# There's better things to worry about than mastering your camera



## ralphh (Mar 2, 2013)

Hi all,

Thought I&#8217;d write a short article for the beginners on here (ok, short-ish -it will probably take up a whole 5 to 10 mins of your life to read. Might save you years tho!  It does get less text-heavy as you go on  ). 

 I see a lot of questions about camera settings and gear.  I also see a lot of people come on TPF with very little camera or photography experience wanting to start their own business and get told they can&#8217;t until they&#8217;ve &#8220;mastered&#8221; their cameras and bought better gear.

What I don&#8217;t see on the beginner boards is discussions about light and composition, which are much more fundamental and important than what settings your camera is on or even which camera you have.  

If you really want to get the &#8220;_basics_&#8221; right, it&#8217;s light and composition you need to be thinking about.  Camera settings can come later, or even not at all&#8230;

This is not a how-to article, but more a what-to-invest-your-learning-time-into-first article.  All the information you&#8217;ll ever need is already out there on the internet.  _You just need to decide what to learn about._

My basic point here is that mastering all your camera settings and upgrading your gear pales to nothing in comparison to mastering light and composition, and you could be taking good photos on green-box-auto instead of taking bad ones on full manual if you diverted your attention away from all those switches and buttons and gear reviews and onto something more important.  

Don&#8217;t get me wrong; clearly we eventually want to master everything so we can have vision and deliver on it in the best possible way, BUT, while there are indeed times when, for example full auto mode with deliver truly horrendous results, it will probably work just fine 90% of the time.  Not thinking about composition and light will yield horrid results at least 90% of the time (and that is a very conservative estimate).  

Given there&#8217;s only so many hours in the day, do you want to work on fixing the 10% you ruined by being on auto, or the 90% you ruined with bad lighting and composition?  If you&#8217;d rather take bad photos with the right settings, or find that taking photos is secondary to reading the latest gear reviews, this thread is probably not going to interest you.  If you&#8217;d like to progress at taking much better photos as quickly as possible, read on.

So why do people always start with camera settings?  Why do people - even those who own cameras - ask &#8220;what camera / settings did you use for that?&#8221;.  Well I suspect there are 3 main reasons:  

1. The main one is probably that people don&#8217;t realise there&#8217;s anything else to it &#8211; if photo (A) looks bad and photo (B) looks good, the difference must be somehow related to the camera; people just don&#8217;t understand that light has different qualities and how fundamentally important light and composition are in terms of making or breaking a photograph.  

2. Using something you don&#8217;t fully understand makes you feel like a passenger rather than the driver.  But really, you&#8217;re still in charge of all the most important bits of a photograph (ie everything that goes into the front of the lens), even on Auto.   If you want to &#8220;take charge&#8221; of something then take charge of something that actually matters and that the camera can&#8217;t help you with.

3. Playing with technology and lusting after gear is just a lot more fun than thinking about light and composition! 

A few years ago, if someone had asked me to teach them photography I would have started with the fundamentals of exposure.  By the time I was through with them they&#8217;d have been able to explain exactly why a 50mm f1.4 lens has as aperture radius of 17.6mm wide open, but they probably wouldn&#8217;t actually be any better at taking a good photograph.  Good job no-one did ask me!  Now days, if I was going to teach someone photography I&#8217;d probably start off by cutting a rectangle in a sheet of card and have them look through it and tell me what they can see.


_Enough waffle, must be time for me to back all those statements up with some evidence&#8230;_


So, let&#8217;s start off with some context; today I have decided to make a portrait of my 5-month-old daughter to hang on the wall of her grandmother&#8217;s house (grandmothers like this sort of thing, mother&#8217;s day is coming up next weekend in the UK and I&#8217;m gonna save a little cash and give my mother a photo of her granddaughter instead of going and spending my hard-earned money!).  

I&#8217;m busy this afternoon and tomorrow, I get home after she goes to bed during the week, and grandma is coming to visit next Saturday, so it has to be this morning.   No pressure on producing something that demonstrates my point to go with this article then!  And I need get a printable photo out of it too&#8230;


Let&#8217;s start with a how to take terrible photo &#8211; and lets put me back at the start of my journey into photography&#8230; I pick up my point and shoot, which is on green-box-auto-noob-mode, walk up to my daughter, point it at her, press the shutter and POW! Instant free present! Woo!







ah&#8230; well that looks like cr@p &#8211; I better get some good gear, and learn how to &#8220;master&#8221; my camera


Ok, so let&#8217;s pretend I&#8217;m the worlds fastest camera buyer, reader and learner; I get hold of a full frame DSLR, a 35mm f1.4 prime (probably having bought a crop DSLR and zoom lenses first, later upgrading everything), and go on the interweb, learn everything there is to know about camera settings all in an hour and come back (otherwise daughter will be at collage and grandma will be dead before we get to the end of this article).

This time I&#8217;m &#8216;taking control&#8217; of my DSLR &#8211; I select my aperture, dial in some exposure comp, and I set my ISO so I have a decent shutter speed.  I&#8217;m using the centre focus point because it&#8217;s more accurate &#8211; it&#8217;s cross type y&#8217;know&#8230; I&#8217;m gonna use f2.8 because this lens sharpens up a bit in the corners stopped a couple of stops, and I&#8217;ve set it to RAW format, so I can change my WB, sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc later on my now properly calibrated monitor.. yada yada yada&#8230;.  oh yeeeaah, i AM the master...

POW!  Advanced camera uber control skill home made present!





She's gone from looking bemused to looking thoroughly disappointed.....


 The expensive gear doesn&#8217;t seem to have helped much, and clearly I haven&#8217;t actually progressed as a photographer very much either - in reality I&#8217;ve probably spent years learning all about camera settings, just to go ahead and pick pretty similar values to the ones the camera would have picked in Auto in the first place, in the mistaken belief that camera settings are a key thing that&#8217;s wrong here.  The only thing I need to do is add a watermark and I&#8217;ll be good enough to be featured on youarenotaphotographer.com


So, could I have used that time and energy to progress more if I&#8217;d have been learning something different?  



Given that this scenario *isn&#8217;t *actually fictional &#8211; I really am tight-fisted, and my mother really _is_ going to get a photo of my daughter for mother&#8217;s day, printed on my crummy all-in-one inkjet, and I really do needed to do this today, I&#8217;ll take you through how I would approach this.  


This is the way I approach taking a photo when I want to produce something more than a snapshot (if you pay attention, you may notice the camera doesn&#8217;t actually appear in this until quite near the end):


First, let&#8217;s think about what I actually want this photo to look like.  I&#8217;d like to show my daughter playing (with) her little plastic piano &#8211; last time grandma was round she loved watching her play (whacking) it.  Obviously I want her looking at the camera, but the piano is uninteresting from the back.  Maybe I can shoot her slightly from behind / to the side, and see if I can get her to look over her shoulder at me.  At this point a mental image starts to form.  I imagine her on the right hand side of the frame, her face (the main subject) being in the top-right 3rd, looking at me, with the composition balanced by the secondary subject of the piano mid/low left.  I&#8217;m thinking that to show the piano keyboard properly I need to be slightly above her level, but I don&#8217;t want to be looking down on her from miles above.  I&#8217;m probably going to want the camera about 6&#8221; above her eye level, but I&#8217;ll finalise that when I&#8217;m actually looking through the viewfinder.

