The shortcut to becoming a better photographer

Thanks for the positive feedback folks. I agree whole-heartedly that we should embrace new technology and post-processing as it becomes available also. Like most of you have guessed, I'm just stating not to rely solely on the technology.

I'm personally a huge user of live-view for focusing and composing. I've fallen out of post-processing techniques like HDR but may begin to delve back into the digital darkroom for experimentation.

- Dave

“You press the button, we do the rest.” That’s a Kodak slogan from the late 1800s. Simplification of photography has been in process since the start of photography. Digital is just the latest complement, and while its provision of immediacy marks a monumental step, the understanding of light, composition, timing, movement, and atmosphere are still the domain of the person, not the technology. And luck helps a lot as well!

The overall canon of photography has NOT improved; the correlation between creativity and technology is a myth, as one can obviously be artistically creative with just hand and clay.

There is also the process of photography; what might be “tedious” to one could be fun to another. And personally, I have no desire to look through the screen on the back of a camera to take a photo; it’s a disconnect for me. Learned my lesson with the Canon G3.

I use manual (everything), and for my type of photography, nothing is faster than the ancient method of ‘zone focusing’ and setting exposure before the shot. Fiddling with live view and playing with dials until I can see all is right would be disastrous, as well as just a plain drag in terms of enjoyment.

As for the pedagogical value of technology, yes, digital’s convenience was what brought me into photography after effectively avoiding it for a few decades. But switching to film also had its benefits. The assumption that shortcuts are best for all is myopic, since the best learning approach is likely to differ somewhat among the nearly 7 billion people on the planet.

And of course, one's improvement is not codependent on even having the camera in hand, as just viewing other photographs can instructively fuel inspiration.

Again, all of this is personal preference, but what I do know absolutely is that today’s technology hasn’t done anything to advance the creative value of photography beyond any of the great photographers from the past 150 years.

Yes, these days, you can got all sorts of different kinds of photos previously unachievable with older cameras, but variation in this case should not be confused with quality; Ansel Adam’s photographs are still supreme, or at least arguably so.

Use what you want, use what you need, but while simplifying means of technique can certainly help facilitate realizings one’s creativity, it will not by any means secure vision; that’s up to the human.

That’s it, I’m out, but PM’s always welcome.

^^^^ Extremely well said. Thanks

Wrong title.
I agree that there is (probably) no shortcut to become an excellent photographer - but there are thousands of shortcuts to become better. Moving from film to digital helps you to give immediate feedback - a huge shortcut. And using a decent camera can provide you with technically decent shots even if you are a complete novice. In my case the work in the digital darkroom provided me with a lot of feedback about all the problems and faults of my pictures. Having (e.g. buying) the correct lens, .....

None of these improvements make you perfect - but get you going in the right direction.

drmaxx wrote in post #17360096
And using a decent camera can provide you with technically decent shots even if you are a complete novice.

Completely disagree. I know plenty of people shooting with 5D3's and 1DX's and 500mm F/4's that I consider poor photographers.... they are not new whatsoever. Whereas I have shot plenty of published images with Rebels.

You can have a shot of a blank wall that by all technical standards is 'decent'. Proper exposure, in focus, level, etc, but that doesn't stop it from being an utterly boring and uninteresting photo regardless of what camera it was done with.

Someone with a real grasp on artistic language and presentation could produce such an image with an old 0.3mp webcam and still produce something that makes for an interesting gallery visit.

Useful tips, thanks for sharing

Luckless wrote in post #17360356
You can have a shot of a blank wall that by all technical standards is 'decent'. Proper exposure, in focus, level, etc, but that doesn't stop it from being an utterly boring and uninteresting photo regardless of what camera it was done with.

Someone with a real grasp on artistic language and presentation could produce such an image with an old 0.3mp webcam and still produce something that makes for an interesting gallery visit.

ddd778 wrote in post #17361525
Useful tips, thanks for sharing

Thanks folks, and happy 2015! Interestingly I posted this very same article to DPReview, and was told there that I was doing nothing but "regurgitating information". I was hoping to help people getting started in photography.

