Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fike on February 09, 2009, 05:08:16 pm
-
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
P.S. Sorry about the forum posting location. I couldn't really see where it would fit, so I stuck it here.
-
I frequently work with a colleague who was a U.S. Navy photojournalist for something like fifteen years and is now a full-time free-lancer. He has a degree in photography from an accredited university and has also taught photography at the college level. He would tell his college students that if they shot a great photograph, but don't know exactly why it turned out the way it did or they couldn't repeat their success under the same conditions, then they weren't great photographers, they were lucky photographers. You can jokingly say "I'd rather be lucky than good", but skill trumps luck most of the time. We all benefit some from good fortune, for example being in the right place at the right time. That being said, I think mastery of one's craft is essential to long-term success.
-
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
P.S. Sorry about the forum posting location. I couldn't really see where it would fit, so I stuck it here.
This may not be an original answer, but Ansel Adams was a master technician. On the other hand, I've worked for very successful photographers who, while they do have a basic command of technique/technology, weren't as knowledgeable as many on these forums.
I guess you could kind of look at it like Kurt Cobain vs. Steve Vai. Who's work do you like better? Personally, I see the value in both.
-
On a purely materialistic point of view, teaching the fundamentals of the technology behind the photograph can only aid to increase the 'success' rate.
I'm a tech head on the side of photography (seems to be a pretty common thing these days) and enjoy the technology aspect of the camera's... but honestly, I only need the basics to make a nice photograph... While I know how a bayer filter works, and can calculate transfer rates on camera's for comparison, it won't help me take a good photograph in the end.
The brian is a wonderful tool as well... you can just ignore what you don't want to know anyway. ^_~
-
I'll give you my own experience and you can take it for what it's worth. While in high school, I had been told I had a great flair for architecture and design and I really would have liked to go in that direction in life. But I lacked the desire/disipline to really get down to studying the topics I should have when I had the time and youth to do so. The same could be applied to your friend. She may be talented but in my opinion she's been lucky. She needs to know the technology to the extent that it becomes like breathing and will allow her talent to get stronger, if that's what she wants. For the past few years we've been witness to an evolution in imagaging. More so in the past 10-15 years compared to the previous 50 or 75 years. And technology has been driving this change at an extreamly rapid pace. Having an understanding or a grasp on this technology would only help IMHO of the advances that will drive the photography of the future. And let's face facts. No one is going to live in the past. I would ask your friend what direction she wants to pursue photography. If she wants to make a living off of it, she'll need the technolgy to survive. If she is happy with the results of a PHD camera and is happy with the WalMart/Costco/drug store kiosk prints then she may never have the desire to learn why print turned out bad or good or if the problem was something she could have changed(camera settings to post proccessing). Then again, she's a teenager and this just might be a fad for her.
-
It's an interesting question. I've been a musician all my life. Early on in the process of learning the language of music, I studied a lot of music theory. When I went to apply the "rules", both in composition and in playing with other musicians, I found the results to be tight, uninspired, and frankly, boring. When I made the conscious decision to tuck the formal stuff away and instead write and play what I felt, things got a lot more interesting. It was still nice to call upon the technical knowledge when needed but for the most part, I went with my gut.
I think that being a musician and a photographer are similar in many respects. It's certainly good to have a good understanding of the nuts and bolts but in the end, you've got to let the creative juices flow. If you can combine technical prowess with an artistic vision, all the better but I've learned not to let the technical stuff get in the way of what I'm trying to do creatively.
Clear as mud, right?
-
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
P.S. Sorry about the forum posting location. I couldn't really see where it would fit, so I stuck it here.
All available evidence suggests that the answer is "yes".
I've attended a number of photo workshops over the years, and often the most interesting part of the course was the opportunity to review the work of the other attendees. More often than not, the most creative and breath-taking images were taken by retired school-teachers using battered, used, entry-level cameras, shooting JPEG's on program exposure. They had no idea about Raw files or endless polishing of the image in Photoshop, but simply had a fabulous artistic eye. On the other hand, I saw lots of folks with truckloads of high-end gear, only the best glass, able to argue endlessly about the merits and mechanics of various noise-reduction algorithms and multi-pass sharpening methods—yet their actual photographs were dull as dishwater.
There are plenty of brilliant photographer/artists who only know the bare essentials of gear and workflow, yet turn out gorgeous work. And lots of gearheads who produce thoroughly mediocre photos. I'm pretty good with the tech side of things, but learned many years ago to listen to my wife about what caught her eye, because she simply sees better than I do. She can't tell which end of the camera she should point at the subject, but she has a great eye.
-
I see a lot of photos on-line that are post processed to the very edges of reality and at first glance look good, but most of them don't stand-up well to a closer look for the original image being an average photo.
It should be called nerdography and not confused with photography..
Digital has made it very easy to take a photograph, but no easier to take a good one IMHO.
-
I've been a musician all my life. Early on in the process of learning the language of music, I studied a lot of music theory. When I went to apply the "rules", both in composition and in playing with other musicians, I found the results to be tight, uninspired, and frankly, boring. When I made the conscious decision to tuck the formal stuff away and instead write and play what I felt, things got a lot more interesting. It was still nice to call upon the technical knowledge when needed but for the most part, I went with my gut.
Ahhh... but you are talking about one set of "rules": the rules of musical composition. Which would equate nicely to studying photographic composition. But what about the technical knowledge required on how to blow/suck/press the valves/fingering/foot work, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge on how to actually get a tune out of the instrument(s)? Without that knowledge, I think a musician would be hard pressed to make anything of their craft.
-
Ahhh... but you are talking about one set of "rules": the rules of musical composition. Which would equate nicely to studying photographic composition. But what about the technical knowledge required on how to blow/suck/press the valves/fingering/foot work, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge on how to actually get a tune out of the instrument(s)? Without that knowledge, I think a musician would be hard pressed to make anything of their craft.
What about a singer. They may intuitively understand the rules of harmony although they are unable to recite them.
Musicians are an interesting analogy. I think that I am beginning to fall somewhere along the lines that you can achieve great things without the technical mastery, but it will perhaps be inconsistent and spotty. As you get into more and more arcane issues, I think we are likely to get diminishing returns from technical knowledge. It may be sufficient for me to understand that with my 24-70 lens I get the best results at somewhere around f/8. I don't need to understand that beyond that point diffraction sets in and my increase in depth of field is offset by decrease in acuity.
so, the more knowledge, the better.
