How Smart Do You Need To Be In Order to Take Great Pictures

[@TomReichner]

Great discussion! I know several bird photographers who are like the guy you described, obsessed with settings and technical quality, and clueless when it comes to how to create mood and feeling in their images. However, intelligence and knowledge has a big place in wildlife photography. We should strive to be intelligent about the animals that we photograph. The guy you described in the beginning, with all the technical knowledge about circles of confusion and sensor technology ..... can you imagine if he knew that much about the mammals and birds that he photographed? When we love the wildlife so much that we can't help but to want to study it and know as much as possible about its lifecycle, I think that passion comes through in the images that we take.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Maybe a follow up to include more around being more “smart” about wildlife !

[@waltaptacy9151]

Thank you, Scott. Your message is SPOT ON. I am a photo hobbyist and I shoot mainly flowers, some sports and Family candids. I don’t know everything about my camera but I know enough about it to know what I need to know when I need to know it; no last minute fumbling. My mission is to capture that “ moment in time “ so that hopefully it will become a “ moment of grace “. Thank you again for emphasizing that topic. From a 72 year old Grandpa who has been shooting since I was 12. Walt

[@ronaldbuitendijkfotografie]

Great video! And as a chronic overthinker I agree. When I was researching for a new camera I went down the technical rabbithole. I read the all the lab reviews etc and learned absolutely nothing of how that camera performs in the field... Field reviews are the best. Knowledge and experience with light, weather and the animals itself is soooooo much better.

[@AndyAstbury]

Gear is just a set of tools that allows us to take the creative pictures we want. But, you have to be smart in order to understand what you need to do with these tools, in order to achieve your goals and nail the exposure and detail you want. After all, a good trades person knows how all their tools work, and which one is best for the job. As someone who's lived of his photography for well over 40 years Scott, I can honestly say that the more 'creative' your vision, the harder it is to pull off, and the more technical understanding of your gear you need. Why? Because, amongst many things, your camera does not see a scene in the same way that you do. I moved from a D4/D4S and D850 to a Z9 back in March. We are now in October and I'm still finding liitle technical tweeks here and there on the camera that make the Z9 perform better in one scenario or another. Creativity, vision and compositional flare are still the most important items on the agenda - otherwise your shots just look like everyone elses. But that has to be backed up by a huge technical understanding in order to make your gear record what's in front of it, in the manner your creativity envisaged. Knowing your gear inside out and back to front will ALWAYS pay dividends for creative folk, no matter what media they work in. But I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, and over here in the UK we call those smart arses 'camera club bores' - and every camera club has at least one. But they soon shut up when I'm giving 'em a talk! Props Scott!

[@Kellysher]

I’m not an engineer or scientist. I know enough about the process at a high level. I don’t need charts or to understand the circles of confusion! LOL. I’m still learning some of the functions on my R5 for different genres after 3 years. I also know when culling images which one is “the one”. I’m looking for something that evokes an emotion, includes some environment, or shows a behavior. Some of my favorite shots are not technically perfect. But not one person who’s viewed them says a word about that. Anyone can take a photo. I’m trying to evoke a feeling, capture a moment, take home a fleeting memory. I heard a speaker recently that said we should seek out experiences of awe. Every time I’m out shooting, I’m striving to convey the awe that I feel just being in Nature. You can’t get that from a chart!

[@PaulGibbings01]

A good understanding of the principals of photography, and how your camera works is necessary to achieve consistently good results. I would say that doesn't require great intellect. Passion and a good knowledge of your subject is far more important, and an artistic eye certainly helps. I wouldn't claim to be particularly smart or a great photographer, however I do have a market stall where I sell my work one day a week, and the comments I get tend to be that an image is beautiful or provokes a feeling, not that it's technically excellent. At the end of the day, the most important thing is you get pleasure from your photography, although obviously if your doing it for commercial purposes, it helps if others like it too 😊

[@jacobbegis4883]

