Comments on: Teaching the Less Important Lesson

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:36:10 +0000

I used to be a crippled-feature partisan, too, having decided early on that I’d get a stone-age tool (Nikon F, with non-metered eyelevel finder, no less — a contemporary to the Leica M3) when I purchased my first camera in 1994. After guessing at exposures (sunny f/16 doesn’t mean much indoors), I got a handheld light meter, then an F2 so I could fit a motordrive, then an F3 so I could play with autoexposure, then …

Rather than be a litany of the cameras that have passed through my hands, let’s just say that it’s MUCH easier to disable (or not use) features than it is to add them when they’re not there. I’m now in the process of upgrading to autofocus, which makes one-handed shooting more relevant as I try to document my daughter’s life. Am I a better photographer for having had to struggle with the tools (cameras)? No — I’m a better photographer for having had more experience with photography. Heck, it took me two months and lots of exposures to get comfortable with the one zoom lens I use.

As far as the Leica-and-Tri-X argument, I would suggest that one of the live view dSLRs would be ideal for this, especially in terms of seeing in tones. Here technology has enabled something impossible in a Leica. Oh, and loading a Leica has nothing on the third-hand-needed of a Nikon F, by the way.

By: r.

r. — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:00:25 +0000

I think the problem with modern cameras is that while you _can_ use them in a simple way to focus on composition, it is hard to. Leicas are often used as example, but probably any camera from that era would be fine – 50mm prime, no auto, B&W film. It could also be argued that you should just use what you’re going to use later, but it is too easy to get sucked in to options if they’re available, or dependency on auto-everything. To me, the purpose of doing time with the basics – regardless of who manufactures them – is that you get an understanding of what’s going on behind all the auto magic, and you can then can use it effectively to speed things up, rather than as a substitute or crutch. Sorta like learning to do math the long way for the understanding, but using a calculator in practice.

I also like the theory that the more practice you get, the more likely you are to succeed in capturing a scene with your particular vision when such a scene occurs. So good photographers are not so much lucky, or in the right place at the right time, but are equipped to do the right thing with the composition when it presents itself. That’s the bit I’m having a hard time with now. Even if I can see something I’m not always able to execute on it as well as I’d like, and I think that mostly boils down to practice on the basics. Oh, and of course having better gear ;P

By: peterb

peterb — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:39:25 +0000

@Question – I’ve actually committed that URL to memory, embarassingly:

http://angryflower.com/laz.gif

By: Question

Question — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:36:07 +0000

I’ve been following this blog for a long time and I wanted to ask a question about an entry I saw a long time ago. I think it was on game complexity – I wanted to show it to a friend. I remember it had a cartoon of Bob the Angry flower with a machine that required two buttons be pressed and it would dispense money – but he was too lazy to push them… I searched for it – but I couldn’t find it…

Sorry if this is off topic…. I just though it was a great post…

Thanks in Advance!