Maybe you have seen this person? The one with the massive, hulking, 4000 cubic inch photo pack, vest, all the latest gear, lenses, several camera bodies and maybe even a 'Canon L' hat or something. They seem to be all over the place - at all the icons, national parks, wildlife refuges, and in my workshops even. When I look at my tiny little DaKine backpack with its M-Rock photo bag inside and comparatively small tripod strapped to the back I can't help but be pressed by one question. Not how in the world does one afford all this beefy gear, but why one actually needs all this. Afterall, if my prints look great and I'm happy with my images as a whole, then why?
OK, if you know me, you know I'm speaking for landscape photographers not you hardcore tiny bird addicts who might actually need a 600 f/4. I must say, I am routinely among the least equipped photographers at my own workshops! I carry one body and 2, maybe three lenses into the field and a small tripod, tops. Oh, and a small filter case.
I think there are two dominant thoughts among aspiring photographers these days regarding how to improve their skills, and how to take 'pro quality' images. We are constantly bombarded by adds for the latest gear and PS tutorials in all the photo rags, therefore, it is only reasonable that most new photographers believe that if they too, want to make the best images they not only need to buy the best, buy a lot of stuff, and become some sort of PS expert.
When people who enjoy my images are surprised at how little I carry with me, this only strengthens their belief that I must know how to do a lot more in PS than they do. I must always KNOW something they don't, right? Well, sort of. But can it be taught? They certainly think so. They think that by sitting in a classroom and learning all the latest PS geek techniques or by watching me make images in the field, that they will 'learn my secret' or something... Do you think that if you learned how to write music you could write Beethoven? Or just because you know how to use a paintbrush and see pretty landscapes you can paint Beirstadt? (extreme examples, I'll admit) Photography is an art, right? I think we've covered that topic a few times, so I'll move on. Just because you have the gear to do it, and you are in the place to do it, doesn’t always mean you can do it. These people don't always understand when I tell them I've never taken any class on photography, and they get really confused when they find out I know less about Photoshop than they do (this happens repeatedly).
I'm not writing this here to deflate all you new photographers out there. What I am saying is that maybe you should look inside first. I've stressed this belief before. Find out what drives you to take photographs. Is it the work of others? Or something within? Is it the desire to share your vision of the world or copy what others are doing? Is it to make money and go pro? - if so I definitely suggest you think in another direction.
Art, to me, is about self expression as a form of communication on a different level. No artist can simply buy a bunch of gear, take a few classes and become great. It takes something more. Something that is perhaps intangible. Something that cannot always be taught. Many great artists of any kind had little formal training. There has to be desire, passion, emotions and the drive to express yourself. You can't just drive to a specific location with a specific image in mind and expect it to come to you. You have to go to it, you have to find it in the landscape and in yourself. Same with your time later in processing. The whole process is linked together from the field to the print. It is your ability to see the whole process that makes a photograph.
So what can you learn from others? Plenty. But make sure you continue to develop yourself as an artist first.
Hi ya' Marc. Great thoughts. I, too, am floored by everything so many people own and carry. I'm a birder but everything I carry fits on my tripod and in a fanny pack. I shoot other subjects, too, on occasion, and I cover all of my other photo needs with just 3 lenses. I have a couple of articles on my web site that addresses just these issues...
I, too, agree it requires drive and an intense interest in your subject. Nothing replaces practice, practice...and more practice. You can't buy expertise. Getting good at photography requires time in the field. You can't get that time sitting at home on your keester.
Thanks for bringing to light thoughts that I've always held, too.
Hey Marc - If my intention was to only shoot landscapes - I hear ya. But I shoot a lot of macro as well. To capture the tiny critters I carry a 105/2.8 and to capture the bigger bugs (or those with a quick flight response) a 300/4, add a couple of extension tubes, a teleconverter, a focusing rail, a reflector and a speedlight and my Lowepro is 3/4 full. That's the reality of the genre.
I'm not talking specificly about gear here, William. I'm talking about the entire process. Take what is necessary and no more is all I'm saying about equipment. People often misunderstand what is necessary.
I really do understand where you're coming from, Marc. When I bought a 500mm lens I did not instantly become a bird photographer. I spent countless hours in the field practicing and using the lens. I've spent countless hours learning about my subjects. I've spent countless hours previsualizing images and how to get those images. Good bird photography isn't learned by a chain of happy accidents. It takes hard work and dedication to the craft.
I use Photoshop 7.0.1 for post-processing my images. Upgrading to Photoshop CS3 isn't going to make my images immediately appear better. It would take as much practice using PS CS3 as it did using PS 7.0.1 to make my images appear the way I want them to appear.
If I bought a 85mm f 1.8 lens tomorrow, that would not make me an instant success at shooting portraits. By the same token, if I bought a couple of wide-angle lenses tomorrow I would not instantly become a landscape photographer or a candid street shooter, whatever. Each photographic discipline requires a special set of "tools" that goes beyond merely owning the equipment for those disciplines. The process is, "How do you go about learning to make effective photographs?" within each discipline. It requires study, practice, and dedication.
Ok, serious. I often go out and take no camera gear what so ever. Watching a Monarch lay her eggs is all worth while. Watching through a maggie glass as aphids and ants work is just amazing. So no camera needed sometimes. Artistic, well that depends and is highly subjective. I don't need or want to be an artist, I want to record what I see and its tough to take a flies butt and make it artistic. For macro shooters that take higher ratio shots, its not all about taking aesthetically pleasing shots and the golden whotsit . Its about learning and capturing to see what our eyes can't see by themselves, its about recording a shot that school kids can learn something from. Most don't even care about composition or correct exposure, they want to see things they can't see any other way.
For the net and forums such as NPN, NSN, PM, etc, then people shoot to try and capture and at the same time, impress others. Thats why we have critiques. Crop this, crop that, lighten this, move position, etc. So yep, it does take a certain amount of gear to get the shot, either way it doesn't make any difference to the end result. Its the shot that counts and what its to be used for. No way would I want to carry what a sports photographer takes, thats for sure.
All the best and its about how much beer you can get into a pack for sure and yep, Steinlager, Steinies rock Tom, you are right about that M8t.
Interesting thread Marc. I think everyone can be taught to a point, but that point is different for each of us - maybe somewhat of a maximum potential. I suppose we can approach that point from being taught, or from actual experience or a combination of both.
I'm sure I can be taught - I look at my older stuff that I thought was ok and now I think it sucks! I hope one day I look back and say the same about my current ok work!
I don't think we ever can actually hit our maximum potential, but as we approach it, improving becomes more and more difficult.
Interesting thoughts, Ron. I guess I tend to sort of think along the same lines - there being a maximum potential or whatever you want to call it, but there are ways to teach also, to a point. Of course, everyone has different learning styles and they should really know what they are.
For all you wildlife photographers or those with a more journalistic/documentary mindset, sorry if this thread is really directed more at the landscape photographer. Tom, I appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 16, 2007 at 8:34 PM
yeah I hear you when it comes to the gear for general photography purposes. I don't understand why anyone would need more than a lens or two and a few filters if you'd like. I own three lens and only carry two at the most. Almost always a 17-35 f2.8, and either a 60mm or a 70-300mm. periodically I'll toss the flash into the backpack for wildlife or flowers. Sometimes I take a polarizer, and sometmes I'll take 2 GND filters. Or sometimes I won't carry those things. I don't always bring a tripod either.
i think non-photographers always fall into the trap of thinking about gear. it drives me nuts when a total stranger will ask me what I'm shooting with, then "oh is that digital?" Well yeah, so what? Do you know or even care what I am shooting? I was quietly shooting this bird last week and some guy comes up to me and asks how much my camera cost. It kinda pissed me off so I just said hold on. After the bird left then I answered his question well more like mumbled it at him. Then he asked if it was digital, I said yes and his response was well, "I'm only interested in 35mm cameras. my (35mm) Rebel is too slow." I told him that the lens is more important when it comes to speed. And it never occured to him that DSLR's work the same way as 35mm gear anyway. He left me alone after that. He wasn't interested in talking to someone who shoots "digital".
then there's other people out there, with jobs other than photography I might add, that buy and sell their cameras each time a model comes out. I don't get it. I could understand if they shot enough to warrant doing that but if you shoot a few hundred or a few thousand frames before selling then I'd suggest they save their money for vacation or retiremet instead. a new body ain't going to make them better.
Marc in your summary answer you've summarized on some valid mental aspects. I'll add some brief statements, by no means thorough, about the scope of physical issues that are beyond what can be simply taught where experience is often more important.
Equipment is certainly important. If one was a filthy rich technically savvy accomplished photographer that could hire others to carry their gear, having 50 pounds of gear about to select from would certainly allow them to potentially make better images on some occasions. Just last week I could have framed one subject much better with a 135mm lens than the 150mm I had with me. And today those who carry graduated neutral density filter sets and learn how to use them, have an expanded number of subjects to choose in lower light conditions versus what used to be. Having a tall sturdy tripod and head that allows getting a camera lens into special positions low and high in difficult terrain often can make a difference between being able to get a shot or not at all. For those imaging closeup subjects as wildflowers, there is a whole world of small tools to assist lighting. There is of course much more. At the same time, the nature of field work means carrying the weight of that gear into the field so a wise balance ought to be struck depending on each situation. Especially when venturing further from roadsides, the effort involved can be great with the athletically fit having a significant advantage. And there is something to be said about working from relative simplicity that allows a less encumbered artistic process to flow more freely. So having equipment and learning how to use that gear has certain value. Some of that may be taught while some requires repetitious experience.
Todays films, scanners, print processes, and digital software open up possibilities those of recent past generations would be envious of. For the computer illiterate person, that wall can be a huge technical height to overcome for someone that is now trying to make higher quality prints. At a minimum they will need to invest money for equipment, time to study what to do, computer and software studies or training, and time and effort to experiment on getting it right. So a high level of learning required on these facets of skill.
Beyond all the equipment and skill issues there is something about landscape work that I see as being one great separator between different photographers. Our Earth is vast and complex. Its enormous dynamic atmosphere, and seas, vast lands, incredible forms of complex life, variations of climates on its irregular surface, is beyond what any one person can hope to get to know well during their brief lifetimes. Thus at best we dabble in our art usually getting to know our local areas well with occasional journeys beyond. Even the most wealthy free travelers can only be in one place at one time. We only live through a few dozen summers in our adult prime. Many special places are best during narrow periods of our seasons or after special conditions as unusual rainfall have occurred. And the secrets that might be unlocked in many places beyond well known road side icons require a commitment of exploration, effort, and time. Thus experience outside counts for alot. There are tools like guidebooks, topographic maps, and geological maps that can be worth their weight in gold. Experience in these areas are much more important than training.
Reading the subtleties of the weather and daylight well can make a huge difference in results because one is always making choices about where to go, what season, what time of day, what are those clouds going to do, what will the subject landscape look like when the sun moves during the day, how might direct frontlight, backlight, sidelight, overcast light, and other atmospheric changes effect the aesthetic of a subject. Believe me when I state that better landscape photographers have learned much about how to be there when the light is good beyond what they might see at the wrong time of day or season. Experience again is more important.
A savvy photographer might explore a seacoast and note various features. How the sun will set or rise at a given position at different times of year. How fog and tides might enhance various features. What kind of air clarity, fog, or clouds might elevate the potential of subjects. They make note of these things, use their imagination, vision of a great print, and if a great image is not presenting itself at that time, they make plans to come back when they are. Likewise vegetation, wildflowers, and animals are often prominent elements in some landscapes and knowing and understanding their natural history can make a difference. For instance in about a week, I hope to go back to a giant sequoia grove where a few weeks ago I saw the the understory covered densely by short green leafy herbs rising from the shady forest matter. I recognized their distinctive leaves as being one of our larger blue lupine species. I looked up in the canopy and noticed how sunlight at a particular time of day would be coming through a clearing then illuminating that scene. For some other trees in denser forest, I noticed how I might only capture those scenes if there was good even overcast cloud fill light or better a thin deck of cloud mist at tree level.
Both experience using equipment and evaluating visual images is valuable. One isolated person regardless of how much gear they might buy, books they might read, training they might receive, workshops they might participate in will by themselves not give them a complete honed skill to accomplish making such images. It may shorten the path to becoming so skilled but in the end one must also get out in the field with their own set of gear, go through the mental processes, take pictures, analyze results, and print some of the results. At the same time regularly viewing, exploring, and sometimes absorbing some of what others do, can over time make one grow faster and beyond what a more isolated landscape photographer might accomplish. Visiting photography web sites as NPN are a huge boon today to otherwise armchair photographers to move beyond their own realms. But for anyone that has an interest in making outstanding larger prints there is no substitute for actually regularly going out to galleries, museums, and art fairs that feature better photography in order to see the end process up close. The internet and computer monitors are far too mediocre a medium for evaluating large fine art prints. There is much one might see as rather pleasant on a monitor that may fall rather flat when printed large. Thus again something that ought be experienced and not taught unless it was something truly obscure like a seminar lead by an expert for visiting photography galeries for aesthetic print evaluation. Such courses are given in the fine art painting world though I've not for landscape photographs as far as I know. ...David
Great discussion. I'd like to add some of my humble thoughts here if I may.
The world is diverse, including the people in it. As photographers, we each partake in our hobby/passion in unique and personal avenues. I understand that there are folks out there that prefer to carry every prime lens, plus a few telephotos in their pack and everything else they own double of. Those are the gear weenies (and I say that in the most endearing manor), although I am not one of them. To them, part of the fun is actually doing the research, and buying the extra gear. I'm sure they produce endorphins as soon as they click the "Buy" button at B&H. Then there is the anticipation of the delivery, trying it out, showing it off to their buddies in the field.
Now, I know your thread talks about the art in photography and I couldn't agree more with you...seeing our own visions of the world and bringing the best version of it for others to enjoy as art is the main goal. It comes natural to some, takes a bit of a learning curve and dedication to others, and to some...it may never come to that point. One doesn't need tons of gear to produce art, especially with the quality of zoom lenses/equipment these days.
So...what I am getting at here is that what those gear weenies get out of landscape photography might be something totally different than what you or I are using our time for. We all enjoy photography...but just enjoying it in a multitude of different ways. "They" may want to create art and can, but are using additional means to do so because they enjoy it.
I dont think you are trying to bash them one bit, but I think it should be said that we each get something a little or a lot different out of landscape photography.
I see two issues in your initial post. The 1st is regarding how much equipment one needs to accomplish the job. I don't have any particular feelings about this. As long as whatever equipment allows you to get the shot. I don't bring a large amount of gear around but I think it is important to be prepared. That means a second D-SLR body when I am doing a trip overseas.
The second question addresses how much can be taught. This same question can be asked of any artistic form and the answer is the same. I have had no formal teaching in photography. My techincal knowledge comes from a simple book on travel photography where I learnt the basics about exposure and Shaw's book on nature photography. The rest I picked up observing Marc's and other landscapists techiniques on websites. My Photoshop skills are also a result of experimentation & information passed on to me through websites like this. Just because I learnt photography this way doesn't mean it will work for the next person. I believe some people could benefit from a more structured & formal approach. I prefer the more independent method of learning as the hows and whys
The main point I want to make among this ramble is that the importance of practice often seems to be forgotten. Being in the field, actively composing, making exposures, watching the way light affects the land has no substitute. Too often people associate successful photos with the use of a lens or postcapture technique.
So, how much can be taught? I believe quite a lot really. Just as a student can learn how to read music, play the notes and follow directions by the composer, one can learn about exposure, basic rules of composition and postcapture processing. But these have boundaries. It's easy to follow boundaries like the rule of thirds, and usually the result wil be quite good. Learning how to see beyond the confines of such boundaries is much more difficult. A good start is finding inspiration from the works of the masters.
Taught or bought? Technical superiority can be bought.
Fortunately, photography isn't just about technique.
