Bipod

Happy New Year!

Langford's Basic Photography is clearly written and factual. But no, it's not a fun read

When King Ptolemy I Soter asked Euclid if there was a shorter road to learning geometry than working through
Euclid's Elements, Euclid is said to have replied, "There is no royal road to geometry." And compared to
photography, plane geometry is pretty simple!

You've picked a highly technical hobby. And you've picked the most complex type of camera that has ever existed: the
micro-processor-controlled digital camera. Sure, it has an "autopilot" -- so does an Airbus A380-- but as on an aircraft,
the autopilot only works some of the time. When you need it the most, it may suddenly disengage and hand the controls
over to you.

I'm not sure what make a book "easy". Publishers seem to think it's lots of photos and not much text. But if someone
could learn from just looking at photos, he wouldn't need a book! Seeing a photo doesn't tell you how to produce one
like it Even experienced photographers sometimes has to ask the photographer "How did you do that?"

Indeed, there seems to be a rule with photography books: the more photos, the worse the book. That's because looking is
not the same as seeing. We don't naturally think of images in terms of subject, format, composition, perspective,
lighting and image qualities (e.g. global contrast, local contrast, acutance, resolution, zone placements, etc.),
First one has to be told, only then can one see it in a photograph.

Unfortunately, from the point of view of theory, the "firm foundation" of photography is art history and
optics (a branch of physics). The latter is tough going -- at least for me.

Without theory, one can still learn by rules-of-thumb and rote memory -- but it's not going to make much sense.
Worse, there is a lot of bad advice floating around from authors who don't understand the theory themselves.

I don't like any of the recent books I've seen because throw too much at the student at one time.
Often the "good examples" are in fact bad examples (garish, trite or cliche). The best photographers
(other than Adams and Bruce Barnbaum) tend not to write books.

I'd recommend starting with composition -- and not worrying about anything else at first.
Art books do a good job of explaining composition and perspective -- much better than photography books.
And the standard in Old Masters paintings is much higher than in most photography.

If somebody wanted to learn to fly, but didn't want to be bothered with navigation, instruments, weather,
engine operation, FAA regulations, weight-and-balance, radio procedure, checklists or tie-down, how
would you advise him? That's all part of flying . Even a hang glider pilot had better check the weather,
mind his weight and balance, and use a checklist.

The difference is that a thousand gear manufactuers, book publishers, software publishers and magazines
are broadcasting the message "Photography is easy!" One of Kodak's mottos was "You push the button;
we do the rest!" I understand Kodak's in-house version was "You push the button; we laugh at the result!"

Good luck, and have a great 2019!

foxfirerodandgun Loc: Stony Creek, VA

Thanks Bipod. I really enjoy your insight & comparisons. I understand where you are coming from and can see the necessity of learning from sources that have the most practical experience and application methods. I was out for a few hours today, before the torrential rain arrives tomorrow, experimenting with the S,A, & M modes. Everything from an old vintage car, (thought it was a '57 Chevy from a distance, but probably a Desoto. All ID had been removed), deep in the woods rusting away, to dilapidated farm buildings, to Nandina & Holly berries. Guess I'll be downloading them to see how my efforts are while listening to the rain pour down tomorrow. Thanks again!