I read some of the article, and I agree with what I read. It was too hard on my eyes, however, to read the whole thing because of the white text on the black background. That color combo is really tough on my eyes and my vision would kind of "fritz out" after a few seconds of trying to focus on the text. Hence, I could read for only a few seconds before I would have to look away.

Dave, could I have your permission to copy & paste your article here, in a more normal black text on white background, so that others who would like to read it can do so without undue eyestrain?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17658561
I read some of the article, and I agree with what I read. It was too hard on my eyes, however, to read the whole thing because of the white text on the black background. That color combo is really tough on my eyes and my vision would kind of "fritz out" after a few seconds of trying to focus on the text. Hence, I could read for only a few seconds before I would have to look away.

Dave, could I have your permission to copy & paste your article here, in a more normal black text on white background, so that others who would like to read it can do so without undue eyestrain?

here you go, Tom.

article is okay. i guess it is just our culture today that many expect to not have to work to achieve some goal … maybe people need to be told to practice. I tell my 6 year olds, but that's a little different.

edit: for those of us on Macs, you can to the same thing. https://support.apple.​com/en-us/HT201899
edit 2: hmm, the keyboard command isn't' working for me any more, it used to. System Preferences > Accessability will let you toggle "invert colors"

A serious question based on some replies above: Why is using live view considered a shortcut? It's much easier to see and compose on a screen that fills several square inches than in a tiny window.

Good read, thanks for posting!

I agree with a lot of the key points - especially trying different angles, getting out in all kinds of weather, and making the effort to get out where the photos are.

And I was due for a reminder! It made me think how many of my photos from my recent trip were taken standing at eye level (almost all of them).

OhLook wrote in post #17658592
A serious question based on some replies above: Why is using live view considered a shortcut? It's much easier to see and compose on a screen that fills several square inches than in a tiny window.

Anyone who's ever shot a view camera knows live view can be precise but a bit slow - even more so when you are looking at an upside down view under a dark cloth. Slow is sometimes good, it gives time for serious contemplation of the image. The discipline of taking one shot and making it count is valuable even in a "pray and spray" world.

That said, the viewfinder is faster (if you don't constantly chimp) and, if you're older, you don't need reading glasses to see it clearly. Digital live view often reminds me of the old waist level finders which I always found clumsy. Seeing someone constantly using LV has always struck me as a mark of inexperience.

As LV implementation has improved, I'm using it more. Especially at times when I want to move slowly and deliberately - similar to when I used to use a view camera. I also find value to a tethered camera in a studio or, especially during a real estate shoot, tethering to a phone or tablet clamped to a tripod leg. But, when it's time to move or follow action, I always use the viewfinder.

Using the live view is a "short cut" because it doesn't exist on film SLRs, and it makes some tasks far more easier.

I get the impression that not flogging yourself before every photo is also considered a shortcut by some.


But seriously, live view is a tool. Use it when it makes sense to do so, and use the view finder when that makes more sense. I much prefer to use the viewfinder when handholding because the natural stance is that much more stable than trying to use the screen, but I'll still use it for things such as handheld macro work while chasing bugs simply because it seems to work better for me.

rgs wrote in post #17658645
Slow is sometimes good, it gives time for serious contemplation of the image.

Almost all my images are the kind that benefit from contemplation. I hardly ever have a reason for an action shot.

This seems backward. The picture is smaller in the VF than on the screen. I should think you'd need stronger reading glasses to see any detail in the VF.

For an adequate view of the screen, I take off my walking-around (i.e., distance) glasses and use my built-in myopia.

Luckless wrote in post #17658709
Using the live view is a "short cut" because it doesn't exist on film SLRs, and it makes some tasks far more easier.

Yeah, after I posted, it occurred to me that film-era snobbery might come into play.

They flog themselves before every photo? It's more practical to wait till you have the shot and you can examine your failure.

Okay. This looks like good advice.