Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do You See What I See?  (Read 57899 times)
LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2009, 06:10:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Maybe it´s the ETTR rule that´s not so damn hot after all!

In a way, I wonder if this isn´t the result/penalty of reading too darn much about digi exposure theory: one gets to be offered too many routes to the same place. In the end, if we have to consult that damn rear screen, perhaps the blinking highlight thing is as good a measure as any. Not that it makes using these screens in daylight any better nor does it avoid the need to consult them rather than have blind faith in the hand-held meter which, sadly, is where we came in, and why I think digital capture a lot less user-friendly that film, especially transparency!

All I can add to this discussion is that ETTR is helpful as a guide for certain shots, but in some cases, you don't want to use ETTR at all. It's very useful if you understand its limitations.

As far as I'm concerned, light meters (incidental or otherwise) should be a help but not a necessity (with very few exceptions). There's no substitute for understanding how light works (the properties of refraction and luminosity mainly) at an intuitive level and then bracketing for exposure to cover your bases. After all, we were born with two pretty perfect cameras in our heads, and we've been using them all of our lives. We need to learn how to minimize the barriers that stand between our eyes and the image. Hence the point of this post: Less is More (and vice-versa).
Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2009, 09:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

>>> So what have I learned since then? That it's worse than I first thought: the whole digital craze's fixation with equipment is creating a generation of photographers who can't see.

I don't think you've learned anything.  I've just read every post on both threads.

You seem overly concerned with what other people think and do.  Just live your life and let others live theirs.  Both threads are arrogant attacks on basic human freedom.  You want everyone to see the world as you do.  What a boring world that would be.  Even you would hate it.

I've been taking photographs for 30 years.  I cut my teeth in a B&W darkroom.   Thank god those days are gone.  Today's tools allow me to achieve a level of technical excellence in my images I could only dream of as a young man with my Tri-X and stinky trays.  Am I a better photographer for it?  Actually, yes ... the ability to expose the flaws in my technique at 100% magnification has shown me ways to improve my work in the digital era that I would have never seen on film.  Photography is and always has been the intersection of art and technology.  Of course you still need an "eye" ... but you also need technique and technology.

I think you should take another walk with your dog and ponder why you care so much about what camera I choose to use and how much I choose to understand its inner workings.

Do you know what a luddite is?

EDIT ... P.S.

You do realize that Program, Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority "exposure modes" did not arrive with digital and were featured on film camera long before the "awful" digital era, right?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 10:09:26 PM by Jeremy Payne » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2009, 11:12:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
In traditional photography, however, getting an image to look nice involved things like proper composition, lighting, and framing... in other words, what you did before the shot was taken, not after. It's called "the decisive moment."
It still does. And always will.
Moving a slider in software is NO DIFFERENT from turning dial on enlarger timer to alter exposure time.
Whether you alter parameters by use of slider, dials, knobs, temperature, amount of agitation, bits of cardboard on wire is utterly irrelevant. You develop RAW files just like you developed film - there's no fundamental difference really when it comes to the photography, I've done both darkroom + computer work extensively and the real difference is more control and better quality with digital and best of all, no smelly chemicals. No-one but a buffoon cares how you got to your end point of the finished image, all that is important is how good the photo is. Some people with similar quaint views [it may have even been you, hiding behind another name] came out with some similar nonsense about how much better film was and how digital couldn't look as 'good'. I posted some shots, which they then used as examples of the superiority of film and yet not only were the shots done digitally, but would have been  impossible to take with a film camera.

And people who use a typos to bolster their argument are simply pathetic. Which is not an ad hominem comment like you suggested above. Like above comment, simply descriptive of you and your inability to debate logically.
You have a somewhat crazy point of view, which you are trying to prove through all sorts of very dippy reasoning. Such as a dip in the standard of English prior to PCs even becoming common as proof of computers making us stupid. And using typos to illustrate my bad grammar certainly makes me doubt your claim to be an English Professor.
Also there's no evidence you are even a photographer, let alone a good one. You hide behind a pseudonym and have no links to any work that may be yours. Are you simply trolling with a contentious postings?

Quote
As for the UK qualifying exams, I'm grateful you use an argument to prove my point. Easier qualifying exams leads to poorer standards in English. Precisely.
No it lets less capable people into University, reducing average capability, compared to when less able were not allowed in. The standard of English in entire population need not have changed one iota and yet those in Academia will see a drop in standards, only as the sampling has changed. Basic statistics.
Plus, you've not quite grasped the difference between selection criteria being lowered for academic ability testing and cameras being more or less hard to use. As ease of use of camera/software has no bearing on one's ability to be able to see images/take good photos. Different skillset entirely.   Similarly in sport - where the entry barriers for participating are reduced, i.e. the sport is popular/has facilities available to many/supported in the media etc, you tend to get more high level athletes in those sports than countries where the barriers to taking part are higher. Not a lower level as you are arguing. As lowering barriers to people trying things leads to a greater no. of talented people being discovered.
The amazing tally of medals by the British Track cyclists is a case in point. Money, new facilities and good coaching was poured into the sport reducing barriers and making life much easier for those wanting to compete and now we are the best in the world. The exact opposite of what you claim will happen.

