Beginner When is a Beginner

Nostromo

Nostromo

Messages
5,895
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
When is a Beginner not a Beginner anymore? What defines a Beginner?
Surely we learn all the time.
Is it just a measurement of time you've been taking photos Or
Competence Or something else?
 
interesting I have had a digital DSLR for four years and I still think of myself as a beginner,

I would say if you have a good handle on the triangle, pp and good composition, I would say your just off the bottom step, and after that I think it is accumulation of photographic knowledge
 
RichardTaylor said:
When you can consistently come back with good images no matter what the subject is and mo matter what the light is like.

For some situations I am not a beginner and others a total beginner.
Click to expand...

Suppose it depends on your definition of good which is a highly subjective term and if you set good at a high level I've seen many many "pros" who hardly never shoot good photos, flickr is full of them.

I think you stop being a beginner when you are confident that you have a reasonable understanding of how to cope with your favourite type of shooting.

Absolute minimum would be understanding and applying the exposure triangle
 
I class myself as a Beginner with a DSLR
But not to taking photos.
I have an understanding of how things work. I don't use auto, but do use Av, Tv and manual.
Maybe I'm more of a novice.
 
I don't use auto either, usually av but have used manual too, never shutter and I think it's because that's what confuses me more...im a fiddler where as I need to actually stop and learn properly.
 
Nostromo said:
I class myself as a Beginner with a DSLR
But not to taking photos.
I have an understanding of how things work. I don't use auto, but do use Av, Tv and manual.
Maybe I'm more of a novice.
Click to expand...
I think we are all our own worst critic, in all honesty there is not much you cant achieve in photography, silly stuff I struggle with is WB balance, seems a bit of a dark art to me, even tho I know it is only a marginal decision,
 
Cg_Girl said:
Interesting thread…
Click to expand...
•
Your always a beginner… or you're dead.

After some 4 decades in photography, when I switched ALL my
operation to digital, I was a beginner. I had so much to learn, I did
my homework… and I stopped to be a beginner when I could be
autonomous, fast acting and reacting… with the gear!

But photography is not only gear. Shooting film or digital is not the
same thing… an other learning curve. And more… and more…
as I got a robot, the stitching stuff, the stacking stuff etc…

Keep'm coming, I like that!
…maybe I should correct my business card to Professional Beginner!
 
There are subjects I know lots about, I have the confidence and ability to sell my services.

But, there are certainly genres and techniques where I'd be classed as a beginner.
 
It's funny how we get a grip of the camera and settings, then try off camera flash, back to beginner, or try macro, back to beginner. Never stops amazing me how different areas of photography raise more questions and require more skills
I like people shooting, but I don't think I,ll ever stop learning or trying new things, or wishing I had an ever present model to try new things
Hard to define when you stop being a beginner, it's all just little steps down the path of knowledge but I'd say it's when you start to get results you want without getting lucky
 
BruceMo said:
Hard to define when you stop being a beginner, it's all just little steps down the path of knowledge but I'd say it's when you start to get results you want without getting lucky
Click to expand...
I'm going to go with this.
At the local camera club I joined this year they had a new members (with existing members) evening, where they talked about camera setting, composition etc.
This was aimed at the beginners (of which I classed myself) in the group. I was sitting there thinking I know all of this. So I thought maybe I'm not a complete Beginner.
 
Cg_Girl said:
I don't use auto either, usually av but have used manual too, never shutter and I think it's because that's what confuses me more...im a fiddler where as I need to actually stop and learn properly.
Click to expand...
I must admit I don't use Tv that often and have been using manual more often than not lately.
Learning for me is nearly always from doing, I don't learn very well from reading. I started in Av, which I used for 2-3 weeks, then went too Tv which again I used for a couple of week's. I found Av more user friendly than Tv. Obviously not many of my photos were much cop for the first few weeks by restricting myself to only using one of the semi auto modes. But I learnt more of how they work and their restrictions in certain situation/conditions.
The shutter is really only a timer, that opens and closes a door (not really a door ,more like solid curtains) that let's a timed amount of light in. It's nothing mystical or magic.
 
It's self-defined, i.e. you cease being a beginner when you stop thinking of yourself as one.

But that doesn't mean you ever stop learning or reach a point there's no improvement left to be made.
 
Nostromo said:
I must admit I don't use Tv that often and have been using manual more often than not lately.
Learning for me is nearly always from doing, I don't learn very well from reading. I started in Av, which I used for 2-3 weeks, then went too Tv which again I used for a couple of week's. I found Av more user friendly than Tv. Obviously not many of my photos were much cop for the first few weeks by restricting myself to only using one of the semi auto modes. But I learnt more of how they work and their restrictions in certain situation/conditions.
The shutter is really only a timer, that opens and closes a door (not really a door ,more like solid curtains) that let's a timed amount of light in. It's nothing mystical or magic.
Click to expand...

Spending a couple of weeks on each is quite a good idea, I like that.
When I first got my camera I said I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to use auto so I set to manual, had some pretty poop images and lots of tantrums :D
I understand the aperture stuff no problem, I know what I need for certain images and iso a bit.....but the shutter, my mind goes blank, I've got some links from my other portrait thread so I shall have to read but I'll need to play with settings more
I feel like I must understand some stuff yet I don't completely, I'd like to know what sort of settings are needed roughly before hand instead of half pressing auto to get an idea then switching over etc.
 
Nostromo said:
I must admit I don't use Tv that often and have been using manual more often than not lately.
Learning for me is nearly always from doing, I don't learn very well from reading. I started in Av, which I used for 2-3 weeks, then went too Tv which again I used for a couple of week's. I found Av more user friendly than Tv. Obviously not many of my photos were much cop for the first few weeks by restricting myself to only using one of the semi auto modes. But I learnt more of how they work and their restrictions in certain situation/conditions.
The shutter is really only a timer, that opens and closes a door (not really a door ,more like solid curtains) that let's a timed amount of light in. It's nothing mystical or magic.
Click to expand...

The shutter speed may be very important, besides preventing unwanted camera motion or subject motion in your image.
Some examples from my flickr stream

#1 Notice the blurred wheels and the blurred background. 1/125 and intenional moving the camera (panning) achieved this. If I would have shot at a very high shutter speed I may as well have been shooting a parked car.
Terry Perkins - 1957 Nota Consul by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

#2 Here a 1/2 second exposure gave me a nicely blurred waterfall.
Photographer at Somersby falls (2) by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

#3 Here a high shiutter speed, 1/2000, has "frozen" the spray and the wave.

Winter waves by Richard Taylor, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think it's a difficult question to quantify because as has been mentioned above, we are learning all the time.
There are levels of competency within each genre of photography as has also been mentioned above.

I also think that whichever exposure mode one uses doesn't necessarily determine a persons 'level'
Knowing when to use the different exposure modes would display more of an understanding. Some may think that manual is the pinnacle of photographic understanding but if that involves achieving a perceived perfect exposure by zeroing the cameras meter, it could be argued that the photographer would be just as well using one of the more 'automatic' modes be that aperture, shutter or auto priority.

I have read that some professional photographers shoot on 'P' mode, Nikons auto mode. I would suggest that this is because said photographers know their camera, what it can achieve and the results it brings.
 
blakester said:
I think it's a difficult question to quantify because as has been mentioned above, we are learning all the time.
There are levels of competency within each genre of photography as has also been mentioned above.

I also think that whichever exposure mode one uses doesn't necessarily determine a persons 'level'
Knowing when to use the different exposure modes would display more of an understanding. Some may think that manual is the pinnacle of photographic understanding but if that involves achieving a perceived perfect exposure by zeroing the cameras meter, it could be argued that the photographer would be just as well using one of the more 'automatic' modes be that aperture, shutter or auto priority.

I have read that some professional photographers shoot on 'P' mode, Nikons auto mode. I would suggest that this is because said photographers know their camera, what it can achieve and the results it brings.
Click to expand...
Indeed
In fact this thread, as is so often the case, conflates 'photography' with 'camera operation', as if that's the important thing.

The important thing is that we learn how to create images, whilst that involves learning how to use a camera, that's only a part of it, the vision is more important than the execution.
 
I'm not suggesting how to work a camera is everything, I was just pointing out what I would be happy with or at least make me feel like I understand more.
 
I agree with Phil v that camera settings are indeed important and knowing how to use them to achieve the desired result. At the end of the day, a camera is a tool to capture light. That's all it does. It's the photographer that captures an image.
 
I've alternated episodes of being an enthusiastic photographer with episodes of disinterest or being too busy for over sixty years. So I learnt about the "exposure triangle" before any auto modes of anything had been invented, everything was manual. My first flash gun used a 9 volt battery to ignite a bulb filled with magnesium "hair" in oxygen. I carried an exposure meter in a little leather case on the same strap as my camera. My first SLR had an exposure meter built into the viewfinder, which you matched (to the degree you wanted) with a needle driven by the combination of shutter and aperture and ISO, the ISO being set manually on film loading. It had a phase difference display built into the centre of the viewfinder for manual focusing.

So I'm perfectly happy using total manual exposure control, total manual flash control, manual focus etc.. For decades of my photographic life it was the only way.

About eight years ago I decided that digital was good enough for me to make the switch, to abandon film and convert. I delight in all the sophisticated auto modes now available, and still haven't learned how to best use them all. I now rarely use full manual. I mostly use aperture priority with liberal use of exposure compensation and exposure lock to get the exposure I want. It's probably no faster than full manual, possibly a bit slower when I'm being very finical about exposure. But my camera has such a large dynamic range that only occasionally do I use it all. Much of the time when processing I'll deliberately raise the black level and lower the white level. In other words there's often a lot of exposure latitude.

I like all the latest technology so my camera has an EVF which I usually have set to register the exposure. That makes it easy and fast to dial in the appropriate exposure compensation before taking the shot. I also usually have the focus peaking display on, so I can see whether the AF has got it right.

I don't understand the attitude of some photographers that real experts use manual control, auto modes are for beginners, and the quicker you stop using auto the better. I'm not a beginner, I can use manual exposure, manual focus, manual control of multiple flash guns, etc., faster than most because that's how I did it for decades, and how I still do it when appropriate. I still often have an exposure meter and grey card in my gear bag. But I mostly use auto modes because much of the time they do a good job, and when they need tweaking it's mostly faster to use auto and tweak than full manual.
 
Phil V said:
Indeed
In fact this thread, as is so often the case, conflates 'photography' with 'camera operation', as if that's the important thing.

The important thing is that we learn how to create images, whilst that involves learning how to use a camera, that's only a part of it, the vision is more important than the execution.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I was just about to type a long reply, but this saves me bothering...
 
Nostromo said:
When is a Beginner not a Beginner anymore? What defines a Beginner?
Surely we learn all the time.
Is it just a measurement of time you've been taking photos Or
Competence Or something else?
Click to expand...

When you can reproduce a scene exactly as you visualised it?

Kodiak Qc said:
•
Your always a beginner… or you're dead.
Click to expand...

The more I learn the more I realise how much there is to learn.

blakester said:
I have read that some professional photographers shoot on 'P' mode, Nikons auto mode. I would suggest that this is because said photographers know their camera, what it can achieve and the results it brings.
Click to expand...

chris malcolm said:
I don't understand the attitude of some photographers that real experts use manual control, auto modes are for beginners, and the quicker you stop using auto the better. I'm not a beginner, I can use manual exposure, manual focus, manual control of multiple flash guns, etc., faster than most because that's how I did it for decades, and how I still do it when appropriate. I still often have an exposure meter and grey card in my gear bag. But I mostly use auto modes because much of the time they do a good job, and when they need tweaking it's mostly faster to use auto and tweak than full manual.
Click to expand...