A technically flawed photograph with heart trumps a technically perfect one without every time...at least in my opinion...
We see a lot of photographs that have heart AND are technically excellent, but that doesn't discourage me. I keep looking for the elusive great intersection of skill, stuff and subject.
The best photographers I know are like Marc and actually never took courses on the craft but just picked up a camera and learned by doing - so courses are not prerequisites to being a fine photographer. And I have seen some folks in photo workshops and courses make HUGE strides and benefit from formalized instruction. And I have seen others who have been photographing for decades, who belong to camera clubs and who constantly take workshops and lessons and yet who don't progress beyond the basic technical aspects of photography.
Most of what makes a great photographer is from within, a drive, a desire to express oneself, a gnawing in the gut (to paraphrase Galen Rowell) that can't be simply can't be satiated. The is no formula or techique that gives you this passion, either you have it or you don't. Those with the passion will succeed with or without formal instruction. Those without the gnawing in the gut will not move much beyond their current level of expression no matter how much 'education' they get. Those are the people who believe that success in photography comes from some outside source or some unknown 'secret'. Darwin
Posted by William Brozy on June 17, 2007 at 11:55 AM
And one of the reasons - for those not being able to make the jump from the pure technical aspects of taking a photograph to crafting a photograph; is due to the inability to tap into the right side of the brain. I am in the design field and throughout my career I have seen young designers make it to the next level and create beautiful/meaningful places and spaces while others remain CAD technicians or become construction/contract administrators. In general, I also see more left-handed individuals make that jump faster and easier than their right-handed counterparts. The how tos in photography: exposure, lens choice, focus, depth of field (all right-brain functions) are separate from seeing composition, understanding camera placement and utilizing textures, forms, etc. (left-brain functions).
In some ways, left handers have an unfair advantage; they live in a right-handed world so stimulus to both sides of the brain is commonplace. Right-handed folks have no need to adapt. Even the important functions on their camera are placed specifically for them. So sometimes instruction isn't or never will be enough - unless you can assist in firing more synapsis in the right lobe.
I'll keep it short. We all can read and study other photog's technique. Hopefully, doing this will move you to your own personal vision. personal vision id developed, not taught.
There's an old saying in the music business. Someone asked a musician how to get to Carnegie Hall. His answer was "practice man, practice".
JG
Marc, if I've managed to read your initial post right - I think you are completely missing the point.
You like to wade through semi-frozen rivers, stand in the middle of 10-foot shore pounders, and hang upside down from a tree to make the best shot. This is what makes you happy - this is your inner self making you do so.
Just like you, there are countless other people who have their inner self telling them to do what they like best. And for them, the best is investigating the technical boundaries of hardware and the progress of science of technology.
They aren't exactly buying the latest and greatest gear to make the greatest photos man has ever made - but they are simply interested in following the technology curve, curious to find out what differentiates one camera from another; what's different between one lens and another, etc.
A friend of mine has bought each and every Mac ever made since Apple began it's journey. Now you may assume that he is probably using these Macs to build the latest and greatest rockets to launch to the Moon or Mars - but not really - he is just a technical writer, publishes and typesets documents for other people. It's the curiosity about Macs that makes him buy the gear even though he is constantly short of money.
Another friend of mine constantly buys cars and pumps in many times more than the initial cost of the cars to modify them - with the latest and greatest toys, speakers, etc. etc. Not that he wants to win the next F1 race or Indy or Nascar - he simply enjoys looking inside and investigating.
Not how in the world does one afford all this beefy gear
I would think money is all you need to afford the gear.
but why one actually needs all this. Afterall, if my prints look great and I'm happy with my images as a whole, then why?
I think I have attempted to answer this above.
When people who enjoy my images are surprised at how little I carry with me, this only strengthens their belief that I must know how to do a lot more in PS than they do. I must always KNOW something they don't, right?
This is a good question. As I mentioned above, my Mac-freak friend always does things in a certain way, and when I showed him how to typeset documents using an ancient method that can be done without the latest and greatest Macs, he though it was wierd, and I must be doing something nasty to get it done (afterall if you aren't using a Mac, how can you typeset documents? I *must* be cheating, right?)
In the same way, lots of the photo-gear junkies have shot photographs and processed them in a way that somebody told them, or they read some magazine, and the only way they come close to achieving in photographs what you do in the field - is by using PS. Hence they always assume that you must be "cheating", since they had to cheat themselves.
I had a hard time convincing a friend how picking different speeds of film or picking different brands and types of film was cheating too.
Art, to me, is about self expression as a form of communication on a different level. No artist can simply buy a bunch of gear, take a few classes and become great. It takes something more. Something that is perhaps intangible.
You are mixing two completely different things here Marc. There is nothing common between art and photography. There is a lot in common between art and a bunch of photographers though.
But make sure you continue to develop yourself as an artist first.
Not really. You may want to do that if you really intend to separate yourself from the countless others - because history has shown us that more artists were remembered by mankind when they separated their work from somebody else's. However there are millions of other photographers out there who are not artists and yet take very good photos and still make enough money.
Now there are certainly other wanna-be "artists" (for lack of a better word) who do buy lots of equipment thinking they will magically take good photographs.
That being said, the only equipment I carry in the field are my camera, one lens, tripod, a few filters, digital storage, and lens cleaner fluid. I tend to do my hiking/photography trips with another friend of mine who tends to show up with everything including the kitchen sink.
But my equipment is enough to keep me happy just as the big truckload and kitchen sink are what are required to keep my friend happy.
Ashutosh, I think you really missed most of what I am trying to say here. Sorry if it was unclear. But first let me address a new point you have raised.
>>"There is nothing common between art and photography."
I totally disagreee. I see photography as an art form, and so do many, many other people. An art form with a unique relationship with reality, perhaps, but an art none the less. This has been discussed a dozen times on these forums. Remember when your photo classes were art credits in college? Wiki describes art as: "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit. Art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas." This is exactly what my photography is: A collection of actions using objects to stimulate the human mind/spirit/senses.
Second, I could care less if someone wanted to buy the latest gear because they were some gear-crazy techno-addict that always buys the latest whatever. That's fine. But this DOES NOT ALWAYS make better pictures (which is the only point I made about gear, and secondary to the primary question). If I carried every lens Canon made because I could, it would not get better pictures. What you are saying is that some people like to buy gear for the sake of having the latest and greatest. I say that great images come from within, and do not always require the best gear.
This thread isn't here to make a point. It's here to ask a question - What can be taught? I think several others have at least attempted to answer that and discuss that here. Technical specifics can be learned. David talks a lot about seeing, and experience - also things that can be learned, at least in part, with dedication and practice. But some other passion has to come from inside, and that is what makes great photos. This is described this above.
I'll try to summarize the essence of my statement above: I use less equipment and know less in the way of processing than do many other people who enjoy my images and ask me how they can improve. So how can they improve? That's a question they have to answer for themselves. "You either have it or you don't".
I truly think you are missing many valid points Ashutosh has made. And if I can crudely simplify essentially, it is, to each his/her own. Why are they attending your workshops - because they can (disposable income and a desire). Why they are arriving with all that gear is simple - because they can and they probably also do not know what to expect. If I was to throw down hundreds of dollars to take a workshop I'd also bring the kitchen sink (although my kitchen sink is essentially a wash basin to most others).
How do you cut to the chase and teach? That's really up to you. Are you a teacher, a mentor? - if so the answers should be evident. If you want to teach something beyond the basics and something beyond the gear, state so on your website. Set goals and objectives. Tell them what gear to bring to your workshop (and should they wish to venture out after hours and fulfill other pursuits with other gear whether it be flora, wildlife or macro that's cool).
But if you truly believe you either have it or you don't, why are you teaching?
Because that is not true at all. Some may learn faster, some may exceed their master, but most everyone has the abilty to take good photographs if they really desire.
Ashutosh, I think you really missed most of what I am trying to say here. Sorry if it was unclear.
Yes, it seems I mis-interpreted the post - since there are actually two issues you mention, and I ended up concentrating mostly on one of them.
>>"There is nothing common between art and photography."
I totally disagreee. I see photography as an art form, and so do many, many other people. An art form with a unique relationship with reality, perhaps, but an art none the less. This has been discussed a dozen times on these forums. Remember when your photo classes were art credits in college? Wiki describes art as: "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit. Art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas."
I think you have mis-understood me here - since this is exactly what I am trying to say. Art cannot exist without the human mind and senses.
Photography is a technique of taking photographs to be recorded on a medium. A few artists however have used this "technique" to present their art. What I am emphasising here is that photography is merely a means to an end. What we are truly dealing with is art. I am sure if your technique at painting was good (which may or may not be the case), then you will be making masterpiece paintings too. Your inner feelings don't have to come out through photography which is a mere technique.
This is exactly what my photography is: A collection of actions using objects to stimulate the human mind/spirit/senses.
Absolutely.
But this DOES NOT ALWAYS make better pictures (which is the only point I made about gear, and secondary to the primary question). If I carried every lens Canon made because I could, it would not get better pictures.
Yes, but in many cases good gear does result in better photographs. I can tell you right off the bat that I can take photos with my 20D that I could never make with my Olympus C5050!
One can certainly not ignore this fact! I had ignored this for a long time since I always assumed that everybody had the same equipment as I did. I had sold off my Oly C5050 to a friend, and we went off to take some photos together - him with the 5050 and me with my 20D. And I could take some photos that looked much much better than the ones he took (seriously), and he ended up concluding that I had a better "photographic spirit and emotion" than him!. Unfortunately I found out that it was actually Canon's low noise and good long exposure handling that did the trick!
But in essence, I agree with the crux of your statement - "it" (i.e. creative presentation in the form of art) cannot be taught. You can teach photography, but you can't teach art; just like anybody could teach you math and physics but nobody can teach you how to find the next special theory of relativity.
I may have overlooked a couple of your points, Ashutosh, bear with me, I'm trying to do six things at once today. Essentially, I do see photography and art as one and the same though. But I think we are basicly thinking along the same lines.
I agree that buying great gear and knowing all the latest PS techniques might help - but only to a point.
William - I don't believe that everyone has the ability to make great photographs if they desire. Good ones, perhaps - I don't know, it's all where you draw a line I guess, but like anything, not everyone will reach the highest levels. It's just a matter of how you think. This is the essence of my statements above. I could have all the desire in the world to paint like Beirstadt and I know I couldn't. Same with some people and photography. To a certain extent, you have it or you don't, but much can still be learned.
As to my own workshops, well, I'm a tour guide. I don't sit in a classroom most of the day like the title 'workshop' might imply to some. I take people to great places at great times that they wouldn't have found themselves with a limited schedule, heck - we even do backpacking now, and I can show them exactly what I would do when we get there. I can help them with their own techniques, gear, and most technical needs that arrise. I can correspond later and compare images, and offer suggestions much as I do here - which offers insight through the entire process, which goes a long way towards the learning process but I can't show them everything. I garrantee a great time in some great places, regardless. I'm particularly fond of the wording 'photo tours'.
By the way, the website only mentions upcoming workshops and brief description. Upon further inquiry, a very detailed description of the activities, the setting, types of shooting, etc. are sent out to anyone interested.
So you lead by example - those are probably fine lessions. Afterall, your landscape images are extremely dramatic and a lofty goal even for the most experienced landscape photographers. But that form of teaching will not work for everyone - some need more structure (I don't mean sitting in a classroom). Stating clear goals and objectives will only help you stay the course and provide your clients with a conclusion.
I suppose I am also unclear - I thought you are asking "what can be taught?" I thought my answer was fairly clear - to take good photographs (you incorrectly paraphrased me and added the great). I used to take a couple of guitar lessions years ago, did I think I was going to be the next Jimi Hendrix... (who was left-handed by the way) not... or my art classes would turn me into the next Michelangelo (southpaw) or a photographic workshop would allow me to rival Ansel Adams or Marc Adamus (other noteworthy southpaws)...never.
I think we all agree different forms of teaching work better for other different people. Not one way is the right way, so I'm as informative and up front as I can be. I thought your answer was fairly clear also, and I didn't quote anything you said, I was elaborating, and I see we pretty much agree there. In fact, that seems to be a general concensus here - that photography, like most things, can be taught to a point, but the highest level, perhaps, requires something extra that dosen't just come naturally. Ahh, the joys of online discussions. So much more clearly expressed thoughts in person sometimes.
So I guess I got hung up on discussing a few other things in the process, rambling on about how gear and PS don't alone make great images. Some people honestly believe they help a lot more than they do though, and they find it disappointing when they realize how little (travels to extreme places excluded) actually goes into the making of my images. Which is what inspired me to get some additional thoughts on this, and share some thoughts as well.
What can be taught? I think even the desire can be instilled and fostered by a brilliant teacher. In some way or another, it's possible for a teacher to influence every aspect of photography as art. There's another side of the question that I think Marc has alluded to. What will be learned? When the statement is made that 'some have it and others don't,' it comes across as photographic snobbery, but when a comparison is made to other fields, it proves not to be. Some people are tremendous athletes, but not everyone who wanted to be. Some people are genius mathematicians, but not everyone who did their homework. Some people are hilarious comedians; but trust me, I try, and I'm not. Similarly, not everyone who wants to share visual representations of the world in a way that will resonate with others will be able to create photographs with universal appeal.
Not everyone needs to have the desire instilled and fostered, it comes so naturally to many of the best photographers of any genre. Not everyone can learn the desire, even after seeing it modeled in the most attractive ways. There are people who will never be able to master certain photographic techniques, even under the careful guidance of an experienced instructor. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and an outside influence can only move us so far beyond our giftedness.
So who and what should we teach? I think that very much depends on the individual teacher and the individual student. It's well worth considering how we each fit into the equation.
I'm going to digress back to the original question. What can be taught? Assuming you are referring to a workshop or web-based discussions, I have a few ideas.
When photographers see an inspiring landscape, they want their visual brain interpretation to be translated to a digital or film negative. They want to express their inner vision to share with others or just to permanently capture the moment for themselves. Many of us don't realize that our brains are 'interpreting' the landscape in unconscious ways. The colors may seem more vibrant or the contrast greater or the moon may 'seem' bigger on the horizon than reality.
It seems to me the goal of teaching photography is to act as a TRANSLATOR between what students think they are seeing and what you know the camera will see. Ask them what inspires them about a particular landscape and teach them to ask themselves the same questions. Then teach them how they can maximize the impact of their vision in a photograph. Zoom in on the moon to make it look big the way the mind sees it. Or go wide to exagerrate the radial pattern of the high clouds and use those exagerrated diagonals to pull the viewer into the center of the scene where the subject is. Or teach them to see colors in the scene they don't percieve because their eyes are adjusting for the ambient color temperature. (That icy snowfield is going to look really blue in the camera, not white like your eyes are seeing it now). Remember that we are taught to read left to right and our eye likes to follow those same patterns in a photograph. Or ask them 'where is your eye going in this scene?' What is it you like about the subject? Is it the color, the light, the movement? How will it look if frozen at 1/125 sec vs slowed down at 30 seconds into a pattern you can't even see without lots of practice? Teach them to leave everything out of the frame EXCEPT what they find interesting, or leave only the things that directly contribute to the main subject. If they want it moody and mysterious, perhaps they should artistically underexpose the image a bit. Want to portray a cold stark place? Shoot at twilight when the 'cooler' colors of evening will be more intense and the details will be shadowy and stark.
Once people learn how to do these things, they can start to realize in the camera the vision they have in their head. Then the process goes to the next step- fine tuning the vision through digital or negative development. This stuff is daunting and really is the subject of a different kind of workshop. But if you understand the basics of photoshop, etc, you can then use the knowledge at the camera level in the field. You will know the widest angle lens you can use to merge a panorama that doesn't all fit in your viewfinder, or you will be able to judge how many stops to bracket for an HDR merge later.