I think this idea that easier to use cameras, more ergonomic software is somehow dumbing us down is foolish macho reasoning. Harder is better!
Making exams harder to sort wheat from the chaff is a very different thing - in fact the point of exams is to differentiate people, so you can tell who is best at what. They should be discriminatory in order to be effective.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 10, 2009, 11:23:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Gosh, I had you on ignore for so long I forgot what a piece of crap you were. Too bad they deleted your clown postings - really embarrassing for LLVJ to have 1,000-plus people read those. I understand the admins here like you. Crap really gets around.
The clown I was posting about was you, remember. Just before you were asked to take a holiday for behaving very bizarrely. My posts stayed online IIRC, unless your absence from LL resulted in entire thread vanishing. I liked the clown post, made me laugh.
Calling the admins crap and similar is why you made yourself so many 'friends' before. Please try and stay polite and civil this time.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 10, 2009, 11:28:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob C - just learn how your sensor needs to be exposed, for how you like your image and you're done.
It may be a reading off palm of hand and +1 stop or whatever. That's what I  always did with slide, just find your own tweak for digital and your all set.

Nice to see you posting images BTW.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 11:29:42 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #85 on: June 11, 2009, 01:10:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
>>> So what have I learned since then? That it's worse than I first thought: the whole digital craze's fixation with equipment is creating a generation of photographers who can't see.

I don't think you've learned anything.  I've just read every post on both threads.

You seem overly concerned with what other people think and do.  Just live your life and let others live theirs.  Both threads are arrogant attacks on basic human freedom.  You want everyone to see the world as you do.  What a boring world that would be.  Even you would hate it.

I've been taking photographs for 30 years.  I cut my teeth in a B&W darkroom.   Thank god those days are gone.  Today's tools allow me to achieve a level of technical excellence in my images I could only dream of as a young man with my Tri-X and stinky trays.  Am I a better photographer for it?  Actually, yes ... the ability to expose the flaws in my technique at 100% magnification has shown me ways to improve my work in the digital era that I would have never seen on film.  Photography is and always has been the intersection of art and technology.  Of course you still need an "eye" ... but you also need technique and technology.

I think you should take another walk with your dog and ponder why you care so much about what camera I choose to use and how much I choose to understand its inner workings.

Do you know what a luddite is?

EDIT ... P.S.

You do realize that Program, Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority "exposure modes" did not arrive with digital and were featured on film camera long before the "awful" digital era, right?

Clearly I hit a nerve, Jeremy. Don't know what to say except that I could care less what camera you use, and if anyone is overly concerned with what people think, it sounds like you are. I'm not telling anyone what camera they should use, but only that the advent of digital cameras has dumbed the process down for the majority of people to the point where they're glorified post-processors. There are always exceptions, as I've said a few times on this post, which of course you know about since you've read the entire thread -- poor thing. And the people who tend to be on sites like this are generally the exceptions. I'm sure you have learned a lot using digital, and that you're happy to see film go by the wayside. Bully for you.

Ha ha. Yes, a Luddite. Well, that would be strange since I love modern technology for what it can do. And yes, I even have a digital camera (perish the thought!) But I prefer film for a host of different reasons (all stated elsewhere), and now with transparency scanners and the like (what? He uses modern technology?!) I can download my pics on to my computer (*and* he uses a computer?!?).

Don't worry, Jeremy. It's all good.
Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2009, 01:34:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
It still does. And always will.
Moving a slider in software is NO DIFFERENT from turning dial on enlarger timer to alter exposure time.
Whether you alter parameters by use of slider, dials, knobs, temperature, amount of agitation, bits of cardboard on wire is utterly irrelevant. You develop RAW files just like you developed film - there's no fundamental difference really when it comes to the photography, I've done both darkroom + computer work extensively and the real difference is more control and better quality with digital and best of all, no smelly chemicals. No-one but a buffoon cares how you got to your end point of the finished image, all that is important is how good the photo is. Some people with similar quaint views [it may have even been you, hiding behind another name] came out with some similar nonsense about how much better film was and how digital couldn't look as 'good'. I posted some shots, which they then used as examples of the superiority of film and yet not only were the shots done digitally, but would have been  impossible to take with a film camera.

And people who use a typos to bolster their argument are simply pathetic. Which is not an ad hominem comment like you suggested above. Like above comment, simply descriptive of you and your inability to debate logically.
You have a somewhat crazy point of view, which you are trying to prove through all sorts of very dippy reasoning. Such as a dip in the standard of English prior to PCs even becoming common as proof of computers making us stupid. And using typos to illustrate my bad grammar certainly makes me doubt your claim to be an English Professor.
Also there's no evidence you are even a photographer, let alone a good one. You hide behind a pseudonym and have no links to any work that may be yours. Are you simply trolling with a contentious postings?

