving test if you roll backward.

Click to expand...

I know that in Europe people are expected to exhibit a higher level of skill and more common sense before they get a license. I wish it were so here... but the fact that it is not so stringent here does not mean that we are ALL dullards.

Smudger79 said:

Dave_Anderson said:

mamallama said:

Should one who drives a car with an automatic transmission know how to drive a car with a stick shift transmission?

Click to expand...

At the very least they should be aware of the limitations of cars with manual transmissions, for example the morons with automatic transmissions who creep up on the rear bumper of the car in front of them, not allowing for the fact that it's typical for a car with a manual trans to roll backward on a hill when starting off, need to have some sense slapped into them. That's a safety issue though, and a pet peeve of mine.

A better example might be, should everyone who rides an elevator have to know how an elevator works?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Pedagydusz said:

An American friend of mine come to Europe on holidays, rented a car, and had hell with the manual transmission!

OTOH, when I first rented a car in the US, I just had to look around the car for 3 or 4 minutes, and off I went, no problems! (I have lived in Europe all my life).
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems that in America everyone wants an automatic transmission so they can drive with a decaf latte in one hand and a cellphone in the other. Sad really... part of the overall "dumbing down" that's been going on for quite some time.

The people who just use their cameraphone or compact on auto everything - I doubt, you, I or even they themselves would call them 'photographers'. They just want the images to document their life. Everything that makes that easier and gives better results is a good thing.

Todays true photographers, those who strive for better quality, and find joy in actually thinking about the process and the results, still have/want to learn about exposure and focus. Maybe only later on, but eventually they will. There are some old film skills they don't have to learn anymore, unless they want to, but there are a whole lot of digital skills they can't afford not to learn, and skills such as composing and timing a shot haven't changed at all.

If pushed, I could even defend the opposite point, that young photographers have a harder time, because they have to stand out against the amateurs. If you're a good photographer you'll consistently deliver good pictures, but these days an amateur with a P&S will on many occasions also be able to get a certain number of pictures that look good enough, especially in the eyes of his peers. Technological advances have made the difference in (relevant) image quality between the guy next door and a true photographer much smaller, at least on many occasions. (Isn't that what all the discussions on wedding photographers boil down to?)

And in the end, is a photograph worth more if it is taken with manual focus and manual exposure, instead of in an automatic or semi-automatic way? Is someone a better photographer because he only uses manual focus and manual exposure?

Oh nice... struck a nerve have I? Very nice discussions going on here! That was exactely why i posted this.

I like the Manual - Automatic transmission comparison and especially the part about that a Manual driver won't have too much trouble driving an Automatic. On the other hand people who are used to Automatic have lots of trouble with Manual, just because they never used it. That's the same with camera's. 'Manual people' will (logically) understand a modern camera in a sec (apart from the menu's and so on, but they will know what they're doing) but 'Auto people' won't necessarily understand a manual camera.

Back to the car: I personally think that knowing what you're doing with a gearbox, as in a manual car can make you a better driver in an Automatic, because you know a little bit about what the gearbox is doing. Don't you think that a car mechanic (theoretically) could drive better/more economical/more efficient/healthier for the car then your average driver. The same could be true about photographers. 'Autopeople' know the least, 'Manualpeople' know a little and Pro's know a lot.

About the elevators: when I ride an elevator it's like an 'Autocamera', when I would be a professional elevator operator (do they still exist?) I would like to know how it works!

Nice people, keep on writing, keep on reading. Again: nice discussions.
--
you don't need eyes to see, you need vision

Ron Poelman said:

How are their photos ?

The real questions are:
Has technology improved "the average photo" ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

technically perhaps but that has little or nothing to do with "keepers" snap shooters and non hobbyist will have different standards for their keepers then we non the less they will have standards and I doubt that the percentage of keepers now days is much if any different than with the box brownie.

Ron Poelman said:

Has technology improved professional photos ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

real answer no. It has made it easier and quicker for pros to get some shots but the measure of the professional photo is the customer parting with money and I suspect that the earning levels for pros adjusted for inflation is about the same as in years past that is to say for most under paid and over worked.

Ron Poelman said:

Has technology improved enthusiast photos ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

nope No matter how automated your camera has become the photographer still makes the important decisions on where to point it and where to focus it etc. When to depend on the automation when to over ride the automation and so on.

Ron Poelman said:

Has technology improved the path to a good photo for learners/beginners ?
Answer: Yes

Click to expand...

nope though the learning curve is different it is just as arduous. In the old film days a beginner could pic up a camera and load it and start shooting almost right out of the box so to speak but learning the camera and process can be a life long quest. Same for digital.

Ron Poelman said:

Just think of the time that digital gives you back over film.
Wouldn't you have preferred to have been thinking about photos
not processes when you were learning ?

Click to expand...

is this even relevant?

Ron Poelman said:

--

Click to expand...

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

This is something that has been the subject of many conversations for many years. From the old days, those of us that were chemically altering our Dektol and D-76 to change the development process were vilified by the “purists” who believe that we had lost touch with the “art” of photography. It’s really not that different now. So much angst and acrimony over what should be a decent discussion.

I believe that part of the problem is that in the older days, a lot of like-minded photographers would hang out and discuss things, but today, we have the web, where all the haters and trolls can come out and flex their e-muscles and start all kinds of trouble. For those of us in Chicago, we used to hang out at Central Camera and other places and shoot the breeze about the art. I miss that.

This forum is no different that many others – you basically have to sift through a mountain of posts to find that gems that actually are worth something. Some of the conversations going on in the Olympus SLR forum were disappointing and downright disgusting. Anyone who purports to be somewhat of an authority on anything should be happy to share what they know, and if someone disagrees with them, should be big enough to let it slide. Again, hiding behind a keyboard and becoming an e-tough-guy seems to be the norm nowadays.

It all boils down to respect, really. You may or may not feel that the advent of technology in photography actually is actually helping photographers or photography in general, but the fact is that for some people it does, and it doesn’t for others. I may be old-school, but I respect the photographer who decides that the best way for them to learn is by shooting large numbers of photos to learn the capabilities of their equipment and themselves. Personally, I like the fact that with film, you were limited to what you had for film rolls and the cost of development. It made me think very carefully about each and every shot. That’s how I learned, but that doesn’t mean that it would be right for anyone else. For other folks, shooting the large numbers may be the best way. I may not agree with manipulating the image in Photoshop to the point where it no longer resembles anything that the lens was looking at, but I do respect that fact that the person doing it may have just as much passion for what they are doing as I do for how I do things. The art of photography is evolving, and we should be open enough to recognize that. The digital age is responsible for some breathtaking imagery, and that should be celebrated. That being said, that doesn’t mean that you can’t still do things the way you did 20 years ago. If that works for you, then more power to you.

The bottom line is that there is no right or wrong for this – it simply boils down to what works best for any individual. You don’t have to like, or even agree to their approach, but you should respect it. If someone disagrees with you after you’ve stated why you feel the way you do, then let it go. Pass on what you know, help where you can, and if you encounter some resistance along the way, just move along. Don’t become one of those individuals that seethes about some mindless text in some forum (you know who you are). Is an argument with someone (who is never going to respect you anyway) about DoF really worth making your blood pressure skyrocket? I think not.

My advice is simple:

Go out and practice the art form in whatever way suits you best. If you are not happy with the results, seek the advice of others here. If you get flamed, then seek it elsewhere. If you are happy with your results, then thou art doing it right - go home and sleep well!

Thanks,

Nrtheastah

Ofcourse it's individual!

What I was trying to start (and IMHO it kind of worked) was a discussion for the discussion's sake. There is (again IMHO) no wrong or right!

See also the old Ansel, with his prime lenses, he made pictures most of us only dream of. On the other side there are now photobooks made by professionals filled with iPhone pictures most people would still dream of. Equipment is just a means to an end, but the question was wether knowing your equipment helps.
--
you don't need eyes to see, you need vision

Atlasman said:

They asked a similar question about the calculator.

Click to expand...

A math teacher once remarked to me, "Some of my students are incapable of telling whether an answer is reasonable or not. For instance, 2 divided by 5 equals 10, some of them say. Reasonably, if you divide a number by something bigger than itself, the answer will be less than one. But if the calculator says it's ten, it must be ten."

In other words they pressed the wrong button and multiplied but don't have any foundation for questioning the answer they get.

Of course if you put the camera on autofocus and the picture comes back out of focus, the result is more obvious.

One thing I notice is that automation will lull me into a false sense of security sometimes. Used to be, you focused on something and it stayed focused. Last night, a couple wanted me to take their picture. Fine, I pointed the camera at them, and I was all about framing it just so. When I took the picture, d'oh! They rearranged themselves ever so slightly while I did that...slightly enough that my AF point now landed on the sign 10 feet behind them (which came out sharp as a tack btw).

Nice!

As for the 5MT I think driving is boring enough...gimme something to do! My family said, "Driving in Dallas, you won't want to shift...." Uh, yeah, I still do. Manual focus is like a manual transmission, but I'm swimming upstream on that one for sure.

But when it comes to photos, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When instamatics deliver a result other than we wanted or expected, it's natural (for some) to wonder why. More advanced cameras let you manipulate more. Some laugh at the cost and say, "The picture wasn't THAT important." So be it. For others, like many of us posting in here, it's worth the money and it's worth the time to understand the how and why.

Despite agreeing 100% with you, I think these discussions rather silly. So I'll chime in .

Like drive a manual transmission truck and have, in the past, driving a Brownie 4 x 5 tractor. Few over the road truck drivers today could master a Brownie. So what? There may be 10 Brownies on the road today. When I drove one over a 10 years ago, it was an antique.

My daughter has never 'developed' anything. She prints, not with a Bessler but with an Epson. However, she has developed a beautiful technique which is all her own.

To look at it another way, back in the ancient days of photography, someone who only knew how to use a manual Leica was a piker. To be a REAL photographer, you had to use a view camera. Before then, you had to know wet plate tech.

So if one starts saying you need to set your own f stop, then I say get a view camera using wet plates and then, after you paid your dues, work your way up the tech ladder.
--

-----
-paul

You can "reduce" the argument all the way back to the sad fact

that most of us are spoiled in that we don't

1: milk our own cows
2: cut the heads of our own chicken and pluck them
3: chop our own tree and build our own log cabins.

Well, here goes my take, translated into car terms...

Modern cars allow Average Joe to drive safely, conveniently and efficiently, and I think we'll all agree that's a good thing. (Unless of course you believe that driving should be restricted to a professional elite of drivers, and everybody else has to walk or get a driver)

His neighbour Jack who's a car mechanic, race car driver or who loves vintage cars, knows alot more about cars than does Joe, including something about manual gears, and how to make better turns and stops in all weather and road conditions. Nevertheless, Jack's own car doesn't have to be a manual car, it might just as well be an automatic.

If you put both Jack and Joe in an unknown modern car, thanks to his skills Jack will probably arrive at the destination sooner than Joe. However, if the car is not too quirky, the difference may not be very large, especially given that Jack also has to follow traffic rules, and he too might get stuck in a traffic jam. Even so, Joe won't probably mind arriving later than his friend Jack. After all, Jack is a professional, he's bound to have superior driving skills, and Joe has no intention whatsoever to pretend being a car mechanic.

On the other hand, Joe might be a photographer, and during his slower drive he might have spotted a photo opportunity and stopped. So at the end of the day, they both have enjoyed their day, Jack driving and Joe shooting. They just had different priorities, and both can still be friends without one feeling superior to the other. Additionally, neither one has to feel particularly unhappy about modern car technology.