In terms of gear, I'm with you. Take the minimum you need to get the images you want to print. Less gear means you are quicker to get around and you have less to fiddle with when the scene is just right. If you want to get new exciting images you have to try and look at the world differently from the way it has been seen by others before you. Sometimes this means you have to actually get up and walk, sometimes a long ways. I always carry a headlamp with me so I can stay out at an exciting scene long after everyone else is heading back before it gets dark. Teaching some basic wilderness competency skills could also help student landscape photographers feel more comfortable in less than ideal conditions which are often the best for dramatic lighting.
And lastly, those techno-geeks are actually on the right track IMO. The best images of the future will be the ones that marry a unique vision with the leading edge of what can be done photographically into images nobody has seen before. The key is to keep in balance the technical competency with the age old art of pure vision. If you don't have both, you'll be able to make good photographs but you won't be able to make GREAT photographs. You more than anyone else seem to have the right stuff and people will always want to hear how you get such amazing images in your workshops. But teaching the process? That's going to require a new level of artistry all in itself. If you can combine your masterful vision, technical edginess and the human insight of a great teacher, you've hit the great trifecta, brother. And I'm already looking to see when I can sign up...
Mike, I couldn't agree more with everything you've said. And make no mistake about it, this is exactly what I attempt to accomplish as a photographer and as a teacher - even though time is limited as the later. You see, the first challenge I usually have to overcome is how to best assess students skill levels, so I can best teach them - much easier in say, a one-on-one private session, which I prefer. Someone who has at least a solid technical understanding but lacks good compositional skill, or artistic skills in processing (if desired) is unfortunately common - no easy thing to teach there. Within the course of a year or two of heavy shooting, most photographers have a pretty decent sense (assuming they have at least SLR level gear) of how the scene before them translates into a photograph in technical terms - colors, exposure control, focal lenths, filters, etc. Many others still are at a much more basic level, and need to be informed of most everything you have covered. It would be hard to teach both skill levels at the same time. This can be part of the frustration of dealing with a 1 or 2 day session with 4 to 6 togs of varying experience and learning styles.
In essence, I totally agree with your assesment of the learning process as it pertains to the art. The brief time in which I have to teach certainly is an art into itself, and one I am still learning. It's of course much easier to lead by example, but most anyone can do that. To teach effectively, I need to interact a lot - the more the better, in often fleeting real life situations.
>>"Ask them what inspires them about a particular landscape and teach them to ask themselves the same questions. Then teach them how they can maximize the impact of their vision in a photograph." - This particular sentiment should be a great asset to any aspiring photographer.
You're right, my comments are directed more toward an intermediate level photographer. Seems like the biggest challenge for you is going to be teaching an advanced intermediate or advanced photographer how to develop visionary images. I'd like to think that's the level I'm finally at and that's what I'm looking for as well. And the only piece of advice I can give now at my level is to look outside of landscape photography and find inspiration in other artists that you can bring back to your own world view. You mention Bierstadt, and he is a perfect example of an artist outside of our genre that had wild ideas and great inspiration from natural light that I'd like to learn from. Some of the pros at Photo.net are showing some pretty cutting edge portrait and journalistic images and using techniques that can be applied to landscapes as well. And I have to admit that I have been heavily inspired by the 'dynamic' tension in many of your photographs and have been looking at the world from a perspective of 'movement' in the landscape ever since.
"Then teach them how they can maximize the impact of their vision in a photograph."
Extracting this single statement, I think the reason this idea is a great asset is due to the fact that it's impossible to achieve. I'm only being very picky about working, but I still wanted to make the point. If there's something you can't teach in photography, it's maximizing. I think we would all be in agreement that "vision" is supposed to be something unique to an individual. In other words, I could never fully understand Marc's vision, and Marc could never fully understand Mike's, and so on. If nobody but me can have my vision or really understand it, then I'm the only person who will ever be able to figure out how to maximize it.
I have no doubt that we teach each other ways to improve the presentation of our vision on a regular basis here on NPN. We can be taught how to make beautiful photographs, and we can learn a variety of new skills. Marc can teach me everything he knows about artful photography, but if my effort stops there, I don't think 'maximized' is the right word for the way I will share my vision with the world.
Mike, you're most recent post shows exactly what I'm talking about. At some point the responsibility for growth falls squarely on the individual and no longer involves the teacher/mentor.
Yes, but in many cases good gear does result in better photographs. I can tell you right off the bat that I can take photos with my 20D that I could never make with my Olympus C5050!
------------------------------------------------
Ahh yes, but I can also show you what can be done with the C5050 that can't be matched with the 20D. So its in the way its used and what for that counts. IMO anyway
Great discussion guys. I've gone through both of the main talking points in my head many times. I'm very new to photography compared to most of you (about a year and a half) and I don't have an SLR (Canon S2). I do want to make better images, and think I have been improving.
Sometimes, I see images of mine that are close to being what I wanted when I was out shooting - and it's frustrating. I have to ask myself, then, is it not what I want because of the equipment? Or because of me? Most of the time it's because of me. I think this is one thing that this site has taught me very well. While I haven't necessarily learned what to do to be better, I know that equipment doesn't make the photo. Maybe because I've seen poor shots out of good equipment, too?
An SLR and a selection of lenses would certainly give me sharper, more high-res photos. And maybe better high ISO performance, or range, would let me get some shots I can't right now. But I don't think that I'd be enjoying the photography more, or capturing things that way I want them any more often. I think that has to come from, as mentioned, practice.
As far as reaching higher levels, I think it comes down to the same thing it does in anything else - particularly sports and the arts : talent. Some people will reach high levels faster than others. And some will have a higher peak, no matter what amount of learning/practice happens. That's talent.
Some of the most defining photographs in Marc's armoury, IMO. *None* of these photos can be taken by the C-5050.
The point I am trying to make is that you can use the same camera to take really crappy photos, but a good camera and equipment are the barest minimum for taking good photos.
Now if we assume that having a DSLR 5D with an L-quality lens and a Gitzo carbon fibre tripod is the barest minimum to taking good photos, then aren't we back to square one?
This discussion reminds me of one of Galen Rowell's photos - the one he took with a Nikon P&S. It was being promoted as how a great photographer can take great photos with sub-standard equipment. Unfortunately, the photograph that Galen made was one that could've been made with such a camera - but that same camera wouldn't possibly have taken even half the photographs Galen ever made! I would say that a majority of Galen's well-known shots use ND filters, which couldn't be used on P&S type cameras in Galen's times.
Posted by David Bostedo on June 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Ashutosh - I don't doubt that someone like Marc could not make the images he does with a P&S. What I do doubt is that I (just me, not others) would be making much better images with a DSLR. My camera has full manual controls (essentially the same as the RebelXT), and a lens that zooms from 36mm to 432 mm. I think this has been a great aid to learning at a low cost and small weight. I've taken it to places I probably wouldn't have with a larger kit (because they weren't really photography related trips), and gotten to try out lots of stuff.
I also think that if you gave Marc my camera and filters in the situations in which he took the above shots, he'd have come out with something close to what he has - at web resolutions especially. He may have run into some of the drawbacks my camera has with regard to longer exposure (especially with those particular shots), smaller sensor, and worse lens...but in a lot of cases this isn't that much of a problem either.
Now, if that's correct, I can still grow a lot with my current camera. As I said, there aren't too many times when I think it's the camera that lets me down. Of course, when those moments do pop up, it's hard not to click the "buy now" option on B&H.
Getting back to the gear topic for a moment, there are three dominant areas in which DSLR's are superior: Depth of Field, long exposures and detail. You can't focus 9 inches to infinity even with a wide adapter for your P&S lens, you can't take very long exposures without noise problems, and the images won't print as large. Detail aside, at web resolution, I could have taken a lot of my images with a P&S with the right attachments/adapters. But to some extent, the right gear is necessary, however, it matters less than the drive, experience and artistic eye it takes to produce great images. Just give an amature photographer a great scene to shoot, when they are not very inspired to do so, all the right gear, and then give a driven, seasoned photographer a P&S and the same scene to work with. The later will come away with the better image every time.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 18, 2007 at 2:19 PM
"I would say that a majority of Galen's well-known shots use ND filters, which couldn't be used on P&S type cameras in Galen's times. " I'd argue that the majority of Galen's most thought-provoking shots were made before he discovered GND filters, but that is besides the point.
I think SLR's can help you elevate your work on a more consistent basis than other formats but it's not absolutely necessary either. What they do give you is options. Of course if you are automatic everything then the format probably wouldn't benefit you other than perhaps better file quality. An important thing to consider is that resolution size isn't the most important thing for some photographers. Thumb through a Sports Illustrated for example. The file quality is mediocre for some images, but the images were likely great enough to overlook that.
p.s. why must photography be measured in levels? it's a very black or white thing to me. I either connect with the photo or I don't.
"What they [DSLRs] do give you is options. Of course if you are automatic everything then the format probably wouldn't benefit you other than perhaps better file quality."
Richard - Most P&S cameras, especially higher end or EVF cameras, deliver a similar amount of manual control to DSLRs. And given the zoom range and filter/converter options of my camera, I don't see where there is a lack of options with my setup.
As for the Sports Illustrated photos, a lot of those shots, poor quality or not, probably greatly benefitted from being taken with an SLR - one with a high frame rate for the action shots, an area where good DSLRs have a real advantage. Mine will do 2.5 frames per second under ideal conditions, which is at most half of what the sports guys use.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic...don't want to turn this into some sort of hardware discussion. My point is that you can learn a whole lot regardless of the equipment in most cases. As far as whether or not it can be taught (the original question), I think people can be guided to it, but since there isn't a magic formula, I don't think it can be taught directly.
Thou verily hast opened up a can or worms, methinks!
What can be learned = technique.
What is much more difficult to teach = the eye and I don't mean the evil eye but the good one.
Someone here posted a simple answer to a question a while back he said something like "photography is mostly about looking for and finding the right conditions." So if you have an eye or vision for a type or types of subjects -- be they mushrooms or mountain tops -- first of all you need to know what that is, secondly you need to have the patience (or in Marc's case the strength) to find your subject -- and find it when the lighting and other factors are as near perfect as possible.
Case in point -- I now sell my work and have gotten some recognition as a "semi-pro" locally. I've had gallery exhibitions and son on. I use a 20D and good glass. I like some of my images and so do others. I have PS CS2 an iMac G5 and an Epson 2200.
However before I started getting semi-serious I took some fall photos with my Canon G1. It was the only digital gear I had. But ... the conditions were perfect. The light was unbelievable. The result was really good. The photo was the cover of a 2006 calendar and I still sell copies of the photo (sold two Saturday at a Festival). At that time I didn't know PS -- I had a pre Elements striped down version -- I didn't know digital very well and my gear was P&S.
What made the shot was -- Nature -- being there -- seeing what was happening and capturing it. (The G1 is a good P&S with a pretty good lens.)
I think you can teach seeing the best photo opportunities but most photographers teach it to themselves or are born with it -- imho.
Thanks, Marc for bringing this up -- its a great topic.
Wow.. deja-vu... I talked about some of these things in my presentation on Saturday (were any NPNr's there?) and surprisingly (or not) some of my talking notes are phrased very similarly.
Consumerism is a social problem. We put so much value on mere ownership of "stuff" that whether we use it or not becomes secondary to our enjoyment of it. It's a hard one because from the perspective of the individual vendor or consumer there's perceived positive value (practical or otherwise) and the global/social implications are rarely considered. Personally I always buy used and refurbished gear when I can and generally sell older items to finance others.
As far as what can be taught, I do think there's a subjective factor in each of us and that any creative skill can only be taught to a point. Where I see an issue is that we're often teaching the wrong things, especially when it comes to art. Technical skills seem to be the most dominant, followed by some aesthetic "rules". In reality the most important skill to creative expression is an emotional connection with and understanding of the subject. I'm often amazed at how many people consider themselves nature photographers who know very little about the natural history of the things they photograph. Going to well-known places in favorable light works to a point. You can consider it similar to going to a foreign country and only exploring the places that display English signs (or enter your own native tongue here) and where other Americans (or enter your own nationality here) are found. So much will remain hidden from you if you don't take the time to learn the local language and customs.
>>"the most important skill to creative expression is an emotional connection with and understanding of the subject"
I really can realate to this, Guy. You already know that. I'm surprised that there are a lot of us who don't. I think, at least in part, some get frustrated with their own improvement because they have learned all the technical stuff and have great gear, but still aren't taking the pictures they want. But it's the pictures they saw that first inspired them to shoot, not an emotional connection with the subjects themselves.
>>" Marc, Thou verily hast opened up a can or worms, methinks! "
I believe that we should "critique" the discussion forum topics the same
way we "critique" an image in the other forums, be as honest as you possibly can, offer
something constructive , positive, as well.
Honestly, I think you can find the answers you are looking for, in your own questions and comments, above.
A very creative way to problem solve, in my opinion, is to completely
reverse the situation and see where you end up. Many times I find you
end up "ahead" of where you started from using this process. If so, then
it is a good indicator you are not on the best path.
You state above that "The brief time in which I have to teach
certainly is an art into itself, and one I am still learning" and "
I see photography as an art form, and so do many, many other people. An
art form with a unique relationship with reality, perhaps, but an art
none the less."
So, if you see both teaching and photography as art forms ( I agree ),
it might be interesting to go back up to your comments and exchange
"teaching " for "photography" . I did, and I think you have already
answered your own question.
For example, starting from the bottom and working your way up ( of
course ! ) exchanging the words;
- To photograph effectively, I need to interact a lot - the more the
better, in often fleeting real life situations.
- I think we all agree different forms of photography work better for
different people. Not one way is the right way.
- But some other passion has to come from inside, and that is what makes
great teachers.
- What I am saying is that maybe you should look inside first. I've
stressed this belief before. Find out what drives you to teach. Is it
the work of others? Or something within? Is it the desire to share your
vision of the world or copy what others are doing? Is it to make money
and go pro? - if so I definitely suggest you think in another
direction.
Those are your words, with photography and teaching switched around. Each statement still rings true, in my opinion.
I would submit that you've answered your own question. Here comes the
tough love! Maybe the problem isn't with them, maybe it's with you.
I think you could be an amazing teacher. I'm not saying you would have
to put all the passion and drive you put into photography into teaching,
just a little bit would work wonders. You are an artist, so know what it
takes to create something special.
The first step is believe in yourself and your students.
You want to teach them something important, teach them the passion , teach them the why , not the how.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are right maybe they can't learn and you
can't really teach, as you say "You either have it or you don't".
I think that's a bunch of crap. I say that not because your photographs
are some of the most amazing I have ever seen in my life, although they
truly are. I'm actually as impressed, perhaps more impressed with the
passion and drive you display and the obvious reverence you hold towards
the subjects you photograph. That's what makes your work special, that's
what you should teach.
That's a lesson everyone could and should learn and you're just the
person to teach it. Tim
Tim, I appreciate your thoughts here. I have my own views, and as you've read through this article, you've found a lot of them. My views are subject to change. I want to learn as well. I thank a lot of people here for raising some good points and I wouldn't have posted this here if I didn't want to hear them.
BTW, "you either have it or you don't" wasn't at all saying the art can't be taught. It was quoted from Darwin's post above and perhaps taken out of context on its own, which I regret.
So now let me respond to your own thoughts on the matter.
>>" You want to teach them something important, teach them the passion , teach them the why , not the how.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are right maybe they can't learn and you
can't really teach, as you say "You either have it or you don't".
I think that's a bunch of crap. I say that not because your photographs
are some of the most amazing I have ever seen in my life, although they
truly are. I'm actually as impressed, perhaps more impressed with the
passion and drive you display and the obvious reverence you hold towards
the subjects you photograph. That's what makes your work special, that's
what you should teach."