I start to give other things like the background some consideration.  It&#8217;s nothing complicated this time; I want a clean, uncluttered background &#8211; preferably a light neutral colour to make her and her little plastic piano pop, but I definitely do not want a white studio background look &#8211; I want this to look like I shot it in the house, not in the studio; uncluttered and clean, but without the clinically-clean seamless paper look.  Despite that, I do want it look somewhat formal as I want it to be reminiscent of the photos my mother has of me as a baby.

I now have a very strong picture of what it&#8217;ll look like, and it looks nice in my mind.  If I wasn&#8217;t an incompetent ape when it comes to wielding a paintbrush I could paint it instead.  If I can&#8217;t get it straight in my mind then most of the time I won&#8217;t go any further with it &#8211; if you can&#8217;t get a picture to look good in your head then you have very little chance of getting it to look good with the camera except by luck.


Now that I know what I want compositionally, I&#8217;m going to think about my light.    Given my daughter is only 5 months old, she can sit up for about a  minute tops.  Then she&#8217;ll get too tired, keel over, and I&#8217;ll not be able  to sit her back up again, so I have no time to adjust once she&#8217;s &#8220;on  set&#8221;.  Knowing what I want, and how to get it is key - I can't  experiment here. 

I want a soft, gentle light, reasonably even, but not flat; it still needs to have some direction to it to give form and shape, but I don&#8217;t want harsh or deep shadows &#8211; young children rarely look good with 'creative' lighting, so let&#8217;s look around the house to see where the light is how I want it&#8230; (I won&#8217;t bother taking you on a photo tour of my house, but skip ahead to the point where I&#8217;ve found some nice light).

So, in my bedroom there are two windows near my bed.  Opposite them the wall is painted white.  So I can sit my daughter on the bed with a white background (ok, it&#8217;ll be light grey in the final image as I&#8217;m not lighting it, and it&#8217;s further from the light source than she will be, but that&#8217;s fine).

The fact that there&#8217;s two windows means that I&#8217;ll have light from both sides and I&#8217;ll not have any deep shadows; I&#8217;ll end up with a key-light & fill-light situation and I can move my daughter nearer to one window or the other to change the ratio and softness of the light.  This room faces south, but the fact that it&#8217;s cloudy outside means the light will be pretty soft coming straight through the windows so we can be close to them.  If I only had one window I&#8217;d use a reflector, and if it was summer I&#8217;d move further from the window into the shade, or find a north facing window to give me some much softer lighting.  I will always be able to find or modify the light so that fits the bill.

I already know what the difference looks like between key-lighting the near  side of a face (called broard-light) and far sides of a face (called short-light).  I want the stronger light on her back and the near side of face so I&#8217;ll place her nearer to the right hand window.  This means moving the bed a bit, but that&#8217;s no biggie.

I used an aftershave bottle to quickly double check my light &#8211; to make sure it really is going in the direction I think, and shadows are being filled.  While I was checking that I thought I&#8217;d be helpful and take a quick snap.

The shot on the left is with only the key-light window (I shut the curtains on the other) the shot on the right is using both windows.  Notice how it doesn&#8217;t get any brighter (as the camera has compensated) but the shadow is significantly filled.








You could of course use off-camera flash instead, but either way, the light needs to thought about, and finding some nice light in your house can very often be done with minimal equipment - reflector and a window will often do the job -- you just need to see and understand what it is you are seeing by learning about light.

Either way, you can see the amount of thought I&#8217;m putting into the lighting, and the fact that there are endless options for getting it how I want it, regardless of what state the natural light is in when I find it.  There are plently of places to learn this stuff.

Next, I neatly make the bed and put a light cream blanket on it so I have a nice surface to work on.  The scene is set, I just need my model.

I pop my daughter down with her piano, arranged like I planned, crouch down, look at it, and make sure it&#8217;s going to look right.  I look at the background, and realise I need to take down the picture hanging on the wall.  Really should have thought of that before now, but I never claimed I was perfect! _ Now _I can get my camera involved.  I get everything lined up in the viewfinder nicely, as close to as I pictured it as possible, but making final adjustments now imagination has met reality to make sure that it&#8217;s well framed and composed, I call her to make her look over her shoulder at me....















And this time I have something that grandma will love.   Ok, I&#8217;m not going to win any awards for these, but it is very close to what I imagined and I&#8217;d say mission accomplished.  The actual taking of the photographs took seconds (all i really had), and was nothing complicated.



So upgrading my gear and learning about my camera settings got me from here to here:








But by learning a few bits about light, and putting some thought into my composition got me from here to here:








It&#8217;s pretty clear what makes the biggest difference.  


And in case you're thinking "ok, he made a bad photo with a DSLR, that doesn't mean you can make a good one with a point and shoot on auto with no considderation of camera settings", this lighting situation is not tricky for a camera on auto.   Evern a point and shoot on auto would have rendered the scene pretty well too.  In fact I took one, just to prove the point:







Sadly my daughter was already starting to sag, so and I rushed it, and fluffed it somewhat, and only got one chance (she fell over just after this shot), so isn&#8217;t as nice looking as the DSLR one above, *but *that has nothing to do the camera, I promise - it's the framing and view point.  White balance is a bit off too, but that's a 1-click fix in photoshop elements, and it&#8217;s still a LOT better than the sucky DSLR one, and this was *shot without any thought about camera settings AT ALL *&#8211; full blown green auto mode.  There are significant differences between DSLR and point-and-shoot at 100% crop of course, but this is a function of sensor size and lens quality not manual vs auto and what it looks like at 100% on screen is not what makes or breaks an image:









On flickr or in a smallish print you wouldn&#8217;t see these differences, and most people who wind up here already have a DSLR of some sort, not a compact. 


Again, please note that I&#8217;m *not in any way* saying nice gear and camera settings are not important, of course they are, and some settings like aperture and focus have a direct effect on your composition itself (no, not framing, composition and framing are different), I&#8217;m just saying they&#8217;re _less_ important that what is actually entering your lens.  

I&#8217;m also not claiming to be a great photographer - I&#8217;m still working hard to improve, but it took me years and years to realise that to _really_ improve, I need to be worrying about light and composition much more than settings and gear... all that wasted time and money&#8230; *sigh*

Bottom line;

*Good gear and the right camera settings are the icing on the cake, but first make sure it is a cake you&#8217;re icing, not a turd.  No-one likes iced turd.*

^^ hmmm, that&#8217;d make a good signature

Anyway, just something to think about when deciding where to expend your time and effort when trying to become a better photographer&#8230;


-------------------------------------------
*EDIT:* A couple of people have raised a valid issue with my point here, which is that when you get onto more advanced subjects, camera settings are just as important, and in some cases possibly even more important than light an composition. It was never my intention to say this was not the case;  

Just to be clear, I was specifically aiming this at beginners and the things beginners tend to   photograph - their friends, their children, their cat.... Or the mum   who's bought a camera to photograph her kids and now wants to start a   little back-room business photographing other peroples kids.  More advanced portrait (and cat) phototographer should also find this useful too.  

Someone taking long exposure night scenes of city-scapes... not so much 

Re-reading my article, this wasn't as clear as it could have been, so appologies for that.


