How did you learn

W

Wainb

Messages
21
Name
Wayne
Edit My Images
Yes
How did you learn about photography?
Did you attend college course, YouTube or by trial and error.
I think I know the very basics,but want to learn more.
 
alfbranch said:
Books, magazines and a lot film in tge 1980's.
Click to expand...
Same.

My dad got me into photography at 13.

At 14 I joined the school darkroom club after hours and at 16 I badgered my parents into buying me a darkroom setup using a LPL 3301D enlarger (which I still have).

They weren't impressed when I painted the spare bedroom matt black though :p
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zx9
The technical aspects (how to make an exposure, control light, etc) a mixture of from my father when I was young, books, reading online (e.g. the strobist series), experimentation and cross-over from aspects of my profession (a lot of computer vision).

The artistic aspects - experimentation, I need to do better and learn more critically there!

I think it's important to understand what you want to learn, as technical expertise doesn't mean you take good photos, it just means you took the photo you tried to take accurately.
 
One step at a time. It's something you can't learn overnight.

I started over fifty years ago, but we only had libraries and books in those days. It's a lot easier now with computers, digital cameras and the internet.

Enjoy the journey and welcome to the forum. You'll learn a lot just by being here . . .
 
College (10 week course), reading (mainly online forums) and a lot of practice.
 
From my mistakes (of which there were plenty).

Since you no longer have the fear/cost of film to worry about, just get out and use the camera - you will know when an image has worked and when it hasn't - I suspect we are all our most severe critics, so rely on your own judgement.

And remember - it is what you like that matters, not what anyone else tells you ought to like.
 
Wainb said:
How did you learn about photography?
Did you attend college course, YouTube or by trial and error.
I think I know the very basics,but want to learn more.
Click to expand...
Ii got my first camera a developed my first film on my 10 birthday I used the instructions that came with a may and baker mq packet of developer. I was hooked.
I then read everything I could about photography however I cold. Not progress much till after my 13 birthday when I went to senior school and they had a well kitted out darkroom and. A school library with a full set of BJ Almanac's and. Various other photographic book and a weekly copy of AP. By 16 I was a competent printer ànd knew more than most people today seem to understand about photography and lighting. And was the proud owner of an ensign selfix2 with the excellent Ross xpres. Lens, I also had a 1/4 plate TP Ruby reflex also with a Ross express lens.
During one school holiday I worked free, for the experience, in the dark rooms and finishing room of a local photographers. Where I must have printed and dry mounted hundreds of photographs.
I spent my army service in Hong Kong where I bought an Agfa Solinette 2 35mm folder, which I cold easily carry in my uniform pocket and later moved with the regiment to germany where I had access to the regimental darkroom.
On demob I obtained places at both the Regent street poly and London school of printing and graphic arts full time photographic courses. And finally chose the LSPG . However I found that they could teach me very little that I did not already know, but loved the facilities and time to do my own thing. At the time there were no photographic degree courses in the UK. The highest levels were college diplomas, city and guilds and IBP exams. All of which were somewhat out of date, in the same way that academic courses lag behind today.

If someone has a reasonably good education they can probably still learn all they need with their own efforts and lots of practice. This is particularly true is ones interests are in the usual Amateur subjects such a landscapes, architecture,nature and street photography. At a professional level sports photography, press and commercial and industrial, nothing beats working under a good mentor. As a form of apprenticeship. That is where you learn the nitty gritty of what customers want and how to achieve what is required.


That is perhaps the best route for an aspiring professional photographer to take, along side that would be a degree covering business and marketing. Actual photographic degrees are mostly about Art and cover the skills of professional photography very poorly, and nothing about the necessary business skills needed to acquire a reasonable living.

Short courses run by successful professional photographers can be useful for learning particular techniques. Ones aimed at a lower levels will be less useful.
 
John_L said:
From my mistakes (of which there were plenty).

Since you no longer have the fear/cost of film to worry about, just get out and use the camera - you will know when an image has worked and when it hasn't - I suspect we are all our most severe critics, so rely on your own judgement.

And remember - it is what you like that matters, not what anyone else tells you ought to like.
Click to expand...

I would modify that into, it is what a paying customer likes that is most important of all.
In the case of strictly amateur photography,You are the customer and it your money that you are investing in your hobby, if you do not please yourself it will be very frustrating.

Club photography is a very special case, a vast majority of clubs judge your work by very strict traditional standards,
In terms of quality they share a lot with professional photography. But they have entirely different standards of intent, vision and artistic values, which are little different to those of a hundred years ago. You are either a club person or you are not. One thing is certain, club photography has no commercial value and almost none survives the photographer who took them. It is more a social thing based around a common interest.
 
Dad showed me how to use the light meter atop his Pentax S1 and how to focus using the split screen. Learned (B&W) D&P at school. The rest via osmosis!
 
I never quite know what 'self-taught' means in some photography interviews. Because surely almost everyone has been on some sort of course (even if short), watched some youtube videos, read some books, or had some advice or guidance from a friend or someone? You don't just learn about the relationship between ISO / Speed / Aperture by guesswork.

How can anyone be purely 'self-taught' - or is there a specific meaning to those words in the photography world?
 
Started somewhere around 10 or 11 (I think!).
Books, magazines. Trial & error. Film was an expensive item so couldn't afford to waste a lot, so there was an imperative to make each frame count, both technically and in terms of the subject.
I think it's easier to learn now with digital cameras - instant feedback, marginal cost of extra frames is negligible.
 
I learned the boring (technical) stuff from magazines in the late 1970s. It didn't take long as there's not a lot to it. The interesting stuff I am still learning by looking at and making pictures. The only real way to learn is by doing IMO.
 
I have vague memories of taking my Pentax MX into the local chemists, as the owner was a photographer, I think. He gave me some advice, because I didn't know one end of a camera from the other. Other than that I learnt from my own experience. I suppose I must have bought the odd magazine at the time, but that was about it.
 
Bodian said:
I never quite know what 'self-taught' means in some photography interviews. Because surely almost everyone has been on some sort of course (even if short), watched some youtube videos, read some books, or had some advice or guidance from a friend or someone? You don't just learn about the relationship between ISO / Speed / Aperture by guesswork.

How can anyone be purely 'self-taught' - or is there a specific meaning to those words in the photography world?
Click to expand...
I did, in the early 80's. Trial & error. It's not difficult.
 
Bodian said:
You don't just learn about the relationship between ISO / Speed / Aperture by guesswork.
Click to expand...


You pretty much didn't have to - ISO (well, ASA back then!!!) was fixed for up to 39 shots (bulk backs excepted) so we just had to balance things 2 ways rather than 3. We'd chose either the shutter speed or aperture we wanted and see if the other parameter was within what our kit could cope with.
 
Bodian said:
You don't just learn about the relationship between ISO / Speed / Aperture by guesswork.
Click to expand...

No, you learn about it by watching the meter. You soon learn what effect your adjustments make, and how to get the exposure you want. It's not rocket science. We just used our noddle.
 
Plain Nev said:
No, you learn about it by watching the meter. You soon learn what effect your adjustments make, and how to get the exposure you want. It's not rocket science. We just used our noddle.
Click to expand...
I think that a lot of people started without meters.

However, every film from Agfa, Ilford or Kodak came with a piece of paper on which was a cartoon version of the sunny 16 rule. Once you knew that, you were well away. Some cameras, such as the very expensive Rollieflex, even had a metal plate on the back with the same information. That was true luxury! :)
 
You had a fair bit of latitude with the advent of Ilford multigrade filters for the enlarger too.

Under exposed neg.? Stick a 5 filter in the drawer.
 
Nod said:
You pretty much didn't have to - ISO (well, ASA back then!!!) was fixed for up to 39 shots (bulk backs excepted) so we just had to balance things 2 ways rather than 3. We'd chose either the shutter speed or aperture we wanted and see if the other parameter was within what our kit could cope with.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But I see in magazines quite a few folk who have only been digital (or only had a point and shoot before) saying they were self-taught.
 
Bodian said:
Indeed. But I see in magazines quite a few folk who have only been digital (or only had a point and shoot before) saying they were self-taught.
Click to expand...
Maybe they use auto ISO?
 
viewfromthenorth said:
The technical shizzle I learned at nightschool. Learning how to ‘see’ and make a decent photograph I figured out myself - I’m still on that journey.
Click to expand...

Untill you learn to see you are unlikely to make interesting images.
Until you learn technique you are unlikely to make high quality images.
Formal learning speeds up the process but is not essential. Self taught implies self study and practice.
The target should be interesting high quality images.
 
Last edited:
Bodian said:
Indeed. But I see in magazines quite a few folk who have only been digital (or only had a point and shoot before) saying they were self-taught.
Click to expand...


Trial and (lots of?) error?

Of course, that was an option back in fully manual and film days but you had to wait a while to see results and make careful notes of settings on each frame. Digital has made instant review and settings recall an option so learning from experiments is far easier than it was! I would guess that the "self taught" have had a lot of help from books and videos; just no "teacher" to guide their studies.
 
Trial & error (using a metric cart load of short-dated process paid Kodak Ektachrome (100 ASA) & Kodachrome (25 & 64 ASA) gifted by a family friend that was an Army photographer that the army couldn't/wouldn't use)

Mediated using a 1962 reprint of 5th multi-authored edition of Ilford Manual of Photography. Editor: Alan Horder.
 
Nod said:
Trial and (lots of?) error?

Of course, that was an option back in fully manual and film days but you had to wait a while to see results and make careful notes of settings on each frame. Digital has made instant review and settings recall an option so learning from experiments is far easier than it was! I would guess that the "self taught" have had a lot of help from books and videos; just no "teacher" to guide their studies.
Click to expand...

You can not learn anything without making mistakes.
The more mistakes that you have learnt from, the more chance you have in getting is right when faced with new problems.
Trial and error is pointless if you learn nothing from it.
 
i learnt through a mixture of magazines and youtube videos...then practiced and practised a bit more... ad infinitum, still learning now
 
I got my first camera around age 5 or 6, it was a Kodak Disc. My brother gave me his SLR ten years later; I spent most of sixth form in the darkroom, teaching as well as doing my own stuff. I wanted to go to art school to study further, but my mother put her foot down.

I’ve taught over the years, but I’ve not done any learning myself.
 
A bit of trial and error, one afternoon workshop with a pro photographer, and hours and hours of YouTube videos... plus, as others have mentioned many times, getting out and taking as many photos as I possibly can.

I've learnt a fair bit from this place too, it's one of the friendliest forums (fora?) that I hang out on :)
 
Bodian said:
You don't just learn about the relationship between ISO / Speed / Aperture by guesswork.
Click to expand...
A fair proportion of us learnt well before the 'exposure triangle' was a thing. ;) (I'd still argue its always the WRONG thing)

Back then you picked your ISO for either 1, 10, 12, 15, 24 or 36 shots at a time dependent on expected light levels.

Then you were left balancing the SS and aperture. And then as now (if you really understand exposure) it wasn't a balance, you chose your required aperture OR shutter speed and the other had to be adjusted to create the correct exposure. Only in the world of digital can you practically choose your aperture and SS and have the camera fill in the 'triangle'
 
Ed Sutton said:
I learned the boring (technical) stuff from magazines in the late 1970s. It didn't take long as there's not a lot to it. The interesting stuff I am still learning by looking at and making pictures. The only real way to learn is by doing IMO.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this, except the early 80's rather than the 70's.

And why I make a lot of noise about diminishing the 'technical' knowledge, which is often inflated by people who want to make photography appear complicated, or an overly technical pursuit, rather than what it is ... a fairly simple technical process to create interesting images* by capturing reflected light.

* The really hard bit
 
Phil V said:
Pretty much this, except the early 80's rather than the 70's.

And why I make a lot of noise about diminishing the 'technical' knowledge, which is often inflated by people who want to make photography appear complicated, or an overly technical pursuit, rather than what it is ... a fairly simple technical process to create interesting images* by capturing reflected light.

* The really hard bit
Click to expand...

Tis true that. I remember proper cameras used to appear fiendishly complicated, until I began to use one.
 
Phil V said:
...fairly simple technical process to create interesting images* by capturing reflected light.

* The really hard bit
Click to expand...
Sure thing, most modern cameras will yield technically good (ie. Well exposed, in focus) pictures of no artistic merit.

Begs the question why every photo of an alien or cryptid is both poorly exposed and poorly focussed...
 
Phil V said:
Pretty much this, except the early 80's rather than the 70's.

And why I make a lot of noise about diminishing the 'technical' knowledge, which is often inflated by people who want to make photography appear complicated, or an overly technical pursuit, rather than what it is ... a fairly simple technical process to create interesting images* by capturing reflected light.

* The really hard bit
Click to expand...


These days, the technical bit (getting the exposure as close to correct as possible) is better handled by the camera than by most photographers. Veering away from what might be technically "correct" and seeing that interesting image is, as you say, rather harder!
 
Wainb said:
How did you learn about photography?
Did you attend college course, YouTube or by trial and error.
I think I know the very basics,but want to learn more.
Click to expand...
So you’ll have gathered from the answers, once you’re beyond the basics is when ‘learning’ gets difficult.

Although there’s an assumption regarding what ‘learnt the basics’ might mean, and people have assumed you now know how to correctly expose an image that’s in focus. AKA the easy but.

Next bit is about mastering the craft, and like all skills, is developed by ‘doing’. You can read a hundred books or watch a thousand videos, but in reality practice makes perfect.

And the worst part? It’s subject dependent, because making great pictures relies on subject knowledge and only a minor growth in photographic technique.

Great wildlife photographers are experts on the living world, same with landscapes, aviation etc.

Great people photographers are the fuzzier logic. Because ‘knowing’ people isn’t a quest for knowledge it’s often more about your own personality.
 
Initially it was library books and the now long defunct Photo News Weekly that ran a darkroom skills series. I had a darkroom (bedroom) before I had a camera. Big influences were An eye for a bird by Eric Hosking; Flying Birds by David and Katie Urry and Tir a' Mhurain by Paul Strand.

Ansel Adams was added later to this short list of influencers as his writings transformed the way I thought, about, and practised, photography by forcing me to think beyond the technical requirements of a photograph. Adams is replete with quotable sayings, but as a flavour here is one (that was easy to find) from the 1st edition of his Camera and Lens book.

"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas; it is an exalted profession and a creative art. Therefore. emphasis on technique is justified only insofar as it will simplify and and clarify the statement of the photographer's concept.."

Of course Adams put a lot of emphasis on technique, but it was always in terms of achieving the technical skills needed to allow the photographer to produce photographs that matched their creative vision.

Now a days, with digital cameras/smart phones, I think you can delay the technical mastery that Adams promoted and focus initially on making pictures and learning about photographs and photography. Only moving onto developing technical expertise when the lack of technical know how prevents you from "simplifying and clarifying" the statement you want to make with your photograph.

Eventually, my schoolboy hobby developed and I started to work weekends/school holidays, later full time, at my local professional and learned on the job (small team of photographers which did pretty well every type of photography). Switched job to one in an MOD research establishment and again worked with a small, but larger, team of photographers, (industrial and scientific photography mainly) and carried on learning on the job until a change in career.

I also did a 5 years day release studying photography, and multiple short courses, from one day Kodak marketing or Sinar how to use camera movement courses, to a two week video production course.

When, as a now amateur photographer, I got into digital and needed to learn a whole new collection of "technical" things I relied on books, and "paid for" online courses. Youtube is great, but when learning, as opposed to searching for answers to specific problems, I prefer properly structured courses.

Ongoing learning about understanding and appreciating "photography" as opposed to learning photographic techniques, is still mainly from books, a few selected youtube channels and a few online courses. edit: I should add that I subscribe to "Black and White photography" and "Studies in Photography" magazines.

There was a recent thread on here about books to help understand and appreciate photography:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Books to understand and appreciate photographs, photographers and photography

I'm not sure how to define this, I'm interested in recommendations for books that are more about the "why and how" of photography in the broadest sense, than the "how to" of taking photographs. EDIT: Studying books of photographs (e.g. monographs) are a crucial part of learning about...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top