No it lets less capable people into University, reducing average capability, compared to when less able were not allowed in. The standard of English in entire population need not have changed one iota and yet those in Academia will see a drop in standards, only as the sampling has changed. Basic statistics.
Plus, you've not quite grasped the difference between selection criteria being lowered for academic ability testing and cameras being more or less hard to use. As ease of use of camera/software has no bearing on one's ability to be able to see images/take good photos. Different skillset entirely.   Similarly in sport - where the entry barriers for participating are reduced, i.e. the sport is popular/has facilities available to many/supported in the media etc, you tend to get more high level athletes in those sports than countries where the barriers to taking part are higher. Not a lower level as you are arguing. As lowering barriers to people trying things leads to a greater no. of talented people being discovered.
The amazing tally of medals by the British Track cyclists is a case in point. Money, new facilities and good coaching was poured into the sport reducing barriers and making life much easier for those wanting to compete and now we are the best in the world. The exact opposite of what you claim will happen.

I think this idea that easier to use cameras, more ergonomic software is somehow dumbing us down is foolish macho reasoning. Harder is better!
Making exams harder to sort wheat from the chaff is a very different thing - in fact the point of exams is to differentiate people, so you can tell who is best at what. They should be discriminatory in order to be effective.

If it still does and always will, then why didn't you say that the first time? As for computers dumbing us down, let me refer you to the cover article of The Atlantic magazine last summer, "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" If I can't convince you, maybe they can.

And of course the sampling has changed, jjj. I never said it didn't. But easier qualifying exams does eventually lead to lower standards in English. Why? Because if you lower the bar for qualifying exams, then what's considered average will go down proportionately. Talk about dippy reasoning. And hey, as for your so-called typo, I just thought it was hilarious that in the very sentence where you're chastising me about grammar and causality, you misspell causality. Surely you can see the humor in that. And no, I haven't been hiding under a different name -- why would I? Besides, I'm not surprised that others share my point of view. It's not as unique as you might think.

And yes, often harder is better. That's how people become great athletes, for example, like your British Track cyclists you mention. Do you think they made it to where they are because they rode their bicycles to the cafe every morning for some tea and crumpets? They'll be the first ones to tell you that they would never want to be a part of a team that didn't think hard was good. The harder you work, the better you get. That's not exactly news.

And you're right when you say that "ease of use of camera/software has no bearing on one's ability to be able to see images/take good photos." But it does have a bearing on one's ability to learn how to see images/take good photos. You can throw invective at me all day long, but I still don't think what I'm saying is that radical. Fine, shoot with digital and sing its praises. No argument here. I'm just saying--and have been trying to say all along--that as a medium for teaching people about photography, it offers too many shortcuts for people who have far less incentive to learn. And why hasn't anyone addressed a point I've made here a few times: namely, that most photography programs in the country have people start out with film. Why? To learn about lighting, f/stop+shutter speed, composition, etc. Is that really that radical of an idea? I hardly think so.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 01:34:49 AM by LightCapture » Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 713


WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 11, 2009, 04:35:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
And yes, often harder is better. That's how people become great athletes, for example, like your British Track cyclists you mention. Do you think they made it to where they are because they rode their bicycles to the cafe every morning for some tea and crumpets? They'll be the first ones to tell you that they would never want to be a part of a team that didn't think hard was good. The harder you work, the better you get. That's not exactly news.

I do not think JJJ meant it was easier for the cyclists to achieve success, just that the extra money poured into the team meant facilities and coaching gives an opportunity to cyclists who could not previously get into the elite level.  Once there, the standard is ever improving.

The whole idea that digital has somehow 'dumbed down' photography is meaningless really.  I too was bought up with film, processing it, printing in my darkroom.  It was fun.  But I am sure that the earlier generation of photographers who had to make their own chemicals from raw materials, then coat their own plates and paper, would have seen me buying a box of paper off the shelf as having an easy life.

Understanding the fundamentals of photography is a huge benefit whatever recording system used, but it is not the be-all these days.  We have a friend who took up photography a few years ago.  He bought a basic bridge-type digital camera, then took it on his daily walks in the Forest.  The pictures he came back with were very creative, though not always technically good.  Eventually he acquired a Canon 5D and learned a bit more about Photoshop.  Now he is gradually learning more about the technical aspects of photography.  His pictures have a level of creativity that I have not seen before amongst my photographer friends.  This guy would probably never have taken up photography or progressed without digital.  He needed the instant feedback from the camera screen.  He has a very creative eye, but just finds all the technical stuff boring.  If the final picture is the important thing, there is really no need to make it harder than it needs to be.

