Clovishound
Senior Member
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.
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.