Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-24-2010, 08:01 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Forest
Posts: 643
QuoteOriginally posted by CWyatt Quote
Isn't it f/8 and be there?
Technical proficiency exemplified!

06-24-2010, 12:33 PM - 1 Like   #17
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I agree with what you say, but, what about composition. You could be technically proficient in composition also, in terms of following the rule of thirds or some other rule for general composition
I suppose one could see it that way, but at this point we're really leaving the world of "technical proficiency" as I see it and getting into "aesthetics". Maybe it's an area of aesthetics that is somewhat more quantifiable than others and therefore a bit of a gray area, but I'm still not comfortable calling that "technical" proficiency. Getting the horizon level - that's about as far as I'd take the definition of technical proficiency with respect to composition. But given the amount of literature that exists trying to quantify composition, I can see why some would broaden the scope of the term "technical proficiency" to include this.

QuoteQuote:
again your shots could lack something that really makes them stand out from the typical snap shot. everything could be perfect, from exposure, to composition to framing, but the shots still boring.
While this is true, I'd just say that getting the composition "right" in terms of all the classical guidelines was already a step in the right direction compared to the same shot with less effective composition.

QuoteQuote:
I believe this is what the OP is asking, because you could for example leave the camera in auto mode and discover that a DSLR is, all by itself, technically proficient
That's kind of what I mean (although you still need to know a bit about exposure compensation unless your camera is much "smarter" about multi-segment metering than mine). In fact, that for me makes a reasonable *definition* of technical proficiency - the ability to get right in a manual mode that which a case can reasonably be expected to get "right" in auto mode. It would also include the knowledge of when and how to override those auto settings to get a *different* effect. But this is all limited to exposure and focus for the most part - although I'm fine with extending it to holding the camera both steady and straight (both of which can also be automated these days).
06-24-2010, 12:50 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by tele_pathic Quote
I agree with what you said, and I truly respect the work you do, but Lowell gets closer to the heart of the matter. My "technical proficiency" with the camera is looking at the potential shot, auto-focusing , turning the e-dial on my
K200D until the EV meter reads either +.3, and shooting.
I don't think there's any real difference in the *substance* of what any of us are saying - it's just nitpicking about whether composition counts as being "technical" or not. The "heart" of the matter remains the same - you have mastered what you have mastered and are looking to go beyond that. I simply am uncomfortable using the term "technique" to refer to some the things you may perceive yourself to lack, but I'm not disagreeing about what you may or may not lack. If composition is one of those areas that is lacking for you - and I don't know your work, so I am not offering an opinion one way or the other there - then simply say you want to improve your composition, with no reference to the word "technique", and we'd all be in complete agreement. As it is, we're just quibbling over whether composition falls under the umbrella of "technique" or "aesthetics" (or I suppose some would quibble that these aren't mutually exclusive).

It's not really an important distinction in practice with respect your particular, and yet, it kind of is in a broader sense. Using the the phrase "technical proficiency" with respect to composition robs the subject of composition of something, I think. Hmm, I guess what I could say is that *part* of composition can be quantified and made "technical", and that's the part of composition that one can learn from books. But that's not all there is to composition, and indeed, often the more effective compositions are the ones that appear to break the "rules" of composition yet adhere to these harder-to-quantify larger principles. So even if you're getting that part of composition that can be quantified "right" from a "technical" perspective, you need to remain open to the possibility that there are other aspects of composition worth exploring.
06-24-2010, 12:57 PM   #19
graphicgr8s
Guest




If you only knew how many "technically proficient" shots I've tossed just because they were "technically proficient". Most times I find "technically proficient" in photos just "technically sterile". There's just so much more to it. Sometimes "technically wrong" is just what the doctor ordered.

06-24-2010, 01:02 PM   #20
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Insightful discussion here.

Surely there's more to technical proficiency than camera settings. Getting focus, WB and exposure right in M mode is a big step in being technically proficient, but I think these cannot be separated from the skill of the creative use of camera angle, perspective and framing.

Whist I agree with Marc that much of the art of composition starts veering away from the technicalities of photography, it still requires an element of technical proficiency to understand what it takes to compose a photo effectively - things like camera to subject distance, camera orientation and choice of focal length are all cases in point.

And what of lighting? - a highly technical field of photography that is absolutely crucial to the final result. To me, mastering all these facets to get the most creative and excellent photos for the scene being photographed fall in the realm of technical proficiency.
06-24-2010, 01:13 PM - 1 Like   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,291
I can see the point of the posters who said that being 'technically proficient' includes more things like choice of focal length etc, but I don't really agree. although, what does, say, the ability to achieve unposed close up street shots come under?

I'd keep it basic anyway - pretty much being able to get the exposure and sharpness you want. Although this can get somewhat more advanced with, say, advanced studio lighting set ups, 'technical proficiency' is, in my opinion, very easy to achieve. With digital cameras (WB options, depth of field and digital previews, histograms, AF, metering etc), pretty much anyone can be 'technically proficient' with a small amount of learning. Even many people with just point and shoot cameras can achieve technically proficient (or at least competent) shots - correct exposure, sharpness.

