Troll Response

[Mike Farley]

It's a bit glib, but Thom Hogan has just published an article which seeks to answer many of the questions posed on Internet photography fora. Much of it is a summary of what he has already written, but there is some useful information in there. One example is the answer he gives about not including camera settings when posting images, which is a far better explanation than I have ever managed. The most interesting part for me was the section comparing Canon's and Sony's sensors where he says Adobe Camera Raw is better suited for the colours produced by Canon sensors, which I had not really appreciated previously.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/ans ... rolls.html

[davidc]

Some of it was chuckle worthy but as you say, not much of it is original.

I find it a little bit annoying that seasoned photographers look down on sharing settings. When I was a beginner and didn't really understand the difference between f/2.8 and f/8.2 it was IMMENSELY useful to be able to look at photos then see how certain settings had been used

It feels like the notion people want to see settings so they can copy them and get the same result is wilfully ignorant of the learning potential they can offer, even to the point of coming across as mocking beginners. You don't get people to grow and improve by taking the piss out of questions which make sense to them but to "experts" are nonsensical.

The look on people's faces where you demonstrate how changing the setting on their camera changes the image is fantastic - and I wish someone had done the same for me!

[Mike Farley]

It looks as though I have successfully done my own bit of trolling.

The problem as I see it is that there are so many different variables that simply publishing camera and setting details does not actually help much, when so much more goes into making a successful shot. The examples that you give all rely on there being at least two images so that the viewer can see the difference in any given situation. Many beginners simply set their cameras to fully automatic and let the camera make the decisions for them, having no understanding of the implications. It is far better for someone's development to teach them the basic principles, then provide encouragement to experiment. That way they will learn about all aspects of photography.

I recall the late Rex Bamber once saying that as part of his photographic education he was told to copy images so that he could comprehend everything that went into creating them. The knowledge he gained provided the foundations for a lifetime of photographic achievement. That process is so much easier today with the instant feedback from digital cameras, but there are still no short cuts to becoming a good photographer.

[davidc]

Heh far from it, if anyone did the trolling it was Thom but I think it has led to a good question really. Trolling would be "why are uppity photographers so unwilling to share the settings? Is it because their mistakes would become apparent?"

Teaching basics then encouraging experimentation is exactly what I do. However over time I've learned that when teaching the basics people want to know the settings, then I explain why. DOing that with some pre-canned pictures and how each setting influenced the final result is one of the most powerful learning tools.

Based on Thom's reply to some question I don't think anyone (me, him, you) disagrees with the idea of asking for catch-all settings to take better photos is totally lost and off the mark. That said, I've never, ever known anyone just come out and ask that but as Thom pointed out, he gets way more hits and is a bigger "target" for that kind of question.

I think the idea of calling people trolls because they don't know how to ask the right question is probably the bit furthest off the mark and maybe not what Thom intended. Troll implies some level of maliciousness, not misguidedness

[Mike Farley]

As an "uppity" photographer who does not normally share settings, it has nothing to do with wishing to disguise mistakes. It is just that I do not consider that it is particularly important information outside of the teaching context you refer to. As I said previously, it is a relatively small part of what goes into a shot, but one of the few aspects which can be easily quantified. I simply prefer to let the image stand or fall on its own merits.

As a well known blogger, I expect Thom gets more than his fair share of correspondence from all types of people. I know from my own experiences as a presenter, some of the more objectionable comments tend to have a greater effect than the positive ones and linger long after the good memories have faded. Unfortunately that does tend to colour one's views.