Photography has never been more accessible than it is today. With easy access to high-speed internet leading to endless online resources, tutorials, and social media platforms, we would assume that learning photography has become easier than ever. However, my recent observation, coming from the experience of trying to learn a specific technical approach, proved otherwise. Instead of directly finding clear, in-depth guidance, I found myself drowning in an ocean of clickbait titles, surface-level explanations, and misleading information. This stark contrast to my early learning days made me realize that learning photography from the internet is now harder than it was a decade ago.
Oversaturation of Content Without Depth
One of the biggest issues today is the overwhelming amount of online content. While this may seem like good news on the surface, most of the tutorials and guides out there are lacking in depth. Many creators simply replicate successful tutorials and guide content without adding insights or valuable in-depth explanations.
Compared to what we used to have a decade ago, there were fewer resources available, making it easier for us to sift through, and only those with real expertise were going to gain traction. It was also harder to produce a series of tutorials back then, with filming equipment being the first barrier to entry. Now, anyone with a smartphone camera and an internet connection can create a tutorial, often without the necessary experience or credibility, so long as they have strong presentation skills and a social media following. As a result, finding truly valuable educational content has become a much more tedious and frustrating process.
The Problem With Modern Content Creator Platforms
Many creators today produce photography tutorials more for fame than genuine education. Their focus is often on creating fast, easily digestible content that garners views rather than providing real educational value, just to give the illusion of being the industry leader.
This issue is further worsened by the dominance of social media algorithms, where the platform prioritizes content that generates engagement, favoring entertainment-driven posts over in-depth, educational ones. This means that misleading or surface-level tutorials with catchy thumbnails often gain more visibility than detailed, well-structured lessons. Worse still, incorrect or misleading information gets recycled and reposted repeatedly for the sake of engagement. As a result, even when credible educators produce high-quality content, it is often buried beneath viral, yet less informative, posts. This creates an environment where popularity is mistaken for expertise, making it harder for beginners to access accurate and thorough photography education. This lack of depth in online tutorials doesn’t just affect learning; it actively spreads misinformation that misguides new photographers.
The Effects of Misinformation: Cult-Like Followings and False Confidence
When this inaccurate information is created repetitively, it leads beginners to blindly follow popular content without questioning its accuracy, ultimately creating a dangerous cycle on the internet. What’s even worse is when a community is formed around these misleading teachings, reinforcing the illusion that what they are doing is correct. This results in a kind of cult-like following, where misinformation is continuously validated and spread, causing those who learned the wrong techniques to end up believing they are doing things correctly simply because they are surrounded by like-minded individuals who reinforce their misconceptions.
The Inherent Issue With Technical Knowledge
This trend also makes it difficult for experienced educators to retain an audience. Technical knowledge is often complex and can be perceived as boring, making it harder for credible educators to compete with subpar content creators who focus more on engaging visuals and viral appeal rather than delivering substantial information. As a result, the voices that should be heard are frequently overshadowed, leading to a decline in truly valuable educational content.
The Role of the Audience: Short Attention Spans and Entertainment Over Education
It is not just content creators who are to blame. The nature of the modern viewer has also shifted. With the rise of short-form content and decreasing attention spans, audiences no longer have the patience to sit through comprehensive, in-depth tutorials. Instead, they seek quick fixes and instant gratification. This has led to a decline in full-fledged, properly structured educational content, as creators cater to what gets the most engagement rather than what is most informative. Suffice it to say, learning photography requires a lot of time, practice, and patience, but the current landscape encourages shortcuts that do not provide a solid foundation for beginners to build on.
Too Many Distractions and the Pressure to Follow Trends
Another major challenge hindering the learning process of fellow photographers is the abundance of distractions in today's digital world. Social media has created an environment where photographers are constantly exposed to trends, often leading them to chase viral success rather than focusing on their true passion. Instead of developing a unique style through experimentation, many end up replicating popular aesthetics or techniques just to fit in. This pursuit of easy fame can be detrimental, as it shifts the focus away from growth and creativity. Ultimately, photographers risk becoming mere shadows of others rather than discovering their own artistic vision and interests.
This process of seeking quick validation may also become a major setback for beginners. When the initial excitement fades and the dopamine hits from likes and comments slow down, they may choose to give up before they have even scratched the surface of what photography truly is, as they fixate on getting social approval rather than discovering their true passion.
