# do f-stops and shutter really matter?



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Interesting response...can i have permission from a moderator to respond before someone interjects and starts calling me an arrongant cunt? And  bins the Thread via erase rather than to allow others to possibly learn something about the difference between professional and amateur photography? If any at all?



I'm not a moderator but my call is just start a new thread and respond honestly without being a cunt!


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Let me try a new analogy: driving a car. If you want to be a Schumacher then obviously you have to know a good bit under the hood. But you can actually be a top notch driver without even knowing how to check the oil. The key point being that trying to figure out loads about your engine won't actually improve your driving when you're initially on the roads.

Back to photography, I'd like to compare two pictures:
alef's Lady in Tiananmen Square 
squelch's Cornish Man 

Your picture has a fantastic level of sharpness requiring lens and expertise I don't have, credit to you! My picture was taken with a disposable    I could never blow this picture up to any size or sell prints, but it works pretty well online. I'm happy with it and very proud of it, though recognize the limitations of the shot. Do I regret not having a better camera with me? No, I love photography and my passions remain colours, shapes, compositions, patterns, textures and so on -- don't give a rat's arse about the f-stop.

If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than _any_ camera!


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 18, 2005)

Are you playing Devil's Advocate here?!

Aperture and shutter speed seem pretty important to me, given that choosing an appropriate depth of field and the pic not being blurred are important qualities in photos!

But a beginner can learn everything they need to know about aperture and shutter speed in an hour. Especially with a digital, where you can see the results instantly. Setting a camera in Program mode seems like a last resort.


Some people take the tecchie side too far though. Like people on dpreview doing 20 minute exposures with the lens cap on to seen how many stuck pixels they have. Or whatever it is. "I have 42 stuck pixels, should I take it back because I want my pictures of my cat/dog/girlfriend to be perfect".


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

I'm genuine in my stance, though of course an hour's training is nothing to be avoided. You are right that it's not that complex.

Disagree about Program mode being a last resort, I think it's fine. Again, like a car, what's wrong with driving an automatic? Yes, using gears gives you more control, but that's not the essence of driving.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than _any_ camera!




So are we going to discuss the physics and chemistry and their combination in photography....or the ability to purchase?....or the personalization of this debate?...which i attempted not to create(even though obviously I did of sorts!LOL) but before i begin my bollocks I'll state again....


My contribution to such debate is honestley *given*... I have been fortunate to have been given by others and the whole reason I give still(even with what has happened repeatedly when i offer knowledge Here) is that this is not "saving lives' but can assist people interested in this subject to appreciate, consider and choose a path to their intended goal.  



With that said *alef * do you wish me to respond to your opening gambits?...with what academic ability and professionalism? Or with emotion and my personal POV?<<<<the Artistic side of me if you will.  


And whaddeva won't do!

It's too sunny outside* and I'm not even at my puta...so I'm making serious effort here!


*funnily enough I don't take many picutres after 10am or before 3pm so I'm not missing much<<<<<whyzzat then?


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Therefore those things don't apply to a critique...interesting stance?
> 
> [changed to black text]interesting spelling + repetiton tooo mate!...think about it?



The other thread is clearly intended for critiquing specific photos, not a debate on general approaches to photography.

Yes, aperture and f-stop are the same thing, just told Skim I'd made the mistake after starting the thread. She assured me someone would point it out quickly    Could a moderator please change this thread title to "do f-stops and shutter really matter?" please?

As for commenting on my spelling and hiding your sniggering comments in small yellow text, how about some genuine debate using ideas and examples?


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Disagree about Program mode being a last resort, I think it's fine. Again, like a car, what's wrong with driving an automatic? Yes, using gears gives you more control, but that's not the essence of driving.



Yeah, but what if you took a pic in Program mode of someone against a confusing background and it selected f8, when f2 would have made a much better pic


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> So are we going to discuss the physics and chemistry and their combination in photography....or the ability to purchase?....or the personalization of this debate?...which i attempted not to create(even though obviously I did of sorts!LOL) but before i begin my bollocks I'll state again....
> 
> My contribution to such debate is honestley *given*... I have been fortunate to have been given by others and the whole reason I give still(even with what has happened repeatedly when i offer knowledge Here) is that this is not "saving lives' but can assist people interested in this subject to appreciate, consider and choose a path to their intended goal.
> 
> ...



If you think I've got too personal then my apologies. I was only choosing to compare a photo of yours to a photo of mine to specifically illustrate the different ends of the spectrum in terms of equipment and expertise.

You've got lots of questions and various asides, but sorry I'm not able to follow your argument here, so am lost as to how to respond.

I genuinely think the technical sides of photography are vastly over-rated and brilliant pictures can be taken with any sensible camera.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Yeah, but what if you took a pic in Program mode of someone against a confusing background and it selected f8, when f2 would have made a much better pic



And if you need to drive through mountains your car may choose the wrong gear, of course there are exceptions. 

Clearly there's a broad spectrum and in a few situations knowledge of the basics of exposure will save you, but the vast majority of the time your energy is better spent on carefully looking around you _through_ the lens not at it.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

ALEF said:
			
		

> You've got lots of questions and various asides, but sorry I'm not able to follow your argument here, so am lost as to how to respond.



This is going to be hard then.

If I am so *obviously* unable to give you a response you can understand, and respond to, maybe it would be better you asked me direct questions; and I will answer to the best of my ability?

And will to the best of my ability stick to only the direct questions being asked?

Fire away.


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

Here's my attempt to get this thread on track...




			
				alef said:
			
		

> If people want to spend loads of money and time on the technical sides of photography, fine, go for it. But if you just want to take interesting pictures then newbies shouldn't feel the need for anything more than _any_ camera!


I think there's a lot of merit in what you say Alef, and obviously many, many millions of newcomers to photography, especially in these times of the digital boom, will only be interested in simply pointing their new handy-all-singing-all-dancing-digi-cam and letting the electronics give them a pretty good "average" image of whatever they were looking at.