The WHY is what I believe cannot be taught. THAT, if anything, is what you either have or you don't. By that I mean, you can't teach someone the drive to backpack 50 miles in winter, or to truly appreciate nature in many other ways. You can only help guide them in that direction - but they have to find it for themselves. That's why my workshops are so hiking based and never a classroom setting. I want to help people develop this, but I can't tell them how to do it. What Darwin mentions above I really believe holds true
>>"Most of what makes a great photographer is from within, a drive, a desire to express oneself, a gnawing in the gut (to paraphrase Galen Rowell) that can't be simply can't be satiated. The is no formula or techique that gives you this passion, either you have it or you don't."
It is everything here that cannot be taught. This is what separates a lot of great photographers from the casual ones. Guy adds additional thoughts. You have to develop an emotional connection with your subjects - much more than just wanting to take good pictures. There has to be a love that transforms the art into something much more personal. Something way beyond the technical level.
Well, after all these thoughtful replies, there is not much I can add.
I think what holds for photography holds for almost every other human endeavour as well: You can learn how to "function" within that endeavour, e.g. take a reasonably exposed photograph, solve a mathematics equation, understand a philosphical argument. However only those who are passionate, obsessed with the endeavour may soar to heights. A great philosopher is not a great philosopher because he studied philosophy, but because he has an innate interest, a burning desire, to ask certain questions and to find answers to them. THAT is what makes him a philosopher. Einstein did not create the general theory of relativity because he studied physics - he created it because from childhood onwards he was deeply curious in why things are the way they are and because he was so very creative in finding answers to these questions. And this brings me to the second part, that just because you are passionate you will not necessarily be great - you need to have talent too.
Most importantly I feel one has to follow one's passion because of the joy it creates, and if one wants to be great just to be famous or to stand out, the point is missed.
I have read this thread with interest -- lots of good points and ideas. Thanks to everyone for partcipating. I'll reserve my thoughts on self-taught individuals who have excelled in their respective fields and then assume that just because they are good at what they do, they also qualify to teach others. Instead, I want to focus on a more crucial point here. Since the words "good" and "great" have been used a lot here, may I ask this -- What in your opinion is a good (or a great) photograph?
With respect to what can be taught, I'd like to present the following hypothetical case:
I take a group of 25 7 year olds on a field trip to the beach on a sunny day. Each of them is provided with a disposable point-n-shoot camera and have been requested to make photos while playing around in the sand. At the end of the day, I process their film, make prints and ask you to select the top three. What criteria will you use for this jurying process? Is it at all possible that you discover one really stunning photograph in the collection? Do you think there is anything I could have told them that would improve the quality of their output on that given day? How about if I just reassured those children on the bus ride to the beach to have fun, to experiment and not to hold back.
Now, upon returning from that field trip, if I set up a environment that allowed those kids to interact with the likes of Guy Tal, Tony Kuyper, Darwin Wiggett, Marc Adamus and Michael Gordon for the next 10 years (via email, occasional guest-lectures and field-trips), do you think that I'll be able to instill some of the passion that folks above have deemed absolutely necessary to become a great photographer? If you ask me, I don't know but don't you think its worthwhile to try. As their teacher, should I just give up on them because I am not sure if they have that inner-fire? Could this process light that spark in at least one of the kids?
Anil, I think you are talking about mentoring here. You won't have a kid coming to you and saying, hey, I have an inner fire, or even act in a way that shows that. You allow them to explore photography, maybe someone will feel right away that this is what they like doing, maybe some kids will come back later in their life and rediscover photography, some won't care at all and maybe even the most talented photographer that day will be the most uninterested. Maybe by exposing them to photography over a period of time they will discover a love for it. I guess that is what mentoring is all about - a lot of unkowns.
I would judge a picture simply by the emotional impact it has on me, not its technical merits.If it is technically very bad, it by itself won't have an impact on me - then again a picture may be great just because of a certain technical flaw e.g an overexposed sun happening to give the picture a great feel.
I think we should be careful trying to figure out exactly what it is, that makes a picture great. There are so many variables but they all find their expression in our raw emotional reaction. Look at Cartier Bresson's picture of a man jumping over a puddle - an epic picture, yet why is it great?
>>"I take a group of 25, 7 year olds on a field trip to the beach on a sunny day. Each of them is provided with a disposable point-n-shoot camera and have been requested to make photos while playing around in the sand. At the end of the day, I process their film, make prints and ask you to select the top three. What criteria will you use for this jurying process?"
1: Technical Quality 2: Emotional Quality
Same things that separate 'good' from 'great' photographs. I think that I have only made a couple dozen great photographs in my life. This would vary upon how each individual defines it, of course. But for me, a 'good' photograph is technically solid but dosen't have the evocative power of great ones. The emotion or perhaps intrigue, derrived from great photographs is what creates lasting appeal - another way to describe the differences between good and great. Images that you can look at for ten years and still be moved by - those are great photographs.
"Is it at all possible that you discover one really stunning photograph in the collection?"
Yes, but rather unlikely I'd say. I can't well put myself in the mind of a 7-year old. Maybe someone with kids can help me out and provide a better answer. I think at that age, I recall seeing the world in a more immediate way than I do now. By that I mean, kids with a camera tend to just rush up to something they like and attempt to record it. Not usually a practice that yeilds deep, emotionally strong images.
>>"Do you think that is anything I could have told them that would improve the quality of their output on that given day?"
No. Like you said, just tell them to have fun.
>>"Now, upon returning from that field trip, if I set up a environment that allowed those kids to interact with the likes of Guy Tal, Tony Kuyper, Darwin Wiggett, Marc Adamus and Michael Gordon for the next 10 years (via email, occasional guest-lectures and field-trips), do you think that I'll be able to instill some of the passion that folks above have deemed absolutely necessary to become a great photographer? As their teacher, should I just give up on them because I am not sure if they have that inner-fire? Could this process light that spark in at least one of the kids? "
I don't want to talk with kids about photography for ten years......but seriously, it's just like any subject we learned in school or along the way. You're not going to instill the passion for it in everyone, or even most, but you will succeed with some if you have the right style and motivations as their teacher. One thing is for sure, you shouldn't ever give up on a 7-year old - not even if they just took pictures of their feet all day.
Anil,
I don't have a whole lot of time but I'll resond a little bit because I think you've hit the nail right on the head ( I hope you all are familiar with that phrase ! ). My point is this, with most seven year olds the task is much easier. The reason is because of what they haven't learned.
They haven't learned ( hopefully, most of them ) that they are "naturally" good at certain things and not good at others. They haven't learned the rules. Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to. The only limit they have is their imagination.
Meanwhile most of the adults have learned the rules. They have been told and accept their limits. They have come to believe that you are good at certain things and not good at others.
Be practical, be smart. Limit your expectations.
I don't think you have to light a fire with these kids. I think you will have to stand back and be careful not to get burned. I would expect you would get many wonderful photographs, in ways you can't even imagine now. I would judge the photographs with an open mind because that is what created them.
The problem, as I see it, is not how to instill the passion in these kids. The problem is to teach these kids how to hang on to it. They have it already.
But soon enough they will learn to colour within the lines, there is only one right answer, little johnny is good at something and they are good at something else, follow the rules, grow up.
The real challenge in adults is not to create that passion, that amazing imagination. The challenge is to unlock it. It's there in all of us, I believe, but we've buried it so deep , under so much self doubt , that we forget it exists sometimes.
Sure , in some cases, some of us may be physically and mentally challenged somewhat , but barring that, I believe " Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to. The only limit they have is their imagination."
I think that statement holds true for a seven year old or anybody else, including me.
Tim
I think it is all about making a connection with whatever it is one wants to photograph.
Gear has its place and I feel is important to a point - I mean you can't take good macro photos with a ultra wide angle for example.
I also think that one's heart has to be with the subject one photographs. They need to "love" it so much that they wat to portray it in its best possible way. You state, on your website, that you love the wilderness and so your wilderness photos scream out that love.
I think you can teach anything. Three things need to exist for this to happen however. One the "teacher" must be able to actually convey what ever it is he or she is trying to teach. And this requires an intimate knowledge of that subject. I speak from experience here, as I have taught other people for nearly half my life, all sorts of subjects from physicis to writing to photography to religious law. In all that time, if I did not intimately know what I was talking about, the lessons came out as gibirish. And I believe it does not matter what it is your are trying to teach, if you know it and how to do whatever it is you are trying to teach, you can teach it.
The second element is the willingness of the student. The student has to want to learn and this requires a humble submission of the student to the teacher. And that means doing what ever it is the teacher asks of the student in the course of learning that subject, even if the student does not see how this will help. As a lame example I remind ourselves of the classic line of Mr. Miagi "Wax on, Wax off" in the Karate Kid. I had one student last year in a workshop that refused to use a tripod in trying to create a near-far composition using the hyperfocal focus technique, and then complained why the photos were blurry. If the student does not do what is asked of them the lessons cannot be taught. But if they truly want to learn, they will do what is asked, and they will learn.
The third ingredient is time. For knowledge to be transmitted from one person to another, a serious investment in time is required. I can't gaurantee that anyone taking my workshops will be as good as the best photographers out there, but over time and practice, constant practice they can be. I learned photography on my own, with much trial and error and reading. Yet it was not until after 14 years of practice did I ever feel that I was able to teach it to anyone. I am still learning all the time. But when I start a new subject I go in with the intent that I will need sufficient time to learn it.
There is also one other ingredient that I think is very important, and that is the personal relationship between the teacher and the student. There has to be a mutual respect between them, the student looking up to the teacher and the teacher having real compassion for the the student. In my experiences of learning and teaching Islamic Law, we were taught and teach that the student should always supplicate for the forgiveness of their teachers and the teacher should always supplicate for an opening for the student to understand what it is they are studying. In this way a deep mutual respect and love is formed that facilitates the transmission of knowledge.
If you want to be a good photography teacher, then you have to really want your students to learn photography in all its aspects and if you are a studnet then you have to really want to learn the craft itself and look up to your teacher and mentor. And not just take people around on tours to pretty places or want to go to exotic locales with plenty of gear and think that great photos will result. So if teaching is what you are trying to do in your workshops then do so and help the students understand the gear they do have and help them understand that gear does have its limits, otherwise if its touring then I really can't see why your workshop participants having "two-tons" of gear is bothering you? If you understand that great phots can be made with a minimal of gear, teach that to those who come to you seeking photography instruction who carry a photo store on their back.
Marc, I am not trying to be harsh here, even though it does "sound" like I am, but like I said I think you have hit some nerves. In my workshops, I have categorically refused the photo tour model. I want people to learn how to photograph. If they walk away with even a little better understanding of the technical and the artistic then I feel I hve succeded. I have had many repeat students and I have seen them grow as photographers, in thier own visions of the world, but none the less they have grown.
Posted by David Bostedo on June 19, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Anil - I think that's exactly the type of activity that could light that spark in a kid. I'm going off my impressions from reading a lot of stuff, so bare with me if this is mainly speculation/fluff.
If you read/hear a lot of passionate people talk about how they got into their respective fields - be it dance, singing, sports, or even engineering or architecture, etc - they usually mention getting hooked pretty quickly. "My Mom took me to the symphony and I loved it ever since", "I played in the backyard with my Dad and have been playing ever since", "I got an erector set as a kid and always wanted to build stuff", etc. I think these are the people that have that spark, and just needed to be exposed to the right activity to fan the flames. This doesn't mean they'll be great, just that they have great drive to pursue it.
This doesn't, of course, apply strictly to kids. Particularly in the graphic arts, there are plenty of people who come upon it later in life - the drive was probably always there, but there wasn't any guidance or exposure.
And on the other hand, there are those that might get the same exposure, and don't have the drive or passion. I'm one of the other kids, the ones who don't seem to find that spark. I don't think I'll ever have the passion or drive that Marc or Guy (among others) display. I'm not sure I'll ever call photography more than a hobby. But I know that it wasn't for lack of exposure - having a 35mm course in 5th grade, and having a little Kodak 110 growing up, I still didn't own a camera between the ages of 12 and 29, and didn't care. Obviously, I didn't have that spark or fire. But now that I'm older (the big 3-0, ouch), I've found a bit of drive - to at least capture what I find beautiful or interesting, if not make a greater statement about it, or really connect with it.
I guess the best you can do is expose people to what drive and passion you have - it's ultimately up to them whether or not they love it.
Posted by Marc Adamus on June 19, 2007 at 12:22 AM
I find it a little hard to accept "Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to."
To use the above stated example, I could never have painted like Beirstadt. Not even if my entire life was devoted to it. And I could not have become a pro athlete, nor plenty of other endeavors. This is a little over the top IMO, but believe me, I whole heartedly agree that we should offer as much encouragement as possible, and to site Anil's post again, I would never actually, practically try to critique the artwork of a 7 year old, which is simply counterproductive. I fully believe we should make the attempt to instill confidence and interest and do so with an open mind, regardless of whether it's children or adults.
Posted by Marc Adamus on June 19, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Youssef, OK, you make some good points about learning in general, as it pertains to many walks of life. Let me note a couple things - I draw a huge line between religion and photography and would like to keep the former out of the conversation. Secondly, this is not about my workshops, tours, whatever. I will note, however, that if people want to hire me to take them to see amazing places they wouldn't find, that's my style, and believe me, I make no secret about it and I have a line at the door. I'll help people in whatever capacity I can during my time with them, but I don't have years to develop a relationship. This isn't a bad thing. People routinely tell me they've learned a lot, and they routinely come back with great shots, so no one is complaining.
Not directly related to Nature Photography, so I hope folks will indulge me for a while. I think this link is relevant to the discussion on hand (after seeing the "Kids Gallery" do take some time to read "About the Kids").
Photography is such a wonderful art-form that even children (with very little technical expertise) can make images that stir the soul.
It is my dream that one day I too can work with children and expose them to the wonders of nature, the wilderness and of course photography.
Posted by Marc Adamus on June 19, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Beautiful. I really enjoy it. I like the urban environment shots. It definitely shows some imagination. I would be interested to see some landscapes also. I'll have to give the next 7-year old I see tomorrow a camera
Mark, you said that you could not become this person or be great at other field. OK, I do agree, one can't become another person or paint like someone else, and you are also not photographing like someone else. But on the second field you touch, well did you tried? You quote Galen Rowell a lot, and let me throw you one of his quotes from "Inner Game..": he is talking about young dancer that was interviewed for radio. Reporter asked her, something in the line of her natural talent, and she replied that she is sick of people speaking of her natural talent, while her reality was dancing in the morning, dancing after school and again dancing in the evening day after day, year after year. She knew that when stop practicing, her performance would drop. She knew that she is missing all the fun other kids have, but was willing to do so…. IMO 95 of one's achievement is hard work and maybe 5% is talent. Probably talent is what makes Olympic winners, but hard work is what takes you to Olympic finale or into National Selection.
And I'll have to throw more work into my photography. Because if above is right and I'll come as close as National Selections ...
Marko
That is fine, I am not trying to bring religion into this thread, I just used it as an example. Others here who have been around NPN for a while know I use them a lot.
If you were not complaining, that was not the impression I got from your first post opening this trend. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Anil,
Thanks for bringing up the Kids with Cameras organization. I also think photography as a teaching tool for children is an amazing thing. I have been teaching middle school kids for about the last year and a half digital photography, and it absolutely amazes me at what they produce. They are not boxed in to thinking in a certain way yet and their creativeness just flows. It helps them see the world in a very different way as it forces them to "look" and in the end we adults get to see the world through thier eyes - which is very refreshing.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 19, 2007 at 3:47 AM
that is a great quote Marko. It's also unfortunate that the 95% of talent is squandered due to the lack of an iron will. If you've ever had to work with other people as part of a team then you'd likely know what that feels like to be let down by lazy team members. Even more frustrating if you are a person who is all about working to be the best you can be. I think that is what Marc might be trying to articulate. There are different styles of leadership. Maybe Marc is someone who leads by example, whereas Youssef prefers to lead by guidance. To be an effective teacher though one must have patience.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 19, 2007 at 4:06 AM
to elaborate more on what I just said. If you follow NBA basketball you probably either love or hate Kobe Bryant. I personally love Kobe because I can relate to him. People call him all sorts of bad names like selfish, a-hole, and etc... Yeah well when you are ultra-competitve and won't settle for anything but to be the greatest yeah you are going to step on some toes. Those who don't have that fire in their eyes can't understand that and therefore he is deemed selfish and self-centered. I admire him because he is the hardest working athlete in the league.
often times though, a personality like that does not make for a good basketball coach because they cannot empathize with inferior talent and therefore get frustrated that their players cannot reach the same level of greatness as they did. Larry Bird quit coaching after three years, Jerry West quit after a year or two, Magic quit after a few games, while many lesser basketball players go on to become great coaches because they know how to get the most out of their role players. good coaches don't think as the role players as being sucky whereas a bad coach might.