Hi Scott, Firstly, I always enjoy a good rant! I am employed as an Optical Engineer, working at an Infrared camera company. Plus I went to school for it. So I definitely fit your profile lol. Overall I agree with you, and have a couple of points to make. 1) Many 'camera nerds' (including those who point out flaws in beginner exposure videos) do not really understand what they are talking about. 2) I agree that understanding light and field craft is more important then getting slightly sharper images. I had a professor who would ask "How good does an optical system need to be ?" And the answer was "Good enough". The image only needs to be sharp enough, and it doesn't matter how sharp it is, if the image sucks. 3) I wonder if some of the people you were referring to grew up with very low quality gear (compared to today's gear), and are simply set in their ways.

[@stuartdavis798]

You are absolutely correct. I am one of those who has a pretty good working knowledge of the science involved but when I go out to take photos that gets put away. The refractive index of each piece of glass in the lens and other such things are not important. The photographer has to be an artist at least as much as a scientist. Putting in the 10,000 hours (see 10,000 hour rule) to develop skill is much more important.

[@dhscaresme]

This is probably covered in the comments already, but I’ll say it anyway: As a new wildlife photographer what I have found to be the real valuable knowledge is understanding the animals and the environment I’m in (yes the technicalities of the camera is important too, but that comes anyway…). If I understand behavior then I know I’m really seeing my environment and I can better my chances of realizing a creative idea! Also, being an expert on luck is good too… :)

[@mynaturelens]

I agree with you. You should have an understanding of the exposure triangle, know the camera/lens to quickly adjust the settings, familiar with the subject behavior, and have the ability to work with existing lighting conditions. For me photography is an art.

[@roberthana8800]

I’m a newbie I know the basics but I’m obsessed about learning my subjects. Warblers are the best and I spend hours reading on them. I like soft light for Warblers.

[@ScottRitchie-bw9ls]

Thank you for another interesting dive into the intellectual aspects of wildlife photography. I think you're spot on, although I do think you need to know enough about your gear that you can feel comfortable, capturing an image, and changing settings without having to resort to a manual so to speak. I'm part of a birding community here in north Queensland. And I note that probably 10% have a compelling artistic image of a bird. The others might have a nice sharp in focus properly exposed photo but there's no sense of composition or of capturing unique aspects of light. It is often a bird on the stick in the middle of the image. No sense of space. I think that the artistic aspect is a rare skill indeed a talent or a gift that is often overlooked. Good on you for looking at it.

[@adammutolo5800]

Gear videos will always be popular and even some teaching ones too, but I love your quick thoughts videos! Always what a lot of us think about, so love that you come out and say it, and respectfully. King of chill rants! 😂

[@WildlifeInspired]

chill rants i love this

[@jacqueslech2443]

For me, photography simply boils down to a person’s artistic talent. You just need to know the basics, and then it’s all about experimentation. But you need an eye, a talent for composition, and a sensitivity to what surrounds us. The rest isn’t really important, based on my experience with this medium that is photography.

[@jonraddon5379]

Aside from the things you mentioned, when it comes to intricate technology, the numbers are not always accurate. You could have 1000 lenses produced and all have slight variations, camera sensors are the same, in some cases it won't make any noticeable difference, but in others , it will. So knowing the tech and specs is all well and good and probably recommended, I feel it's best to use them as an idea of what will happen, or what results etc. This is especially true in glass and optics of any kind, In astrophotography it's often talked about "my copy of that scope" because many people have different results. So really, how can you get hung up on the numbers when the numbers may have variables? My opinion, use tech knowledge on the back burner so to speak.

[@thescouser8629]

Hi Scott. Art is the critical element to a great shot. Technical aspects only become an important if they cause detractions rather than add to the image. Came to this conclusion when I compared the film photography of Hannu Hautala in Finland to the digital shots of some young photographers. His images had emotional connection with some technical effects: thet had “perfect” technical images that were sterile. I know which I preferred.

[@imagesbyrina]

Smarter is subjective. Knowing more technical data or having more real world experience? I’m a much “smarter” photographer, year over year, based on all of the shooting I do. But I also gained a lot of knowledge from a technical perspective. Both have gone hand in hand in improving my photos and videos. And all that to say, people can still hate my work. Art isn’t universally liked. There are a lot of styles of photography that are very popular (well liked) and I absolutely dread those styles. Because being “technical” isn’t always about “best settings” it’s about knowing how to use your gear to optimize what/how you want to shoot. And how you want to shoot could vary in difficulty/knowledge. So you gotta get “smarter”.

[@naoufaltakroumt6373]

Know technical details to use them as tools to achieve artistic goals rather than knowing technical details and try so hard to apply them to perfection, oh wait, maybe the fact of trying them to perfection is a good way to know their pros and cons and master their applications for a better futur results

[@paulvalerio3887]

Very Insightful Scott!!

[@CelebratingOutdoors]

Being smart in technical aspects of photography doesn't make a photographer worse off for having that knowledge. Thinking so may be a self limiting perspective on reading others. Everyone is unique. That said, it's perhaps all too common that people cubbyhole everything, as that's the way most folks are wired. Myself included. Being exceptionally knowledgeable about cameras isn't in itself a detractor from artful interpretation. I think the bottom line on this might be seen best from an artists take? ... One amazing artist says it as, "It's In The Way That You Use It"; Eric Clapton

[@KevinF235]

I am dumb AF, but I have some really good wildlife pics. I am very conscious of the triangle and study my settings after reviewing the pictures on the big screen do I cans do better next time. I do know I would rather take a great picture than a technically perfect picture. I like when Tony and Chelsea Northup have their podcast together. Tony knows the technical details. Chelsea has a lot more fun photography and is more practical. They rarely agree on any topic and usually neither are wrong. Both respect the other person’s opinion, so they both can talk honestly and openly without hurting each other.

[@Capcity44]

I enjoyed this video. I agree with everything you said. My big takeaway is getting out of my own way. Secondly, filter the advice/critique you take in.

[@klaustomasini]

In my opinion burn it technical down to the funtamental basics and learn how to see, find composition and learn to transport emotions. And most important input is learn what light is or can do. Some people are more talented then other once by catching emotions and thats the difference and thats normal. You can shoot technical perfect images but without soul or you can shoot technical imperfect images with deep emotions. Its what you are talented in and what you can reach with your talent. As everywhere in life not everybody can become world champion. Its the mix of talent and patience …

[@uaebifvideo5472]

Thank you for the information, Scott!!.

[@itaylorm]

For me it comes down to the following. You can boil the ocean down to the tiniest detail or you can sail/swim/admire it

[@WildlifeInspired]

deep thoughts

[@kerrygrim7934]

Another thought…Art Wolfe, a truly outstanding wildlife, nature, and more, was trained as an artist, not a photographer.

[@rubenmontero4813]

Agree 100%

[@ImagesWithPassion]

the comparison with the electrical engineer - i take it personal ;-)

[@VinceMaidens]

You can teach proficiency, you can train skill even, you cannot train for eye. I think it's an art, the technical aspects are just tools to create the art. As you said, basics are needed after that if your eye is crap you will make crap no matter how much you know about the process. Oh yeah. Charlotte and I...both pHD hehe

[@WildlifeInspired]

a pHD in sarcasm doesnt count

[@kerrygrim7934]

I love this subject. Good technique is important, but the artist side is far more important and challenging and rewarding. My rant, and I am thinking a few top professional photographers that spend many hours processing their photos to the point of no longer looking realistic. Their images are artistically outstanding, but they over process, to the point of not being realistic even though they are stunning images. I guess that is a lot of personal preferences.Perhaps Adobe is sponsoring them; don’t know. Keep up your very honest thoughts.

[@KurtisPape]

I agree about the processing. I feel some photographers 'edit their way to creativity' they take a bland shot and add sun rays, warm colours, huge vignettes etc. The shot should use natural light to get the nice colours and then you can use editing to enhance that, a good example is a rainbow, they always show up dull in photos and they should to be enhanced in editing, at least it was there in the raw file. I got in big trouble once before for talking about this topic because people are allowed to edit however they want. I'm just saying I don't like the over processed images, I'm not telling people to stop doing it though

[@messiedoggie123]

We need a camo ducks are assholes hat

[@davidligon6088]

Oh my! You are talking directly to me!! I can have a great composition, great background, and good light, but if I don’t have the portion of the image I want to be sharp, super sharp with low noise, at 1005 or 200%, it gets rejected from my li Oh my! You are talking directly to me!! I can have a great composition, great background, and good light, but if I don’t have the portion of the image I want to be sharp, super sharp with low noise, at 1005 or 200%, it gets rejected from my list. In landscape, that is usually the entire image from corner to corner, in wildlife that is usually the subject, especially the subject’s eye. If it does not pass the technical test, it can’t be a good image for me - therefore I spend a lot of time learning/testing the sharpest aperture of each lens, the noise limits of my sensors, the optical and camera motion compensation characteristics of my camera, the camera settings for fast capture, on and on it goes…. I have a background and degrees in engineering and art/architecture which, I think, make me more “anal” than most and, likely because of my background, I think photography is both an art and a science. I do think you can become a great photographer with limited knowledge of how cameras works, especially if you know the subject better than most, but I think there are limits. For instance - I think you could be a great photographer of architecture if you know architectural design and architectural history well, and have a reasonable knowledge of camera capabilities and composition. Your images would likely be meaningful, significant, possibly even great for that audience. That does not mean you would be a great wildlife photographer. In summary, this video hits home for me - I do need to focus more on locations, subjects, behavior, and light. Thank you!

[@WildlifeInspired]

Thanks for the input. I know people that have said the same "i cant get out of my head"

[@uaebifvideo5472]

On the other hand , there is that rich photographer who goes out to buy the latest gear, but won't give himself the time to understand the basics .

[@michiganmale]

I still say you can’t “teach” composition You have an eye for it Or you don’t 🤷‍♂️

[@alansach8437]

Technical knowledge doesn't make you a better photographer. Not sure it makes you worse either. It is what it is. But I certainly don't have to know how an internal combustion engine works to be a good driver. I knew a gal who simply put her camera on "P" for "perfect", and knew nothing else about photography, who got incredibly good images which she had in several galleries.

[@colinremmer2417]

So you are saying that you have to be a dumb!!s to be a great photographer? Only joking Scott. Sometimes people can certainly overthink things & they end up searching for perfection in everything they do with photography & they forget that it's more important to just enjoy it - after all, that's why they started it

[@adammutolo5800]

Yeah… The Angry Photographer, on KZbin. Classic example.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Ya that guy lol

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

😂

[@KenDanagger]

I started following photography forums soon after the Nikon Z9 was launched. I noticed right away that many of the early adopters were excited about the technology, but the photos they posted to forums were nothing more than snapshots one could take with any point and shoot camera. I soon realized there is a large population of equipment nerds in the hobby. They love the gear. They love the science. And they get a thrill showing off expensive gear that most people can't afford. However, their photos don't connect with viewers because they don't understand the art side of photography, and they never will, because that's not what the gear people find interesting. At their core, they are really technologists, not photographers. In the end, I believe photography is about communicating to the world what you see, feel and experience at a specific moment in time. The technology is simply a tool that allows you to communicate more effectively, efficiently, or creatively. Different brushes allow painters to impart different tones and textures onto the canvass. In a similar way, different camera bodies, lenses, and editing software allow us to do the same thing using light photons instead of paint. Bottom line, it's about the art, not the gear.

[@WildlifeInspired]

Well said.

[@rickfinnstrom6376]

you can have a million dollar camera and take crappy photos. To much book sense, not of enough Horse sense