# Canon ae-1 or Olympus om-1?



## -Su

So I just recently got interested in photography and asked one of my friends where should I start. He suggested that I get either a canon ae-1 or olymous om-1 film camera so I can learn how to use and understand the functions on a camera. I am wondering if this is a good idea or should I start somewhere also. I am also wondering where would be the best place to buy one of these cameras. I have looked on ebay and I found a good deal on an olympus om1 that comes with the camera,strap, one lens( I think a Zuiko lens),manual book, viewfinder, lens cap, and winder with free shipping. Would this be a good place to start.
I also have limited budgeting and am researching things like aperture and shutter speed.


----------



## Chamelion 6

-Su said:


> So I just recently got interested in photography and asked one of my friends where should I start. He suggested that I get either a canon ae-1 or olymous om-1 film camera so I can learn how to use and understand the functions on a camera. I am wondering if this is a good idea or should I start somewhere also. I am also wondering where would be the best place to buy one of these cameras. I have looked on ebay and I found a good deal on an olympus om1 that comes with the camera,strap, one lens( I think a Zuiko lens),manual book, viewfinder, lens cap, and winder with free shipping. Would this be a good place to start.
> I also have limited budgeting and am researching things like aperture and shutter speed.


 
If you want a film camera to learn about photography, get an old manual camera.  

I don't see any difference in AE on a film camera or a digital except the digital AE is going to be more sophiticated and learning on a film camera is going to be more expensive in the long run.   Chemicals, film, paper etc...

And if the lab is developing all your stuff you're not going to get as much feel for it either.


----------



## -Su

So do you think it would just be better to invest in a digital DSLR or SLR in the long run?


----------



## Chamelion 6

If you think you're going to pursue it pretty seriously, yeah.  You can always shoot the digital in manual and see the effects in post processing.  

The film camera is fairly cheap up front, but film and chemical are pretty expensive, so you'll burn up your savings pretty quick.  With digital the cost is mostly up front, experimenting is is much cheaper so you can shoot a lot of photos with little expense.  That means you're more likely to experiment and not sweat the failures so much.  And failing and figuring out why is propbably the best way to learn.


----------



## -Su

Thanks for the advice! What are some good cameras you would suggest?


----------



## icassell

I know there is a school of thought that says that you should learn on a manual film camera (just as there is a school of thought that says you should learn to drive on a standard transmission).  I learned that way as did many of the other older photographers around here.

I went to digital about 3 years ago and don't look back.  The advantage to digital which cannot be overstated is the instant feedback you get at low cost.  You can experiment to your heart's content without worrying about the cost of film/processing and you don't have to wait a couple of days to see what you are doing right/wrong.  This way, your learning curve is much much faster than it would be with film.  It would cost you a great deal of cash to do on film the hundreds of images you can do in a day with a digital camera. Given this, I would recommend learning on digital.  If you want to try film later for the experience, go right ahead and have fun (I still do occasionally).


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

I would say the learning curve may be steeper starting with film, as well as more expensive, and slower. However, you may become more disciplined because you can't just willy Nilly shoot hundreds of images and have 2 keepers.


----------



## -Su

Thank you icassel and Bitter Jeweler as well I will take that into consideration too but I've been looking at cameras lately and they're kind of pricy.


----------



## Chamelion 6

I'm not so good at recomending cameras.  That depends on a lot of variables, budget being the biggest.

What are you looking to spend?


----------



## -Su

Well if it is possible under 450 to 500 dollars.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

-Su, you have to look at the costs differently. A $600 canon Rebel XSi will last you 3-5 years, speed your learning with instant feedback, and you can print/enlarge your occasional keeper as you go. With a film camera that you buy for $50 that will last you a few years, you have to add up all the costs of film and developing over that same time. 

Digital the cost is upfront, film, you pay over time.


----------



## -Su

True, True but which brand is most reliable? Many people say Canon but my sister's friend who is deep into photography says Nikon is best.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. They are both reliable. 

Canon vs. Nikon is fightin' words round here. Do a forum search if you want a good laugh.


----------



## -Su

Haha,but thanks for the advice it really helped me.


----------



## reznap

What's more reliable?  That's hard to say.. depends mostly on use.

Some Canon AE-1 cameras have squeaky shutters.. if the shutter even works.  I just replaced a Nikon FE which had a shutter that sometimes decided not to open.  Sometimes the light meters on the older SLRs tend to not work so well.  It really depends on what you're lucky enough to find and how much you spend.

I recently dropped $100 on a Nikon FE2 body, mostly because I was grieving the dead FE.  Reasons for you to consider the FE2:  can do 1/4000th shutter.  Shutter is made of titanium and is very durable.  M250 = 1/250 shutter speed with a dead battery.  They look like this:


----------



## -Su

reznap Thank you for informing about the canon ae1 and tips on the shutters, I'll keep that in mind when/if I decide to buy a film camera.


----------



## Derrel

Canon Digital Camera Bodies - KEH.com

A used Canon 20D body from KEH.com is only $349 in Excellent condition...I would much rather have a Canon 20D than a Nikon or Olympus or Canon 35mm manual focus film camera. I learned on film,and am pretty familiar with a number of 35mm film cameras, some of which were very nice picture-taking machines.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Bitter Jeweler said:


> -Su, you have to look at the costs differently. A $600 canon Rebel XSi will last you 3-5 years, speed your learning with instant feedback, and you can print/enlarge your occasional keeper as you go. With a film camera that you buy for $50 that will last you a few years, you have to add up all the costs of film and developing over that same time.
> 
> Digital the cost is upfront, film, you pay over time.


 
^^^ This is pretty much right on target.


----------



## -Su

So what are some suggestions for good cameras? I'm a real beginner so all the technicality stuff/photography language I do not completely understand.


----------



## DirtyDFeckers

-Su said:


> So what are some suggestions for good cameras? I'm a real beginner so all the technicality stuff/photography language I do not completely understand.



Again, it is all about what you are looking for in a camera... For a beginner, something like a Canon Rebel xsi or a Nikon D3000 would be just fine.  I have seen some black friday adds for the Canon, $449 kit price, which is a solid deal, for a solid camera.  Don't get dragged into a Nikon vs Canon debate, which is a pointless waste of time where you wont get any definitive answers.  IT IS ALL PERSONAL PREFERENCE.  Both companies manufacture a high quality product.


----------



## enzodm

-Su said:


> So what are some suggestions for good cameras? I'm a real beginner so all the technicality stuff/photography language I do not completely understand.



any dSLR you can afford will be good for a beginner. Within your budget, you can find some new (Canon Rebel Xs, Nikon d3000, some Olympus, some Sony) including kit zoom, or go for something better but used..


----------



## -Su

Thanks I was also just looking into the Canon Rebel xsi as well


----------



## enzodm

-Su said:


> Thanks I was also just looking into the Canon Rebel xsi as well



A good idea. There are better (and more expensive) cameras, but to understand why you need to have done some experience. Being your first dSLR, it will seem excellent anyway. Save some dollar for a good photography book, and a tripod: they will influence picture quality more than 200 extra dollars on the camera  .


----------



## Patrice

I'm going to go against the grain here as far as recommending an inexpensive first digital camera. Previously owned d70 or d200 would not be a bad choice. Both have focus motors so an inexpensive 50 mm 1.8D can be used. Both can function as a CLS commander if you ever get a Nikon SB600 flash. The d70 will sync with some manual flashes all the way up to 1/4000 sec and in some cases to 1/8000. The d200 has a sealed metal body and some interesting and useful features. The d200 will meter with an astounding array of older nikon lenses. Both have rather dated sensors so they are noisy beyond ISO 400. The d200 creates very nice imagery at base iso, rivals d2x in this category. Both are very inexpensive!

Don't know anything about canon, sorry.

As for film - it's expensive and feedback is slow. (I'm buying an om1 for astrophotography - I can lock the mirror up and leave the shutter open as long as I want without draining batteries, and it's lightweight but durable. Weight is the enemy of telescope mounts!)


----------



## -Su

What about the Olympus E-510?


----------



## uniqstyle-power

thanks for the advices. i have learned a couple things.:hug::


----------



## uniqstyle-power

could you make a litter clearly about Olympus E-510 ? tks


----------



## Canon AE-1

I'm kind of in the same boat, just starting off in the art of photography. I feel that a digital camera is sort of a cheat for me. Just point and shoot for the most part. 

I prefer to use a manual camera to learn on. The art of getting the shot right, exposure, methods, experimentation, effects, angles and so on. The same can be done on a digital from the on board effects or photoshop, but that takes the fun out of it. Where is the true art? The only thing i like about digital is the fact u can upload the pics to the computer right after a shoot. For now i have to wait on film processing. But after i master the camera then maybe i will get into processing my own photos. Patience and one step at a time. My cameras: Canon AE-1, AE-1 Program, T-70.

btw, I got my cams off of ebay. Price: AE-1 35.00 used and i only had to replace the seals, AE-1 program 62.00 new in the box, T-70 24.00 used just cleaned the mirror. They all work great.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Canon AE-1 said:


> I prefer to use a manual camera to learn on.


Digital camera can be used manually.



> The art of getting the shot right, exposure, methods, experimentation, effects, angles and so on.


You do that with digital too.




> The same can be done on a digital from the on board effects or photoshop, but that takes the fun out of it.


You can do it through the lens with a digital, also.




> Where is the true art?


 
Really? REALLY?





> The only thing i like about digital is the fact u can upload the pics to the computer right after a shoot.


Which increases learning speed.


----------



## Canon AE-1

LOL, Bitter Jeweler! Ok Ok. For me, there is just something missing from the digitals, Maybe the 35mm film? I dont know, something. I have some digitals but it's not the same. Perhaps i'm just an old school die hard fogy, lol.*[URL="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/bitter-jeweler.html"]*[/URL]


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

The biggest thing missing from digital, to me, is dynamic range.

Digital is great, and film is great. Both have some unique qualities to them.
But for someone starting out, I have to say go digital, then when you get really good, it's a cinch to go back to film.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Bitter Jeweler said:


> The biggest thing missing from digital, to me, is dynamic range.
> 
> Digital is great, and film is great. Both have some unique qualities to them.
> But for someone starting out, I have to say go digital, then when you get really good, it's a cinch to go back to film.


 
That's true, but I think it's only a matter of time before digital catches up and probably surpasses film.

As for manual cameras
The cost of doing film goes beyond just the film. First of all, the AE-1, the AE-1P, and the T70 are all programmed cameras, the AE-1 was the first true programmed camera, they're not any more manual than my T1i. For a true manual camera you need to go back at least one more generation. True manual cameras had a match - needle light meter, where you used either the shutter dial or apeature ring to manuever a "lollipop" so that the ring was bisected by a light sensitive needle. Or go back yet a generation before that so you had no exposure system built into the camera... You used a hand held light meter.

You can still get a light meter and use it with your digital camera and get the best of both worlds.

I think learning on film only really benefits if you go all the way and develop the stuff yourself. That means a darkroom, film processing equipment, enlarger and the whole works. Then you get a feel for how it all comes together, from film sensitivity, apeture, shutter speed, pushing your processing times, and even printing the final image and manipulating that. But now-a-days that's a pretty expensive way to go. Only the camera is cheap.

If you're wanting to learn about exposure "manually" get a light meter and a decent digital. There is nothing that film camera is going to teach you that a good light meter won't, and the light meter will still be useful as you progress. A film camera is doomed to become a conversation piece.

That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## Canon AE-1

Dont they have density filters for digitals to increase dynamic range? 
I'm not really new to photography just new to 35mm film photography. I have used old 8mm and super 8 cams, point and shoots, video cams, kodak 360s, one steps, Sony mavica digital when they first came out saving photos to a floppy and some newer digitals, but there is something still missing. I'm hoping to find it with 35mm.

