Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-31-2018, 10:55 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Thank you for posting it here, awscreo. I find it useful.


I also like this one: Untitled Document
I've seen this article back when I was trying to figure out the difference between mft and ff lenses It's a good one!

06-01-2018, 08:54 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
Maybe you don't need a video like this to understand what is going on. Just play with two things: a zoom and your feet. I'd suggest pretty quickly it will be noticed that when zooming into a subject the background gets closer, hardly surprising. Then zoom out and the background gets smaller. Next move your feet and the relationship between the subject and background changes.

There's clearly lens 'science' required to understand what is going on at one level, but photography is a creative endeavour and perhaps too much time is spent learning the 'science' instead of personally experimenting. 7 minutes to watch the video or a similar amount experimenting. Guess I believe what would be better as an approach.

PS I'm not adverse to science, being a physics graduate who was somewhat more inclined to experimentation rather than theory 😉
06-01-2018, 09:23 AM - 1 Like   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I remember clearly with these being discussed in class. I wish I had a copy of my old portfolio so folks would understand what level I was shooting at before I got into Ryerson Polytech in Photo Arts, so, even though I knew intuitively what it was about, it still really solidified my thinking having the discussion from a qualified instructor. The difference being, instead of wasting images, by the time I left school I'd walk into a scene and think "long lens". No need to start short, or vice versa.

That being said, I've never seen anyone on the net as good as my instructors were. They knew what they were talking about, they were concise and to the point. There were no flashy "click bait" headlines.

I fail to see how knowing what lens you need for what effect is in anyway a detriment to creativity. That doesn't stop me from playing with other focal lengths, if I choose, but there's no downside to being able to recognize the potential of a scene and understanding what lens you need to maximize it without a lot of experimentation.

I don't think any of us who went to recognized technical photography course are going to sell our training short. And I'll clearly state, if you haven't done so, you're working at a disadvantage, even when it comes to creativity. Knowledge of basic theory should expand creativity, not hinder it.

You can stand still and understand what effects each of the lenses in your bag will have in rendering a scene and evaluate what you want to start with, without removing a lens from the bag. Part of that is the exercises you do that reinforce the theory, so it is in part practical. To the point where we had 3 hours fo studio and 3 hours of darkroom, for every hour of theory (those of you who don't believe in post processing take note, you needed to spend as much time in the darkroom doing PP as you did in the studio with film two do professional photography.). It's a lot easier if a concept is explained, then you go practice learning how to use it.

I learned some techniques I probably never would have thought of on my own. I'm always amazed when I see the self taught talking about what they do. Often they have progressed to a certain level, but they haven't figured out what the thing is they need to push them to the next level. And they are speaking a different language than the trained photographers, (a secret language only spoken to their photographic twins and which the teacher must learn to communicate with them, as isf teaching isn't hard enough without that hindrance.) ) and the limits of their self taught knowledge are defined in the incomplete theoretical base from which they are working.

All the theory does is give you an intellectual framework, to help you express your artistic goals. But a good education is a combination of both. Clear concise teaching and to the point practice.

Or as we used to say in basketball coaching 'Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect (execution.")

If you get into imperfect technique you'll still get some shots, not just what you could have with good technique. Repetitions our poor technique just reinforce and give you a predisposition for doing what you shouldn't want to do, they don't help you with what you could be doing. The biggest problem with the self taught is, it's so hard to break them out of their bad habits. And god knows on place like this, you get little thanks for trying either. Every internet genius thinks he knows more than everyone else.

Last edited by normhead; 06-01-2018 at 09:48 AM.
06-01-2018, 10:43 AM   #34
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
^^^^^^^^What normhead said!

So many of these learned techniques and optical principles are about putting tools in the tool box.

Ultimately, the result is the difference between taking photographs and making photographs.

06-01-2018, 12:05 PM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
There are things you can be taught and need to be taught to give you the basic tools. Other skills are acquired. A brain surgeon needs to be taught. Many creative pursuits, can indeed be hampered by too much tuition. Photography falls between the two, though some way nearer the just needing to know the basics.

I'm of the view that we are inclined (in photography) to too much technical theory at the expense of empirical learning. The internet, helps, but it can also hinder a photographers (creative) development. As an example, the Fstoppers video may have helped some, but it would have been better, in my view, if it had talked a little more about creative possibilities, eg separation, the wide v long focal lengths could offer, and not cover every FL in between.

