"Eye" vs tech

This is about the difference between technical knowledge vs having an eye for an image and an ability to translate that to a two dimensional format.

Case in point, I am the techie when it comes to photography. I can rattle off info about the mechanics of photography, but sometimes have trouble getting the image I want. The Pup on the other hand, could care less about the technical aspects, and concentrates on the image itself. FWIW, she usually comes home with better images than I do.

One could argue that both are necessary, although modern cameras make the tech side less important. 50 years ago, when I took my first halting steps at taking pictures, you had to have at least a decent grasp of the mechanics in order to get a reasonably well exposed, in focus picture. I used a handheld light meter and the camera didn't have a battery, much less a meter. Fast forward to today, and the cameras have processors that compare the data with a host of scenarios and come up with a best guess exposure and focus solution. Still, there are situations where I have to suggest she deviate from the auto program and choose some settings for herself. Often this is done post mortem and the experience must be applied to the same situation, next time we are out. On the other side of the coin, I have watched her take some photos that I thought, "Well, she just has to learn what doesn't work.", only to find out that it did work, contrary to my opinion in the field. I have become a better photographer watching her in the field, and seeing what she came back with, and applying that to my picture taking.

I argue that a good working knowledge of some of the principles is indispensable to good photography. She argues that thinking about the mechanics takes away from her creativity when shooting.

I understand there is no right and wrong answer to this issue, but I do think that a hashing out and understanding the conflicts between the two views can be of value to many photographers.

Clovishound said:

I argue that a good working knowledge of some of the principles is indispensable to good photography. She argues that thinking about the mechanics takes away from her creativity when shooting.

Click to expand...

She just has a different idea of creativity, you should ask about her ideas. At some point she may ask why something didn't work and you can explain until then just enjoy. Many would give a lot to be in your shoes.

I always go for the 'eye for an image' approach. The resaon being, with digital you can take numerous technically different shots of the same scene then keep the one you like the best.
The other way doesn't work so well, as a non interesting image, bad composition, lighting etc will usually still result in a bad image even if you know all the tech stuff.
Of course it's always best to be competent in both aspects of photography.

Needa said:

She just has a different idea of creativity, you should ask about her ideas. At some point she may ask why something didn't work and you can explain until then just enjoy. Many would give a lot to be in your shoes.

Click to expand...

I feel quite lucky to be in a position where my daughter and I share a common interest. My dad and I shared an interest in photography and it helped bring the two of us closer together. I fell out of the hobby years ago, and have had a renewed interest since the Pup got interested. I look forward to our outings together, and seeing her finished work.

We've already had several conversations on why something didn't go well. Fortunately, my forensic skills are generally up to figuring out the culprit. We had one trip to the Boneyard beach where very little was sharp for her. I was able to pin it down to an issue with how she was using her tripod. The next couple trips her photos were nice and sharp.

I'm of the opinion that both talents have an aspect of innate ability, and learned ability. Some folks struggle more than others with one or the other aspect, while some are naturals. Most can learn and improve, even with the "eye" aspect. As I said, I've improved by looking at what the Pup does.

On a side note, we took a digital photography course together at a local arts center. Nothing elaborate, 5 one hour sessions. The instructor taught photography at a local well regarded college. We ended up being the only ones in the class, so we got individualized instruction. We both learned a lot. It was the best couple hundred dollars I've spent on photography.

I found learning the technical aspects to be quite simple - correlation between aperture, shutter speed, and film speed (shot 35mm when I first started out). But learning various compositional tools really eluded me. It wasn't until I came across a book by Bryan Peterson when things began to fall into place. I believe this book has been updated at least once since then.

When my turn comes up to choose a Monthly Assignment topic, I try to incorporate one of the compositional tools as an option. I'd suggest starting with taking photos using the Rule of Thirds. When you feel you have it down, switch to Leading Lines. Then move onto Framing. These are 3 of the most basic tools a photographer can implement for many images. Info about Composition can easily be found online.