I have taken 1000s of photos but only to ....chronicalize something, like a pic of a new car, etc. But never as "art". Photos of flowers, human subjects, wildlife, etc. Much to learn.


----------



## Canon AE-1

"For a true manual camera you need to go back at least one more  generation.  True manual cameras had a match - needle light meter, where  you used either the shutter dial or apeature ring to manuever a  "lollipop" so that the ring was bisected by a light sensitive needle.   Og go back yet a generation before that so you had no exposure system  built into the camera...  You used a hand held light meter."


I have thought of that, i may also go that route as well.


----------



## enzodm

If you are interested in art of photography,  no doubt the tool is *not* important. 
If you are interested in craft of photography, then you might choose one specific photographic method and become a fine craftsman on that specific technique - at the end, we have to spend time in some pleasant way. 
I took some digital pinhole picture, just to experiment with self-made pinholes,  f/, exposure times. Fortunately, having done on digital, I had the  possibility to check results just after. 
Willing to be really manual, perhaps a wood box with some bitumen of Judea inside could be also a nice pastime. Sooner or later I'll try  .


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Canon AE-1 said:


> Dont they have density filters for digitals to increase dynamic range?
> I'm not really new to photography just new to 35mm film photography. I have used old 8mm and super 8 cams, point and shoots, video cams, kodak 360s, one steps, Sony mavica digital when they first came out saving photos to a floppy and some newer digitals, but there is something still missing. I'm hoping to find it with 35mm.
> 
> I have taken 1000s of photos but only to ....chronicalize something, like a pic of a new car, etc. But never as "art". Photos of flowers, human subjects, wildlife, etc. Much to learn.


Perhaps what is missing has nothing to do with the tool?
Maybe you need to focus on composition, and communication of ideas via a visual medium?
You know. Study art.


----------



## Canon AE-1

"Study art" might just be the missing link.


----------



## PatrickCheung

I figured I'd offer my opinion on this:

No matter what camera you get, the learning is up to you.  You could get a digital camera, get instant feedback and not learn from it.  You could get a film camera, wait for your roll to come back, and not learn from that either.  I started off with a digital camera, and for the first few months I randomly shot everything I could, barely paying attention to my exposure settings, the surrounding light, metering, etc.  I gave up for about a month or so since I could never get the right shots.  

One day I randomly thought of my camera, and how much money I'm putting to waste by not using it... and decided to learn photography.  That was the same day I started my Project 365 (a photo a day for a year)... I forced myself to learn because I wanted a good shot to show off everyday.  That was also the same day that I started paying attention to my settings, metering, getting to know the quirks of my camera... etc.  Personally, I think that learning photography is all about understanding how you ended up with the photo you're viewing.  Why is the photo blurry?  Why are the skies blown out?  Why am I losing details in shadows?  You gotta understand why by taking photos.  

To be honest, I don't think instant feedback helps you learn, and neither does waiting for a negative.  You've got to make yourself learn; you could have instant feedback and not care about it... or wait a week for a roll of negatives and not care about it.  

I'm almost done my 365 now (I'm technically supposed to be done, started nov 10th, but had a few hiatuses here and there!), I'd like to think I understand why and how I get the shots I get and more importantly, how to improve them.  

 Film or digital is up to you.  To be honest, I find film a little more appealing to me.  The dynamic range (in some films) and natural colour can't be beat... and the feel of a film photo is something that can't be truly replicated in digital (at least in my opinion).


----------



## -Su

PatrickCheung said:


> I figured I'd offer my opinion on this:
> 
> No matter what camera you get, the learning is up to you. You could get a digital camera, get instant feedback and not learn from it. You could get a film camera, wait for your roll to come back, and not learn from that either. I started off with a digital camera, and for the first few months I randomly shot everything I could, barely paying attention to my exposure settings, the surrounding light, metering, etc. I gave up for about a month or so since I could never get the right shots.
> 
> One day I randomly thought of my camera, and how much money I'm putting to waste by not using it... and decided to learn photography. That was the same day I started my Project 365 (a photo a day for a year)... I forced myself to learn because I wanted a good shot to show off everyday. That was also the same day that I started paying attention to my settings, metering, getting to know the quirks of my camera... etc. Personally, I think that learning photography is all about understanding how you ended up with the photo you're viewing. Why is the photo blurry? Why are the skies blown out? Why am I losing details in shadows? You gotta understand why by taking photos.
> 
> To be honest, I don't think instant feedback helps you learn, and neither does waiting for a negative. You've got to make yourself learn; you could have instant feedback and not care about it... or wait a week for a roll of negatives and not care about it.
> 
> I'm almost done my 365 now (I'm technically supposed to be done, started nov 10th, but had a few hiatuses here and there!), I'd like to think I understand why and how I get the shots I get and more importantly, how to improve them.
> 
> Film or digital is up to you. To be honest, I find film a little more appealing to me. The dynamic range (in some films) and natural colour can't be beat... and the feel of a film photo is something that can't be truly replicated in digital (at least in my opinion).


 
Wow...that was really deep.


----------



## Canon AE-1

I concur Patrick.


----------



## Derrel

Canon AE-1 said:


> "Study art" might just be the missing link.



OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???

Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?


----------



## Canon AE-1

Derrel said:


> Canon AE-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Study art" might just be the missing link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???
> 
> Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?
Click to expand...



Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.


----------



## Chamelion 6

I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it.  I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such.  By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.  
The "rules" are for analyzing the finised item.  Fortunately, I was in school and they furnished the film, darkroom, and chemicals. Lot's of trial and error.

I know a lot of people think that copying they style of someone you admire is bad, but I disagree completely. Musicians don't learn music by only playing original compositions, do they? Most writers learn their craft by writing in the styles of those that inspire them. Even in painting, most learned by imitation...

Why should photography be any different? Just make sure you give credit to the shoulders your standing on.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Canon AE-1 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon AE-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Study art" might just be the missing link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG--why would anybody study art, or design, or composition, when they could just learn by looking at the pit'chers on Flickr???
> 
> Why would anybody study art when they could just take some internet lessons on Photoshop, or Lightroom, and like, be a pro in a year or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.
Click to expand...

 
Technical information is only a part of the story. Images on Flickr don't have EXIF info for what compositional elements have been used, and why.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Chamelion 6 said:


> I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it. I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such. By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.


 
But you spent "some" time learning about composition, so that you could at least recognize it, no? If you don't know the language...

I get from your post that you don't feel it is important to learn.
To anybody that feels that way, and puts that view forward on a beginers forum, I have to ask...Are you selling your work? Does your work hang in art galleries? Are you making more than 50% of your income from your images?







> The "rules" are for analyzing the finised item.


That's laughable.


----------



## enzodm

Canon AE-1 said:


> Interesting, but how do you know what shutter speed was used or aperture setting, or angle or lighting was used? To learn, you have to Do. Learn what steps are involved to create a good photo. Looking at pictures might tell you what you want to accomplish but not how to accomplish it.



although I'm not yet able to fully interpret a picture, most of time there are visible hints on how picture has been taken. Not at the most precise level, but slow or fast shutter, large or small aperture , light direction give signs that can be interpreted by a careful and trained observer. Exact values depend also on camera and scene, so are up to experimentation (and thus quicker with digital).


----------



## BKMOOD

Don't get me wrong. I love my DSLR and it has paid me well (still does). However, I get no real sense of accomplishment as a photographer using it. The thing is so damned automated, a monkey could probably get a good shot out of it. But with film, it's a whole other story.

I love film. I still shoot film. My DSLR feeds my wallet. Film feeds my creative soul. I have one medium format camera and 27 35mm film cameras (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and so forth). I use them all. In some of them, the meter doesn't even work. I use a 40 year old handheld meter to get the shot. Works out just fine.

Film is a challenge. Can I get this shot? I love a challenge. My DSLR is not a challenge to me. Each role of film is like a Christmas present I can't wait to open when I get home, lock myself in a dark closet and develop it. I'm nervous and excited. Did I get it? Did I get it? My DSLR offers no such excitement.