Fun reading.
I think technical skills and artistic vision are both important and go hand in hand. Some people are naturally gifted with respect to both or either and therefore progress much faster with practice, but probably most everything can be taught, except the passion to learn in the first place.
To use a musical example (since ive been a musician for 20 yrs and a photographer for 3)
I spent 8 hours a day practicing when i first started, trying to be the best. I got fairly decent technically, but others with a genetic advantage could do the same in 1/10th the time. But i had to have the passion in the first place, or i would have got bored. And all that practice enabled me to find a vision, aka 'style', that i couldn't have developed otherwise. So it is with art. I spent many hours as a kid painting, learned everything about composition and color from much trial and error, but when i took a college painting class from a well-known artist, he taught me to break some of the 'rules' that i thought were necessary from all my self-learning, and i became a much better artist in the process. So, yes, even arttistic ability can be taught, provided there is motivation to learn.
As a slight aside, to try to get away with burying a politically incorrect rant in this long post, i quite frankly see a lack of this perspective (the perspective gained through experience with art in all its forms) in the critique forums. Only 10% of the responses to photos posted (i did a count) actually offer any critique. The vast majority involve "WOW", "Awesome photo!" etc. Now, don't get me wrong i believe there is a point to offering encouragement and praise, it's a good thing, but i thought the forums were for "CRITIQUE". How can people learn if they are not willing to suggest change? There's no such thing as a "perfect image". If all the photos on the forums were as awesome as people claimed, we'd all be rich selling our prints. I mean, i like burritos, and i BUY burritos. If all these photos were so awesome, they'd be selling like hotcakes. I wish i had a "dozen great images" like Marc. I think i have 2 or 3. Gives me something to shoot for. OK, end o rant.
I think what can be taught, at least from the student's end, is limited by their desire, technical ability and their natural talent. If I understand where you are coming from Marc, someone's natural ability may be limited and some things in the art of photography can never be learned, or at least, may be limited. Desire plays a big factor too, but if one lacks desire, its a given they'll never reach full potential. I like your example with Beirstadt, as he happens to be one of my favorite painters of all time. I too could never likely paint as well as him despite all the desire and 'technical' expertise in the world. Some students will excel in learning from their teachers, others will struggle to do so. We all know this from going to school.
The teacher is a critical part of learning, so the same basic principles apply IMO (desire, technical ability and talent). Teaching requires somewhat of a different skill set, so a great practitioner may not translate to a great teacher - which can limit what the student can learn. I think the student-teacher interaction is critical on what can be taught. While I think we think landscape photography is a pretty specific subject, there are many different subsets and styles. Based upon your photographs and the manner of which you communicate, the words 'feel' and 'connection' spring to my mind. I think your method of teaching should reflect that as well, and should be targeted to people who feel the same way. I'm not sure of all of your desires and reasons to teach (your adroit skills as a practitioner certainly qualify you on that level), but I'd suggest you translate your photographic strengths to you manner of teaching. I've never taken a photography class or workshop, but the photographic outings you are describing sound much more appealing than the class/field based workshops you always see advertised.
In a sense, I suspect you are already teaching in this manner as evidenced by your posts talking about finding the artist inside and connecting with the environment. I'd say, keep the message coming. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly with it.
What can be taught? To use your imagination! That's the most important thing. As soon as your start limiting yourself due to the fact you are not "so inclined" or "gifted" or don't have the genetic advantages of some others , you are making excuses for failure.
Using the basketball example; the most dominant player in the world right now grew up in a
country ( Canada ) in which the sport is vastly overshadowed by other sports, mostly hockey. The participation is meager compared to other countries , the US in particular, most of Europe, Asia, South America . . . yet this skinny little kid , who nobody even seriously bothered to look at play, in 2005 . . .
"Nash became the first Canadian and the second foreign-born player (after Hakeem Olajuwon) to earn the honor.[1] He is the first MVP who did not lead his team in scoring since Dave Cowens in 1972-73. Nash is just the third point guard ever to be named MVP — along with Magic Johnson and Bob Cousy — and only the sixth guard (Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, and Allen Iverson being the others).[1] Nash was the first white player to win the award since Larry Bird in 1986. Nash is also the lowest drafted player to win the award."
in 2006 he won it again. In 2007 , I guess he had an off season . . . he finished second.
Now, I'm sure there are reasons he is such a great player, his whole family is into sports,true.But he certainly isn't the strongest, the fastest, the best jumper. But even his critics, would have to admit, he is one of the most imaginative players, ever. So, is it some genetic gift or the fact that he grew up in an environment that demonstrated the love of the game and the lessons of hard worked being rewarded.
Wayne Gretzky was another skinny little Canadian kid who grew up to be, what most hockey people consider , the greatest hockey player ever. He wasn't the fastest, didn't have the hardest shot, was not a physical player, playing in a game that is so physical it borders on brutal, at times. Was he gifted?
He earned those accolades through hard work, practice and studying the game. His best advantage, like Nash was he learned how to use his imagination, to innovate, to make the players on his team better.
My point is this, it's the use of our imagination that sets us free to be our best,at anything.
Could you paint as well as Beirstadt? Why not? Many people could, why not you?
You pick any painting that he has done and I am very confident that there are many, many painters who could duplicate it so well that you wouldn't be able to recognize the difference. In fact, forgery of major works of Art like that is such a problem, that often experts have to called in to verify that a painting is authentic, sometimes resorting to chemical tests of the pigment and microscopic analysis of the brushstrokes etc. Many times people have bought fake paintings that were verified and later found to be fake.
So what made Beirstadt special, what couldn't they duplicate? That same quality that Nash and "The Great One " displayed.
If you took some people out to one of your favorite spots, as I'm sure you've done, and showed them where to set up, explained how to use the NDGs , taught them how to time the ebb and flow of the wave , demonstrated creative composition and they took the image with similar equipment to yours . . . could we tell the difference between your image and theirs?
But, if you did the same thing except, let them choose the composition, exposure, subject etc. from a camera mounted in same spot, even if they were very competent photographers, you could very well have very different images. Why? Because everybody has a different imagination. That is what makes the difference.
If that is what makes the difference, then why isn't that taught more?
I also have no formal photography training, except one workshop, Freeman Patterson, who is a legend in our field. It lasted a week. He never once looked through my camera, or any one elses that I had seen. I never heard the word F-stop or any other technical term that I can remember being uttered by him. He took us to different areas but that was it, you were on your own and the areas included gravel pits and graveyards, not the naturally beautiful scenes that I expected.
Yet, he so inspired me with his insight and sharing his emotions and most importantly , his imagination , that it changed the way I think about photography in particular and life in general. I'll never forget those lessons as long as I breathe. I would say he is a successful teacher, wouldn't you?
Discussion
66 repliesOK, if you know me, you know I'm speaking for landscape photographers not you hardcore tiny bird addicts who might actually need a 600 f/4. I must say, I am routinely among the least equipped photographers at my own workshops! I carry one body and 2, maybe three lenses into the field and a small tripod, tops. Oh, and a small filter case.
I think there are two dominant thoughts among aspiring photographers these days regarding how to improve their skills, and how to take 'pro quality' images. We are constantly bombarded by adds for the latest gear and PS tutorials in all the photo rags, therefore, it is only reasonable that most new photographers believe that if they too, want to make the best images they not only need to buy the best, buy a lot of stuff, and become some sort of PS expert.
When people who enjoy my images are surprised at how little I carry with me, this only strengthens their belief that I must know how to do a lot more in PS than they do. I must always KNOW something they don't, right? Well, sort of. But can it be taught? They certainly think so. They think that by sitting in a classroom and learning all the latest PS geek techniques or by watching me make images in the field, that they will 'learn my secret' or something... Do you think that if you learned how to write music you could write Beethoven? Or just because you know how to use a paintbrush and see pretty landscapes you can paint Beirstadt? (extreme examples, I'll admit) Photography is an art, right? I think we've covered that topic a few times, so I'll move on. Just because you have the gear to do it, and you are in the place to do it, doesn’t always mean you can do it. These people don't always understand when I tell them I've never taken any class on photography, and they get really confused when they find out I know less about Photoshop than they do (this happens repeatedly).
I'm not writing this here to deflate all you new photographers out there. What I am saying is that maybe you should look inside first. I've stressed this belief before. Find out what drives you to take photographs. Is it the work of others? Or something within? Is it the desire to share your vision of the world or copy what others are doing? Is it to make money and go pro? - if so I definitely suggest you think in another direction.
Art, to me, is about self expression as a form of communication on a different level. No artist can simply buy a bunch of gear, take a few classes and become great. It takes something more. Something that is perhaps intangible. Something that cannot always be taught. Many great artists of any kind had little formal training. There has to be desire, passion, emotions and the drive to express yourself. You can't just drive to a specific location with a specific image in mind and expect it to come to you. You have to go to it, you have to find it in the landscape and in yourself. Same with your time later in processing. The whole process is linked together from the field to the print. It is your ability to see the whole process that makes a photograph.
So what can you learn from others? Plenty. But make sure you continue to develop yourself as an artist first.
Focused Photography
and...
Are We Photographers or Are We Photo Equipment Investors?
I, too, agree it requires drive and an intense interest in your subject. Nothing replaces practice, practice...and more practice. You can't buy expertise. Getting good at photography requires time in the field. You can't get that time sitting at home on your keester.
Thanks for bringing to light thoughts that I've always held, too.
Danny.
I use Photoshop 7.0.1 for post-processing my images. Upgrading to Photoshop CS3 isn't going to make my images immediately appear better. It would take as much practice using PS CS3 as it did using PS 7.0.1 to make my images appear the way I want them to appear.
If I bought a 85mm f 1.8 lens tomorrow, that would not make me an instant success at shooting portraits. By the same token, if I bought a couple of wide-angle lenses tomorrow I would not instantly become a landscape photographer or a candid street shooter, whatever. Each photographic discipline requires a special set of "tools" that goes beyond merely owning the equipment for those disciplines. The process is, "How do you go about learning to make effective photographs?" within each discipline. It requires study, practice, and dedication.
For the net and forums such as NPN, NSN, PM, etc, then people shoot to try and capture and at the same time, impress others. Thats why we have critiques. Crop this, crop that, lighten this, move position, etc. So yep, it does take a certain amount of gear to get the shot, either way it doesn't make any difference to the end result. Its the shot that counts and what its to be used for. No way would I want to carry what a sports photographer takes, thats for sure.
All the best and its about how much beer you can get into a pack for sure
Danny.
I'm sure I can be taught - I look at my older stuff that I thought was ok and now I think it sucks! I hope one day I look back and say the same about my current ok work!
I don't think we ever can actually hit our maximum potential, but as we approach it, improving becomes more and more difficult.
For all you wildlife photographers or those with a more journalistic/documentary mindset, sorry if this thread is really directed more at the landscape photographer. Tom, I appreciate your thoughts.
i think non-photographers always fall into the trap of thinking about gear. it drives me nuts when a total stranger will ask me what I'm shooting with, then "oh is that digital?" Well yeah, so what? Do you know or even care what I am shooting? I was quietly shooting this bird last week and some guy comes up to me and asks how much my camera cost. It kinda pissed me off so I just said hold on. After the bird left then I answered his question well more like mumbled it at him. Then he asked if it was digital, I said yes and his response was well, "I'm only interested in 35mm cameras. my (35mm) Rebel is too slow." I told him that the lens is more important when it comes to speed. And it never occured to him that DSLR's work the same way as 35mm gear anyway. He left me alone after that. He wasn't interested in talking to someone who shoots "digital".
then there's other people out there, with jobs other than photography I might add, that buy and sell their cameras each time a model comes out. I don't get it. I could understand if they shot enough to warrant doing that but if you shoot a few hundred or a few thousand frames before selling then I'd suggest they save their money for vacation or retiremet instead. a new body ain't going to make them better.
Equipment is certainly important. If one was a filthy rich technically savvy accomplished photographer that could hire others to carry their gear, having 50 pounds of gear about to select from would certainly allow them to potentially make better images on some occasions. Just last week I could have framed one subject much better with a 135mm lens than the 150mm I had with me. And today those who carry graduated neutral density filter sets and learn how to use them, have an expanded number of subjects to choose in lower light conditions versus what used to be. Having a tall sturdy tripod and head that allows getting a camera lens into special positions low and high in difficult terrain often can make a difference between being able to get a shot or not at all. For those imaging closeup subjects as wildflowers, there is a whole world of small tools to assist lighting. There is of course much more. At the same time, the nature of field work means carrying the weight of that gear into the field so a wise balance ought to be struck depending on each situation. Especially when venturing further from roadsides, the effort involved can be great with the athletically fit having a significant advantage. And there is something to be said about working from relative simplicity that allows a less encumbered artistic process to flow more freely. So having equipment and learning how to use that gear has certain value. Some of that may be taught while some requires repetitious experience.
Todays films, scanners, print processes, and digital software open up possibilities those of recent past generations would be envious of. For the computer illiterate person, that wall can be a huge technical height to overcome for someone that is now trying to make higher quality prints. At a minimum they will need to invest money for equipment, time to study what to do, computer and software studies or training, and time and effort to experiment on getting it right. So a high level of learning required on these facets of skill.
Beyond all the equipment and skill issues there is something about landscape work that I see as being one great separator between different photographers. Our Earth is vast and complex. Its enormous dynamic atmosphere, and seas, vast lands, incredible forms of complex life, variations of climates on its irregular surface, is beyond what any one person can hope to get to know well during their brief lifetimes. Thus at best we dabble in our art usually getting to know our local areas well with occasional journeys beyond. Even the most wealthy free travelers can only be in one place at one time. We only live through a few dozen summers in our adult prime. Many special places are best during narrow periods of our seasons or after special conditions as unusual rainfall have occurred. And the secrets that might be unlocked in many places beyond well known road side icons require a commitment of exploration, effort, and time. Thus experience outside counts for alot. There are tools like guidebooks, topographic maps, and geological maps that can be worth their weight in gold. Experience in these areas are much more important than training.
Reading the subtleties of the weather and daylight well can make a huge difference in results because one is always making choices about where to go, what season, what time of day, what are those clouds going to do, what will the subject landscape look like when the sun moves during the day, how might direct frontlight, backlight, sidelight, overcast light, and other atmospheric changes effect the aesthetic of a subject. Believe me when I state that better landscape photographers have learned much about how to be there when the light is good beyond what they might see at the wrong time of day or season. Experience again is more important.
A savvy photographer might explore a seacoast and note various features. How the sun will set or rise at a given position at different times of year. How fog and tides might enhance various features. What kind of air clarity, fog, or clouds might elevate the potential of subjects. They make note of these things, use their imagination, vision of a great print, and if a great image is not presenting itself at that time, they make plans to come back when they are. Likewise vegetation, wildflowers, and animals are often prominent elements in some landscapes and knowing and understanding their natural history can make a difference. For instance in about a week, I hope to go back to a giant sequoia grove where a few weeks ago I saw the the understory covered densely by short green leafy herbs rising from the shady forest matter. I recognized their distinctive leaves as being one of our larger blue lupine species. I looked up in the canopy and noticed how sunlight at a particular time of day would be coming through a clearing then illuminating that scene. For some other trees in denser forest, I noticed how I might only capture those scenes if there was good even overcast cloud fill light or better a thin deck of cloud mist at tree level.
