Each of us has a camera in our hand, but ...

So, back to the OP. Did you read it?

I don't want to be a "racing driver" so why should I be interested in the history.
Of course - it is about the history and culture of photography - not cameras. And if you don't want to be a racing driver you would only study the history if you were interested. The same applies to photography and studying great photographers. If you aren't interested and don't want to then that's fine.
 
I also drive a car. Should I study Henry Ford?

I like to cook. I've studied Delia :)

These analogies are interesting but the simple fact is that we had to learn (from someone) every single thing we do today. Using the Delia example is one way I convince my students that research is huge in improving. My Yorkshire's are pretty damn good and that's a blend of my Grandmother, mum, Tania Ramsey, Delia and the feedback of family members who've tried them. Of course there are bound to be a bunch of people that hate them, or think they're too crispy. But how many people could make a Yorkshire pudding without any prior knowledge? And once they've made one, how to they make another one that's better? Trial and error on their own? Or learn from someone else and save a whole ton of time? Some people prefer to do the former. Some the latter. That's OK.

Then there are the people who say that their Yorkshire's are the best (Aunt Bessie anyone?) when I think they taste like ... well... bad. And no amount of my feedback is going to change their mind. That's OK too because we're all entitled to be just who we are, and we all have different tastes.

I strive to improve by looking at the work of people who are significantly better than me, and who are trying to achieve something. Be that modern photographers (some of whom are members here!) or artists from the past - and I include non-photographer painters in this too. The 'prettiness' of my work has actually declined because of this, but I'm much much happier with the photographs.

Art is one of the major things that makes us human. Personally, I think it's massively important to keep exploring it. But if you like your pretty Heatons, that's absolutely fine too (and they do have their place).
 
Last edited:
I also drive a car. Should I study Henry Ford?

....More interesting to study Count Bugatti or Enzo Ferrari. But, understanding at least the basics about how cars work is a real aid to enjoying driving. The same is true of cameras.

Our individual age and backgrounds undoubtedly have a major influence on our individual attitude towards photography both mechanically and artistically.

As my first camera was a plastic Kodak Box Brownie and I then eventually went on to become a professional Art Director and Graphic Designer with my own business based in Chelsea London, I have been exposed to all aspects of how various cameras are tools in the creative industry. Being in London which is one of the creative hubs in the world, was (I am retired-but-hardwired) extremely inspiring.

Even just having an overview of the history of photography helps to understand and exploit the camera machine I am using and strive to get the most personally satisfying images out of it.

To ignore the work of other photographers and artists is to shut out all inspiration (and aesthetic enjoyment!) < That simply doesn't make sense to me, but each to their own.
 
I studied the history as part of my college course on photography way back in the mists of time, I've even done some of the old processes like bromoil and gum bichromate. (Did loads of bromoils) Don't do them now, it's too time consuming.
 
Of course - it is about the history and culture of photography - not cameras. And if you don't want to be a racing driver you would only study the history if you were interested. The same applies to photography and studying great photographers. If you aren't interested and don't want to then that's fine.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to get across. The OP seems surprised that we aren't all clambering to learn about the history of photography.

I don't believe that the history of photography can teach me anything.
 
By looking at your own pictures you can see your own failings, successes and what you like and don't like. I'm not closed to other peoples work - far from it - but ultimately you need to invest in yourself, your time and craft to develop your photography IMHO.

....I agree and forming opinions about other people's work should be an integral part of the process of striving to improve your own work.

When you view and think someone else's work is not that good, it should encourage you and add to your confidence.

When you view and think someone else's work is extremely good, it should encourage and inspire you to try harder.

But when assessing your own work, don't beat yourself up over it, just keep trying. The digital age allows us to do that far more easily.
 
Yes, that's the point I was trying to get across. The OP seems surprised that we aren't all clambering to learn about the history of photography.

I don't believe that the history of photography can teach me anything.

....It has the potential to teach you more about light and technology and to appreciate what you have in your hand now (the camera in your hand!).

But I agree that not all of us are interested in studying the history of photography as if we were preparing for a school exam!
 
I like to cook. I've studied Delia :)

These analogies are interesting but the simple fact is that we had to learn (from someone) every single thing we do today. Using the Delia example is one way I convince my students that research is huge in improving. My Yorkshire's are pretty damn good and that's a blend of my Grandmother, mum, Tania Ramsey, Delia and the feedback of family members who've tried them. Of course there are bound to be a bunch of people that hate them, or think they're too crispy. But how many people could make a Yorkshire pudding without any prior knowledge? And once they've made one, how to they make another one that's better? Trial and error on their own? Or learn from someone else and save a whole ton of time? Some people prefer to do the former. Some the latter. That's OK.

Then there are the people who say that their Yorkshire's are the best (Aunt Bessie anyone?) when I think they taste like ... well... bad. And no amount of my feedback is going to change their mind. That's OK too because we're all entitled to be just who we are, and we all have different tastes.