Using manual helps to learn what the auto modes are doing and why - then mode selection becomes an informed choice rather than a forced one.
 
There are so many facets; composition could be above beginner, but maybe less adept in the myriad of other aspects, and technical ones.....and so forth.

I'll be a beginner for some time, but loving the journey!
Thanks
 
There are some beginners who are much more talented than some who have been doing it for years. It doesn't really mean anything of any importance.


Steve.
 
I'll be a beginner for a while having made the jump from a compact to dslr. Being a beginner doesn't bother me as everyone has to start somewhere.
Ian
 
mogsman said:
I'll be a beginner for a while having made the jump from a compact to dslr. Being a beginner doesn't bother me as everyone has to start somewhere.
Ian
Click to expand...
I agree, being a beginner doesn't bother me either.
It's probably the only title I'll ever have.
 
Phil V said:
Indeed
In fact this thread, as is so often the case, conflates 'photography' with 'camera operation', as if that's the important thing.

The important thing is that we learn how to create images, whilst that involves learning how to use a camera, that's only a part of it, the vision is more important than the execution.
Click to expand...

Agree. The technical skills in using a camera, particularly a digital one isn't hard.

Understanding light, how light affects your subject (I shoot landscapes) and visualizing in your minds eye what you wish to capture. Portrait shooters have the added challenge of creating their own lighting through flash, studio lighting etc. Us landscapers use forecasts, tide tables etc to work with nature so we can be in the right place at the right time.

Or we just rock up and hope. But the camera controls are the easiest part for sure.
 
ST4 said:
Agree. The technical skills in using a camera, particularly a digital one isn't hard.

Understanding light, how light affects your subject (I shoot landscapes) and visualizing in your minds eye what you wish to capture. Portrait shooters have the added challenge of creating their own lighting through flash, studio lighting etc. Us landscapers use forecasts, tide tables etc to work with nature so we can be in the right place at the right time.

Or we just rock up and hope. But the camera controls are the easiest part for sure.
Click to expand...
It's odd that you see it as 'additional challenges', I prefer shooting people because I have more control over the subject and ultimate control over the lighting.

Landscape shooters can set off on a shoot with all the gear and perfect preparation and still come home with nothing, we can manipulate our subjects and even with huge gear failures, we can think quick and still get a result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Phil V said:
It's odd that you see it as 'additional challenges', I prefer shooting people because I have more control over the subject and ultimate control over the lighting.

Landscape shooters can set off on a shoot with all the gear and perfect preparation and still come home with nothing, we can manipulate our subjects and even with huge gear failures, we can think quick and still get a result.
Click to expand...

In terms of the purely technical for a studio/portrait/wedding tog there are more things to consider. Flash power, distance from subject and the consideration of how light diffuses etc.

Landscape all you need to do is compose, focus and expose and maybe place a grad down to balance the exposure. No in terms of camera technique it is as easy as falling off a log. You can also take your time doing it. Bar the grads wedding/event shooters need to do all the above but a hell of a lot faster as well as control the light.

Studio shooters have the grasp the techniques of controlling their own lighting. @Garry Edwards seems to be the one on here that does this very well.

I think you have to shoot what you're interested in. For me that's the great outdoors, big open views. I wager for you that people are you're thing. I'm not a people person and I suspect even without a commercial reason you'd be more inclined to take portrait images. I'm a Glencoe person. The only portraits I've taken was for some charity work I was helping with.

My thing is landscapes/cityscapes and waiting for the light to get better, I enjoy the space, the "me time" and just being there as I shoot. However often in my minds eye I know how I wish to portray the scene so all that's needed is the minimal technical skill to take the shot, the right weather conditions (and with modern forecasts that's no chore to work out), tidal conditions if you're shooting near sea water (easy enough to do in the modern age).

The gear isn't a massive deal. I do like big prints and I sell big prints. The d800(s) I have more than suit the task plus they're so well laid out and easy to use. Yes I could use cheaper gear and get very similar results until you print large. The skill to what I shoot is knowing when and where to shoot and putting yourself there at some ungodly hour.

If nature doesn't play ball it doesn't matter if you shoot phase one or an iPhone you'll leave with F all. If it does go to plan then the extra colour depth, superior dynamic range and sharper lenses of better gear do start to show. Particularly in low light shooting like urban landscapes at night. Or for your weddings. Try finding focus quickly for "that shot" on an iPhone compared to the canon you have or indeed getting that lovely out of focus background that only comes from a larger sensor and wide aperture prime. Gear matters so long as the person using it is competent. Shooting studio, portraits etc requires more competence as you not only have to be able to use a camera but be able to use and control the lighting.

Me, I just Rock up on a good day and wait for it to happen, then compose, focus and expose.
 
Last edited:
Surely a beginner is when you start taking photos, I started taking photos many years ago so I am no longer a beginner. My photos are still poop, but I do not care as they are only for my memories :)

Just like in school, when you first start school you are a beginner, after a few years you are no longer a beginner, you are still learning...
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
In terms of the purely technical for a studio/portrait/wedding tog there are more things to consider. Flash power, distance from subject and the consideration of how light diffuses etc.

Landscape all you need to do is compose, focus and expose and maybe place a grad down to balance the exposure. No in terms of camera technique it is as easy as falling off a log. You can also take your time doing it. Bar the grads wedding/event shooters need to do all the above but a hell of a lot faster as well as control the light.

Studio shooters have the grasp the techniques of controlling their own lighting. @Garry Edwards seems to be the one on here that does this very well.

I think you have to shoot what you're interested in. For me that's the great outdoors, big open views. I wager for you that people are you're thing. I'm not a people person and I suspect even without a commercial reason you'd be more inclined to take portrait images. I'm a Glencoe person. The only portraits I've taken was for some charity work I was helping with.

My thing is landscapes/cityscapes and waiting for the light to get better, I enjoy the space, the "me time" and just being there as I shoot. However often in my minds eye I know how I wish to portray the scene so all that's needed is the minimal technical skill to take the shot, the right weather conditions (and with modern forecasts that's no chore to work out), tidal conditions if you're shooting near sea water (easy enough to do in the modern age).

The gear isn't a massive deal. I do like big prints and I sell big prints. The d800(s) I have more than suit the task plus they're so well laid out and easy to use. Yes I could use cheaper gear and get very similar results until you print large. The skill to what I shoot is knowing when and where to shoot and putting yourself there at some ungodly hour.

If nature doesn't play ball it doesn't matter if you shoot phase one or an iPhone you'll leave with F all. If it does go to plan then the extra colour depth, superior dynamic range and sharper lenses of better gear do start to show. Particularly in low light shooting like urban landscapes at night. Or for your weddings. Try finding focus quickly for "that shot" on an iPhone compared to the canon you have or indeed getting that lovely out of focus background that only comes from a larger sensor and wide aperture prime. Gear matters so long as the person using it is competent. Shooting studio, portraits etc requires more competence as you not only have to be able to use a camera but be able to use and control the lighting.

Me, I just Rock up on a good day and wait for it to happen, then compose, focus and expose.
Click to expand...
Apart from the 'people person' bit, I suppose for me it's also about 'making it happen' though, I don't have the patience to 'see what turns up', but I do have the patience for dealing with tricky people (even if that doesn't always show when I'm not 'on duty' ) ;).

I can see why you'd think it takes more skill, I guess there's a saturation point where the 'technical thought process' just happens, like driving, half the time if you stopped me mid shoot and asked my settings I couldn't tell you. But if you really wanted to know, I could give a half hour description of how I 'got to there' .
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Maybe when you start making money from your photos. Or less harsh, when your pictures gets a lot of positive comments in the critique section here.
 
I think that if you can constantly demonstrate certain techniques to get the results that you want then you are no longer a beginner to that technique. You would still be a beginner of techniques you haven't tried or mastered yet though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top