Admittedly digital has bought a huge number of people into photography, and a large number of them take pretty bad pictures, partly because of ingnorance of the photographic process.  But it has also bought in a number of very talented people.

Let's face it. Most great photographs are made by people who combine good visual awareness with a degree of technical competence.  The means and equipment used are really secondary.

Jim
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 11, 2009, 04:44:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
If it still does and always will, then why didn't you say that the first time? As for computers dumbing us down, let me refer you to the cover article of The Atlantic magazine last summer, "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" If I can't convince you, maybe they can.

And of course the sampling has changed, jjj. I never said it didn't. But easier qualifying exams does eventually lead to lower standards in English. Why? Because if you lower the bar for qualifying exams, then what's considered average will go down proportionately. Talk about dippy reasoning. And hey, as for your so-called typo, I just thought it was hilarious that in the very sentence where you're chastising me about grammar and causality, you misspell causality. Surely you can see the humor in that. And no, I haven't been hiding under a different name -- why would I? Besides, I'm not surprised that others share my point of view. It's not as unique as you might think.

And yes, often harder is better. That's how people become great athletes, for example, like your British Track cyclists you mention. Do you think they made it to where they are because they rode their bicycles to the cafe every morning for some tea and crumpets? They'll be the first ones to tell you that they would never want to be a part of a team that didn't think hard was good. The harder you work, the better you get. That's not exactly news.

And you're right when you say that "ease of use of camera/software has no bearing on one's ability to be able to see images/take good photos." But it does have a bearing on one's ability to learn how to see images/take good photos. You can throw invective at me all day long, but I still don't think what I'm saying is that radical. Fine, shoot with digital and sing its praises. No argument here. I'm just saying--and have been trying to say all along--that as a medium for teaching people about photography, it offers too many shortcuts for people who have far less incentive to learn.
My only response to your witterings is to quote my old signature. "Please read all the words in my post, not just the ones you like and preferably in the same order as written."
English Professor my arse! I doubt you you could parse wind, let alone a complete sentence!  

Quote
And why hasn't anyone addressed a point I've made here a few times: namely, that most photography programs in the country have people start out with film. Why? To learn about lighting, f/stop+shutter speed, composition, etc. Is that really that radical of an idea? I hardly think so.
You can do exactly the same with digital, God knows why you think otherwise and far better too. Once of the best teaching aids is feedback and digital gives immediate feedback, so you can spot mistakes whilst you have time to correct them, unlike with film.
Or maybe it's still done because the old fogeys wearing courdroy and running the courses are as daft as you are.
Or still have rooms full of film kit.
Or film kit is there simply to give people the option.
Or for a historical perspective.
Lots of possible reasons. But I bet none do so for the reason you say.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 11, 2009, 04:50:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim Pascoe
I do not think JJJ meant it was easier for the cyclists to achieve success, just that the extra money poured into the team meant facilities and coaching gives an opportunity to cyclists who could not previously get into the elite level.  Once there, the standard is ever improving.
Exactly.  It was made much easier for people to train better and smarter, not just harder. An example of Smart training - One World mountain bike champion [Ned Overend] said sitting on couch watching TV was one of his best training aides - as it allowed his body to recover properly from the day before. It worked, as even when he was 'too old' to compete, he became world champion.  Way too many athletes think more/harder is better when it comes to training.
Unlike Professor LightCapture [who interestingly cites consumer opinion pieces as evidence, not academic studies], most people here people can read and comprehend posts, without twisting sentences to mean something entirely different.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 04:57:17 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2009, 05:41:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
And why hasn't anyone addressed a point I've made here a few times: namely, that most photography programs in the country have people start out with film. Why? To learn about lighting, f/stop+shutter speed, composition, etc. Is that really that radical of an idea? I hardly think so.

That's not radical - that's simply an illogical opinion of yours born of self-satisfied myopia.  You are full of them.  

I didn't start the self-aggrandizing rant ... you did ... twice.
 
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2009, 05:56:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
The clown I was posting about was you, remember. Just before you were asked to take a holiday for behaving very bizarrely. My posts stayed online IIRC, unless your absence from LL resulted in entire thread vanishing. I liked the clown post, made me laugh.

You are still as out of touch with reality as ever. Point #1: The thread was deleted by the admins a few days *after* I was on suspenson, hence their doing, not mine. Point #2: My posts on that thread were completely civil (all complaints to the admins about you), while all of your posts were clown posts, complete with clown photos to prove the point. You can prattle on about whatever you like, but you are still unfortunately you, a sociopath in need of a human personality.
Logged
LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2009, 10:24:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jim Pascoe
I do not think JJJ meant it was easier for the cyclists to achieve success, just that the extra money poured into the team meant facilities and coaching gives an opportunity to cyclists who could not previously get into the elite level.  Once there, the standard is ever improving.