However, if you're interested in exploiting the full potential of the medium (photography) then it seems to me that you'll be better off if you have an understanding of the technical and mechanical basics.

My problem is that when I shoot a bad image, I want to know why, so that I can avoid doing it again. I tend to spend way too much time worrying about the technical details of photography during the day, so when I start taking photographs for myself I tend (or try) to let things flow more naturally. Or if you like, a bit more hit and miss. (Or if I'm being really pedantic I'll bracket everything!)

So in answer to the title of the thread, I would say yes, aperture and shutter certainly do matter. But I try not to let them get in the way of a good image.


----------



## Cid (Jun 18, 2005)

Yes they matter, unless you only ever take photographs during the day in good light...

I think one of the problems with the point a click revolution lies in the ability to get a decent picture just by clicking. And this is the thing, they're invariably 'decent' or 'good'. The exceptions tend to be from people (like you) who understand photography (at least the basics) anyway, and know how to compose a picture properly. 

I thought I was fairly good with a camera until I started doing architecture - yes my composition wasn't bad, but when you start talking to pro photographers you open up whole new levels where something that just looks 'good' isn't acceptable. Admittedly I noticed this most with model (as in buildings, not attractive people) photography, which is a fairly specialist field - it's when you need specific results that that disposable camera may as well go out the window. Very true of low light work too - had to photograph an installation at night a few months back, and it was surprisingly hard - autofocus goes to shit when it doesn't have a strong subject, you invariably have to end up making compromises between shutter speed and apeture that I wouldn't trust a camera to do for a second (as is evinced by the auto pictures we took at the time). As it's a one-off you need to make sure you get all your pictures right first time and this only really possible with a good understanding of what's going on in your camera - using shit like bracketing etc. 

I think what I mean is that, if you have a good eye, disposable/auto cameras can yield excellent results when you stumble across a photo op (during the day). But for work that requires excellent and specific results they don't cut it at all. Especially at night, where they're just out-and-out shit. Also much prefer my old Nikon SLR to any other cameras I have - it's simple, but can be fiddled with to produce excellent results (also has fucking good viewfinder design, god knows how Nikon managed to design the annoying D70 focus area - unless I've missed something). Um... It's not really about the technical side as such, just being able to get more out of your photos. Or something.


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

I see what alef means, but I see no reason not to learn how to exploit what you see fully.  The "eye" or whatever, and a degree of technical ability are both necessary to take a good shot, surely?  The balance of those two elements has to depend upon what you intend to do with the medium.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

*it's not important really...it's just what I am?*




			
				Cid said:
			
		

> Um... It's not really about the technical side as such, just being able to get more out of your photos. Or something.




U barrrrrrrrrrrrthstaaaaad!...wish I'd said that!  


As for the rest of yer guff...your NOT wrong either...goddammit...z'wot i've been trying to get across .... for years!...I can die a happy beligerent, bitter and miserable cunt but an 'appy one!  And Corax et al too...where's this coming from...I spent years reading Sontag Berger and Clarke and didn't get near to those opinions except through years of Life experience and pursuit of knowledge...:rubs_Golden_Noddy_badge: 

alef....my man!...your aren't wrong either there's is something else to this malarky too...I'll give you another analogy I think you will understand...how about, "I don't need to know maths sir, I've got a calculator."

Even Your own photgraphy shows a choice of aperture and shutter speed...you choose when to take the shot...the light entering the camera is controlled by the device...I know you think you don't but you do...eventually this becomes style...the style of a photgrapher...when regarded as a _professional_ style is simply repetative...systematic choice of lighting and other variables that will in construct by choice of reproductive media become an image....

Thing is mate...I actually think you have a problem distiguishing between a professional and an amateur photographer?*...a photographer is a photographer is a photographer...just taking photographs doesn't make you a photographer...taking photographs over and over and over and learning through experience how to guarentee the image you wish to record does.

I tried to say this before...the term professional is a very strange word in Photography...it has not ever been a complementary one...it is always used in derrogatory context or in conversation become derrogatory...I assure you it's not my paranoia...gets discussed all the time...I can honestly say I've never heard someone say "Hello I'm a professional photographer."

*You prollly don't know but the Amateurs were the French nouveau riche modernists who stealthily refused to allow industry to make the new Art of Photgraphy, in the early years of the science, to be profittered from...but funnily enough the newly created Industrial Revolution of the US chose to democratically ignored this decision...patented the artform and sold it make to a public that thought it to be a hobbyist fad...and so the weird and wonderfull photgraphy became available to common man..or rather who ever could afford a Box Brownie...and other stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuff....but then when photgraphy became expensive and required technical attention to detail due to new matrials/technology and ultimately better imagery photgraphy was taken to new levels of professionalism...a professional is only someone who has been trained and educated to acquire the skills of his trade.


Btw f3.5@1/8sec ISO160 Lens at rough 85mm...took less than 30 secs to ask,prep,point,shoot...prolly a dozen shots taken>>>presently not to hand so i can't refer direct to...and here's the strange thang..and you know it...I argue myself out of printing...alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time!...I'd rather see a webcam pickee on a monitor that I can feeeel for than a perfect print that I feel nothing for...and also the reverse...it's a photgraphy thang again.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

I do actually agree a fair amount with others here, you can open up more opportunities though good a knowledge of exposures, especially in low light or night situations. I tend to like outdoor day shots and portraits of people by windows, how much this has grown out of necessity I'm not sure.

My gut feeling remains that it's best to start out in photography not bothering in the slightest about the technical details but giving all your attention to the subjects and compositions. Later it's worth learning more, but be careful not to let it inhibit you from just pointing and clicking when needed.


----------



## 1927 (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Let me try a new analogy: driving a car. If you want to be a Schumacher then obviously you have to know a good bit under the hood. But you can actually be a top notch driver without even knowing how to check the oil. The key point being that trying to figure out loads about your engine won't actually improve your driving when you're initially on the roads.
> 
> Back to photography, I'd like to compare two pictures:
> alef's Lady in Tiananmen Square
> ...




But your analogy is bollox!

If you wanna be a Michael Schumacher you dont need to know what happens under the bonnet,but you do need to know the importance of correct gear selection and the effect it has on acceleration fuel consumption etc. In the same way if you wanna be a good-(not neccessarily professional)-photographer you need to know the importance of aperture selection and its effect on such things as depth of field,without knowing how the internal workings of the camera actually work!


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

Yes it does.

By juggling aperture and shutter speed you can selct the depth of field, how deep the area of sharpest focus is.

Low f number, shallow depth of field, so only your subject is sharp.  Great for getting attention and clarity especially if the background is cluttered.

High f number and nearly everything is in focus.  Great for landscapes with a forground subject.

Shifting the focal point is a great effect in video to shift the viewers attention.

Changing shutter speed has other effects in video but i think you want to know for stills use so I wont waffle on.

The bigger the ccd (or film) the shallower dof you can get.  All to do with physics and stuff.

This is a big part of the reason I want a better canera with huge ccds.  Mine are currently .33 inch, better cams are .5 or .66inch and allow more creative control of dof.

Depth of field can also be reduced by using a longer lens or zooming in, a trick I often use cos of my small CCds.

Hope this helps.  I expect others have said the same, I dint read all the previous.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> a trick I often use cos of my small CCds.


<snip waffle>Waffle!

tis different with ccds.thinks?


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> <snip waffle>Waffle!
> 
> tis different with ccds.thinks?


You see squelch... you can contribute sense that even dull old sods like what I am, can understand!   

However, whilst dredging through the page you linked, I found this:


> _Photojournalists have a saying, "f/8 and be there." People interpret the expression differently, but one meaning is that f/8 will give a good picture, and being on the scene is more important than worrying excessively about technical details._


I may have got things completely confused here, but isn't this what Alef is basically saying.....? (Except in his case he was referring to 1/64th instead of f/8.... and if I were more honest, I'd admit to it being a rule of thumb I've used myself occassionally....)


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

No it is the same for film or ccd.... Dont get what you mean.  Cos of some arcane physcis stuff the larger the projected image the smaller effective f number you can get and the shallower the depth of field.

I am not sure of the theory or the correct language to use in decribing this effect, but the effect is real.


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> You see squelch... you can contribute sense that even dull old sods like what I am, can understand!
> 
> However, whilst dredging through the page you linked, I found this:
> 
> I may have got things completely confused here, but isn't this what Alef is basically saying.....? (Except in his case he was referring to 1/64th instead of f/8.... and if I were more honest, I'd admit to it being a rule of thumb I've used myself occassionally....)


 Middleish stops (and zooms) are often where a lens is sharpest and performs best.


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> Middleish stops (and zooms) are often where a lens is sharpest and performs best.


Very true... !


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Again i don't ave things to hand<<dead puta>>>but the thing is on the web somewhere I'm sure...baaaaaaaaaasically the d.o.field, d.o.focus and aperture sizes are directly proportional to the diagonal length of the film size...or some such,,,sorry i'd have to look up the exact thang...prolly will do ina minute...ccd exposure and stuuuuuuuuuuff is a bit different..partially the same...but the adoption of f-stops and focal lengths and the resultant images digitally produced was an industry convinience to allow users to interpretate their previously acquired knowledge...deep breath...and stuuuuufff!

As for the quote...i saw that...and was actually taught that myself by Norman Parkinson(  !!!)...  basically i was in a flap with him over a light meter failing...he said not to panic...showed me to cup my hand slightly and with a reasonale mid grey shadow in the palm you could expect to get a reasonable exposure of f8@1/125 for a 125ASA film...and with more experience and observation you could get a feel for even more acurate exposures...top man and a technique that took away the fear of getting an incorrect exposure with a one shot medium and getting past numbers and stuuuuufff. >>>alsooooo i don't usually do reportagey stuff for papers but was the other weeko)...was asked to attend local Rotary Club Ball,,,spent the evening being larfed at by local papparazzi sporting me 602 and a hand held flash on an extention cable(a la Weege)....while they sported all the latest Nikon blahblahblah20grands worthblahblahblah...guess who got the fullpage 15  picture spread?...and who got the thumnails in the papers index and bugger all else*?  

Bit of the same but slightly different alef? 


*mind u they got paid...I did it for charitttteeeeee!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Very true... !



And so We enter the world of Lenses and their Abberations.


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

Like your story on the pics you shot.  It's cool doing it well the wrong way with bothched stuff.  For video lighting I use those 500 w halogens that cost a fiver.

The way of classing lenses by focal length is all skewed by digital cos of the smaller than 35mm ccd size.   And when it comes to asa numbers and stuff and dig, well I am lost .

What I do know is that i am jealous of hte low noise, high sensitivty and size of you stills peoples silicon.

It's all something to do with the way a vid cam reads the ccd, one line at a time (interline ?) whereas a stills cam grabs it all in one chunk.

Rapidly walking out on thin ice now.....


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> It's cool doing it well the wrong way with bothched stuff.




Which get's us back to alef's point...abit...I work(ed) with the best people and equipment and the worst people and equipment and many combinations of them ALL...and yup the image is the thing in the end...but the means to the end is in the technical application to your tools availablle to you. I have images in my that will stay with me form webcams,126 format(my first thought about pictures), to Hasseblads and Steadycams in remotely operated spheres hanging from helicopters....and I know all the ones that stay with me are there because of the quality of light they captured, subject matter and composition...the spec of aperture and other techy stuff I can see/understand but it coexists...and the better the marriage of those parts the better the whole.

Okay I am getting confusing here!...again!


re-f64:::1/64...here a thing or three::::

1/64:::the general rule of thumb is that the minimum shutter speed useable on a lens of a particular focal length...handheld..is roughly equal...so 8mm@1/8,28mm@1/30,135mm@1/125 etc etc...more physics stuff todo with light/the speed of and shutters...it's slightly different between curtain,iris and digi tooooo...and stufffffffffff!


f64::::the optimum aperture to match maximum d.o.f WITH hand ground lenses where the minimum abberations are found in the centre of the lens...as oppose to factory manufactured lens who use lens combination to reduce abberations...and stuuuuuuuuuuuuuff!