Conclusion: Finding a Way Forward
Despite these challenges, I strongly believe it is still possible to learn photography effectively from the internet, though it requires a more careful approach. Being selective about sources, seeking out experienced educators, and prioritizing long-form, well-structured content over quick fixes can make a significant difference. Additionally, photographers should focus on their personal growth and discover the fun from within rather than external validation. Staying true to what they genuinely love shooting will also lead them to discover their true passion as they grow as photographers.
If money is not a concern, I still think one of the best solutions to proper learning is to invest in mentorship and guidance. Paying for a credible mentor can save a significant amount of time and help build a strong foundation in photography without going through the hassle of being self-taught. Most importantly, developing grit is essential. Grind through, keep learning even when no one is watching, and always stay focused on your goals. The digital landscape may have changed, but the fundamentals of learning photography remain the same: patience, practice, and persistence.
10, 15 years ago, when someone wanted to learn photography, they went to school or bought a book. Books like my own offered an ordered, structured curriculum, balancing both creative and technical skills and emphasizing practice.
Today, when I suggest someone buy a book, they usually tell me they already learned photography from social media. More often than not, it's not even longer-format YouTube, but whatever random TikTok shorts the algorithm prioritized for them.
The hubris to believe they've learned something infinite, much less from unstructured scrolling! As helpful as the Dunning-Kruger effect is for propelling beginners into a challenging field, people now seem to be stuck in it with no way out.
As an educator, attempts at teaching are generally punished. Straightforward lessons remain unwatched. Packaging a lesson in clickbait will get a few students, but many viewers drop out early in the video. I can still reach some people - I'm thankful for that - but the trends I see make me scared for future generations.
Sadly, the short attention span cause by the rise of short form video is what i believe to be the culprit. People are looking for shortcuts to "fame" rather than properly learning the skillsets, if the general public accepts what they are doing and are giving them recognition, who needs the proper skillsets. Its not just the education line that is affected, even towards the end of the pipeline of delivering polished and curated images are being punished as apparently these set of images are not "attention-grabbing" enough. The future is really bleak, hopefully it's a passing trend and the respect and desire for proper skillsets will come back. As of now, its hard to say because of the nature of the industry, we are not in an industry where live or death matter.
Anyway, I love what you are doing Tony, and have been a long time viewer especially in series where you dissect complex technical concepts into simple explanation.
There are so many videos now claiming in order to improve you need to learn a few simple camera settings or skills that they show in a short form video. They are literally telling people there is a shortcut to getting good at photography. These videos are definite clickbait and are extremely misleading.
Well, these are effectively "shortcuts" that we can learn. But by following these shortcuts, doesn't mean we are in any way have deep understanding to be good or prolific enough to produce good images in every situation being thrown at them. Unless we are some genius then it might just work. But with the improvement of imaging technology, I would want to think that making decent images is somewhat easy so long if we have a certain level of taste and understanding in the subject matter.
I agree with what you are saying but I assume, just for clicks, a lot of videos do claim you can instantly become a better photographer by following their shortcuts.
They are not wrong too, if you do not know what to do and by watching their videos you can now do something even with shortcut. That might be a positive thing, what I am more afraid is that this creates a fake illusion that we are now good enough and stop learning
Thanks, Zhen, I love what you're doing, too!
I too have learned a lot form you! you. You do make a positive impact in peoples lives. The knowledge I've gained from you and other people like you has literally changed my life so thank you!
Tony, take heart! The content you have produced has been useful to me, and also to many people who I recommend it to.
I often have people who are just getting into photography ask me how they can learn how to use the camera they just bought, and I ALWAYS go to your YouTube channel, find the tutorial that you did for their model of camera, and then send them the link to your video. I would estimate that over the years, about a dozen budding photographers have learned how to use their camera by watching your tutorial on it, after I have sent them the link.
Thank you Tom!!
The Tony & Chelsea Northrup youtube channel is one of the very few channels that managed to strike a good balance of education and covering high end gear without abandoning the beginner and intermediate level.
When I think of learning photography, I think of its two major components: the capture of an image using a camera, and the post-processing of the image using a computer.
Capturing an image is primarily dependent upon composition, which is primarily dependent upon "seeing" the image. How does an advanced photographer explain how a beginner might "see" or frame a photograph? It's easy to find a subject to snap a picture of... not so easy to decide which secondary elements to include or exclude in the frame, or how to show them in relation to each other. Composition is a complex subject with little universal guideline or consensus for what is an agreed upon best or even better composition. So what sort of methods or tools are best for teaching a dynamic subject? Sure there are infinite videos and tutorials available but that won't change. I like your suggestion of seeking a personal mentor, but how to determine which person would be the best fit, and where to find them might be as hazardous as wading through online tutorials themselves.