The whole idea that digital has somehow 'dumbed down' photography is meaningless really.  I too was bought up with film, processing it, printing in my darkroom.  It was fun.  But I am sure that the earlier generation of photographers who had to make their own chemicals from raw materials, then coat their own plates and paper, would have seen me buying a box of paper off the shelf as having an easy life.

Understanding the fundamentals of photography is a huge benefit whatever recording system used, but it is not the be-all these days.  We have a friend who took up photography a few years ago.  He bought a basic bridge-type digital camera, then took it on his daily walks in the Forest.  The pictures he came back with were very creative, though not always technically good.  Eventually he acquired a Canon 5D and learned a bit more about Photoshop.  Now he is gradually learning more about the technical aspects of photography.  His pictures have a level of creativity that I have not seen before amongst my photographer friends.  This guy would probably never have taken up photography or progressed without digital.  He needed the instant feedback from the camera screen.  He has a very creative eye, but just finds all the technical stuff boring.  If the final picture is the important thing, there is really no need to make it harder than it needs to be.

Admittedly digital has bought a huge number of people into photography, and a large number of them take pretty bad pictures, partly because of ingnorance of the photographic process.  But it has also bought in a number of very talented people.

Let's face it. Most great photographs are made by people who combine good visual awareness with a degree of technical competence.  The means and equipment used are really secondary.

Jim

I agree, Jim. The advent of digital photography has absolutely gotten more people into photography. My only claim from the beginning, however, is that digital technology has provided so many shortcuts to these newcomers that they haven't had to learn much about "visual awareness," as you put it, but instead have beguiled people into post-processing mania. Again, I point to this website and others like it as proof of this very thing. And when I suggest that harder is better, I only mean this for the purposes of learning. Once someone has learned, as long as they continue to try to learn, digital can be a help. But I believe those people are the exception, not the rule. And yes, the person who had to process his own chemicals may have turned his nose up and your being able to buy papers, but again, the buying of papers and making of chemicals is more related to the processing and developing end of things, and not the decisive moment itself, which was the original point of this post.

And as for jjj's point about the British cyclists, my only point in responding to that is that he brought up the world of sport, and athletes, perhaps more than any other demographic, understand the benefits of hard work without shortcuts. Your friend you talk about clearly has a natural talent, but again, as you even admit, he's the exception.

Your last statement is 100% correct. And I think if you look back at my posts, you'll see that that's precisely what I've been saying all along: the means and equipment are secondary to developing a good eye.
Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5755



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2009, 11:49:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Way back at the beginning Rob made a comment about B&W: "I conclude yet again that the most pure form of photography has to be black and white and shot on film." I'm surprised I didn't see more discussion on that point. I don't agree that B&W has to be shot on film to be useful, but if I were teaching photography my students would shoot black and white -- probably on digital -- for the first year. Shooting in B&W is the best way to learn about the distribution of graphic values; what HCB called "a rigorous organization of the interplay of surfaces, lines, and values." Color -- doesn't matter whether it's color with film or with digital -- tends to throw off one's awareness of that graphic balance. I think an important part of visualization is to be able to see the scene -- in your mind -- in black and white. That takes practice.
Logged

LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2009, 11:53:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
That's not radical - that's simply an illogical opinion of yours born of self-satisfied myopia.  You are full of them.  

I didn't start the self-aggrandizing rant ... you did ... twice.

The fact that most photography programs in the country start their students on film is "an illogical opinion...born of self-satisfied myopia"? Huh... I thought it was actually true.

As for self-aggrandizing rants, weren't you the one that came on with a flash a couple of days ago and instantly made it personal, as you've once again just done above, with comments about Luddites self-satisfied myopia and dispensing with more advice than a gossip column.Relax, Jeremy. You don't have to agree with me, but you don't need to belittle your opponent in the meantime. I've tried to keep it above board here, and the only time I took a little jab was when I was repeating what someone said to me. I have no bone to pick with you... I just don'thappen to agree with you, and I also think you've managed to misconstrue what I've said. Either way, let's keep this civil, shall we?
Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2009, 01:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
You are still as out of touch with reality as ever. Point #1: The thread was deleted by the admins a few days *after* I was on suspenson, hence their doing, not mine.
Because of your rabid posts. Of course you cannot delete threads/posts, you're not admin. Duh!

Quote
Point #2: My posts on that thread were completely civil (all complaints to the admins about you), while all of your posts were clown posts, complete with clown photos to prove the point. You can prattle on about whatever you like, but you are still unfortunately you, a sociopath in need of a human personality.
More civility I see.  

I can post the picture of the clown again if you want.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2009, 01:35:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Because of your rabid posts. Of course you cannot delete threads/posts, you're not admin. Duh!
More civility I see.  
I can post the picture of the clown again if you want.  

You say rabid because that's what you are.  A psychopath.  Somebody has a copy of that thread, and too bad it's not here for everyone to see.  That's why they  deleted it - embarrassing for people to see that your clown postings were actually approved of here.