I'm always on thin ice...always!


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

Good pouints and info, so true that the light and the composition, the action, the vibe, the context all come befor all the teccy stuff.  I have missed a few priceless bits of action cos I was fluffing to get the camera set up just 'so'.  Much better just to point and shooot and get the action.

' steadicams in spheres hanging form a copter'  , Oh I am so envious of you.  I am new to all this and still at the vinegar and brown paper end of things and I dream of stedicams and even (gulp) getting paid to touch one one day.... ahhhhhh......


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> Much better just to point and shooot and get the action.




like this oh tierney,tierney,tierney! ?


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

Nicey if a bit pricey, but those look like..... carefully set up expensive camera with much thought and expirience....... then quickly grab that action shot.


----------



## Cid (Jun 18, 2005)

Okkkk, this is all starting to get a bit much for me... Heat's getting to me, will have a cold beer and attempt to get my head round stuff. Think I know what you nutjobs are talking about, but am gonna have a swift leaf through some photography books (my sis picked up life magazine's: The techniques of photography for £1 from come charity shop - haven't got through much, but seems quite good, if a bit old).

To get back to the point - when I go out to take photos i take my FM2n (luvverly old Nikon job), a 50mm lens and a 28mm lens. 's all i need and want (though I sometimes take a sigma 105mm macro/tele). Find a spot that typifies the lighting, set the 28mm to infinite and the 50 to about 3m, set the shutter speed and step out into the big wide world. Invariably change everything, but the changes are quick and simple. The main reason I love it is the viewfinder - it's a work of genius imo, and should've been carried into later SLRs.







Central circle (split image) is stupidly good for focusing on anything with edges, next  circle (focuses when shimmering stops) is good for fast moving objects, outer (goes from matt to clear) - good for everything else. It means you can change focus quickly and confidently in response to light/subject etc. With an auto camera it'd do all this for me, but the results just wouldn't cut it imo - if I see a photo op like this I want the subject in stronger focus than the backdrop, or with this I want a feeling of movement that requires a slow shutter speed, even though it's in daylight conditions (not that those images are great mind you, quite old). Could never do that with a point and click auto jobbie, and tbh learning your way around a nice ol' slr isn't hard and is rewarding.

Then we come back to indoor work - this is taken with a powershot A70... It's not bad as such, and I actually only used a few desk lamps for illumination but it could be better, and from my tutor's point of view it has to be the best ('s a model of a building I was designing last year, sadly model was thrown away and I never finished the project ). All settings are on auto iirc, except that it's with 'slow' shutter speed. And this is the thing - with a bit of extra work and an SLR that would've been a perfect(ish) pic. 

I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at - on the one hand I think a camera you take out with you for enjoyment etc has to be simple enough that you don't miss a good photo op, on the other it has to be customisable enough that that 'good' shot can be superb.  's all a bit confusing tbh.

Now to get back to that beer


----------



## untethered (Jun 18, 2005)

"f-stops and shutter" and all the other technical knowledge about photography matter, but they're not the only thing that matters.

The very first thing that matters about photography is subject matter. Start with something to say that's worth saying and you're at least half way there. Start with nothing to say and it matters little what else follows. I'm always bemused by people that are interested in "photography" as if it's an end in itself. They are excited by the process and flail around helplessly looking for something to apply it to. It's like people that say they want to "write" but when questioned haven't the faintest idea what about and have little engagement with real life or any definite opinions about it.

So the absolute golden rule is to remember it's the medium, not the message. Put another way (badly misquoted, probably): "There's nothing more depressing than a sharp picture of a blurry idea."

There are people that love cameras and all the paraphernalia of photography. That's fine. Many of these people call themselves photographers. They can call themselves what they like. If they want to spend more time reading (and writing) equipment reviews and defending their choices against others', that's up to them. Some people would rather spot trains than get on one to go somewhere. I once met a guy with a collection of sixty Leicas. He was nearly blind and had never shot a single frame. It takes all sorts.

Some people are obsessed with the technical process of photography and are highly skilled at it. Nonetheless, they have little to say and no passion for anything other than photography. Fine.

But what if you do have something to say? Doesn't it make sense to learn how to say it as eloquently as possible? To expand your repertoire, your range?

We all know that cameras are getting much better at automating many of the technical aspects of photography. This means that many people can now get technically-good photos in many situations without having to know anything much about what's going on inside the camera. That still leaves composition and timing and in my experience it's a lot harder to teach people how to do this effectively than to teach them the basics of exposure (or focus). No amount of aesthetic training can teach anyone how to find something that's worth shooting.

What about the situations where we don't want a "good" exposure? Where we want to do something different? What about extremely long and extremely short exposures where the normal rules don't apply?

Many types of photography just can't be done on "auto". The situations are too complex and usually they require equipment (eg. large or medium format) that typically doesn't have much or any auto.

Photos stand on their own merits at the end of the day. It matters little after the event who took them and how they did it. But who can argue against the idea that knowing more about what you're doing gives you many more opportunities to shoot in difficult situations, to choose creatively between one technique and another? Is this ever a disadvantage? Not in my experience.

I'd favour the passionate photographer with little technical skill over the techno-fetishist with nothing to say any day. But I'd also encourage them to learn as much as they possibly can and I don't think I've ever met a really keen photographer that was doing it for a purpose that didn't try to learn as much as they could.

Two words of caution. Passionate photographers that start learning technical skills can get bogged down in the details and lose the bigger picture. It happens but the good ones constantly refocus on their subject matter.

