Learning

How do you learn? Are or were you one of those that likes learning the steps in order, taking classes, or something else entirely? Personally, like in all other things like writing and guitar or whatever, I like to learn the absolute basics then go by feel. Trial and error as it were. Watching peoples numbers, or settings, I learned the basic places to start when shooting in manual, then worked out what works best for that day from there. Another great tool is discovering Instagram. By watching what people like on my page, and what people I'm following are doing, I get a decent feel for what makes or doesn't make a decent photograph. By trying to duplicate what I see that I like, I'm getting a better understanding of my lenses, how to decide quickly which one to grab, and how to get on the right setting in manual and get a picture just as quick as someone walking around in Auto. Obviously, learning never ends, and I don't want it to, so maybe there's some other or better ways for me to learn.

By the way, if anyone wants to check out the slow start I'm off to on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/punky.dudester/?hl=en

Who else is on Instagram?

I initially got the composition thing. I always had a point and shoot camera that I carried with me on the motorcycle and would snapshoot while I was out riding in the countryside. Years after when I bought a camera with manual controls and started reading about photography, I realized I didn't know at the time, but my old photos from way back followed a lot of the "rules" of composition pretty well.

I was completely confused over the whole exposure triangle relationship of shutter, aperture, and ISO. I ordered "Understanding Exposure" upon constantly seeing it recommended on various photo forums. I was reading it every night and I got to one point where it just clicked in my head and I went, "Ah!"

My number 1 pet peeve for photos is those who don't level their horizons or lines. They'll take a great photo at the lake and the water will be falling off the side of the photo because the horizon isn't level. Or they'll have a building and it's falling over. My camera now has a level that shows in the electronic viewfinder (it's not a dSLR unfortunately) and I had always leveled the photos up in post processing.

If you'd like a constructive criticism, I looked through your instagram link and noticed a few sailboat shots. Things that are in motion work very well with the rule of 3rds where you divide up the frame top to bottom and side to side in 3rds and put your subject on the intersection of one of those 3rds lines. I take a lot of sailboat and boat shots because I kayak and something like that, I put space in front of the boat to give somewhere for the boat to be moving to in the photo. Another example is if you should capture a bird in flight. You can see it in a few recent photos in the bird thread someone had a bald eagle and a duck in flight. They were fantastic shots and they had the birds at one of the 3rds with room for it to be flying to in the photos. Stuff like that really stands out to me, or actually when it isn't there, it really stands out to me much like water falling off the side of the photo really stands out to me when one doesn't get the horizon or their lines level.

I went to school and studied photography formally. Of course back then it involved a lot of chemistry and so on, which is not so relative any more.

As I was finishing up my degree digital was just starting to become more used (scanning and correcting, the cameras were not there yet), so I had to go back and pick up more classes in that side of it.

As far as boats and such go, as long as my shot has nothing else in the way, I like to get them on the left or right third, I really hate dead center unless you can't help it. From there, I usually center the north and south. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you go for the meeting points of the two? As for birds, I have a long way to go in technique and a better lens yet, so I kind of just do the best in editing with what I get. One thing about quirks that bothers me but others seem to prefer, contrast in black and white. I don't know why, but a lot of contrast seems to add like a drama or something, so I'm really liking afternoon shooting with lots of sun. Gives a lot more chance for contrasting something deeply.

That is Very nice Shaun, you have a natural talent!!

Thank You!

Since I'm in this thread again, does anybody in this day and age does anyone think some kind of small course would be beneficial, or are some of these Youtube pro courses good enough? I think it's enough, but I don't know what they may be lacking?

There is no question in my mind that formal education will just about always be better than anything else to learn something. There are two exceptions to this: (1) if one can find a mentor or become an apprentice to a master (which is a sort of formal education) and (2) if one can find materials that are organized and thorough and one is careful to go through the material in order.

If you try to learn by searching the web or by watching videos you are pretty much guaranteed to never properly learn the basics which in turn will mean that you will spend days and weeks and months to understand something that a person with an understanding of the basics will pick up in minutes.

