What camera would you use to teach someone photography?

Originally Posted by Juan: "What does the teacher need another camera for in his hands?"

One of my thoughts of this was to demonstrate ideals and viewpoints by taking the same picture together, her with her camera and me with mine. This would show differing opinions on how an object or scene can be composed for a different look, but keeping the films separate for easier review.

The other idea of separate cameras is to walk down a street, picking just that street for the moment, and shooting what we think are interesting shots for comparison of ideals and viewpoints - without the need to keep passing one camera around.

I have plenty of cameras, and film (or digi) is not a problem, so there's no reason not to each use our own camera. I don't like the idea of having one camera to share when there is no need. But the biggest reason for this is to show the difference of ideas and styles on different film strips. I find it easier to compare and keep things separate with different film strips.
 
Last edited:
I obviously missed the memo that appointed Ranchu as the spokesman for the entire world of photography.

You may disagree with photomoofs ideas... but you can't imply they are wrong or indeed his views are unique and therefore unworthy.

peace

K
 
Of course various options (film or digi) have different pro and contra. At the end it is related to the teaching method you use to choice one or the other. As for my experience, when my wife wanted to learn more than just snapping around she took a course using my Nikon FM2 (fully manual camera) and a 50mm lens. I think that to use a fixed focal length lens helps a lot in learning composition. I think as well that working with film it is for sure not so quick as with digital but having different print on a table to choice from can be a good editing lesson. Of course you can make this on a computer screen, but it is not the same thing. Ok, we were both over 50 at the time and younger people have a different approach...LR or other softwares can be good to teach composition as well! I'm flexible on this point, but about the use at least in the beginning of a prime lens I'm sure! Just my opinion...
robert
 
Ranchu said:
You're the only one then, among all the shooters in the thread.
Click to expand...

No, he's not.

We're a technical crowd here, so we tend to overestimate the importance of technical knowledge. But when I look at a picture, the first thing I notice is whether I like the composition and whether the photographer had a good eye for the scene. I don't notice f-stops, shutter speeds or ISO values. Knowing these things sure helps, but it's not central to the image. A good eye, a sense for scenes, and a feeling for compositional principles, on the other hand, are absolutely essential.

If I were to learn photography, as in taking good pictures, I'd much rather have a course that focuses on images first, introducing technicalities only when this knowledge becomes necessary to get results I can't get otherwise.
 
rxmd said:
No, he's not.

We're a technical crowd here, so we tend to overestimate the importance of technical knowledge. But when I look at a picture, the first thing I notice is whether I like the composition and whether the photographer had a good eye for the scene. I don't notice f-stops, shutter speeds or ISO values. Knowing these things sure helps, but it's not central to the image. A good eye, a sense for scenes, and a feeling for compositional principles, on the other hand, are absolutely essential.

If I were to learn photography, as in taking good pictures, I'd much rather have a course that focuses on images first, introducing technicalities only when this knowledge becomes necessary to get results I can't get otherwise.
Click to expand...

We disagree on what would be best, then. Not uncommon in the world. Thank you for not implying I'm a Luddite. I said up thread

"There is nothing wrong with a 'monastic approach', it is a method and practise that arranges your mind so that you are aware of what you're doing and your environment in a specific way."

and

"I don't think a picture is taken with a camera, but with a photographer. "

Part of what I was saying, but didn't articulate, was that I think that in taking pictures 'operating' the photographer (me) is more important than operating the camera. There are ways of doing that that help me take better pictures, which are also good ways to 'learn photography', imo.

I'm learning, seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Unless she really wants to learn RF I'd stick with the SLR. Going digital will let her shoot and edit in the same day (of course you cold always use a one hour lab to the same effect). Perhaps pick the camera which is the closest to what she would be using on her own...
 
kshapero said:
I have a student that is progressing very nicely with a Nikon FM/50/1.8. He picked it up good condition for $95.
Click to expand...

Yes. A young friend bought one on my advice. She loves it and when the battery died she didn't even bother to change it. f16 was good enough for her.

A FM can mount non-Ai lenses a FM2 cannot. As I still see non-Ai lenses for very little money, this is a consideration for a starter on a budget. I still use a 1960's 135mm Q Nikkor on my FM and I might very well use it again tonight!
 
Pirate said:
Originally Posted by Juan: "What does the teacher need another camera for in his hands?"

One of my thoughts of this was to demonstrate ideals and viewpoints by taking the same picture together, her with her camera and me with mine. This would show differing opinions on how an object or scene can be composed for a different look, but keeping the films separate for easier review.

The other idea of separate cameras is to walk down a street, picking just that street for the moment, and shooting what we think are interesting shots for comparison of ideals and viewpoints - without the need to keep passing one camera around.

I have plenty of cameras, and film (or digi) is not a problem, so there's no reason not to each use our own camera. I don't like the idea of having one camera to share when there is no need. But the biggest reason for this is to show the difference of ideas and styles on different film strips. I find it easier to compare and keep things separate with different film strips.
Click to expand...

I think shooting together with two cameras can be fun at a second stage.

As Bresson said, we should compose with our eye, and not through camera... I mean any benefit in ordering of elements, point of view, frame limits, selective focus, etc., should be considered by her using her eye too: teach her to look at... We create in our mind, and only then take the camera up to make it do just what we already decided.. What she needs to learn has a lot to do with words on images, with observation, and little to do with cameras... Just my approach. She can learn just a little bit with her camera, and even less if you have a second camera with you to distract her, but she can learn a lot from images and talking first... Images can make her understand aperture a lot faster than camera, and in a more pleasant way... After that she'll be ready to try to make her camera do what she learned...

Cheers,

Juan
 
rxmd said:
We're a technical crowd here, so we tend to overestimate the importance of technical knowledge. But when I look at a picture, the first thing I notice is whether I like the composition and whether the photographer had a good eye for the scene. I don't notice f-stops, shutter speeds or ISO values. Knowing these things sure helps, but it's not central to the image. A good eye, a sense for scenes, and a feeling for compositional principles, on the other hand, are absolutely essential.

If I were to learn photography, as in taking good pictures, I'd much rather have a course that focuses on images first, introducing technicalities only when this knowledge becomes necessary to get results I can't get otherwise.
Click to expand...

Both are important...
Example.... You may see and take a great image when you pull you camera up to get in on film/digital. And when you share it with others, can you explain "How" technically it was taken? If you can a across this subject again with a totally different camera that has no Auto mode, Could you "Duplicate" it in effect or mood?

If, you "Just" learn the "Eye of the Photographer" strategy without learning at least some basic's on "How" to get there, You will never be able to "Duplicate" the image in essence and mood. You, will just be shooting by luck and "hope" it turns out.

Both are needed for sure, IF, you want to be in-control of the final image, and "Get" what you "Saw" with your "Photographers Eye".

I'd say, teach both....
A two camera system (teacher/student) walk about is a good idea... The student may not be lacking in "Eye of the Photographer", &/or the Technical side..
The film strips will reveal this. And will give the Teacher an idea of where the Student is, and what direction to teach in.

Some people are a natural with the "Eye of the Photographer", most aren't. Some basics can be taught about this too. But, the student will have figure out how to apply it to the subjects they photograph.

We, should agree that BOTH are important to provide a well rounded future photographer that can "Duplicate" results with any camera in their hands..

The basics have not changed with technical improvements in cameras... IE: Film > Digital...
Both have Shutters, F/stops and ISO settings to use for exposure... How the image is recorded has changed, that's all.
 
don't think anyone was advocating that photographers should have no knowledge of the camera basics... just that an approach to teaching shouldn't start with abstract technical concepts... especially in an age where modern cameras do much of the work for you which gets the student over the first hurdle of actually getting shots taken... the fear of pressing the shutter.

Once they are past that hurdle and you can see the kinds of shots they are trying to take, then there is opportunity to show how by manipulating the variables of shutter, aperture and ISO, and their relationship to things like focal length, that they can either correct errors or use the controls to acheive a particular effect.
 
kevinparis said:
don't think anyone was advocating that photographers should have no knowledge of the camera basics... just that an approach to teaching shouldn't start with abstract technical concepts... especially in an age where modern cameras do much of the work for you which gets the student over the first hurdle of actually getting shots taken... the fear of pressing the shutter.

Once they are past that hurdle and you can see the kinds of shots they are trying to take, then there is opportunity to show how by manipulating the variables of shutter, aperture and ISO, and their relationship to things like focal length, that they can either correct errors or use the controls to acheive a particular effect.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
Pirate,

interesting, did you fell in love in that hostel? However, which camera for teaching photography, good question.

After thinking about it, a fully manual rangefinder camera, TLR or SLR and a lightmeter would indeed be a good start for learning the basic technical aspects about exposure, shutter speed, film speed, focal length, focus and depth of field. A monorail would probably be a bit overwhelming. Tell her about the basics and limitations, have a nice walk around town or into the nightlife and let her explore things by herself. Give her some homework: Shoot what you like to shoot, but do it right. Adjust from there. A place for developing film is no problem, you could do it in the hostel. I could lent you a tank and some chemicals. Avoid the digital camera (for now), as there is some magic in the anticipation of the developed negative.
 
sorry ... to me there is more magic in seeing my picture now and seeing my mistake and having the knowledge to be able to adjust and take it again..now

its the result thats important...not the process....anybody can learn the process but that doesn't guarantee the result

K
 
kevinparis said:
sorry ... to me there is more magic in seeing my picture now and seeing my mistake and having the knowledge to be able to adjust and take it again..now

its the result thats important...not the process....anybody can learn the process but that doesn't guarantee the result

K
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read the memo about the fact that photography can not be done by digital cameras 😛
(can I even call a digital camera a camera? hopefully I have not offended anyone....)
 
kevinparis said:
sorry ... to me there is more magic in seeing my picture now and seeing my mistake and having the knowledge to be able to adjust and take it again..now
...
K
Click to expand...

Sure, seeing the picture now may speed up the learning process. But the lady seems to be more interested in film photography and being not able to see the picture right now is part of that with all its costs and benefits. However, if she wants to see the result now, one could easily hand her over a digital camera.

Just to make it clear, I do not have anything against digital cameras. Digital cameras are clearly photographic tools that can be and are put to good use. Personally, I still prefer film.
 
Last edited:
Why not all of them? Learning photography means learning all about it and film, digital, CRF's and SLR's are all part of it.

You could even take a different camera out to duplicate her shot on another camera for comparison/teaching/fun...

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom