How Much Tech Do We Need To Know To Be Good Photographers???
Mar 16, 2018 19:57:55 #
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about TECH, cameras, lenses or how they work or what we need?!
Does anybody have to know or even care how the duel pixel focusing system in their camera even works?
Who cares what the light meter is doing, the camera can do that all by itself!
Most of the pics shot on Manual are worse than the ones shot on Auto, at least that’s what many come on here saying.
I’ve said here many times that composition is KING! So if we compose well, why do we need to know any technical BS at all?!?! Gone are the days of full manual cameras with no meters and flying by the seat of your pants.
The cameras are way smarter than we are anyway.
With only a few exceptions, do we need to know any tech at all??? Do we?
Do you, other than to sound impressive???
I say no, what do you say?!
Feel free to post some pics to show your position. How you feel knowledge of tech helped your image!
SS
Does anybody have to know or even care how the duel pixel focusing system in their camera even works?
Who cares what the light meter is doing, the camera can do that all by itself!
Most of the pics shot on Manual are worse than the ones shot on Auto, at least that’s what many come on here saying.
I’ve said here many times that composition is KING! So if we compose well, why do we need to know any technical BS at all?!?! Gone are the days of full manual cameras with no meters and flying by the seat of your pants.
The cameras are way smarter than we are anyway.
With only a few exceptions, do we need to know any tech at all??? Do we?
Do you, other than to sound impressive???
I say no, what do you say?!
Feel free to post some pics to show your position. How you feel knowledge of tech helped your image!
SS
Mar 16, 2018 20:04:37 #
No you don't need to know. If you need you can hire someone to do the technical things for you. I have seen photographers who have assistants to measure light and set exposure for them.
Mar 16, 2018 20:06:27 #
I say Yes.
It helps with what corrective action to take when automation fails.
It helps with what corrective action to take when automation fails.
Mar 16, 2018 20:08:14 #
BebuLamar wrote:
No you don't need to know. If you need you can hire someone to do the technical things for you. I have seen photographers who have assistants to measure light and set exposure for them.
Yes, and it may be hard to believe but I’ve never had an assistant, my camera is my assistant and does all that for me!!
That’s why I bought a camera smarter than me!!!
SS
Mar 16, 2018 20:10:53 #
I guess when I read your question, whether tongue in cheek or not (& I don't know), it made me think of items like depth of field, blur or frozen motion & what one's intentions/desires are. But really it's all in the eye of the beholder. Too each their own.
Mar 16, 2018 20:18:28 #
SharpShooter wrote:
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about... (show quote)
Good question. Looking forward to a lively debate.
I tend to agree that you don't need a lot of the technical stuff. But I disagree with you that composition is King. I would put subject/content first, composition second.
Mar 16, 2018 20:28:10 #
Perhaps the old adage applies here...can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Mar 16, 2018 20:29:40 #
srt101fan wrote:
Good question. Looking forward to a lively debate.
I tend to agree that you don't need a lot of the technical stuff. But I disagree with you that composition is King. I would put subject/content first, composition second.
I tend to agree that you don't need a lot of the technical stuff. But I disagree with you that composition is King. I would put subject/content first, composition second.
srt, thanks!
Actually we probably agree on everything because I consider everything inside the frame to be part of the composition, including the subject/content, not just the arraignment/placement!
SS
Mar 16, 2018 20:37:11 #
itsnoelb
Loc: Edgewater, FL. Originally: FLINT. MI.
Yes, we need....at least some in order to get the most we can with our equipment.
Mar 16, 2018 20:59:04 #
SharpShooter wrote:
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about... (show quote)
Many decades ago I began my interest in photography using a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye 620, then 15 years later spent some years with a Kodak Instamatic 104 — all the while concentrating on composition. That effort was far from being wasted but there frequently were limits to some situations that had me puzzled and wondering what was needed to get better results. The switch to 35mm, and later adding digital, really opened up creative possibilities, but I regret spending so many past years where I was not doing a better job of learning how to work with light, or having light work for me, however you might want to express that. My equipment had been too simple! We now live in a gadget lover’s paradise — so many tools that work so well. . . . and boy, oh boy, I’m not complaining!
Mar 16, 2018 21:04:10 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Yes, and it may be hard to believe but I’ve never had an assistant, my camera is my assistant and does all that for me!!
That’s why I bought a camera smarter than me!!!
SS
That’s why I bought a camera smarter than me!!!
SS
For that I am sorry sir! No camera is smarter than me. It's fast but it's dumb! Automation saves my muscles.
Mar 16, 2018 21:09:22 #
SharpShooter wrote:
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about... (show quote)
I had never given that any thought, but need to know? Not really. How many people understand what allows an airplane to fly or an 80,000 ton steel ship to float? Yet they still get on airplanes or go to sea. That applies to most things, including photography. Knowing and understanding the Tech is interesting, but not necessary.
Mar 16, 2018 21:12:16 #
BebuLamar wrote:
For that I am sorry sir! No camera is smarter than me. It's fast but it's dumb! Automation saves my muscles.
LoL, just for your information, I would gladly do it all over again!!!
The only thing that saves MY muscles is to leave my camera at HOME!!! LoL
SS
Mar 16, 2018 21:23:50 #
SharpShooter wrote:
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about... (show quote)
We don't have to understand all the tech, or at least the automation side of it, in my personal opinion, but it can help. At least to have an inkling of what it does. It can't fix a poorly conceptualized, composed or exposed image completely, but it helps to understand the process. That's no different to other great photographers past or present. Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz, Lisa Kristine, and so on. They all had or have knowledge of their craft, but also have the vision of artists.
Mar 16, 2018 21:31:47 #
SharpShooter wrote:
As I see the parade of post on UHH, most are about... (show quote)
I would agree, unless your a camera man shooting films like Laurence Of Arabia, after all what did all the great photographer's
Of the past know about the teck end of things , they knew what there limited box could do , and how to develop, and the main
Thing is they had a eye. Which I may never acquire. I have the camera part down , should , after over ,with over 50 years of playing
With it .still waitin to develop the eye . Im cooking more than normal now with the new insta pot. Got some shots of baby back ribs that taste better than they look , and the two minuite eggs are perfectly done
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.