Poll: should we lie to beginners?

[bobn2]

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

 

[Bobo Hodls]

We don't want them stealing from the attention we thirst for.

Yea, a ridiculous answer, but it suits the question.

 

[Lee Jay]

None.

Teach beginners the basics first (framing, how to deal with motion blur, how to do post processing, good handholding technique, etc.). Once they are interested, then teach them the theory.

Kind of like school - teach elementary school kids some basics about the world, teach them calculus later.

 

[carl english]

Worry about you sometimes Bob.

 

[Joe Pineapples]

Sure, if people want to learn, then it does them a massive dis-service to present them with some kind of simplified introduction that is wrong, because for one thing they have to un-learn it later if they want to delve deeper; but plenty of people are happy to follow recipes, or to treat a camera / phone / tablet / computer as a mysterious box that works by some kind of internal demonology, and I don't think that makes them bad people...

Joe

 

[Beach Bum]

bobn2 wrote:

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

Your points may all be correct, but I don't really know of another site to direct them. The equivalence sites are too complicated IMO, and I don't know of another site to direct people.

Besides, I'm not really convinced the site is that bad, although I've noticed some errors that I've since properly learned about here. But, I know what you mean about the bad information, because I've run across the same thing on other sites (not just this one), and it's been a major headache getting them to understand. The biggest one coming from that site is the importance of having large pixels for low light and noise.

Still, I think it's useful if there's nothing else. Perhaps you could develop a site, if you have the time.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

carl english wrote:

Worry about you sometimes Bob.

And rightly so.

 

[BG454]

ljfinger wrote:

None.

Teach beginners the basics first (framing, how to deal with motion blur, how to do post processing, good handholding technique, etc.). Once they are interested, then teach them the theory.

Kind of like school - teach elementary school kids some basics about the world, teach them calculus later.

Absolutely agree.

If someone just wants to take "nice" pictures then it is not necessary for them to know how a camera works, in the same way that you don't need to know how a car works in order to drive one.

Teach composition first and then, if the student wants to know, teach the theory, technicalities and physics later.

It is said that you learn more from your mistakes than your successes, so let the beginner make some basic errors and then show them what went wrong, why it went wrong and what to do to correct the problem.

 

[jkoch2]

You apparently have some quarrel with CIC and seek to raise an army to make it into a battle between Light and Darkness. In fact, the matter is so dire to you that you want to use any "vote" in favor of truthfulness to equate to agreement with one side on some arcane issue.

No thanks. If you feel correct on some matter, you should be happy if it gives you a commercial or artistic advantage. Otherwise, get on with life.

There is little that ranks as Absolute Truth to rank as Correct Theory (truth), versus Incorrect Theory (lie), except possibly in regard to mathematical equations.

Light resembles both particles and waves. Water can be a fluid, solid, or gas. Molecular motion generally proceeds from order to disorder, but somehow life appeared in defiance to thermodynamics. Societies become more technologically advanced, but most people haven't a clue how to make a fraction of the articles they use or consume every day. The field of education is notoriously littered with doctrines and theories that are ambiguous or defy any proof.

So far as photography goes, there is little in the way of strict "truth" other than perhaps the relationships between focal length and aperture width. There is definitely no proof for either side of the searing debates on sensor size, pixel count, or whatever. People better equipped to know technical topicis, such as Eric Fossum on the issue of sensor efficiency, refrain from pronouncing dogmas.

Much of any good that comes from what people do arises serendipitously, without any notion of theory at all. Think of antibiotics. Usually, theory post-dates innovation.

Most debates are never settled, but simply go out of fashion. As the masses migrate from older devices, like digital cameras, to smart phones, the debates over which cameraphiles natter will seem as quaint as the battle between Tesla and Edison over the comparative merits of AC and DC.

Most things conveyed as "facts" usually turn out to be sloppy generalizations at best, but are convenient so long as people can agree on nothing better, or if the alternatives lead to serious problems.

 

[Barrie Davis]

bobn2 wrote:

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

Information should be provided at the level it would be best understood.