Speaking of tutorials and the topic of post-processing, it's my feeling that the vast majority are too complicated rather than too simplistic. There's one Photoshop educator in particular, whose tutorials appear on Fstoppers, that talks and moves so fast through his lesson that it gives me a headache. After about half dozen adjustment layers for one reason or another, that are supposed to all come together at the end, I've abandoned the video. In my opinion, many of these tutorials turn a five minute task into a fifteen minute task. If that's your solution for photo editing, fine, I'm not saying that it has to be done one way or another. I'm saying it doesn't have to be that complicated, and that the vast majority of tutorials are overkill for a novice photographer.
Ed asked,
"How does an advanced photographer explain how a beginner might "see" or frame a photograph?"
This is the best question! The answer to it is pretty much encompasses at least half of what photography is all about, and has NOTHING to do with gear, settings, etc.
It is this artistic, creative, visionary side of photography that is drastically underserved in the educational resources we have today. Explaining the exposure triangle won't help someone at all when it comes to knowing what to photograph and how to photograph it. Teaching someone all of the most advanced Photoshop techniques won't help someone know what they want to say and how to say it. Teaching someone how to focus perfectly in adverse conditions won't help them know what mood and feeling they want to evoke in their imagery.
Why do we have so many resources teaching us about the parts of photography that don't matter very much, and barely anything at all that teaches about the things that are the very heart and soul of photography?
The things we need to know are the things people don't want to know. These are the things that are not glamorous. It's easier to flaunt the latest gear or knowing the latest editing tools than using a decade or two old camera and telling people the fundamental of seeing, which is also harder to be explained. It's also probably how our social media are frame, we promote new things than old.
"How does an advanced photographer explain how a beginner might "see" or frame a photograph?"
As someone who has been photographing for years and noticed a definite improvement to my ability to see potentially good photographs, I still have zero ability to be able to explain this to beginners. It has a lot to do with the fact it just takes a lot of time and perseverance with no obvious structure to it. As an example, I've travelled to places in the past and concluded there are no good photo opportunities but then a year or so later literally see something in this same place I'd overlooked or never quite saw before and wonder how I missed it the first time.
This is altogether a rather complex process. From what I understand, for the first time we might be overloaded with signals that are fresh which causes us to take everything in but as we get used to it or have better understanding after a few trips, we will start to notice things that are unique to the location. And it does take a lot of practice to recognize that
I guess it is a combination of familiarity with a place over time and just getting better at seeing.
Ideally, you would want to be familiar but not too familiar. Otherwise everything that you express is textbook and you might end up no longer seeing new things because they are just another mundane everyday thing that might not be enough to pick your interest to capture a frame
Explaining things to others comes naturally and easily for some, but is extremely difficult for others. We are all wired differently. For some of us, words come easily. Knowing what words to use to explain a process or an insight is something that can be done with little effort. The words just flow, in a way that the protege readily understands.
Yes, I have experience this first hand where some mentors are really great teachers tho themselves are not that good in the craft. They are well equip with the knowledge and words to teach just not that good in artform
The art of seeing itself are highly correlated to the observational skills of that person and seeking for the right mentor will hopefully be able to guide you through it on the field by sharing the thought process from his experience. But as you pointed out, getting the wrong mentor can be hazardous. I don't disagree with that at all because I have experience it myself. The bottom line in this would be your personal feeling. Are you seeing more than what you were capable of? Are there much enlightening? Are you creating what you desire to? There are the questions that I would ask myself, if not then the mentor probably has no good in helping the development of your vision. But he may be good in other aspects, possibly financial stuffs, technical stuffs, things that are out of the vision aspect but are still useful in helping the development of it. Just gotta be wary of those who are just in for the profit.
Whereas for post processing tutorial, I believe the tutors have good intention in explaining the tools and how each layers work. These are the basic of how things turn out to be or how a specific tool work. Once we have learn it, we don't have to follow it completely, we can freely abandon some of the tools or change their workflow to suit how we work. Also technology has really made editing simple these days, take cleaning up debris or distraction in an image for example. Those days we pretty much have 3-4 tools (healing tool, clone stamp and patch tool, etc) if we do not wish to dabble into the complicated frequency separation thing. But these days we have combination of AI-powered generative fill and even the remove tool to quickly help us fix things up and simplify the workflow. So its really up to us to adapt after learning the basics, or not at all. highly depending on our personal curiosity level
Zhen asked,
"Are you seeing more than what you were capable of?"
