DSLRUsers.com

I came across this interesting graph. [click for bigger] What do you guys think?

http://i.imgur.com/b2feF.png wrote:

http://enticingthelight.com/2010/01/27/stages-of-a-photographers-life-as-a-graph/

I love it!!

Crap - so you're saying I'm about to die

Remorhaz wrote:Crap - so you're saying I'm about to die

Don't worry. The diagram is inaccurate as there can be any number of those "dammit, I suck" ditches, not just one

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:Don't worry. The diagram is inaccurate as there can be any number of those "dammit, I suck" ditches, not just one

Excellent! - lots to look forward to then

What about us who started our journey in photography before mobile phones even existed let alone had cameras in them?

What would be an interesting exercise is for each of us to draw this graph for our selves as part of self-critique; then we compare notes over a mini-meet.

surenj wrote:What would be an interesting exercise is for each of us to draw this graph for our selves as part of self-critique; then we compare notes over a mini-meet.

that actually sounds like a good idea, I wish I had drawn one a few years ago, then it would be a good comparison thing...

biggerry wrote:

surenj wrote:What would be an interesting exercise is for each of us to draw this graph for our selves as part of self-critique; then we compare notes over a mini-meet.

that actually sounds like a good idea, I wish I had drawn one a few years ago, then it would be a good comparison thing...

I don't think it is possible to draw one up for yourself. You are really only qualified to draw the blue line, This represents what you think about yourself. The other two are really about how others see you. OK you can make a stab at the knowledge line, but how can you assess your photos as good if you are in the "dammit I suck" phase. Or for that matter accept them as bad if you are in the "All I shoot is pretty phase" The best you can do is make a stab at it in hindsight. You cannot reliably self assess in real time.

One problem I do see with the graph itself is the smoothness of the quality and knowledge lines. Every time you buy a new bit of kit, both of these should dip as you come to terms with the new gear. Knowledge should spike down as the universe of knowledge has just increased for you, while your knowledge has not jumped with it. Quality will decrease slightly until you come to terms with the new gear.

Suren, if this graph is "scientific", I can certainly prove it wrong. It predicts I have no tripod, but may be just about to buy one. In reality, I have four, one of which I have owned for at least 30 years, so it fails to predict reality, so it is wrong. Back to the drawing board with you.

Mr Darcy wrote:One problem I do see with the graph itself is the smoothness of the quality and knowledge lines. Every time you buy a new bit of kit, both of these should dip as you come to terms with the new gear. Knowledge should spike down as the universe of knowledge has just increased for you, while your knowledge has not jumped with it. Quality will decrease slightly until you come to terms with the new gear.

On the flip side, you may research new gear thoroughly before purchase such that there is no dip in knowledge and may be no dip in quality when the new gear starts being used. I am confident that when I bought my D7000 there was no dip in quality of the photos taken with it compared to similar subjects taken with the D300. Similarly, I know I was taking better "quality" hand held photos from the get go with the 70-300mm VR than I could with the 200mm f/4.

I think the graph is good for a bit of a dig at how we perceive ourselves but little more.

ATJ wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:One problem I do see with the graph itself is the smoothness of the quality and knowledge lines. Every time you buy a new bit of kit, both of these should dip as you come to terms with the new gear. Knowledge should spike down as the universe of knowledge has just increased for you, while your knowledge has not jumped with it. Quality will decrease slightly until you come to terms with the new gear.

On the flip side, you may research new gear thoroughly before purchase such that there is no dip in knowledge and may be no dip in quality when the new gear starts being used. I am confident that when I bought my D7000 there was no dip in quality of the photos taken with it compared to similar subjects taken with the D300. Similarly, I know I was taking better "quality" hand held photos from the get go with the 70-300mm VR than I could with the 200mm f/4.

I think the graph is good for a bit of a dig at how we perceive ourselves but little more.

Why would knowledge or quality dip because you have, hypothetically, just bought a 50mm 1.4 G lens to replace the old 50 1.8 AIS? Theoretically, your quality should improve immediately.

Reschsmooth wrote:Why would knowledge or quality dip because you have, hypothetically, just bought a 50mm 1.4 G lens to replace the old 50 1.8 AIS? Theoretically, your quality should improve immediately.

I was thinking more in terms of a more complex change. e.g. a new camera, and would reflect the learning curve associated, even if you have researched thoroughly. Kinaesthetic learning cannot be done from a book. Changed layout of buttons in a camera may cause missed shots until you are fully conversant with the new layout.

But some hypotheticals even in this case: AIS is MF; 50f1.4G is AF, so there may be some missed shots early on as you rely on the AF, and perhaps miss the "correct" focus point (assumes no prior experience with AF) Hell. I still do this. But I never missed focus when I used to manually focus. I used to miss shots because I couldn't focus quickly enough, but that is another matter.
The 1.4 at f1.4 has significantly reduced DOF. Until you understand this thoroughly, you may find some shots do not have the focus exactly how you want it. I know this was an issue for me when I went from the 100f2 to the 85f1.4

Reschsmooth wrote:

ATJ wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:One problem I do see with the graph itself is the smoothness of the quality and knowledge lines. Every time you buy a new bit of kit, both of these should dip as you come to terms with the new gear. Knowledge should spike down as the universe of knowledge has just increased for you, while your knowledge has not jumped with it. Quality will decrease slightly until you come to terms with the new gear.

On the flip side, you may research new gear thoroughly before purchase such that there is no dip in knowledge and may be no dip in quality when the new gear starts being used. I am confident that when I bought my D7000 there was no dip in quality of the photos taken with it compared to similar subjects taken with the D300. Similarly, I know I was taking better "quality" hand held photos from the get go with the 70-300mm VR than I could with the 200mm f/4.

I think the graph is good for a bit of a dig at how we perceive ourselves but little more.

Why would knowledge or quality dip because you have, hypothetically, just bought a 50mm 1.4 G lens to replace the old 50 1.8 AIS? Theoretically, your quality should improve immediately.

Exactly - that is my point.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:Why would knowledge or quality dip because you have, hypothetically, just bought a 50mm 1.4 G lens to replace the old 50 1.8 AIS? Theoretically, your quality should improve immediately.

I was thinking more in terms of a more complex change. e.g. a new camera, and would reflect the learning curve associated, even if you have researched thoroughly. Kinaesthetic learning cannot be done from a book. Changed layout of buttons in a camera may cause missed shots until you are fully conversant with the new layout.

But some hypotheticals even in this case: AIS is MF; 50f1.4G is AF, so there may be some missed shots early on as you rely on the AF, and perhaps miss the "correct" focus point (assumes no prior experience with AF) Hell. I still do this. But I never missed focus when I used to manually focus. I used to miss shots because I couldn't focus quickly enough, but that is another matter.
The 1.4 at f1.4 has significantly reduced DOF. Until you understand this thoroughly, you may find some shots do not have the focus exactly how you want it. I know this was an issue for me when I went from the 100f2 to the 85f1.4

Whilst not scaled, in the context of my assumption of the scale of the timeline, I would think such a dip would be transitory followed by a more than offsetting increase. Most of the time. For most people. Who aren't me.

Its completely missing some important points;

• Joined an online photography site
• Realised my images are no way near as good as I thought
• Gear envy!
• The realisation that your skills will never meet your aspirations

It also seems to assume that potential knowledge is static and something like 100% of all photographic knowledge is achievable.

Knowledge can become obselete, especially with paradigm shifts such as the move from film to digital and if you take on a different type of photography there's a whole new paradigm of knowledge that you need to absorb. I think it's equally true that the more you learn then more you realise how much there is still to learn. Also, the technical aspects of photography are subsumed by the reality of the image and that includes any number of aesthetic and cultural aspects. To be the ultimate photographer you'd need to know everything about humans, the nature of life & the planet and the history of change. And even that wouldn't be enough. Therefore there is no ceiling, it plastically varies from the floor to the stars. In practice that makes no difference because our photographic attainments are relative to our social context rather than being absolute.

Mr Darcy wrote:Suren, if this graph is "scientific", I can certainly prove it wrong. It predicts I have no tripod, but may be just about to buy one. In reality, I have four, one of which I have owned for at least 30 years, so it fails to predict reality, so it is wrong. Back to the drawing board with you.

Just a bit of humour Greg.

surenj wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:Suren, if this graph is "scientific", I can certainly prove it wrong. It predicts I have no tripod, but may be just about to buy one. In reality, I have four, one of which I have owned for at least 30 years, so it fails to predict reality, so it is wrong. Back to the drawing board with you.

Just a bit of humour Greg.

As was my comment

Murray Foote wrote:
Knowledge can become obselete, especially with paradigm shifts such as the move from film to digital and if you take on a different type of photography there's a whole new paradigm of knowledge that you need to absorb. I think it's equally true that the more you learn then more you realise how much there is still to learn. Also, the technical aspects of photography are subsumed by the reality of the image and that includes any number of aesthetic and cultural aspects. To be the ultimate photographer you'd need to know everything about humans, the nature of life & the planet and the history of change. And even that wouldn't be enough. Therefore there is no ceiling, it plastically varies from the floor to the stars. In practice that makes no difference because our photographic attainments are relative to our social context rather than being absolute.

Thanks Greg.

Murray Foote wrote:Knowledge can become obselete, especially with paradigm shifts such as the move from film to digital and if you take on a different type of photography there's a whole new paradigm of knowledge that you need to absorb. I think it's equally true that the more you learn then more you realise how much there is still to learn. Also, the technical aspects of photography are subsumed by the reality of the image and that includes any number of aesthetic and cultural aspects. To be the ultimate photographer you'd need to know everything about humans, the nature of life & the planet and the history of change. And even that wouldn't be enough. Therefore there is no ceiling, it plastically varies from the floor to the stars. In practice that makes no difference because our photographic attainments are relative to our social context rather than being absolute.

Fair call Murray. I was just raising this self critisism issue again. You make some good points though.