There is a world of difference between knowledge and data or information. Knowledge comes from having organized information which permits one to pick up more information very easily. If one has knowledge, one can organize the information and be creative with it. If one only has data and no way to organize it, one is forever in the dark knowing that if one gets a good result it is a fluke.

There is a world of difference between someone learning how to properly play a musical instrument and someone who sits at a piano and has learned to play a song or two by rote. There's nothing wrong with being able to play a song or two, but if one learns how to read music and one learns the instrument properly one can play anything.

Yes, a person can learn on their own, but one always risks reinventing the wheel and wasting hours and days and weeks to pick something up that a qualified teacher can communicate in minutes.

My experience with photography courses is that few teachers of photography know how to teach. Few can communicate information in an organized way. That I think comes from the fact that people who are good with communicating with pictures are often not all that good with words. So the problem is to find a good course taught by a qualified teacher.

As far as self-learning goes, read Ansel Adam's books. Skim over the parts dealing with film processing unless you intend to shoot film. Read everything that Roger Hicks has written. He has written any number of top notch books, you won't go wrong . Jim Zuckerman's books on exposure will teach you what you need to know about that topic. You should also read Bryan Peterson's books. Both Zuckerman and Peterson have great websites.

If I were to start to try to learn using web resources, I would start with Roger Hicks' site: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/

The "Frances" is Frances Schultz who is long time writer for a number of important photography magazines.

Good luck. You're starting a grand adventure.

Hicks I have never heard of, shall look into that. Adams I've been paying a bit of attention to. I don't how 'professional' she may be, but Valerie Jardin too. She has a good site and podcast. Podcasts are terrific for me, I absorb so much more through the headphones then anything else. Cheers for the info!

I'll be following you very shortly CS!

I've been shooting, at varying degrees of competence, for over 30 years. I laugh when I think about how awful I was when I shot that first wedding in 86. But I'm self taught all the way.

I have a wide range of influences these days, but required viewing for me as a Sony user, is Jason Lanier.

Carl

Practice makes perfect. Good thing with digital is that practice is very low cost.

I got into photography as a teenager, shooting film and processing/printing same. While in college I had the opportunity to take a photography course - actually took it to get 24/7 access to the huge darkroom. I ended up learning quite a bit from that course as it corrected some of the technical stuff that I had self taught myself, but more because it assigned and critiqued projects. Coming from a film background I understood a lot about the technical aspects (aperture, ISO, etc.) when I transitioned to digital and just needed to understand what the film mechanics translated to. Creativity is a different issue - although I tend to shoot for myself (as an amateur) I look at the work of other photographers and occasionally like to have my work critiqued by someone whose opinion I respect (not a competition at a photo club). Depending on what type of subject matter you are gravitating towards you might study the works of other photographers working in that area and/or artists. If your primary interest is landscape photography, a trip to a major art museum is generally enlightening. You can hone the technical part as you go, but you really need to train your "eye" to get good work done. I also would suggest getting some prints made of pictures that you really like - there's a feeling that you get from holding/looking at a print that I think connects you with the medium in a way that a picture on a monitor does not.

Chapinahat said:

I'll be following you very shortly CS!

I've been shooting, at varying degrees of competence, for over 30 years. I laugh when I think about how awful I was when I shot that first wedding in 86. But I'm self taught all the way.

I have a wide range of influences these days, but required viewing for me as a Sony user, is Jason Lanier.

Carl

Click to expand...

I found ya! That 3some black and white is great!

See there's my problem, or not a problem maybe? I have no certain subject that I prefer, but I do know when I'm going in for a shot I prefer the outcome to be good in black and white, something 'dramatic' if I can. One thing I do like in a subject matter though is a sense of timelessness. Like, if you were looking at it today, or Buddy Holly was looking at it in '56, it's a fitting photo either way.

Cash_Stronomer said:

I found ya! That 3some black and white is great!

Click to expand...

The Bobby Pins? Cracking young ladies!

Cash, the photos are looking very good, my friend!

By the way, I usually learn by observing, asking questions and experimenting.

Bobby Pins! I like that!

Thank You Celestino! Taking a wander back I see!

It was a Vintage Fair - very fitting I found!