Technique can be learned, seeing a shot not. You see it or you don't. Somebody can point it out to you, you may see it then, but is you who 'sees' it!
In music, for instance putting your fingers on the right keys on a piano can be learned, making music by playing the piano can't. This may seem romantic or what, but since the end of the 18th century we are stuck with an analytic education system which adds up all your learned knowledge and thinks thusway you create a musician or whatever. This system forgets the forces within, talent, drive, what ever. I experience this everytime I work with an amateurchoir. They usually don't know the first thing about music, the theory, how to use their breath properly, yet I can make them sing in a way you wouldn't expect them too if you follow the analytic system. The intuitive system makes you perform far better than you think you could. Of course in the end I run into limits and then peopole do have to take singing lessons. Or in photography more knowledge would be required. But my starting point is the intuition, instinct, whatever you want to call it. It works. That's all I can say. :-) Paul Delcour > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:58:29 +0100 > To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Film limits - measuring light correctly > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:20:20 -0400 > > On 19/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >> What I mean is the limited lightvalues a film can take. It can soon be too >> light (my K2 only has 1/1000), but more sooner gets too dark to get any >> decent image on film. With a camcorder I can go till I have only the light >> of a matchstick. Of course the image changes in quality dramatically. But >> were I to be ready to take pictures in all of those extreme situations, I'd >> have to be carrying an awful lot of equipment and what's more, keep changing >> it to suit the situation. >> >> A digital camera can and has overcome these light problems. Bless them. That >> is certainly what I feel to be a very weak point of taking photographs. > > When an artist picks up a pencil, will it be hard or soft? What informs > that judgement? Partly it is the feel of the work he/she is wanting to > produce, and how that work translates as a finished drawing. The artist > has to have the knowledge of the pencils, the chalk, the paint. That > technique has to be learned, it is not instinctive. The finished work > appears as instinct and expression and cannot be taught. > > When a director makes a film, he has to know how to handle actors to get > the best out of them, as well as knowing how to handle the way the camera > records the scene, how it will look when finished, how he/she wants it to > look. That technique most definitely has to be learned. The finished work > appears as instinct and expression and cannot be taught. > > When a photographer shoots with film, he or she has to know what film to > select, what lens to use, what exposure to set in order to record the > scene. Sometimes he or she will know how to develop and print the > picture. That technique must be learned. The resulting photograph is an > expression that cannot be taught. > > When a photographer shoots digitally, he or she has to know all the > technique that the camera allows, has to understand the processing of > that image, the way it is delivered onto a medium of storage, and even > sometimes editing that image and printing it. Techniques learned. Results > expressions of self and ability and desire. > > All these techniques involve tools, from carpentry to cake-making. They > are as easy or as difficult as you make them. They all involve effort in > studying the technical aspect. Art hurts! > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
