----- Original Message ----- From: Marnie Parker Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade
> In a message dated 11/8/2002 7:31:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Getting any Pentax 50mm lens will improve your image quality > > tremendously, and the discipline that the single focal length > > forces on you will improve your photography at least as much > > again. > > This is one of those areas where you don't run into the law > > of > > diminishing returns ever. > > > > William Robb > > No one has suggested that to me before. Discipline? As in walking forward and back and moving around to get a good shot, instead of zooming? > > Could you clarify? It's intriquing. I can do better than that. I went back to the archives, where I found myself one voice in the wilderness, thinking I was the only person who had ever taught a class in photographic theory. Here are some excerpts, including my obvious frustration I was feeling because a few numb brains just weren't getting it. > "The photographer's lack of discipline is independent of the camera." > - P�l Jensen Good quote, and completely irrelevant to the topic. I teach dog obedience. Is the dog's lack of discipline independant of the handler? Dicipline needs to be learned. A student of photography is not a photographer. For that matter, most photographers these days are not photographers. Often, they are trying to do brain surgery with a hockey stick. Zooms can actually have exactly the opposite effect on composition, by adding another group of variables to the compositional equation. In theory, there is probably nothing wrong with using a zoom to learn the fundaments of photography, the same way there is probably nothing wrong with using an auto everything camera set on manual everything. In practice, however, people will tend to take shortcuts. Why learn about exposure when the automatic camera makes it so easy for me? Why learn about working for good composition when the zoom lens makes it so much easier to just stand in one spot and pretend I am composing? Sure, no problem, whatever works for you. But if you have a fixed lens, you may have to be a bit more creative in selecting your vantage point. The idea of being a student of photography should be to find creative ways to get a good picture, not to take the cheap and dirty way out. Prime lenses force more creative thinking on the student by imposing one field of view. This creative process will serve the student well, no matter what lenses are chosen down the road. I believe there is a photographic equivalent of music theory that the student needs to learn, in order to excel at the art and craft of photography. Visual theory at it's most basic is the building blocks of imagery, whether photographic or other. Theory such as how light interacts with shape and form, how perspective changes depending on angle of view. This is best learned with simple tools, anything else complicates the learning process. If one is learning to compose music, one starts with a single instrument, such as a piano. I think it very rare for a student of music composition to start by composing a full orchestral symphony. I played the trumpet when I was younger. A simple instrument, with only 3 keys. In a way, perhaps there is an equivalency here, as a camera only has 3 controls for making pictures, no matter how many buttons, control dials, and inscrutable custom functions they put on the camera to complicate things for us. But, I digress. I never got really good at the trumpet, in my hands the instrument had all the positive attributes of a chainsaw with a burned out governor. I learned enough about music to realize I would never be a Sousa, or an Armstrong. Hell, when I figured out I would never be an Alpert, I gave up the trumpet. I found other fish to fry. I discovered cameras. I also discovered that much of what I learned from music was applicable to photography at one level or another. I may have a tin ear, but I found I have a pretty good eye for pictures. What I learned playing the trumpet, albeit badly, was that there is a need to learn the basics. One needs to learn scales, and finger patterns on the keys to make the notes come out the way they are supposed to. One needs to learn how to blow into the instrument in the right way to make the right noise. One needs to learn that when giving a Christmas concert outdoors when it is -30, the mouthpiece should be kept in an inside pocket to keep it warm between songs. Some lessons are learned harder than others. One needs to have a thick skin to not be overly discouraged by failure, or the embarrassment of having a trumpet stuck to ones face in front of the Prime Minister. But, I digress. In photography, one needs to learn about light and shadow first. One doesn't need a zoom lens for this. Often, the added visual confusion that a zoom can create can interrupt this learning process. I am not saying there is not a place for zoom lenses in photography. The zoom, in the hands of a skilled and visually adept person is a powerful tool. All I am saying is that it is not the tool to learn the very basics of visual theory with. For this, a prime lens, and one that closely matches the human eye's field of vision is preferable. By sticking with a "natural" perspective to start, we can learn more easily how what we see in three dimensions will translate to two, or how what we see in colour will translate to black and white. By learning the fundaments first, with simple tools, I think we will be better visual artists later. I really do think that limiting a beginning student to simple equipment and making them work hard to get a good image from that equipment is the best way to teach them visualization. Giving the student a single field of view teaches them to explore the subject in depth until they find the pictures hidden there that are suited to the lens in use. For the student, the process of learning visualization is more important than getting some sort of money shot. Learning the basics first, with basic equipment, is still the best way to learn the craft. The whole friggin point isn't about whether the zoom is a better compositional tool or not. It's not about composition at all. It's about learning how to see what light does when it hits an object, how that gets translated into an image. This is best learned with a 50mm lens (if we are using the 35mm format as an example). It matches (more or less) the field of view of the human eye, and consequently, produces a picture with a perspective we can immediately relate to. The idea is to learn one thing at a time, and learn it well. First, learn what light does, that controls everything else. Composition is secondary to this, as compositional needs will change depending on the angle of light hitting the object. Not my fault a bunch of idiots think this is bullshit. People that have this figured out are better photographers. Look back at the subject line. The word "Student" should say something about where I am coming from. You can learn what I am talking about with any lens, it doesn't matter if you use a zoom, or a friggin fisheye. You will learn it faster, and better with a standard focal length prime lens, one that doesn't allow you to cheat, just because you want the instant gratification of easy composition. Some of this stuff is work. Remember, this is just one persons opinion, but it is formed from more than 30 years of photography, and 20 years of on and off teaching. Others may agree with me, or not. I really don't care, and I won't debate the validity of my comments. Thanks William Robb