I can't make anybody do the right thing - the fact that you, a psychopath, are popular here, is just one of life's mysteries.

And you can post anything you want.  I post beautiful photos, and you post clown pictures.  Why should anyone be surprised at that?

I know you won't give it up, because you're a psychopath.  Those are quite common, BTW, so you're not special, just an unfunny clown.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2009, 01:41:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
And as for jjj's point about the British cyclists, my only point in responding to that is that he brought up the world of sport, and athletes, perhaps more than any other demographic, understand the benefits of hard work without shortcuts.
You still do not understand the point about sport at all. The less barriers there to get into a sport i.e. the easier it is to do, the more likely a country is to produce Gold medalists in that sport. That was the point.

To illustrate - A very simply barrier to becoming a good skier is to live in a country without snow or mountains. If a big percentage of the population can ski on a frequent basis, due to lots of snow and hills, then you get more good people discovering their talent, just like with the increased ownership and usage of cameras since digital, means you will find more good photographers overall [and more bad]. The perecentage of talented people may never change but the no.s actually doing so will.
Increase the funding to support and coach potential athletes and again it's easier for them to train well. Make it even easier, fund them directly so they do not have to fit training in and around a day job and again you will see an increase in performance by expending less effort. In fact training less, can improve many people's performance as overtraining is a very common problem.

Things got easier for a friend of mine in an unusual way. He had an injury which prevented him working [broken wrist] at the day job and so he was able to rest and recover whilst still training on a stationary bike and he then became UK champion for the first time 6 weeks after his injury, beating his opponents by a much bigger margin than he ever had previously. He worked less hard and did better, he said he was far less tired as a result of not doing the day job. He never went back to working outside cycling again.


Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
LightCapture
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2009, 03:26:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
My only response to your witterings is to quote my old signature. "Please read all the words in my post, not just the ones you like and preferably in the same order as written."
English Professor my arse! I doubt you you could parse wind, let alone a complete sentence!  

You can do exactly the same with digital, God knows why you think otherwise and far better too. Once of the best teaching aids is feedback and digital gives immediate feedback, so you can spot mistakes whilst you have time to correct them, unlike with film.
Or maybe it's still done because the old fogeys wearing courdroy and running the courses are as daft as you are.
Or still have rooms full of film kit.
Or film kit is there simply to give people the option.
Or for a historical perspective.
Lots of possible reasons. But I bet none do so for the reason you say.

What a surprise, jjj, that you've been embroiled in controversy here before. Weird.

Of course the oldest trick in the book is to accuse someone of twisting your words when that person doesn't agree with you. All someone has to do is re-read our posts... it's all right there. If someone’s life is actually that boring.

Be that as it may, apparently you can't enter into a debate without stumbling into little emoticon-filled hissy fits, and your tantrums are clouding your judgment. Alas..

My only point about "harder is better" was simply to argue the benefits of actually having to learn about basic photographic skills before getting so obsessed with what you do after the shot. It’s all about the context. The fewer impediments to that organic process, the better, because then the hard work of learning "visual awareness" can begin. And yes, of course you can check lighting, etc., with digital, but the point RSL has been making (I think it was RSL) is that doing this with digital isn't nearly as organic because there are so many more things standing between you and the actual image (as you yourself pointed out in one of your previous posts) than there ever was with film.

Take two inexperienced students of photography at some photography school and hand them each a box, one with a Pentax K10d and kit lens, the other with a Pentax LX and kit lens, and tell them that when their cameras are ready, to meet you outside for the first lesson. But then, what would the K-1000 person do for a few hours while the K10d person pulled everything out of the box and, after dealing with temporary vertigo, began the process of opening the 100-page manual to see where to begin, learn how to charge the battery, what cables went to what and where, etc., etc., etc. I guess go out and start shooting. Let’s assume the LX person has figured out how to turn the camera on, and after you've shown him where the aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top deck are, you tell him to look through the viewfinder so that he can see how to over- or under-expose a shot. Of course, if we really wanted to start at the beginning, we'd have him shoot with no battery at all, but then, that isn't possible with the K10d. <sigh>

So let’s just skip to the actual lessons. Now, because this is about photography, which presumably involves learning how to take pictures, we have to tell the K10d person to switch the camera to "M." And turn the auto-focus off. And turn Raw capture on. And adjust white balance… —where’s that gray card anyway? But of course, to do that requires he’s learned about how the menus work. Oh bother...

Half an our later, K10d guy is finally ready. Well hang it all, alright, so we also have to teach him how to work the dials to adjust f/stop and shutter speed. But wait a minute... how will he know if the exposure is correct? So we tell him to look inside the viewfinder and we take him through a short course on how to interpret all the data flashing in front of his eyes. But of course, while we're doing this, LX guy is almost done with a roll of black and white, all the while adjusting his aperture and shutter dial and learning how that relates to exposure. And while he’s shooting, each time with a slightly different exposure setting, and because he’s not a Luddite, he records his settings into in his little pocket recorder stashed in his shirt pocket so that he doesn’t have to take his eyes off his work. And he goes through three rolls, all the while learning about composition, different lighting conditions, depth-of-field, etc.

