Become A Better Digital Photographer

alt4852 wrote in post #10359351
i think we're just thinking on different timelines. i would never advocate "shutting the doors of learning" in any sense of the phrase, but i think prioritizing is important. i mentioned the chef analogy because i think it's safe to say that becoming a world class chef will certainly improve the abilities of a food photographer. however, such an endeavor is a lifelong commitment and if the person's goal is to become the greatest food photographer out there, i think careful study of the final presented dishes themselves may garner results more effectively. if you are first and foremost a photographer, dedicating your life to becoming a chef is not the most efficient way to improve your skills.

as for photography, large format techniques are not fully applicable to every niche of the craft as a whole. yes, we are working with shutter speeds and apertures, but if your chosen focus is on work that involves learning the delicacies of extremely wide apertures and fast shutter speeds, dedicating years into learning how an image reacts to a different format size, apertures that creating massive amounts of DOF and shutter speeds that reflect the fact that you're always on a tripod.. it's simply not the same. if i had spent my time using a view camera the last few years, i would not be so well versed in the use of my f/1.2 lenses and all of the techniques to hand hold steadily at slow shutter speeds. they are the same form of art in the fact that it is all photography, but they are vastly different in real world use.

at the end of the day though, i would love to learn how to use a view camera and i have no doubt that it will make me a better photographer. however, i don't think this sort of advice is applicable until you have a solid foundation in your own focused area of study first. you cannot study 4x5 technique to learn 35mm skills as well as studying 35mm techniques would be for learning 35mm skills. it's not closed mindedness, it's just knowing how to prioritize. it's learning how to walk before you run.

I would also disagree with this to a degree. Its an aperture, a shutter a lens and a box. Learn to control those things yourself instead of relying on the camera to do it for you and your almost there no matter if its medium format, large format of 35mm. But again I don't think I said you should do it all, all at once. In fact I just said and have continued to say if you learn it you will be better for it.

I would agree its probably a bit easier if you start with a smaller camera shooting all manual before you go to a view camera just to get an understanding of aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc. But you can do that with a digital camera or any camera you can use in an all manual mode. Get acclimated to the shutter,aperture operation then I say dive in.

Oh and you would be rally supprised in what area knowledge of something that you thought at one time would be usuless to you and what you do can save your butt

I shoot all the time, if you know my work, in low light with very fast lenses and I can tell you many of the skills I learned on large format have helped me. Framing and proper exposure and what to meter to get the proper exposure. I shoot at 3200 all the time in fact I just posted some stuff I shot Sat evening at 3200 and my 200 2L wide open which has a shallower DOF when at MFD than the 85L at 1.2 at the same distance which I also shoot wide open or near wide open all the time.

The thing about knowledge is its usually never confined to what you think its going to be confined to. It can open the world up to all kinds of possibilities that may not have ever entered into the though process.

RDKirk wrote in post #10359453
A problem here is the idea of a "digital photographer." What is a "digital photographer?" Robby the Robot holding a camera? "Danger Will Robinson! Overexposure imminent!"

What of all the old film photographers who found it hard as heck to transfer their knowledge to digital photograpy? Who were dumbfounded by the "learning curve" of digital photography? Who refused to even call "digital photography" "photography" at all, because to acknowledge digital output as "photography" marginalized everything they knew?

All those folk certainly didn't seem to believe that their film knowledge gave them a leg up. Maybe it did--certainly they didn't have to learn anything new about how the front end of the camera worked. But they somehow didn't think so. Many of them failed and just said, "Digital sucks. It ain't even 'photography.'"

Dude I was up and running in 20 minutes as were most of the old film guys I know. Not perfect and I'm sill learning but its a box an aperture a shutter and a lens. If you're really good at working on its not that hard to pick up the other if you really have knowledge.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359475
Dude I was up and running in 20 minutes as were most of the old film guys I know. Not perfect and I'm sill learning but its a box an aperture a shutter and a lens. If you're really good at working on its not that hard to pick up the other if you really have knowledge.

I know you're running in different pro circles from mine. That was not true in portrait circles.

RDKirk wrote in post #10359491
I know you're running in different pro circles from mine. That was not true in portrait circles.

I can't speak for Allen but most of the advertising guys I know were working with digital scans for many years before we switched to digital. I took to digital like a duck takes to water. I knew a few guys who could operate the camera very well but just couldn't get the hang of PP.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10357289
Like I said learning the zone system will make you a better photographer period. You don't have learn it of course but that knowledge will make you a better photographer.

