Is DSLR a good learning tool?

[nickchew]

I had a conversation with a professional photographer sometime back (only because he shot with an M6 ;-) ) and he shared the thought that the flooding of the photography market with DSLRs has changed the way newbies start learning photography.

In his opinion, the DSLR revolution makes it so easy to learn the technical aspects of photography by trial and error (ie you don't have to wait for the roll of film to finish and be processed), that the feedback from what you do is almost instantaneous.

I recall that my learning involved a pad and pen recording all exposure variables so that I could differentiate the effects on the photographs. :bang:

The result is that there are lots of amateur photogs who are always willing to shoot randomly on any occasion. By virtue of the volume of shots taken, there are bound to be some decent shots in there.

What do you guys think?
Does the DSLR revolution impact positively on LEARNING photography or not?

Nick

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's nice to have the technical information regarding lens, F-stop, shutter speed etc recorded. On the other hand, going "click, click, click" because you are just filling memoery and draining batteries as an expense seems to take away the incentive to get the shot correct. I have seen a lot of people chatting, lift a camera, take a few snaps, and go back to talking. Not a lot of thought seemed to go into it, but no money lost just firing it off.

 

[fgianni]

The nice thing about a good DSLR, is that not only you can fire as many shots as you like virtually for free, but hat all the parameters are stored with the picture itself, aperture, shuttes speed, focal lenght.
So you are free to experiment with different parameters without having to write down all this information after every shot.

 

[jlw]

I don't think you can learn the technical aspects of photography by "trial and error" (unless you have a LOT of time for trial and a very large capacity for error!) Yes, it's helpful to have exposure data available for each frame, but students have always had that capability available via a notebook! The lack of need to wait for processing may make it possible to learn a bit faster but it doesn't let you learn more.

In short, I think it's still a lot more practical to learn at least the basics via guided instruction, either in a classroom setting or through published materials, or both.

Vaguely parallel case: I spent a lot of time trying to learn welding by trial and error; despite reading a lot of instructions and info, I didn't really get much of anywhere until I invested 10 minutes watching an expert welder at work. Only then did I know what a weld bead was supposed to look like!

I wonder if the professional who told you this wasn't feathering his own nest a bit...? Telling people that they can learn something complicated by trial and error, without instruction, seems like a sure recipe for getting them frustrated and then resorting to calling in a, er, professional...

 

[GeneW]

IMO, a great big YES! One of the forums I hang out on, Outdoor Eyes, is filled with folks who are learning their way into photography via digital, and especially DSLR. As I watch them grow and learn, their images keep getting better and better, and a few have turned semi-pro. Including a large number of women -- the forum is the closest I've seen to a 50-50 split between male and female photographers.

I find this very healthy and promising. The first goal in photography is learning to see. By making the equipment easier to use, beginners can concentrate on composition and trying things out. They can 'burn' all the 'film' they want, getting inside the process. Later they begin to pick up on things like compensating for exposure and improving their photos technically.

And, not surprising, a few who started out on digital get so hooked on photography that they get curious about film cameras and start messing around with older cameras.

I think DSLR's are great learning tools, and anyone who doesn't agree is an old fud! 😀

(kidding, I think ...)

Gene

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yes, if you have the discipline and will to learn from the info provided by it. Just like a calculator could be a great learning tool for the multiplication tables, imho.

 

[bmattock]

I note that years ago (before my time, even), photographers complained that roll film was ruining photography. Why? Because students didn't have to apprentice and laboriously learn how to prepare wet (and later dry) glass plates, didn't have to hurry to process them before the emulsion dried, didn't have to travel with an entire horse-drawn wagon filled with volatile chemicals. They could just pop a roll of film in, take photographs, and process them later at a time and place of their own choosing. Horrifying! How could anyone ever learn under such conditions?

I feel that your photographer friend is on the right track - the DSLR can indeed be a great tool for learning the basics of real photgraphy. However, one must complete the statement - in order to learn the basics using a DSLR, one must understand what teaching they are attempting to absorb by duplicating it in the DSLR.

If the lesson is selective focus, one must either disable AF, or understand the tool well enough to force the AF to work as they wish it.

If the lesson is light and shadow, one must either disable AE, or etc (as above).

Same for panning shots, or intentional motion-blur and shutter speed.

Same for DOF and aperture.

Same for lighting and pop-up flash.

And so on.

In other words, most modern DSLR cameras are capable of being manually controlled, or alternatively, a person who has mastered the automatic controls can make them do what he or she wants when they want those effects. This should be employed to teach the basics of photography.

I believe that 'book learning' is best absorbed when practical experience that supports that learning is given as well. A DSLR can be an outstanding tool in immediately demonstrating how any given lesson works.

If used as a glorified Point-n-Shoot, a DSLR is a dismal tool, of course. As was the AE/AF SLR before that, the miniature film format (35mm) before that, the invention of roll film, and so on.

Each generation of photographic technology has made life easier for photographers, but has also made it easier to fail to absorb some of the basics of what makes a photograph great, what makes it art.

However, if students are instructed well in the manual use of their cameras (and why they should do it that way at first) then I think faster is better in terms of practical instruction and rapidity of learning.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I note that years ago (before my time, even), photographers complained that roll film was ruining photography.

And when they were preparing their own glass plates and developing on the spot, painters where complaining that photographers were ruining the artistry of imagery. Like Billy Joel's song goes: "we didn't start the fire..." (not that I particularly like his songs).

 

[bmattock]

And when they were preparing their own glass plates and developing on the spot, painters where complaining that photographers were ruining the artistry of imagery. Like Billy Joel's song goes: "we didn't start the fire..." (not that I particularly like his songs).

I collect and read old camera magazines - like "Kodakery," dating back to the early 1900's, and "The Mentor" which goes back to the 1870's. Fascinating stuff.

You can read how photographers moaned bitterly about how 'miniature' film photography was not 'real' photography (when 'miniature' meant 35mm) and would end up destroying the art of photography altogether. The Leica was seen as a bane, not a boon.

Later, they complained about how the SLR was displacing the TLR and went on and on about how inferior the SLR was.

Then it was motor drives, AE, and later still, AF.

Always some new threat to photography, usually a technical innovation, which was going to end photography as we know it.

Later, of course, each formerly-feared innovation became the indispensible must-have and if a camera didn't have it, it was trashed in the media reviews, and defended to the death if something new came to replace it.

DSLRs are merely the latest in a series of innovations.

I see them as valuable because they retain that which a camera needs in order to produce work that is directly under the photographer's control for creative purposes - shutter speed, aperture, focal length, ISO, filtration, manual focus, and lighting.

What the DSLR gives up is the ability to select a film that possesses certain characteristics, such as Fuji Velvia or Kodak Tri-X, and film's latitude, in the case of color print film. The image quality is also not yet up to the quality of same-size film, but that will change fairly soon, I presume.

Photographers are currently creating photographs in the digital realm that will someday stand alongside the great photographs in museums and galleries of the world. Time marches on. In a couple of decades, we'll be bitching and moaning that Holography is replacing our precious CMOS sensors. Or whatever - LOL!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[smileyguy]

I'm brand new here but wanted to add a tiny little voice to this great forum and this discussion in particular.

I think the DSLR is a great tool for learning the basics of photography. To have the instant feedback from shot to shot is an incredible tool--as long as you know what you are attempting to do. Going in blindly thinking that the camera will "teach" you is just ignorant. I read and continue to read a lot about photography, look at online galleries, books, magazines etc. to see good photography and see what good photographers are looking at. But to think that a $10000 DSLR is going to take those pictures for me is just wrong.

I haven't migrated to digital yet but I do lust after DSLRs. My latest move, which brought me here, was to get an RF camera and see what all the excitement is about.

I think the biggest thing is the eye and "seeing" differently. I love different camera angles, different light, shadows, colours and being able to capture all of that on film (or digital) is where the art of photography comes in. The camera really is just the tool, there HAS to be an eye behind it.

 

[Peter Klein]

You can read how photographers moaned bitterly about how 'miniature' film photography was not 'real' photography (when 'miniature' meant 35mm) and would end up destroying the art of photography altogether. The Leica was seen as a bane, not a boon.

Some of the complaints about DSLRs are the usual cliches about walking five miles through the snow to get to school, eating one's spinach, and how today's younger generation has it too easy. It was ever thus. Socrates was complaining about it 2500 years ago.

Other complaints are quite real. The transition from film to digital photography is just like the transition from the typewriter to the word processor. It allows people to produce more faster, which helps them develop their craft.

Unfortunately, it also makes it easier for hacks to produce ever-increasing volumes of crap, which competes with the good stuff. This in turn may saturate the public, and cause editors and publishers to invoke ever-more stringent "gatekeeper" rules to filter out how much stuff they have to review. This can keep out people who are good but not yet superstars, or who are unconventional. Or who simply have a 6 mp DSLR when the stock agency decides to only allow 8mp native files.

I agree with others who have said that the best way to learn with a DSLR is to turn off the automation selectively. Although sometimes it's good to just blaze away, see what worked and what doesn't, and then look at the EXIF data to learn what to do manually.

I still prefer film. But I have an Olympus E-1, and am glad I bought it. Sometimes the convenience outweighs film's higher dynamic range and information content. And when I use the DSLR, I can see results quickly, and adjust. And trying lots of things doesn't cost me anything extra--I've already bought the camera and memory card.

--Peter

 

[bmattock]

The camera really is just the tool, there HAS to be an eye behind it.

Welcome!

And yes, the camera is just the tool, as you say. However, a hammer is just a hammer. But in the hands of a master carpenter, a hammer can do a lot of things that it cannot do in my hands. Tools are what do the work, and therefore good tools are better than poor tools for a particular purpose; but it is mastery over the tools that express the vision. A master with a poor tool will beat a neophyte with an excellent tool every time.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I still prefer film. But I have an Olympus E-1, and am glad I bought it. Sometimes the convenience outweighs film's higher dynamic range and information content. And when I use the DSLR, I can see results quickly, and adjust. And trying lots of things doesn't cost me anything extra--I've already bought the camera and memory card.

--Peter

Ditto what you said.

I have a foot in both film and digital worlds. I won't ever shoot a wedding again with film, my DSLR give me much faster workflow and the quality is more than acceptable for that type of work. I use AE, AF, zoom, and TTL flash as well when I am shooting digital. I use the Pentax *ist DS with Sigma lenses and flash.

I have heard the exact same argument in reverse - that film is faster workflow than struggling with photoshop-type programs, etc. That caught me by surprise, until I realized that I am a product of the computer age - working in PS comes naturally to me and I can do it quickly and efficiently, though not as fast and well as my 12-year-old nephew!

However, for certain creative effects, I bolt on a circa-1942 Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 with a cobbled-up M42 adapter and produce DOF effects like nothing you've ever seen before. When I really want to pig it up, I go to the same lens on a Bessaflex TM body with Fuji Velvia film.

It's all about the right tool for the right job, and having a good understanding of your tools and the comfort level to use them effectively.

John Henry was noble - but in the end, remember he beat the steam drill, but died and was replaced anyway.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[lynn]

And, not surprising, a few who started out on digital get so hooked on photography that they get curious about film cameras and start messing around with older cameras.

It was my DSLR - since sold onward - which rekindled my fascination for film, just as you say, Gene.
I appreciated the advantages of digital, and enthusiastically explored its possibilities, but in the long run yearned for something with more intensity, more pre-PS temperament, and more insistence on discipline and deliberation.
Diff'rent strokes, as they say. But I'm glad it brought me to where I am now, because I am truly enjoying.

 

[Kin Lau]

In his opinion, the DSLR revolution makes it so easy to learn the technical aspects of photography by trial and error (ie you don't have to wait for the roll of film to finish and be processed), that the feedback from what you do is almost instantaneous.

The key phrase here, is "technical aspects", and he's quite right in this respect.

DSLR's are just like slide film, and without post-processing, you get to see your mistakes quite quickly. It also helps that every shot you've taken is also now blown up to at least screen size or larger, so focusing mistakes are also magnified.

For me, the EXIF data is probably the most valuable piece of data here, since data on flash, lense/focal length, iso, aperture, shutter speed are all recorded. I'm trying to get more comfortable with shooting with flash, so this will aid me a great deal.

 

[jlw]

I think DSLR's are great learning tools, and anyone who doesn't agree is an old fud!

Gene

Shhhhhh... be vewy, vewy, quiet...

 

[GeneW]

Shhhhhh... be vewy, vewy, quiet...

Hey, don't leave out the smiley or I'm toast! 😎

Gene

 

[kdanks]

I recently joined this forum after buying a rangefinder, having used a dSLR for a year or so. I agree that having the EXIF data, and the ability to see a histogram of each shot immediately, can be very useful for a learner and save a lot of time, although much of that advantage was a complete mystery to me until I realised that a £1,200 camera didn't make me into a photographer and that I needed to go back to school and think about the basics.

Among my many mistakes was spending more, very much more, on the camera than on the lenses, something that is encouraged by a lot of the kits on offer. Having to Photoshop a pretty high proportion of my photos to get something worth looking at (for contrast, saturation and sharpness) was a surprise as well. I shot far too much, looked far too little and struggled to appreciate what the problem was for a while. Simpler kit is good discipline, for me anyway. The rangefinder slows me down, in a good way.

The other thing about the dSLR is that it isn't exactly discreet. If (when) there is a digital rangefinder that will take my Voigtlander lens and that doesn't look like it will be obselete in 5 minutes, I'll be first in the queue, but I'll keep shooting film for as long as it's possible as well.

 

[Kin Lau]

Shhhhhh... be vewy, vewy, quiet...

Hey, don't leave out the smiley or I'm toast! 😎

Gene

Hmm... Elmer/Elmar. Coincidence? I think not 😀

 

[MCTuomey]

It seems to me that it doesn't matter much what equipment you use to learn to photograph, IMHO. You learn exactly the same things, whether digi or film, and you learn at the pace your mind grasps them. Does the number of repetitions matter? It doesn't matter in other visual arts, i.e. painting. Artists don't necessarily improve linearly over the course of a lifetime. (If so, only older artists would be most proficient.) Some in fact deteriorate over time.

Aside from the physical operation of a camera and lens, photography is not a motor skill. I'm not sure you need maximum repetitions over minimal time to learn photography. What you do need is openness and curiosity. Sometimes a slower pace facilitates these traits of mind, which could be what happens shooting film in a more manual mode, for example.

It's the depth of comprehension that matters, and comprehension can be formed from one photographic instance or many.