Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Would a photography class help?


Skade

Recommended Posts

The photography class at my school would fulfill one of the general education requirements, so I was thinking maybe I should take it next year. Do you think it would help with AP? Or is astrophotography much different from the "Earthly" kind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends a bit on your background going in. The fundamentals of recording images are the same, but I think AP pretty quickly diverges into its own area. The technical side of pixels, RGB color, bit depth, file formats (somewhat), and so on will apply to both, but I suspect a lot of what would be covered in a general photography class will not apply much. Things like composition, depth of field control, flash and fill flash use, ISO settings and daylight exposure settings, shutter speed (for effects other than pure exposure), etc. have limited application in AP.

That's not to say it wouldn't be interesting in any case though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much taught myself "normal" photography through reading and practicing.  I got to be pretty good and definitely learned a lot.  Unfortunately, when I recently began my journey into astrophotography, I had to throw a lot of that stuff out.  Processing is a lot more important in AP and its pretty much required in a lot of cases.  As chd said above, learning the technical skills is always a plus though.

Besides, Photography of any kind is a lot more fun than the choices I had in school!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photography class at my school would fulfill one of the general education requirements, so I was thinking maybe I should take it next year. Do you think it would help with AP? Or is astrophotography much different from the "Earthly" kind?

Hi,

As an ex photographer I can tell you that the two have nothing in common besides using either a lens or a camera of some sort to  record. In normal photography a competent photographer has a degree of control over the subject matter and can use his skills to compensate for a less than optimal imaging session, in AP we are more or less at the mercy of the nature and the universe, very little there is that we can do about a faint nebula obscured by  LP or the clouds or a sky washed out in full Moon. The image aquisition is almost totally computerised and automated, very boring indeed, the fun begins at the processing stage and this too has little in common with normal processing of photographic files. Knowledge of PS will however help to some extent.

A.G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be useful. The basics are the basics. F ratio, over and under exposure, the management of dynamic range... If the course included time in Photoshop then that, too, would be useful. It's true that AP is very specialized but the better your grasp, well, the better your grasp! WHen I teach AP to well trained daytime photographers they catch on in seconds. Tey also ask me challenging questions which make me think and learn.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually very little overlap between the two. And annoyingly some of the stuff that terrestrial photographers rely on is plain wrong (try convincing one that ISO does not change the sensitivity of a camera to light).

NigelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually very little overlap between the two. And annoyingly some of the stuff that terrestrial photographers rely on is plain wrong (try convincing one that ISO does not change the sensitivity of a camera to light).

NigelM

You're right.  They are pretty hard to convince.   :grin:   As a "terrestrial photographer" myself, all I know about ISO is that my camera produces Rubbish at 800.  800 Is only used when I HAVE to, and 1600 . . . forget about it. 

Of course, all that flies out the door when you start talking about 5 minute exposures and stacks of hundreds of images and darks and flats.  All things that are nearly impossible for "terrestrial" images.  Even what's considered "good" equipment changes between the two fields . . . I mean, look at how many people take fantastic photos using nothing more than a cheap webcam!  Imagine taking family portrait with THAT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually very little overlap between the two. And annoyingly some of the stuff that terrestrial photographers rely on is plain wrong (try convincing one that ISO does not change the sensitivity of a camera to light).

NigelM

Hi Nigel,

You are correct in stating that some of the accepted jargon used in daytime photography are incorrect. This  is not necessarilly the fault of the modern day photographer as the marketing people wanted some degree of continuity  and familiarity as the rush to introduce digital gathered pace about 20 or so years ago. The iso or the asa of a film emulsion did and still does mean that the 400 was a stop faster than a 200 emulsion. I guess ignorance is really no defence but you must afford them some lattitude.

Regards,

A.G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.