Perhaps a prime example of wasted internet energy are those internet courses that teach the rule-of-thirds is a requirement to successful composition etc etc. This leads to images that are boringly similar. In the UK you can, supposedly, visit locations that photographers have 'learnt' about. Form a queue. Place your tripod in the 'approved' holes, and snap the same shot as has been done many times before. This is where there's a danger of 'learning' stuff that is not especially helpful. Ok I've drifted a bit there ;-)

There are many highly successful self-taught working photographers - the learning happens osmotic, via books, videos, classes, but mostly by graft and experimentation. I'm thinking Malcolm Gladwell's route to success via his 10,000 hours 'rule' ie graft and practise.

I do agree about PP. Essential to be taught this. It's far harder to empirically learn. I used PP/Illustrator for a few years in full-time, paid employment. I couldn't have picked this up by just using buttons and sliders. Cameras, are different types of tools ...

Last edited by BarryE; 06-01-2018 at 12:38 PM.
06-01-2018, 01:37 PM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,225
QuoteOriginally posted by BarryE Quote
but mostly by graft and experimentation.
I know that you and I are of different nationalities, separated by a common language, but I don't understand how greasing palms or embedding a branch of one species into the trunk of another enables anyone to become a better photographer.
06-01-2018, 01:43 PM - 1 Like   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
I know that you and I are of different nationalities, separated by a common language, but I don't understand how greasing palms or embedding a branch of one species into the trunk of another enables anyone to become a better photographer.
never knew that word wouldn't travel. From the Cambridge (UK) dictionary: I've never been afraid of hard graft. - referring to working hard.

06-03-2018, 05:55 AM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
Excellent point Norm. Photography has a set of tools. Unless you understand the purpose and use of each tool, you will never fully master the craft. You may take some great images, but more by accident than by design. You will also find it easier to repeat that level of excellence if you understand what it took to achieve it in the first place.


When I got my K5 in 2012 I was so frustrated with the results that I wanted to put it on my anvil and take a sledge hammer to it. I am not a bad photographer, but the tools had changed and I had not bothered to learn to use them. This site, going fully manual and then learning each camera mode from scratch kept me from having to clean up one heck of a mess in my garage. To me the manual was pretty much worthless. Knowing how to put the camera in TaV mode means little unless you know what TaV mode actually does.


BTW Norm. When you were at Ryerson, did a Richard Zakia ever come up from R.I.T. to lecture there? I do know that he did a few times. I knew him as Uncle Dick and he is the reason for my interest in photography.
06-03-2018, 06:19 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Excellent point Norm. Photography has a set of tools. Unless you understand the purpose and use of each tool, you will never fully master the craft....
Yes, that's pretty obvious. Hard to disagree with that and I don't and didn't.

It was the manner of developing those skills where we differed. Norm was inclined to being formally taught, whereas as I was championing a more empirical/experimental/personal route to skill excellence. Horses for courses as they say (in the UK at least)...
06-03-2018, 06:54 AM - 2 Likes   #40
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I did my ORCKA (Ontario Recreational Canoe and Kayak Association) crtificationswhen I turned 62. Most people do it in their teens. After 32 years of taking people out into the bush, groups of up to 25, I finally got qualified to do it. It was areal eye opener. The things I should have known that I didn't were simply eye opening. Being self taught means you only know what you could imagine yourself.

Things I didn't know that could have ended in disaster. I didn't know it take 3 hours to get the OPP helicopter in the air, and if I've lost a camper I need to notify they are missing by 3 in the afternoon. Not doing so greatly increases the odds the lost camper will be spending a night alone in the bush. I took hundreds of campers out in the bush looking for firewood without knowing that. I also didn't know how to lay down a search grid. I also learned most humans lose all sense of direction in the woods, the default without training is getting lost. You have to devise a plan to get people scrounging firewood to get back to camp.

I'm all for being self taught, but in most cases it's completely egotistical. "I myself working on my own can in one life time figure out what hundreds of years of photographers have discovered and passed on."

And as in most things, you don't see what you didn't know, until you are looking back from a position of knowledge and realize how dumb you were.

I can honestly say looking back, I was just lucky none of the situations, which happen every year, sometimes 13-20 times a year in the park, ever happened to me while leading group. It's simply dumb luck I got away with it.

I see people capsizing on their first trip out, because they refuse instruction. ( I've been sitting on a dock when the canoe rental people come out and offer folks instruction, I see them refuse instruction then capsize 5 meters from the dock, then the rental employees have to come out and dive for all the stuff that goes to the bottom of the lake when they capsize.) I've read of a lot more stupid and needless deaths of those who are "self taught" than I care to think about. Deaths that taking a 2 hour course would have prevented. I fail to understand what the advantage of not getting training in your chosen endeavour is. What's the downside?