After the processing, I am always shocked with childlike amazement: Cool! I got pictures -- and they came out! And there's nothing like holding a negative in your hand and putting it in a book. No computer glitch or virus will make it disappear.

Don't get me wrong. I love my DSLR. I am planning to buy another one. It has paid me well. But it bores me creatively. It is a business tool, much like a hammer. My customers expect it so I deliver it. However, it is a godsend when shooting sports.

My 20-something film cameras make me a kid again everytime I use them, nervous and excited with anticipation. Did I get the shot?! And I love that feeling. My DSLR never gives me that feeling. Never, no matter what mode I shoot in, and I usually shoot manual.

Recently started shooting with Ektar 100.  Pictures are just as sharp as my DSLR.  I'm even more in love with film.  LOL!


----------



## Chamelion 6

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say most of the stuff I learned about composition and exposure was done by looking at other's stuff, especially old copies of Life, and trying to duplicate it. I've never spent a lot of time learning "rules" as such. By carefully studying other's works I learned to see composition more than rationalize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you spent "some" time learning about composition, so that you could at least recognize it, no? If you don't know the language...
> 
> I get from your post that you don't feel it is important to learn.
> To anybody that feels that way, and puts that view forward on a beginers forum, I have to ask...Are you selling your work? Does your work hang in art galleries? Are you making more than 50% of your income from your images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are for analyzing the finished item.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughable.
Click to expand...

 
I make $0 from my images...  On purpose.  I went that rout in my early days, even went to school majoring in photojournalism.  I discovered not everythng you love is what you should do for a living as it sometimes sucks the life out of it.  None of my work hangs in a gallery, never really pursued that.  Wasn't aware it was a requirement...    I do have a little pile of awards from waaaaay back when, but that's past history.

I don't question learning.  I don't question craft.  What I question is the stuffy way learning and craft are approached.  Knowing a bunch of stale dusty rules isn't much of an asset when you're out shooting and things are moving in changing all around you.  Photography is a VISUAL art, learn to VISUALIZE...  You don't do that by memorizing a lot of vague composition rules, you do it by studying photos, lots of photos...  Good ones and bad, they all teach something.   I still do that, and that's where I use those dusty old rules.  To identify what  works and what doesn't; what could be better and what stands out.  But only after I digest the photo on it's own merrits.  What is the point of the shot?  What is the photographer trying to say?  

I just see all those rules, all that techinical knowledge, and those gribbly details are a means to and end, and if the photo they support has nothing to say then who cares how crafted it is...   On the other hand, if you give me something with a clear and powerful statement... I'm gonna over look a lot of technical imperfections, especially if they aren't getting in the way of what the image says.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Chamelion 6 said:


> I make $0 from my images... On purpose. I went that rout in my early days, even went to school majoring in photojournalism. I discovered not everythng you love is what you should do for a living as it sometimes sucks the life out of it. None of my work hangs in a gallery, never really pursued that. Wasn't aware it was a requirement...  I do have a little pile of awards from waaaaay back when, but that's past history.


 
No it's not a requirement, but some weight can be placed on that when armchair quarterbacks are telling beginiers that learning composition is *not *important.



> I don't question learning. I don't question craft. What I question is the stuffy way learning and craft are approached. Knowing a bunch of stale dusty rules isn't much of an asset when you're out shooting and things are moving in changing all around you.


 The stuffy way way learning is approached? C'mon.
The photographer that has a firm grasp of composition makes it a part of him/herself, and can roughly frame up a shot using all they know, on the fly, just like the split second decision to turn your camera to shoot portrait, instead of landscape.

I like how you call tried and true, dusty and old. We can equate dusty old rules to language. Those dusty old rules are still being used and still being taught.




> Photography is a VISUAL art, learn to VISUALIZE... You don't do that by memorizing a lot of vague composition rules,


 Why yes, you do! There is a VISUAL LANGUAGE. Yes they are vague. Thats why calling them "rules" is a bad thing. They are vague, because the can be applied to billions of combinations of subjects.