I frequently am reminded of one of the early high-speed photography pioneers, Dr. Harold Edgerton. He didn't consider himself an artist in any way. He was an engineer. I think his work is very artistic. What did Buddha say..."There are many paths to enlightenment."
-
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
...
Suppose your teenage friend gained enough fame that someone approached her to make an offer: "I need a photo of (description) that includes (stuff, perhaps people) and portrays (an emotion, impulse, etc). I've sketched out my concept. It will be used in (output format). I will pay you dearly for your efforts." Could she do this? Would she want to?
-
There are plenty of brilliant photographer/artists who only know the bare essentials of gear and workflow, yet turn out gorgeous work. And lots of gearheads who produce thoroughly mediocre photos.
Of course I'm sure you agree that the opposite is equally as true. There are photographers with a great eye but are challenged capturing what they see because they are limited in the knowledge of their craft ... which means they cannot share their vision. There are also plenty of "gearheads" producing some stunning work. Most photographers are somewhere in between these extremes.
No amount of technical skill can make up for lack of artistic ability. However, to completely ignore the technical side of the craft is short sighted and limiting. That teenager referred to by the original poster will most likely find gaining a basic understanding of the craft will actually allow them to more fully capture and express the wonderful gift they have.
-
This is a common topic of conversation with my students. I think an artist -- in any field -- needs to completely understand the technical side of his or her art. Great artists make it look effortless, but that hides many, many years of practice.
Photography occupies an odd niche, since it's possible to make photographs without learning any technical stuff first. One just "pushes the button." This is different than playing the guitar, or painting a portrait, or singing an aria, or welding a metal sculpture. In all cases, though, the artist *uses* the technical skills to perform or create their art.
The problem, of course, is that for some people, the technical issues become the only issue. This isn't limited to photography, but it seems to be magnified especially with the advent of digital imaging and the "actual pixels" view in Photoshop.
So, I think your friend needs to learn a lot about photography in order to be a great photographer/artist.
-
Slightly off title really
Photo tech luddites, does not mean strong command of the "technical" aspects of photography.
The technical side is needed, no question to a point...it won't make a great photographer though
-
I think Michael said it best a while back when answering a question about being on a workshop and the commenter mentioning how quickly Michael was going from a moving car, to setting up his gear and taking a great shot.
To paraphrase Michael - 'The key is that I actually took the picture from the car, the rest was just mechanics' - great comment, and some wonderful insight in the technology getting out of the way to let the artist execute his vision. That comment has really struck me and I think that is a wonderful goal (at least for me) in improving my photography.
Steve
-
Sorry to come in here a little late, but I just got back from being out of town for a couple of weeks...
Back before I figured out the technical aspects of my camera and just used auto-everything, I would come back from a trip with about six photos good enough to hang on my wall. After figuring out the technical aspects, I now come back with about *sixty* good photos. I no longer throw out most of them because of blurriness, bad lighting, bad exposure, etc. Just how many good photos does your friend want to take? Is she happy with just a few for all the time she's spending photographing? If not (and I can't imagine she is), I strongly recommend she learns at least some reasonable minimum of the technical aspects.
Lisa
-
I believe that a Nikon D700 with a 50 mm f1.4 at f2.0, with Auto ISO set to a min shutter speed set of 1/60 sec, max ISO at 3200, zone AF, -0.7 exposure compensation, D lighting set to high and A mode is by far the best point and shoot cameras ever produced.
Never in history has it been as easy for non tech savy people with a good eye to get great color results without thinking too much about technique.
Do you think I would have taken that without all these automations?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3269638262_7a7c85935e_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Nowdays the cameras are quite good at the technology, so if a person just has they eye for the subject and composition that person should be able to make really good pictures without much knowledge of technology. On the other hand knowledge is always helpful, at least as long it doesn't replace skill, exploration and actual picture taking.
I also know a young lady, she is highly technical (has an engineering degree in microelectronics), but not at all technical in her picture taking. She has a wonderful eye for pictures, on the other hand, she was also doing some serious painting.
Best regards
Erik
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
P.S. Sorry about the forum posting location. I couldn't really see where it would fit, so I stuck it here.
-
Lots of interesting responses here. It is helping me to clarify the technical areas that I think beginners should focus.
The technical fundamentals of photography remain important. Exposure (aperture, shutter, ISO), lighting, depth of field, focus, etc... are technical issues that need to be mastered in order to have any consistency at all. These are important for all to master. I would also add into this mastery of operating your camera efficiently is another aspect of this area.
On the other hand, today we get hung-up on some pretty arcane technical stuff dealing with SNR, pixel pitch, color depth, noise-reduction, etc... This stuff falls into a second tier of technical information that I think is less critical. If you buy a decent camera, much of this stuff can be considered superfluous for most photographers--even some professionals.
As much as I may be interested in understanding the second tier of photo technology, I think I should avoid pushing beginners into these areas. They should focus on the fundamentals of photography--those areas that haven't changed in decades.
-
The brian is a wonderful tool as well... you can just ignore what you don't want to know anyway. ^_~
"The brian"...
haha
-
Seriously though, I think that both (technique and talent/vision) are important. I ran into this issue teaching college level courses. I would often have art students as well as engineering students in the intro classes. My observation was that the art students could easily learn the technique of photography, while most engineering students struggled to keep artistic concerns in mind when making images. I'm not saying this was always the case, but it often was.
The trick was to get the engineering students to start making images that incorporated the principles of engineering they found fascinating. This was always more difficult with the engineers than the artists. They simply weren't accustomed to thinking about things this way. I'd encourage them to make images about what they found beautiful in the concepts of their discipline and they would make images of rulers, protractors, wrenches, etc. - where these things are the results of being concerned with the principles of engineering and not the expression of the principles themselves.
Typically, the best photography was almost always about something non-photographic - something completely unrelated to concerns about technique, craft, or beauty. Deficiencies in technique and craft could distract from an otherwise great image, but the presence of excellent technique and craft by itself rarely produced a great image. So I would say that technique and craft may be necessary but are never sufficient, while vision and talent are always necessary and (may be) sufficient...
In the end though, I found that everyone could improve with effort, and that the most improvement occurred when the students would stop being concerned with having answers and started being concerned with asking questions.
-
Lots of interesting responses here. It is helping me to clarify the technical areas that I think beginners should focus.
The technical fundamentals of photography remain important. Exposure (aperture, shutter, ISO), lighting, depth of field, focus, etc... are technical issues that need to be mastered in order to have any consistency at all. These are important for all to master. I would also add into this mastery of operating your camera efficiently is another aspect of this area.
On the other hand, today we get hung-up on some pretty arcane technical stuff dealing with SNR, pixel pitch, color depth, noise-reduction, etc... This stuff falls into a second tier of technical information that I think is less critical. If you buy a decent camera, much of this stuff can be considered superfluous for most photographers--even some professionals.
As much as I may be interested in understanding the second tier of photo technology, I think I should avoid pushing beginners into these areas. They should focus on the fundamentals of photography--those areas that haven't changed in decades.
Bingo - you've got it exactly (at least according to my own experience). I couldn't agree more with everything you say here.
Lisa
-
On the other hand, today we get hung-up on some pretty arcane technical stuff dealing with SNR, pixel pitch, color depth, noise-reduction, etc...
I think it is second nature for a lot of enthusiasts to get caught up in this kind of detail. Arcane technical stuff is important, but is no longer of any immediate import after you've bought your camera, have it mounted on your tripod and are standing before the scene you're about to photograph. At this point the technical mastery I referenced in my first post, which is the ability to use your camera to achieve your vision, to enforce your will upon your equipment, comes to the forefront. Mastery of your craft doesn't mean that you've memorized the specs for your gear. It means you have command of your equipment. It is not a replacement for artistic vision, rather it is a means of achieving your artistic vision.
Come to think of it, this topic may be a slightly different twist on the theme; which is more important, the camera or the photographer? I still maintain that technical knowledge or the top of the line gear is no replacement for artistic vision. It is a means to an end and vision and mastery are co-dependent.
-
Lots of interesting responses here. It is helping me to clarify the technical areas that I think beginners should focus.
The technical fundamentals of photography remain important. Exposure (aperture, shutter, ISO), lighting, depth of field, focus, etc... are technical issues that need to be mastered in order to have any consistency at all. These are important for all to master. I would also add into this mastery of operating your camera efficiently is another aspect of this area.
On the other hand, today we get hung-up on some pretty arcane technical stuff dealing with SNR, pixel pitch, color depth, noise-reduction, etc... This stuff falls into a second tier of technical information that I think is less critical. If you buy a decent camera, much of this stuff can be considered superfluous for most photographers--even some professionals.
As much as I may be interested in understanding the second tier of photo technology, I think I should avoid pushing beginners into these areas. They should focus on the fundamentals of photography--those areas that haven't changed in decades.
I would agree to a point. I think the technical issues that need to be included would be at least a working knowledge of the "darkroom" side of photography. Today that would be post processing with an image editor and an understanding of what needs to be done outside the camera. I've run into a lot of people that have gone out and bought a digital SLR and come away disapointed that the color was off or wasn't sharp and didn't know that there were ways to correct it. Back in the days of darkrooms, I at least knew my way around film reels and print trays. I knew when I sent stuff to a lab that when it came back if it was good of if something happened and who was at fault. I've also run into people that don't understand bit depth/resolution or color management and yet they print their own work and since they have not seen a decently printed image, they don't know what is good or not. A recent example was a recent visit to a camera club and the person that was judging brought examples of his work. They were 11x14 prints and from the back of the room the quality looked fair at best, but he was extolling the virtures that his 3-4mp camera was all he needed and that Jpeg was fine and that it only took him 3 or 4 tries to get each print. He claimed that there was no such thing as wysiwyg, that it was just a myth. When these prints were passed around, they were pixelated, not sharp and the color was somewhat off. His "eye" was good(subject/composition, etc.), but he didn't have any working knowledge of why his results looked like crap. I didn't want to hurt the guy's feelings or embarrass him, so I said nothing, but my point is that there is some of the technology that is needed in todays photography.
-
I believe that a Nikon D700 with a 50 mm f1.4 at f2.0, with Auto ISO set to a min shutter speed set of 1/60 sec, max ISO at 3200, zone AF, -0.7 exposure compensation, D lighting set to high and A mode is by far the best point and shoot cameras ever produced.
Never in history has it been as easy for non tech savy people with a good eye to get great color results without thinking too much about technique.
Hey Bernard, you had me laughing in the first sentence, but then the second sentence makes me think you're not making a joke? Anyway, I do agree to a point with the second sentence, but I think the bare minimum at the capture stage is understanding shutter speeds and f-stops.
Then, as somebody else already pointed out, the digital darkroom is going to be necessary, unless a photographer is happy with a low hit rate.
-
I would agree to a point. I think the technical issues that need to be included would be at least a working knowledge of the "darkroom" side of photography. Today that would be post processing with an image editor and an understanding of what needs to be done outside the camera. I've run into a lot of people that have gone out and bought a digital SLR and come away disapointed that the color was off or wasn't sharp and didn't know that there were ways to correct it. Back in the days of darkrooms, I at least knew my way around film reels and print trays. I knew when I sent stuff to a lab that when it came back if it was good of if something happened and who was at fault. I've also run into people that don't understand bit depth/resolution or color management and yet they print their own work and since they have not seen a decently printed image, they don't know what is good or not. A recent example was a recent visit to a camera club and the person that was judging brought examples of his work. They were 11x14 prints and from the back of the room the quality looked fair at best, but he was extolling the virtures that his 3-4mp camera was all he needed and that Jpeg was fine and that it only took him 3 or 4 tries to get each print. He claimed that there was no such thing as wysiwyg, that it was just a myth. When these prints were passed around, they were pixelated, not sharp and the color was somewhat off. His "eye" was good(subject/composition, etc.), but he didn't have any working knowledge of why his results looked like crap. I didn't want to hurt the guy's feelings or embarrass him, so I said nothing, but my point is that there is some of the technology that is needed in todays photography.
I think you are probably right, but what is the bare minimum of post processing knowledge that is essential to basically competent output. If your intention is only to publish online, the threshold is VERY low. If you intend to print the requirements get higher, and if you intend to print large, the requirements get quite high.
Brainstorming some essential post-processing topics:
Basic color management (Adobe Gamma level)
Basic exposure in post processing, using curves, levels, contrast, RAW, whatever
cropping and sizing
basic output sharpening
printing using profiles
I run into a lot of people these days who don't ever intend to print their images. They will post online or in a digital frame. These are the folks who are concerned with jpg output of the excellent modern DSLRs we have these days. I often find it odd that people buy expensive DSLRs and use them for jpg, but I guess in this context, it makes some sense.
-
Of course there is a balance. I've come from a background of definitely spending too much time on the technical side, going out and trying to shoot things just because they were technically hard to shoot. Having more recently spent more time understanding composition and the creative process I've gotten far better results so I'd say over emphasis on the technical side is a waste. That said, if every photo is blurry or overexposed then you've got a problem.
That said, I'd really put it this way:
These days a camera has a very good chance of nailing focus and exposure on its own and getting great results with a default tone curve so one can certainly ignore the technical aspects and still get a haul of mostly technically well executed shots. A camera will never be able to decide where to stand/sit/squat, where to point, what focal length to use and when to click the shutter so if one ignores developing the eye and compositional skills one should never expect to come back with any well composed shots.
Ken
-
I often find it odd that people buy expensive DSLRs and use them for jpg, but I guess in this context, it makes some sense.
Well for years people bought expensive SLRs and put transparency film in them... pretty much a film JPEG...
Ken
-
Well for years people bought expensive SLRs and put transparency film in them... pretty much a film JPEG...
Ken
What?
Rob C
-
Hey Bernard, you had me laughing in the first sentence, but then the second sentence makes me think you're not making a joke? Anyway, I do agree to a point with the second sentence, but I think the bare minimum at the capture stage is understanding shutter speeds and f-stops.
Not this time actually, I really think that the D700 is wonderful point and shoot camera that gets most things very right all by itself in a range of conditions that is un-precendeted.
Obviously having a good understanding of the basics of apeture and speed helps, but setting up an aperture of 2.0 on a 50 mm lens is a great point to start with. You'll have limited DoF and a very photographic feel to images.
Then, as somebody else already pointed out, the digital darkroom is going to be necessary, unless a photographer is happy with a low hit rate.
Not really in fact. You can get excellent results shooting jpg to start with. Still much better than what you would have gotten with 35 film most of the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hey, Bernard,
When I get a D700, I think I'll bring it over to have you do all the appropriate settings for me. OK? Then I'll put tape all over every control so they won't accidentally change.
When i got my Canon10D, I assumed that it would be easy to use. It's a P&S isn't it? A fancy one, but still a P&S. But the 200-page manual is truly daunting, so there are many features I haven't bothered with and won't. I'm sure my success rate with it would have been higher if I had somebody walk me through some of the basic settings when I first got it.
Cheers,
Eric
-
Hey, Bernard,
When I get a D700, I think I'll bring it over to have you do all the appropriate settings for me. OK? Then I'll put tape all over every control so they won't accidentally change.
Anytime Eric!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What?
Rob C
A first and typically *only* generation image. The major advantage for RAW is the greater flexibility in post processing rather than the "baked" image from the camera's JPG engine. Similarly transparency film bakes a final saturation and tone curve that is difficult to do much with once it comes out of the camera (as opposed to negative film).
Ken
-
I can only go by my own experience. I shot some in high school and took an interest. Joined the Navy in '83 and went to Navy Photo School. We had several instructors, and one (whose name I no longer remember) was not the techie type. He gave us a simple shot list, a fully manual camera, and 125 iso B/W film. Then we set out about the base and shot things like a trash can, a cinder block, etc. etc. Items of non-interest. He then graded us on composition. When asked where our marks were for technical aptitude and dark room skills, he said something along the lines that if he could see the picture, then we made that part of the grade already.
However, it was a short stint for me. I ticked off one of the instructors and was transferred to the USS Saratogo. I continued my hobby with a T50, but nothing serious until about ten years ago when I switched from being a product development engineer to a multi-media developer. When I picked up the camera again for serious work, I learned from those early teachings that I would be taking pictures of boring things and that it was my job to make them look interesting. That I should only bother myself with the technology so long it helped me get the shot I was aiming for.
-
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
Generation gap. Send her to Lomographic Society (http://www.lomography.com) She doesn't want to talk with a propeller head taking pics of fur and feathers for the blue hairs at the local camera club. Nothing personal.
My local camera club keeps wondering why there are no kids; just blue hairs. I keep saying do a seminar on Lomo, have more film discussions, more ToyCamera discussions. They keep ignoring and pushing PS this and that. Still no kids.
Some people may be techno luddites. Others are social, cultural, generational and artistic luddites. Touche.
Regards, Art.
-
What really good contemporary photographers have a degree in photography? Which ones are self-taught? If you work through that, it would suggest that you let her do what she wants with a camera, and let technical knowledge come when it will. The fact is a chimp could learn the necessary technical side of photography in about six weeks. (Not a joke; look at the Santa Fe Workshop catalog sometime. About six courses should pretty well take care of you technically.) When she needs the information, if she ever does, it's there and easy to get. It's getting to be a photo nerd that takes a lot of time, but that doesn't have anything at all to do with actual photography.
JC
-
Ignoring the technical side of photography like a red-headed bastard stepchild and focusing solely on the artistic/creative aspects of photography sounds romantic, and appeals to a certain ethos that denigrates the pursuit of technical skill as merely being a distracting deviation from the One True Path To Photographic Nirvana. But the reality is that this ethos is bullshit. The truth is that you can't rely on auto-everything cameras to flawlessly handle the technical stuff for you in every situation. Nowadays, in addition to automatic focus, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, cameras have face detection and even smile detection that can with varying degrees of competence detect faces in the viewfinder, lock focus on the faces, and delay the shutter release until the faces are all smiling. A creatively endowed technical neophyte relying on such a camera may well produce competent work in many situations, until he is called upon to photograph a funeral, political protest or large-scale disaster, where smiles are unlikely to be the order of the day. Such a photographer would not have captured this image:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Firefighterbabyocb.jpg)
As the camera waits for the firefighter to smile, this moment would have passed the photographer by, unrecorded.
There is a minimum degree of technical competence that any aspiring photographer must master to avoid this sort of problem, starting with RTFM, RTFM, RTFM. Yeah, it sucks to have to wade through hundreds of pages of manuals, often written in poorly mistranslated Engrish, to figure out what the difference between IS Mode 1 and 2 is and the difference between spot, center-weighted average, and matrix metering. But such "technical trivia" can mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot in some circumstances. Knowing how to use fill flash to deal with backlighting or how to assign autofocus to buttons other than the shutter release (http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/1ds_autofocus_tips.htm) opens up a lot of creative possibilities, but the instructions for configuring the necessary settings are often buried deep in the manual. And then there's Photoshop and the many books that supplement its voluminous manual and help files, RAW conversion, and color management. Not having a basic mastery of these things can cause severe frustration, especially color management. Being ignorant of the arcana of monitor calibration and profiling, the signs and symptoms of double-profiling, and the proper use of the various RGB color spaces can cause the technical neophyte endless frustration, no matter how creative his vision.
The creative and the technical sides of photography are symbiotic partners in the process of creating great work, not sworn enemies competing for time and attention. Pursuing either to the exclusion of the other will negatively affect one's work. The technerd who seriously thinks that upgrading from a 5D-II to a 1Ds-III will resolve the creative shortcomings of his work is just as much a fool as the artiste who refuses to soil the artistic integrity of his work by bothering to learn the difference between P mode and M mode.
-
My local camera club keeps wondering why there are no kids; just blue hairs. I keep saying do a seminar on Lomo, have more film discussions, more ToyCamera discussions. They keep ignoring and pushing PS this and that. Still no kids.
My local photo clubs want more beginners to attend, but can't get a program together to serve them and the other members too. My suggestion was to have short pre-meetings before the regular meetings to cover beginner topics. But not the typical presentations of "here's what megapixels are, and here's how to set the image size" etc. etc. My suggestion was to discuss the meanings of the equipment and processes with actual examples, and provide for some hands on. It's interesting when you think about how bureaucratic governments et al can be given their size, but downright amazing how bureaucratic something as small as a 30-50 member photo club can be when it comes to designing a program for beginners. And then I wanted to create a lending facility for equipment and multimedia, but nobody wants to manage that.....
-
The creative and the technical sides of photography are symbiotic partners in the process of creating great work, not sworn enemies competing for time and attention. Pursuing either to the exclusion of the other will negatively affect one's work.
Bingo.
-
Ignoring the technical side of photography like a red-headed bastard stepchild and focusing solely on the artistic/creative aspects of photography sounds romantic, and appeals to a certain ethos that denigrates the pursuit of technical skill as merely being a distracting deviation from the One True Path To Photographic Nirvana. But the reality is that this ethos is bullshit. The truth is that you can't rely on auto-everything cameras to flawlessly handle the technical stuff for you in every situation. Nowadays, in addition to automatic focus, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, cameras have face detection and even smile detection that can with varying degrees of competence detect faces in the viewfinder, lock focus on the faces, and delay the shutter release until the faces are all smiling. A creatively endowed technical neophyte relying on such a camera may well produce competent work in many situations, until he is called upon to photograph a funeral, political protest or large-scale disaster, where smiles are unlikely to be the order of the day. Such a photographer would not have captured this image:
I can't argue with this in principle, but it is almost a matter of pedagogical style. If you present "propeller head" content to someone who doesn't want to learn it, they walk away bored. Different people learn differently. It may sometimes be better to let that beginner take all the "auto" everything shots they want. Sooner or later, as you point out, they will have a bunch of failed shots. At that point, they will want to figure out why, i.e., it's propeller head time, only now they're motivated to understand and master the tech stuff and so will probably do better at it. The cost to them is some time and failed photos. We used to call this experience.
Of course, others will reach that same point but still buck against the techie stuff. Not much you can do about that.
-
At that point, they will want to figure out why, i.e., it's propeller head time, only now they're motivated to understand and master the tech stuff and so will probably do better at it. The cost to them is some time and failed photos. We used to call this experience.
Of course, others will reach that same point but still buck against the techie stuff. Not much you can do about that.
Which precisely defines the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is curable with education, but stupidity is generally permanent.
-
Then, as somebody else already pointed out, the digital darkroom is going to be necessary, unless a photographer is happy with a low hit rate.
I wonder, there was a time when some very talented photographers worked with someone who was their printer, who provided most of the expertise and energy at transforming a great image into a great print. I see hints of that going on in some of the ways a couple of the more famous nature photographers I've met, not that they're technically illiterate, and certainly they have a very good way with the camera controls, but sme of those folks don't have as much experience or expertise once the image hits the computer.
I wonder if there's a market to be tapped for printers to work with folks who want to shoot but don't want to be digital darkroom gurus.
--Joe
-
I wonder if there's a market to be tapped for printers to work with folks who want to shoot but don't want to be digital darkroom gurus.
There should be. Not everyone wants to become a printing work flow expert, nor can everyone afford to buy and maintain large format printers, so I can see how handy it would be to find an independent printer who can produce what you want. I'd like to eventually, if I ever get around to making larger prints. And for all I know, some of the traditional photo-finishers around town might be able to do what I want. People did it all the time in film days, why not now.
-
Oddly enough, if you look back at Jonathan´s post of yesterday, 03.34am, you can read exactly the list of why some people are turned right off by digital photography.
Luddite or not, I was in this business as a pro fom 1960 and on my own account from 1966. I did all my own b/w work and although I put out my colour processing to pro labs, it was simply because although I had done both sorts of colour processing whilst employed, it was not cost-effective for a one-man band. So, it´s not exactly as if I´m a neophyte. Having said that, now retired, I have analogue stuff sitting doing nothing much and more or less all I use is digital. However, regardless of the experience I bring to my digital life, I can´t say it turns me on. Convenient, to a point, it is also terribly tedious in the doing. There is absolutley none of the visceral kick of that print coming up in the dish, no matter how many thousand other negatives you have printed before.
Frankly, and for me, it has taken the art out of artistry and substituted a set of electronic techniques that are the province of a different mindset altogether. The only bit that remains vaguely the same for me is the concept of the shooting. And only then because I have set the camera up to be as manual as possible. (Until my recent purchase of a blasted 2.8/24-70G, my first ever, and only ever, zoom.)
Perhaps the new technology is what instinctively drives some people out of the contemporary photographic door.
Rob C
-
Perhaps the new technology is what instinctively drives some people out of the contemporary photographic door.
Rob C
Perhaps, if you just want to do what everybody else does. That's because the new tech provides for more people to get in, doing the same thing everybody else does. There should be something in this forum that suggests how to be different.
-
There is absolutley none of the visceral kick of that print coming up in the dish, no matter how many thousand other negatives you have printed before.
Hey Rob, that gives me an idea. How about a Photoshop plugin that changes your screen to a dark, safelight color, and then gradually lets your digital image appear, but only if you spend three minutes gently agitating your keyboard.
-
Hey Rob, that gives me an idea. How about a Photoshop plugin that changes your screen to a dark, safelight color, and then gradually lets your digital image appear, but only if you spend three minutes gently agitating your keyboard.
Good one! I want one to.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Oddly enough, if you look back at Jonathan´s post of yesterday, 03.34am, you can read exactly the list of why some people are turned right off by digital photography.
You know, as I wrote several weeks ago, just use your D700 in jpg mode with good default settings matching your taste, use Auto Iso and you have a shooting machine that will deliver better results that anything film ever could do with very few downsides.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Oddly enough, if you look back at Jonathan´s post of yesterday, 03.34am, you can read exactly the list of why some people are turned right off by digital photography.
And digital shooters feel exactly the same way about the hassles of fiddling with various film stocks, developers and other chemicals, push/pull processing, maintaining bath temperatures, selecting the correct enlarger color filter pack for color printing, making unsharp masks to control print contrast, and various other arcana associated with shooting, processing, and printing film. You either have to learn all that crap, or accept whatever result the lab gives you. The advanced technical stuff required to master film is no easier than mastering digital; just different.
-
You know, as I wrote several weeks ago, just use your D700 in jpg mode with good default settings matching your taste, use Auto Iso and you have a shooting machine that will deliver better results that anything film ever could do with very few downsides.
Regards,
Bernard
That, Bernard, unless I misunderstand you, is somewhat below the belt. And it isn´t a D700 (wish it was) but a much more humble D200. And neither do I think using JPEGs, which I never shoot, is quite the same as using film stock.
The very point about film, which those who are determined to see this as the olde flame warres alive again, is that consistency and the STANDARDISATION of procedures was what it was all about. In other words, the trick, if it was such, was to cut out the variables and keep the constants alive. You then had huge scope to work within that. The beauty of it was that that was ALL it was about. Printing was simple too, unless you felt inclined to make it complicated with masking and other exotica which I never, ever, had to resort to in my entire career. If I might refer to Jonathan´s point about messing about with and the troubles of learning different film stocks: there again, one tried to standardise. I used Kodachrome in 135 and Ektachrome in 120: TXP 120 for, obviously, the ´blads and either Ilford HP3/4 or FP3/4 in 135. In practice, this meant two b/w film types at most and usually only one in colour. Colour printing hardly existed in my work: repro was always transparency.
I can only repeat my basic feeling, which is that digital appeals to an entirely different mindset. There is so much scope for fiddling about with new tricks and techniques that I see those ´attractions´as the very reasons for it being a turn-off to another mindset, such as my own, for example.
This is not to knock digital at all, but I do object to the unspoken insinuation from some enthusiasts that it is the new god, that before digital there was nothing. How interesting, then, that the entire rich history of photography is founded on analogue. Am I to take it that no wonderful fashion or advertising or art or landscape photography, not to mention movies ever existed pre-digital era? Speaking of movies, I was most impressed with the first Matrix; after that, however wonderful the digital effects, it just leaves the feeling of ´so what, only another trick´ which, I think, is the way one might be starting to view digital photography too.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using digital techniques if you want to and like them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing and shooting digital either - might even be less harmful to the environment too, as those millions of pix will never be printed. What there is plenty wrong with, though, and again only in MY humble view, is the arrogance that can sometimes flow from the pen of the convert. If there are a few concrete things I have learned about photography, they are that you never know it all and that one man´s paradise is another´s hell.
Shoot and work or play as you wish, but remember that it´s just the way you like to do it.
Rob C
-
I can only repeat my basic feeling, which is that digital appeals to an entirely different mindset. There is so much scope for fiddling about with new tricks and techniques that I see those ´attractions´as the very reasons for it being a turn-off to another mindset, such as my own, for example.
Rob C
I would tend to agree with your view on this.
I don't want to fan the flames of the rather tiresome digital v film debate, it's of little consequence for most.
Just a general comment, and not directed at any one person. I consistently notice some kind of snobbery on forums, be it the raw shooter who cannot understand why anyone would ever shoot jpegs, the digital one who hopes to dance upon the grave of film so that it can never be used by anyone again. Or the elite equipment collector in possession of the finest bodies and optics money can buy, who feels nobody can do justice to a shot using cheap stuff. This often extends into owning the most powerful computers around to brag how you are packing massive pc horsepower to process all this stuff!
My point is simply this. Live and let live..do your own thing, find your own path. If you love tweaking shots in raw for hours, and that rocks your boat..great, if you love playing with red ring lenses and polishing them in a cabinet..nothing wrong at all with that. If you set your camera up and shoot jpegs mostly, and you love the look you get, wonderful. The technology aspect is interesting, but not as interesting as the actual photography. I am amazed at how much more there is always to learn, in many different aspects of photography, subjects etc..that I have never explored.
In some respects digital has been very appealing and fun, however over a period of time, the novelty, has for me at least, worm off a bit. Tech always gets better..I don't suggest anyone lay awake at night worrying if the new sensor will be everything they hoped for, let's worry about the results a bit more ;-)
Every single photographer has their own slant, Ansel loved the darkroom, Avedon and Bresson were evidently next to useless in that respect. End results count..how you got there, is largely unimportant. PP is a useful often abused tool by many. Sometimes less is more..sometimes it's extremely handy. What it is not, is the be all and end all of photography. What has happened is akin to a small child being let into a room with a huge number of amazing toys to play with! In years to come we may well look back at the selective colour, wonky angle vignette shots..and wonder what exactly the appeal was. Have fun in the massive toy room, but don't complain I find the cardboard box more fun ;-)
-
Digital's fundamentals lend themselves to greater manipulation, so embracing that can be empowering, whereas you can otherwise live in the shadow of the giant with fear and loathing. Eliminating physical media at any point creates unease with many people, like having the ground under your feet become unsteady in an earthquake. Digital's immediacy and freedom from the anchor of media means instant sharing on photo forums, and this forum would not exist without it. Digital's permanence reminds some people of their own impermanence, again scary for many. I was born 50 years too soon - I want all information at my fingertips, or even better, stripped of DRM and live on my computers and mobile devices, so I'm independent in that respect from the servers. Digital may not *be* god, but it's a lot closer than analogue, and getting closer all the time.
