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!

 

[Ed Sutton]

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.

Up to a point Lord Copper. You can have deep focus and an appearance/illusion of depth by using aerial perspective or layering of subject matter. But whatever else we do what we call 'photographic composition' starts with putting the viewfinder/screen's frame around a view of a subject.

 

[myotis]

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!

I agree, but specific to my posts rather than a general, point I was responding to Dave'e post where he described a holistic approach to composition ("...composition' isn't just about arranging shapes in the picture space, it includes light and shade, colour and tone, expression and gesture") which I aligned with Cartier Bresson's Decisive Moment criteria where all the elements have to come together, not just the 2d spatial arrangement. for a picture to work. (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by focus being the key, is this simply to direct the eye to the key subject areas, or more about creating the illusion of 3d in a 2d space by moving the eye through the picture ie change of scale, warm to cool, sharp to blurry, light to dark, high contrast to low contrast.)

Though, you could argue that the choice of 2d spatial arrangement (if you want a narrow definition), is dictated by the elements Dave listed, I would add texture to that list, as smooth textures carry a different weight compared to rough ones (and can affect the impression of 3d). But I tend to use it as a shorthand that includes all the elements that contribute to the choice of framing, viewpoint and exact moment of pressing the shutter.

The problem, as I see it, is that so often composition within photography learning materials only refers to the placement of spatial elements.

I am obviously going agree with you last point about ongoing learning, And, as your post is in response to one of my posts, point out that my original reply to the this thread started with how I "initially" learned photography and ended with ongoing learning including a link to the recent thread on here about photography books that you contributed to.

But, I wonder whether there is a difference between "active" learning where you learn things you didn't know you needed to learn, until after you have learned about them, and "passive" learning where you just build on experience and are only occasionally forced into "active" learning because you need to problem solve.

I think the OPs wording was may be unfortunate, but it tends to be a common turn of phrase. How do I learn birdwatching? How do I learn fly fishing? How do I learn to become a teacher? All of which demand a lifetime of active learning, but equally all have a sort of "threshold of competence" where you move from the "only learning" to the "still learning" phase.

For some, active learning will stop once a threshold of competence is reached, and that may be all that they want from their hobby.

 

[Garry Edwards]

A lot of very helpful points in detailed replies - especially helpful given that the OP doesn't seem to want to take part in the discussions . . .

Photography is now incredibly easy to learn, partly because of internet sources - with some great info hidden among the inevitable rubbish - and partly because of the massive and rapid improvements in technology. I include image quality and automation improvements in this, as well as the move to digital.

But, there are downsides to this ease; most people just blaze away, taking multiple shots of everything without any thought, in the forlorn hope that one of those shots may work. Back in the bad old days this was expensive, and there was also a delay between taking the photos and seeing the results, so people tended to adopt the process of "measure twice, cut once". The process was slow and cumbersome, but it worked because we were pretty much forced to THINK about every shot before we pressed the magic button, and thought is what it's all about,

Various people have views about the importance (or not) of the technical aspects. My view, FWIW, is that the technical aspects need to be (more or less) right but, having got them right, they come a very poor second to creating a shot that's interesting, that creates emotion and so on.

But the technical aspects are the essential basics and people need to understand them fully. "Technical" also includes intimate knowledge of the camera, so that we can make adjustments without thinking about where the knobs or buttons are, leaving us free to think about the artistic elements. This is what all skilled people do, all the time, they know the process and the equipment so well that they make it look easy, the tool becomes part of them, leaving them completely free to concentrate all of their effort on the creative elements.

A simple analogy; I'm sitting in front of a PC with twin large monitors and I'm a touch typist. I'm thinking about what I'm typing (OK, not thinking too well) and even though I can't tell you where the "w" is on my keyboard if you ask me, my fingers hit the right keys every time, at about 60 words per minute. If I was pushing buttons on a phone instead, the process would be slower, there would be spelling and grammatical errors because of it and autocorrect would mess things up. Therefore, my writing quality "should" be better because the typing process is automatic and isn't a distraction from the actual content.

 

[Wainb]

A lot of very helpful points in detailed replies - especially helpful given that the OP doesn't seem to want to take part in the discussions . . .

Photography is now incredibly easy to learn, partly because of internet sources - with some great info hidden among the inevitable rubbish - and partly because of the massive and rapid improvements in technology. I include image quality and automation improvements in this, as well as the move to digital.

But, there are downsides to this ease; most people just blaze away, taking multiple shots of everything without any thought, in the forlorn hope that one of those shots may work. Back in the bad old days this was expensive, and there was also a delay between taking the photos and seeing the results, so people tended to adopt the process of "measure twice, cut once". The process was slow and cumbersome, but it worked because we were pretty much forced to THINK about every shot before we pressed the magic button, and thought is what it's all about,

Various people have views about the importance (or not) of the technical aspects. My view, FWIW, is that the technical aspects need to be (more or less) right but, having got them right, they come a very poor second to creating a shot that's interesting, that creates emotion and so on.

But the technical aspects are the essential basics and people need to understand them fully. "Technical" also includes intimate knowledge of the camera, so that we can make adjustments without thinking about where the knobs or buttons are, leaving us free to think about the artistic elements. This is what all skilled people do, all the time, they know the process and the equipment so well that they make it look easy, the tool becomes part of them, leaving them completely free to concentrate all of their effort on the creative elements.

A simple analogy; I'm sitting in front of a PC with twin large monitors and I'm a touch typist. I'm thinking about what I'm typing (OK, not thinking too well) and even though I can't tell you where the "w" is on my keyboard if you ask me, my fingers hit the right keys every time, at about 60 words per minute. If I was pushing buttons on a phone instead, the process would be slower, there would be spelling and grammatical errors because of it and autocorrect would mess things up. Therefore, my writing quality "should" be better because the typing process is automatic and isn't a distraction from the actual content.

lot of very helpful points in detailed replies - especially helpful given that the OP doesn't seem to want to take part in the discussions . . .

I am very grateful for all the replies.i am totally out of my depth trying to reply to most of the info given.
But happily taking notes and reading up on the subjects given.
Many thanks to you all for advice given

 

[droj]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by focus being the key, is this simply to direct the eye to the key subject areas, or more about creating the illusion of 3d in a 2d space by moving the eye through the picture ie change of scale, warm to cool, sharp to blurry, light to dark, high contrast to low contrast.

Can be any or all of those.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I am very grateful for all the replies.i am totally out of my depth trying to reply to most of the info given.
But happily taking notes and reading up on the subjects given.
Many thanks to you all for advice given

Fair enough, but there's a danger that we may lose interest if you don't contribute to the conversation and, without some input from you, we don't have any way of knowing whether our replies are even helpful to you or not.

 

[myotis]

A lot of very helpful points in detailed replies - especially helpful given that the OP doesn't seem to want to take part in the discussions . . .

Photography is now incredibly easy to learn, partly because of internet sources - with some great info hidden among the inevitable rubbish - and partly because of the massive and rapid improvements in technology. I include image quality and automation improvements in this, as well as the move to digital.

But, there are downsides to this ease; most people just blaze away, taking multiple shots of everything without any thought, in the forlorn hope that one of those shots may work. Back in the bad old days this was expensive, and there was also a delay between taking the photos and seeing the results, so people tended to adopt the process of "measure twice, cut once". The process was slow and cumbersome, but it worked because we were pretty much forced to THINK about every shot before we pressed the magic button, and thought is what it's all about,

Various people have views about the importance (or not) of the technical aspects. My view, FWIW, is that the technical aspects need to be (more or less) right but, having got them right, they come a very poor second to creating a shot that's interesting, that creates emotion and so on.

But the technical aspects are the essential basics and people need to understand them fully. "Technical" also includes intimate knowledge of the camera, so that we can make adjustments without thinking about where the knobs or buttons are, leaving us free to think about the artistic elements. This is what all skilled people do, all the time, they know the process and the equipment so well that they make it look easy, the tool becomes part of them, leaving them completely free to concentrate all of their effort on the creative elements.

A simple analogy; I'm sitting in front of a PC with twin large monitors and I'm a touch typist. I'm thinking about what I'm typing (OK, not thinking too well) and even though I can't tell you where the "w" is on my keyboard if you ask me, my fingers hit the right keys every time, at about 60 words per minute. If I was pushing buttons on a phone instead, the process would be slower, there would be spelling and grammatical errors because of it and autocorrect would mess things up. Therefore, my writing quality "should" be better because the typing process is automatic and isn't a distraction from the actual content.

When I was learning to play golf , there were two distinctive starting points, one was to lean how to hit the ball as far as you could hit it, and then lean how to hit it accurately, the other, was to learn how to hit the ball accurately and then learn how to hit it further. Two equally valid approaches to achieve the same endpoint

In the old days of photography, I'm not sure you had any choice but to learn the techniques before thinking about the much more difficult "Picture Making" (for want of a better term) aspects of photography,

Today, and as I suggested earlier, as you can make half decent technical pictures with a smart phone or an auto everything camera I think you could adopt an approach of encouraging/teaching picture making first, and then teach technique once a person is aware that the lack of technical expertise is stopping them from making the kind of pictures they want to make.

Fundamental to learning picture making first would be the need to learn how think about why you wanted to make the picture (beyond how sharp your nw 50mm f1.2 apo lens is) which would address the blazing away at taking multiple shots that you raise.

But I like the low cost of digital as I can now take pictures, "to see how something looks as a photograph", which I wouldn't have taken in the film days, especially when I was using 5x4. I see this as a useful learning tool.

I do however fully agree about the importance of developing technical skills to level where all the skills necessary to meet your specific photographic needs become instinctive, There can be few things, if any, more destructive to effective picture making than having your concentration interrupted by the need to "work out" something technical.

 

[myotis]

I am very grateful for all the replies.i am totally out of my depth trying to reply to most of the info given.
But happily taking notes and reading up on the subjects given.
Many thanks to you all for advice given

I appreciate how difficult it is to reply to every post, especially of you don't really know how to reply, but, and I suspect not everyone will agree, I think it's useful to add a "like" to a post once you have read it. Assuming it relates to the point of your question, I'm not suggesting you automatically like every post you read.

Not necessarily to indicate you like what the poster has said, but more to indicate that you like (appreciate) them joining in to try and answer your question.

It just lets everyone know you are still on the thread.

 

[TheBigYin]

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

I'm happy that as above, I learned my composition chops from things that pre-dated photography a good old way...

But, yes, I've noticed the phenomenon myself - i think it's probably something to do with not being prepared to go back to earlier references and sources - or, in some cases, allied to the whole refusal to see photography as an art-form (oops - now i've done it, i've mentioned the A word in a thread - cue the philistine hoardes... )

 

[Wainb]

I did do a one day learning course at jessops before COVID,but not picked a camera up till recently.
I have just missed out on college courses in this area,by a few weeks enrolling closed a couple of weeks ago

 

[TheBigYin]

I am very grateful for all the replies.i am totally out of my depth trying to reply to most of the info given.
But happily taking notes and reading up on the subjects given.
Many thanks to you all for advice given

I'm glad you're still reading this - as others have said, without knowing if you're still engaged, there is a danger that the discussion can move away from its original focus, and we either go off on a tangent, obsessing about some minutiae OR we just end up with 4-5 separate discussions.

I note Graham @myotis gave a hint about using the "like" button to show you're still in and reading - that is certainly a help as far as showing your engagement, but now, I'd like if I can to throw things back to you - and ask you where YOU are on this "journey" a few of us have described.

You say you know the "very basics" - how do you define that ?
What are you looking for from Photography - is it, like many of us came to it, an adjunct to an existing hobby - or is it more a stand alone thing ?
Why are you asking how we learned ? - is it because you're considering alternative pathways of development yourself, or just simple curiosity as to how some of the people in this thread (myself excluded) got so damned good at taking photo's.

 

[TheBigYin]

I did do a one day learning course at jessops before COVID,but not picked a camera up till recently.

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit here and make the assumption that a learning course from a Shop would be mainly hardware and technical based...

I have just missed out on college courses in this area,by a few weeks enrolling closed a couple of weeks ago

that sounds about right to be honest - around here, we get a booklet through the door a few months ago when the local college is enrolling - might still be worth ringing and asking if there are any unfilled places though, can't hurt, and there's always the odd "summer dropout"

 

[Wainb]

I gave up playing golf some years ago,through health reasons,and living very close to cannock chase I decided to do some birdwatching then bird photography.
As my previous post I did a day course at jessops,but did not have a clue what apperture,ISO and focal length ment,so I went home and started again .
Recently picked up my camera again after a couple of years and wanted to learn more than the basics,so I was curious to know how you more experienced photographers learned.as I say just missed enrollment at night college.hencr my question on here.

 

[Wainb]

I'm going to stick my neck out a bit here and make the assumption that a learning course from a Shop would be mainly hardware and technical based...


that sounds about right to be honest - around here, we get a booklet through the door a few months ago when the local college is enrolling - might still be worth ringing and asking if there are any unfilled places though, can't hurt, and there's always the odd "summer dropout"

I have contacted local colleges and they have put me on a list in case anyone drops out

 

[myotis]

I'm happy that as above, I learned my composition chops from things that pre-dated photography a good old way...

But, yes, I've noticed the phenomenon myself - i think it's probably something to do with not being prepared to go back to earlier references and sources - or, in some cases, allied to the whole refusal to see photography as an art-form (oops - now i've done it, i've mentioned the A word in a thread - cue the philistine hoardes... )

I suspect we could theorise on several reasons why this might be.

I've put some effort into understanding composition over the years with information coming from the painting, graphic design, animation, cinema and photography worlds, and as a generalisation it's the teaching/discussion within the photography world that are the least satisfying.

 

[Adam-G]

The technical side I learned from YouTube and asking the occasional question to more knowledgeable people willing to help. With composition and intent, some of it has come from my own idea of what I find pleasing and others come from all manner of influences across many artistic spheres much like @myotis above.

There are loads of theories and rules around composition but I rarely go into them. I often just ask myself 'does this frame look balanced' and if I like my answer I'm onto a solid photo. Rules are there to be broken though and with more growth in your creativity you'll find out when it's interesting to do so.

With the technical aspect, I'd be weary of following hard and fast rules that still have traction around many corners of the internet. Low ISO was absolutely drilled into my brain from all corners initially, but then I realised a couple of things. It's much better to have a slightly noisy photo without unintended motion blur than it is to have a clean but blurred photo you can't fix in post. Also, modern camera sensors deal with high ISOs very well. I'll comfortably shoot at ISO4000-6400 if required and I'm never disappointed with the results.

 

[TimHughes]

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.

With a bit help from gen ai to organize my thoughts on this topic.....Learning photography can take many forms depending on your personal style, goals, and preferences:

Self-Study & Experimentation
- Best For: People who enjoy learning by doing and have the patience for trial and error.
- Key Activities: Online tutorials, YouTube videos, photography blogs, books, and independent practice.
- Strengths: Flexibility, cost-effective, and allows learning at your own pace.
- Challenges: Limited feedback and risk of developing bad habits without proper guidance.

Structured Courses (Online or In-Person)
- Best For: Learners who benefit from structured, step-by-step guidance and comprehensive coverage of both technical and artistic skills.
- Options: University courses, online platforms (like Udemy, Coursera, or specialized photography schools).
- Strengths: Access to expert knowledge, clear progression paths, and assignments for practice.
- Challenges: Less flexibility in schedule, especially for in-person classes.

Mentorship & Workshops
- Best For: People who want direct, personalized feedback and prefer learning through real-world experience.
- Key Activities: Finding a mentor, joining a local photography club, attending workshops, or going on photo tours.
- Strengths: Tailored advice, practical experience, and networking opportunities.
- Challenges: Can be expensive, and quality varies depending on the mentor or workshop leader.

Technical Focus vs. Artistic Focus
- Technical Learners: If you’re more analytical, focusing on mastering the camera settings, lighting techniques, and editing tools might suit you.
- Artistic Learners: For those more creatively inclined, spending more time on composition, storytelling, and personal expression is crucial.

Many people benefit from mixing methods. For example, self-study for technical skills, mentorship for artistic guidance, and workshops for practical application. To find your best Learning Journey:
- Assess: Determine if you are a hands-on learner, prefer structured guidance, or need peer/mentor feedback.
- Experiment: Try different approaches—take a class, join a workshop, and practice independently.
- Iterate: Adapt based on what you find effective; some aspects may need more structured learning, while others can develop through self-exploration.

Each photographer's learning journey is unique, so trying different methods and combining them based on your strengths is key to finding what works best for you.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I gave up playing golf some years ago,through health reasons,and living very close to cannock chase I decided to do some birdwatching then bird photography.
As my previous post I did a day course at jessops,but did not have a clue what apperture,ISO and focal length ment,so I went home and started again .
Recently picked up my camera again after a couple of years and wanted to learn more than the basics,so I was curious to know how you more experienced photographers learned.as I say just missed enrollment at night college.hencr my question on here.

Well, you've had lots of good but very different answers. Different people have had different approaches, sometimes because they are interested in different aspects or types of photography, sometimes because different technologies were available a their different starting points.

All learning methods are relevant. I know a young guy (a bit of a nerd) who decided, for reasons unknown, to get into photography. He studied everything online and then bought (as his very first camera) a top-end mirrorless camera complete with a set of very expensive lenses. That's a very strange and unusual approach, but it worked for him, he's turning out some stunning work.

You say that you're interested in bird photography. Well, we have forums here with loads of stunning bird pics, You could study them, and you could also ask specific questions in the forums, the authors can either answer or not, as they please. You could, if you wish, also study the work of Eric Hoskin, https://wildlife-photography.uk/eric-hosking-pioneer-of-wildlife-photography/ and outstanding wildlife photographer of his time, but everything that he did (in technical terms) is now obsolete.

 

[myotis]

Well, you've had lots of good but very different answers. Different people have had different approaches, sometimes because they are interested in different aspects or types of photography, sometimes because different technologies were available a their different starting points.

All learning methods are relevant. I know a young guy (a bit of a nerd) who decided, for reasons unknown, to get into photography. He studied everything online and then bought (as his very first camera) a top-end mirrorless camera complete with a set of very expensive lenses. That's a very strange and unusual approach, but it worked for him, he's turning out some stunning work.

You say that you're interested in bird photography. Well, we have forums here with loads of stunning bird pics, You could study them, and you could also ask specific questions in the forums, the authors can either answer or not, as they please. You could, if you wish, also study the work of Eric Hoskin, https://wildlife-photography.uk/eric-hosking-pioneer-of-wildlife-photography/ and outstanding wildlife photographer of his time, but everything that he did (in technical terms) is now obsolete.

Before Wayne @Wainb mentioned brd photography, in my original post, I cited Eric Hosking's book "An eye for a bird" and David and Katie Urry's book "Flying Birds" as being key influences in my interest in birds becoming an interest in bird photography.

As you say, technically they are obsolete, but I still rate them both as inspirational reading for aspiring bird photographers, even if they need to be read n the context of the time they were written

 

[redhed17]

I started doing photography in the mid 80's, so film only and no internet. I found Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure book the most useful to get the basics of exposure. I went on an evening course at a local college to try using a darkroom, and learned it wasn't for me.

Because it was film, the ISO was set, and so exposure was a bit easier with just Aperture and Shutter. But, because the shop was printing the films, they would compensate for bad exposure, so I assumed I was better than I was. Because of the cost, and my slow improvement, I gave up on photography for about 10+ years.

When digital appeared, and got to a point where it was affordable to me, I got a Fujifilm S602Z, and went on a photography course, and Photoshop course with the local adult learning service. The ability to instantly see the effects of the changes I was making was a revelation. My improvement speed went into overdrive, nothing better than learning quickly from my mistakes. My enthusiasm for photography and Photoshop increased a lot, to where they were obsessions for a number of years.

Learning the effects of the ISO, and what the limitations are was interesting, and has obviously changed with the technology improvements over the years.

When I started to use RAW, that opened up a huge amount control of an image, and that has also improved a lot over the years with what has been possible, from in my case, Adobe Camera Raw.

 

[Ed Sutton]

... because the shop was printing the films, they would compensate for bad exposure, so I assumed I was better than I was.

For me the the printers at Boots et al was the reason I started to develop and print my own black and white films. I'd deliberately underexpose, for example, and the automatic machine would 'correct' the exposure!

 

[mstphoto]

Borrowed my Dad's Petri 7 and read the manual.
No YouTube in those days
This stood me in good stead until Digital came on the go.
I resisted until the Canon G2 came on the scene.
My manual film cameras helped me get an understanding of the camera but the processing was a different matter.
That's when YouTube came to the rescue.

 

[Andrew Benbow]

Workshops really helped me, I found a great guy in the Lake District (unfortunately he doesn't do workshops anymore)

The best thing I learned was to stop caring what others thought and just enjoy it.

Don't get too deep in to YouTube, most are just good at making videos rather than good at photography.