Also, motivated people that are learning always go through a phase when they start taking worse photos than when they started. The technical skills haven't been fully learned and the process itself distracts them from the subject. Often, they get it wrong. (Every photographer sometimes gets it wrong.) But soon enough they come out the other side and making good technical decisions becomes almost automatic.

f/8 and be there? That sounds like macho bullshit typical of some photojournalists. "Be there" is obviously what it's all about in every area of photography and often the very best go to insane and devious lengths to be where the action is that the second-raters just can't manage. But at the same time, I've never met a photojournalist (at least at the national press level) that didn't know what they were doing. Tales of dodging bullets are more exciting than those of ploughing through the books. Given the choice of technical competence and being there, you'd be there. In practice, the first is a given and the second is where the effort goes on the day.

Professional or amateur? It's about money and absolutely nothing else. Show me the invoices and you're a pro. No invoices and you're an amateur. It says nothing whatsoever about ability either way. Ironically, many amateurs dream of being pro while many pros dream of being an amateur and having the freedom to shoot whatever they like. Sometimes life really sucks.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Sometimes life really sucks.



Or sometimes you take control of your life rather than allowing your life to control you.

professional 

Spoken like a true pro!


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Ironically, many amateurs dream of being pro while many pros dream of being an amateur and having the freedom to shoot whatever they like. Sometimes life really sucks.


A passionate post indeed untethered, and I can see that the many other posters in this thread are actually all basically saying the same thing... It's just a question of degree.

BTW, interesting choice of name, "untethered"... nothing to do with photography is it?   

I'm not sure about the "be there" being what it's all about in every area of photography. Maybe the expression quoted is macho bullshit, for photojournalists, but let's not forget there are many other areas of professional photography that require painstaking technical ability as a fundamental pre-requisite, over and above a creative 
"eye".

Which brings us back to your definition of a professional: 



			
				untethered said:
			
		

> Professional or amateur? It's about money and absolutely nothing else. Show me the invoices and you're a pro. No invoices and you're an amateur. It says nothing whatsoever about ability either way.


I wholeheartedly agree....especially with the last sentence!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> I'm genuine in my stance, though of course an hour's training is nothing to be avoided. You are right that it's not that complex.
> 
> Disagree about Program mode being a last resort, I think it's fine. Again, like a car, what's wrong with driving an automatic? Yes, using gears gives you more control, but that's not the essence of driving.



I guess it depends what you want to do, also, how fussy you are.

I always used to bracket my shots, just to see what different settings would do with the same image. There could be quite a bit of difference.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Btw, both the alef and squelch pics at the beginning are very striking, very powerful.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

There is pretty much a complete consensus across this thread. To give more context to my motivations, it's because I wince when posts in this forum go off too technical for fear of alienating people. 

At urbanite events in Brixton people naturally ask my username and I explain that I mostly just post in Photography. "I've been in there a few times and just read about lens!" and other similar remarks are comebacks I often hear.

Also, I get wound up by overly pushy techie photography shop staff. Remember one place in the US where I was vaguely asking about a 35mm SLR and the guy said "What, you've never heard of matrix metering?! Well then you need to buy this [insanely expensive camera]" I walked straight out.

These are tangential issues to the title of this thread, but it's very important to emphasise that great photographs don't _require_ any technical knowledge.

Of course there's loads more you can do with fully understanding exposures and depth of field, but it should always be at least second to the subject itself -- which I think is pretty much what everyone here has said. And Paul was partially right, I was playing a bit of Devil's Advocate on this to exaggerate my point. I am glad I can set depth of field when I want to, though I rarely bother...


----------



## Zaskar (Jun 18, 2005)

Aye to that alef.  But oh how I wish I could get a shallower dof.  Roll on the dsr 570.... s  i  g  h  ......


----------



## alef (Jun 19, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Btw, both the alef and squelch pics at the beginning are very striking, very powerful.


Cheers  All my pictures taken while travelling in the Far East were with a disposable camera after my Rollei 35 was stolen, quite happy with the results generally.

My main interest in SLRs has been more accurate compositions rather than aperture controls, but digitals solve that issue very well indeed.


----------



## untethered (Jun 19, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> There is pretty much a complete consensus across this thread. To give more context to my motivations, it's because I wince when posts in this forum go off too technical for fear of alienating people.



If the point is about technique, fair enough. But there's more to photography than technique. It doesn't mean the subject should be off-limits. I imagine the range of tech ability of people here covers the complete spectrum.




			
				alef said:
			
		

> Also, I get wound up by overly pushy techie photography shop staff. Remember one place in the US where I was vaguely asking about a 35mm SLR and the guy said "What, you've never heard of matrix metering?! Well then you need to buy this [insanely expensive camera]" I walked straight out.



Photo shops (and by extension, most photo magazines) are a curse on the whole field. Their job is to flog you stuff whether you need it or not on the flimsy proposition that it will improve your photographs.




			
				alef said:
			
		

> These are tangential issues to the title of this thread, but it's very important to emphasise that great photographs don't _require_ any technical knowledge.



I really don't agree with that if what you're suggesting that people should regard technical knowledge as an optional extra that wouldn't benefit you even if you knew it. Individual great photos may be taken by people with no knowledge, but if you want to take consistently good photos then the more you know the better. This is especially so if you're required (for whatever reason) to come up with the goods in a specific unrepeatable situation rather than just shooting for fun in the hope that you get a few good shots.

At what point a good shot becomes a great one is highly subjective so I'll leave that to one side.




			
				wordie said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the "be there" being what it's all about in every area of photography. Maybe the expression quoted is macho bullshit, for photojournalists, but let's not forget there are many other areas of professional photography that require painstaking technical ability as a fundamental pre-requisite, over and above a creative
> "eye".



I entirely agree that some areas of photography require different technical skills than others and in some it's possible to get by on a minimum. That said, most photojournalists I know have a lot of technical ability. Their skills are different in many respects to people who, for example, shoot interiors. This seems to be what you're getting at: the massive diversity of photography. Many types of work require a ton of lighting and that's where much of the technical skill is employed. They simply can't be done on a point-and-shoot but it makes no difference who presses the shutter release if you've just spent half a day rigging the shot.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2005)

You can take great shots with a point and shoot/auto-everything camera, but if you wish to retain any kind of control in changing conditions, you're simply going to have to learn the relationship between f-stops and apertures and get a grasp of the basics of photography.

Otherwise you'll most likely be very disappointed with the results.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 19, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> These are tangential issues to the title of this thread, but it's very important to emphasise that great photographs don't _require_ any technical knowledge..



No, they don't. Just like there are great guitarists who can't read music. But understanding how to thoroughly operate your instrument, in this case a camera, might just make it a little bit easier to get it to do exactly what you want it to do, without excess trial and error, and without relying too much on luck.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 19, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Cheers  All my pictures taken while travelling in the Far East were with a disposable camera after my Rollei 35 was stolen, quite happy with the results generally.
> 
> My main interest in SLRs has been more accurate compositions rather than aperture controls, but digitals solve that issue very well indeed.



I used to use a manual Pentax SLR. I spent some time reading, and it didn't seem too hard to figure out how to alter images using f stop and shutter speed. I don't understand your resistance to manually controlling your camera.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 19, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> Aye to that alef.  But oh how I wish I could get a shallower dof.  Roll on the dsr 570.... s  i  g  h  ......



In the old days, you'd get flat depth of field by pushing the film to two or three times above its ISO rating. I don't know how you'd do it with a digital.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 19, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Photo shops (and by extension, most photo magazines) are a curse on the whole field. Their job is to flog you stuff whether you need it or not on the flimsy proposition that it will improve your photographs.
> 
> .



Salespeople are the curse, or at least, their quotas are. If you go into a computer shop, or a car dealership, or whatever, not knowing much about what it is you're planning to buy, you can walk out paying way too much for way too little, or with something you didn't really want or need. It isn't specific to camera stores for this to happen.

You get around it by knowing a little bit about what it is you intend to purchase.


----------



## wordie (Jun 19, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> Aye to that alef.  But oh how I wish I could get a shallower dof.  Roll on the dsr 570.... s  i  g  h  ......


Well you may have to go back to the old fashioned filmakers tricks to get it.... things like gauze screens on the other side of your subject etc,....

There's ways and means even if you can't get your DOF in the camera. Unfortunately like a lot of old trades, the cinematography seems to be a dying one, now that digital seems to be king.


----------



## untethered (Jun 19, 2005)

Huge depth of field in small digital cameras is of course both a blessing and a curse. At least with a compact digital you know you're going to get huge DOF which for most people, most of the time is what you want.

Cameras like the Nikon D70 that have a sensor two-thirds the size of 35mm really give the worst of both worlds. (I like it otherwise.) If you're not careful you can end up with DOF just short of infinity so that your backgrounds are slightly out but not entirely. This tends to look like a mistake rather than intention. Yes, with care you can get round this but it's hard to adjust from a 35mm mindset to a camera that appears similar but has subtle rather than dramatic DOF differences.

Cameras like the Mamiya ZD which they describe as "medium-format digital" have 645-sized sensors and use 645 lenses, so presumably they have the same DOF characteristics as the film equivalent. Not that I can afford one of those but prices are always falling.

As for "digital being king" which I'm sure has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere, unless you're doing pro work where your clients demand a particular medium, if you've still got film kit and are happy to use it, there's absolutely nothing to say that you shouldn't continue to do so. It hasn't magically got any worse just because something else is on the market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2005)

To me (and I know I'm being simplistic) there are three things that will help you be able to take good pictures; a knowledge of basic photographic principles, a knowledge of your camera and its limitations, and an eye for composition.

Bert Hardy (one of my photographic heroes although I'm sure some people will say "who?"   ) legendarily took one of his most well-known pictures, "maidens in waiting" with a fixed aperture (f11) twin-speed shutter (1/50 and T if i recall correctly) box camera. He made the camera's limitations work in his favour, had a good eye for a picture, and (IMHO) pulled off a cracker that people still buy prints of 50-odd years after he took the photo.

So (imho) knowing your kit (and its limitations) and knowing a bit about technique, allied with developing a good eye for composition may not be absolutely essential in an age of all-singing all-dancing  digital cameras, but they *will* help you get the best you possibly can out of what you have.


----------



## wordie (Jun 19, 2005)

untethered said:
			
		

> Huge depth of field in small digital cameras is of course both a blessing and a curse. At least with a compact digital you know you're going to get huge DOF which for most people, most of the time is what you want.


Exactly.... which is why, in a metaphoric if not absolute sense, digital has come to be seen as the current king!   




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> Cameras like the Nikon D70 that have a sensor two-thirds the size of 35mm really give the worst of both worlds. (I like it otherwise.) If you're not careful you can end up with DOF just short of infinity so that your backgrounds are slightly out but not entirely. This tends to look like a mistake rather than intention. Yes, with care you can get round this but it's hard to adjust from a 35mm mindset to a camera that appears similar but has subtle rather than dramatic DOF differences.


Well this is part and parcel of the entire discussion here is it not.... the move from a 35mm mindset to an almost, but not quite, digital equivalent. For many, the technicalities of photography, especially when you've got hold of a DSLR which is touted to be all things to all photographers, have just become that much more complex. Exactly the point you've made untethered... which becomes tacit acceptance of (or would that be sympathy with) Alef's POV.




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> Cameras like the Mamiya ZD which they describe as "medium-format digital" have 645-sized sensors and use 645 lenses, so presumably they have the same DOF characteristics as the film equivalent. Not that I can afford one of those but prices are always falling.


I can't speak for the Mamiya, but I think the inherent insensitivity of digital as opposed to film, doesn't make this as cut and dried as it might at first appear. IME using a Canon 1DSMk2, which has a CMOS sensor that is the same equivalent size as 35mm film, the DOF characteristics are considerably more tricky... than with a Nikon 35mm film SLR - if memory serves me correctly.




