«

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
><> wrote:
>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>>
>>Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>>knowing how to use their camera.
>
>Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.


Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition.

On 11/24/2012 2:09 PM, Anthony Polson wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>>>
>>> Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>>> knowing how to use their camera.
>>
>> Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.
>
>
> Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.
>
> Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
> aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
> short time.

That is a valid statement; leastwise, I most certainly do indeed agree,
as far as that goes. However, artistic abilities may be enhanced through
the application of the technical aspects provided in the equipment being
used to produce photographic artistic imaging.


>
> Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
> about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
> about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
> impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I tend to think most if not many photographers have little to no
picturesque artistic talent outside the photographic realm of using
tried-and-true methods to produce a graphic image.

>
> The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
> thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
> arbitrary rules of composition.

The "arbitrary rules of composition" have not been often discussed or
published without first gaining better than average validity in their
application. They may not be considered as axioms but they most
certainly qualify to be considered as necessary assumptions.

Light ..... is one of the most important features in a composition. Type
of lighting and/or light intensity may affect a composition in a
pleasing manner or in a manner of rejection. One might even say, without
light there is no art for art must have light to be appreciated.
Technically, we attempt to learn as much about light as we do about the
technical aspects of the equipment we use to produce a photographic
image. Angularity is another technical aspect that enters into the
subject of photographic imaging. In the field of photography, a better
than working technical knowledge of light, equipment, and angularity
will often enhance the application of the "arbitrary rules of
composition." The application of all is what leads to artistic
embellishments. Outside of studio set-ups, when in the field, the
subject matter of interest is already being supplied. The rest is up to
the all-round working knowledge of the photographer as well as the
environmental conditions which may be facing the photographer.


Nick

>
>
>

On 11/24/2012 7:34 PM, nick c wrote:

<snip>

>
> The "arbitrary rules of composition" have not been often discussed or
> published without first gaining better than average validity in their
> application. They may not be considered as axioms but they most
> certainly qualify to be considered as necessary assumptions.
>
> Light ..... is one of the most important features in a composition. Type
> of lighting and/or light intensity may affect a composition in a
> pleasing manner or in a manner of rejection. One might even say, without
> light there is no art for art must have light to be appreciated.
> Technically, we attempt to learn as much about light as we do about the
> technical aspects of the equipment we use to produce a photographic
> image. Angularity is another technical aspect that enters into the
> subject of photographic imaging. In the field of photography, a better
> than working technical knowledge of light, equipment, and angularity
> will often enhance the application of the "arbitrary rules of
> composition." The application of all is what leads to artistic
> embellishments. Outside of studio set-ups, when in the field, the
> subject matter of interest is already being supplied. The rest is up to
> the all-round working knowledge of the photographer as well as the
> environmental conditions which may be facing the photographer.
>

The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
photography as a craft, not an art.

--
Peter

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson
><> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>>>>
>>>>Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>>>>knowing how to use their camera.
>>>
>>>Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.
>>
>>
>>Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.
>>
>>Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
>>aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
>>short time.
>>
>>Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
>>about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
>>about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
>>impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.
>
>I think you are oversimplifying things.


When you do something for a living, and it is your primary source of
income, it makes sense to keep it as simple as practicable. I do not
have the time to overcomplicate things.


>I'm not seeking the
>combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
>I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
>various menu settings enable me to do.


Shoot RAW, and you would not have to waste any time in the field
playing about with menu settings. It makes more sense to do what you
have to in post-processing because a PC/Mac and specialist software
usually produces results that are significantly better than those
achieved in-camera.


>>The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
>>thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
>>arbitrary rules of composition.
>
>You have described a person without either visual imagination or
>creativity.


Precisely correct.


>It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
>technical background.


Experience shows that artistic ability and a technical background tend
to be mutually exclusive. Note 'tend to be'. My point was that you
can fairly easily teach someone with artistic ability enough about the
technology for them to be able to make good art with a camera.

It is far more difficult for someone with a technical background to
make good art. It is often completely impracticable to teach them.

They either have it or they don't, and online forums such as this tend
to be populated with the latter, as the SI entries would attest.

Once again, note 'tend to be'.