-
There is nothing about digital that says manipulation on it's own. What has happened is a revolution in computer technology, that is what has brought the software side of things to the masses. These tools were not common before this age. As it is, we can scan and manipulate film if we want to. Now everyone has them at their hands, digital and film users alike.
I get a 30 mins turnaround on neg colour film with an arrangement with my lab (negs uncut etc), not instant, but hardly a major wait.
I would question statements such as "whereas you can otherwise live in the shadow of the giant with fear and loathing", we all make choices, and it is down to taste. I don't mind some pp, but I am not one to enjoy lengthy sessions of it, bar maybe photo restoration jobs etc. Each person has his own take on things, I like the shooting side more..others may enjoy processing and tweaking. Nothing wrong with either.
Having the freedom to do what you want (subject to learning how to do it of course), does not mean you are obliged to use it all the time. I have often felt the new age of freedom as you call it, has largely resulted in many folks simply doing very predictable and obvious manipulation, ending up with very similar looking shots (HDR is one example) It's not god, it never will be. Some people like the look of film, I do myself. That has nothing at all to do with fear or loathing, simply doing what I enjoy. I don't work to anyone else's agenda, nor to please the mass market. I work to please me, and I expect others to do their own thing, whatever that might be. What I dislike most, is this sense of "film users living in fear" and living in the past, scared of new technology. I would simply say, this is not the case for most. I am a digital and film user, but I enjoy film more..most of the time. I don't look down my nose on those who shoot 100% digital, and I don't expect them to say film users are too scared to let go. We like the look of the stuff, end of story!
What pleases one, might not another. I have never liked massive processing on photos..film or digital. I dislike HDR in most cases it looks awful, I think some folks dodge and burn mono beyond sensible limits. If that is popular, I don't really care, I don't like it..won't do it. Others are free to do as they wish..getting wth it mostly involves following the mass crowd, more often than not..the path less well trodden is the most satisfying of all
-
Quite, Barry, and I am not afraid of digital either since it´s all I´ve been using since I bought the D200 when it first showed itself to the world. It really is NOT a matter of fear at all, any more than fear ever held me or any other photographer that I knew away from film. If you have fear, you simply walk away from it as there is no pressure to engage.
As I said, it boils down (for me) to a matter of visceral satisfaction. Film and the darkroom, though I didn´t like spending more time in the latter than the work required, was always able to provide a kick of pleasure from doing something that depended on the split-second decision of knowing when a print looked just right, which does not mean that I was given to snatching prints - always went for full development, though that was still a judgement call. Digital is exactly the same, you get the perfect print. No, it is NOT exactly the same at all. Getting to that position by virtue of repeated clicking at a computer bears no relevance to the spiritual feeling of pleasure when you crack the secrets of any negative. This might sound nonsense to many, in which case I can only offer the thought that you simply can´t understand.
So why still do it? In my case, because my life had been in photography and because I have retrired from the commercial part of it does not mean I have lost the love that took me into it in the first place. I live in a very water-restricted place and the problems of living in an apartment do not lend themselves to too much space being devoted to what, post-pro, is essentially hobby. My little office can accommodate two computers and an HP A3+ and that´s the limit, though I had it set up for years as switchable from office to darkroom, a job so tedious I seldom undertook to do it!
Comparing my prints from now with those of the pre-digital days, what do I think? That they are different; that the ability to tweak and change so much can produce such stupidly over-worked exaggerations of the world that they self-defeat. I find little pleasure in making very dramatic skies and the like just because I can. I have gone that route and whilst initially thrilled to find that I could do it too, that´s about all it has done for me. I have been able to do what others can do. Big deal.
As you say, to each his own, but going back to the title of the original thread, I don´t think we have addressed it very well. As I indicated in my earlier post, were the answer not an obvious YES there would have been no glorious history of photography which, obviously would be ridiculous to suggest. The resulting arguments are little more than the almost inevitable posturing of one kind of supporter facing his opposite. Just like football, then; how sad.
Rob C
-
Which precisely defines the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is curable with education, but stupidity is generally permanent.
I'm afraid not Jonathan. That seems to be a widely accepted fallacy. The sad fact is, we are all ignorant, but it's education that causes us to realise that we're ignorant. However, some are more ignorant than others, but there are none so ignorant as those who don't realise they are ignorant. We could perhaps call those stupid.
-
A little OT: DUh (http://roberts-rants.blogspot.com/2008/01/duh.html)
-
A little OT: DUh (http://roberts-rants.blogspot.com/2008/01/duh.html)
As, Robert, has been much of this thread as it has developed; no pun intended, though now I see it, it might as well remain.
;-)
Rob C
-
There is, of course, a good deal of bullshit in digital photography, but there was with film, too. I think that one reason digital so quickly and completely displaced film is that digital IS better in most measurable ways -- potential for better resolution, better white balance, exploration of higher ISOs (or lower light, if you prefer it that way), instant review, daylight post-processing, no killer chemicals to flush through the septic system, and on and on. But still, some people prefer film. Not because the IQ is better, but simply because they like it. I've got no problem with that. In fact, I hope they go on for a long time, because then maybe I can unload my M7 on somebody. But I'd point out that b.s. is b.s., exists all over the place (the net is sort of the avatar of b.s.) and that claiming that there's a lot of b.s. in digital is like saying there's a lot of b.s. in Washington. What's the point? I mean, you don't have to over-saturate the skies; just because some twit does it, doesn't mean that you have to. Digital is just a method. It's better than film, just as film, for some purposes, was better than drawing. So what?
JC
-
As, Robert, has been much of this thread as it has developed; no pun intended, though now I see it, it might as well remain.
;-)
Rob C
Well, I laughed at Ray's last post and then remembered that nonsense that I wrote a few months ago.