This is where the real art of seeing starts to happen. You are beginning to really see when you can see what is not there.
By that I mean that you are able to look at a subject or a scene, and know how it will look from a different perspective. Like if you see a deer and the scene around the deer is cluttered and ugly, but you instinctively "just know" that if you quickly move 150 feet to your right, and lie prone on the ground, that then the deer will be aligned with a magical slice of background habitat, and that it will "pop" out of the scene because of the ratio between the camera-to-subject distance and the subject-to-background distance. And you will know, before you even walk all the way over there, that the best pose will appear when the deer turns his head and neck to the left, because then the gentle side light will illuminate the near side of his face instead of the far side of his face.
So, when you can look at a scene and within seconds "just know" exactly how that scene is going to look from all the different points of view that are around you, then you are finally beginning to see creatively, and are on your way to actually learning about real photography.
Yet, sadly, these skills of learning to see are rarely spoken of in the learning resources that are available to photographers. Instead they tell us about f stops and depth of field and how to expose properly. Ugh. Nothing to get very passionate about with those mundane technical things. We should rapidly evolve to the point where the technical things are so familiar to us that they can just be taken for granted, and then we can start to learn the things that actually matter.
Yes, and I also believe that this largely contributed by the amount of understanding on that specific subject matter. Quoting your deer as an example, you need to know enough of the deer's anatomy to know that its best pose is when the deer turns its head and also enough experience to know the location light will illuminate it just right.
We have to be rather observant enough to know all this or rather more observant than the general public to pull that kind of shot. Novice can still pull that kind of shot, but I would like to believe its largely assisted by imaging technology and some element of luck.
Give it a few more years with AI-powered cameras, then technicality with gears can be thrown into the drain haha. Which makes image making process half as fun.
I agree with this article.
I think the main problem, the main thing to blame for this overall decline in real education, is greed. Not only are the platforms themselves greedy, but the content creators are also greedy.
People are posting educational content online in order to get views, likes, et cetera, all because it will lead to some kind of income for them. If they put a lot of time and effort into making content that is actually good, then they put it behind a pay wall and try to profit directly.
In other words, their main objective is to generate income for themselves, instead of their main objective being entirely altruistic. If their primary purpose was to teach others, instead of getting something for themselves, then finding viable educational resources online would be much simpler and easier. The real answer would be for people who already have a lot of wealth, and who don't need more, to be the ones producing excellent educational materials. People who are independently wealthy, or who are retired and have enough to live on and do not need to turn their tutorials into dollars. Or people who have a full time job and are content to live on what they earn from that, instead of trying to suck even more money out of the system by charging for their photography content.
But the problem is that people who are already making $60,000 a year try to make $65,000 or $70,000 instead. Or the guy making $100,000 a year tries to make an extra $10,000 by trying to monetize his YouTube or Instagram or whatever. Or people who already have enough to retire on try to suck people dry for even more money - money that they don't even actually need in order to live. If the people would be content to live on a moderate income and use their time and energy to help others learn, instead of trying to get more for themselves, then finding high quality photography content online would be a lot easier. We need to find a way to isolate the greed gene and then discourage people with that gene from reproducing ..... hahaha!
Why do you think retired wealthy people, with not a greedy bone in their body, would produce any more effective or "excellent" educational materials than someone trying to simply make a living and pay the bills, since we've yet to define exactly what form those educational materials might look like?
Well, the article explains that most of the content creators make content with the primary purpose of getting people to click. And that this has resulted in the educational content being watered down. So, if someone has no inclination to water down or shape their content to generate more views, and simply makes content for educational purposes only, then it will be better content because it will not be manipulated for any purposes other than pure education. I thought that was pretty clear in the article, but perhaps it wasn't.
Here is the part of the article that made it clear to me:
"Many creators today produce photography tutorials more for fame than genuine education. Their focus is often on creating fast, easily digestible content that garners views rather than providing real educational value, just to give the illusion of being the industry leader.
