Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Master manual exposure and document technical decisions
2–3 weeks (daily practice)
Produce a technical study of 20 photographs shot entirely in manual mode (M) with no automatic exposure, autofocus, or white balance assist. For each photograph, record your settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, white balance) and write a note (minimum 50 words) explaining why you chose those specific settings for that subject and lighting situation.
Proof required
Submit your 20 technical study photographs with accompanying settings record and decision notes (settings table + 50-word note per image, formatted as a PDF or table).
What gets checked
- All 20 photographs shot in manual — EXIF data should confirm no automatic modes
- Settings records are complete — not some images with notes missing
- Decision notes explain the specific exposure logic, not just state the settings
Common mistakes
- Photographs shot in semi-automatic mode and presented as manual — EXIF will reveal this
- Settings records are filled in after the fact from EXIF rather than written at the time of shooting
- Decision notes describe the settings rather than explaining why — 'I used f/2.8' without explaining the depth of field intention
Powstik Guide
Twenty manual-exposure photos with a settings table.
Steps
- Shoot fully in manual mode.
- Change one setting at a time.
- Record aperture, shutter and ISO for each.
- Write why you chose each setting.
Template
| # | Aperture | Shutter | ISO | Why | |---|----------|---------|-----|-----|
What gets sent back
- Auto or priority modes used.
- Settings missing.
- No decision notes.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Check EXIF data on several photographs to confirm manual mode — automatic modes will show up in EXIF
- Verify decision notes explain exposure logic, not just state settings — ask student to explain one exposure decision
- Ask student: what happened when you got the exposure wrong? Inability to describe a failure suggests the study was not exploratory
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Complete six controlled lighting studies across different conditions
3–4 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)
Produce six controlled photographic lighting studies: (1) natural light — overcast, (2) natural light — directional sun, (3) natural light — golden hour, (4) studio strobe or continuous light — one light, (5) studio or practical light — multiple sources, (6) low available light — high ISO and wide aperture. For each, produce three variations exploring different subject placement or camera position, and write a lighting analysis note (minimum 100 words per study).
Proof required
Submit your six lighting studies (three variations each = 18 photographs minimum) with lighting analysis notes (100 words minimum per study) as a PDF.
What gets checked
- Six distinct lighting conditions covered — not six studies in similar light
- Three variations per study are genuinely explorative — different subject placement or camera position, not just slightly different framing
- Lighting analysis explains how the light source creates shadows, highlights, and mood — not just describes settings
Common mistakes
- Studies are shot in similar light on the same day — six variations of natural light don't cover the range
- Variations within each study are too similar — the analysis cannot reveal how placement changes the light
- Lighting analysis describes the settings rather than how the light behaves on the subject
Powstik Guide
Six lighting studies, three variations each.
Steps
- Plan six different lighting setups.
- Shoot three variations of each.
- Sketch or photograph the light positions.
- Note how each change affected the image.
Template
| Study | Setup | Variation | Effect | |-------|-------|-----------|--------|
What gets sent back
- Fewer than 18 photos.
- No setup record.
- No analysis notes.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify six genuinely distinct lighting conditions — ask student to name each condition covered
- Check lighting analysis explains light behaviour, not settings — ask student to describe how shadows differ between studies 1 and 3
- Ask student: which lighting condition produced the most unexpected result? Inability to name one suggests studies were too controlled
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Present technical portfolio to photography professional for assessment
1 week
Present your technical studies to a photography tutor or professional photographer for technical assessment (minimum 20 minutes). The reviewer should challenge specific exposure, lighting, or processing decisions. Document specific technical challenges raised and produce a technical development plan (minimum 300 words) identifying three specific technical areas to develop further.
Proof required
Submit: (1) technical assessment record (date, reviewer, specific technical challenges raised — minimum half page), (2) technical development plan (minimum 300 words identifying three specific areas).
What gets checked
- Assessment record documents specific technical challenges — not general aesthetic feedback
- Technical development plan identifies three specific areas with concrete practice approaches
- Development plan is grounded in assessment feedback, not pre-existing self-assessment
Common mistakes
- Assessment focuses on aesthetics rather than technical execution
- Development plan identifies broad areas ('improve lighting') without specifying how
- Development plan was written before the assessment — not shaped by the review
Powstik Guide
A technical assessment of your studies by a photography professional.
Steps
- Book a tutor or professional photographer.
- Bring settings for every image.
- Ask them to test your technical reasoning.
- Log challenges and fixes.
Template
Critique session log Date: Duration: Reviewers (name, role, external? Y/N): Challenge 1 (a technical choice): What they asked: My answer: What I'll change: Challenge 2: What they asked: My answer: What I'll change: Challenge 3: What they asked: My answer: What I'll change:
What gets sent back
- Reviewers without names and professional roles.
- Praise only, with no challenges recorded.
- No settings shown for the images.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify assessment challenged specific technical decisions — ask student to name one specific technical issue raised
- Check development plan identifies three specific areas with concrete practice approaches
- Ask student: what is the single most important technical skill to develop before your next shoot, and why? If they can't answer specifically, the development plan is not grounded in honest self-assessment
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.