Both experience using equipment and evaluating visual images is valuable. One isolated person regardless of how much gear they might buy, books they might read, training they might receive, workshops they might participate in will by themselves not give them a complete honed skill to accomplish making such images. It may shorten the path to becoming so skilled but in the end one must also get out in the field with their own set of gear, go through the mental processes, take pictures, analyze results, and print some of the results. At the same time regularly viewing, exploring, and sometimes absorbing some of what others do, can over time make one grow faster and beyond what a more isolated landscape photographer might accomplish. Visiting photography web sites as NPN are a huge boon today to otherwise armchair photographers to move beyond their own realms. But for anyone that has an interest in making outstanding larger prints there is no substitute for actually regularly going out to galleries, museums, and art fairs that feature better photography in order to see the end process up close. The internet and computer monitors are far too mediocre a medium for evaluating large fine art prints. There is much one might see as rather pleasant on a monitor that may fall rather flat when printed large. Thus again something that ought be experienced and not taught unless it was something truly obscure like a seminar lead by an expert for visiting photography galeries for aesthetic print evaluation. Such courses are given in the fine art painting world though I've not for landscape photographs as far as I know. ...David
Danny.
http://www.radiantvista.com/archive/articles/1/
The world is diverse, including the people in it. As photographers, we each partake in our hobby/passion in unique and personal avenues. I understand that there are folks out there that prefer to carry every prime lens, plus a few telephotos in their pack and everything else they own double of. Those are the gear weenies (and I say that in the most endearing manor), although I am not one of them. To them, part of the fun is actually doing the research, and buying the extra gear. I'm sure they produce endorphins as soon as they click the "Buy" button at B&H. Then there is the anticipation of the delivery, trying it out, showing it off to their buddies in the field.
Now, I know your thread talks about the art in photography and I couldn't agree more with you...seeing our own visions of the world and bringing the best version of it for others to enjoy as art is the main goal. It comes natural to some, takes a bit of a learning curve and dedication to others, and to some...it may never come to that point. One doesn't need tons of gear to produce art, especially with the quality of zoom lenses/equipment these days.
So...what I am getting at here is that what those gear weenies get out of landscape photography might be something totally different than what you or I are using our time for. We all enjoy photography...but just enjoying it in a multitude of different ways. "They" may want to create art and can, but are using additional means to do so because they enjoy it.
I dont think you are trying to bash them one bit, but I think it should be said that we each get something a little or a lot different out of landscape photography.
The second question addresses how much can be taught. This same question can be asked of any artistic form and the answer is the same. I have had no formal teaching in photography. My techincal knowledge comes from a simple book on travel photography where I learnt the basics about exposure and Shaw's book on nature photography. The rest I picked up observing Marc's and other landscapists techiniques on websites. My Photoshop skills are also a result of experimentation & information passed on to me through websites like this. Just because I learnt photography this way doesn't mean it will work for the next person. I believe some people could benefit from a more structured & formal approach. I prefer the more independent method of learning as the hows and whys
The main point I want to make among this ramble is that the importance of practice often seems to be forgotten. Being in the field, actively composing, making exposures, watching the way light affects the land has no substitute. Too often people associate successful photos with the use of a lens or postcapture technique.
So, how much can be taught? I believe quite a lot really. Just as a student can learn how to read music, play the notes and follow directions by the composer, one can learn about exposure, basic rules of composition and postcapture processing. But these have boundaries. It's easy to follow boundaries like the rule of thirds, and usually the result wil be quite good. Learning how to see beyond the confines of such boundaries is much more difficult. A good start is finding inspiration from the works of the masters.
Fortunately, photography isn't just about technique.
A technically flawed photograph with heart trumps a technically perfect one without every time...at least in my opinion...
We see a lot of photographs that have heart AND are technically excellent, but that doesn't discourage me. I keep looking for the elusive great intersection of skill, stuff and subject.
Pete D.
--
jacco
Most of what makes a great photographer is from within, a drive, a desire to express oneself, a gnawing in the gut (to paraphrase Galen Rowell) that can't be simply can't be satiated. The is no formula or techique that gives you this passion, either you have it or you don't. Those with the passion will succeed with or without formal instruction. Those without the gnawing in the gut will not move much beyond their current level of expression no matter how much 'education' they get. Those are the people who believe that success in photography comes from some outside source or some unknown 'secret'. Darwin
In some ways, left handers have an unfair advantage; they live in a right-handed world so stimulus to both sides of the brain is commonplace. Right-handed folks have no need to adapt. Even the important functions on their camera are placed specifically for them. So sometimes instruction isn't or never will be enough - unless you can assist in firing more synapsis in the right lobe.
There's an old saying in the music business. Someone asked a musician how to get to Carnegie Hall. His answer was "practice man, practice".
JG
You like to wade through semi-frozen rivers, stand in the middle of 10-foot shore pounders, and hang upside down from a tree to make the best shot. This is what makes you happy - this is your inner self making you do so.
Just like you, there are countless other people who have their inner self telling them to do what they like best. And for them, the best is investigating the technical boundaries of hardware and the progress of science of technology.
They aren't exactly buying the latest and greatest gear to make the greatest photos man has ever made - but they are simply interested in following the technology curve, curious to find out what differentiates one camera from another; what's different between one lens and another, etc.
A friend of mine has bought each and every Mac ever made since Apple began it's journey. Now you may assume that he is probably using these Macs to build the latest and greatest rockets to launch to the Moon or Mars - but not really - he is just a technical writer, publishes and typesets documents for other people. It's the curiosity about Macs that makes him buy the gear even though he is constantly short of money.
Another friend of mine constantly buys cars and pumps in many times more than the initial cost of the cars to modify them - with the latest and greatest toys, speakers, etc. etc. Not that he wants to win the next F1 race or Indy or Nascar - he simply enjoys looking inside and investigating.
I would think money is all you need to afford the gear.
I think I have attempted to answer this above.
This is a good question. As I mentioned above, my Mac-freak friend always does things in a certain way, and when I showed him how to typeset documents using an ancient method that can be done without the latest and greatest Macs, he though it was wierd, and I must be doing something nasty to get it done (afterall if you aren't using a Mac, how can you typeset documents? I *must* be cheating, right?)
In the same way, lots of the photo-gear junkies have shot photographs and processed them in a way that somebody told them, or they read some magazine, and the only way they come close to achieving in photographs what you do in the field - is by using PS. Hence they always assume that you must be "cheating", since they had to cheat themselves.
I had a hard time convincing a friend how picking different speeds of film or picking different brands and types of film was cheating too.
You are mixing two completely different things here Marc. There is nothing common between art and photography. There is a lot in common between art and a bunch of photographers though.
Not really. You may want to do that if you really intend to separate yourself from the countless others - because history has shown us that more artists were remembered by mankind when they separated their work from somebody else's. However there are millions of other photographers out there who are not artists and yet take very good photos and still make enough money.
Now there are certainly other wanna-be "artists" (for lack of a better word) who do buy lots of equipment thinking they will magically take good photographs.
That being said, the only equipment I carry in the field are my camera, one lens, tripod, a few filters, digital storage, and lens cleaner fluid. I tend to do my hiking/photography trips with another friend of mine who tends to show up with everything including the kitchen sink.
But my equipment is enough to keep me happy just as the big truckload and kitchen sink are what are required to keep my friend happy.
>>"There is nothing common between art and photography."
I totally disagreee. I see photography as an art form, and so do many, many other people. An art form with a unique relationship with reality, perhaps, but an art none the less. This has been discussed a dozen times on these forums. Remember when your photo classes were art credits in college? Wiki describes art as: "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit. Art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas." This is exactly what my photography is: A collection of actions using objects to stimulate the human mind/spirit/senses.
Second, I could care less if someone wanted to buy the latest gear because they were some gear-crazy techno-addict that always buys the latest whatever. That's fine. But this DOES NOT ALWAYS make better pictures (which is the only point I made about gear, and secondary to the primary question). If I carried every lens Canon made because I could, it would not get better pictures. What you are saying is that some people like to buy gear for the sake of having the latest and greatest. I say that great images come from within, and do not always require the best gear.
This thread isn't here to make a point. It's here to ask a question - What can be taught? I think several others have at least attempted to answer that and discuss that here. Technical specifics can be learned. David talks a lot about seeing, and experience - also things that can be learned, at least in part, with dedication and practice. But some other passion has to come from inside, and that is what makes great photos. This is described this above.
I'll try to summarize the essence of my statement above: I use less equipment and know less in the way of processing than do many other people who enjoy my images and ask me how they can improve. So how can they improve? That's a question they have to answer for themselves. "You either have it or you don't".
I truly think you are missing many valid points Ashutosh has made. And if I can crudely simplify essentially, it is, to each his/her own. Why are they attending your workshops - because they can (disposable income and a desire). Why they are arriving with all that gear is simple - because they can and they probably also do not know what to expect. If I was to throw down hundreds of dollars to take a workshop I'd also bring the kitchen sink (although my kitchen sink is essentially a wash basin to most others).
How do you cut to the chase and teach? That's really up to you. Are you a teacher, a mentor? - if so the answers should be evident. If you want to teach something beyond the basics and something beyond the gear, state so on your website. Set goals and objectives. Tell them what gear to bring to your workshop (and should they wish to venture out after hours and fulfill other pursuits with other gear whether it be flora, wildlife or macro that's cool).
But if you truly believe you either have it or you don't, why are you teaching?
Because that is not true at all. Some may learn faster, some may exceed their master, but most everyone has the abilty to take good photographs if they really desire.
I think you have mis-understood me here - since this is exactly what I am trying to say. Art cannot exist without the human mind and senses.
Photography is a technique of taking photographs to be recorded on a medium. A few artists however have used this "technique" to present their art. What I am emphasising here is that photography is merely a means to an end. What we are truly dealing with is art. I am sure if your technique at painting was good (which may or may not be the case), then you will be making masterpiece paintings too. Your inner feelings don't have to come out through photography which is a mere technique.
Absolutely.
Yes, but in many cases good gear does result in better photographs. I can tell you right off the bat that I can take photos with my 20D that I could never make with my Olympus C5050!
One can certainly not ignore this fact! I had ignored this for a long time since I always assumed that everybody had the same equipment as I did. I had sold off my Oly C5050 to a friend, and we went off to take some photos together - him with the 5050 and me with my 20D. And I could take some photos that looked much much better than the ones he took (seriously), and he ended up concluding that I had a better "photographic spirit and emotion" than him!. Unfortunately I found out that it was actually Canon's low noise and good long exposure handling that did the trick!
But in essence, I agree with the crux of your statement - "it" (i.e. creative presentation in the form of art) cannot be taught. You can teach photography, but you can't teach art; just like anybody could teach you math and physics but nobody can teach you how to find the next special theory of relativity.
I agree that buying great gear and knowing all the latest PS techniques might help - but only to a point.
William - I don't believe that everyone has the ability to make great photographs if they desire. Good ones, perhaps - I don't know, it's all where you draw a line I guess, but like anything, not everyone will reach the highest levels. It's just a matter of how you think. This is the essence of my statements above. I could have all the desire in the world to paint like Beirstadt and I know I couldn't. Same with some people and photography. To a certain extent, you have it or you don't, but much can still be learned.
As to my own workshops, well, I'm a tour guide. I don't sit in a classroom most of the day like the title 'workshop' might imply to some. I take people to great places at great times that they wouldn't have found themselves with a limited schedule, heck - we even do backpacking now, and I can show them exactly what I would do when we get there. I can help them with their own techniques, gear, and most technical needs that arrise. I can correspond later and compare images, and offer suggestions much as I do here - which offers insight through the entire process, which goes a long way towards the learning process but I can't show them everything. I garrantee a great time in some great places, regardless. I'm particularly fond of the wording 'photo tours'.
By the way, the website only mentions upcoming workshops and brief description. Upon further inquiry, a very detailed description of the activities, the setting, types of shooting, etc. are sent out to anyone interested.
I suppose I am also unclear - I thought you are asking "what can be taught?" I thought my answer was fairly clear - to take good photographs (you incorrectly paraphrased me and added the great). I used to take a couple of guitar lessions years ago, did I think I was going to be the next Jimi Hendrix... (who was left-handed by the way) not... or my art classes would turn me into the next Michelangelo (southpaw) or a photographic workshop would allow me to rival Ansel Adams or Marc Adamus (other noteworthy southpaws)...never.
So I guess I got hung up on discussing a few other things in the process, rambling on about how gear and PS don't alone make great images. Some people honestly believe they help a lot more than they do though, and they find it disappointing when they realize how little (travels to extreme places excluded) actually goes into the making of my images. Which is what inspired me to get some additional thoughts on this, and share some thoughts as well.
Not everyone needs to have the desire instilled and fostered, it comes so naturally to many of the best photographers of any genre. Not everyone can learn the desire, even after seeing it modeled in the most attractive ways. There are people who will never be able to master certain photographic techniques, even under the careful guidance of an experienced instructor. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and an outside influence can only move us so far beyond our giftedness.
So who and what should we teach? I think that very much depends on the individual teacher and the individual student. It's well worth considering how we each fit into the equation.
I'm going to digress back to the original question. What can be taught? Assuming you are referring to a workshop or web-based discussions, I have a few ideas.
When photographers see an inspiring landscape, they want their visual brain interpretation to be translated to a digital or film negative. They want to express their inner vision to share with others or just to permanently capture the moment for themselves. Many of us don't realize that our brains are 'interpreting' the landscape in unconscious ways. The colors may seem more vibrant or the contrast greater or the moon may 'seem' bigger on the horizon than reality.
It seems to me the goal of teaching photography is to act as a TRANSLATOR between what students think they are seeing and what you know the camera will see. Ask them what inspires them about a particular landscape and teach them to ask themselves the same questions. Then teach them how they can maximize the impact of their vision in a photograph. Zoom in on the moon to make it look big the way the mind sees it. Or go wide to exagerrate the radial pattern of the high clouds and use those exagerrated diagonals to pull the viewer into the center of the scene where the subject is. Or teach them to see colors in the scene they don't percieve because their eyes are adjusting for the ambient color temperature. (That icy snowfield is going to look really blue in the camera, not white like your eyes are seeing it now). Remember that we are taught to read left to right and our eye likes to follow those same patterns in a photograph. Or ask them 'where is your eye going in this scene?' What is it you like about the subject? Is it the color, the light, the movement? How will it look if frozen at 1/125 sec vs slowed down at 30 seconds into a pattern you can't even see without lots of practice? Teach them to leave everything out of the frame EXCEPT what they find interesting, or leave only the things that directly contribute to the main subject. If they want it moody and mysterious, perhaps they should artistically underexpose the image a bit. Want to portray a cold stark place? Shoot at twilight when the 'cooler' colors of evening will be more intense and the details will be shadowy and stark.
Once people learn how to do these things, they can start to realize in the camera the vision they have in their head. Then the process goes to the next step- fine tuning the vision through digital or negative development. This stuff is daunting and really is the subject of a different kind of workshop. But if you understand the basics of photoshop, etc, you can then use the knowledge at the camera level in the field. You will know the widest angle lens you can use to merge a panorama that doesn't all fit in your viewfinder, or you will be able to judge how many stops to bracket for an HDR merge later.
In terms of gear, I'm with you. Take the minimum you need to get the images you want to print. Less gear means you are quicker to get around and you have less to fiddle with when the scene is just right. If you want to get new exciting images you have to try and look at the world differently from the way it has been seen by others before you. Sometimes this means you have to actually get up and walk, sometimes a long ways. I always carry a headlamp with me so I can stay out at an exciting scene long after everyone else is heading back before it gets dark. Teaching some basic wilderness competency skills could also help student landscape photographers feel more comfortable in less than ideal conditions which are often the best for dramatic lighting.