----------



## premortho (Mar 2, 2013)

Well said, and definatly needed saying.  Pre-visualization really is all important.  When I started in photography, in 1947, I was happily sailing along with my Speed Graphic (a pre Anniverary model), that my grandfather gave me (here kiddo, take this off my hands.  Baba, I said, that's your favorite camera. Kiddo, that's yesterdays news.  I found and bought a 5X7 Speed Graphic, and this little 4X5 is superflous to my needs).  And he gave me a film pack (12 sheets of film), Ansco Super Plenachrome.  I blew through that pack in about 3 days.  Granddad showed how to develope by inspection.  Pics were awful.  And if you don't think it was like a sledge hammer between the eyes, you've never seen an awful 4X5 contact print.  "Baba, why are these so bad?"  And he told me roughly the same thing as you have done in your post.  I hope a lot of gear fanatics and others read this, and apply it.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2013)

Hmmm... some valid points there to be sure, however, I disagree with half of your basic premise.  IMO, unless you have a thorough understanding of your camera's basic controls (aperture, SS, WB, EC, ISO), the best lit scene in the world won't do you much good if you don't know how to set the camera to capture the appropriate exposure.  Now, of course, you could throw it into 'Professional' mode, HOWEVER, then your DoF, SS and WB are a crap shoot, and while you might get the right exposure, you could equally wind up with much more or more less DoF than you intended.

With the exception of the actual, physical gear, so one element of photography is less important than another.  You must understand composition, you must understand light, you must understand exposure, and to capture that image, in that manner, you must understand your camera's controls.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 2, 2013)

I suspect it will be a little long for most people to read (we have short attentions spans), but your discussion of how you were looking at the light shows your sensibility is evolving.  Part of the reason more people don't start "with the light" is that that is not a question that even know to ask.  It only starts making sense once you begin to see the way the various sources of light interact to give you the scene you're seeing.  And that awareness of the light "nuts and bolts" doesn't come to the surface for most, because it is irrelevant for pretty much all everyday living.  Only when you start creating images (either photography, or drawing or painting), does the play of the light on your subject, and the way it creates the shadows that give depth, reveal texture, and paint the highlights, become something to notice and understand.

I am hoping that you will get feedback from other photographers who have not yet travelled as far down the road as you have.


----------



## MiFleur (Mar 2, 2013)

You have an important point here, thanks for this article, it remind us not to "focus" so much on the camera but on the message you want to convey.
It is the same as in life, set yourself a goal, think about how to achieve it, do it...  keep going...


----------



## ratssass (Mar 2, 2013)

....short attention span here....it started sounding blasphemous,so i skipped the rest.........is there a readers digest version?


----------



## pgriz (Mar 2, 2013)

ratssass said:


> ....short attention span here....it started sounding blasphemous,so i skipped the rest.........is there a readers digest version?



Short version:  Light's important.

Why you ask?  You'll need to read the article.

@ Ralphh:  There are a bunch of things that are involved with making images:  1) conception, 2) staging, 3) exposure, 4) post-processing.  What we call "snapshots" are all about #3.  Facebook snapshots are #3 followed by lots of inappropriate #4.  Light management is part of #2, along with scene selection, model/subject preparation, posing.  And #1 comes into play when you have enough skills to conceptualize what is possible.


----------



## weepete (Mar 2, 2013)

Well first of all well done Ralphh, you have outdone yourself on this one mate. 

It's something I still struggle with and am only just starting to be aware of the light conditions and trying to put more thought into my pics. I've certianly found this very useful indeed and want to say thanks for your explination about how you go about creating an image like this and what you do to get the right lighting conditions to work with. You've just produced a must read for anyone with a camera, great job!

If at somepoint you would think about doing a similar one but about how to capture the light when you are out and about as well I for one would be very interested.....?


----------



## pgriz (Mar 2, 2013)

@ weepete - that starts to happen when you're aware of the light, and when you're walking about you can be noticing how the light is with any scene.  Then memory and planning come into play - oh that was a really nice light on that building last night, just after sunset - I'll try and be there at the same time to capture the image...  

Or you see an appropriate subject, and think about when during the day you need to be there so the light is shining on all the right spots, and the shadows fall where they need to be.  That's how some gorgeous images get made.


----------



## ratssass (Mar 2, 2013)

... i meant absolutely no disrespect.It was just too long for me.It's kind of funny,tho,that what I've been looking at is the darkness/shadows.Some video I watched gave an Italian name for it which escapes me,but it had to do with the play of light/dark.


----------



## weepete (Mar 2, 2013)

Thanks pgriz, probably like a lot of aspiring photographers I'm very much "in the moment" with what I try and capture. I tend to see something that captures my attention and go for it. 

But it is something I think I need to work on a lot more, I don't often go back to the same places so mibbies I need to make a point and find a location I like and do exactly what you are saying.  

This year I plan to really push myself and get my pics to the next level, so this kind of thing is increasingly more important as I want to move from getting a resonable pic to produce some really great images. I'll mibbies just need to put as much time, effort and dedication into photography asI do with my fishing!


----------



## pgriz (Mar 2, 2013)

Now fishing is a darn good analogy.  When you go fishing, you go to the places that worked before, and you go at the times that fish are biting.  Which means you already are planning things.  Photography is no different, other than some of it is more under your control.  

It helps to think about which images you've made that really worked - what was it about each one that made it special?  That's your learning opportunity - to extract from the specific instance a more general guideline to help you with your future shots.  Same goes for looking at other people's work - which images really grab your attention?  Why?  If you were to do it, how would you go about replicating it?  That's not to say you need to be a copy-cat - more that you extract the lesson and see if you can apply the lesson.


----------



## weepete (Mar 2, 2013)

Oooooh, mate, I think you've just changed the way I think about my pics. Thank you.

I'm gonna start hunting light the same way I go about hunting fish (glad you got the analogy btw). I also happen to be one of the few dedicated sea anglers in the UK, so I understand completley the fishing analogy, again thanks.

I'm at the stage that when I go fishing I expect to catch fish, that is what I'm there for and that's what I like. A blank ruins my day and I'm no afraid to admit it either. I do a lot of work to increase my average chances of catching. Don't get me wrong, I like being outside in wild. places but if I'm no fussed about catching a fish I may as well leave the rods at home.

So, time to do that with my photography too.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 3, 2013)

Ooh, so many things to answer.

Firstly, blast and damn, I really meant to put this in the begginers forum, notthe 'beyond the basics' one.  Never mind



tirediron said:


> Hmmm... some valid points there to be sure,  however, I disagree with half of your basic premise.  IMO, unless you  have a thorough understanding of your camera's basic controls (aperture,  SS, WB, EC, ISO), the best lit scene in the world won't do you much  good if you don't know how to set the camera to capture the appropriate  exposure.  Now, of course, you could throw it into 'Professional' mode,  HOWEVER, then your DoF, SS and WB are a crap shoot, and while you might  get the right exposure, you could equally wind up with much more or more  less DoF than you intended.
> 
> With the exception of the actual, physical gear, so one element of  photography is less important than another.  You must understand  composition, you must understand light, you must understand exposure,  and to capture that image, in that manner, you must understand your  camera's controls.



I think that depends largely on context.

If I think about photographing star trails.. well a church silhouetted at the bottom might be nice, but beyond that, composition is a largly moot point
Lighting?  Well stars are stars.
Camera settings are everything in a shot like this.

Motorsports?  Well go shoot green-box auto all day and your keeper rate is going to be zero.

I can certainly agree with you on more advanced photography subjects...  

BUT, I was talking about beginners and the things beginners tend to photograph - their friends, their children, their cat.... Or the mum who's bought a camera to photograph her kids and now wants to start a little back-room business photographing other kids.

With this stuff, it really doesn't matter quite so much.

Lets use this as a case in point; shot green-box auto on my wifes point and shoot:





Ok, there's a couple of compositional issues - the blanket showing above the piano is not good, i've cropped off half her bum and she's learning towards the camera too much, but;
Aperture- well, pretty much any aperture would do - ok, a larger one would give it more punch, but from f2 to f22, it's not going to make or break the image
Shutter speed - so long as it's fast enough - and most camera _should_ give you a shutterspeed fast enough to shoot a more or less stationary object on auto, then it really doesn't matter -  anywhere from 1/50th to 1/4000th will do.
WB - well most DSLRs do pretty well.  This little point and shoot got it a bit off (tho not enough to ruin the photo), but even then it was a one-click fix in photoshop
Exposure - well with the easy lighting situation I created, it's got no excuse to mess up and it hasn't - it looks fine to me.

So despite shooting on full auto, this photo is not a "crap shoot" of camera settings, and it's certainly miles better than the all-settings-no-composition one I shot for the article.



ratssass said:


> ....short attention span here....it started  sounding blasphemous,so i skipped the rest.........is there a readers  digest version?





ratssass said:


> ... i meant absolutely no disrespect.It was just  too long for me.It's kind of funny,tho,that what I've been looking at  is the darkness/shadows.Some video I watched gave an Italian name for it  which escapes me,but it had to do with the play of light/dark.



None taken.  Short version:

Master camera, light and composition, you will get good results every time.

For the stuff that most beginners shoot, family, kids, pets, etc
- Master only your camera and forget about light and compostion you will get crap every time
- Master your lighting and composition and let the camera worry about settings and you'll get something pretty reasonable most of the time.

So while it makes sense to know everything eventually, a good place to start is lighting and composition as camera settings alone will get you no-where.  You camera can do the camera settings for you (to an extent) it cannot do your lighting and composition, so if you're not thinking about those, no-one is.



weepete said:


> Well first of all well done Ralphh, you have outdone yourself on this one mate.
> 
> It's something I still struggle with and am only just starting to be  aware of the light conditions and trying to put more thought into my  pics. I've certianly found this very useful indeed and want to say  thanks for your explination about how you go about creating an image  like this and what you do to get the right lighting conditions to work  with. You've just produced a must read for anyone with a camera, great  job!
> 
> If at somepoint you would think about doing a similar one but about how  to capture the light when you are out and about as well I for one would  be very interested.....?



It might sound odd, but actually the best thing I can recommend is buy a book on studio lighting.  Light is light and once you understand it and learn to see it you'll find it everywhere / know how to tweak it.  While not a riveting read, this has all the info you'll need to know, plus LOTS of pictures showing how different lightings look on portraits: Master Lighting Guide for Portrait Photographers: Amazon.co.uk: Christopher Grey: Books

The trouble is we see the world in 3 dimensions, and we naturally (consciously) see shapes and colours, not highlights and shadows.  Once it's flat, the only indication of somethings 3d shape is the shadows, and you become much more conscious of seeing the light and how it interacts with the object.  You need to start consciously looking at how light falls.  Look at the shadows on peoples faces all the time as you go about your day, as you talk to people at work, etc.  If you get into the habit of seeing these things, you'll always see it.  Then you just need to know what you want and how to get it 

I've never seen a _really _good book on natural light.  Maybe one day when I am really good and can back up everything I'd need to talk about with very good examples of my own, I will write an eBook.   I'd rather write the text, then shoot the examples.  

But maybe before then I'll write an article for here, it's not a bad idea.  I will need to wait till the weather in London improves though to shoot the examples to go with the text- the light is very soft at this time of year anyway due to the blanket cloud cover, so the idea of trying to "find" soft light outdoors is a bit of a non-issue - you just go outside .  Indoors still needs some thought of course as the windows give it direction and therefor create shadows.

This is one of the better articles I've read on using natural light recently: Molding ambient light | Model Mayhem Education Blog, but it's really not beginner stuff.  If you don't already have a good working knowledge of the subject it'll be a bit deep-end.  There must be loads of stuff our there.  I'll probably do a lot of research so I don't miss anything when writing my article.  I'll PM you any really useful links I find.


----------



## cynicaster (Mar 3, 2013)

Great post, OP!

I have a friend who does photo shoots for her family and friends several times a year.  I talk photography with her a lot, and while she's no "blank slate" by any means, I know that my understanding of anything the least bit technical (including exposure) is 1000x better than hers.  I'm always trying to explain certain concepts to her and she just bobs her head but usually I can tell nothing is sinking in. 

BUT... her photos are excellent!  Markedly better than mine, that's for sure.  She just knows how to not only dream up a scene, but she's also excellent at "working" with the subjects.  She's living proof that your basic point is valid. 

There's nothing more obnoxious on a photo forum than condescending gear snobs, so this post was a breath of fresh air; thank you for posting!


----------



## ralphh (Mar 3, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> Great post, OP!
> 
> I have a friend who does photo shoots for her family and friends several  times a year.  I talk photography with her a lot, and while she's no  "blank slate" by any means, I know that my understanding of anything the  least bit technical (including exposure) is 1000x better than hers.   I'm always trying to explain certain concepts to her and she just bobs  her head but usually I can tell nothing is sinking in.
> 
> ...




Glad it struck a chord, thanks for the feedback :thumbup:

Rather than trying to teach her, might be worth flipping that around and see if she can teach you whatever it is she's doing.  If you can put together your knowledge and hers sounds like you'd be unbeatable! 

And you're very welcome, I really enjoyed writing it and shooting the photos for it.


----------



## Helen B (Mar 3, 2013)

Interesting read, particularly the revelations about the motivation to write it. It's sometimes difficult for those of us who have always primarily been driven by what we see, our sense of wonder and curiosity, to remember that not everyone starts that way, and that not all those who help beginners try to teach technical understanding as being no more than an enabling factor. I would have hoped that the OP's view was closer to the predominant view rather than the exception.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 3, 2013)

^^^ I'd rather be wrong than right on that front, but I just don't see it happening....


----------



## CherylL (Mar 3, 2013)

pgriz said:


> I suspect it will be a little long for most people to read (we have short attentions spans), but your discussion of how you were looking at the light shows your sensibility is evolving.  Part of the reason more people don't start "with the light" is that that is not a question that even know to ask.  It only starts making sense once you begin to see the way the various sources of light interact to give you the scene you're seeing.  And that awareness of the light "nuts and bolts" doesn't come to the surface for most, because it is irrelevant for pretty much all everyday living.  Only when you start creating images (either photography, or drawing or painting), does the play of the light on your subject, and the way it creates the shadows that give depth, reveal texture, and paint the highlights, become something to notice and understand.
> 
> I am hoping that you will get feedback from other photographers who have not yet travelled as far down the road as you have.



From someone who has been on the photography road for 8 months, I did enjoy reading the OP's post & the thought process behind it all.  I hope there will be other posts like this one.

Having started with zero dslr skills, I think it is important to know how the camera works to take advantage of the light.  With the D40 I shot in auto mode since this wasn't my interest.  But with the T4i I wanted to learn all of the settings so I could shoot video in Manual mode.  Coming from video I have had to think about composition since you can't crop video and you want a person walking in frame with space in front of them, watch out for back lighting,etc.  I shot in Auto mode with my camcorder so learning a new skill set has been a challenge with aperture, ISO, lenses, focal point or points, and other camera settings.

And the light didn't come into play until I learned the basics and I mean very basics.   The first few months was information overload on the mechanics & PP.  Getting a speedlite 3 months ago has helped me to really think about the light.  I see now how the light has a cause & effect on the settings.  I agree with Pgriz that the light comes later because that was a question I didn't know to ask.


----------



## Designer (Mar 3, 2013)

I think it would be easier just to tell them the settings you used.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 3, 2013)

LOL, ok, f2.8, Av mode, +2/3 exp comp, ISO.. I can't remember, whatever gave me >= 1/60th. 400 or 800 probably - was quite bright today.  Top focus point, then recomposed.  Shot RAW cause i have better things to do with my time than worry about WB being correct at point of capture.

Damn, you're right, that was a lot less typing!  Just feels less useful somehow... can't quite put my finger on it...

Better still, I could have just posted the photo and said "look at the exiff and use those settings"


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2013)

weepete said:


> Oooooh, mate, I think you've just changed the way I think about my pics. Thank you.
> 
> I'm gonna start hunting light the same way I go about hunting fish (glad you got the analogy btw). I also happen to be one of the few dedicated sea anglers in the UK, so I understand completley the fishing analogy, again thanks.
> 
> ...



If your thinking of doing street photography the best way is to find a spot a wait for the picture to develope infront of you, because last time i was working in Glasgow there were lots of interesting people to shoot


----------



## weepete (Mar 3, 2013)

Cheers mate, I've not quite got to a place that I feel comfortable shooting candids, but town has a lot of cool places to shoot so I'll give that a go next time I'm shooting in town


----------



## jrizal (Mar 3, 2013)

I am about to master my D3100 and would WANT a better body. But I really NEED to master my skills. And not surprisingly, I still have a long way to go.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 4, 2013)

While I agree with you wholeheartedly that composition and the important elements of photography are often overlooked, it really depends fundamentally on what you're photographing. Look through the various forums and you'll find a lot of posts about people complaining that they simply can't figure out how to take night photos, or other difficulties with camera settings. There's no point having great composition skills in a night photo if you can't figure out how to drive your camera in manual mode because ultimately in 90% of cases it'll foul up the exposure beyond repair. 

The two go hand in hand. Claiming one is more important than the other is disingenuous.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

Garbz said:


> it really depends fundamentally on what you're photographing.



100% agreed.

I was thinking about beginners and the things beginners tend to  photograph - their friends, their children, their cat.... Or the mum  who's bought a camera to photograph her kids and now wants to start a  little back-room business photographing other kids.

With this stuff, it really doesn't matter quite so much.

Obviously when you get into more advanced protography topics camera settings become more and more important, and in some cases, perhaps more impotant than anything else; there isn't many ligthing decissions to be made when taking a night-time city-scape...

I will add a caviat to the original post to make it clearer what I meant.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm not sure I agree with everything you said, but if it motivates someone just starting out, I say role with it. It can't hurt.


----------



## premortho (Mar 4, 2013)

ratssass said:


> ... i meant absolutely no disrespect.It was just too long for me.It's kind of funny,tho,that what I've been looking at is the darkness/shadows.Some video I watched gave an Italian name for it which escapes me,but it had to do with the play of light/dark.



Curioscuro?  The use of light and dark in composition...is that what you mean?


----------



## premortho (Mar 4, 2013)

Good comment.  I come from the film world, and I found Super 8 cameras to be too automated.  I went back to double 8, because I could set my manual settings to match the light and/or what I wanted to emphasize or subdue.(through controlling depth of field via f-stop.)  





CherylL said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect it will be a little long for most people to read (we have short attentions spans), but your discussion of how you were looking at the light shows your sensibility is evolving. Part of the reason more people don't start "with the light" is that that is not a question that even know to ask. It only starts making sense once you begin to see the way the various sources of light interact to give you the scene you're seeing. And that awareness of the light "nuts and bolts" doesn't come to the surface for most, because it is irrelevant for pretty much all everyday living. Only when you start creating images (either photography, or drawing or painting), does the play of the light on your subject, and the way it creates the shadows that give depth, reveal texture, and paint the highlights, become something to notice and understand.
> ...


----------



## premortho (Mar 4, 2013)

Garbz said:


> While I agree with you wholeheartedly that composition and the important elements of photography are often overlooked, it really depends fundamentally on what you're photographing. Look through the various forums and you'll find a lot of posts about people complaining that they simply can't figure out how to take night photos, or other difficulties with camera settings. There's no point having great composition skills in a night photo if you can't figure out how to drive your camera in manual mode because ultimately in 90% of cases it'll foul up the exposure beyond repair.
> 
> The two go hand in hand. Claiming one is more important than the other is disingenuous.


   Then I'm going to be disingenuous.  Anybody who can read can learn to operate the camera.  The "art" in photography is in composition and the use of light.  Someone on this forum has a quote on his posts "The amateur worries about gear, the pro worries about time, the master worries about light."  I don't change cameras very often. Why?  I use them until the operation is second nature to me.  I don't want obsessing about gear issues interfering with the creative process.


----------



## Helen B (Mar 4, 2013)

premortho said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > ... i meant absolutely no disrespect.It was just too long for me.It's kind of funny,tho,that what I've been looking at is the darkness/shadows.Some video I watched gave an Italian name for it which escapes me,but it had to do with the play of light/dark.
> ...



Chiaroscuro.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

Careful, half the people will say your photos are under exposed and the other half will say they're over exposed  or worse, you'll get advised to use HDR to tame the dynamic range in the scene :lmao:


----------



## Garbz (Mar 4, 2013)

premortho said:


> Then I'm going to be disingenuous. Anybody who can read can learn to operate the camera. The "art" in photography is in composition and the use of light. Someone on this forum has a quote on his posts "The amateur worries about gear, the pro worries about time, the master worries about light." I don't change cameras very often. Why? I use them until the operation is second nature to me. I don't want obsessing about gear issues interfering with the creative process.



No but yes but no but yes.

What were you trying to say here? That you disagree with me? That learning the camera isn't important. Followed immediately by the fact that you learn the camera till it's second nature to you? I'm not sure what to read into your post.

People who obsess about gear issues in terms of this thread are the ones in the process of learning. It's a fundamental requirement to the art. There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese. 



ralphh said:


> I was thinking about beginners and the things beginners tend to  photograph - their friends, their children, their cat....



In which case I fully agree


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

Garbz said:


> There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese.



To counter that, I would suggest that people shouldn't even be thinking about what camera seetings you need for high key/low key portraits until they can properly light a kid sat on a bed by a window 





Garbz said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about beginners and the things beginners tend to  photograph - their friends, their children, their cat....
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2013)

I agree with Garbz - you don't have to go in and learn all the physics properties of how your lens works - but you do have to learn the basic controls. For those who come to a forum to ask "how can I improve" chances are they are looking to improve beyond just finding out the on button and pointing and shooting. Even if they are just taking photos of family and such chances are they want to improve themselves to a much better standard - heck they've often just bought a DSRL to do just that. 

Starting teaching right at the very beginning with how to use the tool that they have is - well its just the very basics. You can just use auto-mode, however you won't always get consistent results; especially if you leave the camera in auto and then go and try to be creative with the composition and the lighting because chances are the camera might well keep picking totally different settings each time just because you've adjusted the lighting and moved the frame around (thus the metering is different). 

Once someone has control over the tool, once they can select the right mode for the scene before them and for their own shooting style then its time to build upon that first building block. You can then start to bring in new elements such as how metering works - hot to control the lighting and how to vary the effects of it in the shot. You can also start to make better use of composition teaching -especially as the person progresses and the aperture, shutter speed and ISO slip further and further back in the mind into more instinctive use instead of having to be at the forefront. 


Also remember if you just read the beginners section here you are often seeing the same kind of person appearing over and over again and thus you will see the same topics and the same replies over and over because those people are at that very same entry level point. Some only get that far and leave before learning further; others learn offsite and some move into other sections to learn. If you follow any one person who sticks at it you'll see the nature of conversation change from the "What settings" through to "ok how can I control the lighting here or work with the lighting I have" and into "ok so I can control the camera and the lighting now how is my composition?" 


There are, of course, many ways to teach and often as not if you're teaching someone in person on a regular basis you can use various teaching methods which might focus upon other segments of learning earlier than others. The thing is in that type of environment you've control over the situation - you might well teach composition first, but you (the teacher) are also there to provide help in the other areas such as camera control. When you're not there and when the student has to learn it for themselves I think that its very key that they learn to control their tools first and foremost - because only then will have they have the confidence in their own equipment to be able to trust it to do what they want and to then be able to more clearly focus upon other areas.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> If you really want to get the &#8220;_basics_&#8221; right, it&#8217;s light and composition you need to be thinking about.  Camera settings can come later, or even not at all&#8230;



Yea, right! that is why we get all the questions of "uhh... what should my setting be for such and such"? Because they have no clue of how to setup their gear to get the shots they envision!



ralphh said:


> you could be taking *good photos* on *green-box-auto*


   Good and Auto in the same sentence? That is an oxymoron! Adequate might be a better term!



ralphh said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > There's no point being the master of light and having artistic visions of low and high key shots if you can't find exposure compensation button on the camera; because that's the kind of thing that litters the beginners section. Don't even bother mentioning the word composition to them yet, they'll think you're speaking Chinese.
> ...



Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed! 

I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)

*you don't just learn one thing at a time*. You are introduced to concepts that then make you think about how they interrelate with the other things you are learning. *While learning to master your body... you actually do assimilate many other concepts about light, and composition...  *especially on a forum like this one!

This sounds like the same argument we hear from the new "Quasi-Pro's" all the time... those that say skill with the camera isn't as necessary at being "artsy"..... I say you need it all! And not knowing your body and settings will limit you creatively, because you WON'T be able to capture you what you see in your vision, because you don't know how to setup your camera and lights to do it.

QUESTION!!! If you have a painter, who is a MASTER of light and composition... really exceptional (this IS what you are suggesting, right?). But this master has NEVER touched a camera in their life (just a noob in photography)! And you hand that "master" a D4, with top end lenses, and a couple of strobes....  what kind of shots are you going to get? 

You will get *well composed and framed,** underexposed / overexposed, ... SNAPSHOTS* (with blur, poor WB, and lousy DOF! ANd a very frustrated master!)! At least until the "Master of light and composition" learns the settings on that camera, and the basic concepts of photography!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 4, 2013)

Next, Post production will be up on the chopping blocks........


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

Overread said:


> I agree with Garbz - you don't have to go in and  learn all the physics properties of how your lens works - but you do  have to learn the basic controls. For those who come to a forum to ask  "how can I improve" chances are they are looking to improve beyond just  finding out the on button and pointing and shooting. Even if they are  just taking photos of family and such chances are they want to improve  themselves to a much better standard - heck they've often just bought a  DSRL to do just that.
> 
> Starting teaching right at the very beginning with how to use the tool  that they have is - well its just the very basics. You can just use  auto-mode, however you won't always get consistent results; especially  if you leave the camera in auto and then go and try to be creative with  the composition and the lighting because chances are the camera might  well keep picking totally different settings each time just because  you've adjusted the lighting and moved the frame around (thus the  metering is different).
> 
> ...





I can definately see a lot the sense in what your saying, but i'm not sure that consistently getting bad results builds confidence in a tool - it tends to teach you that your mastery of the tool is what is at fault (as where this may not be the case), which is what results in "what settings do I need for".  

Perhaps the placement of my argument is too far from centre, but the main point of writing it, and demontraitng that reasonable results are achieveable in auto was to open peoples eyes to the idea that camera mastery alone will get you no-where, and if your photos are bad, it is important that you learn lighting and composition to get better, not just hammering away at trying to master the tool.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 4, 2013)

It's not one or the other.....




Understanding your tools and understanding the principles of arts design come hand in hand when creating.



I'm sure I'm a master sculptor!!  

Now how do I use these chisels and hammers??






Now think about it, what is there really to master in a camera???

Shutterspeed
aperture
Iso/Asa
WB
How to connect or trigger off camera flash



There really isn't much more than that.  Understanding how those few simple items will effect the outcome of an image is too much to worry about?  Too much to read up on?  Should be forgotten or never thought of?

Seriously, these basic controls are too much to handle?


I personally feel there is nothing wrong with shooting in full auto, but what is one to do when full auto isn't giving desired results?  Without a basic understanding one wouldn't have a clue as to why auto isn't giving them what they want or how to achieve what they want when auto isn't cutting it.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!
> 
> I disagree with your whole premise. If you don't know your camera, and appropriate settings... you can have the best light in the world, and the best eye in the world.. and you are still going to get shots that are under / over exposed, blurry, poor color and with lousy DOF choices. (wow... we see a lot of that... wonder why!)
> 
> ...



And yet....  the only photo I could find on your photostream with exiff intact was shot on a compact in program AE with no exposure comp, and auto WB, and yet it wasn't blurry, DoF was appropriate, and the white balance looked fine


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!
> ...



BULL... which photo? if you are referring to a landscape taken with an old canon point and shoot while hiking...  yea, that was shot in in program (with a LOT of correction in POST!). I NEVER use a DSLR in Auto.. and I strongly resent the implication. 

I noticed you DIDN'T answer the LAST question I put to you? Care to do so?


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

East inlet Wetlands | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Still have to know what settings to use.. AUTO doesn't cut it most of the time. If they don't know their body, they CANT get a decent shot of a kid sitting on a bed!
> ...




And that image is also a Landscape shot.  Not a kids and family shot.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

sooo, auto only works on landscapes?  or composition on works on landscapes?

It's a good image that woks because of the composition, not because of carefully selected camera settings.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

jake337 said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Yep.. several OLD images were shot with a Canon S5 PnS while hiking... and then required a good bit of massaging in photoshop to correct the issues AUTO caused. And the point Jake makes,  No additional lighting was involved! Nice overcast day....


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> sooo, auto only works on landscapes?  or composition on works on landscapes?
> 
> It's a good image that woks because of the composition, not because of carefully selected camera settings.



I should post the originals that AUTO created... but I doubt that I kept them! They were nothing like the finished image, I can assure you! 

Any image in my Flickr without EXIF was either shot on Manual, or in Aperture / shutter priority... and I would be more than happy to post the exif on any image you question that on.


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> I can definately see a lot the sense in what your saying, but i'm not sure that consistently getting bad results builds confidence in a tool - it tends to teach you that your mastery of the tool is what is at fault (as where this may not be the case), which is what results in "what settings do I need for".



I would argue that a beginner who cannot see improvement, at the very least at a technical level, in their photos when shifting to taking control over the camera as opposed to using auto mode - hasn't actually yet learned to control the camera. Yes there are certainly many ways you can affect the quality of a photo and the camera settings are but one of the components, however its the core building block off which the others are based - its the foundation of the process itself.



ralphh said:


> Perhaps the placement of my argument is too far from centre, but the main point of writing it, and demontraitng that reasonable results are achieveable in auto was to open peoples eyes to the idea that camera mastery alone will get you no-where, and if your photos are bad, it is important that you learn lighting and composition to get better, not just hammering away at trying to master the tool.



No one is saying that lighting and composition are not important, and indeed as raised above anyone learning photography is going to pick up bits of lighting and compositional advice all the time. The core of the debate though is what to learn first; learning the camera first isn't in any way saying that its the "Most" important part. It's simply showing that its the core foundation and that once you've learnt to control the camera you can then build toward focusing upon learning other aspects.

Yes once the person can control their camera, once they are at a point where if they get underexposure or overexposure they know what has gone wrong and how to correct it (and indeed how to avoid it in the first place) then they are more than ready to dedicated more of their time toward other elements.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Any image in my Flickr without EXIF was either shot on Manual, or in Aperture / shutter priority... and I would be more than happy to post the exif on any image you question that on.



Haha, i wasn't accusing you of being a secret auto shooter - i have no doubt your camera skills are excellent - I was pointing out that you managed to created quite a nice photo in spite of using auto, and more speciffically, it is not blury and DoF looks appropriate.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

Overread said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > I can definately see a lot the sense in what your saying, but i'm not sure that consistently getting bad results builds confidence in a tool - it tends to teach you that your mastery of the tool is what is at fault (as where this may not be the case), which is what results in "what settings do I need for".
> ...



Exactly! And it could be said that learning the camera itself is easier than the somewhat abstract concepts of lighting and composition, especially when you have no clue of why or how they apply to an image... which is something you learn while learning what setting does what on the camera. Learning the camera settings (exposure triangle, etc...) gives you something to tie the lighting and composition aspects to to... and makes them easier to learn!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Any image in my Flickr without EXIF was either shot on Manual, or in Aperture / shutter priority... and I would be more than happy to post the exif on any image you question that on.
> ...



With LOTs of photoshop for color and contrast correction....

I have been shooting since the early 60's.. so yea, maybe I can even shoot in AUTO occasionally and get something decent. Where does that put the average noob who just started shooting?


----------



## jake337 (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:


> sooo, auto only works on landscapes?  or composition on works on landscapes?
> 
> It's a good image that woks because of the composition, not because of carefully selected camera settings.



No, what I'm saying is auto will work most of the time for snapshots.  When it doesn't what does one do?  A basic understanding is needed to understand _what _auto is doing.  Like _why _is auto making the decisions it makes.

Like with my cell phone.  I don't really have any control.  But I understand why and can take advantage of it.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > sooo, auto only works on landscapes?  or composition on works on landscapes?
> ...




My images without full EXIF were shot with old manual lens were no metering or connection to the my D90 were available. I had no choice but to understand the basic to get a good exposure.


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2013)

Just another thought to consider here:

Pre-visualisation - you mention this in your post as a key component for the photographer to start to learn. However I would argue that if a photographer is going to pre-visualise then they need to have experience with the camera in order to be able to have some degree of ability to know how to pre-visualise. Ie they need to know what fast and slow shutter speeds look like; what wide and small apertures look like - how distance affects the shot etc...

Now if they base this understanding off what Auto mode gives them then their ability to pre-visualise and the number of variable they have is significantly limited. Indeed they are in effect training themselves to work only with auto-modes concept of exposure and settings selected and thus their pre-visualisation will be hampered by that process. Their creativity will be sharply limited even when they progress to controlling the camera they'll still end up "thinking" with the same exposure concepts and visual concepts that auto-mode will have taught them.


----------



## ralphh (Mar 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



 I was implying nothing. 

 I do find it very interesting that you seem to consider yourself an authority on something that you've never actually tried. Generally if i'm sure enough about something to start writing about it in block capitals i have at least done it once 

 As for answering your question, my appolgies, I thought i'd already done that - i believe your hypothetical artist has a fairly good chance of getting something reasonable.

You state they will, not might, but *will* - get blury photos and inappropriate depth of field. Only reason for mentioning your photo is that clearly that didn't happen to you on this occation, and apart from your knowledge of cameras telling you not to hop up and down during the exposure, I can't see how it was relevant. You knowlqge of composition shows, but i'm pretty sure anyone could have pressed the shutter button without changing any setting in a pretty similar way to you did, once the composition was lined up.

I never shoot my DSLR on auto either - i simply have no reason to, but I do shoot my wifes compact on auto. Why? cause with such a small sensor the question of DoF is a bit of a moot point, and it gets the exposure right most of the time, so theres really no point in me having control (also, i then forget to put it back on auto, my wife then can't work it and i get shouted at). Does my knowledge of photography allow me to step in when it struggles? sure. do i need to do it often? nope.
-
@overread, your points are again well thought out and well made. I have no answer for you as I simply can't proove you right or wrong, and it makes no sense to be arguing based on assumptions or guesswork.. I certainly learnt settings first, light later, as most people do, but it took a long time that way around. Could that be shortened by jumping ahead to the light part? I had hoped so, but hoping for things doesn't make them true so I'm not going to argue the point.


I know my _conscious _previsualisation didn't include DoF and shutter speed but maybe that's because I can do these things without needing to put in a lot of thought for a simple portrait.. or maybe just because on a plain white background, it's not desperately relevant beyond _enough_ of both, and given I know that, I don't bother to think about them much.

It would be interesting to take two groups of complete noobs, spend a day teaching one composition and light on auto, and the other exposure triangles, spot metering and DoF control and compare what they were able to produce at the end.

-
Either way, if the article helped anyone move on with their photography or opened their eyes to the differnce that thinking about light can make, then i'm happy.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2013)

The people who would benefit from this discussion...probably don't care enough to pay it mind.

Why should we feel qualified to tell someone what they should be learning?

If someone asks how to make the background blurry who am I to tell them that they should learn about lighting first. This concept does not make sense to me.


----------



## greybeard (Mar 4, 2013)

I really think that good photography is a combination of camera technique, composition, and light control.  They are all 3 equally important.  The thing that I have been guilty of in the past is constantly upgrading my equipment.  I end up spending more time testing and playing with the equipment than I do making good pictures...... At this point in time I am not lusting for any new lenses or new camera bodies and I'm really comfortable with my kit.  Hopefully I can get some time now to take some pictures........just as soon as I can get that 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor......lol


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> The people who would benefit from this discussion...probably don't care enough to pay it mind.



Actually the way the discussion has evolved the people who "need to read it" generally are reading it. Since it has evolved quickly into a discussion on the teaching methods of photography - a very valid subject to discuss on a site where imparting what we know upon others is part of the structure and intent. 



rexbobcat said:


> Why should we feel qualified to tell someone what they should be learning?
> 
> If someone asks how to make the background blurry who am I to tell them that they should learn about lighting first. This concept does not make sense to me.



You're taking a select example, yes there are simple and short ways to answer many questions. Heck crack open Scot Kelby's Digital Photography Book 1 and that is pretty much what you get. Stock easy answers to "what settings should I pick to shoot "insert subject type"". It's the basic starting point for any advice for a very specific situation. 

That said we don't just sit here answering people with settings suggestions; indeed we often aim to help people further and many who come here are also a little further on than Book 1. They want to start understanding exposure more fully and how to further their interest and understanding of photography in order to get better photos. So we push on to discuss what the best pathway for that is - the argument in the OP's post is that we should consider lighting and composition as that first step - whilst many others are countering that its better to focus first upon the settings and camera control to a point where a person can meter and expose a photo themselves without auto-mode.


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2013)

ralphh said:
			
		

> I certainly learnt settings first, light later, as most people do, but it took a long time that way around.  Could that be shortened by jumping ahead to the light part?  I had hoped so, but hoping for things doesn't make them true so I'm not going to argue the point.



I think that however one approaches learning, especially self motivated and structured learning, it will take time. I think trying to find a "short cut" method through might be a difficulty. I think it works if a person has a very specific subject and focus (and indeed one often finds that many people do have a specific subject or situational focus (or a couple of them) which they tend to focus their learning around.




			
				ralphh said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to take two groups of complete noobs, spend a day teaching one composition and light on auto, and the other exposure triangles, spot metering and DoF control and compare what they were able to produce at the end.



It would be interesting to be able to more formally compare the different approaches. My personal gut feeling is that short term the person who learns the lighting and composition, but not camera control would likely do well in a controlled situation where they are under full ability to control the lighting and situation - however they would likely be creatively limited in how they vary their camera settings (lighting would vary but settings wouldn't) and I'd also expect them to struggle in getting a clear shot in more varied situations (for example any form of action photography would likely be a more difficult challenge, esp if they wanted to get crisp clear and sharp shots and couldn't control lighting). 

Of course take either approach to its full conclusion and the results should be "the same" since both parties should have learned the same information block in total. The real test would be seeing how well they adapted to learning and how long each group took to learn the more complete and full picture. 

It would also be difficult because when one teaches or is taught one doesn't learn facts in full isolation of others. Those learning lighting would be picking up and learning camera control at the same time - and vis versa for the other group.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2013)

Overread said:


> Actually the way the discussion has evolved the people who "need to read it" generally are reading it. Since it has evolved quickly into a discussion on the teaching methods of photography - a very valid subject to discuss on a site where imparting what we know upon others is part of the structure and intent.
> 
> You're taking a select example, yes there are simple and short ways to answer many questions. Heck crack open Scot Kelby's Digital Photography Book 1 and that is pretty much what you get. Stock easy answers to "what settings should I pick to shoot "insert subject type"". It's the basic starting point for any advice for a very specific situation.
> 
> That said we don't just sit here answering people with settings suggestions; indeed we often aim to help people further and many who come here are also a little further on than Book 1. They want to start understanding exposure more fully and how to further their interest and understanding of photography in order to get better photos. So we push on to discuss what the best pathway for that is - the argument in the OP's post is that we should consider lighting and composition as that first step - whilst many others are countering that its better to focus first upon the settings and camera control to a point where a person can meter and expose a photo themselves without auto-mode.



What I meant was that the people who place a lot of emphasis on the technical, mechanical aspects generally don't stick around long enough to learn anything else.

Learning shutter speed and aperture is easier than learning and applying artistic concepts in my experience. Why start with the harder path?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 4, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the way the discussion has evolved the people who "need to read it" generally are reading it. Since it has evolved quickly into a discussion on the teaching methods of photography - a very valid subject to discuss on a site where imparting what we know upon others is part of the structure and intent.
> ...



Exactly.. especially when the "easier path" will lay a groundwork to help the student understand the "harder path"!


----------



## ralphh (Mar 5, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> *Why start with the harder path*?



Because at least then they know the path exists.

There's two thigs that motivated me to write it;

1) On the rare occation one of the "mum-with-cam" / "natural-light-pro" starting a business threads includes a facebook, flickr link on them and I take a look, none of the photos are blury, most have reasonable white balance, exposure that's passable, and I don't find myself going "omg, the DoF choice on that one is awful".  I do find myself looking at photos with racoon eyes, flat light, harsh light, backlight and obvious compositional blunder and thinking that if they could fix those it would be a big step forward.

2) I see people (and I'm including myself in this) learn their camera, be still unhappy with the results, and assume it's a camera problem, then spend years and years upgrading equipment and learning ever more technical details about how their cameras work and still getting no-where, or improving marginally (in terms of creating a good image, not technical mastery) until finally the penny drops.  I had upgraded my 300D and kit lens to a 1Dmk2 and (several) L glass (because I believed the only thing holding me back was that 300D wasn't 'good enough') _long _before I bought my first reflector.

And if I look back further, to when I _was _shooting on auto (on a film SLR), again, they're not blury, the exposures are certainly ball-pack and the DoF is not image-beakingly bad.  What is bloody aweful is light and composition.

I suggested auto idea, not because I believe it's brilliant, but as a  way of lightening (excude the pun) the work / learning load in the hope that would free  up some concentration space for other things which might help more.

Perhaps it is not possible to learn thing the other way around, but without trying, it is hard to know.

Overread, thanks for your input on that; it's good to read your thoughts.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2013)

ralphh said:


> 2) I see people (and I'm including myself in this) learn their camera, be still unhappy with the results, and assume it's a camera problem, then spend years and years upgrading equipment and learning ever more technical details about how their cameras work and still getting no-where, or improving marginally (in terms of creating a good image, not technical mastery) until finally the penny drops.  I had upgraded my 300D and kit lens to a 1Dmk2 and (several) L glass (because I believed the only thing holding me back was that 300D wasn't 'good enough') _long _before I bought my first reflector.




Personally I don't see this as a reflection in the fact that people who learn camera settings first are more likely to then ignore other areas and focus only upon upgrading the camera body and lens. I see it as a symptom of advertising. 

Camera companies (and heck even mobile phones and tablets now where a new camera is a key feature) are always imposing upon people the view that their photos will be better with a better, newer camera or lens. Indeed its something that is heavily marketed to the point that it becomes a form of "common knowledge". It's not exactly wrong, but nor is it exactly right, however its marketed so heavily that people attribute more weight to it than it might actually have in reality. 

Editing software is very much the same way in how its also marketed as the solution to all your photographic problems and not only that but you need only hit "auto adjust" and all the best corrections will be done. 


Now when one is self learning and not in a structured environment its very easy for them to only learn part of the story and then consider themselves fully knowing of all that they "need" to know because they don't yet know what they don't know. In light of this is see and support the merit in that teaching and encouraging considerations of composition and lighting control ARE important parts of a beginners study in photography and are important points to present to them as ideas for consideration. 

The problem is that I still don't think it should be the commonly viewed starting point, that basic building block of settings control is still required. Include the other elements certainly, especially when a person presents a specific situation that is lacking in those areas - but I think your rank beginner still needs clear and firm encouragement and direction toward resources to learn their exposure control. 



Indeed if I may, one thing shows up clear in that this argument is looking almost specifically at studio style photography - where shutter speeds don't have to be blinding fast and where the depth of field isn't much a worry either - the thing is in this environment and with that consideration then the idea of lighting first works to some extent. The problem is that that same person will still be all but useless outside (pics of the kids playing on the grass - running - sports - etc...) and auto modes (even sports auto modes) are not very good at getting shutter speeds up - esp in more challenging lighting (especially so if the user isn't using auto ISO and is "setting it low because low is best to avoid noise").


----------



## ralphh (Mar 5, 2013)

^^^ I think you could probably broarden that out to most _posed_ photographs - certainly shutter speed is even less of an issue for a posed photo outdoors than it is indoors, and DoF... well it depends; _very_ shallow DoF can certainly produce very dramatic effects, but the difference between say f3.5 and f5.6 is not going to turn a masterpiece into a wreck or visa versa.

Whether or not you can get a child to set still is of course quite another matter  and I must admit - I really was thinking quite narrowly - ie about posed portraits - with this.

I agree with everything you say about advertising of course.


----------

