"Why do you always tell people to buy a manual SLR film camera?"
People often ask me why I am such a firm supporter of people wanting to learn about photography owning a manual film SLR camera first. I'm kind of snobby this way. I hope I don't offend anyone.
New digital SLR cameras are very much automated. They make it possible for any monkey to walk out of the store and take an OK picture. Since it essentially costs nothing to take 5000 pictures, the law of averages allows them to get a few really great shots. Furthermore, with the advent of digital cameras, any monkey with a few computer skills can go in with a photo editing suite and correct something they messed up when they took the picture in the first place. Some of these people then end up selling themselves as a photographer. There's no skill or creative integrity with this shooting a canary with a cannon approach to photography, and organizations like the PPOC do everything in their power to weed these folks out as they needlessly saturate the market and cheapen the art and talents of true photographers.
Owning a manual SLR film camera cures the need to take 5000 images for 5 usable images in two ways. They are:
1.) When using a manual film SLR, you must learn the camera's settings and what functions they perform. There is no auto-exposure, no auto-focus, no pre-sets, no programs. And no instant-preview to see if you got the shot or not. It's all about trusting what you know, and in order to capture a usable image, you must know enough to adjust the aperture, shutter speed, and focus as well as choose the best film ISO for the task at hand. In doing these things, a person is inherently learning the effect on the final image each action will have, and making conscientious decisions for quality and/or artistic effect. When you eventually do own a digital SLR, you will be well versed in all the dirty little secrets, like how to switch your camera to manual and tackle even the most complicated lighting situations, how and when to over- or under-saturate or set the film speed to 1600 on purpose for a specific creative purpose, and what the technique is for getting a follow shot that requires no help from editing software. Know the rules so you can break them.
2.) When using a film SLR, there is a cost involved. This alone is a good motivator to slow down and be aware of the picture you are taking. If you mess up a digital shot, you delete it, or correct it on the computer. If you mess up a manual film shot, you've just paid for a crappy picture. The desire to slow down, know your camera, and take a great shot the first time is inherently increased by the constant threat of wasted money. The cost, ultimately, isn't how much you spend, but rather knowing if you are actually able to take a good picture, or just have the law of averages on your side. People afraid they will discover aren't really a very good photographer are terrified of manual cameras; pretty much every great photographer I know is as comfortable (and passionate) on a clunky old 1960s 50mm picture box loaded with ISO 125 as they are with a 50gazillionmegapixel 2nd mortgage-priced digital. The added features on a digital SLR are nice amenities, but often have to be over-ridden or reprogrammed by the photographer in order to achieve the desired results.
I'm not knocking digital photography - it has opened the door to a creative outlet for lots of people who were previously too intimidated to explore the artform. I do, however, get really irritated by the wieners who come up to me at weddings and want to talk about the number of megapixels their camera has and how much they spent on it, but their pictures still look like something my 3-year old could do with a disposable point-and-shoot. They have more money than brains. I'm also not saying that a real photographer is only someone who has formal education - whether self-taught or formally instructed has relatively little bearing on whether you are a photographer or not. But for gosh sake, don't go blow a wad of cash on a digital SLR camera and go around posing as a photographer when really, you just happen to own a digital SLR camera.
If you happen to buy a digital SLR, they all come with manual settings. I strongly suggest you challenge yourself to take pictures in 27-exposure batches, and wait at least 2 days to look at them on the computer. The nice thing about that is the digital SLRs record the camera's settings, and you can study the picture and what the settings were if you loved or hated the final picture. In the old days, we had to write it down on a piece of paper. Using a pencil. And real paper. Crazy stuff.
New digital SLR cameras are very much automated. They make it possible for any monkey to walk out of the store and take an OK picture. Since it essentially costs nothing to take 5000 pictures, the law of averages allows them to get a few really great shots. Furthermore, with the advent of digital cameras, any monkey with a few computer skills can go in with a photo editing suite and correct something they messed up when they took the picture in the first place. Some of these people then end up selling themselves as a photographer. There's no skill or creative integrity with this shooting a canary with a cannon approach to photography, and organizations like the PPOC do everything in their power to weed these folks out as they needlessly saturate the market and cheapen the art and talents of true photographers.
Owning a manual SLR film camera cures the need to take 5000 images for 5 usable images in two ways. They are:
1.) When using a manual film SLR, you must learn the camera's settings and what functions they perform. There is no auto-exposure, no auto-focus, no pre-sets, no programs. And no instant-preview to see if you got the shot or not. It's all about trusting what you know, and in order to capture a usable image, you must know enough to adjust the aperture, shutter speed, and focus as well as choose the best film ISO for the task at hand. In doing these things, a person is inherently learning the effect on the final image each action will have, and making conscientious decisions for quality and/or artistic effect. When you eventually do own a digital SLR, you will be well versed in all the dirty little secrets, like how to switch your camera to manual and tackle even the most complicated lighting situations, how and when to over- or under-saturate or set the film speed to 1600 on purpose for a specific creative purpose, and what the technique is for getting a follow shot that requires no help from editing software. Know the rules so you can break them.