Agreed, but I don't need to shoot film to learn the Zone system..

It's best application is film, but still...

In the modern world a master of Photoshop will have a much better idea what he needs to accomplish in camera than a master of film.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359459
I would also disagree with this to a degree. Its an aperture, a shutter a lens and a box. Learn to control those things yourself instead of relying on the camera to do it for you and your almost there no matter if its medium format, large format of 35mm. But again I don't think I said you should do it all, all at once. In fact I just said and have continued to say if you learn it you will be better for it.

I would agree its probably a bit easier if you start with a smaller camera shooting all manual before you go to a view camera just to get an understanding of aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc. But you can do that with a digital camera or any camera you can use in an all manual mode. Get acclimated to the shutter,aperture operation then I say dive in.

Oh and you would be rally supprised in what area knowledge of something that you thought at one time would be usuless to you and what you do can save your butt

I shoot all the time, if you know my work, in low light with very fast lenses and I can tell you many of the skills I learned on large format have helped me. Framing and proper exposure and what to meter to get the proper exposure. I shoot at 3200 all the time in fact I just posted some stuff I shot Sat evening at 3200 and my 200 2L wide open which has a shallower DOF when at MFD than the 85L at 1.2 at the same distance which I also shoot wide open or near wide open all the time.

The thing about knowledge is its usually never confined to what you think its going to be confined to. It can open the world up to all kinds of possibilities that may not have ever entered into the though process.

i think you have to really step back and look at it conceptually to consider large format and 35mm the same though. yes, they both have forms, functions, and skills that are interchangeable, but the primary method for use is so different that it can probably be considered a different art altogether. for example, ansel adams' work primarily involved the art of composition, balancing tones, and masterful printmaking. his craft had little regard for the intricacies of balancing limited depth of field as most of his greatest works were all done at hyperfocal. then take a look at henri cartier bresson's work. his art lies in the capture of patterns and the human condition. their bodies of work both fall under photography, but i doubt either could do the work of the other. the skills that each had mastered under their own discipline is not really transferable.

were they closed minded or limiting themselves? i think not. there is just such a vast world of knowledge within each format as it already stands, that you can build a lifetime of work and still learn more while working within the context of one body of study.

instead of generalizing about being a better photographer, why not consider the merits of being a better artist, or human being? the classifications are endless, but our time is not. there is practically nothing in the world in terms of experiences that will be truly detrimental to someone's pursuit of knowledge. even bad experiences will teach you what to avoid. i guess that's why i find issue with this whole view camera idea. it is the same as becoming a sculptor. both will undeniably improve your artistic abilities, but is that all we're really after?

alt4852 wrote in post #10359579
i think you have to really step back and look at it conceptually to consider large format and 35mm the same though. yes, they both have forms, functions, and skills that are interchangeable, but the primary method for use is so different that it can probably be considered a different art altogether. for example, ansel adams' work primarily involved the art of composition, balancing tones, and masterful printmaking. his craft had little regard for the intricacies of balancing limited depth of field as most of his greatest works were all done at hyperfocal. then take a look at henri cartier bresson's work. his art lies in the capture of patterns and the human condition. their bodies of work both fall under photography, but i doubt either could do the work of the other. the skills that each had mastered under their own discipline is not really transferable.

were they closed minded or limiting themselves? i think not. there is just such a vast world of knowledge within each format as it already stands, that you can build a lifetime of work and still learn more while working within the context of one body of study.

instead of generalizing about being a better photographer, why not consider the merits of being a better artist, or human being? the classifications are endless, but our time is not. there is practically nothing in the world in terms of experiences that will be truly detrimental to someone's pursuit of knowledge. even bad experiences will teach you what to avoid. i guess that's why i find issue with this whole view camera idea. it is the same as becoming a sculptor. both will undeniably improve your artistic abilities, but is that all we're really after?

Cool it Gandhi... You're making us all look like asses....

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359459
Its an aperture, a shutter a lens and a box.

Respectfully Allen,,there is more to view cameras than aperture, shutter, film in a box..

If you don't already know,, Google "Scheimpflug Principle"..