On 11/25/2012 3:00 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <50b18197$0$10759$>, PeterN
> says...
>> The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
>> photography as a craft, not an art.
>
> Yes, although part of photography is indeed a craft.
>

True! The artist has to know what to to, to obtain the wanted image.


--
Peter

On 11/25/2012 5:30 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>>>>> knowing how to use their camera.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.
>>>
>>>
>>> Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.
>>>
>>> Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
>>> aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
>>> short time.
>>>
>>> Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
>>> about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
>>> about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
>>> impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.
>>
>> I think you are oversimplifying things.
>
>
> When you do something for a living, and it is your primary source of
> income, it makes sense to keep it as simple as practicable. I do not
> have the time to overcomplicate things.
>

While on paid leave, or between jobs?
Hmmnn


>
>> I'm not seeking the
>> combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
>> I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
>> various menu settings enable me to do.
>
>
> Shoot RAW, and you would not have to waste any time in the field
> playing about with menu settings. It makes more sense to do what you
> have to in post-processing because a PC/Mac and specialist software
> usually produces results that are significantly better than those
> achieved in-camera.
>
>
>>> The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
>>> thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
>>> arbitrary rules of composition.
>>
>> You have described a person without either visual imagination or
>> creativity.
>
>
> Precisely correct.
>
>
>> It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
>> technical background.
>
>
> Experience shows that artistic ability and a technical background tend
> to be mutually exclusive. Note 'tend to be'. My point was that you
> can fairly easily teach someone with artistic ability enough about the
> technology for them to be able to make good art with a camera.
>
> It is far more difficult for someone with a technical background to
> make good art. It is often completely impracticable to teach them.
>
> They either have it or they don't, and online forums such as this tend
> to be populated with the latter, as the SI entries would attest.
>
> Once again, note 'tend to be'.
>
>
>


--
Peter

"Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
news...
> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>>>
>>>Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>>>knowing how to use their camera.
>>
>>Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.
>
>
> Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.
>
> Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
> aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
> short time.
>
> Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
> about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
> about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
> impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.
>
> The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
> thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
> arbitrary rules of composition.

And many deluded by their own artistic ability believe any old crap is
"artistic" simply because they say it is.
We all make our own decisions on what constitutes a good photo, but for me
it has to be artisticly AND technically pleasing.
Blurry polaroids don't do it for me just because they are displayed in the
art gallery, although clearly some people are more easily pleased.

Trevor.

"PeterN" <> wrote in message
news:50b2732b$0$10814$...
> On 11/25/2012 3:00 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <50b18197$0$10759$>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
>>> photography as a craft, not an art.
>>
>> Yes, although part of photography is indeed a craft.
>>
>
> True! The artist has to know what to to, to obtain the wanted image.

Actually you can, that's how the cave men started. Learning from the
knowledge of those who have gone before allows you to improve your art &
craft much faster than starting from scratch and only learning by experience
however.

Trevor.

On Monday, November 26, 2012 6:07:55 AM UTC, Trevor wrote:
> "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
>
> news...
>
> > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
>
> >><> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...&ir=Technology
>
> >>>
>
> >>>Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
>
> >>>knowing how to use their camera.
>
> >>
>
> >>Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.
>
> >
>
> > Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
>
> > aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
>
> > short time.
>
> >
>
> > Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
>
> > about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
>
> > about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
>
> > impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.
>
> >
>
> > The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
>
> > thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
>
> > arbitrary rules of composition.
>
>
>
> And many deluded by their own artistic ability believe any old crap is
>
> "artistic" simply because they say it is.

That's true of all 'arts' what should be important is that the aim is met.


>
> We all make our own decisions on what constitutes a good photo, but for me
>
> it has to be artisticly AND technically pleasing.

For me that always depends on the aim of the photo, when I've been asked to do wedding it's because they want photos that the pro will miss.
I always state I'm not doing the posing shots, if you want those get a pro, my aim isn;t to replace a pro.


>
> Blurry polaroids don't do it for me just because they are displayed in the
>
> art gallery, although clearly some people are more easily pleased.

And there's those 'good' shots that are worth more because of the peole that took them is what annoys me.