And lastly, those techno-geeks are actually on the right track IMO. The best images of the future will be the ones that marry a unique vision with the leading edge of what can be done photographically into images nobody has seen before. The key is to keep in balance the technical competency with the age old art of pure vision. If you don't have both, you'll be able to make good photographs but you won't be able to make GREAT photographs. You more than anyone else seem to have the right stuff and people will always want to hear how you get such amazing images in your workshops. But teaching the process? That's going to require a new level of artistry all in itself. If you can combine your masterful vision, technical edginess and the human insight of a great teacher, you've hit the great trifecta, brother. And I'm already looking to see when I can sign up...
-Mike
In essence, I totally agree with your assesment of the learning process as it pertains to the art. The brief time in which I have to teach certainly is an art into itself, and one I am still learning. It's of course much easier to lead by example, but most anyone can do that. To teach effectively, I need to interact a lot - the more the better, in often fleeting real life situations.
>>"Ask them what inspires them about a particular landscape and teach them to ask themselves the same questions. Then teach them how they can maximize the impact of their vision in a photograph." - This particular sentiment should be a great asset to any aspiring photographer.
You're right, my comments are directed more toward an intermediate level photographer. Seems like the biggest challenge for you is going to be teaching an advanced intermediate or advanced photographer how to develop visionary images. I'd like to think that's the level I'm finally at and that's what I'm looking for as well. And the only piece of advice I can give now at my level is to look outside of landscape photography and find inspiration in other artists that you can bring back to your own world view. You mention Bierstadt, and he is a perfect example of an artist outside of our genre that had wild ideas and great inspiration from natural light that I'd like to learn from. Some of the pros at Photo.net are showing some pretty cutting edge portrait and journalistic images and using techniques that can be applied to landscapes as well. And I have to admit that I have been heavily inspired by the 'dynamic' tension in many of your photographs and have been looking at the world from a perspective of 'movement' in the landscape ever since.
Extracting this single statement, I think the reason this idea is a great asset is due to the fact that it's impossible to achieve. I'm only being very picky about working, but I still wanted to make the point. If there's something you can't teach in photography, it's maximizing. I think we would all be in agreement that "vision" is supposed to be something unique to an individual. In other words, I could never fully understand Marc's vision, and Marc could never fully understand Mike's, and so on. If nobody but me can have my vision or really understand it, then I'm the only person who will ever be able to figure out how to maximize it.
I have no doubt that we teach each other ways to improve the presentation of our vision on a regular basis here on NPN. We can be taught how to make beautiful photographs, and we can learn a variety of new skills. Marc can teach me everything he knows about artful photography, but if my effort stops there, I don't think 'maximized' is the right word for the way I will share my vision with the world.
Mike, you're most recent post shows exactly what I'm talking about. At some point the responsibility for growth falls squarely on the individual and no longer involves the teacher/mentor.
Yes, but in many cases good gear does result in better photographs. I can tell you right off the bat that I can take photos with my 20D that I could never make with my Olympus C5050!
------------------------------------------------
Ahh yes, but I can also show you what can be done with the C5050 that can't be matched with the 20D. So its in the way its used and what for that counts. IMO anyway
Danny.
Sometimes, I see images of mine that are close to being what I wanted when I was out shooting - and it's frustrating. I have to ask myself, then, is it not what I want because of the equipment? Or because of me? Most of the time it's because of me. I think this is one thing that this site has taught me very well. While I haven't necessarily learned what to do to be better, I know that equipment doesn't make the photo. Maybe because I've seen poor shots out of good equipment, too?
An SLR and a selection of lenses would certainly give me sharper, more high-res photos. And maybe better high ISO performance, or range, would let me get some shots I can't right now. But I don't think that I'd be enjoying the photography more, or capturing things that way I want them any more often. I think that has to come from, as mentioned, practice.
As far as reaching higher levels, I think it comes down to the same thing it does in anything else - particularly sports and the arts : talent. Some people will reach high levels faster than others. And some will have a higher peak, no matter what amount of learning/practice happens. That's talent.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5761948-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4734502-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4337137-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5261849-lg.jpg
Some of the most defining photographs in Marc's armoury, IMO. *None* of these photos can be taken by the C-5050.
The point I am trying to make is that you can use the same camera to take really crappy photos, but a good camera and equipment are the barest minimum for taking good photos.
Now if we assume that having a DSLR 5D with an L-quality lens and a Gitzo carbon fibre tripod is the barest minimum to taking good photos, then aren't we back to square one?
This discussion reminds me of one of Galen Rowell's photos - the one he took with a Nikon P&S. It was being promoted as how a great photographer can take great photos with sub-standard equipment. Unfortunately, the photograph that Galen made was one that could've been made with such a camera - but that same camera wouldn't possibly have taken even half the photographs Galen ever made! I would say that a majority of Galen's well-known shots use ND filters, which couldn't be used on P&S type cameras in Galen's times.
I also think that if you gave Marc my camera and filters in the situations in which he took the above shots, he'd have come out with something close to what he has - at web resolutions especially. He may have run into some of the drawbacks my camera has with regard to longer exposure (especially with those particular shots), smaller sensor, and worse lens...but in a lot of cases this isn't that much of a problem either.
Now, if that's correct, I can still grow a lot with my current camera. As I said, there aren't too many times when I think it's the camera that lets me down. Of course, when those moments do pop up, it's hard not to click the "buy now" option on B&H.
I think SLR's can help you elevate your work on a more consistent basis than other formats but it's not absolutely necessary either. What they do give you is options. Of course if you are automatic everything then the format probably wouldn't benefit you other than perhaps better file quality. An important thing to consider is that resolution size isn't the most important thing for some photographers. Thumb through a Sports Illustrated for example. The file quality is mediocre for some images, but the images were likely great enough to overlook that.
p.s. why must photography be measured in levels? it's a very black or white thing to me. I either connect with the photo or I don't.
Richard - Most P&S cameras, especially higher end or EVF cameras, deliver a similar amount of manual control to DSLRs. And given the zoom range and filter/converter options of my camera, I don't see where there is a lack of options with my setup.
As for the Sports Illustrated photos, a lot of those shots, poor quality or not, probably greatly benefitted from being taken with an SLR - one with a high frame rate for the action shots, an area where good DSLRs have a real advantage. Mine will do 2.5 frames per second under ideal conditions, which is at most half of what the sports guys use.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic...don't want to turn this into some sort of hardware discussion. My point is that you can learn a whole lot regardless of the equipment in most cases. As far as whether or not it can be taught (the original question), I think people can be guided to it, but since there isn't a magic formula, I don't think it can be taught directly.
Thou verily hast opened up a can or worms, methinks!
What can be learned = technique.
What is much more difficult to teach = the eye and I don't mean the evil eye but the good one.
Someone here posted a simple answer to a question a while back he said something like "photography is mostly about looking for and finding the right conditions." So if you have an eye or vision for a type or types of subjects -- be they mushrooms or mountain tops -- first of all you need to know what that is, secondly you need to have the patience (or in Marc's case the strength) to find your subject -- and find it when the lighting and other factors are as near perfect as possible.
Case in point -- I now sell my work and have gotten some recognition as a "semi-pro" locally. I've had gallery exhibitions and son on. I use a 20D and good glass. I like some of my images and so do others. I have PS CS2 an iMac G5 and an Epson 2200.
However before I started getting semi-serious I took some fall photos with my Canon G1. It was the only digital gear I had. But ... the conditions were perfect. The light was unbelievable. The result was really good. The photo was the cover of a 2006 calendar and I still sell copies of the photo (sold two Saturday at a Festival). At that time I didn't know PS -- I had a pre Elements striped down version -- I didn't know digital very well and my gear was P&S.
What made the shot was -- Nature -- being there -- seeing what was happening and capturing it. (The G1 is a good P&S with a pretty good lens.)
I think you can teach seeing the best photo opportunities but most photographers teach it to themselves or are born with it -- imho.
Thanks, Marc for bringing this up -- its a great topic.
Frank
Consumerism is a social problem. We put so much value on mere ownership of "stuff" that whether we use it or not becomes secondary to our enjoyment of it. It's a hard one because from the perspective of the individual vendor or consumer there's perceived positive value (practical or otherwise) and the global/social implications are rarely considered. Personally I always buy used and refurbished gear when I can and generally sell older items to finance others.
As far as what can be taught, I do think there's a subjective factor in each of us and that any creative skill can only be taught to a point. Where I see an issue is that we're often teaching the wrong things, especially when it comes to art. Technical skills seem to be the most dominant, followed by some aesthetic "rules". In reality the most important skill to creative expression is an emotional connection with and understanding of the subject. I'm often amazed at how many people consider themselves nature photographers who know very little about the natural history of the things they photograph. Going to well-known places in favorable light works to a point. You can consider it similar to going to a foreign country and only exploring the places that display English signs (or enter your own native tongue here) and where other Americans (or enter your own nationality here) are found. So much will remain hidden from you if you don't take the time to learn the local language and customs.
Guy
I really can realate to this, Guy. You already know that. I'm surprised that there are a lot of us who don't. I think, at least in part, some get frustrated with their own improvement because they have learned all the technical stuff and have great gear, but still aren't taking the pictures they want. But it's the pictures they saw that first inspired them to shoot, not an emotional connection with the subjects themselves.
>>" Marc, Thou verily hast opened up a can or worms, methinks! "
Methinks it's important to get people thinking.
I believe that we should "critique" the discussion forum topics the same
way we "critique" an image in the other forums, be as honest as you possibly can, offer
something constructive , positive, as well.
Honestly, I think you can find the answers you are looking for, in your own questions and comments, above.
A very creative way to problem solve, in my opinion, is to completely
reverse the situation and see where you end up. Many times I find you
end up "ahead" of where you started from using this process. If so, then
it is a good indicator you are not on the best path.
You state above that "The brief time in which I have to teach
certainly is an art into itself, and one I am still learning" and "
I see photography as an art form, and so do many, many other people. An
art form with a unique relationship with reality, perhaps, but an art
none the less."
So, if you see both teaching and photography as art forms ( I agree ),
it might be interesting to go back up to your comments and exchange
"teaching " for "photography" . I did, and I think you have already
answered your own question.
For example, starting from the bottom and working your way up ( of
course ! ) exchanging the words;
- To photograph effectively, I need to interact a lot - the more the
better, in often fleeting real life situations.
- I think we all agree different forms of photography work better for
different people. Not one way is the right way.
- But some other passion has to come from inside, and that is what makes
great teachers.
- What I am saying is that maybe you should look inside first. I've
stressed this belief before. Find out what drives you to teach. Is it
the work of others? Or something within? Is it the desire to share your
vision of the world or copy what others are doing? Is it to make money
and go pro? - if so I definitely suggest you think in another
direction.
Those are your words, with photography and teaching switched around. Each statement still rings true, in my opinion.
I would submit that you've answered your own question. Here comes the
tough love! Maybe the problem isn't with them, maybe it's with you.
I think you could be an amazing teacher. I'm not saying you would have
to put all the passion and drive you put into photography into teaching,
just a little bit would work wonders. You are an artist, so know what it
takes to create something special.
The first step is believe in yourself and your students.
You want to teach them something important, teach them the passion , teach them the why , not the how.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are right maybe they can't learn and you
can't really teach, as you say "You either have it or you don't".
I think that's a bunch of crap. I say that not because your photographs
are some of the most amazing I have ever seen in my life, although they
truly are. I'm actually as impressed, perhaps more impressed with the
passion and drive you display and the obvious reverence you hold towards
the subjects you photograph. That's what makes your work special, that's
what you should teach.
That's a lesson everyone could and should learn and you're just the
person to teach it. Tim
BTW, "you either have it or you don't" wasn't at all saying the art can't be taught. It was quoted from Darwin's post above and perhaps taken out of context on its own, which I regret.
So now let me respond to your own thoughts on the matter.
>>" You want to teach them something important, teach them the passion , teach them the why , not the how.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are right maybe they can't learn and you
can't really teach, as you say "You either have it or you don't".
I think that's a bunch of crap. I say that not because your photographs
are some of the most amazing I have ever seen in my life, although they
truly are. I'm actually as impressed, perhaps more impressed with the
passion and drive you display and the obvious reverence you hold towards
the subjects you photograph. That's what makes your work special, that's
what you should teach."
The WHY is what I believe cannot be taught. THAT, if anything, is what you either have or you don't. By that I mean, you can't teach someone the drive to backpack 50 miles in winter, or to truly appreciate nature in many other ways. You can only help guide them in that direction - but they have to find it for themselves. That's why my workshops are so hiking based and never a classroom setting. I want to help people develop this, but I can't tell them how to do it. What Darwin mentions above I really believe holds true
>>"Most of what makes a great photographer is from within, a drive, a desire to express oneself, a gnawing in the gut (to paraphrase Galen Rowell) that can't be simply can't be satiated. The is no formula or techique that gives you this passion, either you have it or you don't."
It is everything here that cannot be taught. This is what separates a lot of great photographers from the casual ones. Guy adds additional thoughts. You have to develop an emotional connection with your subjects - much more than just wanting to take good pictures. There has to be a love that transforms the art into something much more personal. Something way beyond the technical level.
I think what holds for photography holds for almost every other human endeavour as well: You can learn how to "function" within that endeavour, e.g. take a reasonably exposed photograph, solve a mathematics equation, understand a philosphical argument. However only those who are passionate, obsessed with the endeavour may soar to heights. A great philosopher is not a great philosopher because he studied philosophy, but because he has an innate interest, a burning desire, to ask certain questions and to find answers to them. THAT is what makes him a philosopher. Einstein did not create the general theory of relativity because he studied physics - he created it because from childhood onwards he was deeply curious in why things are the way they are and because he was so very creative in finding answers to these questions. And this brings me to the second part, that just because you are passionate you will not necessarily be great - you need to have talent too.
Most importantly I feel one has to follow one's passion because of the joy it creates, and if one wants to be great just to be famous or to stand out, the point is missed.
Regards,
Christoph
With respect to what can be taught, I'd like to present the following hypothetical case:
I take a group of 25 7 year olds on a field trip to the beach on a sunny day. Each of them is provided with a disposable point-n-shoot camera and have been requested to make photos while playing around in the sand. At the end of the day, I process their film, make prints and ask you to select the top three. What criteria will you use for this jurying process? Is it at all possible that you discover one really stunning photograph in the collection? Do you think there is anything I could have told them that would improve the quality of their output on that given day? How about if I just reassured those children on the bus ride to the beach to have fun, to experiment and not to hold back.
Now, upon returning from that field trip, if I set up a environment that allowed those kids to interact with the likes of Guy Tal, Tony Kuyper, Darwin Wiggett, Marc Adamus and Michael Gordon for the next 10 years (via email, occasional guest-lectures and field-trips), do you think that I'll be able to instill some of the passion that folks above have deemed absolutely necessary to become a great photographer? If you ask me, I don't know but don't you think its worthwhile to try. As their teacher, should I just give up on them because I am not sure if they have that inner-fire? Could this process light that spark in at least one of the kids?
I would judge a picture simply by the emotional impact it has on me, not its technical merits.If it is technically very bad, it by itself won't have an impact on me - then again a picture may be great just because of a certain technical flaw e.g an overexposed sun happening to give the picture a great feel.
I think we should be careful trying to figure out exactly what it is, that makes a picture great. There are so many variables but they all find their expression in our raw emotional reaction. Look at Cartier Bresson's picture of a man jumping over a puddle - an epic picture, yet why is it great?