Left vs right brain hemispheres. Scientist vs artist. Find the balance between those and you can make masterpieces. I think that is how Da Vinci did it.

I fear too many artists are entirely left brained. You need a little balance.

That was my problem, too right brained. Mostly mechanics, very little art. I feel like I'm starting to get a little bit of a handle on the art side, but doubt I will ever excel in that area. I am happier with my work now than I was 30 years ago when I unconsciously decided to move on from the hobby. I'm not really sorry it did. I might truly have been burned out on it by the time the Pup got interested. Also it allowed me to devote more time and energy into the SCUBA diving and underwater archaeology volunteer work. I've since worked my way through a couple more hobbies several of which I still plan to dabble with when time permits. I seem to move on to a new hobby every 15 to 20 years. Some have gone by the wayside a little quicker.

Clovishound said:

I fear too many artists are entirely left brained. You need a little balance.

That was my problem, too right brained. Mostly mechanics, very little art. I feel like I'm starting to get a little bit of a handle on the art side, but doubt I will ever excel in that area. I am happier with my work now than I was 30 years ago when I unconsciously decided to move on from the hobby. I'm not really sorry it did. I might truly have been burned out on it by the time the Pup got interested. Also it allowed me to devote more time and energy into the SCUBA diving and underwater archaeology volunteer work. I've since worked my way through a couple more hobbies several of which I still plan to dabble with when time permits. I seem to move on to a new hobby every 15 to 20 years. Some have gone by the wayside a little quicker.

Click to expand...

Have you thought of combining your underwater diving with photography

Peter7100 said:

Have you thought of combining your underwater diving with photography

Click to expand...

Well, I'm a river diver. The visibility in the local rivers is between nothing and about 4 or 5 ft. Usually on the shorter range of that. Plus, there isn't a lot to take pictures of in the rivers. If I lived in the Keys, it would be a different story. Plus, I'm getting a little old to be playing tag with the gators around here. I haven't been in the water for 4 or 5 years.

Clovishound said:

I feel quite lucky to be in a position where my daughter and I share a common interest. My dad and I shared an interest in photography and it helped bring the two of us closer together. I fell out of the hobby years ago, and have had a renewed interest since the Pup got interested. I look forward to our outings together, and seeing her finished work.

Click to expand...

:encouragement:

Clovishound said:

I'm of the opinion that both talents have an aspect of innate ability, and learned ability. Some folks struggle more than others with one or the other aspect, while some are naturals. Most can learn and improve, even with the "eye" aspect. As I said, I've improved by looking at what the Pup does.

Click to expand...

I love technical aspects and some of the post processing. Still working on all of it but seeing the scene has much more room for improvement.

Clovishound said:

On a side note, we took a digital photography course together at a local arts center. Nothing elaborate, 5 one hour sessions. The instructor taught photography at a local well regarded college. We ended up being the only ones in the class, so we got individualized instruction. We both learned a lot. It was the best couple hundred dollars I've spent on photography.

Click to expand...

Sound like it was fun.

Needa said:

:encouragement:

Sound like it was fun.

Click to expand...

We really enjoyed ourselves. The class was very free flowing and concentrated on questions we had and looking at the photos we took and examining the good points and where to make changes in the future. I had a solid background knowledge of photography from the film days, but thought that this would give me a base of the digital aspect that was new to me. Not to mention the fact that it was fun to do this together. I wish my dad were around to see his granddaughter blossom as a photographer, as photography was his passion. I will just have to enjoy it for him.

What worked for me (50+ yrs in the biz) was to get the techs down to where I didn't worry them anymore.
Getting the "eye" was just learning to look AT the view screen not through it.
Consider the image on the screen and balance the elements, left-right, up-down, front-to-back, until you are satisfied. Then trip the shutter. You are the biggest critic so you need to go with your personal likes. After all they're just as good as anyone else's.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk