Young, new photographers. Do they miss basic skills?

Ray Maines said:

.... but so what? Windows is better.

Click to expand...

I can remember going through DOS to Windows conversions and saw productivity decrease because of it.

With well designed DOS applications, users got a lot more done without needing to worry about using a mouse, what fonts they were using, etc. ;-)

As for multi-tasking, I saw good solutions long before MS released Win 3.0. For example, Desqview was a pretty nice solution. But, politics and MS business practices got in the way and Windows ended up being more popular.

Sure, for today's digital images and multimedia applications, you really need a more robust operating system.

But, for many business related applications, Windows was a huge step backwards.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

pcassel said:

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

Click to expand...

...and I'll return the favor.

I think people learn what they need to learn. I know a lot about computers. When I needed to learn how to do something on computer (or just really wanted to learn it), I did, like Powerpoint. Self-taught, learned a lot of the ins and outs.

And I know very little about computers. There are other areas where I think I should, like Excel, but I haven't. I can't add one little meaningful equation in there, though I can see where it could be very useful.

I wanted to work on computer while projecting something else from the same computer for others to watch. So I learned how to do that, but if you never need that, you probably won't learn it just for the sake of learning it.

I know a lot about photography. Apertures and shutter speeds, depth of field vs. depth of focus, obsolete concepts like reciprocity failure and blah blah blah.

I know virtually zero about photography when it comes to photoshop etc. I come from the land of film, where I had to turn over my color film to the lab and cross my fingers.

I sometimes see pics in here that make me think, 'That's a great picture; I wish I could make a shot like that.' I suspect some of what holds me back is that I don't know how to post process. I got a DSLR that will make RAW files as well, so that avenue is open at least. I haven't done much except fart around with the Oly software, though. E.g. I'm not quite sure what "chroma noise" is, let alone how to fix it but I tweak things like a trained chimp, watching the changes on screen. Someday my interest may reach critical mass, I'll pursue that and make better photos.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking about better composition

dennis tennis said:

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

Click to expand...

Grew up on a dairy farm. Been there. Done that.

dennis tennis said:

2: cut the heads of our own chicken and pluck them

Click to expand...

Did that too. We didn't cut them off. We grabbed them by the head and spun them till the head came off in our hand. The chicken then ran around for a bit with no head. Yes, they do that.

dennis tennis said:

3: chop our own tree and build our own log cabins.

Click to expand...

Used them for firewood, but never built a log cabin.

Jim Cockfield said:

Ray Maines said:

.... but so what? Windows is better.

Click to expand...

I can remember going through DOS to Windows conversions and saw productivity decrease because of it.

With well designed DOS applications, users got a lot more done without needing to worry about using a mouse, what fonts they were using, etc. ;-)

Click to expand...

Go to any lawyer's office and ask an older secretary if she would like to have her old Word Perfect 5.1 back.

Member said:

SNIP

Click to expand...

Member said:

But, for many business related applications, Windows was a huge step backwards.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

drmatiz said:

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!

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the elevator analogy that fits best with manual vs automatic cameras be taking the stairs vs riding the elevator? "I used to climb 5 flights of stairs every time I came or went before we got the elevator... now these kids just step on, push a button, and magically arrive at the floor of their choosing!"

As far as the car thing goes: Just like cameras it all comes down to control, doesn't it? Casual photographers don't desire the level of control that more advanced photographers want and need. They just want to point and shoot... just like most drivers just want to steer, accelerate, and stop without having to manually shift gears. Of course there are times when having manual control of your transmission or your exposure can be advantageous... at least as long as you know the controls.

Nobody can learn everything there is to know about everything they do, so we are all selective about it. Not everyone gets so into photography that they want to know how it all works. Those who do, even kids who grew up on automatic cameras, will learn. They just might kick themselves for not learning how exposure works sooner once they realize how easy it is to understand. But even if they do understand exposure, that doesn't mean they will use Manual exposure settings. Some photographers prefer to stick with automatic modes and then use different metering or exposure compensation to control exposure. Me? I like Manual exposure mode, because once I get the optimal exposure dialed in I can get consistent results on every shot... at least until the light changes.

520man said:

Atlasman said:

They asked a similar question about the calculator.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

520man said:

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.

Click to expand...

But many people today can't do basic math like making change without the cash register telling them how much change to give out.

I admit I've gotten lazy with digital cameras...until I had used a digital camera all my film cameras required me setting the shutter speed and aperture for EVERY shot, the only electronics they had was a built in light meter.

But having A, S, and P modes I admit I've used them (mainly because the controls on digital cameras make it so awkward to set the shutter speed and aperture).

And now trying to use a camera with only "M" mode it takes a lot more effort to think whereas previously it was just instinct from having to set the camera manually for so many years.

Or the role of technology on the "improvement" of photos?

