A photography lesson from a person who is not passionate about photography. . .

[navilluspm]

. . . but passionate about the subject.

Hi all,

My wife is starting to teach me about photography even though she does not know a whole lot about it. It annoys me how she was always asking me how to set the camera, and would refuse to read the manual or basic books about photography. She does not want to "get into" photography and that puzzles me. Why? Because she is really good at taking pictures!

I gave her our Canon Rebel XTI with the "plastic fantastic" (50/1.8) on it. I told her that it was her camera and (becasue she was questioning the cost) that I would not buy any other lenses unless she wanted one.

Well, she started using it. She like it, but complained a bit about how she can't fit everything in the frame. "Do you want a new lens?" I asked. "No, I will make it work," she said.

And she did. No more complaining. She just uses the camera. She uses the simple setting, and is starting to learn how to manipulate the aperture to get that "blurry background" that looks so cool. She loves the looks of indoor pictures without a flash and is starting to get the basics of custom white balance.

But the biggest thing she is learning is story telling. She is not passionate about photography, but she loves our children who are young. She is trying to chronicle events and milestones in their live to scrapbook them. She is so passionate about them, that she shoots a lot, tries different angles, all with the same lens. And . . . . She is getting really good. She is able to make a simple event look beautiful. She is able to capture the emotion and story.

She use to want me to take pictures of the kids, but her pictures really rival mine. I tell her this but she still doesn't buy it because: I am the guy with the passion for cameras, lenses and photography. But that is exactly why her pictures are good and mine are technically good, but not better than hers. I am always thinking about things from a technical point of view - aperture, focal length, position. I complain about not having the right lens and get frustrated. My wife, with her plastic fantastic, is focused on the subject - the children. She uses what she has in the moment, and does not let what she doesn't have frustrate her. One camera and one lens is all she needs, and she has proven that. She is taking great pictures.

The lesson I am learning from her is this: be passionate about the subject. Use what you have, and don't be side tracked by what you don't have. Your pictures will be a lot better, as well as your story telling!

Anyway: thanks for reading this rambling.

 

[nico]

. . . The lesson I am learning from her is this: be passionate about the subject. Use what you have, and don't be side tracked by what you don't have. Your pictures will be a lot better, as well as your story telling!

Amen!
I agree with you and her about being passionate about the subject!
Thanks for sharing,
Ciao 🙂

 

[yanidel]

This is another way to state the one lens for everything dilemna.
While her pictures are good with the 50mm, maybe given ones would have been even better with a 15mm for example ? She won't know unless she tries.

 

[vdonovan]

Some of my favorite photographs in the world were taken by young teens in a weekend photography workshop. They barely knew enough technique to compose and expose a decent photograph, but the energy and passion of their subjects (mostly friends, family and neighborhood) burst through any limitations.

 

[oftheherd]

This is another way to state the one lens for everything dilemna.
While her pictures are good with the 50mm, maybe given ones would have been even better with a 15mm for example ? She won't know unless she tries.

Probably not. Not until she is ready, and she will probably tell the OP when she is. Until then, leave her alone to learn with that one lens. When she has squeezed everything out of that lens there is to squeeze out of it, she will let you know. Either directly, or by some means. She may ask to try something else, complain about not getting some shots she wants, or seeming to lose interest.

Good luck on figuring that out if it happens, since she may not even realize the problem.

In the long run, you and your children are very lucky.

 

[Henk]

Indeed, let us not forget that the camera is (just) the tool, not the means.

A Leica M is a great tool though 🙂

 

[Nh3]

Women usually take more pleasing pictures than men.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Kodak traditionally referred to the principal buyer of colour negative films as 'she', on the grounds that mothers photographing families were, in fact, their most important customers.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[capitalK]

I find I often like photos from people who are, for lack of a better description, a little "crazy." People who seem scatterbrained or just a little bit "loopy" in person.


I think they just see the world differently. I used to deal with one woman through an old job who I couldn't stand, she just seemed like a complete flake and knew nothing about her camera. When I saw her photos for the first time my jaw was on the floor.

I'm not saying your wife is crazy, that's just been my experience 😀

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

Thanks for the "ramble!"

 

[Carlsen Highway]

Thanks for that - I have a similiar situation with my wife. She is not interested in "photography' - but she makes great photographs.
I tried to explain the way to tell exposure without a meter, and she nearly strangled me.
The last thing that people like this want to hear about or be told is that photogrphay is complicated, or a 'technical' art, or you have to have this lens, and that lens....
They have already realised that is not at all, and resent having their heads muddled up with irrelevancies.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I was talking to a chap called Jocelyn Bain-Hog who recently joined the VII agency about another guy who joined them. He was stating his opinion that this guy was no great shakes as a photographer but because of the passion for his subjects and the simple fact that he got off his backside and completed his projects meant that he always came home with the pictures and always had pictures worthy of repeated viewing that told a story.

You just can't knock passion...and the ability to get off your arse and do it.

 

[daveywaugh]

That was a great little story and excellent advice. Thanks.

 

[Rayt]

In photography it is possible to separate the art from the craft. This has been a point of contention for many decades. Some people say Ansel is more about craft than art as compared to the likes of Warhol who alledgely didn't know how to properly operate a camera. I prefer the analogy of a composer who can create a symphony but cannot play most of the instruments.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Just what I needed to read today. Thanks for sharing. I am travelling down a similar road but coming from the other end. I am finding that I am doing better and better photography with less and less gear. I am even contemplating the one camera/one lens thing... horror of horrors!

What is that about another M5 in my signature...

 

[Bob Michaels]

Eudora Welty, another one of my favorite photographers, comes to mind. Yet she certainly was not enthused about cameras, owning only a few in her life. I believe she only owned one respectable camera. When that was lost or stolen, she never replaced it thus ending her photographic work.

Her work is so pure and documentary at it's best.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

This whole thing about being averse to learning about the technical side of operating an instrument just made me think of a book I first read back in the late 1970's:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence - Alan Pirsig

In actuality - it had virtually nothing to do with Motorcucle Maintainence . . . but it was a fabulous book nevertheless.

Paul

 

[raid]

Yes, but what about fondling "the other lenses"!
What about collecting lenses and inspecting them each day?

OK... I get the message. One lens will do. The 50mm lens rules.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

My girlfriend told me that she had taken photography in high school years ago but hadn't been able to do much because she couldn't afford a camera, so she had to use one the school owned (which several students shared). She wanted me to teach her, since she had forgotten what she'd learned. I put an Olympus OM-4T with 50mm f1.8 lens in her hands.

She wanted some technical knowledge: "I don't want to use auto mode, I want to do it manually and learn how it works" I told her to set exposure by centering the "needle" (actually an LCD bar on the OM-4T). She did this but found some exposures were off, especially when she photographed white things like an old garage she photographed. That took us to the next step. I told her the meter gives an exposure for middle grey. Give more exposure for white things, less for black. I showed her the spot meter and told her that was easier than centerweighted since you know exactly what's being read with no error introduced by something in the background (eg, bright sky). She understood and picked up the method fast...her exposures are very consistantly perfect.

Next, she says she doesn't like a portrait she did of a friend because the background was harsh looking. She was seeing ugly bokeh...a problem with the Zuiko 50/1.8. I explained it to her and replaced the lens with a late production 50/1.4, a lens with nicer bokeh. She did some new portraits and saw the difference.

By now she'd been photographing for several months and I wanted my camera back, so I bought her an OM-4T and the 50/1.4 like mine. She wanted a silver camera, not black like mine.

I asked her if she wanted to try other lenses..no she liked the 50 and wanted to keep learning with it (this is 35mm film...I think a 50 on a d-rebel would be hard to use all the time....like using an 85mm all the time on film). Recently, she noticed her 50 wasn't letting her get everything in a shot (interior of an old building). I let her try a 28, which she liked, but she's still keeping it simple using the 50 for almost everything.

I think she's made a good choice between total technical ignorance and geekdom. She's learned enough to know how to get perfect exposure and is still exploring a single lens and learning composition with it.

Photos by My girlfriend, Catrina

 

[bmattock]

The eternal argument - do clothes make the man?

There is no denying the role that natural talent plays in photography, like any art form. Some people can make a mouth harp sound good, and never took a lesson (are there mouth harp lesson?).

That often drives people to suppose that if it is true that talent will out, then the role of the camera, lenses, and assorted ephemera are not at all important.

A corollary with this sort of story is that a good education in the theory, history, and philosophy of photography, along with the applied science knowledge to use manual controls are likewise unnecessary and perhaps to be dispensed with.

However, a talented photographer cannot take a decent photograph of the Orion Nebula with a point-and-shoot camera. A special lens, er, telescope is required, no matter what one's natural abilities might be. And exposure and focus, those dreaded bugaboos of the photo enthusiasts and neophytes, are truly de rigueur.

So there is a role for equipment, and understanding of the photographic process, whether one chooses to admit it or not.

The real questions, then, are these:

1) Do you have that sort of natural gift that permits you to make silk purses out of sow's ears with your average happy-snap camera?

2) If so, are you willing to make that sort of photo which can be obtained with such cameras?

If the answer to both of these questions is 'yes', then you should go on your way, happy and content. I would not question your decisions, because like our 'navilluspm' here, I have known such savants, and their talent is truly formidable.

If the answer to the first question is 'no', then a photographic understanding may be your only hope if you do wish to become a decent photographer - at least as much education as you require to reach the level of competency you find best suits you.

If the answer to the second question is also 'no', then better kit becomes a necessity, driven by your pocketbook and type of photographs you aspire to take - long fast lenses for sports and wildlife, for example.

There is truly no point in the usual abrupt statements that one needs or does not need a lot of equipment, or a firm understanding of the mechanics of photography, or even an artists understanding of composition, light, and color.

What is true for one may not be true for another, and that's the only real conclusion I have ever drawn from this sort of discussion.

PS - However, if you have no natural talent for photography, and no amount of training, education, theory, or expensive lenses can cause you to bring forth a photograph worthy of showing to people you do not wish to make cry, then you may have potential for a career as a writer for photographic magazines and websites.