Meanwhile, K10d guy has gotten his gray card, adjusted his white balance, and now he starts to shoot. But hold on… should we use a histogram, since that has its limitations? And how do you interpret the histogram? Just tell the student to ETTR? Well, anyway, after another short lesson in that, K10d guy starts to shoot, and wonder of wonders(!) because of modern technology, he pops off 500 shots in less than an hour! But dang it, now his battery is running low, so he’s going to have to take a break while it re-charges and in the meantime, he can peruse the Russian-novel length manual and… oh, you’ve got to be kidding? Now he has to learn how to use the photo-processing software that came with the camera?! Luckily, the instructor has Lightroom, which k10d guy installs illegally on his desktop, and after downloading the 500 RAW shots – another frustratingly long chunk of time – and then doing software installation, the instruction begins on how to use Lightroom. But talk about information overload! K10d guy’s brain is about to explode. My goodness, he never knew there were so many technical details! Can’t he just learn about the basics first, before going on to another lesson in software? After all, he hasn’t even had the chance to really see his pictures, except on a 3” digital screen, which hardly does it justice, and he wants to see what they look like printed out. The instructor gently placates k10d guy and assures him that all this technical stuff is for his benefit and convenience, and when he finally learns what he should, he promises k10d he’ll actually learn about how to do photography. So the Lightroom tutorial begins.

Back in the darkroom, LX guy has watched his instructor process and develop the film (oh, how he hates all those stinky chemicals. But that’s okay, since they’re listening to some great jazz and talking about the instructor’s photography experience) and now, an  hour or so later, they’re holding the first roll of photos in their hands!

Hey, k10d guy says, I want to hold the pictures in my hands, too! Instructor tells him to settle down. That will come when they connect to the printer—assuming they have the right driver installed. In the meantime, patience, k10d guy. Patience. For now, look at all the ways you can manipulate your image… an infinite number of ways, in fact! But, k10d guy thinks to himself, I don’t want to manipulate the image… I just want to see what the image actually looked like.

All the while, LX guy and other instructor continue to talk about composition, lighting, DOF, shooting techniques, and while K10d guy was learning just how mechanical photography is, K-1000 guy was learning how fun photography could be. In the end, it seems, k10d guy just became enamored with all the fun ways he could doctor up his shot, while k-1000 guy had learned about the decisive moment and the patience and work involved in learning how to draw a picture with light… wait a minute, the student thought to himself. Isn’t that what photography actually means?

Months later, k10d guy was no longer k10d guy because he was no longer satisfied with the measly 10mp’s the camera could bring and just had, had, had to get the k20d 14mp behemoth. So he became k20d guy. But then the K-7 came along…

Meanwhile, k1000 guy was out shooting and learning more about actual photography. Oh yes, he did buy a Canon G10 for that instant gratification he craved from time to time, and he purchased a slide scanner so that he could email his chrome shots to friends, but whenever he had the itch to go out and shoot, he just grabbed his camera and went out the door. Meanwhile, k-7 guy (yes, he had succumbed—and taken out a second mortgage) was busy sitting in front of his computer screen screaming invective at some “old fogey” who dared to question his new lifestyle of mechanical photography and instant gratification and hours upon hours in a dark room (ironic, isn’t it?) sitting in front of a pixel screen making the skies just a little bluer, and the grass just a little greener, and… and… and…
Logged

In the right light, anything is beautiful.
bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2009, 03:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LightCapture
What a surprise, jjj, that you've been embroiled in controversy here before. Weird.

Of course the oldest trick in the book is to accuse someone of twisting your words when that person doesn't agree with you. All someone has to do is re-read our posts... it's all right there. If someone’s life is actually that boring.

Be that as it may, apparently you can't enter into a debate without stumbling into little emoticon-filled hissy fits, and your tantrums are clouding your judgment. Alas..

My only point about "harder is better" was simply to argue the benefits of actually having to learn about basic photographic skills before getting so obsessed with what you do after the shot. It’s all about the context. The fewer impediments to that organic process, the better, because then the hard work of learning "visual awareness" can begin. And yes, of course you can check lighting, etc., with digital, but the point RSL has been making (I think it was RSL) is that doing this with digital isn't nearly as organic because there are so many more things standing between you and the actual image (as you yourself pointed out in one of your previous posts) than there ever was with film.

