Three Quick Questions vs The Enjoyment of Photography

Started Jan 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 39,887
Re: Three Quick Questions vs The Enjoyment of Photography

jim stirling wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

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:

  • 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:

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.

Thanks!  To you and yours as well!

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.

You're batting 1.000.

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.

That's what strikes me as particularly odd.  There are tons of threads I have no interest in, and, guess what?  I rarely read them and I never post in them.

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 } .

To be fair, there are those that incorrectly carry the flag of Equivalence and try to use it to put down smaller sensor systems, when, in fact, Equivalence makes no such judgment.

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.

It's funny, 'cause so many would be better off with an RX100 than an EM5 system (I recently saw a thread where the EM5 user had every lens I'd want for that system, and yet none of the pics posted were anything an RX100 couldn't do).  It's terribly ironice that so many choose mFT over FF for exactly the same reasons many more should choose a compact over mFT.

Of course, some will take what I said above as putting down mFT -- absolutely not!  It's a great system.  But, and let's be honest here, how many photos do you see posted that couldn't be done just as well with an RX100 (or XZ-2), and the same applies for FF!

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