This issue is further worsened by the dominance of social media algorithms, where the platform prioritizes content that generates engagement, favoring entertainment-driven posts over in-depth, educational ones. This means that misleading or surface-level tutorials with catchy thumbnails often gain more visibility than detailed, well-structured lessons. Worse still, incorrect or misleading information gets recycled and reposted repeatedly for the sake of engagement."
yes i agree, but we have been programmed to believe there should be some form of reward for the hard work that we put out there. And no one will complain having more money in their pockets because this is how the world works, sadly. We just need to wait for some good samaritan to save the world of photography, but even then I am seeing them being penalized for doing good deeds just because teaching solves only a fraction of a problem, and those who are willing to learn is another part of the equation.
"I think the main problem, the main thing to blame for this overall decline in real education, is greed."
100% Tom. Absolutely. I've always said if you want to find out why certain aspects of society suck so bad all you have to do is follow the money. Every time something becomes more money oriented than it is actually beneficial for the people it begins to rob society of something good. for example: National Parks. We charge fees to use them and maintain them. That's perfectly fine. Imagine if corporations came into the picture. They'd start profiteering off of those national parks and it would ruin them for every one. Prices would skyrocket and the quality of the parks would diminish greatly in an effort widen margins and maximize profits. When money becomes the only goal of something that something is destined for the trash heap. Happens in the video game industry all the time. SO many once great studios and publishers are either gone or churning out absolute slop these days.
Yup, absolutely.
Right now, there is a new burger joint in my little town, called Earp's Burgers. A 1/2 pound double cheeseburger is made from fresh, never-frozen beef right in front of you. And it is $8. And it is absolutely delicious!
The guys who own this business are a father/son team who are living on a shoestring. They live in a tiny little run down home. They drive an old beat up pickup truck. The burger joint is a pre-fab carport with a grille and a folding table and several Coleman coolers under it.
This burger joint is awesome and a true blessing to the community, because we can get GREAT burgers that are really big and filling and wholesome for only $8.
BUT, when I see into the future, I see this father/son team wanting more for themselves. I see them buying a better truck. I see them moving out of their hovel and into a bit nicer home. That all sounds great, BUT it will probably result in them screwing their customers over and jacking the price of that $8 burger up to $10 or $11. And when a burger costs $10 instead of $8, there is just no way I will be able to justify spending that much on one meal, so me and all of the lower-income people like me will be effectively shut off from this little business that means so much to us right now. If they want to make more money to have better lives, they could keep the price the same and just sell more burgers ..... but no, they won't do that, because it is easier to just jack the price up, and most people just want to do what is easy even if it hurts other people.
There is a term for this, and it is called "shitification". Everyone is subject to greed, everyone from the huge corporate CEOs to the little people running tiny Mom & Pop businesses. Everyone wants more for themselves, and that necessarily means less for others.
I won't defend the person with four houses and two yachts, or the professional athletes being paid millions for playing a game. You can condemn them all you want and you won't hear any objection from me. But your story of the burger joint owner is super close to home for me. Not that I've owned a burger joint, or any restaurant for that matter. But I went into business for myself at age 25 (46 years ago), designing and selling various types of commercial printing. That much I've told you before. When I started, I made myself a desk of plywood sitting atop a stack of cinder blocks. My invoices were single copies with carbon tissue inserted between sheets. My business cards were printed on a copier and cut by hand. You could not have run a business for less money than I was in 1979.
But a funny thing happened along the way... I was good at what I did and the business grew dramatically for a couple decades, at least until the internet decimated the need for print products. In the meantime though, do you really think that I was supposed to never step up my own quality of life, never enjoy a nicer desk, a more spacious car, or a trip to Hawaii? Sorry but I don't feel that the burger guy who wants some serious vacation time, or a larger home for himself is greedy. The reason most people go into business for themselves is that they think there's a greater opportunity for success than punching a time clock. But if it doesn't materialize that way, then a lot of people wonder why they're working eighty hours a week to sustain a business of their own and never getting ahead. And then call it quits. And I see that as the potential future of your burger joint if he stays in the same place that you expect him to.
The situation and expectations that you're describing for a small new business simply are not reasonable. Most retail businesses do not "jack the price up" just to exploit customers. Prices rise because costs rise. There's pressure for raising minimum wage. Fair enough. But how are owners supposed to add $2 an hour to their employee's paycheck without raising the price of the burger? Or keep the price the same when your president has inflicted tariffs on virtually everything that comes into this country? Do you have any idea of how insurance costs for business and personal needs have skyrocketed? Or property taxes? Those are rhetorical questions. I'm sure you do. If you really have any hope of preserving the price of that $8 burger, write a letter to your president and tell him to stop using immigrants and every foreign trading partner as a scapegoat, and do something constructive to stem the rise of inflation. Wait... the solution might require nonpartisan thinking, something neither political party is capable of. I think you best be prepared for that $10 burger.
Just to add, in my own photography business, I do raise my prices annually too not because I am directly impacted by rising cost, but I am hoping to serve my clients better, providing more value, produce better images and also the increase in price are use to justify the level of experience and knowledge that I have which is also increasing. Hence, I will be able to handle projects better (reducing risk, faster turnover and better images delivered)
I was using many of my examples based on a small retail business... mainly to argue with Tom. In that case, I wouldn't be able to charge one customer $8 for a burger and $10 to a different customer. But that is not my line of work. I don't even have employees (except for one experiment that didn't work out very well about 30 years ago). I've also steered away from charging an hourly rate or fixed printing price because it seems to tie me down with a pricing strategy that demands consistency among clients from all markets and regions.
So for pretty much my whole career, my prices are quoted based on the job. And since no two jobs or customers are identically alike, my pricing is more art than science. Competition plays a large part in determining what I feel like I can get out of a job. A commercial art buyer located in San Francisco will expect to pay more than one in west Texas. Some industries like the health care market generally have lower budgets for art than condominium owners in a wealthy resort area. So pricing is a job-by-job decision. This is really drifting far from the topic of your article, but I often get sidetracked with Tom.
I love how the conversation grows. Always interesting to hear from others than just me and my opinions. Thanks for sharing Ed!
And also yes, my prices are also based on job though I have a baseline to refer them with if they are somewhat similar so I don't have to spend so much time tailoring to every job request
Oh yes this is so true! Quoting your national park example, the animals inside might also suffer having to do all sort of performance to please visitors. Money runs the world until come catastrophic disaster happens that renders money into useless papers
It's a bit like health advice. There is so much misinformation and advice from people who aren't experts that it becomes counterproductive (or potentially dangerous if it's health advice). It seems there are so many people making videos who consider themselves qualified to offer advice when it just seems like they are opportunists wanting to make a name for themselves on YT. I still remember 12 or so years ago people saying in order to get 'the film look' you just need a shallow depth of field, then they'd demonstrate by going in and out of focus on some trees in their local park on a 500D with a nifty 50. Comments from stunned people would then wonder why Hollywood would use expensive cine cameras and lenses when they can 'get the same look' with a cheap DSLR 🤦🏻.
It still happens to this day! On and off we will have jokers who would claim to be the best at this and that just to claim some fame to establish themselves as an industry expert but to quit it entirely when its not sustainable. Guess we will just have to persist and do our own thing. After all this is a creative industry and sadly those who make enough noise will be well known and rewarded.
Great topic, and an important one. Thank you!
I ran into it myself about three years ago when I started digging deeper into the technical side of photography. Tutorials are abundant, and so is the prevailing idea of “horizontal learning”: knowledge passed peer-to-peer rather than mentor-to-student. It’s convenient and popular, but not very productive.
It was easier for me because I have teaching experience and value structured education. Start with structured books; then refine the nuances online, not via YouTube clips, but with reading materials you can study, not just watch. In general: if you want entertainment, watch; if you want to learn, read.
That said, it isn’t all that dramatic. Poor education has always spread faster than good education, so there have always been more mediocre photographers than strong ones, and more superficial approaches than deep ones.
What would truly help is not only naming the problem but also showing the differences between deep and superficial approaches across every aspect of photography — not just technical skills (whose relevance is declining), but artistic ones as well. Work with meaning: that is what will remain when algorithms take over much of the image-making.
Yup, which is why I always try to encourage deeper thoughts from my sharing. Nothing is ultimately right or wrong, but we can do our best to encourage the thought process. Think beyond the surface level content education and always ask why like a curious kid.
We all learn through experiments, and without it, we will be capturing and producing the same images over and over again until we are bored.
100% agree!
Alvin wrote:
"In general: if you want entertainment, watch; if you want to learn, read."
In general, that may be a good rule to go by. But there are definitely exceptions, and I am one of them.
I have a lot of trouble learning via written text. Show me how to do something, and I will "get it" immediately - I am a very quick study when shown. Tell me how to do something, and ..... ugh ..... you'll have to tell me again (meaning I will have to read it again). And I still won't get it. So I read a 3rd time but do so half-heartedly because by that point I don't really believe that I will ever "get it" by reading what I already read twice. Honestly, when I try to learn something by reading about it, I feel stupid and way behind the bell curve of intelligence. Show me how to do something and I feel like I "get it" quicker than anyone else in the entire class.