I think for most, it's the embarrassment of coming into a situation and being the newbie. And that's certainly not something I'd encourage people to fall prey too. Go in, find out how little you know and get on with it. That's the bold approach.

After 32 years I got my certs. I went back and hung out with kids being the really old fart to a bunch of kids and in many cases, since they were trained summer camp kids for whom the training was pretty much a formality to get their cards, I knew less than every else. I remember the confused look on my 18 year old partner Emily's face when i dumped her a second time. She said "why to you keep doing that?" Guess what? I survived and I'm now a certified canoe guide and no longer putting lives needlessly at risk. Because I went for training for something I thought I knew how to do, because I was "self trained."

It's really only a call you can make, when you find out what you didn't know.
I've yet to hear anyone who's taken an advanced photgrpahy course say "I am self taught, I already knew it all."

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2018 at 07:21 AM.
06-03-2018, 07:39 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I did my ORCKA (Ontario Recreational Canoe and Kayak Association) crtificationswhen I turned 62. Most people do it in their teens. After 32 years of taking people out into the bush, groups of up to 25, I finally got qualified to do it. It was areal eye opener. The things I should have known that I didn't were simply eye opening. Being self taught means you only know what you could imagine yourself.

Things I didn't know that could have ended in disaster. I didn't know it take 3 hours to get the OPP helicopter in the air, and if I've lost a camper I need to notify they are missing by 3 in the afternoon. Not doing so greatly in crerases the odds the lost camper will be spending a night alone in the bush. I took hundreds of camps out in the bush looking for firewood without knowing that. I also didn't know how to lay down a search grid. I also learned most humans lose all sense of direction in the woods, the default without training is getting lost. You have to devise a plan to get people scrounging firewood to get back to camp.

I'm all for being self taught, but in most cases it's completely egotistical. "I myself working on my own can in one life time figure out what hundreds of years of photographers have discovered and passed on."

And as in most things, you don't see what you didn't know, until you are looking back from a position of knowledge and realize how dumb you were.

I can honestly say looking back, I was just lucky none of the situations, which happen every year, sometimes 13-20 times a year in the park, ever happened to me while leading group. It's simply dumb luck I got away with it.

I see people capsizing on their first trip out, because they refuse instruction. I've seen a lot more stupid and needless deaths of those who are "self taught" than I care to think about. I fail to understand what the advantage getting trained in your chosen endeavour is. What's the downside?

I think for most, it's the embarrassment of coming into a situation and being the newbie. And that's certainly not something I'd encourage people to fall prey too. Go in, find out how little you know and get on with it. That's the bold approach.
I got my canoeing badges through lessons too. Self teaching, would be dumb, I agree. Using a camera, is, dare I say, slightly less risky.

Maybe, this being self-taught discussion is in danger of needing a definition, I feel. Here goes:

For me this being self-taught route to being high skilled and producing original work, is developed through: experimentation; studying the masters (especially paintings); reading; watching (selective) videos; Pentax forums (;-); and many, many hours of practise and learning from mistakes (critical to study our images over time). It is not necessarily through formal teaching, especially classroom based. ie I'm in the 10,000 hours camp ...

Maybe, for me it's the formal part of this learning experience that is bothering me in this discussion - especially in recent years, ticky boxes, and computer assessments etc.

As an analogy, I'm reminded of when I took my motorbike test. I was very inexperienced as a rider, but I'd been a car driver for many years. After the test the examiner said he was planning to fail me for my less than perfect technique, which was an understatement, but he'd decided to pass me as I had good road sense - he said I'd pick up the mechanical/handling quick enough, the road sense was less easy to acquire. I chose not to become a bike rider and stick to my car instead as I didn't like arriving at work wet - the norm in the UK ;-) If teaching and exams, for non-safety related, subjects applied more flexible, dare I say intelligent, methods as my bike examiner did, I'd be less negative towards them.

We have drifted off from my original observation that the Fstoppers video was, I felt, a little light on the subjective, but rather OTT on the numbers, to developing creative camera skills. Guess there are many ways to learn, and the proof is in the cooking ...
06-03-2018, 07:49 AM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
And I can agree with that, for the rare self motivated individuals who both know they have to do the work and have the discipline to see it through, and acknowledge that there's a lot out there they need to understand. But as I learned as high school teacher, just because you have trouble in the classroom, doesn't mean you'll flourish in an alternative (work at your own pace) classroom. The majority just slack off and drop out. But there are a few who end up doing post grad.

Training just increases your odds of being successful in the end and gets you there a lot faster. But there's still hope for those who have some kind of social limitation that keeps them from learning from other human beings.

