How did you learn

[Phil V]

I think we may have missed the next ‘technical’ aspect after exposure and focussing.

It’s the one that makes a lot of photographers bristle (I’ll never understand that).

Composition, how you arrange the elements in an image to make a pleasing picture. For some people this is 2nd nature, we used to describe it as ‘having an eye for a photograph’. For others it’s learned by trial and error, and others genuinely need to learn ‘the rules’. Though seeing them as ‘rules’ is often what creates the upset.

If you don’t understand composition, there’s loads of books, YouTube videos, blogs, etc. but it’s neither difficult nor mysterious.

 

[Phil V]

And then the question of whether perspective is actually part of ‘the very basics’?

 

[TheBigYin]

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!

Not to mention, that sometimes what you "see" in your minds eye of the eventual picture, MIGHT not be actually best served by a "technically" correct exposure. Sometimes, for the mood, you WANT it to be lighter, or darker - Now - again, this can be handled in PP - either the black arts of darkroom processes, or the more accessible approach of Lightroom/Photoshop. Shooting a perfectly exposed picture will often leave you with a lot harder job in the end - but of course, all of this is moot if you're not actually shooting with an intent to modify the emotional impact via manipulation of the exposure.

 

[Phil V]

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?

Being ‘taught’ isn’t as simple as someone ‘telling you’ something. Teaching involves a structured curriculum.

I’d consider myself ‘self taught’ because I didn’t attend a structured learning path, until I’d already learned the basics myself. Mostly trial and error, some terrible books and slightly unhelpful magazines.
There were no forums, no WWW, no blogs when I was learning.

Nowadays I’d say forums are the best basis for learning. But I’d still argue that if you’re asking ‘your’ questions to drive ‘your’ learning path, no matter how many answers you’ve had from others, you’d be ‘self-taught’.

 

[GreenNinja67]

I think we may have missed the next ‘technical’ aspect after exposure and focussing.

It’s the one that makes a lot of photographers bristle (I’ll never understand that).

Composition, how you arrange the elements in an image to make a pleasing picture. For some people this is 2nd nature, we used to describe it as ‘having an eye for a photograph’. For others it’s learned by trial and error, and others genuinely need to learn ‘the rules’. Though seeing them as ‘rules’ is often what creates the upset.

If you don’t understand composition, there’s loads of books, YouTube videos, blogs, etc. but it’s neither difficult nor mysterious.

Some people never have or are able to develop "the eye for a photograph".

Even after a number of years.

Others "get it" and never lose it.

 

[Dave Canon]

I read the odd book then experimented. By using different settings and making notes I could compare the result with the setting and what I had expected. This was in the days of film so no EXIF data to make it easy. Eventually I joined a Camera Club and learnt more but mainly about composing pictures. I have never attended any course in Photography but have given many courses and talks on the technical aspects of photography over many years. When you prepare a lecture on a specific topic, I found the odd gap in my knowledge which I could quickly correct using books etc.

Dave

 

[TheBigYin]

To return to the OP's Question - being a little older than the OP - I started taking photo's with the family camera - which changed pretty much every other summer holiday - so every 5-6 years - I started taking the photo's because I absolutely HATED being in the photo's. Even Now, every photo i'm in i'm looking miserable as sin because my Mam or Dad had taken the camera off me, and taken the photo instead of me. That hurt - because, lets face it, back then, a roll of film had a christmas tree on each end of the roll, and some photo's on the beach, or similar in the middle of the roll - at least once we'd moved onto a 35mm camera

By the time I was at Grammar School, I was into the outdoors stuff - walking, camping - you know, all the stuff that the Quasi Military Religious Indoctrination Royalist Junior Militia (Scouts) encouraged. A friend of mine at school was also into the same sort of pursuits, and had a Camera - I pestered for one for my 13th birthday, and on returning to school for the 3rd form, we were talking in our form-room (which happened to be a Chemistry Lab) about cameras when the Form tutor noticed, and asked us if we would be interested in re-starting the photography club. We didn't even realise, but the school had its own darkroom, attached to the form-room! From there, my learning took on a bit of a leap - because we could buy bulk B&W film, the chemistry teacher knocked up chemicals to soup the film, and print the eventual pictures - so not only had I more affordable access to film, but also "closed the feedback loop" a little - I learned to keep a notebook with settings from the (fully manual) TLR camera I'd been using (no EXIF's here) so I could work out WHY i'd missed the exposure. I practiced changing shutter speeds and apertures without looking, so handling the camera became second nature.