Take two inexperienced students of photography at some photography school and hand them each a box, one with a Pentax K10d and kit lens, the other with a Pentax LX and kit lens, and tell them that when their cameras are ready, to meet you outside for the first lesson. But then, what would the K-1000 person do for a few hours while the K10d person pulled everything out of the box and, after dealing with temporary vertigo, began the process of opening the 100-page manual to see where to begin, learn how to charge the battery, what cables went to what and where, etc., etc., etc. I guess go out and start shooting. Let’s assume the LX person has figured out how to turn the camera on, and after you've shown him where the aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top deck are, you tell him to look through the viewfinder so that he can see how to over- or under-expose a shot. Of course, if we really wanted to start at the beginning, we'd have him shoot with no battery at all, but then, that isn't possible with the K10d. <sigh>

So let’s just skip to the actual lessons. Now, because this is about photography, which presumably involves learning how to take pictures, we have to tell the K10d person to switch the camera to "M." And turn the auto-focus off. And turn Raw capture on. And adjust white balance… —where’s that gray card anyway? But of course, to do that requires he’s learned about how the menus work. Oh bother...

Half an our later, K10d guy is finally ready. Well hang it all, alright, so we also have to teach him how to work the dials to adjust f/stop and shutter speed. But wait a minute... how will he know if the exposure is correct? So we tell him to look inside the viewfinder and we take him through a short course on how to interpret all the data flashing in front of his eyes. But of course, while we're doing this, LX guy is almost done with a roll of black and white, all the while adjusting his aperture and shutter dial and learning how that relates to exposure. And while he’s shooting, each time with a slightly different exposure setting, and because he’s not a Luddite, he records his settings into in his little pocket recorder stashed in his shirt pocket so that he doesn’t have to take his eyes off his work. And he goes through three rolls, all the while learning about composition, different lighting conditions, depth-of-field, etc.

Meanwhile, K10d guy has gotten his gray card, adjusted his white balance, and now he starts to shoot. But hold on… should we use a histogram, since that has its limitations? And how do you interpret the histogram? Just tell the student to ETTR? Well, anyway, after another short lesson in that, K10d guy starts to shoot, and wonder of wonders(!) because of modern technology, he pops off 500 shots in less than an hour! But dang it, now his battery is running low, so he’s going to have to take a break while it re-charges and in the meantime, he can peruse the Russian-novel length manual and… oh, you’ve got to be kidding? Now he has to learn how to use the photo-processing software that came with the camera?! Luckily, the instructor has Lightroom, which k10d guy installs illegally on his desktop, and after downloading the 500 RAW shots – another frustratingly long chunk of time – and then doing software installation, the instruction begins on how to use Lightroom. But talk about information overload! K10d guy’s brain is about to explode. My goodness, he never knew there were so many technical details! Can’t he just learn about the basics first, before going on to another lesson in software? After all, he hasn’t even had the chance to really see his pictures, except on a 3” digital screen, which hardly does it justice, and he wants to see what they look like printed out. The instructor gently placates k10d guy and assures him that all this technical stuff is for his benefit and convenience, and when he finally learns what he should, he promises k10d he’ll actually learn about how to do photography. So the Lightroom tutorial begins.

Back in the darkroom, LX guy has watched his instructor process and develop the film (oh, how he hates all those stinky chemicals. But that’s okay, since they’re listening to some great jazz and talking about the instructor’s photography experience) and now, an  hour or so later, they’re holding the first roll of photos in their hands!

Hey, k10d guy says, I want to hold the pictures in my hands, too! Instructor tells him to settle down. That will come when they connect to the printer—assuming they have the right driver installed. In the meantime, patience, k10d guy. Patience. For now, look at all the ways you can manipulate your image… an infinite number of ways, in fact! But, k10d guy thinks to himself, I don’t want to manipulate the image… I just want to see what the image actually looked like.

All the while, LX guy and other instructor continue to talk about composition, lighting, DOF, shooting techniques, and while K10d guy was learning just how mechanical photography is, K-1000 guy was learning how fun photography could be. In the end, it seems, k10d guy just became enamored with all the fun ways he could doctor up his shot, while k-1000 guy had learned about the decisive moment and the patience and work involved in learning how to draw a picture with light… wait a minute, the student thought to himself. Isn’t that what photography actually means?

Months later, k10d guy was no longer k10d guy because he was no longer satisfied with the measly 10mp’s the camera could bring and just had, had, had to get the k20d 14mp behemoth. So he became k20d guy. But then the K-7 came along…

Meanwhile, k1000 guy was out shooting and learning more about actual photography. Oh yes, he did buy a Canon G10 for that instant gratification he craved from time to time, and he purchased a slide scanner so that he could email his chrome shots to friends, but whenever he had the itch to go out and shoot, he just grabbed his camera and went out the door. Meanwhile, k-7 guy (yes, he had succumbed—and taken out a second mortgage) was busy sitting in front of his computer screen screaming invective at some “old fogey” who dared to question his new lifestyle of mechanical photography and instant gratification and hours upon hours in a dark room (ironic, isn’t it?) sitting in front of a pixel screen making the skies just a little bluer, and the grass just a little greener, and… and… and…


Where do you teach photography?
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad