On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:23:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 12:56, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 21:46:31 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/09/2015 11:23, whisky-dave wrote:

Using film gives an better apprecaition as to what real
photography is rathe rthan just taking a snap shot.


I disagree. It means you have to write stuff down and/or remember
why you did a particular thing three days ago when you get around
to viewing the results.

No problem, sure if you take 1000s of snaps how will you remmeber but
iof you're limted to a few then you'll remmeber them, especailly when
it's costing you money.

Photographers tend to note down what they do so it can be repeated or
avoided depending on the results.

yes they do, where as someone taking photos might take 1000 and pick the one they like best. You do know why they put smile detection ion cameras don't you so peole can take better picures, but for me and most people that know a bit about photograph such a thing is NOT relivent.
A smile in a pciture does NOT equal a good photograph.



While digital lets you see what works there and then and its easier
to see why.

This is not what people tend to do though.

Its what photographers do.

Is that why non photographers take more pictures, because they haven't a clue how to take a good picture so rely on luck.


Colleges do whatever gets them cash.
That's why they do stuff like media studies even though they are pretty
useless.
Darkroom stuff has joined the party.

Tey are doing it because they are realising that because those thinking they are photographers can't actually take a good photo, but they know how to take 1000 selfie snaps.



But you have to realises they are mistakes first, and how will they
know.

You can look at the result and if you are satisfied its not a mistake.

That's where training comes in.

You could even email them to somewhere that will evaluate the results
and critique it.

depends who you're emailing doesn't it.