The shortcut to becoming a better photographer

If you're not trembling from pain and about to faint from blood loss, then how else are you supposed to show that you're the superior being and still able to take a steady handheld shot in the dark?


Just to be clear, I was joking about the flogging bit. I've actually only met one photographer who had flogged themselves before taking photos, but he apparently did so when photographing some religious rite that he happened to also be taking part in. We humans are a weird bunch.

OhLook wrote in post #17658854
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.

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.

The VF is better for older eyes because you adjust the eyepiece for your reading correction - no glasses needed. No such adjustment in LV. You must put on glasses or hold it quite far away. Or, if you have macro eyes like me (and apparently OhLook) you can remove your glasses but, in my case, that means going into the field without my contacts which are far superior to glasses.

"Film era snobbery"? Sounds rather like someone who has never experienced the lessons film (and darkroom) provided but is short-sighted enough to dismiss those who have as just old-fashioned. Digital solves neatly so many of the things we worked very hard to do with film. Still film has a charm that those who never used it will never understand. I have only one film camera now (my 4x5) which is never used - I can do so much more with digital - but I value the experience greatly.

IMHO one of the serious negative consequences of this fast-moving digital age is the unwillingness to learn the DISCIPLINE of photography because the camera will do it for us. It is, in my view, absolutely essential that the photographer understand what the camera is doing and slow down enough to see. Using modern tools is great. But old-fashioned discipline and knowledge make them easier and more reliable to use.

OhLook wrote in post #17658854

That said, if you're older, you don't need reading glasses to see [the viewfinder] clearly.

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.

I can use the diopter adjustment on my VF; I'd need to put on my readers to see a screen, which makes it a bit harder to switch between camera and subject.

OhLook wrote in post #17658854
Yeah, after I posted, it occurred to me that film-era snobbery might come into play.

after you posted this did it occur to you that calling people snobs might not be the best way to engage in an honest discussion?

besides, rgs was talking about "the original live view" on a view camera and said it had it's place.

rgs wrote in post #17658884
"Film era snobbery"? Sounds rather like someone who has never experienced the lessons film (and darkroom) provided but is short-sighted enough to dismiss those who have as just old-fashioned.

I admit only to being literally shortsighted; dismissing anyone as old-fashioned is your reading, not my intent. Some posts in this thread and others do have a tone of superiority to people with less experience or less expertise or lesser equipment than the posters. This tone shows up, for example, in numerous disparaging mentions of point-and-shoots.

I used a film camera when I was younger and that was the only kind there was (well, okay, pinhole was available, too). I stopped because, for one thing, I couldn't do what I wanted to without a darkroom and I didn't have the resources for one.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17658951
after you posted this did it occur to you that calling people snobs might not be the best way to engage in an honest discussion?

I didn't think it'd be inflammatory. Is there a nice way to refer to people who exhibit the tone of superiority described above? I believe that Luckless was getting at the same attitude when he said:

Luckless wrote in post #17658709
Using the live view is a "short cut" because it doesn't exist on film SLRs

There is a lot of snobbery from all sides really. Pointing out that it exists isn't really a terrible thing, and I'm well aware that I'm not immune from being a snob of various things at times, but I'm Canadian so I'll usually apologize for it.

But anyone who claims that using the live view at all is a bad thing is being a fool and overlooking the times when it is in fact a very valid and useful tool. And about the only people I've ever seen claim it is something you should never use have always appeared to be those who are overly in love with 35mm film SLR cameras and how things were done 'in the old days' when people 'had to get it right the first time', and ignore the shoe boxes of bad photos that came back from a photo lab.

Luckless wrote in post #17659271
And about the only people I've ever seen claim it is something you should never use have always appeared to be those who are overly in love with 35mm film SLR cameras and how things were done 'in the old days' when people 'had to get it right the first time', and ignore the shoe boxes of bad photos that came back from a photo lab.