There are some really bright people who don't understand, the fact that they are really smart, doesn't mean they can't learn anything from anyone. Some like to keep the learning anonymous. They don't want someone else to have the power to critique their work.

As a general rule if you want to learn something technical, you're better off getting someone to teach you how to do it. I think it's a mistake to think photography and other non lethal pursuits are different, just because no one dies if they are wrong. But then, if you just take pictures for yourself, and you think they are good, at least in photography never taking a course lets you live happily in that bubble, whether anyone else thinks you are any good or not. And for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't post any youtube videos (like then tha tis the subject of this thread) showing everyone how little you understand.

Honestly, those dudes have no clue how ridiculous that video is. I have no doubt they are self taught. Someone learning photography who sees that video, doesn't see anything to tell them how to exploit the technology for the results they want. Not one thing. One of the disadvantages of being self taught is thinking all posted videos are equal in the value of their content. This one is just a waste of time. Anyone with any training will see that immediately.

This thread bing a case in point. Those of us who were trained and have taught are much more critical than the rank and file, Part of good training, is being able to see through useless information. I could come up with hundreds of optical science, lens design type facts that are not directly relevant to photogrpahic practice, and could design a 2 semester course designed to keep you from learning anything useful. This video would be part of it.

My whole focus from force of habit looking at videos is "does it teach anything useful in a way that will open up future learning." This video is anti-teaching. There is nothing in it that will increase your learning curve, and as with their last video, concepts are framed in away that closes the door on future progress. EG. it creates the illusion that you can't increase your DoF by using a smaller format. Something experienced photographers do all the time. it's made by the kid in your class who thumbs his nose at everything you do and then fails. Except in in the internet failure or non-failure depends on click bait, not knowledge. So you can both be an idiot and "succeed."

If this video was dependant on people actually knowledgeable and successful at teaching photgraphy buying it, well, they couldn't pay me to even download it. I'd seriously wish they'd paid me to watch the little bit i did, They owe me. I deserve to be paid just for giving them a very short audience.

And if they'd produced this video for my class, they would have about 5 pages explaining why they failed.

This video is one of the best reasons for avoiding being self taught I've ever encountered. It's anti-photography voodoo science encompassing no photogrphic technique or principles. For those conversant in optics, it's too simple to even be the point of a very short discussion. It's obvious.

No doubt it might be useful for bed ridden paraplegics with two camera bodies ( of different formats) and one (prime) lens.

Everyone else employs FL changes, zooming with their feet to achieve basic composition and framing making the whole video irrelevant.

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2018 at 08:46 AM.
06-03-2018, 07:56 AM   #43
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm all for being self taught, but in most cases it's completely egotistical. "I myself working on my own can in one life time figure out what hundreds of years of photographers have discovered and passed on."
Hundreds of years of photographers didn't have access to a centralized point of data known as the internet. I'm self taught on a lot of astronomy, I think I know quite a lot about it since it's my passion. However I didn't need to go outside with a telescope to rediscover the planets or rediscover the math behind their motions in the sky.
06-03-2018, 02:05 PM - 1 Like   #44
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
Hundreds of years of photographers didn't have access to a centralized point of data known as the internet. I'm self taught on a lot of astronomy, I think I know quite a lot about it since it's my passion. However I didn't need to go outside with a telescope to rediscover the planets or rediscover the math behind their motions in the sky.
My observation would be, there's a lot of mis-information out there on the internet.You can wade through it yourself or you can accept a bit of guidance. But long story short, I'm not in position to evaluate either your photography or your proficiency as a astronomer, so I have no idea what that statement actually means. There's a lot more people who own equipment and consider themselves to be photographers than there are people who are actually competent at it.

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2018 at 03:04 PM.
06-03-2018, 02:36 PM - 1 Like   #45
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There's a lot more people who own equipment and consider themselves to be photographers than there are people who are actually competent at it.
I think that's just the human condition
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cities, college, compression, content, courses, degree, design, designer, distance, ff, frame, image, knowledge, length, lens, lenses, mft, people, photographers, photography, post, son, study, subject, tech, term, video, web
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist. VoiceOfReason Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 11-29-2016 02:57 PM
Fstoppers Reviews the Pentax K-1 Winder Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 173 08-23-2016 06:06 AM
FStoppers - Win a 5DS R or D810 or AR7 ii LeDave Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 3 09-04-2015 10:18 AM
Error Lens doesn't exist ChipB Site Suggestions and Help 9 08-14-2010 02:54 PM
Adorama listing a lens that doesn't exist? jsherman999 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 51 01-10-2009 10:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top