Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. This is actually fairly interesting. I have been following a bunch of 14-18 year olds in their first photography courses at various private schools in the area. Above average kids for the most part but probably not MIT material. Most of them start out with mums old whatever 35mm. It might be an SRT, it could be a new film Rebel. For the most part the images are OK technically, the problem is the old vision thing. Some kids can see, some can't and never will, and the larger majority can't see now but probably could if shown what a good image might be and the how to of getting there. I suppose the base of my argument is that more might not be better. 300 bad images do not teach a better lesson than 35. I don't actually think that a film camera is the best learning tool for newbies. Unlimited shooting probably causes the brain to stop working and random chance to take over; this is the same argument we had a while back about 8FPS versus a skilled eye and knowledge of the activity. I believe that if I taught beginning students again I would start with a 64MB card so that they had to plan what they would do and execute. This would be similar to the IB art course where the students have to keep a journal that explains influences and planned direction for parcticular pieces of work. Hook the digital to a large screen TV and show what happens when you change a control. Provide a very limited assignment and make the student show the images to the class, all of them. The temporary embarassment of the image with the coke bottle that slipped in will be more than made up for with the feedback. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 3/24/06, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote: > > I really just don't understand this exchange, and I don't think you do > either. > > First off, while I often forget what I write, I believe what I was talking > about back when is the fact that digital allows me - and everyone else - > to > shoot more images, and the more one shoots, the better one gets; I don't > recall saying that shooting with autoeverything was better for beginning > photographers. > > Beyond that, however, I don't see in my waaaaaaay above average students - > in terms of their raw intelligence and their exposure to things technical > - > anywhere near the success rates with digital autofocus cameras that you > ascribe to the average 14 year old. They give me out-of-focus images; they > give me poorly exposed images; they give me images that are blurred > because > the shutter speed was too slow. They make the same kind of mistakes kids > made/make with manual focus, meterless, film cameras. > > Love film, hate digital. But please, stick to reality. If one is going to > produce photographs that are ultimately work looking at, one still has to > learn about the relationships between shutter speeds and f stops; one > still > has to learn about depth of field; one still has to know how to focus > manually. Bottom line, one still has to learn the basics of photography. > > The only difference between learning those basics now, and learning them > when we were learning them is that today one really does not have to learn > how to soup film and print it, any more than you or I had to learn how to > deal with glass plates. ;-) > > > On 3/24/06 9:12 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Larry, > The thrust of my comments were that you had to know what the device > > would do > before you could get interesting results. With the automagic cameras > > you > have no idea why an image turns out the way it does. Make the mistakes > > and > see what interesting images happen; screw up the exposure and you find > > out > about high key and low key. Accidentally use a slow shutter and > > discover > blurs. Screw up the focus and see what selective focus does. It all > > adds > to the knowledge. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 3/24/06, > > lrzeitlin@optonline.net <lrzeitlin@optonline.net> wrote: > > > > > > <<B.D., > > You > > are a talented and experienced photographer.? Take your average 14 > > something > > year old just starting out.? Hand her your Oly330 and watch her > > shoot a card > > full of properly focused on something and correctly exposed > > by > > some > > standard images.? What is good, it all looks good.? Why is it good, > > well > > they are all in focus and I have whites and blacks so the exposure is > > just > > fine. > > With the limitations of manual and a limited number of opportunities > > the > > newbie will have to think.? Yes, a lot of the first images will be > > trash, > > but the newbie will know they are trash and look at what works.? With > > some > > understanding of why you want a particular shutter speed and why an > > > > aperture > > causes certain effects then the automagic camera becomes a valuable > > tool. > > Otherwise you are in P and your images look just like everyone else > > with a > > zoom and a pop up flash. > > Don > > don.dory@gmail.com>> > > > > Don, > > > > > > Don't make the assumption that technical and artistic skills are somehow > > > > related. The evidence s > > hows that they are uncorrelated. I know engineers > > that can design a > > computer from scratch but can't write a coherent English > > sentence. > > Shakespeare, on the other hand, wrote his plays with a quill pen. > > Would > > learning to use a word processor have enabled him to do better. I > > doubt it. > > > > To use a more cogent example, Ted, who is unquestionably one of > > the best > > photographers on the LUG, is a self admitted technophobe. Would a > > Masters > > degree in Optoelectronics make him a better photographer. I doubt > > it. > > > > Skill with the mechanics of a camera has nothing to do with artistic > > > > vision. > > > > Larry Z > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > information > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >