|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2010 03:48:46 PM · #26 |
| Yes, I agree. If all you have is a rote memorization of how, you can't adapt to change, for you have no understanding of the why. |
|
|
|
05/24/2010 03:59:41 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Good point about the how and why. I kind of take a similar approach at work with trying to teach connectivity fundamentals to copier techs. I like to concentrate on understanding the concepts (the why) not simply rote button pushing (the how). The problem is, if you only know the how part, as soon as something changes, you will be lost.
A lot of people only want to know the short route to the objective: which buttons to push just to get the job at hand done. If you understand the concepts involved, you can still figure it out when the details change.
"Why", "concepts", "under the hood nuts & bolts". I think it all means a more thorough understanding of something.
I think we get so much "how", because it is easier, quicker, and gets the immediate job at hand done. |
But, interestingly, relating that sort of thing back to photography, when you are teaching the "how" (at least if you're any good) you're mostly trying to teach the "why" of the "how", if you get my drift? In other words, when talking about, say, how to maximize or minimize DOF, you ought to be discussing these in terms of real world scenarios: "When you have a near object and a far object, both of which are required to be in focus, you need to understand a little more about DOF; since the zone of sharpness extends 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the point of focus... etc etc."
So there are different levels of "why" to deal with; on the one extreme, "WHY take pictures at all, or WHY take THIS picture" or, much more specifically, "WHY would a shallower DOF help this image succeed, as an image?"
R.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2010 04:11:03 PM · #28 |
The how of DOF is so immutable there are tables of information out there. Memorizing the table doesn't help you get a good shot. You have to know why DOF is worth all the bother.
And the answer the OP, I have no interest in the settings you used on the camera you used to get your shot. I don't want to get your shot. I want to get my shot. If I stood in your footprints, with your camera set to the same settings you used, at the same time of day, I would still get a different shot. That's the cool thing about photography. It can't happen without the photographer. |
|
|
|
05/24/2010 04:12:56 PM · #29 |
| Well, traffic cameras don't count. |
|
|
|
05/24/2010 04:14:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, interestingly, relating that sort of thing back to photography, when you are teaching the "how" (at least if you're any good) you're mostly trying to teach the "why" of the "how", if you get my drift? |
Agreed. There are so many variables, and the result of them is very subjective. I'm going through some of this with my wife right now. Trying to explain to her how to do something, but trying to infuse some why into it as well. It's not as simple as "push this button, push that button, wow, great photograph!" Some of that understanding only comes from trial and error, and seeing for oneself. I can guide her through adjusting a photo to look good, but those steps will not work the same on a different photo. One must understand all the whys. An understanding of "if's" comes in handy as well.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2010 05:11:53 PM · #31 |
| BTW I neither agree or disagree with Pogue, just thought It might spark an interesting debate here on DPC... ;) |
|
|
|
05/24/2010 09:34:21 PM · #32 |
The fundamental Why questions are not technical in nature: they address motivations, emotions, moods, communication, inspiration--that is the reason they are not found in camera manuals. Discussions of control of dof, motion blur, exposure don't directly touch those elements, so when someone asks How Do I Get a Shallow DOF Portrait? they already have a Why in mind. The How and Why are linked, intertwined, but the language is different, the nouns and value systems are different.
Why did you take this picture, why did you use ______ technique(s) all address motivation, intent, desire, emotion, inspiration, aesthetic: those questions assume the How's were deliberate until the answer is "well, I didn't know How else to do it: I wanted it to be _______, but I didn't know How." At which point a How Do I question is asked, motivated by a Why.
For me, the process and method of understanding and expanding the Why involves studying images of others as well as my own: Why does this image (work, not work) for me, Why did the photographer use this or that technique, Why do I feel this image is "successful", Why does this image make me feel the way it does? There is an innate Why in place as soon as the camera is aimed, finger on the shutter release. The more Hows we know, the more likely we can achieve our initial Whys successfully.
Why and How are like sides of the same coin. But Why Analysis goes off the rails pretty fast sometimes: Why did you take this photo? Because I like it. Why do you like it? I liked the way the light looked! Why did you like the way the light looked? Because it made me feel _____. Why did it make you feel that way? Because it did, dammit!! Leave me alone.
The Why stuff is often an introspective process, and uniquely individual, it is less easily discussed, and sometimes uncomfortable to discuss. But when someone asks a specific How question, it is likely they have a Why in mind, even if they can't (or don't want to) articulate it as clearly as the How question: it is unlikely that trying to force a Why discussion into a How Question will be frequently welcomed: people wouldn't ask if they didn't have a reason. |
|
|
|
05/24/2010 10:24:50 PM · #33 |
It seems that what we are discussing here is man or machine. Without both, there are no photographs, so however the balance is arrived at to get the perfect shot is not that important to me. I have never been in a situation where the exact same settings as someone else used will compose and capture a photo any better than the other person used.
I'm guessing that the OP's photographs in question may just be the best of a big batch or a couple of hundred or so. When shooting moving, changing subjects or scenes, it's not logical in these days of digital to pin your hopes on just a few shutter clicks. In some lighting situations where the light is pretty stable, as in a studio, or outside shooting landscape in daylight, it makes sense to get a setting that works and go manual, but if the lighting is changing rapidly, then shooting auto makes sense. I shoot A P most of the time because I like high shutter speeds in daylight and long exposures at night.
ETA, my Fuji's don't meter with most of my lenses anyway, because most of the glass that I use is older manual equipment. I use the LCD and a test shot or two to get a setting, then click away.
Message edited by author 2010-05-24 22:26:33.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 09:12:17 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 09:12:17 AM EDT.
|