I never had any shoeboxes full of bad photos (although I do have some negatives that it never seemed wise to print. Does that count?)

below are the mentions of "live view" i found with my browser's search function. I might have missed another mention that fits the assertion that someone here was being a snob.

most of these seem to be positive "+" outlooks of live view with one suggestion that it is not his style to fiddle around with it.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17352591
Personally I think shortcuts are absolutely the the way to go. Learn fast and quick. If it works who cares how you got there. If there is an easier way of doing something I'll jump at it... e.g. like the fact I can't shoot M without having live view to flick on and off to set the exposure. WYSIWYG shooting is a game changer. Shortcuts for myself at least are how I got to where I've got to so far.

Shortcuts are what make this photography thing so great. Work smarter not harder.

+

Echo63 wrote in post #17352768
Hmmmmmm

I agree with Dave's blog post
To get better, get off your ass and shoot, work for the photos, and dont just expect them to come to you because you have a shiny new bit of gear, or went to a workshop.
Practice makes perfect.

But i agree with Peter too, although i feel he has kind of missed the point, yes there is shortcuts that help, like live view with exposure simulation, but you still need to be in the right spot at the right time to use it - the only way to be there is get off your ass.
I frequently use liveview to focus when its too dark to see/AF - another handy trick.

One of my golden rules is "if it seems stupid, but it works, it isnt stupid" - and there is many little tricks that fall into that category of seeming stupid, till you really need them.


The technology is changing rapidly, making our lives much easier, lenses get better, with more advanced IS, cameras have higher FPS, cleaner high ISO, better AF
But it still doesnt mean s**t unless you get the camera in the right place and set it up properly, at the right time.
Seeing light is a skill that is learned, as is composition - both are learned through practice.

Henri Cartier-Bresson once said "your first 10,000 photos are your worst"
I think that is what dave was trying to get at, get out there, make the mistakes, learn from them, dont go looking for the easy way out all the time

+

jay125 wrote in post #17353127
Good essay. Short and to the point, my kind of post. The only thing that struck me as a bit off was the point regarding upgrade when you can afford it. I think too many new photogs do just that before they truly know what their current gear can do. Can I afford a 1Dx? Yup, but I don't need it. Read, watch videos and attend live events, and like David and others stated, get up, get out and shoot!

To touch on Peter and Echo's responses, good on all levels. Use everything available, including live view and in certain situations, even greenbox so you know what it does. If you have them, use your tripod, monopod, flashes, whatever is tucked away in your bag that hasn't seen the light of day for awhile.

What I liked best was shoot and post your images sooc, no pp. Talk about taking me out of my comfort zone!

Cartier-Bressons comment on the first 10k is true, and even though I'm beyond that, Im still fully capable of creating horrible images. I am more on par with Ansel Adams who said 12 significant photos in any one year is a good crop!

+

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17353431
Personally I love the computer age. The less time I have to think about what I'm doing the more time I have to do other things.

For example I've found a particular setup using AV with on camera flash (bounced) which nails exposure every shot during wedding receptions. So much so that SOOC is just about the finished article every time. The great thing about it is that I don't even have to think about the settings, I've effectively got the DSLR working as a point and shoot for me but with a set aperture and nailing the exposure. No messing with WB in post nor anything else. Composition and timing are the only things I need to worry about. I've no interest in the technicals of the shots, I just want the shots.

Likewise as I eluded to earlier I cannot shoot on M using the metering system, not the needles nor the blinking lights. Heck I don't even really understand what some of them are doing and would turn them off if I could. I shoot M on Canon more or less using live view as an EVF (but quickly turning if off to get shots). It is even easier on my Sonys with their EVFs. Getting correct exposures with an EVF is so easy.

Learning to see the light is much easier with an EVF. WYSIWYG shooting. Want to learn how to see what the sensor sees? Then use the great shortcuts that are available, why make it more difficult than it needs to be? I went to sell a lens to a guy yesterday. He popped it on his camera and took about 5 minutes messing about trying to get a correctly exposed image because he was determined to try and do it the old fashioned way. I could have got the exposure in seconds without doing any of he calculations and mental work. Simply looking on screen and adjusting the dials until it looked right.

Having Lightroom and presets is another great example as to where you can set and forget.

All of these things make photography easier, save time and help you develop faster since you can just take pictures only having to worry about composition and timing. When every exposure is a good one your eye for composition is allowed to develop that much faster.