And others have said, composition and timing is a different ball game. There are millions and millions and millions of 'technically proficient' photographers, but there's only one Henri Cartier-Bresson (and plenty of his photos aren't even very sharp!).

Having said all that, what does it matter what 'categories' skills that make good photos come under?
06-24-2010, 01:30 PM   #22
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Technically proficient means using the other exposure modes besides manual mode only.
What? Not at all. If you can use manual mode, you can use anything else. Hell, any of the auto modes basically do it for you, they just give you an easy way to control one or more aspects of what the camera is up to.

If you can't use manual, then you aren't yet technically proficient. That isn't to say that pros have to shoot without any assistance from the camera, it means that a pro can shoot M mode all day if he has to.

I think the best combination is M + liberal application of the magic green button. This lets you take advantage of the fancy-schmancy automation when you want it, but the camera won't be changing things behind your back.

06-24-2010, 01:32 PM   #23
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
QuoteOriginally posted by CWyatt Quote

Having said all that, what does it matter what 'categories' skills that make good photos come under?
It doesn't - though all thse skills are required collectively to get good results.

Nevertheless one can argue that a perfectly exposed portrait captured with a wide-angle focal length would have turned out better captured with a higher focal length to avoid distortion of facial features (unless intended). This to me falls under a technical skill - choosing the right focal length and camera to subject distance to get the result desired.

Still matters little how we consider this skill - it's just an example of a facet of photography that cannot be ignored.
06-24-2010, 01:35 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,291
I do see your point, if someone trying to take a nice portrait of me came in close with a wide angle, I'd consider them to have poor technical skills.
06-24-2010, 01:41 PM   #25
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
Actually, using a wide-angle for a portrait might be just the thing to step beyond 'technically proficient' and into something more special. There's been a big trend of high quality photographers using wideangles for things besides landscapes and architecture, and there's a good reason for it. It gives us something more interesting to look at than we're used to.
06-24-2010, 01:50 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,291
Yeah exactly, but by 'nice' I meant a classic, flattering type of shot. Referring to someone who doesn't know any better compared to a pro who might use wide angle to chieve an interesting composition.

Last edited by CWyatt; 06-24-2010 at 01:57 PM.
06-24-2010, 02:25 PM - 2 Likes   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by Eigengrau Quote
A... It gives us something more interesting to look at than we're used to.
I'd opine that more than technically proficient, even with regard for aesthetics, includes having mastered the 'rules' well enough that one can break them with confidence that you can achieve a pre-conceived result and repeat the process at will.

Confidence that the result will match the goal is the criteria for proficiency.

On the flip side, achieving a pleasing outcome by accident (or automation) may be personally satisfying (and may even make you rich and famous) but it doesn't meet the definition of personal proficiency.

Whether the result is pleasing to others, or even yourself, is inconsequential in this regard. The outcome must be intentionally predictable and repeatable (even if it's consistently ugly ) .

H2
06-25-2010, 09:34 AM - 1 Like   #28
Senior Member
Eigengrau's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
Whether the result is pleasing to others, or even yourself, is inconsequential in this regard. The outcome must be intentionally predictable and repeatable (even if it's consistently ugly ) .
I agree with this. A photograph can be technically proficient without having significant aesthetic value, and I also might say that a photo could have significant technical flaws but be an artistic masterpiece. That is to say, sometimes underexposure or overexposure can be used to create an aesthetic affect.

However, I think we should all aim to become technically proficient, so that we can later have enough mastery of the craft to intentionally forgo technical perfection and achieve a more unique vision. Which is much preferred to just making happy mistakes.
06-25-2010, 09:57 AM   #29
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,625
To me technically proficient merely means understanding and getting all the basics right - aperture, shutter, iso, exposure, focus, composition etc. All these are just the basics which are easy to learn given the time and effort. However, creating art or meaningful photos will require a different set of skills, vision, or talents, which very few master. I am consistent on producing technically proficient yet incredibly boring shots. I know something is missing, but I have yet to discover my path.
06-25-2010, 10:10 AM   #30
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,584
Technicalities include aspects such as sharpness, colors, and DOF. Once your photos are sound in these terms, one can focus on the more artistc aspects that "make" a photograph, such as composition.
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!
art, camera, composition, dslr, image, k200d, lot, photographs, photography, photos, pictures, question
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
K1000 body "ding" - defect, accident, or "feature"? dannywho Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 6 10-08-2009 06:11 PM
K20d-Frame Count on panals..works w/"M" & "P" mode only? arbib Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 08-28-2009 05:47 PM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Anyone bring "E2" fluid or the "Digital Survival Kit" on a plane? m8o Photographic Technique 2 07-31-2007 06:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 PM. | 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