Hence, watching YouTube tutorials has been a life saver for me when it comes to learning how to use modern cameras with their complex menus. Before YouTube, when all I had was the manufacturer's user manual, I just couldn't learn how to do anything with my cameras, so I just missed out on all of those features and capabilities that I had paid for. I remember taking those user manuals with me everywhere, in my camera bag, and pulling them out again and again, trying to figure out how to get my camera to do what it was supposed to do, and never figuring it out.
I love to read, and I read a crap ton! But I read for entertainment or for information (such as news). When step-by-step processes need to be learned, that is when reading breaks down entirely for me, and is literally the very worst way for me to try to learn how to do things.
Wait a minute, Tom. You vilified YouTube content in earlier posts as shallow, watered-down material, produced by greedy creators, and falsely promoted with click-bait titles. Now you're telling me that the only effective way that you've learned photography is from watching YouTube tutorials. How can you lambast the structure of an entire industry when it's given you the education in photography that you have?
The thing about education that you spoke about is that we all learn in different ways. I don't do well in classrooms with a structured system. I'm more of a push-this-button-and-see-what-happens sort of guy. I want to ask my own questions rather than be told what I need to know. Indeed, when Photoshop was introduced in 1993 or so, I only learned what I wanted to know, or felt relevant at the time. I was in the business of graphic design and commercial printing, so when a client gave me a photo with an object they had forgotten to remove, I learned how to apply the clone tool rather than ask the photographer to go reshoot the photo.
The proverbial cliché applies here: photography is not rocket science. You don't need to go through points A, B, and C before you can get to D. In fact, I think of photography as an accumulation of semi-related ideas and principles that can be learned in about any order. And it's nearly impossible to predict where or when you might see, hear, or learn something which enriches your photography. My first camera was a DSLR in 2003, shortly before the introduction of YouTube, so I relied heavily on books and magazines. I read everything in sight. I asked other photographers for opinions. But for many of those books and magazines, it would be a small tip here or there that would have an impact on me. Otherwise, they were like the majority of YouTube vides... a few learning moments and a lot of stuff to take up space. Or in the case of magazines... to sell stuff.
So my point is that I feel like much of the criticism of YouTube and tutorial content being expressed here by other people is overly harsh. Besides the student learning in different ways, teachers teach in different ways too. I can't really condemn one teacher for his video showing himself walking a wooded path for five minutes before saying anything "educational," or criticize the guy who's a whirlwind of photoshop layers and blending modes. It may not resonate with me, but it does for other people. Educators teach differently, much like the way you and I approach photography differently. And certainly having all these options is better than too few.... no?
Learning the craft of photography doesn’t really address the “why”: those answers are obvious. So the show-and-do model works fine there. But if you want to go further and figure out what you actually want to make, video tutorials won’t cut it. I don’t see anything wrong with staying a camera operator, but I mean learning that helps you understand, not just execute. Hope that’s not too heavy.
Not sure I follow you.
You’re right. I wasn’t clear. Learning to do is one thing; learning to think about what you’re doing is a different one.
Example: Learning to do is nailing exposure; learning to think is deciding what you want the light to communicate
There's logic, theory, and a root understanding of why things work the way they do for a lot of things. As a young adult, my father, along with a few books, tried teaching me the card game of bridge. The books taught me the rules which I diligently tried to memorize. My father explained that without understanding the logic (the why), I'd never be very good at the game. In other words, if I could understand the logic, the rules would be easy to remember.
I only raise that as a point of comparison with art and photography. I'm not sure I could explain my logic for composition very well the way I could explain the probability of a bridge game. It's more art than science or math. There are no rules in art. Not that it's devoid of thinking, but that it never seems the same as solving a problem. Other than selecting a few elements and arranging them in a balanced way, photography seems more like a gut feeling, guided by emotions rather than analytics. I'm sure that I'm missing some of what you've said though about your approach, so feel free to speak more to your point. I'm listening.
One more bit of potentially relevant personal history. I struggled mightely with algebra in highschool. My dad would patiently demonstrate a couple problems, and I undoubtedly had a glazed look in my eyes. And he'd say "Think about it, Edward. Think about it." I was trying to think about it, but it wasn't doing any good. Thinking can be sort of constructive, or it can be more like daydreaming. I was probably better as a kid at the latter. So maybe a thought with the idea of creating something intentional is simply beyond the grasp of some people. I'd certainly have a hard time explaining the concept.