Manual focus made easier (shortcut focus peaking). No need to even bother learning about focal distances etc, etc. On screen shown as in focus. Using an EVF no need to pay attention to much on the dials, just turn them until it looks right. Same goes for WB, using a K value.

ISO becomes a brightness control. WB a warmth control. Aperture lots in focus or not. Extensive learning there isn't required as things are simplified.

10 minutes with an EVF should be all it takes to give someone a basic understanding and competence it getting exposures right just about every time. Timing and composition they'll need practice.

The shortcut is SPEED. Everything can be done so much faster. Why put a camera on a tripod to explore angles when you can whack on live view and watch the screen as you quickly move the camera about?

SPEED, EFFICIENCY AND EASE are the shortcuts to better photography today. 10 years ago you had to take your time. Things were mainly film i.e. slow and tedious for beginners with a high failure rate for exposures. Difficult processes for developing images. Shot to display time often days (if not weeks). These days I can take an image, transfer it to my phone, edit on my phone and upload it onto the net all inside of a minute or so. Furthermore I don't get 5% keepers from 100 shots I get 95% keepers because it is WYSIWYG.

As for having to shoot to get better... well you learn to see the way the sensor sees subconsciously and with no effort (which comes from using an EVF or live view). You don't even need to go out and take photographs to practise seeing the light as your mind instantly knows when looking at a scene what a camera would see. A side benefit of the shortcut technology offers. To see the light you just have to become accustomed to looking at the world with the same dynamic range your camera sensor captures. It has never been easier to learn to see the light.

Shortcuts, every single one available are essential to becoming a better photographer (and faster) IMHO. Why? The higher the frequency that you produce higher quality images the faster you'll learn. Why adopt a trial and error model when shortcuts offer a trial and success one? Personally I think it is a hell of a lot easier to learn faster from good results than from bad ones. The great advantages is the technical aspects will slowly fall into place as a by-product of always getting good results.

When you start to approach the learning model backwards with photography you can become better exponentially faster than using the old slog it out methods.

+

sjones wrote in post #17354013
“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.

the paragraph mentioning live view is clearly about his style of photography and live view seems to simply be an after thought or at the most just one example of what might hinder his photography. There are no other mentions of live view in his post and his sig line links to an article he has written about how great photoshop is, and another saying it isn't the gear but the photographer.

then you ask about why it is seen as a short cut.

rgs wrote in post #17658645
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.

+

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.

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

OhLook wrote in post #17658854
Yeah, after I posted, it occurred to me that film-era snobbery might come into play.

except for you and luckless, i see nothing in this thread that even remotely suggests that film era snobs have anything against Live View.

of the people posting about "how we used to do it" i believe they all commented about using the tools available and that fit your needs.

i'm not including either of you in the following, but the the recent "let's be honest" thread IMO the first snobbery that showed it's head was from digital era noobs with a chip on their shoulder. It shut that thread down, and it seems to be happening a lot lately.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17659328
below are the mentions of "live view" i found with my browser's search function. I might have missed another mention that fits the assertion that someone here was being a snob. . . .

except for you and luckless, i see nothing in this thread that even remotely suggests that film era snobs have anything against Live View.

Whose opinion are you arguing against? The opinion of anyone here? I asked, naively, perhaps, why live view was considered a shortcut. Soon thereafter, I wondered silently whether some people classify it as a shortcut because they regard digital photography generally as inauthentic: one can make digital images with less learning and less work than making film images, including developing and printing at home. Digital photography doesn't require so many sacrifices; you don't need an extra bathroom. The theme goes something like "Bah! Kids today have it too easy!" I didn't have in mind anyone in this thread.

I didn't assert that snobbery was a reason for calling live view a shortcut. I suspected that it might be, that's all. Then Luckless's post supported my suspicion, although I don't think Luckless was entirely serious.

Let's not sidetrack the discussion. It wasn't originally about snobbery or about live view particularly.

rgs wrote in post #17659297
I never had any shoeboxes full of bad photos (although I do have some negatives that it never seemed wise to print. Does that count?)

Sorry, I should have made that line a little clearer. I didn't mean that every photographer produced shoeboxes full of bad photos, but there are writers and some posters on forums who seem to be under this weird impression that all photographers were somehow better back in the era of film, because film 'forced you to slow down and think', and then they promptly ignore all of the photographers from the era who never really truly knew what they were doing and still managed to take lots and lots of photos without really thinking.

And Left Handed Brisket, you seem to be putting a lot of time and effort into attacking what was an offhand joke made about posts outside of this thread. This thread was started last year, and I wasn't going to go back and reread the whole thing to regain the full context, and I apologize if my causal approach to my reply and basing it off general info seen elsewhere online has annoyed you in some way.

Luckless wrote in post #17659648
Sorry, I should have made that line a little clearer. I didn't mean that every photographer produced shoeboxes full of bad photos, but there are writers and some posters on forums who seem to be under this weird impression that all photographers were somehow better back in the era of film, because film 'forced you to slow down and think', and then they promptly ignore all of the photographers from the era who never really truly knew what they were doing and still managed to take lots and lots of photos without really thinking.

And Left Handed Brisket, you seem to be putting a lot of time and effort into attacking what was an offhand joke made about posts outside of this thread. This thread was started last year, and I wasn't going to go back and reread the whole thing to regain the full context, and I apologize if my causal approach to my reply and basing it off general info seen elsewhere online has annoyed you in some way.

Well that was supposed to be a light-hearted response. "Spray and pray" came from film - more specifically 35mm film. National Geographic was the worst with reports of 100s of photographs being made for each article. A common adage of he time was that film was cheap. What slowed you down and made you think was a view camera. The whole process was (is) slow and, hopefully, more thoughtful. I never cared much for 35mm - it's just too small and the IQ is bad - and used 6x7 and 4x5. The expense was significantly greater than 35mm and, in the case of 4x5, inherently slower.

OhLook wrote in post #17659504
I didn't have in mind anyone in this thread.
.

oh, okay.

OhLook wrote in post #17658592
A serious question based on some replies above:.

Luckless wrote in post #17659648
And Left Handed Brisket, you seem to be putting a lot of time and effort into attacking what was an offhand joke made about posts outside of this thread. This thread was started last year, and I wasn't going to go back and reread the whole thing to regain the full context, and I apologize if my causal approach to my reply and basing it off general info seen elsewhere online has annoyed you in some way.

i didn't realize your reply was based on things posted elsewhere on the internet. Especially considering her question was about replies above, but i guess it wasn't really about replies above.

i guess i need to do a better job knowing the state of photographer snobbery around the inter webs, and applying it to posts here.

like OhLook, i didn't mean it to be "inflammatory".

rgs wrote in post #17659654
Well that was supposed to be a light-hearted response. "Spray and pray" came from film - more specifically 35mm film. National Geographic was the worst with reports of 100s of photographs being made for each article. A common adage of he time was that film was cheap. What slowed you down and made you think was a view camera. The whole process was (is) slow and, hopefully, more thoughtful. I never cared much for 35mm - it's just too small and the IQ is bad - and used 6x7 and 4x5. The expense was significantly greater than 35mm and, in the case of 4x5, inherently slower.

Personally I don't view a low keeper/print count as an inherently bad thing in and of itself. One of the changes I made which really improved the general quality of my photos was a more frequent use of the x key when sorting photos. In sports and wildlife shooting I easily walk away with a fair number of 'bad' shots that don't come out for one reason or another, a good number of 'okay' shots, a handful of 'good' ones, and every few outings I might come back with one that I consider almost a great shot.

So getting more on topic with regards to shortcuts to becoming a better photographer I guess that the first step is being able to get over yourself, (And to be clear I'm speaking in general terms, directed at myself as much as whoever is reading this) and acknowledge when a photo you capture isn't all that good and be willing to let it go. Take the photo if you think is can be good, but take the time after the fact to review the photo and be confident in binning it if it turns out you were wrong. Review why it isn't really working as a good photo, study the failure and try to learn how not to do it again in the future. Don't be scared to take a bad photo, but still think before snapping the shutter, and focus on displaying your best. Having taken a bad photo doesn't make you a bad photographer, and no one needs to know about the existence of your bad photos to begin with.


I've been wanting to get into 4x5 and 8x10 large format, but have been having a hard time deciding what gear to get. I've been really tempted to pick up a lens and build my own camera from scratch, and have even been toying with an almost SLR like design for a 4x5, but would probably stick with a more classical design. (But I do find the current designs of film holders to be rather lacking with more points of failure potential than what I would personally like.)


And I've seen some of the 'rejected' photos from National Geographic (However it was years ago and may have been a different magazine). There were a few simply bad photos, such as a random shot of the ground, or totally out of focus, but the majority of them were still excellent photos, and I would not have wanted to be in the position to pick which of those photos went to print, and which got stuffed into an archive.

Luckless wrote in post #17659728
Personally I don't view a low keeper/print count as an inherently bad thing in and of itself. One of the changes I made which really improved the general quality of my photos was a more frequent use of the x key when sorting photos. In sports and wildlife shooting I easily walk away with a fair number of 'bad' shots that don't come out for one reason or another, a good number of 'okay' shots, a handful of 'good' ones, and every few outings I might come back with one that I consider almost a great shot.

So getting more on topic with regards to shortcuts to becoming a better photographer I guess that the first step is being able to get over yourself, (And to be clear I'm speaking in general terms, directed at myself as much as whoever is reading this) and acknowledge when a photo you capture isn't all that good and be willing to let it go. Take the photo if you think is can be good, but take the time after the fact to review the photo and be confident in binning it if it turns out you were wrong. Review why it isn't really working as a good photo, study the failure and try to learn how not to do it again in the future. Don't be scared to take a bad photo, but still think before snapping the shutter, and focus on displaying your best. Having taken a bad photo doesn't make you a bad photographer, and no one needs to know about the existence of your bad photos to begin with.

I've been wanting to get into 4x5 and 8x10 large format, but have been having a hard time deciding what gear to get. I've been really tempted to pick up a lens and build my own camera from scratch, and have even been toying with an almost SLR like design for a 4x5, but would probably stick with a more classical design. (But I do find the current designs of film holders to be rather lacking with more points of failure potential than what I would personally like.)

And I've seen some of the 'rejected' photos from National Geographic (However it was years ago and may have been a different magazine). There were a few simply bad photos, such as a random shot of the ground, or totally out of focus, but the majority of them were still excellent photos, and I would not have wanted to be in the position to pick which of those photos went to print, and which got stuffed into an archive.

No I don't necessarily think so either. Just commenting on the differing techniques. I think many photographers with only digital experience think everything was slower with film - but it wasn't. Motor drives would rip through a roll of film in a few seconds if you wanted to and a roll of chrome dropped off at the lab early in the morning would be ready by noon. Digital is faster still but , mostly, more convenient. One of digital's best features is being able to take a lot, fail a lot, and learn a lot all without much expense.

When I learned the most was while working with the view camera. I was already pretty experienced with 35mm but my first view camera (a baby crown graphic bought very used) was a revelation. Today I still view the discipline learned with that camera as a critical part of my photography. Even though I move much faster with a DSLR, the more contemplative approach of a view camera is still there for me.

I do recommend working with a view camera. You might still find a good crown or speed graphic in an estate sale somewhere. These were really press cameras of the 40s and 50s but make pretty good field cameras as well and their Kodak Ektar lenses are uncoated but usually quite good. There are a lot of wooden field cameras and they're not too expensive. Most have pretty good tilts and shifts (the crown graphics are kind of limited here) on the front. The backs tend to be less so. I always wanted one that would focus on the rear standard because focusing with the rear keeps image size the same while you focus - really great for any closeup work - but rear focus usually is only available on studio type monorails which aren't much good outside.

I wouldn't fool with a different film holder design. The standard ones work well and have the advantage of being standard. They are actually quite elegant in an old-fashioned sort of way. You can get a roll film back for a 4x5. They use 120 roll film and format to either 6x7 or 6x9. You can get one that goes in like a film holder or one that clips on the back or the camera in place of the ground glass. I prefer the former because you don't have to constantly remove the ground glass.

But, really, if you slow down with your DSLR and use LV a lot you can get very similar results unless you just want to fool with old cameras (always fun) and film (not so much). Good luck with it.