One of the things I love most about teaching photography and passing on knowledge I have gained over these past 40+ years of practicing this art form is watching the reaction of students when they realise how easy taking full control, shooting in Manual Mode, of their camera is.
I am not saying that shooting in manual mode necessarily makes one a better photographer, it simply means being able to fully control the tool in you hands as you wish to control it.
So, what am I getting at?
I watch and follow a large number of photographers and I can say this, as a teacher, I can show you how to operate the equipment, but I cannot teach you the “art” of photography. Achieving proper exposure is the technical side of photography whereas seeing an image and the capture of an image is the “art”.
Let’s have a frank discussion:
Learning how the points of the Exposure Triangle all work together to achieve proper exposure is easy to teach, I have been able to teach that in a matter of minutes to students who had only ever shot in Auto or one of the Auto-Exposure modes on their cameras. This to me is the ground level of photography and everyone with a desire for photography should learn this as an absolute foundation.
The “art” of photography, however, is completely different. I can teach the basis of “compositional rules”, such as the Rule of Thirds, Lead In Lines, Symmetry, etc. but what I cannot teach is how one designs a photoshoot, whether this photoshoot is a Portrait or Fashion shoot, a Product shoot, or a Landscape shoot, that is for the individual eye to see. For example, when I go out with a group of fellow photographers to a location to capture some landscape images, even though we are all shooting from a very similar location, each of us creates a different and unique image because we each see the scene differently and we each determine what the most important element of the scene is to our eye. That is the individual eye and what feels best to each photographer. The same applies when shooting a model in studio, a group of photographers shooting the same model will create different results when given the freedom to set their own lighting and posing. Neither is right, nor wrong because art is subjective.
Here is where some many take some exception to my comments:
The issue I have with much of the people work (portraits, fashion, weddings, etc.) I see today is that the “art” is not necessarily being created by the photographer using the camera, it is being created through image editing software, such that the “final” work looks nothing like what was created by using the camera. The work created by the camera has now become the canvas on which the art is created. This is leading to, in many instances, the work being indistinguishable between photographers. Much of the lighting that creates the initial piece is the same and the way the images are edited is the same, so photographers, to a large degree, do not stand out from each other.
To me, a good photographer creates a technically sound image, properly exposed, properly lit and appropriate posing BUT a great photographer presents an image that is artistically appealing and is able to hold the attention of the viewer beyond just seeing a nicely exposed image. This goes beyond the technical abilities of the photographer, remember I said above that the technical side can be taught and “perfected”. Take a photojournalist, some of the best photojournalistic images may not be the best exposed images but they are captured in a manner that draws the viewer in and hold holds the viewer’s attention, there is an emotion evoked. Again, this is where the “art” that resides in the photographer is on display.
What I am finding is many are chasing the next best thing in photography equipment but does that equipment truly matter in the overall premise of photography, that is to create art. Camera and lens manufacturers are progressing the quality of images produced, that is the way the images are rendered, very sharp, very clean, nearly high-definition images. This advancement, to be very honest, is not of interest to me because coming from an analog (film) background that began over 40 years ago, for me the quality of an image is not in its rendering but in its content.
I do, indeed shoot digital but I have refused to chase technology. My digital cameras are:
Nikon D3s - First produced in 2009 and was discontinued is 2012 when it was replaced with the D4. This is my go to sports photography camera and it is has excellent high ISO performance.
Nikon D3x - First produced in 2008 as a high mega-pixel (24.4mp) for studio, landscape, weddings, etc. It is not a high ISO camera and it is not designed to be a sport photography camera.
Nikon D500 - First produced in 2016. This is a very versatile camera with a high fps and very good high ISO performance. I purchased it more as a travel camera as it is much smaller and lighter than the D3s and the D3x.
So, as you can see, I am quite a few generations behind, but I do not see the need to keep “upgrading” camera bodies. I still believe lens quality is more important.
That being said, if given the choice I would much rather shoot one of my film cameras, my current favourite is the Pentax 6x7.
Film, for me is still what photography is all about, others many differ and that is absolutely fine because as artist we have personal choice over our tools.
Why film?
I have addressed this before and I mentioned it above, for me a quality image is not about how it is rendered but it is the feeling of the image. I simply feel that because film images are not over crisp and clear (sharpness) and have a softer rendering created by the film grain, the images have much more character and life to them than do images being produced today with the high megapixel cameras. For me there is just something about the hands-on nature of shooting film……..with only 10 frames per roll I tend to be much more selective in what I shoot, I am more in-tuned with what I want to produce, not thinking about where I can take the image in edits. Film is about truly taking images one frame at a time, checking and re-checking composition, checking and re-checking exposure by using a spot meter to meter around the scene, determining where I want my shadows to fall in the overall exposure and not pressing the shutter button until I am absolutely certain I have my composition and exposure as I want it.
I know many disagree and I am fine with that…….I still believe that new photographers can benefit by starting the photography process in shooting film, developing is another story. Yes, a digital camera can be a great learning and one can learn very fast on digital, I just think that film teaches the elements of proper exposure and composition a little less forgivingly, resulting in a faster learning curve. Let me explain, with digital cameras the photographer can capture the same image over and over again, nearly an unlimited number of times and adjust the exposure and composition continually and ultimately the photog can get “lucky” but has the photog truly learned in this process? With film, the decision about composition is key, as is the exposure and where the exposure readings are taken from. With film, the photog has to “know” that he has gotten everything right as there is no immediate feedback to make the adjustments. This is where wonderful lessons in photography are on offer.
In closing……it is not my intent to knock those continuing to take advantage of technological advancements in digital photography because if this means these advancements bring more people into the wonderful art form that is a great thing. I would simply advise new(er) photographers to “focus” less emphasis on the rendering of the image and more time on developing his/her photographer’s eye and learn to create images that stand out from the crowd. It is great to follow other photographers but I feel standing out by creating your own style is the better way to go.
I am always open to having these discussions.
Capturing Moments in Time
×