Steve Bellayr
Veteran
It is my belief that you can not learn photography without learning about film/manual cameras. Quite frequently I run across people with digital slrs that do not have any knowledge of f/stop, shutter speed, and focus. Even "experience" amateurs do not understand the aforementioned items nor do they have any understanding of concept of light in relationship to image. I have had experienced photographers pick up my Leica and ask where the autofocus is on the camera.
Now, I am not attacking modern digital cameras. (I truly want to get the new Leica M and go digital but on my terms or Leica's, whatever.) To adequately learn photography one must also learn to use older manual cameras. Part of the experience of being a full photographer is to have the knowledge of what went before both technologically and artistically.
Another point is the experimentation that occurs more easily with film cameras much like that of jazz music.
In the article it is pointed out how the photographer does not look at the image to ascertain its quality but waits to later. The true determination of a proper exposed image is not the image but the histogram. The histogram does not inform you of the artistic merits of the image but proper exposure. The quality of the image or its artistic value is in the minor details that are not often visible on the camera's small screen. Separating yourself from the image in the camera to later date provides you with a perspective of the lasting quality of the image. You look at the image a week later and state to yourself either "Yes, that is important to remember as it states something lasting" or "I do not understand why that image meant something to me."
My closing remark: To teach photography in a digital one must have a camera that can be fully manual. Then have the student turn of the screen and shoot jpeg. Wait one week to see if what you captured was good enough to "keep"...have a lasting affect on you.
Now, I am not attacking modern digital cameras. (I truly want to get the new Leica M and go digital but on my terms or Leica's, whatever.) To adequately learn photography one must also learn to use older manual cameras. Part of the experience of being a full photographer is to have the knowledge of what went before both technologically and artistically.
Another point is the experimentation that occurs more easily with film cameras much like that of jazz music.
In the article it is pointed out how the photographer does not look at the image to ascertain its quality but waits to later. The true determination of a proper exposed image is not the image but the histogram. The histogram does not inform you of the artistic merits of the image but proper exposure. The quality of the image or its artistic value is in the minor details that are not often visible on the camera's small screen. Separating yourself from the image in the camera to later date provides you with a perspective of the lasting quality of the image. You look at the image a week later and state to yourself either "Yes, that is important to remember as it states something lasting" or "I do not understand why that image meant something to me."
My closing remark: To teach photography in a digital one must have a camera that can be fully manual. Then have the student turn of the screen and shoot jpeg. Wait one week to see if what you captured was good enough to "keep"...have a lasting affect on you.