To answer the original question: there were plenty of fully automatic film cameras back in the day, and with 1 hour processing, you never had to learn a single thing about photography. So back then, yes - people missed out on the technical and creative aspects of photography, just like people miss out today on the creative and technical aspects of photography with digital equipment. The equipment changes, the disinterest in learning remains the same. So I don't see digital photography technology as being responsible for causing these "young people" to not care about learning more about photography.

But as to whether technology has "improved" people's shots, it depends on what you think is an improvement. If less blurry and better exposed snapshots is your idea of improvement, then yes - instant feedback and the ability to shoot virtually indiscriminately allows some people to figure out that they took a bad picture before waiting in line at the drug store looking at dark, blurry glossy prints, wondering what went wrong.

However, many people with digital equipment still have the same mentality - they take a picture with their digital camera, it looks dark and blurry, then they fiddle around with some settings and keep on trying to take the same picture until it looks okay. If they somehow manage to improve the picture, then great. If not, then oh well. And yet, they still have no idea what they did, and they couldn't be bothered with figuring out why. So has technology improved photography here? Not really. It simply increases the chance that the picture you end up is more usable. And is that improving photography? Not in my book.

So the final answer: no, technology hasn't made younger people more spoiled and miss basic skills - some people, old or young, just won't care either way. But neither has technology improved photography. Digital cameras in phones, keychains, pocket point and shoots, webcams, etc has simply opened up picture taking to a much wider audience now (especially young people) so it seems like there's a large number of them who don't know the first thing about f-stops. But that will always be the case - a large number of people who like to take pictures without getting into the nitty-gritty of it, and a smaller number of people who enjoy learning more in depth about the technical and creative side of photography. I can't see how digital technology has changed that basic trend.

Only results matter, not tools, and not technique.

That said, tools and technique can help render a result from a pre-visualized image.

Knowledge is not exactly worthless, but not as important as consistently good final results.

--
Galleries: http://www.dheller.net

“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.” -- Ansel Adams

carl english said:

Blimey, I always thought the Photographer took the picture, ah well! always learning.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that Ron said that? I can't find it in his post.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

I think you're making a lot of very poor and ignorant assumptions regarding many of today's young photographers. I've worked with many young photo assistants, many of whom have little or no experience with all-manual film cameras. Nevertheless, they confidently know their way around all the auto and manual functions of today's DSLR cameras. So why don't we cut out the ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ill-informed assumptions about today's young photographers. Today's young photographers have more shooting time and more shot frames under their belt than most all-manual film shooters ever had under their belts in the same amount span of time.

And, in fact, there are a lot of things that today's young photographers have to think about that young film photographers practically never had to think about. Processing your own photos? All the young photographers I know have no problem processing their own images, controlling image parameters that would boggle the mind of manual film shooters from the past. Sure, some film photographers might have done their own B/W film processing, but few if any ever did their own color film processing.

Plus, today's young digital photographers take into account things like WB, highlight clipping, shadow clipping, etc. Frankly, when I was a film shooter, I hardly ever gave much thought to those parameters because negative film had such huge dynamic range, such huge exposure latitude, etc. You just loaded up your film and shot away freely, then dropped the film off at the lab, and you were done. With many of today's young digital photographer, there is a lot more to consider before pressing the shutter (WB, clipping, ISO, etc.), and after the image is shot, the image creation process is just beginning for them. They then look forward to loading it into their computer and editing/fine-tuning/enhancing/adjusting their images to whatever vision they want!

If you want to talk about "spoiled photographers", try pointing your finger at negative film photographers. Negative film is highly forgiving of exposure errors, and it's pretty difficult to clip highlights with negative film. With digital, it's pretty easy to clip highlights, and while shoot RAW does give you more dynamic range and exposure latitude, it's still not as idiot-proof as negative film.

drmatiz said:

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

Click to expand...

drmatiz said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd actually say that with today's modern cameras, there's actually a lot more to know about your equipment than there ever was back in the manual film camera days. Yes, you can shoot in full auto mode. But you can also shoot in full manual mode. Or you can shoot in semi-auto modes like Av and Tv where you still have a lot of overriding control. So why are you assuming that just because modern cameras offer a high degree of automation, that today's modern photographers are less inclined to know how to control their equipment?

And that point is: People don't have to drive manual transmission cars anymore and photographers don't need to use a manual camera with no autofocus, no exposure meter, no Is, no FD, no .....anymore.

And they can be just as good a photographer if they know their super-duper auto everything camera and have the artistic skills. What else is there to know?

--mamallama

T3 said:

I think you're making a lot of very poor and ignorant assumptions regarding many of today's young photographers. I've worked with many young photo assistants, many of whom have little or no experience with all-manual film cameras. Nevertheless, they confidently know their way around all the auto and manual functions of today's DSLR cameras. So why don't we cut out the ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ill-informed assumptions about today's young photographers. Today's young photographers have more shooting time and more shot frames under their belt than most all-manual film shooters ever had under their belts in the same amount span of time.