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> As for "digital being king" which I'm sure has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere, unless you're doing pro work where your clients demand a particular medium, if you've still got film kit and are happy to use it, there's absolutely nothing to say that you shouldn't continue to do so. It hasn't magically got any worse just because something else is on the market.


I agree wholeheartedly, but I have to say that with many, many clients demanding faster turnaround as well as greater input into the entire process - (IMO a by product of everyone owning a digi cam I might add) plus the growing inability of clients to actually make a firm decision, meaning variations on a theme are presented to see whichever one the client's wife prefers... it's a brave pro that either hasn't already invested in a digital capture and workflow system or isn't considering it... 

Whilst film is in many ways superior to digital, the professional photographic process has become more complex and competitive, and to be blunt, creative expectations have diminished as well, making digital, at least in the common perception, king at the moment.

However, most of this, whilst interesting is not really the discussion the thread was originally inviting. Sorry for the derail....


----------



## mauvais (Jun 20, 2005)

The point seems to be you can take good photos without knowing anything about what's going on. This is undeniably true. However if you have to take as many pictures as you have to buy lottery tickets in order to achieve that, then it's not really useful in any way.

There's plenty you can do on full automatic, and frankly most shots won't be massively worse off for it; with film and often digital, especially if you have a good camera and are shooting RAW, you have a little more flexibility for altering the exposure via post-processing.

However there are lots of things you know you can't do with an automatic compact - for example, air shows, birds and butterflies. Fast moving objects dictate that you obviously need a fast shutter, and that it's a small dark object against a huge bright sky means that you need to really fiddle with the timing and aperture to get it right. Helicopters are even worse because if you get any aspect of that wrong, you get rotor stop and it looks a bit daft.

I found that night photography with a cheap digital compact was very difficult because it was hard to focus on, or tell if the subject was focused. Macro was also extremely difficult, despite the camera being capable on paper. You couldn't do any long-exposure creative stuff either, because you had no control. This wasn't a terrible camera; it's just intended for beginners or occasional amateurs.

In conclusion then, you can shoot any number of common or garden scenes on auto, but they're not necessarily the best shots. There are many situations where you require more control for technical reasons to take any usable shot at all, and there are many more where it's DOF that makes the shot, and you don't get that in auto.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 20, 2005)

I remember reading some journo or critic assessing REM's Michael Stipe photographic "work" and saying "he wouldn't know a f-stop from a bus stop", which I thought was good...


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 20, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> "he wouldn't know a f-stop from a bus stop", which I thought was good...



I prefer his photography to his music.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 20, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> I prefer his photography to his music.



Great band til 1990-ish. Erratic/DULL since. Should have split when the drummer left.

Sorry, back to photography!


----------



## snadge (Jun 20, 2005)

I'll stick me twopenneth in here, one of the things that I hated about my olympus c3000 was it's seemingly infinite depth of field over which I wanted control, used in the right picture DOF can make or break it.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> I'll stick me twopenneth in here, one of the things that I hated about my olympus c3000 was it's seemingly infinite depth of field over which I wanted control, used in the right picture DOF can make or break it.



Yeah, the curse of the tiny sensor!

Another "depth of field" shot taken at the weekend:

relaxation

An example of a pic that if I'd had the camera set on Program, it would probably picked f8 or something and the background wouldn't have been as out of focus as I wanted... I think this was taken at f4.


----------



## sajana (Jun 21, 2005)

Elaborate discussion. With valid points for technical knowldege, am sure. But frankly apertures bore me. 

and usually makes me think that people who know try to show themselves off as "better photographers."    


here is a picture of a street play, i took some months ago. the top-left (or is it right? ) could have done with some less burn. would F-stops have helped? don't know. or what of DoF?   


Ring side view

i think subjects and composition count more for me rather than tech know-how.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 21, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> here is a picture of a street play, i took some months ago. the top-left (or is it right? ) could have done with some less burn. would F-stops have helped? don't know. or what of DoF?
> 
> 
> Ring side view
> ...


But that's presumably at hyperfocal focus, so it doesn't matter. There is no variance in distance of field in that shot, so the issue doesn't apply. It's a good picture, but inherently it doesn't rely on aperture, DOF etc.


----------



## sajana (Jun 21, 2005)

three cheers for uncomplicated photography


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 21, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> here is a picture of a street play, i took some months ago. the top-left (or is it right? ) could have done with some less burn. would F-stops have helped? don't know. or what of DoF?
> 
> 
> Ring side view



Yeah, it's a shame about the overexposed bit at the top, which draws my eye away from the "action" straight away. Would you consider cropping it as a last resort? Shame, as the man looking down from the balcony is a nice touch.

Having said that, my eye is alway drawn to the imperfections in pictures (especially my own). Maybe most people would concentrate on the "action" and not even notice. I don't know.


----------



## untethered (Jun 21, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> Elaborate discussion. With valid points for technical knowldege, am sure. But frankly apertures bore me.
> 
> and usually makes me think that people who know try to show themselves off as "better photographers."



When photographers post their own pictures online and when you see things in photo magazines, very often you get the full technical spec: shutter speed, aperture, film/ISO, camera, lens. In 99% of cases this is just too much information. Before I knew about photography I assumed that once I learned it, this information would magically tell me something that would improve my pictures. It doesn't. If anything, it just confuses people because they might think that doing the same thing will give them the same results.  It probably won't. If you know photography well you can broadly speaking work out the relevant technical details yourself in as much as it really makes a difference. Knowing the exact details is almost never relevant. More's the point, I've never bothered recording tech details for general photos I've taken, only for sequences of shots that are purely technical experiments. Digital cameras now record all this for you but again, I rarely bother to check it.




			
				sajana said:
			
		

> here is a picture of a street play, i took some months ago. the top-left (or is it right? ) could have done with some less burn. would F-stops have helped? don't know. or what of DoF?
> 
> Ring side view
> 
> i think subjects and composition count more for me rather than tech know-how.