Here are two simple points I’d add:
1.“There are no rules in art.”
I disagree. Art does have rules. You can break them, but you shouldn’t ignore them. If you break them, do it deliberately to create a specific effect.
2. Explaining your logic.
This matters less to you than to the viewer. A good photograph should let the viewer read the idea. To make that happen, you need to know what you want to say and which tools you’ll use to convey it.
Both kinds of guidance are largely missing from YouTube tutorials. To me, they’re essential.
Ed wrote:
"There are no rules in art. Not that it's devoid of thinking, but that it never seems the same as solving a problem. Other than selecting a few elements and arranging them in a balanced way, photography seems more like a gut feeling, guided by emotions rather than analytics."
I respect your perspective on this. But my perspective is different. I believe that there are rules in art. Not hard, fast rules such as "you MUST ....." or "you can NEVER ..... "
But there are certainly ways of arranging those elements in a composition that work to produce aesthetically pleasing images, and ways that do not produce images that are as pleasing. And those nuances are pretty much the same for almost all images. So, yeah there are rules, but not the kind of rules that are forced upon us, they are more formulatic, like a certain way of composing generally works and other ways generally do not work.
I can pretty easily reduce any image down to words, and articulate what it is about the image that is pleasing, and what could make it even more pleasing. Words and articulation come naturally for some of us, as do grammar, punctuation, etc. Others have brains that are not wired so directly to words and language. They may think of something as a "gut feeling" while someone like myself gets busy thinking of how to explain it and reduce it down to words.
When I am afield shooting, I am very consciously thinking about how to shoot. I don't just move around or zoom in and out until the scene in my viewfinder "looks right". Rather, I think things such as ....
"if I move a little closer, the foreground object at the bottom of the frame will be a bit more blurry .... do I want it a bit more blurry, or a bit less blurry? Should I vary the blurriness via moving closer or further, or by changing aperture. But if I change my aperture, then the area behind the subject will also become a bit sharper, and I don't want that, so I better just move a bit closer to that rock that is right in front of me, and keep my aperture where it is. But maybe when I see the images on the big screen I will wish that the foreground rock had been less blurry ..... so I better shoot a few frames from a bit further back, and then after I get a few frames like that, then move forward."
Or ......
"It bothers me that the top of the deer's head is overlapping the horizon line. I want his entire head to align with the snow in the background, and for no part of it at all to have sky behind it. I gotta get higher for that alignment to work the way I want it to. Standing up on my tiptoes isn't quite high enough. What can I do to get his head to entirely align with the snow and not the sky? Dammit, he is starting to move. Damn! The moment of opportunity is fading away and I don't know how to capture it exactly the way I want to. Damn damn damn damn damn! All that time waiting for him to come into the open and I still don't get the image exactly the way I want it. DAMN!
All of these words and thoughts are consciously going through my brain the entire time I am in the field shooting. There aren't many "gut feelings". I already know exactly how I want each image to look and I have well-articulated reasons why I want them to look that way.
I go through all the same mental exercises in framing a picture that you do. All good photographers think through the relationship between various elements in a composition.
As a self-described stickler for using precise words for expressing what you mean, you should consider that the word "rules" carries a stricter connotation than the flexibility you've given it. You can't have "generally" or "typically" or as a "guideline" without neutering the meaning of the word "rules." If rules have no teeth in them, then we shouldn't be calling something a rule.
If it's okay to place your subject dead center in the frame, then there's no such legitimate rule of thirds. It might be an idea or a concept, but there's no such thing as a rule of thirds if it can be so easily broken without consequences.
I come from a competitive sports background. I was one of those kids who could probably throw a ball before I could walk. The rules were "three strikes and you're out." Not sometimes four if you felt like it. Aces are always higher rank than kings. A golf shot out-of-bounds is a two shot penalty... period. The rules of any competition are not flexible. But art is not a competition. Therefore the slightest hint of the word "rules" should be banished from the artist's vocabulary.
Definitions of words are not fixed or absolute or static. Each word's definition shifts and changes according to how it is used. If a word starts to be used in a new way, then the definition changes to accommodate the new usage.
After a couple triple-damns, it sounds to me like your mind and your emotions are pretty well integrated into one unit. Maybe your gut feelings are directing your thoughts more than the other way around?