| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2011 05:18:03 PM · #1 |
I'm reading a really interesting book called Moonwalking with Einstein which is about memory and memorizing things. It's a fascinating read, but one passage got me thinking about photography. I wish I could cut and paste, but it's just too long to type out. I'll summarize.
When researchers have tried to answer the question, "what makes an expert?" the answer seems to involve the way they practice things. A normal individual will embark upon a new activity, have a steep curve where they improve rapidly then plateau at the point where they are, in their mind, able to adequately do that activity. At this point many people stagnate (the author calls it the "OK plateau"). It seems, if we are to believe the studies, that an "expert" will push past this by conscious practice of aspects of the activity with frequent metric measurement and feedback. To them, the activity does not take on an automatic nature. They keep working at it. An example given is speed typing. People learn to type and become proficient, but can only get past their OK plateau when they are unafraid to push themselves and make mistakes. Perhaps they have words flashed in front of them 10-15% faster than they can comfortably type and they try (and often fail) to type them without errors. Such a method would involve purposeful activity, pushing oneself, measuring a metric of success, and adjusting based on those metrics.
The question in my mind related to photography. I think we get stuck in our own "OK plateaus", places where our photography becomes uninspired and automatic. The question is, how to change that? More specifically, what "metrics" could one use as they consciously practice to improve? When thinking upon this I was somewhat stumped. There aren't obvious metrics like "words per minute" or "seconds to memorize the order of a deck of cards". DPC scores did jump to mind, but I rejected this quickly based on two reasons. 1) It isn't quick feedback and 2) Scores really are not that related to "improvement", at least not past a point.
So with this idea in mind, what would you suggest one uses as a metric for feedback or what methods of "purposeful practice" could one employ to move their photography past the "OK plateau"?
I'm hoping this can turn into a useful DPC thread that helps everybody who participates including myself. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:23:48 PM · #2 |
Well, the obvious answer is to challenge yourself to shoot a photo of an unfamiliar topic or with an unfamiliar style or technique within a time limit.
I thought this was the very principle by which this place is justified in calling itself a place where people can help each other become "better" photographers.
Also, one situation where this is also apparent is in athletics, where those who have the drive to really test (and extend) their limits achieve things once thought impossible. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:27:23 PM · #3 |
Lemme see...""what makes an expert" ?
X - Undetermined amount
spurt - Drip under pressure.
Yep, methinks I got it figured out Doc. :O)
Seriously Doc, there truly is nothing wrong with an OK plateau as we all have differing levels of abilities.
I seriously doubt that anyone can go beyond their individual potential and that the experts among us are those mortals that benefit from a higher learning ability.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:32:06 PM · #4 |
| According to the book, that was what people thought (you can't push beyond your innate plateau), but then they found that you could push through these plateaus to new plateaus if you consciously pushed yourself. The question is how to do that. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:32:48 PM · #5 |
One of my favorite ski books is called "Breakthrough On Skis: How to Get Out of the Intermediate Rut" which teaches that expert skiing relies on a completely different set of skills than intermediate skills, that refining and perfecting intermediate skills will only make you a better intermediate skier. You have to put aside the comfortable skill set and learn a different approach.
While sliding down a snow covered hill has little to do with taking picture, the underlying issue of giving up the comfortable ways of proceeding, and intentionally doing things that are outside of your skill set does apply. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:48:41 PM · #6 |
"OK plateau"?
For typing, you're correct, however, I don't think people are pushing themselves to type faster, but they do it without noticing it. When I start typing the first time, I probably was doing the same amount of mistakes I am doing now.
Photography, I say it has "OK plateau" not in photographer's eyes but audience's eyes. Here is what I mean by that: When I started to take pictures first time, which was everything that I can find, they all looked good to me... I was proud, but people I showed my photos (honest ones) did not like what I was showing to them. While I was learning techniques I also started take pictures others also liked. Here is the "OK plateau comes" at play... I say if more than half of the people I show my photos like my work, I am in OK plateau level. After this level, I think master level starts.
After passing the "OK plateau" and start master level, it's up to photographer to impress people with their "wows".
that's what I think :-| |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 05:58:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The question is how to do that. |
An analogy of sorts, Doc. I played guitar from the age of 8, practicing a half hour to hour every day for years. Eventually, I played professionally. I had plateaued at this point. Even playing 2 hours a day, I wasn't feeling improvement. SO, I locked myself in my room and played 6 hours a night. This went on for weeks, but I finally felt a surge in ability.