Regards,
Christoph
1: Technical Quality 2: Emotional Quality
Same things that separate 'good' from 'great' photographs. I think that I have only made a couple dozen great photographs in my life. This would vary upon how each individual defines it, of course. But for me, a 'good' photograph is technically solid but dosen't have the evocative power of great ones. The emotion or perhaps intrigue, derrived from great photographs is what creates lasting appeal - another way to describe the differences between good and great. Images that you can look at for ten years and still be moved by - those are great photographs.
"Is it at all possible that you discover one really stunning photograph in the collection?"
Yes, but rather unlikely I'd say. I can't well put myself in the mind of a 7-year old. Maybe someone with kids can help me out and provide a better answer. I think at that age, I recall seeing the world in a more immediate way than I do now. By that I mean, kids with a camera tend to just rush up to something they like and attempt to record it. Not usually a practice that yeilds deep, emotionally strong images.
>>"Do you think that is anything I could have told them that would improve the quality of their output on that given day?"
No. Like you said, just tell them to have fun.
>>"Now, upon returning from that field trip, if I set up a environment that allowed those kids to interact with the likes of Guy Tal, Tony Kuyper, Darwin Wiggett, Marc Adamus and Michael Gordon for the next 10 years (via email, occasional guest-lectures and field-trips), do you think that I'll be able to instill some of the passion that folks above have deemed absolutely necessary to become a great photographer? As their teacher, should I just give up on them because I am not sure if they have that inner-fire? Could this process light that spark in at least one of the kids? "
I don't want to talk with kids about photography for ten years......but seriously, it's just like any subject we learned in school or along the way. You're not going to instill the passion for it in everyone, or even most, but you will succeed with some if you have the right style and motivations as their teacher. One thing is for sure, you shouldn't ever give up on a 7-year old - not even if they just took pictures of their feet all day.
I don't have a whole lot of time but I'll resond a little bit because I think you've hit the nail right on the head ( I hope you all are familiar with that phrase ! ). My point is this, with most seven year olds the task is much easier. The reason is because of what they haven't learned.
They haven't learned ( hopefully, most of them ) that they are "naturally" good at certain things and not good at others. They haven't learned the rules. Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to. The only limit they have is their imagination.
Meanwhile most of the adults have learned the rules. They have been told and accept their limits. They have come to believe that you are good at certain things and not good at others.
Be practical, be smart. Limit your expectations.
I don't think you have to light a fire with these kids. I think you will have to stand back and be careful not to get burned. I would expect you would get many wonderful photographs, in ways you can't even imagine now. I would judge the photographs with an open mind because that is what created them.
The problem, as I see it, is not how to instill the passion in these kids. The problem is to teach these kids how to hang on to it. They have it already.
But soon enough they will learn to colour within the lines, there is only one right answer, little johnny is good at something and they are good at something else, follow the rules, grow up.
The real challenge in adults is not to create that passion, that amazing imagination. The challenge is to unlock it. It's there in all of us, I believe, but we've buried it so deep , under so much self doubt , that we forget it exists sometimes.
Sure , in some cases, some of us may be physically and mentally challenged somewhat , but barring that, I believe " Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to. The only limit they have is their imagination."
I think that statement holds true for a seven year old or anybody else, including me.
Tim
I think you have hit on some nerves here.
I think it is all about making a connection with whatever it is one wants to photograph.
Gear has its place and I feel is important to a point - I mean you can't take good macro photos with a ultra wide angle for example.
I also think that one's heart has to be with the subject one photographs. They need to "love" it so much that they wat to portray it in its best possible way. You state, on your website, that you love the wilderness and so your wilderness photos scream out that love.
I think you can teach anything. Three things need to exist for this to happen however. One the "teacher" must be able to actually convey what ever it is he or she is trying to teach. And this requires an intimate knowledge of that subject. I speak from experience here, as I have taught other people for nearly half my life, all sorts of subjects from physicis to writing to photography to religious law. In all that time, if I did not intimately know what I was talking about, the lessons came out as gibirish. And I believe it does not matter what it is your are trying to teach, if you know it and how to do whatever it is you are trying to teach, you can teach it.
The second element is the willingness of the student. The student has to want to learn and this requires a humble submission of the student to the teacher. And that means doing what ever it is the teacher asks of the student in the course of learning that subject, even if the student does not see how this will help. As a lame example I remind ourselves of the classic line of Mr. Miagi "Wax on, Wax off" in the Karate Kid. I had one student last year in a workshop that refused to use a tripod in trying to create a near-far composition using the hyperfocal focus technique, and then complained why the photos were blurry. If the student does not do what is asked of them the lessons cannot be taught. But if they truly want to learn, they will do what is asked, and they will learn.
The third ingredient is time. For knowledge to be transmitted from one person to another, a serious investment in time is required. I can't gaurantee that anyone taking my workshops will be as good as the best photographers out there, but over time and practice, constant practice they can be. I learned photography on my own, with much trial and error and reading. Yet it was not until after 14 years of practice did I ever feel that I was able to teach it to anyone. I am still learning all the time. But when I start a new subject I go in with the intent that I will need sufficient time to learn it.
There is also one other ingredient that I think is very important, and that is the personal relationship between the teacher and the student. There has to be a mutual respect between them, the student looking up to the teacher and the teacher having real compassion for the the student. In my experiences of learning and teaching Islamic Law, we were taught and teach that the student should always supplicate for the forgiveness of their teachers and the teacher should always supplicate for an opening for the student to understand what it is they are studying. In this way a deep mutual respect and love is formed that facilitates the transmission of knowledge.
If you want to be a good photography teacher, then you have to really want your students to learn photography in all its aspects and if you are a studnet then you have to really want to learn the craft itself and look up to your teacher and mentor. And not just take people around on tours to pretty places or want to go to exotic locales with plenty of gear and think that great photos will result. So if teaching is what you are trying to do in your workshops then do so and help the students understand the gear they do have and help them understand that gear does have its limits, otherwise if its touring then I really can't see why your workshop participants having "two-tons" of gear is bothering you? If you understand that great phots can be made with a minimal of gear, teach that to those who come to you seeking photography instruction who carry a photo store on their back.
Marc, I am not trying to be harsh here, even though it does "sound" like I am, but like I said I think you have hit some nerves. In my workshops, I have categorically refused the photo tour model. I want people to learn how to photograph. If they walk away with even a little better understanding of the technical and the artistic then I feel I hve succeded. I have had many repeat students and I have seen them grow as photographers, in thier own visions of the world, but none the less they have grown.
If you read/hear a lot of passionate people talk about how they got into their respective fields - be it dance, singing, sports, or even engineering or architecture, etc - they usually mention getting hooked pretty quickly. "My Mom took me to the symphony and I loved it ever since", "I played in the backyard with my Dad and have been playing ever since", "I got an erector set as a kid and always wanted to build stuff", etc. I think these are the people that have that spark, and just needed to be exposed to the right activity to fan the flames. This doesn't mean they'll be great, just that they have great drive to pursue it.
This doesn't, of course, apply strictly to kids. Particularly in the graphic arts, there are plenty of people who come upon it later in life - the drive was probably always there, but there wasn't any guidance or exposure.
And on the other hand, there are those that might get the same exposure, and don't have the drive or passion. I'm one of the other kids, the ones who don't seem to find that spark. I don't think I'll ever have the passion or drive that Marc or Guy (among others) display. I'm not sure I'll ever call photography more than a hobby. But I know that it wasn't for lack of exposure - having a 35mm course in 5th grade, and having a little Kodak 110 growing up, I still didn't own a camera between the ages of 12 and 29, and didn't care. Obviously, I didn't have that spark or fire. But now that I'm older (the big 3-0, ouch), I've found a bit of drive - to at least capture what I find beautiful or interesting, if not make a greater statement about it, or really connect with it.
I guess the best you can do is expose people to what drive and passion you have - it's ultimately up to them whether or not they love it.
To use the above stated example, I could never have painted like Beirstadt. Not even if my entire life was devoted to it. And I could not have become a pro athlete, nor plenty of other endeavors. This is a little over the top IMO, but believe me, I whole heartedly agree that we should offer as much encouragement as possible, and to site Anil's post again, I would never actually, practically try to critique the artwork of a 7 year old, which is simply counterproductive. I fully believe we should make the attempt to instill confidence and interest and do so with an open mind, regardless of whether it's children or adults.
Kids with Cameras
Photography is such a wonderful art-form that even children (with very little technical expertise) can make images that stir the soul.
It is my dream that one day I too can work with children and expose them to the wonders of nature, the wilderness and of course photography.
And I'll have to throw more work into my photography. Because if above is right and I'll come as close as National Selections
Marko
That is fine, I am not trying to bring religion into this thread, I just used it as an example. Others here who have been around NPN for a while know I use them a lot.
If you were not complaining, that was not the impression I got from your first post opening this trend. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Anil,
Thanks for bringing up the Kids with Cameras organization. I also think photography as a teaching tool for children is an amazing thing. I have been teaching middle school kids for about the last year and a half digital photography, and it absolutely amazes me at what they produce. They are not boxed in to thinking in a certain way yet and their creativeness just flows. It helps them see the world in a very different way as it forces them to "look" and in the end we adults get to see the world through thier eyes - which is very refreshing.
often times though, a personality like that does not make for a good basketball coach because they cannot empathize with inferior talent and therefore get frustrated that their players cannot reach the same level of greatness as they did. Larry Bird quit coaching after three years, Jerry West quit after a year or two, Magic quit after a few games, while many lesser basketball players go on to become great coaches because they know how to get the most out of their role players. good coaches don't think as the role players as being sucky whereas a bad coach might.
I think technical skills and artistic vision are both important and go hand in hand. Some people are naturally gifted with respect to both or either and therefore progress much faster with practice, but probably most everything can be taught, except the passion to learn in the first place.
To use a musical example (since ive been a musician for 20 yrs and a photographer for 3)
I spent 8 hours a day practicing when i first started, trying to be the best. I got fairly decent technically, but others with a genetic advantage could do the same in 1/10th the time. But i had to have the passion in the first place, or i would have got bored. And all that practice enabled me to find a vision, aka 'style', that i couldn't have developed otherwise. So it is with art. I spent many hours as a kid painting, learned everything about composition and color from much trial and error, but when i took a college painting class from a well-known artist, he taught me to break some of the 'rules' that i thought were necessary from all my self-learning, and i became a much better artist in the process. So, yes, even arttistic ability can be taught, provided there is motivation to learn.
As a slight aside, to try to get away with burying a politically incorrect rant in this long post, i quite frankly see a lack of this perspective (the perspective gained through experience with art in all its forms) in the critique forums. Only 10% of the responses to photos posted (i did a count) actually offer any critique. The vast majority involve "WOW", "Awesome photo!" etc. Now, don't get me wrong i believe there is a point to offering encouragement and praise, it's a good thing, but i thought the forums were for "CRITIQUE". How can people learn if they are not willing to suggest change? There's no such thing as a "perfect image". If all the photos on the forums were as awesome as people claimed, we'd all be rich selling our prints. I mean, i like burritos, and i BUY burritos. If all these photos were so awesome, they'd be selling like hotcakes. I wish i had a "dozen great images" like Marc. I think i have 2 or 3. Gives me something to shoot for. OK, end o rant.
I think what can be taught, at least from the student's end, is limited by their desire, technical ability and their natural talent. If I understand where you are coming from Marc, someone's natural ability may be limited and some things in the art of photography can never be learned, or at least, may be limited. Desire plays a big factor too, but if one lacks desire, its a given they'll never reach full potential. I like your example with Beirstadt, as he happens to be one of my favorite painters of all time. I too could never likely paint as well as him despite all the desire and 'technical' expertise in the world. Some students will excel in learning from their teachers, others will struggle to do so. We all know this from going to school.
The teacher is a critical part of learning, so the same basic principles apply IMO (desire, technical ability and talent). Teaching requires somewhat of a different skill set, so a great practitioner may not translate to a great teacher - which can limit what the student can learn. I think the student-teacher interaction is critical on what can be taught. While I think we think landscape photography is a pretty specific subject, there are many different subsets and styles. Based upon your photographs and the manner of which you communicate, the words 'feel' and 'connection' spring to my mind. I think your method of teaching should reflect that as well, and should be targeted to people who feel the same way. I'm not sure of all of your desires and reasons to teach (your adroit skills as a practitioner certainly qualify you on that level), but I'd suggest you translate your photographic strengths to you manner of teaching. I've never taken a photography class or workshop, but the photographic outings you are describing sound much more appealing than the class/field based workshops you always see advertised.
In a sense, I suspect you are already teaching in this manner as evidenced by your posts talking about finding the artist inside and connecting with the environment. I'd say, keep the message coming. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly with it.
Using the basketball example; the most dominant player in the world right now grew up in a
country ( Canada ) in which the sport is vastly overshadowed by other sports, mostly hockey. The participation is meager compared to other countries , the US in particular, most of Europe, Asia, South America . . . yet this skinny little kid , who nobody even seriously bothered to look at play, in 2005 . . .
"Nash became the first Canadian and the second foreign-born player (after Hakeem Olajuwon) to earn the honor.[1] He is the first MVP who did not lead his team in scoring since Dave Cowens in 1972-73. Nash is just the third point guard ever to be named MVP — along with Magic Johnson and Bob Cousy — and only the sixth guard (Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, and Allen Iverson being the others).[1] Nash was the first white player to win the award since Larry Bird in 1986. Nash is also the lowest drafted player to win the award."
in 2006 he won it again. In 2007 , I guess he had an off season . . . he finished second.
Now, I'm sure there are reasons he is such a great player, his whole family is into sports,true.But he certainly isn't the strongest, the fastest, the best jumper. But even his critics, would have to admit, he is one of the most imaginative players, ever. So, is it some genetic gift or the fact that he grew up in an environment that demonstrated the love of the game and the lessons of hard worked being rewarded.
Wayne Gretzky was another skinny little Canadian kid who grew up to be, what most hockey people consider , the greatest hockey player ever. He wasn't the fastest, didn't have the hardest shot, was not a physical player, playing in a game that is so physical it borders on brutal, at times. Was he gifted?
He earned those accolades through hard work, practice and studying the game. His best advantage, like Nash was he learned how to use his imagination, to innovate, to make the players on his team better.
My point is this, it's the use of our imagination that sets us free to be our best,at anything.
Could you paint as well as Beirstadt? Why not? Many people could, why not you?
You pick any painting that he has done and I am very confident that there are many, many painters who could duplicate it so well that you wouldn't be able to recognize the difference. In fact, forgery of major works of Art like that is such a problem, that often experts have to called in to verify that a painting is authentic, sometimes resorting to chemical tests of the pigment and microscopic analysis of the brushstrokes etc. Many times people have bought fake paintings that were verified and later found to be fake.
So what made Beirstadt special, what couldn't they duplicate? That same quality that Nash and "The Great One " displayed.
If you took some people out to one of your favorite spots, as I'm sure you've done, and showed them where to set up, explained how to use the NDGs , taught them how to time the ebb and flow of the wave , demonstrated creative composition and they took the image with similar equipment to yours . . . could we tell the difference between your image and theirs?
But, if you did the same thing except, let them choose the composition, exposure, subject etc. from a camera mounted in same spot, even if they were very competent photographers, you could very well have very different images. Why? Because everybody has a different imagination. That is what makes the difference.
If that is what makes the difference, then why isn't that taught more?
I also have no formal photography training, except one workshop, Freeman Patterson, who is a legend in our field. It lasted a week. He never once looked through my camera, or any one elses that I had seen. I never heard the word F-stop or any other technical term that I can remember being uttered by him. He took us to different areas but that was it, you were on your own and the areas included gravel pits and graveyards, not the naturally beautiful scenes that I expected.
Yet, he so inspired me with his insight and sharing his emotions and most importantly , his imagination , that it changed the way I think about photography in particular and life in general. I'll never forget those lessons as long as I breathe. I would say he is a successful teacher, wouldn't you?
Thanks, Tim