OMG,, I've just remembered a couple of terms when I was studying commercial photography.. Yaw and yaw free..

alt4852 wrote in post #10359579
i think you have to really step back and look at it conceptually to consider large format and 35mm the same though. yes, they both have forms, functions, and skills that are interchangeable, but the primary method for use is so different that it can probably be considered a different art altogether. for example, ansel adams' work primarily involved the art of composition, balancing tones, and masterful printmaking. his craft had little regard for the intricacies of balancing limited depth of field as most of his greatest works were all done at hyperfocal. then take a look at henri cartier bresson's work. his art lies in the capture of patterns and the human condition. their bodies of work both fall under photography, but i doubt either could do the work of the other. the skills that each had mastered under their own discipline is not really transferable.

were they closed minded or limiting themselves? i think not. there is just such a vast world of knowledge within each format as it already stands, that you can build a lifetime of work and still learn more while working within the context of one body of study.

instead of generalizing about being a better photographer, why not consider the merits of being a better artist, or human being? the classifications are endless, but our time is not. there is practically nothing in the world in terms of experiences that will be truly detrimental to someone's pursuit of knowledge. even bad experiences will teach you what to avoid. i guess that's why i find issue with this whole view camera idea. it is the same as becoming a sculptor. both will undeniably improve your artistic abilities, but is that all we're really after?

That's just not true, one of my favorite Adam's photographs is a portrait of a music professor with him standing behind a table filled with musical scores, it is pinpoint sharp front to back. He used the tilts on the camera to achieve that. Remember Adams was a commercial photographer, he used all the advantages of a view camera in his work.

breal101 wrote in post #10359645
That's just not true, one of my favorite Adam's photographs is a portrait of a music professor with him standing behind a table filled with musical scores, it is pinpoint sharp front to back. He used the tilts on the camera to achieve that. Remember Adams was a commercial photographer, he used all the advantages of a view camera in his work.

I think that's what he meant... most of his work was done at infinity..

Tadaaa wrote in post #10359695
I think that's what he meant... most of his work was done at infinity..

Again not true, maybe what you're familiar with, the landscapes were but he worked as a commercial photographer. The bulk of his work was like any other commercial photographer, any and all range of distances. That's what I was saying, the picture is in the coffee table book, which could be familiar to many people here.

yogestee wrote in post #10359623
Respectfully Allen,,there is more to view cameras than aperture, shutter, film in a box..

If you don't already know,, Google "Scheimpflug Principle"..

OMG,, I've just remembered a couple of terms when I was studying commercial photography.. Yaw and yaw free..

Oh, I know, but my point is its a camera not all that different than a DSLR in the respect of box, aperture, etc certainly way more complex in its operation which i though I had clealy stated in early posts( rise fall tilt shift etc) and the skill once mastered on that beast easily transfers to other formats because they have a lens aperture shutter in common.

Tadaaa wrote in post #10359695
I think that's what he meant... most of his work was done at infinity..

HUH? NO it wasn't.

alt4852 wrote in post #10359579
i think you have to really step back and look at it conceptually to consider large format and 35mm the same though. yes, they both have forms, functions, and skills that are interchangeable, but the primary method for use is so different that it can probably be considered a different art altogether. for example, ansel adams' work primarily involved the art of composition, balancing tones, and masterful printmaking. his craft had little regard for the intricacies of balancing limited depth of field as most of his greatest works were all done at hyperfocal. then take a look at henri cartier bresson's work. his art lies in the capture of patterns and the human condition. their bodies of work both fall under photography, but i doubt either could do the work of the other. the skills that each had mastered under their own discipline is not really transferable.

were they closed minded or limiting themselves? i think not. there is just such a vast world of knowledge within each format as it already stands, that you can build a lifetime of work and still learn more while working within the context of one body of study.

instead of generalizing about being a better photographer, why not consider the merits of being a better artist, or human being? the classifications are endless, but our time is not. there is practically nothing in the world in terms of experiences that will be truly detrimental to someone's pursuit of knowledge. even bad experiences will teach you what to avoid. i guess that's why i find issue with this whole view camera idea. it is the same as becoming a sculptor. both will undeniably improve your artistic abilities, but is that all we're really after?

If you master a view camera a 35mm camera its not that of a transition to other formats because it is so much more difficult to master and those things like how to evaluate what the meter is telling you, the aperture and the shutter are all there on your DSLR and don't function that drastically different. Once you have mastered the tools you can truly move into self expression because you are no longer struggling with technique because you know it thus allowing you to fully express you vision without the limitations of your tools. And a view camera and the zone system again will teach you things that will always stay with you in ways you never think are valuable before you learn it. Again do you have to do it no but it can help you become a better photographer.