Yesterday I posted a short note about learning photography. I have continued thinking about this. One interesting aspect is of course equipment. What kind of camera you need to learn photography?
I started to take photographs when all we had were more or less manual cameras, with simple exposure automatics but manual focusing. My first camera was a Minolta XG-1 SLR, which had aperture priority automatics. It was an excellent learning tool.
Nowadays even the cheapest cameras have automatics much beyond the simple SLRs of the past. But this is a hindrance to learning and experimentation. Here you find a nice article about this. It is indeed hard to find a cheap enough camera with manual controls.
What is not mentioned in the article is the availability of CHDK software for Canon compacts, which helps in using manual controls. On the other hand, if the camera is not designed for manual operations, a clever software is not much use.
In summary, megapixels don't matter much in learning, but good manual controls are essential. An slightly older (or used) camera may be the best purchase, whether it is a high-end compact or a low-end DSLR.
In getting reasonably good images, learning to use exposure compensation is essential. In short, you need experimentation to know what to do in a given situation. This should become almost instictive with enough practice. Another topic is the white balance, but here I must admit to being a lazy learner, and I'm far from mastery.
Finally, the most important espects of learning to take photographs: having fun. In fact, I'm no longer waiting to learn photography. The learning process is in itself the thing for me. I don't expect to be an expert any time soon. In fact, learning and experimentation is the fun in photography.
Posts
I don’t want to read today.
10 hours ago
5 comments:
Unfortunately it seems that the greatest part of today's cameras are bought by people who don't want to learn photography but want to take pictures - the camera is seen more as a commodity then as a tool for a craft with a goal. The functionality of the cameras reflects this, the many scene modes and automatics that choose the correct scene mode and now even Sony's automatic picture taker that doesn't even need a photographer behind the camera.
Those who take photography seriously are a minority, and only because the majority decides to buy cameras we can afford it. (And when the camera is expensive enought, the company did not rip off all manual controls).
I think the first thing you need in photography is a goal, a message, and an eye. (and when the goal is to show beauty, spmething remarkable - fine!) When you see your results the feedback process starts in order to improve the image to better convey the message. And in this feedback loop the photographer starts to master all necessary tools, manual controls, digital techniques and so on. Different goals need different toolsets, and so the ways of learning will become pretty individual.
The fun part you mention of course is important - if we don't sell our images, there must be another justification for all expenditures, learning and so on - many of us do it because we simply want to. If there's no fun and no money and no other secondary benefits in it, why should we endure the different hardships?
I have been reading H. L. Mencken (the Chrestomathy book) and he had a rather pessimistic view about the capability of most people (90%) to be creative. In fact, he claimed that the popularity of cities was due to the availability of various diversions (movies, bars etc.) so that people had a means to forget the tediousness of their (non-creative) life. Of course, Mencken was Mencken.
But the question of creativity (and having fun while doing it) is a big one. Is everyone able to be creative? Or is it better to have everything automated (even creativity) so that there is no need to bother?
Well, today again I am in a pessimistic mood (I shouldn't read the newspaper), so for a moment I was tempted to agree to your last sentence.
But assuming that adult life usually makes use only of your "useful" capabilites, I guess it's not a good argument for this lifestyle. Most kids, if not all, are creative in one way or the other, and many loose this creativity due to deprivations or lack of motivation. But if they would be able to take care of their abilities, I guess many would find a healthier balance between externally offer diversions and following a certain creativity.
Well, photography is not about cameras. I use a DSLR, but I do it, because for me, Photoshop is part of the equation. I love working in Photoshop. The problem is, that JPEGs from a compact fall apart pretty fast as soon as you begin to do interesting things. That was the reason I bought a DSLR.
Now that I have it and some lenses as well, I see a couple of other good reasons, but still, my photography would need no particular camera, certainly no DSLR. I couldn't do some things with a compact, but the compact can do some things that I can't with a DSLR, like DOF in macro images. When you don't do extreme things in Photoshop, your camera really does not matter.
@Markus: Yes, there is hope in the children, they are creative indeed. But I do fear that will disappear by adulthood. The school system makes them into little adults all too early.
@Andreas: Indeed, the camera (and Phototoshop) are instruments, each of them have strengths and weaknesses.
Post a Comment