P3D Learning Photography

["Andrea Blair" <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>Bob Maxey wrote: At one time, most every class on basic photography, 
included basic developing and printing. Either as part of the class or 
at least discussed to some degree. Slides were either a separate class 
or section/unit of the class. Negatives - specifically black and White 
Negatives were the film of choice in every Basic Photography class I 
ever attended.<<<<

That is probably correct for those lucky enough to have the time/money 
to take photography classes. All of my photography experience (20 years 
of B&W, color prints and color slides) is self taught, except for the 
occasional lecture or workshop since I have been involved in camera 
clubs. I am speaking from the perspective of assisting someone new at 
photography who has not taken any courses and has no immediate plans to 
do so. B&W is almost a specialty nowadays. Most people start right into 
color because that's the most common and cheapest way to go. Try finding 
a roll of B&W at your local K-mart. B&W is still very important and I 
agree that is the base level that everyone *should* start on, if 
possible.

The same argument can be made about equipment. To really learn how 
everything works together (shutter speed, f-stop, etc.) everyone 
*should* start out with a completely manual camera - nothing auto 
anywhere (like I did - Pentax K1000). But how many times do you see that 
these days? I get more people just starting out asking me which model of 
the top 3 Nikons would I recommend. When I ask them what special 
features they want and what sort of applications will they be shooting, 
I get a blank stare gazing back at me. Nothing frustrates me more than 
seeing $2000 worth of equipment (lens and body) set on automatic all the 
time with no knowledge of what is happening. Automatic is for when you 
know what is going on already. The first thing I made my husband do when 
he joined me in photography was to take his camera off of "A". First his 
photos went downhill. THen he learned how everything worked and how to 
take control of the equipment and produce the results he wanted, not 
just accepting what came out.

>>>>As far as the novice not knowing why something went wrong, I can't
understand why this seems to be lacking in training today. After all, 
there are over exposed negatives or under exposed negatives. That's 
about everything. Focusing is not an issue, nor is Depth of field, and 
these factors are not dependent upon film, but upon Technique.<<<<

I disagree. Only an experienced eye and someone with some prior 
experience can tell if the processor/printer messed up the prints. 
Unless you can "read a negative" (not many novices know what this is, 
let alone how to do it), you are for the most part accepting someone 
else's interpretation of your images. I've even seen here on P3D where 
people have picked up prints and they (the prints) were blurry. Knowing 
that there was nothing wrong with the equipment or the photographer they 
demanded that they be printed again. Guess what? Second set came back 
perfectly sharp. Sure enough, it was the printer. How would a novice 
know it wasn't themselves? Unless you can "read a negative" under- and 
overexposure have little meaning to a novice. There is so much latitude 
in the print film to start with, then the printer decides what the 
settings should be. I doubt that a lot of prints that come back from one 
hour labs are accurate.

An example: I had a print of a sunset behind a mountain. The first print 
I got when the film was developed was a gorgeous deep orange and red. I 
knew there was a housing development in front of the mountain, but 
everything was dark and the mountain silhouetted. I took the negative in 
to be made into an enlargement (forgot to bring the little print with 
me). Imagine my surprise when I saw my enlargement and the sky was a 
light purple and you could see every car, house and telephone pole in 
the foreground. Yes, I should have taken the print in with me as an 
example. But my point is, this could've been the *first* print. Someone 
had to make the determination of how to print that negative. I've had 
other enlargements I've sent back because the color balance was off. How 
did I know? Experience. If I was a beginner, I probably would have paid 
for my print and went home without questioning it, not knowing that it 
was the printer who decided the flower should be blue instead of purple 
like it really was. Then I would start to question my equipment, film, 
and myself.

Too indepth? I don't think so. With today's fast paced world, not 
everyone has the time/money to go to a photography class and learn from 
the ground floor up, so to speak. They hop in the middle and catch on as 
they go. With oodles of film and a wide range of equipment, I feel 
slides are the easiest way to get someone comfortable with their skills. 
When slides are shown to a person of experience, it is easier to 
evaluate and critique. With prints that are commercially done, I don't 
see how an accurate evaluation can be made - who are you critiquing: the 
photographer or the printer? 

>>>>If new photographers being taught basic skills are using color 
slides, I think this is wrong. Color comes later after the basics are 
taught.<<<<

If we could all go through the learning process in an orderly fashion, 
that would be wonderful. For today's average photographer, I think color 
is the basics. B&W is something to be learned as a whole different 
craft.

IMHO, as always

Andrea S. Blair
asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx

p.s. As an experienced person in the clubs I have been in, I have 
watched people learn and progress rapidly once they switched to slides 
and could see the results of their shooting clearly. Some have even gone 
on to B&W and have excelled even more. But no one said they wished they 
had done B&W first. It didn't seem to make any difference which they did 
first.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------