And, in fact, there are a lot of things that today's young photographers have to think about that young film photographers practically never had to think about. Processing your own photos? All the young photographers I know have no problem processing their own images, controlling image parameters that would boggle the mind of manual film shooters from the past.

Click to expand...

Probably true, but maybe they would not have to account for things film photogs had to account for.

T3 said:

Sure, some film photographers might have done their own B/W film processing, but few if any ever did their own color film processing.

Click to expand...

I did B/W...man it was easy in theory but controlling the dust etc., ugh.

T3 said:

Plus, today's young digital photographers take into account things like WB, highlight clipping, shadow clipping, etc. Frankly, when I was a film shooter, I hardly ever gave much thought to those parameters because negative film had such huge dynamic range, such huge exposure latitude, etc. You just loaded up your film and shot away freely, then dropped the film off at the lab, and you were done.

Click to expand...

Sounds like me...but in all fairness, we paid attention to what we needed to pay attention to. Occasionally I take a picture and when I review it later I think, 'Man, I bet that would have been beautiful on film!'

On the other hand, I've become lazy about framing. I get the image and tweak it, and if needed I can even even crop or sharpen it later. Those luxuries weren't available to me in the film days. Maybe the lab would have handled it to my liking and maybe not.

T3 said:

With many of today's young digital photographer, there is a lot more to consider before pressing the shutter (WB, clipping, ISO, etc.), and after the image is shot, the image creation process is just beginning for them. They then look forward to loading it into their computer and editing/fine-tuning/enhancing/adjusting their images to whatever vision they want!

Click to expand...

One drop-dead advantage of digital photography may be the option to change ISO whenever you feel like it. Back in the day, you might have had Kodachrome 25 in one body, Tri-X in another, and Kodacolor 100 in another. You might have had it...I could only afford one body. Sure, noise goes up but dayum, that was a selling point of shelling out big bucks for medium format: you could change film (and ISO, or as I still like to think of it, ASA) in mid-roll by changing backs.

T3 said:

If you want to talk about "spoiled photographers", try pointing your finger at negative film photographers. Negative film is highly forgiving of exposure errors, and it's pretty difficult to clip highlights with negative film. With digital, it's pretty easy to clip highlights, and while shoot RAW does give you more dynamic range and exposure latitude, it's still not as idiot-proof as negative film.

Click to expand...

But isn't that just a choice of tools? "Idiot proof" is another way of saying "covering your bases," I think.

27 is the new young.

Which is better ?
1. A technical super shot admired by seasoned pros.
2. A fun shot that's creative but has numerous flaws.
Each has it's place. And there are more.

ie. I shot 1000 shots at a concert (up front, as media) with 2 cams, and came out with about 8-10 good shots. That's my opinion. If I had shot only 300, I woulda come out with less.
So it depends on ALL the factors .

Hmmmmm.

DavidMaven said:

Only results matter, not tools, and not technique.

Click to expand...

Without technique, how do you get results? Define "results". I don't think getting one good shot/result out of 500 frames would count as "results". That's just a lucky coincidence.

DavidMaven said:

That said, tools and technique can help render a result from a pre-visualized image.

Knowledge is not exactly worthless, but not as important as consistently good final results.

Click to expand...

How do you get consistent results without technique?

Marion

I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about but I have to say you have a fascinating way of saying it!

mhc_99 said:

How do you get consistent results without technique?

Click to expand...

Set it to AUTO.

On a much more puzzling note:
why do you suppose Ansel A. keeps getting dragged into these threads ?
He's hardly a poster boy for the flat earthers.
For all we know, he probably lay awake at night cursing that silvery shimmer
in his bright areas that made his photos look like Christmas Cards.
He certainly wasn't above revisiting old work years later
using newer, different techniques.
He clearly saw things lurking in those old shots that he could get out
with better tools and went for it.
It was the ultimate PP, really.
--

mhc_99 said:

DavidMaven said:

Only results matter, not tools, and not technique.

Click to expand...

Without technique, how do you get results? Define "results". I don't think getting one good shot/result out of 500 frames would count as "results". That's just a lucky coincidence.

mhc_99 said:

That said, tools and technique can help render a result from a pre-visualized image.

Knowledge is not exactly worthless, but not as important as consistently good final results.

Click to expand...

How do you get consistent results without technique?

Click to expand...

Now exactly where does DavidMaven say there's no technique?? I read him to say whatever technique used doesn't matter as long as the results are good.

There's too much reading between the lines on this forum and getting it wrong.

--mamallama

Well there are more snap shooters than before, more gear heads than before, more technophiles than before, so good for the business.

http://www.pbase.com/bingard/galleries