TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:My first camera was an Argus Seventy-Five. I got it for Christmas when I was eight years old.

Here's one of may favorites I used sparingly for many years. Kodak 5x7 View Camera (circa 1903). Not exactly a "pocket camera."

Everything in getting a proper exposure is based on "EV" (Exposure value). This is the combination of ISO, F-stop, and shutter speed needed to let a specific amount of light into the camera to be recorded on the film or digital grid. Change one of the three and one of the others must change to have the same EV. The ISO of film is the same as the ISO in a digital camera. It's just the light sensitivity. So, ISO controls light sensitivity and grain sharpness, F-stop controls depth of field, and shutter speed controls motion blur.

If you change the ISO to a higher number (shooting in low light), you sacrifice grain sharpness. If you change the F-stop to a lower number, you sacrifice depth of field, and if you change shutter speed, you sacrifice motion blur. If you want your head to explode, go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That said, it's most often desirable to sacrifice one of the three, though usually not ISO. Say you want to freeze motion. In that case you would have to use a fast shutter speed, say 1/250 sec., but you'd have to open the f-stop, giving less depth of field, to do so in order to let in the same amount of light if you were using a slower speed. That's fine, as your "priority" was freezing the motion, and not getting both the subject(s) AND the background in sharp focus. The subject(s) were the priority. Let's say I want to photograph a river, and show the motion of the water in the picture. I would slow down the shutter speed dramatically, say to 1 sec., but then I'd have to stop the lens way down (very high f-stop) to compensate. That's OK, because it's the motion I want to capture so a huge depth of field is OK. Motion was my priority.

We could go down endless roads in the technical aspects of ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop all day, and stay bogged down in minutia. A simple demonstration is wise. Imagine a glass (your camera), place a circular piece of cardboard with a small 1/8" hole in the middle (your lens) on top of the glass. Pour water (the light needed) through the hole at such a rate (your shutter speed) into the glass without spilling any! It is obvious that if you want to pour faster without spilling any, you need a larger hole. Conversely if you have a large hole, you can pour much faster to get the water (light) into the glass (camera). That's the relation of f-stop and shutter speed in a nutshell.

For years Eastman Kodak put a piece of paper inside of every roll of film. On that paper was the "Sunny 16 rule" It said (For ISO 100 film) to set 1/125 sec on your camera, and an f-stop to meet the following lighting conditions: Bright sunny day at the beach = f22, Sunny day = f16, Cloudy bright = f8, cloudy in shade f5.6, etc. That rule is as accurate today as it was then. When teaching basic photography, way back when, I had my students take the battery out of their film camera which powered the light meter. The assignment was to take pictures using the Sunny 16 rule. They were always amazed at the results they got.

I guess my main point is that photography is simple, and the complexities of equipment and technical aspects need to be learned over time. Too often, the only questions I hear are, "what's the best camera to buy?" or "what's the best lens?" Not, "what's the best book to learn the basics?" I've used professionally every size and camera you can imagine (large format, medium format, and 35mm), and the only thing they were was a light tight box, with a film back, and a lens on the front. No automatic controls. That said, all of today's cameras make it so easy to get an perfectly exposed and sharp photograph for someone with no knowledge. But unless the "basics" are learned, they will be nice snapshots. Advanced photography is learned over time through experience (pixels are free), and it is MHO that concentrating on what cameras, lenses, or flashes to get only delay or avoid the basic learning process. Oh, I said that in my earlier posts - sorry for the rant

WildBill wrote: I would think that this criteria would apply when judging any work of art - the "technical" elements are secondary to the impact of the work.

Quite true. There's an old saying in portrait judging circles that, "The Mona Lisa would never hang." "Hang" meaning "Selected for Exhibition" due to what's considered "poorly posed" hands. It humorously illustrates the point that too often judges or critics of photography often lose sight of impact and/or story, and lean too heavily towards technical excellence. Masters are Masters because they can sometimes bend or break rules, and get away with it, due to the overwhelming "impact" of their work.

Divided Attention wrote: Composition, lighting, etc are all important, but much more goes into making a picture with feeling. It all depends on what you want your result to be, the "story you are trying to tell". JMPHO

You make an excellent point. I have judged many state and national professional photo competitions. Often, I would be the odd man out in scoring. Fortunately, a judge may "challenge" the panels score. Often, a panel would score a print much lower than I did. My challenge was, "why? justify you scores." Most of the time the points deducted were due to technical flaws, composition, or the actual print quality. That's fine, but when asked if they "felt any emotion" from the print, or do they see the story here?" Often they did. So I would ask, "doesn't this trump the minor technical flaws?" Many times they would agree and we would re-vote and the print would score higher (sometimes it fell on deaf ears though). In any case, your dad was spot on.

Once again, I'd like to add to this thread and give food for thought. First, the finest DSLR camera on the market only does one thing. It mostly ensures a properly exposed, in focus photograph - period, end of statement. It does nothing to make a quality photograph. If it's true that, "a picture is worth a thousand words," then it must tell a story. Not just a bunch of words. Modern cameras have simply taken "most" of the thought required for proper exposure and focus away from the user, and placed it in the mechanics of the camera and it's chip. If you accept this as fact, then your concentration with a DSLR should be composition and lighting.

Without composition, you have no story. Proper composition keeps the viewers eye (and mind) within the photograph, and a poorly composed picture does not. Focusing aids in manual focus cameras, or center focus in digital cameras does more to defeat composition than anything else. As most are used to placing the focusing aid in the center of a viewfinder on the "Center of Interest," the center of interest is usually in the center of the photograph. With proper composition, the center of interest should (almost) never be in the center. Sounds odd, but it's true. That's why the "Rule of Thirds" is a rule, not a suggestion. Here's an example demonstrating the Rule of Thirds.

http://www.google.com/images?q=rule+of+ ... 07&bih=582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note, in 99% of the images, the center of interest is NOT in the center of the frame. There's a good reason for that - it would be boring! This is not new to photography. Go to any art gallery, that displays traditional art, and you will see the rule of thirds in constant use.

The other key component to good photography is the ability to "see the light." Why? Because lighting is everything in art. You are dealing with a three dimensional subject on a two dimensional medium. Without proper highlight and shadow, you will see only two dimensions. The moon is a great example. When you look up at a full moon, you see a flat disk. However, when you look at a 3/4 moon it appears as a round ball. Highlight and shadow are the key. While not as true with say sports photography, it is a must with portrait and scenic photography for example.

So here's my take. There are two ways to go. You can study camera settings profusely, spend thousands of $$$$ on fantastic equipment, ignore composition and lighting, and produce excruciatingly sharp well exposed boring photos, or you can spend a minimum amount on equipment, learn the basics of camera functions (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, depth of field), practice good composition, learn to "see the light" (highlight and shadow) and take fantastic and interesting photographs. Once you have mastered these areas, you will probably develop a liking to a particular aspect of photography (scenic, portrait, sports, etc) and at that time expand in to knowledge and perhaps new equipment to make those photographs even better. But not until the basics are learned. Otherwise you'll always be a snapshot taker. Of course that's not all bad, for after 30 years as a pro, and retired, that's all I care to do these days

The finest camera in the hands of a novice rarely yields poor results, due to their programming, but less than what could be - The simplest camera in the hands of a professional or serious amateur often yields exceptional results. Save your money and first buy a book a BASIC photography that covers basic functions, (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, depth of field), metering and composition, then buy a simple prosumer DSLR of any name brand and you'll be miles ahead of the game. It's not the camera, it's the user - same with guns, the finest gun will not make you a good shot. It's the basic knowledge that counts. MHO after 30 years as a professional photographer.