Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is interesting, Don, and hopefully useful - almost all these discussions are useful to me because they make me think more about issues I otherwise might not think enough about. :-) That said, a couple of things - First, I don't tell students to go out and just blast away - I in fact teach thinking prior to every release of the shutter, thinking about why in God's name they would actually want the image they are about to create (Yes, that thinking can become instantaneous and instinctive.) And virtually everything in my classes, be they at MIT or the Maine Photo Workshops - is about the "vision thing;" I keep the technical end of the discussion to an absolute minimum. I don't know about the kids you teach, but virtually all of those I teach are on budgets; I am on a budget. And that means that shooting digital allows for shooting unencumbered by worries about the cost of film and processing. And that is truly liberating. As to having "everything" cameras, having auto everything doesn't require using auto everything. If I have put one of my cameras - digital or the Nikon F 100 in the film age - on "Program" more than a half-dozen times if I was not shooting flash, it was a lot; I tell students to forget they have program, and to forget they have any of those 'ideal' settings with the funny pictures of people's faces, flowers, etc. etc. Further, I give them assignments where they are literally required to tape their zoom lens at a pre-selected focal length. I also give them assignments where they are required to shoot a particular number - relatively small number - of images. No, 300 bad images most definitely do not teach more than 35 bad images. (Well, wait a minute, maybe they do - they teach that if you don't know what you're doing; if you don't think carefully about what you're doing; if you don't carefully compose; if you don't hold the camera steady; if you don't pay attention to the light, it doesn't matter how many images you shoot - your images will suck. :-) ) But even if I accept that 300 bad images don't teach more than 35 bad images, I would still believe that the more one shoots, the better one gets, up to the limitations imposed by one's innate talent. At least I know that's definitely been the case for me, and for virtually every other photographer I've talked to about personal photographic development. Remember, back when everyone on this list was using nothing but film (;-) ), our betters, such a Ted, used to endlessly counsel - film is cheap. His point wasn't that we needed something to fill our bags with, it was that the more you shoot, the better you get. Best B. D. On 3/24/06 9:47 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > B.D. This is actually fairly interesting. I have been following a bunch of > 14-18 year olds in their first photography courses at various private schools > in the area. Above average kids for the most part but probably not > MIT material. Most of them start out with mums old whatever 35mm. It might > be an SRT, it could be a new film Rebel. For the most part the images are > OK technically, the problem is the old vision thing. Some kids can see, > some can't and never will, and the larger majority can't see now but > probably could if shown what a good image might be and the how to of getting > there. I suppose the base of my argument is that more might not be better. > 300 bad images do not teach a better lesson than 35. I don't actually think > that a film camera is the best learning tool for newbies. Unlimited > shooting probably causes the brain to stop working and random chance to take > over; this is the same argument we had a while back about 8FPS versus a > skilled eye and knowledge of the activity. I believe that if I taught > beginning students again I would start with a 64MB card so that they had to > plan what they would do and execute. This would be similar to the IB art > course where the students have to keep a journal that explains influences and > planned direction for parcticular pieces of work. Hook the digital to a large > screen TV and show what happens when you change a control. Provide a very > limited assignment and make the student show the images to the class, all of > them. The temporary embarassment of the image with the coke bottle that > slipped in will be more than made up for with > the feedback. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 3/24/06, B. D. Colen > <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote: > > I really just don't understand this exchange, > and I don't think you do > either. > > First off, while I often forget what I > write, I believe what I was talking > about back when is the fact that digital > allows me - and everyone else - > to > shoot more images, and the more one > shoots, the better one gets; I don't > recall saying that shooting with > autoeverything was better for beginning > photographers. > > Beyond that, > however, I don't see in my waaaaaaay above average students - > in terms of > their raw intelligence and their exposure to things technical > - > anywhere > near the success rates with digital autofocus cameras that you > ascribe to > the average 14 year old. They give me out-of-focus images; they > give me > poorly exposed images; they give me images that are blurred > because > the > shutter speed was too slow. They make the same kind of mistakes kids > > made/make with manual focus, meterless, film cameras. > > Love film, hate > digital. But please, stick to reality. If one is going to > produce > photographs that are ultimately work looking at, one still has to > learn > about the relationships between shutter speeds and f stops; one > still > has > to learn about depth of field; one still has to know how to focus > manually. > Bottom line, one still has to learn the basics of photography. > > The only > difference between learning those basics now, and learning them > when we were > learning them is that today one really does not have to learn > how to soup > film and print it, any more than you or I had to learn how to > deal with > glass plates. ;-) > > > On 3/24/06 9:12 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Larry, > The thrust of my comments were that you had to know what > the device > > would do > before you could get interesting results. With the > automagic cameras > > you > have no idea why an image turns out the way it > does. Make the mistakes > > and > see what interesting images happen; screw > up the exposure and you find > > out > about high key and low key. > Accidentally use a slow shutter and > > discover > blurs. Screw up the focus > and see what selective focus does. It all > > adds > to the knowledge. > > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 3/24/06, > > lrzeitlin@optonline.net > <lrzeitlin@optonline.net> wrote: > > > > > > <<B.D., > > You > > are a > talented and experienced photographer.? Take your average 14 > > something > > > year old just starting out.? Hand her your Oly330 and watch her > > shoot a > card > > full of properly focused on something and correctly exposed > > by > > > some > > standard images.? What is good, it all looks good.? Why is it > good, > > well > > they are all in focus and I have whites and blacks so the > exposure is > > just > > fine. > > With the limitations of manual and a > limited number of opportunities > > the > > newbie will have to think.? Yes, a > lot of the first images will be > > trash, > > but the newbie will know they > are trash and look at what works.? With > > some > > understanding of why you > want a particular shutter speed and why an > > > > aperture > > causes certain > effects then the automagic camera becomes a valuable > > tool. > > Otherwise > you are in P and your images look just like everyone else > > with a > > zoom > and a pop up flash. > > Don > > don.dory@gmail.com>> > > > > Don, > > > > > > > Don't make the assumption that technical and artistic skills are somehow > > > > > related. The evidence s > > hows that they are uncorrelated. I know > engineers > > that can design a > > computer from scratch but can't write a > coherent English > > sentence. > > Shakespeare, on the other hand, wrote his > plays with a quill pen. > > Would > > learning to use a word processor have > enabled him to do better. I > > doubt it. > > > > To use a more cogent > example, Ted, who is unquestionably one of > > the best > > photographers on > the LUG, is a self admitted technophobe. Would a > > Masters > > degree in > Optoelectronics make him a better photographer. I doubt > > it. > > > > Skill > with the mechanics of a camera has nothing to do with artistic > > > > > vision. > > > > Larry Z > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > information > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users > Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica > Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information