# Do you need to know the technical aspects to be a good photographer?



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

When threads end up in to conversations involving math, things like focal distance and complex equations about how much light comes in blah blah blah, my eyes glazes over and I begin to twitch. I know that if I am trying to get a certain look I just have to turn this dial, twist this knob and press a button. I am not sure I care about they "why"  it looks the way it does.

So I guess do you need to know the complexities of optical sciences to be a good photographer or is a basic understanding good enough? More over do you think "famous" photographers had/have this sort of knowledge?


----------



## KmH (Apr 18, 2013)

By understanding the technical aspects, you have a broader knowledge base to support your creativity.

The better you understand why, the easier it is to do how.

In other words, if you don't know the why, there are 'looks' you won't know you *can* create.


----------



## leeroix (Apr 18, 2013)

I think this applies to other things besides photography as well.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

KmH said:


> By understanding the technical aspects, you have a broader knowledge base to support you creativity.
> 
> The better you understand why, the easier it is to do how.
> 
> On other words, if you don't know the why, there are 'looks' you won't know you *can* create.



Well take for example, iso. I understand that is the sensor sensitivity to light and I know what setting to use in what situation to get the look I want, but I don't know the nuts and bolts of the process.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 18, 2013)

I guess it depends on how technical you want to get.  I don't think it is needed to understand how a sensor works technically.

But one definitely needs a firm understanding of how to use their tools in order to create consistent images in any situation.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

jake337 said:


> I guess it depends on how technical you want to get.  I don't think it is needed to understand how a sensor works technically.
> 
> But one definitely needs a firm understanding of how to use their tools in order to create consistent images in any situation.



Well take another example. Do I need to know the "why" behind images being sharper at higher f-stops or just that they are?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 18, 2013)

You gotta get your arms around "good photographer" a bit more.

If you want to be a session player, you better know how to read music and play in a bunch of styles. You better have some technical know how.
If you just wanna be a rock star, then a signature style matters more and you better play in a way that grabs people by the backs of their brains. Reading music? Playing Jazz? Not so much.

I said "No" because it's possible to be some kind of good photographer without knowing the technical stuff. You can't be every kind of good photographer, but you can be some of 'em.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 18, 2013)

jake337 said:


> I guess it depends on how technical you want to get. I don't think it is needed to understand how a sensor works technically.
> 
> But one definitely needs a firm understanding of how to use their tools in order to create consistent images in any situation.


Pretty much this.  There's no need (IMO) to understand the inner workings of a sensor, just like there was no need to understand the chemical composition of silver halide in film days.  You should have a general understanding of how a camera works, the elements of exposure, and things like that.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 18, 2013)

leeroix said:


> I think this applies to other things besides photography as well.



I agree.  For example, my sister is a doctor and has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry.  Biochemistry, to me, seems like the ideal undergraduate degree to prepare one for success in medical school.

On the other hand, I had a friend who suggested that since medical school is so competitive to get into that your undergraduate degree should be in something presumably "less difficult" than biochemistry, like English or Political Science, so you have a better chance of a higher undergraduate GPA and as a result admittance to medical school.  Whether or not that's true is beyond the scope of my post.  My response was -- but an English major will not have the same background or understanding of "physical science," if you will, that will make medical school courses that much more useful and understandable.  Her opinion was that medical school is "rote memorization" so your undergraduate degree should not matter.

In the same vein (see what I did there?  :mrgreen, I tend to agree with Keith in that, the more you know about the technical aspects of photography, the better able you will be to be creative.  

I dunno.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 18, 2013)

The angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the heat of the beat.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> Well take another example. Do I need to know the "why" behind images being sharper at higher f-stops or just that they are?



Well, I for one would want to know the reason for this. Clients nowadays are becoming more educated and they know what look they like in terms of aesthetics. So if they ask me to make a "blurry background" I can do that, and if they ask how I did that, I can tell them the how and why. 

Picture yourself not knowing the reason when being presented with that relatively easy question. "Well see here, I made this number smaller and this number larger to compensate." Might leave your client with an amateur taste in their mouth. I dunno.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well take another example. Do I need to know the "why" behind images being sharper at higher f-stops or just that they are?
> ...



It was an example. I know how that works.

Does that often when dealing with your clients?


----------



## Mully (Apr 18, 2013)

Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

Mully said:


> Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.



Well that is comparing a technical field to an artistic field. So you point is null and void, and you should feel bad about that.


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2013)

My view is that you need to know the technical to sufficient depth that you know how it affects your photos and how you can manipulated it. Sure you don't need to know the whole electronic explanation of how ISO works or how your sensor captures light; but you need to know how various different ISO's will work in varying lighting conditions and how to use the ISO to best effect. 

It's like all things, you can learn anything into a great depth if you so choose, but most of the time there is a practical working understanding that will give you the core tools that you need and any learning beyond that is learning for the fun of things. Then again sometimes learning that little bit more can open up new ideas.

for example I know macro photographers who've learnt and then built their own external shutters so that they can take photos of insects with vastly reduced shutter lag compared to the DSLR's own shutter. That additional understanding of how the camera works and how light works within the setup led them to identify the problem (the shutter lag) and then presented a solution for them (external shutter). From which they could get shots that otherwise they couldn't.


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.
> ...



It's my view that its a great mistake to consider any artistic field devoid of technical talent. Whilst a technical field can be almost devoid of artistic requirement - the artistic fields are in no way devoid of technical skill. 

If you want to draw fantastic sketches it doesn't matter how good your eye or your imagination is; if you don't know how to draw nor how to technically build up an image so that he components work together then you'll remain drawing stick people and not much more. 
Now granted some people pick up the artistic technical skills without realising what they are doing and just through practise and copying and many might not even know "how" they do things in a manner that allows them to explain it to others; but that doesn't mean that there are no technical skills.





The idea that art is for those who cannot understand technical concepts is one of those romantic ideas. It's just a different application and type of technical skill (and with a stronger basis in hands on experience instead of theoretical/books).


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> Does that often when dealing with your clients?



I know it was an example, I wasnt trying to imply you didn't know the reason. If it sounded that way, I apologize.

The question has come up more than once, or something similar with various clients.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

Overread said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Mully said:
> ...



I wasn't implying that there was no technical talent in artistic fields. I was saying the comparing a photographer to a surgeon is foolish.


----------



## KmH (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> When threads end up in to conversations involving math, things like focal distance and complex equations about how much light comes in blah blah blah, my eyes glazes over and I begin to twitch.


Complex math equations?

Is f/2 x 1.4142 = f/2.8 considered a complex math equation?
How about 2000 px x 100 ppi = 20 inches?

Is the concept of a 'stop' of light complex or a 'super technical aspect' of doing photography?


> *Lensmaker's equation*
> 
> The focal length of a lens _in air_ can be calculated from the *lensmaker's equation*:[SUP][19][/SUP]
> 
> ...


----------



## oldhippy (Apr 18, 2013)

I just had a wart burned off my foot. I didn't feel it necessary to have a doctor of internal meds, or a plastic surgeon. Plain old Nurse Practitioner did everything just fine. And it was a wall hanger. later Ed


----------



## Tiller (Apr 18, 2013)

I don't think it's necessary to be a good photographer, but I think most great photographers would want to know the technical aspects.

For instance, in keeping with the "this applies to dither things too" thought, ill use guitar as an example.  I play guitar and I don't need to know the intricacies of music theory to be a good guitarist. But almost all great guitarists are proficient in music theory, not only because they have to be, but because they want to be.

Not a perfect comparison, but there ya go.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

KmH said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > When threads end up in to conversations involving math, things like focal distance and complex equations about how much light comes in blah blah blah, my eyes glazes over and I begin to twitch.
> ...




That equation makes my head hurt. I've watched videos on why each f-stop is numbered as such and how that makes a difference to the amount of light that is let in. I fully understand it, but is that knowledge going to trump the "too dark, go down a stop" method?

DPI and PPI is all easy since I come from the digital design and print world.


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 18, 2013)

Overread said:


> It's like all things, you can learn anything into a great depth if you so choose, but most of the time there is a practical working understanding that will give you the core tools that you need and any learning beyond that is learning for the fun of things. Then again sometimes learning that little bit more can open up new ideas.



This is what I was going to say.  

It's almost like the difference between a "scientist" and an "engineering technician".  The former knows all the textbook theory, equations, physics, etc. whereas the latter simply concerns himself/herself with practical application of available tools to achieve a result, without necessarily knowing or caring about any of the nitty-gritty mathematical details and physics principles.    

Sure, some technical ability/knowledge is always going to be needed to make good art.  But if you think about it, the interrelation between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and how those factors affect exposure, DoF, and motion capture is not complicated at all for anybody who actually sets their mind to it, and that's over half the technical battle right there.  Throw in stuff like white balance, basic post techniques, focusing techniques, and a working knowledge of what limits gear performance, and you've pretty much got the other half--at least, when strictly talking about "available light" photography (flash is a whole other ball of wax).  Beyond these things, further math and physics has little value aside from maybe academic; at that point, the primary driver of results quality is the creativity of the artist in question.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2013)

I voted "maybe", mostly because, like amolitor mentioned, the term "good photographer" seemed vague to me. How good are we talking? I mean, good is a broad term. And...what kind of photographer are we talking about? I think a good commercial photographer must know a LOT about technical aspects of the craft, but a good baby photographer, or a good ___________ photographer needs more skill in making images under relatively controllable conditions, or of found scenes.

Some types of photography are dependent upon sophisticated technique and very exacting working methods. Other fields allow a huge leeway in how things are done. so..."maybe"...or "it depends"...but definitely not "I think about runnah in the shower..." no...


----------



## deeky (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't implying that there was no technical talent in artistic fields. I was saying the comparing a photographer to a surgeon is foolish.
> ...


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 18, 2013)

Nope! You don't need to know anything technical to be a good photographer. 



Mully said:


> Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.


Again with the relating taking photos to medical emergencies...


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I voted "maybe", mostly because, like amolitor mentioned, the term "good photographer" seemed vague to me. How good are we talking? I mean, good is a broad term. And...what kind of photographer are we talking about? I think a good commercial photographer must know a LOT about technical aspects of the craft, but a good baby photographer, or a good ___________ photographer needs more skill in making images under relatively controllable conditions, or of found scenes.
> 
> Some types of photography are dependent upon sophisticated technique and very exacting working methods. Other fields allow a huge leeway in how things are done. so..."maybe"...or "it depends"...but definitely not "I think about runnah in the shower..." no...



I left it vague on purpose because it is vague by nature. 

Not even once?


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 18, 2013)

Here's where I draw the line....

If you're planning to take photos for fun, then knowing technical aspects will certainly improve your "keeper" ratio -- but it's not required.  Lots of people shoot with point & shoots, or cameras that have no manual controls whatsoever and manage to get some fantastic photos.

HOWEVER... if you're a professional then the answer is a _resounding_ yes.  I'm not leaving any wiggle room here.  It is ABSOLUTELY NOT ok to call oneself a professional and not have the technical foundational knowledge of your profession.  

That'd be like hiring yourself out as a gun-slinger to helps some town in the old west with get rid of a problem with bandits... and then they find out you don't know how to shoot a gun.  You'll probably have a pretty short career.

I realize that with photographer, it's not life or death... but I see far too many people who call themselves "professionals" and, frankly, don't have as much knowledge or experience as an intermediate non-professional.  

If you're a professional... then it's your job to know.  I'm not saying you need to know it all on day #1... photography is a non-stop learning process and we're all picking up new things... even if we've been shooting for years and years.  But I would say you must understand the fundamentals and then endeavor to stretch your skills throughout your career.  

You don't need to understand quantum physics... but you should have a thorough understanding of exposure, lighting, composition, and ... depending on your specialty you might need other training.  If you do portraits then you should understanding modeling.  You should, for example, understand concepts such as "contrapposto".  Sculptures and artists who have been schooled DO know what that term means... because it turns out there's a kind of "science" to beauty -- there are reasons why one pose might be regarded as attractive and another is not and a portrait photographer should know the difference.  You can make someone's nose look larger, smaller, longer, or shorter SIMPLY by how you angle their head and how you light them.  You would use different techniques to light a broad face than you would to light a narrow face.  A portrait photographer should know those things.  Change to any other specialty and the nuances you need can completely change.  Often you need to have expertise in your subject (sports, wildlife, food, etc.) so that you know how to deal with it using a camera.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

deeky said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Wrong. 

Doctors and surgeons spend a large chunk of their lives learning their skill. Where as most photographer have never been through school and have learned through trial and error. It's not like you can go down to the big box medical store and buy a beginner surgery kits and start doing transplants in your spare time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 18, 2013)

We are engaged in an art that by its very nature is highly technical and so if we are to be in control of our tools, we need to know some technical issues just like a sculptor who intends his work to be cast must have some idea of how metal behaves as it cools or a ceramist must know how different glazes respond to different environments and temperatures. 

There is no guarantee that knowing lots of technical stuff will make one more creative but it is almost certain a great artist will know his tools.


----------



## texkam (Apr 18, 2013)

To the degree it matters.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> We are engaged in an art that by its very nature is highly technical and so if we are to be in control of our tools, we need to know some technical issues just like a sculptor who intends his work to be cast must have some idea of how metal behaves as it cools or a ceramist must know how different glazes respond to different environments and temperatures.
> 
> There is no guarantee that knowing lots of technical stuff will make one more creative but it is almost certain a great artist will know his tools.



Oh I certainly agree. My intent was to not say proper tool knowledge wasn't important but getting to the nitty gritty of technical aspects was not needed.


----------



## Mully (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.
> ...



For some reason I do NOT.  Skin is too thick from being in this field so long.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 18, 2013)

texkam said:


> To the degree it matters.





runnah said:


> Oh I certainly agree. My intent was to not say proper tool knowledge wasn't important but getting to the nitty gritty of technical aspects was not needed.



I think Texkam hit it right and succinctly. 
One has to know at least enough to know when they need to know more.
Until a photographer gets to that point, they need to try to understand the technology.
And that point isn't one spot, it's a succession of places that you get to as you get more experienced.
Learn until you know enough to do what you are doing know comfortably.
Then, as you shoot more, the borders of your knowledge become more apparent and if you get close to them, then you can start to investigate more.
There is a good probability that knowing too much for where one is or what one is doing is possibly a detriment.


----------



## rlemert (Apr 18, 2013)

The aspect of this question I see missing is "just how technical is 'technical'?"

  A photographer should know, for example, what chromatic aberration is and "why" it occurs. By "why", I mean that he should know that it's due to lenses refracting light of different wavelengths by different amounts so that different colors focus on different spots on the lens. He doesn't need to be able to solve the equations that govern this behavior to predict just how many millimeters difference this is going to produce.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > We are engaged in an art that by its very nature is highly technical and so if we are to be in control of our tools, we need to know some technical issues just like a sculptor who intends his work to be cast must have some idea of how metal behaves as it cools or a ceramist must know how different glazes respond to different environments and temperatures.
> ...



If the "nitty gritty" is needed knowledge then it is most likely apart of your job at hand already.  I'm not sure how to explain.  Maybe if your photography is scientific in nature then you might need to study the scientific nature of your tools in order to keep your experiment measurable.


----------



## rlemert (Apr 18, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> On the other hand, I had a friend who suggested that since medical school is so competitive to get into that your undergraduate degree should be in something presumably "less difficult" than biochemistry, like English or Political Science, so you have a better chance of a higher undergraduate GPA and as a result admittance to medical school.



  Not meaning to hijack the thread, but ...

  I believe you actually have a better chance of getting into medical school if you go through a *harder *degree.I've heard that medical schools will accept people with lower gpa's if they have an engineering degree because they recognize the rigor of the degree.

  We say that it's because engineering students have already learned how to function without any sleep.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

rlemert said:


> We say that it's because engineering students have already learned how to function without any sleep.



and without girlfriends!


----------



## Greiver (Apr 18, 2013)

IMO you don't need to know the complexities behind it to be a good or even great photographer but knowing them definitely expands on what you're capable of and might make things easier in general.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2013)

I know very little of the technical side of photography, I learned from my Dad who is also not a technical photographer.  He just refers to some people as the "techies"  They can tell you everything you need to know about how and why, but they couldn't shoot to save their lives.  I think for many people it is important for them to understand why things work the way they do, others it doesn't make any difference at all.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 18, 2013)

Mully said:


> Would you have surgery from a Dr. that has weak surgery skills  ... somehow I do not think so.



Of course not. 

And if you find a photographer who is able to save a life by taking a technically correct photograph, you'll have a valid comparison...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 18, 2013)

rlemert said:


> By "why", I mean that he should know that it's due to lenses refracting light of different wavelengths by different amounts so that different colors focus on different spots on the lens.



Can you explain _why _he should know this?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 18, 2013)

This is all complicated by the fact that it's a moving target.

You used to need to know a fair bit of practical chemistry, as well as aperture, focusing, effective speeds of materials, and so on.

Then you just needed to be able to mix up solutions of prepared chemicals, as well as aperture, focusing, specified speeds of materials.

Then you just needed to understand aperture, focusing, and the specified speeds.

And the list continues to shrink, but also to expand. It shrinks faster than it expands.

At every step of the way, the old timers claim that the new kids need to know they old stuff, but they're wrong.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 18, 2013)

When I hear people discussing the minutiae of just about anything, my eyes glaze over and my head wants to explode.

Some of the best photographers I've ever met don't have a clue about anything beyond the most basic aspects of photography. These are not hobbiests. These are people who, in some cases, have made handsome livings for the last 40 years with their cameras...


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 18, 2013)

For the record, do we know who the 2 folks are who think about Runnah when showering?  I'm guessing Mish and Kat Thorson, but that's just a guess.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Some of the best photographers I've ever met don't have a clue about anything beyond the most basic aspects of photography. These are not hobbiests. These are people who, in some cases, have made handsome livings for the last 40 years with their cameras...



Hey!  We agree on something!  

Not that there is anything wrong with learning all you can about any of it, just that it doesn't necessarily make you a better photographer.  It may help and it may not.  Everyone is different.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 18, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> For the record, do we know who the 2 folks are who think about Runnah when showering?  I'm guessing Mish and Kat Thorson, but that's just a guess.




I felt like I needed a shower after reading the poll options, but that wasn't listed.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 18, 2013)

I have not read the other replies yet, but I think as you progress you accidently end up learning more then you need to know about the technical aspects. Yeah, I really don't want to know all the low down about how how everything works either. I just want to know that it WILL work when I follow the same steps again and again.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> When I hear people discussing the minutiae of just about anything, my eyes glaze over and my head wants to explode.
> 
> Some of the best photographers I've ever met don't have a clue about anything beyond the most basic aspects of photography. These are not hobbiests. These are people who, in some cases, have made handsome livings for the last 40 years with their cameras...



Yeah.  I would think it only really matters to those whose photography would need that knowledge.  I'm unaware of any fields of photography that truly need that knowledge.  But that may just be my lack of knowledge.


To others it may just be an interesting subject.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 18, 2013)

I've made a lot of money with photography. I've sold numerous prints. I've had photos on magazine covers, CD covers, in newspapers and in magazines.

If you put a gun to my head and told me to explain the cause of chromatic aberration or you were going to pull the trigger, I'm a dead man...


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I've made a lot of money with photography. I've sold numerous prints. I've had photos on magazine covers, CD covers, in newspapers and in magazines.
> 
> If you put a gun to my head and told me to explain the cause of chromatic aberration or you were going to pull the trigger, I'm a dead man...



Anyone ever seen "Good Eats" on the food network? The host know everything about the chemical bonds and molecular properties in any dish he is making. Now I am sure that knowledge helps him cook, but I am sure there are chefs out there that can make amazing food but couldn't tell you word one of the chemical composition of a sauce.

Maybe it is different for different people. The science and math people love to know the exact exposure and focal length based on complexes maths and data, others just do what feels right.


----------



## Mully (Apr 18, 2013)

When it comes to film and large format you better have a good working knowledge of what you are doing, especially with regard to food photography and 8x10 chromes. Color film would shift in color depending on where the lab chemistry was.  It was important to buy enough of one emulsion and do a film test to know the filtration needed to get the color right. Todays digital cameras are a snap to use compared to film and 20 years ago PS was an infant and it cost serious money to have a chrome color corrected on a Sitex machine.  At my step sons wedding the photographer they hired shot on auto with bursts ....to the tune of 4400 images...a monkey could do this with no knowledge...... so ya I can be done.


----------



## shelby16 (Apr 18, 2013)

I think the answer here is it's different for everyone, but "professionals" should know basics of why they are doing what they do.
But, personally, I've seen great photos with people who don't know why they do what they do. But, they aren't selling their photos either.

Just my two cents. I like when things get into a deep discussion though! I enjoy reading peoples replies. haha


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2013)

I think there is a difference between the technical aspects and the techniqual aspects.

I know a lot of good photographers who couldn't tell you how a Bayer array works, but they sure as hell know what their camera's highest sync speed is.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> That'd be like hiring yourself out as a gun-slinger to helps some town in the old west with get rid of a problem with bandits... and then they find out you don't know how to shoot a gun.  You'll probably have a pretty short career.



In this analogy, I wouldn't consider "knowing how to shoot a gun" the "technical aspects" - though I get what you're saying.  I think it would be more accurate to say that it would be like being hired for said bandit killing, but you don't know how to make your own ammunition.  You can shoot a gun (well, even) without having a clue what is actually going on inside of it, how the components work together, or even what the parts inside of it even look like.  (I had a friend that went years without cleaning any of his guns because he was afraid that he would never get them back together if he took them apart.  He could still shoot well.)

The same for anything else.

You can play an electric guitar without knowing how the vibration of the strings gets converted into sound by the pickups.  Knowing how it happens won't necessarily make you a better player.

I voted maybe.  Like others, I think it depends on what exactly you're trying to do.  I think that for most photos, you'd probably be fine if you didn't know the technical things.  For other photos, you really do need to know that stuff though.


----------



## deeky (Apr 18, 2013)

This is probably going to sound a lot more snarky than I intend, but here goes....

Runnah, it sounds like you already have a pretty set opinion on the subject.  As defensive as you are of your position, why did you even ask?  I guess I'm looking for context that may help me with some of the ambiguities of the question.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

deeky said:


> This is probably going to sound a lot more snarky than I intend, but here goes....
> 
> Runnah, it sounds like you already have a pretty set opinion on the subject.  As defensive as you are of your position, why did you even ask?  I guess I'm looking for context that may help me with some of the ambiguities of the question.


This will also sound a lot more snarky than I intended...

Why, when someone asks a question, does everyone assume that the person asking the question does not already know the answer?  Or is even actually trying to figure out the answer?

I mean, I'm sure he already has 'his' answer.  Could it be possible that it was just an engaging question to get a discussion going?  I've tried that before and it fails every time, lol.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Could it be possible that it was just an engaging question to get a discussion going?


----------



## peter27 (Apr 18, 2013)

_Do you need to know the technical aspects to be a good photographer?

_No. Being reasonably clued up about how cameras and other equipment work is sufficient. Far more important is a firm understanding of light. This is THE most important technical aspect you need to really grasp as a photographer. You don't have to understand this in a scientific way, but you do need a certain level of awareness. Then, if you know which direction you should turn a dial or which button should be pressed and how often to achieve what you want, that is enough.

I expect that many of the famous photographers got to where they were/are by a process of trial and error.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 19, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > You can play an electric guitar without knowing how the vibration of the strings gets converted into sound by the pickups. Knowing how it happens won't necessarily make you a better player.
> ...


----------



## Helen B (Apr 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > TCampbell said:
> ...


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 19, 2013)

You dont even need some sort of basic understanding.

People can make great photographs with just knowing the on/off switch and the shutter release on their iPhone.

All you need is the ability to see the photograph.

However, the basics of photography arent that hard to understand, and understanding them gives you more possibilities on what you can do with a camera.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 19, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Didn't know how to, or couldn't? Two very different things, requiring different abilities.



He just didn't know how to do it. He didn't have that knowledge.

Yet, somehow, it didn't keep him from starting one of the most successful musical instrument companies the world has ever known...


----------



## Helen B (Apr 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't know how to, or couldn't? Two very different things, requiring different abilities.
> ...



What did he think the machine heads were for? Decoration?


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 19, 2013)

leeroix said:


> I think this applies to other things besides photography as well.



Yes, it does apply to other fields, as well.

In short, does a good photographer need to know the coefficient of diffraction of each piece of glass inside the lens and the angular variation by wavelength as it travels through said piece of glass? Certainly the people that design them need to know thator have access to it in their calculations. But do we, as photographers care one iota about that level of super technical knowledge? 

This discussion reminds me of a couple of gun enthusiast/hunter friends of mine. They can tell you off the top of their head that such and such a cartridge, with xxx grains of powder, and a thusly-formed projectile weighing so much will leave the muzzle at yyy feet per second, have a drop rate of this much each 100 feet of travel, and, given a crosswise wind from left to right at 5 mph, at 200 yards, aim 2 inches high and 1 inch left of the target to hit the bullseye. And they do it! They love their hobby that much to study it to the nth degree and, as a result, their ability to hit the target under nearly any conditions is probably much better than someone with less understanding of the finite details. 

But the difference is that while shooting is putting a small projectile into a target area of perhaps 50% bigger than the projectile, thats a very quantitative measure. Its either in the bullseye or its not. Granted, there's a lot of target 'area' on a deer to bring one down. But it's still 'did it drop the deer' or not?  Can non detail-knowledgeable hunters kill a deer?  Thousands do, every fall.   

In photography, the results are a combination of qualitative and subjective measurevery imprecise and inconsistent from one viewer to another. While one person may consider that absolutely perfect focus with zero noise and perfect exposure makes a good picture, someone else may feel that a heavily Photoshopped/color shifted, selective processing with strong digital modification is what makes a perfect picture. As has been said so many timesbeauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so it is.

So, can a newbie with a brand new point and shoot from Walmart take a great picture? Absolutely, although quite unlikely. Can they take a stunning picture? Id say: doubtful, but possible. Does it require a high-end DSLR such as a Canon 5D3 and the latest and greatest glass with a red stripe to get the ultimate picture? Not reallybut it would certainly help. Probably one of the most memorable pictures of my lifetime was taken in 1963 of little John-John Kennedy saluting his fathers casket as it passed by that cold November day. I dont know whether the photographer was a pro or not, or whether he had the best or the worst camera of the day. Im guessing a Speedgraphic or whatever the press was using in those days. The $150 point and shoot from Walmart probably takes sharper, better exposed pictures. Was that a great picture? Absolutely. Composition, subject matter, emotion, and exposure all blended together for the picture of a lifetime (photographer and subject). Did the photographer know much more than the film speed, shutter speed and aperture of the camera? Probably not.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 19, 2013)

I can tell you that understanding how circuits work gives me a unique and often helpful understanding that factors into my ability to manage systems and write software.  I could do it without it, but I have often felt like I truly understood technology in a way that not many people do, and have seen cases where I could directly tie my understanding back to these fundamental principles.

Does it make me massively better than someone who doesn't?  No. I know people who don't know this who can crush me like a bug, but I don't know many. 

I don't know if this is analogous to photography because I don't know as much ... as Garbz.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 19, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



It doesn't matter, really, now does it?

The point here is that he was loaded with all of this knowledge with regards to building guitars, yet he couldn't play.

Someone can have volumes of knowledge, and not have a clue as to the proper application of any of it. Conversely, someone can possess the innate ability to produce a work of art, and have little to no understanding of the technical process behind creating it...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2013)

bratkinson said:
			
		

> Can non detail-knowledgeable hunters kill a deer?  Thousands do, every fall.



Continuing that line of example:  Some people hunt deer with a shotgun, loaded with buckshot. Others use a modern, centerfire rifle. Others hunt deer during the black powder seasons, using single-shot,muzzle-loading rifles of both 'historical' and 'modern' design. Still others like the challenge of handgun hunting for deer in the states where it is legal. Others hunt with a bow.

There's QUITE a bit of difference in the way the above methods are actually enacted...


----------



## Helen B (Apr 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Right, but that's different from not knowing how to tune a guitar - he obviously knew _how_ it was done (otherwise why would he have included the machine heads in his design?) but he _couldn't_ do it. That's the difference I was trying to get at, and the conclusion you seem to have come to - he did have the knowledge, but not the ability.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



This is a common argument, but a faulty logical construct. Saying someone can know everything about something but not be able to execute, does NOT mean that knowing everything about something has no value.


----------



## skieur (Apr 19, 2013)

You need to know some of the basics but the bottom line is that irrespective of all the technical speak, what VISUAL difference do you see in your shots, or in the shots based on different sized sensors, or different technology or the use of different features or full frame versus crop body etc.  

I have been somewhat surprised that the VISUAL difference does not always back up the tech. talk.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hunt deer with the front of my car....on accident. Makes me mad.


----------



## runnah (Apr 19, 2013)

I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.


----------



## snowbear (Apr 19, 2013)

I always liked the expression "working knowledge," meaning you need to know at least enough to get the job done.  When I was supporting the 9-1-1 system (IT side), we had to have a working knowledge of dispatching procedures.  It didn't mean we needed the ability to sit down and work the radios or answer the calls, but we had to know what the general process was.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 19, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



I've never designed a guitar. I've never built a guitar. I can play the bejeesus out of a guitar, though, and have done so with some of the finest musicians on the planet.

Somehow, I'm able to make music without a high level of music theory knowledge, fretboard logic, or knowing how to build a guitar. Can I tune one? Sure. Can I explain the relationship distances of the frets as you move up the fretboard?

Hehehehehe, man, not even close.

Applying it to the question in the OP, the music is the photograph, and I can make that music without a true understanding of _how _I'm making it...


----------



## weepete (Apr 19, 2013)

The simple answer is yes. What you guys are all debating is how much technical knowledge do you need to consistently produce good photographs. 

Otherwise there wouldn't be so many posts in the beginners section about how to use a camera.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.



I hunt in the buff with my teeth and claws, just like Mother Nature intended.


----------



## mishele (Apr 19, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.
> ...


Pictures or it didn't happen.


----------



## deeky (Apr 19, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> deeky said:
> 
> 
> > This is probably going to sound a lot more snarky than I intend, but here goes....
> ...




Hey, thanks for the assumptive answer to an honest, direct question I asked of someone else.  If that really is Runnah's reason, then I'm just fine with that and now I know.  But there are people out there that will ask the same question because they truly don't know.  And then there are times when the question is asked because someone has had a recent event, conflict, or discussion outside of the forum that has shaped the question.  I like context - that's all I was going for.  Rather than assuming Runnah's motivations myself, I was looking for the facts, just the facts.

Instead we all get our dander up and the hair flies.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.



Be quiet runnah. You started this whole crap thread in the first place. Get back to being your smart a** self please. We are still BFF though.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 19, 2013)

mishele said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I didn't get the copyright release from the photographer.


----------



## mishele (Apr 19, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.
> ...


You guys so cute....:hug::


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 19, 2013)

manaheim said:


> This is a common argument, but a faulty logical construct. Saying someone can know everything about something but not be able to execute, does NOT mean that knowing everything about something has no value.



Um, I never said that it had no value. In fact, no one has...


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 19, 2013)

deeky said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > deeky said:
> ...



Haha.  It's not personal - why does everybody take comments by random people they don't even know personally?  It just seemed pretty clear to me that the question posed in this thread was rhetorical.  He wasn't trying to figure out if he needed to know the technical aspects, he was trying to make you question why you're so obsessed with it.  (You in the general sense - not you specifically.)  That is simplified a little, but you get the point...

I've tried the same thing before (basically every non-technical question I have ever started a thread to ask), and I'm convinced that there are only a handful of people here that can read through the lines and figure out what you are really asking.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 20, 2013)

I heard there were loin clothed man hunters in here? 

I'm a fuzzy little man peach, be gentle...



























or not


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Be quiet runnah. You started this whole crap thread in the first place. Get back to being your smart a** self please. We are still BFF though.



Yes M'Lady.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> I only hunt animals in my loin cloth with a sharp stick.



I understand how you might have animals in your loincloth but isn't using a sharp stick a rather painful way to eliminate them?


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Be quiet runnah. You started this whole crap thread in the first place. Get back to being your smart a** self please. We are still BFF though.
> ...



Get off the computer. We have to get ready for Yoga.


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Get off the computer. We have to get ready for Yoga.



Smoothies afterwards!


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Get off the computer. We have to get ready for Yoga.
> ...



Actually, I normally do whip up something real nice in my Vitamix after. You won't taste the flaxseed.


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Actually, I normally do whip up something real nice in my Vitamix after. You won't taste the flaxseed.



Sounds delightful. Bikram or traditional?

Be warned I do yoga in European style bathing attire.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Actually, I normally do whip up something real nice in my Vitamix after. You won't taste the flaxseed.



You sound exactly like the girl I'm seeing. Vitamix, bikram yoga and all. Creepy.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I normally do whip up something real nice in my Vitamix after. You won't taste the flaxseed.
> ...



Nah. Yoga once a week just so I can use my Vitamix to make the best chocolate milkshakes ever, and not care about the calories. Plus, yoga gets rid of all the stress from the week.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

This is kinda what my class looks like. Just picture me in the middle of this laughing yoga class. Yeah, it's that funny. If you don't laugh at this there is something wrong with you.


----------



## techniker (Apr 20, 2013)

Overread said:


> My view is that you need to know the technical to sufficient depth that you know how it affects your photos and how you can manipulated it. Sure you don't need to know the whole electronic explanation of how ISO works or how your sensor captures light; but you need to know how various different ISO's will work in varying lighting conditions and how to use the ISO to best effect.
> 
> It's like all things, you can learn anything into a great depth if you so choose, but most of the time there is a practical working understanding that will give you the core tools that you need and any learning beyond that is learning for the fun of things. Then again sometimes learning that little bit more can open up new ideas.
> 
> for example I know macro photographers who've learnt and then built their own external shutters so that they can take photos of insects with vastly reduced shutter lag compared to the DSLR's own shutter. That additional understanding of how the camera works and how light works within the setup led them to identify the problem (the shutter lag) and then presented a solution for them (external shutter). From which they could get shots that otherwise they couldn't.



Nailed it.

I think the important part of understanding, in any aspect of life, is understanding what consequences will come from your actions. Everyone knows that using soap and water will remove dirt from your hands. But not everyone knows that, on a chemical level, soap molecules make hydrogen bonds with oil on one end (which is the oil on our skin that the dirt sticks to) and also hydrogen bonds with water on the other end, so the dirt/oil, soap and water are washed away when you rinse your hands under the faucet. 

I think fundamental technical aspects of photography are essential to understand on a more complex level because using that knowledge intuitively will follow. 

PS: All of the photography related equation I've seen are very simple. They are mostly plug and play, no algebra, trigonometry or calculus. Anyone should feel free to contact me if you need help understanding or solving these equations.


----------



## techniker (Apr 20, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I normally do whip up something real nice in my Vitamix after. You won't taste the flaxseed.
> ...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2013)

7 pages of this.  Can we give runnah his much desired "starter of threads from hell" badge and move on now?


----------



## snowbear (Apr 20, 2013)

That looks more like the "Don't forget to take toilet paper with you into the woods" badge.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2013)

It was really the best I could find.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2013)

Next thread topic: Does one need to know where to find super-cool and super-appropriate web badges in order to be a good moderator????


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2013)

That would be SO helpful.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 20, 2013)

Is there a merit badge for picking out appropriate merit badges?


----------



## Greiver (Apr 20, 2013)

Or a badge for making your own on Photoshop?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2013)

Greiver said:


> Or a badge for making your own on Photoshop?



There's gotta be a custom action for that.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 20, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > Or a badge for making your own on Photoshop?
> ...



Yes but it'll cost you $199 from Shutterbugpandabearphotography.com


----------