I strive to improve by looking at the work of people who are significantly better than me, and who are trying to achieve something. Be that modern photographers (some of whom are members here!) or artists from the past - and I include non-photographer painters in this too. The 'prettiness' of my work has actually declined because of this, but I'm much much happier with the photographs.

Art is one of the major things that makes us human. Personally, I think it's massively important to keep exploring it. But if you like your pretty Heatons, that's absolutely fine too (and they do have their place).

But who's to say that an early photographer is better than you or me. There were far fewer photographers in the early days, equipment was completely different, large and bulky. I'm sure that these great photographers were great in their day only because there was nobody else trekking through Yosemite with 3 pack donkeys packed to the holt with large boxes, lenses and plates. If I went to Yosemite today and took a black and white graining image, I'd probably be branded a poor photographer because I didn't choose the correct ISO.

If you're interested in the history of anything, that's great, just don't be surprised because not everybody enjoys your same enthusiasm.

For all you know, Heaton is todays Adams ;)
 
Whenever I read about a rich or famous artist from the past or present, they always seem to have a deep knowledge of the history of their craft.

Whenever I talk to people who own the latest £3000 Canon DSLR, but seem incapable of taking a photo that's interesting even to their own spouse, they rarely know anything about the history of photography.

That's probably just a coincidence.
 
I can't believe that people using a camera aren't interested in how the AF system works, how the sensor works, how the mechanics behind an SLR works and have an amazing admiration for the engineering involved in that 'small light box' they hold in their hand. I get they are not interested in the slightest and enjoy the hobby for a completely different reason to myself.

Personally I'm not at all inetrested in how the sensor or AF (etc) works. I'm interested in how I can get the best possible results that I can from my equipment.

By looking at your own pictures you can see your own failings, successes and what you like and don't like. I'm not closed to other peoples work - far from it - but ultimately you need to invest in yourself, your time and craft to develop your photography IMHO.

Steve, this might sound harsh, but I think you can take it. You post quite a lot of your "work" on here, and it sometimes seems to me that you take basically the same photograph over and over again. Even to the extent of visiting the same locations in the same lighting conditions. I understand that this gives a great deal of satisfaction, and you really do love it. But if you studied other photographers work you might be able to expand your interests into other areas of landscape photography.

And on a totally different subject, maybe 15 years ago there was an exhibition of Ansel Adams work at the Photography Gallery in london. I went down to a discussion at the Gallery and the Gallery Director made it quite clear that he would prefer to see Ansel Adams work in terms of the social environment of his day. If there's one thing that is NOT at all relevant to Ansel Adams work it's that.
 
You've missed my point by quite a bit, but also shown that you're not a normal camera club type member - which is fine btw - and no they aren't advocating anything usually, other than taking better photos - better being prettier rather than trying to invent something new

There are very few people with a "truly brilliant and creative mind" in any field of life, and yet the vast majority bumble along nicely

Dave
1. I think I fit in quite well in both the photo clubs I attend.
2. I may well have misinterpreted your post but to me it looked like the criteria in those competitions were purely the technical part and to some extent composition.. I saddens me that craftsmanship rule above emotion, creativity, art the search to create something meaningful.

I'd be the first to admit lacking creativity, the eye for creating art and meaningful pics but nevertheless it's my goal to try and do it. I don't care for pretty as a goal in itself only if it supports the intent of my pics. I don't care about the craft beyond whats needed to fulfill my vision.
 
(Whether I’d be better equipped to do this with a formal art education is an interesting it hypothetical question).
I don't think you would - it is alright to just be yourself, and perhaps more genuine. Integrity is the important thing. If they're asking for that many words I guess that they have an in-house editor who will review your text? Proof-reading is another thing. And maybe feedback from people that you know before submission.
 
By looking at your own pictures you can see your own failings, successes and what you like and don't like.
True to a degree, but that doesn't necessarily provide a big enough overview. Sometimes we need to step right back.
 
Steve, this might sound harsh, but I think you can take it. You post quite a lot of your "work" on here, and it sometimes seems to me that you take basically the same photograph over and over again. Even to the extent of visiting the same locations in the same lighting conditions. I understand that this gives a great deal of satisfaction, and you really do love it. But if you studied other photographers work you might be able to expand your interests into other areas of landscape photography..

Here's the thing - I do not want to expand my interests or take different pictures to the ones I take - if I did - I would ;).

I like the pictures and it took me time to get to where I am and my own tastes - I figured out on my own what works and doesn't work for me.

I have obviosuly seen other styles (woodland etc) and I just don't want to as it is not me -I find this sort of work extremely boring and tedious (no offence to woodland shooters but I don't get it nor do I want to). I admire coastal photography but I don't get the same sense of joy or satisfaction from taking pictures that aren't me but then again I don't hugely care for the sea or forrests.Whilst the work of Rachel Talibart might be award winning, it's not a style I would wish to emulate as it just isn't a subject I have the same affinity with so why would I bother. You don't see her chasing reflections and I don't chase waves :D

I like lakes and mountains, or just mountains and do what I do. Some might call it a "style" ;)
 
Last edited:
As for history, you either like learning about the past or you don't; I like to collect and use old film cameras so I suppose I like history.

As for art, it's down to personal taste, and a non-specific discussion about art will be like a similar discussion about food: "I like smoked bacon, you can't get better". "I like plain dry-cured back bacon, smoked bacon tastes like old ashtrays". "Nah, streaky bacon fried until it's crispy is loads better". "All bacon is horrible, I like tofu". "Tofu tastes like play dough, it's rank!". "Rubbish, you just don't know how to cook!". "This is the food section, not the cookery section, so do one!". And so it goes on, becoming ever more rude and bad tempered, just because of personal taste - or the lack of allowance for it!

As for photography, I think there's two main camps: Art and Documentary, but there's quite an interesting eco-tone (cross-over) where these two main styles meet.

Like it or not, I don't think you can start to become a photographer (as opposed to someone who takes photos) until you've looked at some of the work that some of the 'great' photographers have done and you've actually seen and understood what they've captured, and why.

Once you can see that, then I think that should trigger the biggest improvement in someone's work. I'm not talking about 'substance' (the technical aspect of exposure, sharpness, dynamic range and all that stuff, which, contrary to popular belief, may not actually be all that critical to getting a great shot!), I'm talking about 'content', the composition and the feel that photograph conveys. Some say photography is all about the light... I say it's all about the light and the sight. And how better to learn how to 'see' than to really look at some of the work of some of the best 'see-ers' in history?
 
Last edited:
This sounds self absorbed but I am more interested in taking my own pictures than looking at pictures taken by others.

I probably am more towards this view too. While I enjoy looking at work that interests me on here such as aircraft, I have no interest in reading about or studying specific photographers. I may see a picture and think 'oh, I like that, I will try to do similar' but that's as far as it goes. For example I have never looked at the wildlife & bird sections as have zero interest in that.

Watching Masters of Photography has certainly re-enforced that. When they show images from the guest and talk about them I generally think 'what a load of pretentious w**k'. Many I think are especially poor, but that's my view.
 
Like it or not, I don't think you can start to become a photographer (as opposed to someone who takes photos) until you've looked at some of the work that some of the 'great' photographers have done and you've actually seen and understood what they've captured, and why.

Really?

What great photographers did the early great photographers study to become "great photographers"?
 
Last edited:
Really?

What great photographers did the early great photographers study to become "great photographers"?

lol - beat me to that one :D

It's looking like the arguments are just going around in circles again, as always really, so as I have nothing more to add I'll Unwatch now before it all gets to the nasty insulting stage :D

Dave
 
Their mentors/influences were often artists. (y)

Which poses the same question. Who did the early artists study to become great artists?

Like I said before, I have nothing against those that want to study such things, but I certainly don't agree that you have to study the history of something to be good at it.
 
Their mentors/influences were often artists. (y)
And before anyone says "Who did the artists study?" (Edit: too late!)... if you know your history, art can be traced back to an early Neanderthal by the name of Oroah, who once said to his mate "I really like the look of that mammoth, I think I'll draw its shape on the cave wall". Shortly after, the work was done and Oroah's mate went to see it... "Wouldn't it look better if you drew a tree on it's left hand side?" he said, to which Oroah replied, "No it wouldn't", to which his mate said "Yes it would, loads better!" Apparently, Oroah then sighed heavily and said "Yeah, and I bet you prefer bloody tofu to roast boar too!". ;)
 
Last edited:
Which poses the same question. Who did the early artists study to become great artists?

Like I said before, I have nothing against those that want to study such things, but I certainly don't agree that you have to study the history of something to be good at it.

I think there is a real difference to studying and being influenced by/taking ideas from. We all see things that lurk in our memory bank, be it recipes or photos! All of us (often sub-consciously) see images that may stick with us and encourage us to do something different, but that's different to studying.
 
Can no-one do anything for themselves anymore?

I'm sure lots of people with home workshops have reinvented the wheel - after great effort. Personally, I'd rather learn that the wheel already existed and use it...
 
Which poses the same question. Who did the early artists study to become great artists?

Answered in (probably) every history of art book. I found Ernst Gombrich's book on that subject enthralling when I read it years ago.
 
This sounds self absorbed but I am more interested in taking my own pictures than looking at pictures taken by others.
Some of the very greatest artists of all time were completely self absorbed, Somerset Maugham's "The moon and the sixpence" was supposedly written about Gauguin. Gauguin and SFT not bad artistic company you are keeping!:)
 
Back
Top