Coming in late
If the saying was Shoot, Shoot, Shoot..., Shoot, Shoot, Shoot,... I would say no. But it is Shoot, Shoot, Shoot...,Practice, Practice Practice,...
Practice and simply repeating the same thing over and over are VERY different things. One is mechanical, the other engages the mind.
You peaked my attention, Sharpie. I, too, returned to school to re-learn Photography about 20 years ago. I learned a lot, including the compositional and presentation skills.
First, sss ppp, without critiques and correction is a very insular way to develop one's skills and art. If Photography is a singularly personal art form, then working in a bubble might work. Out more succinctly, perfect practice makes perfect.
I just crossed the Digital Divide and am taking a Portrait workshop. My Camera handling skills suck after a 5 year haitus! Setting up a long in the tooth 50D erroneously eliminated the illuminated focus point. So, focusing and recomposing somehow turned into focusing, recomposing and refocusing where I didn't want it. Soft portrait images of beautiful models is so sad.
Because the focus point is displayed on review, Digital is a great tool to diagnose a problem and reinforce a fix. But I've got to SSS and PPP to re-establish what was a 50 year old skillset.
So, maybe it's SSS, PPP and critique, critique, critique!
I appreciate your insight,
C
riverlass wrote:
Oh, yes... luck is always a factor. :thumbup:
there is no such thing as luck, i wish there were. there is, however, such a thing as being prepared.
wj cody wrote:
there is no such thing as luck, i wish there were. there is, however, such a thing as being prepared.
Luck is finding a huge buck at the top of a hill at sunset. Luck is being at the right place, by accident, when something unexpected happens. Luck is hitting one number on the Roulette table. Oh, yes. Luck is out there. 8-)
riverlass wrote:
Luck is finding a huge buck at the top of a hill at sunset. Luck is being at the right place, by accident, when something unexpected happens. Luck is hitting one number on the Roulette table. Oh, yes. Luck is out there. 8-)
you are speaking about the law of averages, not luck.
wj cody wrote:
you are speaking about the law of averages, not luck.
OK... call it what you will. I choose to call it luck... gives it a more benevolent feeling. :wink:
riverlass wrote:
OK... call it what you will. I choose to call it luck... gives it a more benevolent feeling. :wink:
yes, but my point is it doesn't make you (the general you, not the personal one) a better image maker.
SharpShooter wrote:
Lassy, are you sure your analogies are actually accurate?
I'll admit, I do feel(I think we all do) that there has to be practice in order to get better. But isn't sss the exact same thing as ppp?
BUT you mention two activities that are predominantly physical. In sketching, yes, the mind/eyes need to be able to see the sketch to be sketched, but as in shooting, the actual execution is a physical act. So to put it simply, muscle memory is trained and dexterity is developed and trained into the body. A long lapse in those physical movements results in deterioration of the skills.
Photography is purely cerebral. It can be done and carried out at the highest levels by individuals having virtually no motor control whatsoever. It's purely the mind that is being trained to perform and having the knowledge to set up a shot, as in commercial, where extremely acute knowledge of lighting is acquired, but a photographer can actually give instruction to an assistant to set up a shot, as Julius Shulman did in his later career. It would be virtually impossible to instruct another to sketch a masterpiece.
I guess what I'm saying is, in photography we can only practice effectively after we have learned cerebrally what we are trying to practice/execute onto the camera sensor/film as an image. there is no motor control needed at all by the actual photographer! ;-)
SS
Lassy, are you sure your analogies are actually ac... (
show quote)
I basically agree with this point, but there are exceptions so I think it's worth pointing out at least one. I like to shoot bees; the one in the photo is only slightly larger than my fingernail and does not stop moving. A strategy of carefully moving a hand-held camera in sync with an insect moving very small distances while anticipating the next location of the critter so that one can focus and shoot in probably less than a third of a second and capture this kind of detail really does take a lot of motor control (no flash either). I think there are other forms of photography that take a good deal of motor control, too. Shooting flying birds hand-held, for example. Not to dispute the basic intent of your point, but at least some photography requires more than just telling the assistant what to do.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.