2.) When using a film SLR, there is a cost involved. This alone is a good motivator to slow down and be aware of the picture you are taking. If you mess up a digital shot, you delete it, or correct it on the computer. If you mess up a manual film shot, you've just paid for a crappy picture. The desire to slow down, know your camera, and take a great shot the first time is inherently increased by the constant threat of wasted money. The cost, ultimately, isn't how much you spend, but rather knowing if you are actually able to take a good picture, or just have the law of averages on your side. People afraid they will discover aren't really a very good photographer are terrified of manual cameras; pretty much every great photographer I know is as comfortable (and passionate) on a clunky old 1960s 50mm picture box loaded with ISO 125 as they are with a 50gazillionmegapixel 2nd mortgage-priced digital. The added features on a digital SLR are nice amenities, but often have to be over-ridden or reprogrammed by the photographer in order to achieve the desired results.
I'm not knocking digital photography - it has opened the door to a creative outlet for lots of people who were previously too intimidated to explore the artform. I do, however, get really irritated by the wieners who come up to me at weddings and want to talk about the number of megapixels their camera has and how much they spent on it, but their pictures still look like something my 3-year old could do with a disposable point-and-shoot. They have more money than brains. I'm also not saying that a real photographer is only someone who has formal education - whether self-taught or formally instructed has relatively little bearing on whether you are a photographer or not. But for gosh sake, don't go blow a wad of cash on a digital SLR camera and go around posing as a photographer when really, you just happen to own a digital SLR camera.
If you happen to buy a digital SLR, they all come with manual settings. I strongly suggest you challenge yourself to take pictures in 27-exposure batches, and wait at least 2 days to look at them on the computer. The nice thing about that is the digital SLRs record the camera's settings, and you can study the picture and what the settings were if you loved or hated the final picture. In the old days, we had to write it down on a piece of paper. Using a pencil. And real paper. Crazy stuff.
Comments
I have a story to tell. I'm reminded of a dog photographer at a wedding I did once. He owned a collection of equipment that would make a lot of people drool. He took pictures of dogs at dog shows. Hundreds of them. Then he'd upload them to a laptop, find the ones that had worked, and sell the owners of the dogs photos of their dogs in action for disgusting amounts of money. I'm afraid in my mind that ingenious as his business venture is, this lacks any and all creativity. Now. It was bad enough having to listen to him tell people he was a photographer, but on top of that, he was trying to convince me to drool over his equipment and be impressed how much he had spent on said equipment.
As anyone who knows me may imagine, the don't-give-a-hoot-o-meter was way off the charts there already, but the real icing on the cake was when he started shooting and trying to give me tips and pointers. Well, the pictures he got of the bride and groom made the happy couple look like show dogs, the handful of images from the over 1000 he shot full of technical perfection and utterly void of passion, spontaneity, or vision. *This* is the photographer I refer to when I say, owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than owning a piano makes you a concert pianist.
I like to think I have been nothing but supportive and encouraging with the people who have a genuine passion and desire to be the best photographer that they can, whether for personal or professional purposes. I give honest feedback on how to correct technical issues and am generous with praise when there's a picture I think deserves raving, for either objective or subjective reasons. It's the people who don't want to learn, the ones who rely on the equipment and the law of averages to get decent shots instead of actually taking the time to understand how their camera works that drive me around the bend.
One of the things I have been hard core about since the advent of digital photography is that it's not about the equipment, but the operator. A person who is passionate as a photographer loves what they do, and do it not for the money but for the pleasure of it. Getting paid is just the gravy.
POF - you love taking pictures, you love learning about what your camera can and can't do, and the fact that you love taking pictures of people is very evident in the work I have seen. You ask intelligent questions that illustrate a keen interest in the artform, and aren't afraid to look at your own pictures and say, this is good but it could be better.
Keep practicing and playing and experimenting. Develop your flare, your style, your own unique photographic view of the world. Skills come with practice, and as I mentioned in the original post, one of the definite upsides of digital photography is that you have the ability to be more adventurous and creative because it doesn't cost anything if you screw up the exposure really bad. Trust me - I wasted a whole lot of money developing rolls of film of crappy pictures when I first started out, because I knew nothing and had everything to learn. I doubt I would know as much as I do if I hadn't been forced to learn the hard (and expensive) way lol.
For what it's worth, several of the people I've had the pleasure of introducing to the world of SLR photography still thank me for making them learn on a manual, because it makes the digital that much more powerful of a tool.
I still have lots to learn. I have lots I WANT to learn. And I hope I never lose that drive and determination to keep pushing myself. So let's keep shutterbugging for all we're worth, Miss POF!