So how does this translate to photography? Like  BrennanOB stated, get out of your comfort zone. Shoot what you don't normally shoot. Don't like getting up early? Learn to shoot at sunrise. Superglue your camera to your hand... read books, go to seminars, etc. Whatever you are doing now - put in 5 times the effort. It really is possible to rise above the plateau, but it takes a supreme effort that most people won't rise to. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 06:26:06 PM · #8 |
| I was looking for the story of how Galen Rowell got the image of the rainbow over the Tibetan palace ... I couldn't find it, but I did find a great cache of articles he wrote for Outdoor Photographer. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 06:26:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
According to the book, that was what people thought (you can't push beyond your innate plateau), but then they found that you could push through these plateaus to new plateaus if you consciously pushed yourself. The question is how to do that. |
I have absolutely no doubt that people can and do reach new plateaus, but still earnestly believe that there are limits to one's abilities, regardless of the amount of practice and devotion to the task at hand.
I know for a fact that I can paint a fence, but have some serious reservations that I could compete against established artists...I simply do not have the talent for it.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 06:56:31 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
According to the book, that was what people thought (you can't push beyond your innate plateau), but then they found that you could push through these plateaus to new plateaus if you consciously pushed yourself. The question is how to do that. |
I have absolutely no doubt that people can and do reach new plateaus, but still earnestly believe that there are limits to one's abilities, regardless of the amount of practice and devotion to the task at hand.
I know for a fact that I can paint a fence, but have some serious reservations that I could compete against established artists...I simply do not have the talent for it.
Ray |
Oh, I got no problem with that. I just think the number of people who are at the extreme edge of their ability (whatever that may be) is small. So we have plenty of room to advance and get there if we just knew how.
Not to hijack my own thread, but thanks for sharing that picture Paul. I love it, but am slightly saddened that it is a prime example of a shot that is diminished in the age of Photoshop. It might be dismissed with a simple, "oh, I'm sure that was just added later!" (not to imply that I believe that, I'm quite sure it was not.)
Message edited by author 2011-04-27 18:56:48. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 09:35:17 PM · #11 |
I'm with you, Jason about the typical reaction these days to spectacular shots.
I also agree with you and others about pushing boundaries. I used to teach rockclimbing, and my regular refrain was "if you're not falling, you're not getting better."
That's pretty much why I've never settled into a particular photographic genre. There are styles I tend toward, but I love how DPC pushes me to try out wildly different subjects (or I did, before life intervened).
But you also hit on a key point: you have to care enough. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 10:48:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not to hijack my own thread, but thanks for sharing that picture Paul. I love it, but am slightly saddened that it is a prime example of a shot that is diminished in the age of Photoshop. It might be dismissed with a simple, "oh, I'm sure that was just added later!" (not to imply that I believe that, I'm quite sure it was not.) |
I think the story is more like he saw the storm forming, and ran a half mile (or two miles, or something) across a wet pasture with all his gear to get to the location where he knew he'd have that perspective ... or something like that. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 10:59:25 PM · #13 |
I have a short true story about a young would-be photographer (now retired) who went on in life to become a highly successful commercial photographer.
Early in his training, he spent money, which he could not afford, to attend an out-of-town class with a well respected photography teacher. The young man was born and raised in the city, and the class was out in the country -- a foreign environment to him. During the week, the class went out to the woods each morning to photograph, they processed their film, and shared and discussed their results.
The young photographer was totally frustrated. He wasn't getting anything worthwhile, and couldn't understand why not. At the end of the week, he went to the teacher seeking help. He told the teacher he wasn't seeing anything in the woods worth photographing. All the teacher said was "You aren't looking".
The young man felt he had wasted his time and money, and was preparing to return home frustrated and disappointed. But the next morning, he decided to stay, and each day, on his own, he went into the woods and looked and photographed. Until after perhaps a week of this he "saw it"!
The point of this story is that this man succeeded because he pushed himself far beyond his comfort zone, and was not satisfied with the "okay plateau". He never stopped comparing his work to that of the greatest photographers, and he was never satisfied until he could do as well or better. It takes hard work and dedication. |
|
|
|
04/27/2011 11:43:18 PM · #14 |
That sounds like such a great book and I just added it to my wishlist, thanks!
It's a little easier for me to set up measurable photo goals because I reached my "OK Plateau" at such a low level. There is so much room for improvement and so much that I don't know, that pretty much anything can become a measurable goal.
Such as for portraiture: 1) Learn three basic lighting setups 2) Learn 10 current edgy poses 3) Practice shooting with anyone who breathes and is willing to model
Photoshop could be focus on one new application or tool a week and read everything I can on it and practice on all my photos.
With my other hobbies, when I run out of ideas, I always like to read a magazine and chose one how-to piece and put that in to practice each week. I really need to start that with photography (now I need to find some good photo magazines).
I am finally to the point where I am aching to learn more and progress as a photographer. I am no longer satisfied with my OK Plateau. I really want to command the camera and produce great photographs. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 01:59:06 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
The young photographer was totally frustrated. He wasn't getting anything worthwhile, and couldn't understand why not. At the end of the week, he went to the teacher seeking help. He told the teacher he wasn't seeing anything in the woods worth photographing. All the teacher said was "You aren't looking". |
That's what makes photography as an art form different than typing, rock climbing or skiing. Having all the skill in the world isn't enough if you can't see. But if you retain your sight you run the risk of being labeled elite or pretentious. It's a double-edged sword. Much easier to reach expertdom via a piece of paper with a seal on it.
Message edited by author 2011-04-28 02:00:11.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2011 02:59:18 AM · #16 |
If Einstein believed that problems cannot be solved on the same level of consciousness that created them, perhaps finding new channels or pathways to creative spaces is best served not through the measurable answers of how to get there, but rather through continous questioning and exploration of the path itself.
I question whether or not the ambition to grow and arrive by some measureable means may actually be a paradox where the ambitious mind locks the flow of the creative heart.
Hmmmm...I just thinking about this now.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2011 04:07:10 AM · #17 |
It's a given that you have to 'push yourself'. What makes the difference is how you push yourself.
Recently I overheard a successful coach correct a former player who made the statement "practice makes perfect", telling him, "No. Perfect practice makes perfect."
I think what stalls most people, especially in photography, is that they don't take the time to analyze their results as to what worked and what didn't. They shoot like mad, but they don't critically review what they did to understand exactly what they're doing.
Two men went to work for a train system, starting as assistant engineers, tossing coal in the furnace. Twenty years later, one was the CEO of the company, the other was still an assistant engineer. What was the difference? One had twenty year's experience, the other had one year's experience twenty times. You have to first learn, then build on what you learn.
The worst thing that happens in photography is blaming equipment for what you can't do. When you look at someone else's image and think, "I could do that if I had the equipment," you are doomed. Yes, equipment matters, but the tools are useless if you don't take the time to master them, to understand when and how to use them.
DPC offers a lot of inspiration, as well as the ability to interact with others and get feedback, direction, and instruction. (The challenges are not a place to learn photography, no more than auditioning for American Idol is a place to learn to sing.)
In terms of being recognized as an expert in photography, I think that's simply a matter of how well you perform for your chosen audience. More than 'marketing hype,' it's the ability to reliably and consistently deliver what your audience needs and expects of you. The real challenge is staying ahead of the curve, given how fast technology and tools are changing. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 04:17:09 AM · #18 |
I wanted to start pushing my photography over the edge and so I put a plan together. Unfortunately my plan failed, like every other plan I put together. Im seeing a pattern, but thats not the point.
I researched other photographers and photographs that I liked. I reverse engineered the photo to learn the lighting used. I have built diagrams for shoots that I would like to try out. I just want to spend hours a day with a model and a studio. I would document all of my findings and work. A critique journal if you will.
Anyways, thats my plan. Its still on-going but slowly. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 04:36:45 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
Its still on-going but slowly. |
"slowly" is a relative term though. expectations play into the measure of success also. lack of defined goals too. skip's engineers may have had different goals from the beginning.
As far as being an "expert" though i might say that the coal shoveler is probably more of an expert of shoveling than the CEO would be. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 08:51:22 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So with this idea in mind, what would you suggest one uses as a metric for feedback or what methods of "purposeful practice" could one employ to move their photography past the "OK plateau"? |
After seeing the original post, I quickly read all of the replies in the hopes of seeing the answer that I thought that you were looking for. Nobody has yet made what I think is the key connection here......
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An example given is speed typing. People learn to type and become proficient, but can only get past their OK plateau when they are unafraid to push themselves and make mistakes. Perhaps they have words flashed in front of them 10-15% faster than they can comfortably type and they try (and often fail) to type them without errors. Such a method would involve purposeful activity, pushing oneself, measuring a metric of success, and adjusting based on those metrics. |
.......it's an objective measurement of our photography skills that would be ideal.
As I was reading through the thread so far I was really hoping that someone would have already figured this out and enlightened me as to how to measure this differently than we do now here at DPC. As Doc already mentioned......
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
scores did jump to mind, but I rejected this quickly based on two reasons. 1) It isn't quick feedback and 2) Scores really are not that related to "improvement", at least not past a point. |
.....and I agree that our scores are a subjective measurement that do not accurately reflect our skills. There are too many other factors involved, the least of which are judges of our work who have different values and, IMO, are often not qualified as judges of good photography.
I don't know what it is, but if we could figure out an objective measurement system analogous to the typist who is striving for error free speed, we could be on to something here with Moonwalking With Einstein. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 09:03:21 AM · #21 |
Dr. Timothy Leary might've had the answer to your question.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2011 09:51:07 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Skip:
The worst thing that happens in photography is blaming equipment for what you can't do. When you look at someone else's image and think, "I could do that if I had the equipment," you are doomed. Yes, equipment matters, but the tools are useless if you don't take the time to master them, to understand when and how to use them.
|
Bang on the mark. Its something I am currently trying to get through to my assistant - he sees an image he likes and instead of looking at how it was achieved, he looks at what equipment was used then decides he NEEDS that as well.
Message edited by author 2011-04-28 09:51:21. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 10:07:12 AM · #23 |
Without pretending to be an expert or having the total truth, I do think that there are no "objective measurements" to help you improve your photography...
Why I say that? The fact that Photography is an art explains it... It is 100% subjective, relative, and how good or bad a photo is depends totally in the conceptions, criteria and even the way the person looking at it was educated and influenced by his/her environment...
What some people might consider awesome, some other people might consider OK, or even ugly...
There are too many "subjective factors" in any form of art to try and measure it objectively...
By looking to the great names in the history of art (cinema, music, painting, photography, etc) I think that what the majority of us see as "great" is what is accepted as such... While most of us admire the Mona Lisa, some people consider it just an ugly portrait... While many people admire a Picasso painting, some people look at it like just drawings that any child in kinder could do...
Beyond mastering the technical aspects, I do think that the most important thing is always to question ourselves what can we do better, not compared to other people but by using our own concept of beauty and perfection, and that is very difficult to do as not everybody has the ability to look at its own work from an "outsider" point of view...
Those great artists didn't ask anybody or compared themselves to anybody... They were clear about what they wanted to achieve and how and that's all that really matters...
The key, to me, is to find yourself, know what you want and go for it... And most of all, enjoy the trip... :) |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 11:43:08 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by lreynelsg:
Without pretending to be an expert or having the total truth, I do think that there are no "objective measurements" to help you improve your photography...
Why I say that? The fact that Photography is an art explains it... It is 100% subjective, relative, and how good or bad a photo is depends totally in the conceptions, criteria and even the way the person looking at it was educated and influenced by his/her environment...
What some people might consider awesome, some other people might consider OK, or even ugly...
There are too many "subjective factors" in any form of art to try and measure it objectively...
By looking to the great names in the history of art (cinema, music, painting, photography, etc) I think that what the majority of us see as "great" is what is accepted as such... While most of us admire the Mona Lisa, some people consider it just an ugly portrait... While many people admire a Picasso painting, some people look at it like just drawings that any child in kinder could do...
Beyond mastering the technical aspects, I do think that the most important thing is always to question ourselves what can we do better, not compared to other people but by using our own concept of beauty and perfection, and that is very difficult to do as not everybody has the ability to look at its own work from an "outsider" point of view...
Those great artists didn't ask anybody or compared themselves to anybody... They were clear about what they wanted to achieve and how and that's all that really matters...
The key, to me, is to find yourself, know what you want and go for it... And most of all, enjoy the trip... :) |
I was thinking exactly on these lines. When you think of great artists in history, many of them did not get to "Master" status until long after they died.
Van Gogh (and other impressionists) comes to mind. While he was alive he barely made aliving selling his art. Now he is a certified master and his art sells for millions.
Did his art somehow improve years after he died? Of course not.
After the techical skills, which can be easlily evaluated, then it is up to the artists and how they are percived.
When you can look at an image you've taken and processed, and you can say, "This expresses exactly what I want it to express to me," That's all you can control. The rest is totally out of your control. |
|
|
|
04/28/2011 11:48:40 AM · #25 |
There are plenty of factors that can be measured objectively though, if one knows how to judge them.
Things like quality of light, composition, etc.. etc... can be objectively compared and contrasted, especially with other art as a basis for comparison.
That said, it's not easy for an artist to objectively critique his/her own work.
|
|