Therefore, it is counterproductive to give general guidance, and then launch into a long list of circumstances where the guidance doesn't apply, each instance requiring more explanation to clarify than the original response.

That isn't explanation; that is obfuscation!

 

[Steen Bay]

bobn2 wrote:

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

Of course we shouldn't lie, and of course we shouldn't teach incorrect theory, but no need to make the relatively simple facts more complicated than necessary either. We should tell new photographers about things like exposure, DoF, noise etc. in a way that takes into account how our cameras actually are designed to work (like for example the fact that shutter speed, f-stop and ISO are coupled together via the cameras metering). Think that DPR has found a reasonably good balance in the learning section :

http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/exposure/exposure

 

[RhysM]

Don't teach beginners any theory.

If they are truly interested in photography they will quickly grow tired of their sub-par photographs and seek out further education on how to improve and in turn the learn the theory for themselves.

 

[Dennis]

Steen Bay wrote:
Of course we shouldn't lie, and of course we shouldn't teach incorrect theory, but no need to make the relatively simple facts more complicated than necessary either.

I agree. I suspect that most budding photographers who bother to learn any more than P mode will gain a functional understanding and then move on; they'll never use a tripod, never ETTR, never shoot raw ... in short, they won't know or care whether their images might have been a bit better because they'll be content with how good they are (and if not, then they're probably making more basic errors than not choosing exposure optimally). They're people whose eyes will glaze over and who will lose interest if presented with too much information.

And as you say, pointing someone to CIC if it presents incorrect detail is a bad thing if they're going to read & absorb that detail; best to keep it simple. (Actually, I think it would be very simple to present exposure as shutter speed & aperture and ISO as brightening; the only thing that makes it complicated is the debate over why that's so !)

- Dennis

 

[tex]

# 2 is wrong on its face. #3 is mostly wrong. #1 sounds great, until you dig: What is taught to people has to be carefully calibrated to what the goals of the "course" are and what the audience is. So, there are situations in which # 1 could be "wrong", because information overload can be just as dangerous as too little information or incorrect information. The outcome will likely be the same: confusion.

The problem with this poll is that it skirts the area of "loaded question" and logical fallacy. It's true of a lot of polls, the questions being so limited and un-nuanced so as to shoehorn people into responding a particular way, even though that is not how they actually feel. it's a common legal tactic as well.

 

[MatsP]

If the beginner is interested in technical things, why not tell the truth? And if the beginner isn't interested, there still is no reason to lie, but maybe don't complicate things to much to confuse him/her. There must be a way to explain complicated things without violating truth, but it's not easy always. Something for skilled scientific journalists maybe, rather than engineers or researchers.

Though I'm really no beginner, I don't understand all what's written here, but I think it's fun reading it, and I don't want thing simplified to that degree that its not the full truth!

 

[Iliah Borg]

If the incorrect information affects the shooting negatively it is a big issue.

Another example would be http://photographylife.com/what-is-iso-in-photography people get

 

[Andre Affleck]

bobn2 wrote:

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

I am voting on behalf of someone who will benefit from the entertainment factor brought when misinformed students come and get schooled. He IM'ed me and told me he was tied up right now to vote.

 

[Andre Affleck]

Iliah Borg wrote:

If the incorrect information affects the shooting negatively it is a big issue.

Another example would be http://photographylife.com/what-is-iso-in-photography people get

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

bobn2 wrote:

In a few recent posts, I have given my views about the well known Cambridge in Colour website, which I believe cannot be recommended to beginners because it contains many factual and theoretical errors (a partial critique is here ). I have been told that the theory is not important to beginners, and that the correctness of the information given on sites such as CIC is only of interest to scientists and engineers. So, the question is, should we be teaching beginners incorrect theory?

Define "we".

 

[Iliah Borg]

Andre Affleck wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

If the incorrect information affects the shooting negatively it is a big issue.

Another example would be http://photographylife.com/what-is-iso-in-photography people get

So opening the proverbial can of worms again, does understanding the true definition of ISO bring a shift in paradigm on ones photographic technique?

Maybe let's put it differently, when you look at a shot, how do you know the exposure is correct?