But this is entirely the point. Unless you know what you're doing, much of the time you're not going to make the best of a shot and sometimes it's not going to work at all. I'm not for a second suggesting that you or anyone else should go out and learn more. If you're happy doing what you do, fine. However, the more you know the better your pictures are going to be. Whether you think it's worth the extra effort is down to the individual.


----------



## Corax (Jun 21, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a shame about the overexposed bit at the top, which draws my eye away from the "action" straight away. Would you consider cropping it as a last resort?


With some careful selection, would tweaking the levels in that area be a goer?


----------



## sajana (Jun 22, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> With some careful selection, would tweaking the levels in that area be a goer?




photoshop?


----------



## Corax (Jun 22, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> photoshop?


Yes.....


----------



## stdPikachu (Jun 22, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> photoshop?



You can't add details with photoshop that weren't in the image to begin with (unless you want to fabricate the entire scene, in which case learning 3DS Max would probably be a more worthwhile hobby). Image editing suites are fine for changing scratches, colour balances and the like (getting correct temperature pictures on slide film under varied FL lighting is next to impossible) Hence the image needs to be properly exposed in the first place.

All these people saying that mucking about with different f-stops and the like is pointless obviously haven't done any technically taxing photography, such as macro work. Sure, there's a time and a plce for auto-everything, but don't knock the tried and tested approach of "getting it right".


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 22, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> used in the right picture DOF can make or break it.



Bang on. It's everything in commercial photography. 
One of the first questions I ask my art directors on a job is what DOP are we going for. It toatally gives the feel and accent of the work context. eg when I shoot for magazine A, the 'look' as dictated by the DOP that there readers respond to is mid range, quite long (11 - 16): For mag B the look may be full open (2.8 - 4.5) for product still life it's usually tight as - every tiny detail in focus (45 - 64). 
It's the cornerstone of creative image making.


----------



## Chorlton (Jun 22, 2005)

time spent worrying about DOF and the rest in the field would be better spent taking pics and worrying about it later in tattieshop... 

Original - not arsed about DOF:




Potatoshopped afterwards to remedy that:


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 22, 2005)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> time spent worrying about DOF and the rest in the field would be better spent taking pics and worrying about it later in tattieshop...




No, that's just lazy practise. 
Get a grip on DOP (which is not rocket science) and you wouldn't need to 'worry' about it - you'd be able to apply it creativly and not have to dick around in p'shop later. "I'll sort it out in photoshop" is the mantra of the photographer who can't be arsed to properly learn the skill of taking an image in camera.


----------



## Chorlton (Jun 22, 2005)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> "I'll sort it out in photoshop" is the mantra of the photographer who can't be arsed to properly learn the skill of taking an image in camera.



darn straight....

its also the mantra of a photographer who doesn't want to spend all day dicking  about outside and can be relaxing with a can and a bat in front of photshop later....

i am of course, saying these comments tongue in cheek, but it is something that i has been crossing my mind, better to learn the art of photography the way it was or to embrace technology and learn how to maxmise the potential of potatoshop? I think no one would argue its a wee bit of both but i think that knowing your way round after effects is becoming much more imporant in these days of more forgiving cameras and more pwerful editing tools

I think there is mibbe a wee bit of snobbery creeping in about photoshop and i'm not sure where its coming from - of course some people will always go overboard with it, its like anything else but subtle tweaks in photoshop are surely no different to dark-room trickery of the past? except maybe its easier and more immediate which may be the problem


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 22, 2005)

In answer to the original question it all depends on what you are trying to achieve with your photograph. Good photo's can exist without knowledge of f-stops and shutter speeds, but try taking a photo of a fast moving object without a high shutter speed and you won't get what you want. Or try taking a photo of a night scene with a disposable camera and you'll get a heap of crap.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 22, 2005)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> better to learn the art of photography the way it was or to embrace technology and learn how to maxmise the potential of potatoshop?
> 
> [/size]



As a professional I do both but the later is redundant without the former.



> but i think that knowing your way round after effects is becoming much more imporant in these days of more forgiving cameras and more pwerful editing tools



Mis-guided. Again relying on your camera - or rather the camera's computer to 'forgive' you is lazy. I do not rely on my re toucher to forgive any mistakes. I give him images that are as near perfect as I can create them in camera and then we work magic so the client has exactly what they want. If the source is of poor quality (and I'm not talking file size!), there is some but not much p'shop can do.



> I think there is mibbe a wee bit of snobbery creeping in about photoshop and i'm not sure where its coming from



No snobbery mate  Last week I was working on a £25k Imacon/Hassleblad system with the captures going down the pipe to a retoucher on a duel pro G5 and at the end of the day, one file ran to 78 layers and 2.8GB - 6 images to make one image - but each composite had to be photographicly bang on to start with... IN CAMERA.

As a professional, I just wouldn't get away with not knowing in detail, every aspect of how to take a picture traditionally - And it's something I feel strongly about - that's all


----------



## Chorlton (Jun 22, 2005)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> As a professional......I do not rely on my re toucher to forgive any mistakes. ... I was working on a £25k Imacon/Hassleblad system...




ahhh... we're coming at this from very different angles then - i'm firing shots off on a budget D-SLR while i'm at a wedding or at on a mountain walk - not paying my mortgage with them - so yes i take your point it is very important for you. And not so for me.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 23, 2005)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> embrace technology and learn how to maxmise the potential of potatoshop? [/size]



BTW, what's the potential of ordering root crops online got to do with f stops?


----------



## atomik (Jun 25, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> Elaborate discussion. With valid points for technical knowldege, am sure. But frankly apertures bore me.
> 
> and usually makes me think that people who know try to show themselves off as "better photographers."


Hmmm. Sounds like inverse snobbery to me. 

While it's perfectly possible to take a blinding picture with zero knowledge of photography (and gawd knows, I've taken enough of those in my time!), understanding the technical functions of your camera can only enhance your ability to produce such shots on demand. Looking back over my old photos, I curse some of the opportunities I missed because I lacked a proper understanding of photography.


----------