And I improved technically. Then, at 16, doing A Levels, I took General Studies - one of the best things I ever did - because I got LOTS of extra mini-classes - Music Appreciation - Art Appreciation and theory, Languages - all the things that kind of went by the wayside when you were doing a fully-tracked Maths and Sciences curriculum - but, from a PHOTOGRAPHY point of view - the main one was the ART APPRECIATION - lots of time sitting in the Art Class "mini library", leafing through books on Landscape Paintings, Portraiture, Still Life - but CRITICALLY - actual theory lessons on WHY a picture was so good - we'd pick a painting from a book and say why WE thought it was good (so, building the foundations of understainding and giving critique) and then the Art Teacher would go into greater depth - I was hooked. From there, I read some great books on Art and Composition, on perspective and on light and colour theory. Somewhere along the way, the light bulb in my head came on, and I understood what I'd been doing wrong all the time I'd been taking photos. I'd just been pointing a camera at what was there, and recording it - i'd not been looking at the scene, deciding what I wanted the eventual picture to SAY to the people who weren't priviledged enough to be there side by side with me and seeing it first hand - and work on what I needed to exagerate, or minimise, or otherwise bring out to make the recorded image SHOUT what it had spoken, or whispered to me.

At that point, I stopped being just a bloke with a camera, and became a photographer*






*that doesn't mean I'm any good as a photographer - but it does mean I'm capable of realising it, and explaining why everything I shoot is still s***.

 

[TheBigYin]

I’d still argue that if you’re asking ‘your’ questions to drive ‘your’ learning path, no matter how many answers you’ve had from others, you’d be ‘self-taught’.

Agreed - though perhaps "Self-Motivated" is a more apt description - lots of people DO have a big hang-up (possibly from unhappy school experiences) with anything with the word "Taught" in there, and start getting flashbacks to this guy...

 

[myotis]

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?

I associate self taught as being the lack of any recognised formal training (and assessment). Being told something is different to being taught something. Being taught something puts an obligation on the teacher to make sure you understand what is being taught.

When I started full time in professional photography (many years ago) I was labelled as an apprentice (though I think that was more about paying apprentice wages than any formal training) In my next job you were employed as an "Assistant Photographer" until you had achieved a certain number of years experience AND had a recognised photography qualification. If you didn't come with one, you were sent on day release to get one.

When I became a University Lecturer, my appointment wasn't made permanent until I had completed, and passed, an "in post" part-time postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning.

While I was at school, I went to evening classes on photography (needed permission from the Headmaster because of perceived conflicts with school work) taught by the Chief medical photographer from a nearby hospital. But, I still think of that as being part of being self taught, as there was no ongoing mentoring or assessment associated with it.

 

[Ed Sutton]

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.

I'd add 'access' (in a broad senses for some subjects) as an important part of this specialised knowledge. As the old saying goes, If you want to make more interesting pictures stand in front of more interesting subjects.AKA being in the right place at the right time.

I think we may have missed the next ‘technical’ aspect after exposure and focussing.

It’s the one that makes a lot of photographers bristle (I’ll never understand that).

Composition, how you arrange the elements in an image to make a pleasing picture. For some people this is 2nd nature, we used to describe it as ‘having an eye for a photograph’. For others it’s learned by trial and error, and others genuinely need to learn ‘the rules’. Though seeing them as ‘rules’ is often what creates the upset.

If you don’t understand composition, there’s loads of books, YouTube videos, blogs, etc. but it’s neither difficult nor mysterious.

I'd argue that 'composition' isn't technical. I think it relies more on instinct. Sure you can stick to the 'rules' but for me 'composition' isn't just about arranging shapes in the picture space, it includes light and shade, colour and tone, expression and gesture. Which is why I say it isn't all about the light. You can have great light or great framing and still have a mediocre picture because one tiny element is a midge's out. Making a number of elements 'work' as a picture is the really, really, hard thing about photography. It's that challenge that keeps me at it.

 

[keeweeman]

Started with a bridge camera that had manual settings as well as auto, a lot of trial and error and chimping got me to a point where I knew I needed something more than the bridge camera so I progressed onto my first DSLR. With that I started learning a bit more sensibly through magazines, internet tutorials etc. Haven't really looked back since other than to get annoyed at how crap some of my early photos are despite never getting the opportunity to retake them (gigs and other things where you just have to sort of be there in that moment).

 

[myotis]

I'd add 'access' (in a broad senses for some subjects) as an important part of this specialised knowledge. As the old saying goes, If you want to make more interesting pictures stand in front of more interesting subjects.AKA being in the right place at the right time.

I'd argue that 'composition' isn't technical. I think it relies more on instinct. Sure you can stick to the 'rules' but for me 'composition' isn't just about arranging shapes in the picture space, it includes light and shade, colour and tone, expression and gesture. Which is why I say it isn't all about the light. You can have great light or great framing and still have a mediocre picture because one tiny element is a midge's out. Making a number of elements 'work' as a picture is the really, really, hard thing about photography. It's that challenge that keeps me at it.

As part of that specialist knowledge I would add a genuine interest in, understanding of, and empathy with, the subject as being important. to the picture making process

As regards composition, I think it's difficult to separate out instinctive behaviour and learned behaviour that has become instinctive through practice. But it's beneficial to reach the intuitive stage. Have you read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, fast and slow" where he describes his nobel prize winning work on how Type 1 (instinctive) behaviour and Type 2 (cognitive) behaviour intereract

Even without directly studying composition if you study "good" pictures (photographs, paintings and drawings) you are likely to learn the components of composition that make a picture work. I don't think you agree with me on this, but I still think you can speed up this learning composition process by studying composition, as long as you take the holistic approach to composition you describe [in bold] as in looking for Cartier Bresson's "Decisive Moment",

Trying to make pictures "work" is, as you say, the real challenge, and to my mind the joy, of being a photographer.

 

[Ed Sutton]

As regards composition, I think it's difficult to separate out instinctive behaviour and learned behaviour that has become instinctive through practice. But it's beneficial to reach the intuitive stage. Have you read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, fast and slow" where he describes his nobel prize winning work on how Type 1 (instinctive) behaviour and Type 2 (cognitive) behaviour intereract

I've not. Is it an 'easy' read?

Even without directly studying composition if you study "good" pictures (photographs, paintings and drawings) you are likely to learn the components of composition that make a picture work. I don't think you agree with me on this, but I still think you can speed up this learning composition process by studying composition, as long as you take the holistic approach to composition you describe [in bold] as in looking for Cartier Bresson's "Decisive Moment",

As someone posted above, some people have a natural feel for composition. It can certainly be improved by looking at lots of 'good' pictures.

Whenever I've read articles/features about photographic composition I find myself wondering why they stating the bleedin' obvious!

 

[myotis]

I've not. Is it an 'easy' read?

Well, it's written for the general public and you don't need any specialist knowledge to follow it. But I wouldn't describe it as an easy read as there are bits that need some serious thinking to grasp. However, you could skip these bits and still grasp the essence of the book.

As someone posted above, some people have a natural feel for composition. It can certainly be improved by looking at lots of 'good' pictures.

I agree with this and I think it applies to other things. My Dad, as an example, seemed able to pick up any musical instrument and be able to play it, and when trying to teach people to fly fish, some people seem to have a natural feel for the whole process (not just the casting) while others just don't get it.

Whenever I've read articles/features about photographic composition I find myself wondering why they stating the bleedin' obvious!

Articles/features/videos by photographers on composition seem to often be particularly poor.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I agree with this and I think it applies to other things. My Dad, as an example, seemed able to pick up any musical instrument and be able to play it, and when trying to teach people to fly fish, some people seem to have a natural feel for the whole process (not just the casting) while others just don't get it.

It's odd isn't it?

 

[myotis]

It's odd isn't it?

I have some theories, but better suited to the pub than here to discuss

 

[droj]

Articles/features/videos by photographers on composition seem to often be particularly poor.

To me, the word 'composition' sounds very two-dimensional. I'd rather talk about 'picture-space' - which although it exists prosaically in two dimensions exists virtually in three. Lighting may be an element in this but focus is a key.

I'd take slight issue with the thread title - 'how have you learnt' sounds like something that happened & has now stopped. If you're engaged, learning never stops!