> you do it by studying photos, lots of photos... Good ones and bad, they all teach something.


 Yup, they show you how the theories of composition have been used. It's all around us.




> I still do that, and that's where I use those dusty old rules. To identify what works and what doesn't; what could be better and what stands out. But only after I digest the photo on it's own merrits. What is the point of the shot? What is the photographer trying to say?


You're using those dusty old rules to see if the photographer used them in the first place. Isn't that the gauge you are using to decide if an image works or not? If it's not then what are you using as a gauge? 




> I just see all those rules, all that techinical knowledge, and those gribbly details are a means to and end, and if the photo they support has nothing to say then who cares how crafted it is... On the other hand, if you give me something with a clear and powerful statement... I'm gonna over look a lot of technical imperfections, especially if they aren't getting in the way of what the image says.


 
Well, yes, there are images that ignore everything and have a strong emotional impact. But just because they exist does not mean you should throw what has been proven over time in the bin. But this really doesn't apply to people in a beginners forum, to people learning portraiture, wedding photography, macro work, abstract work, landscapes...I feel you or anybody that says there is no need to learn the rules, to study them, to understand them, are doing people learning this craft a *huge* disservice! 

Knowledge of composition and technical know how are indeed a means to an end. Great images are more often than not, not random. Otherwise, the mantra to teach all these new people to photography, would be the new rule of "spray and pray."


----------



## Chamelion 6

Let's back up a bit, I don't think we're connecting on where I'm coming from. 

I think composition is ALL important.  It's the means to telling your visual story.  Without it you really have nothing.

What I'm saying is I don't think very many people really learn good composition by beating on the rules themselves as much as they learn from simply seeing good composition. The rules, when applied without really understanding what they mean, drive towards very formulaic, uninspired photos. 

The rules are seldom in the forefront of my thinking when I'm composing or shooting. I developed my sense of composition by training my eye to recognize what I like and I did that by studying other people's work. There is, in my opinion, no substitute for that.  That's the real ticket to learning composition.

You're right, it get's you to the same place, but I think, _for most people_, learning to see it, to pick it out of the visual clutter around you at the moment, yields far better, more intuative, and creative results than , say, trying to visualize a grid over your image and mentally lining things this way and that. 

On the other hand, when you're sitting looking at all those images and trying to decide why something fails, drawing all those grids and lines gives you a measureable way of understanding what you are looking at.

In otherwords, when you teach composition as a bunch of rules first, too many people get tangled up in them and never really SEE the composition itself. They simply see a bunch of rules. I never tossed them out, I just seem them as tools. I just don't hold them in the same reverance that I think most do.

Sane with technique. I spend a lot of time looking at my stuff and others asking how it could have been done better. If my skills at shooting at night are ruining my ability to take good shots at night, then my technique is failing me. But the final product drives that, not some vague notion that I must always produce technically perfect images.

So there we agree, the better your vocabulary the better you communicate. But reading a dictionary is a not the key to better writing. You have to have a clear idea of what you're trying to say first, that drives the word choices.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Ok, I see where your coming from.

I can sum up a response by saying:

You can't learn french just by looking at the words. Somebody has to teach you what the words mean, and the correct way to put them together. When you write your first sentence you are gonna draw from what you have been taught before you put pen to paper, not afterwards. Then, the more you practice it, it becomes second nature. It is the same with the visual language.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Ok, I see where your coming from.
> 
> I can sum up a response by saying:
> 
> You can't learn french just by looking at the words. Somebody has to teach you what the words mean, and the correct way to put them together. When you write your first sentence you are gonna draw from what you have been taught before you put pen to paper, not afterwards. Then, the more you practice it, it becomes second nature. It is the same with the visual language.


 
Exactly. Learning to think in that language is the key really learning it. Eventually you begin to refine your understanding of the definitions of the words... Your first steps are to simply communicate, then you start refining the grammar...


----------