-
Hey Rob, that gives me an idea. How about a Photoshop plugin that changes your screen to a dark, safelight color, and then gradually lets your digital image appear, but only if you spend three minutes gently agitating your keyboard.
Where can I purchase this plugin? Does it also produce the chemical fumes?
As someone once said, the only thing good about (some) good old days is that they are old.
-
I'm afraid not Jonathan. That seems to be a widely accepted fallacy. The sad fact is, we are all ignorant, but it's education that causes us to realise that we're ignorant. However, some are more ignorant than others, but there are none so ignorant as those who don't realise they are ignorant. We could perhaps call those stupid.
Some would argue that we are all born ignorant, and some become stupid after being educated.
-
Some would argue that we are all born ignorant, and some become stupid after being educated.
There's a difference bewteen being educated and indoctrinated, albeit some crossover is unavoidable.
When you see someone being shouted down for their unpopular views, suspect indoctrination.
-
There is nothing about digital that says manipulation on it's own.
I disagree here. The essential thing about digital is the elimination of physical media and processes in favor of virtual data. It's interesting that nearly all of the unique property of a company like Microsoft is in their source code, and all of that could be zipped and placed on a thumb drive and carried off in a pocket.
The fact that digital is all bytes and doesn't take up any real space lends itself to unlimited manipulation, something no physical media or process could compare to. And that is also the uniqueness of where we're going in digital photography - unlike analogue photography, there are no limits to digital except our imaginations and the time it takes to explore and implement them.
-
It takes a lot of creativity to use technology in a way that can be called art. My view is that if you are really an artist, you can overcome your technical inhabilities and produce a piece of art. But the most technically talented person may be unable to produce a bit of art if he/she has no artistic talent.
Manuel
-
Wow. I started this discussion months ago and now it gets new life as digital versus film.
Great photos are great whether they were taken by a 4-year old with a digicam or a 50-year old with thousands of dollars worth of medium format film or digital gear.
Technique becomes less important with each new technological innovation because the equipment becomes more forgiving of sloppiness. (IS, Auto ISO, Jonathan's facial recognition)
Repeatability or consistency is important only in so much that the photographer/artist is happy with their production.
So, new technological innovations can easily facilitate the development of a great photographer/artist without any substantial knowledge of the technical craft--within reason. Exposure, focus, composition are essential skills. Everything else can be outsourced.
"There are many paths to enlightenment."
Buddha
--and its western corollary--
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise."
William Blake
-
[quote name='fike' date='May 15 2009, 03:10 PM' post='283894']
"Wow. I started this discussion months ago and now it gets new life as digital versus film."
That´s why I remarked that most of this thread has been entirely off topic.
"Repeatability or consistency is important only in so much that the photographer/artist is happy with their production."
Not sure what your intention was with the word repeatability, but it is a hallmark of the competent professional that he can repeat something to client request; failure in this ability only indicates the lucky accident and not mastery of craft.
"So, new technological innovations can easily facilitate the development of a great photographer/artist without any substantial knowledge of the technical craft--within reason. Exposure, focus, composition are essential skills. Everything else can be outsourced."
`-within reason´ ah, the opt-out to trump them all!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Where can I purchase this plugin? Does it also produce the chemical fumes?
I always keep a tray of stop bath and one of fixer next to my monitor so I can get the necessary nostalgic aromas. And of course I dip my fingers before typingggggggggg (Dang! I've got to run the keyboard through my Archival Washer again.)
-
Some would argue that we are all born ignorant, and some become stupid after being educated.
My father was the first in his family to go to college, and he eventually got his Ph.D. and spent his career as a college professor. His brother Georg always liked to say (in my father's presence), "Some people quit school while they still know something. Others continue."
-
My father was the first in his family to go to college, and he eventually got his Ph.D. and spent his career as a college professor. His brother Georg always liked to say (in my father's presence), "Some people quit school while they still know something. Others continue."
definition: Expert (need to read phonetically)
X is a mathematical term indicating the unknown,
spurt is a drip under pressure,
--so--
an Expert is an unknown drip under pressure.
Furthermore....a PHD is a person who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
-
...
`-within reason´ ah, the opt-out to trump them all!
Ciao - Rob C
YES! Everyone who speaks in absolutes is an idiot~!
(Note, the ~! is punctuation for sarcasm.)
...
Not sure what your intention was with the word repeatability, but it is a hallmark of the competent professional that he can repeat something to client request; failure in this ability only indicates the lucky accident and not mastery of craft.
I think there is a lot of room between complete serendipitous luck and the mastery of a genius technician. Complete ignorance of photography that perhaps a chimp might bring to the task would certainly mean luck is the entire defining variable for success. From there, a basic competence in exposure, focus, and composition will result in a exponential increase in the chances for success. Must I point out how many very pathetic pro photographers we have all seen working in this business.
-
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise."
William Blake
Echoed by Winston Chrchill when he said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
-
Hi,
In my view, yes absolutely. On the other hand knowledge often comes handy. Not being able to learn or benefit from own experience doesn't rule out that one can make great pictures but seeing life as life long learning certainly helps.
The other issue is that, while it certainly possible to make excellent pictures without much insight in technology, understanding the underlying concepts is helpful. Where beauty is seen it can be captured, but it may deserve to be captured well. Just pushing the button may result in a washed out picture. When we make decisions it can be based on experience or insight. Experience is perhaps like: "I need to set compensition -1 stop in that kind of light". Insight may say that I need to reduce exposure to keep highlights in the histogram.
Once you process your pictures knowledge again will be helpful. Knowledge may come from experience or understanding the basic principles. Understanding the technology can be most helpful, but not really necessary.
In my view any photographer can make great pictures, but want for knowledge, curiosity, exploration and the ability to gain experience from mistakes will make anyone a better photographer.
On the other hand, bad pictures are bad pictures even if brilliantly executed.
Best regards
Erik
I have been spending a lot of time thinking of the tradeoff between the photographer as technician/engineer and the photographer as a creative artist.
I got thinking about this because of a young (teenage) photographer I know who freely admits her lack of technical knowledge of photography, yet she has a great deal of talent. I am trying to decide whether to push her to mastering the more technical aspects of her craft, but she seems to have NO INTEREST. So I got to thinking...
In the age of digital, is it really necessary to understand the technology to become a great photographer? Can serendipity and experimentation create excellence without knowledge of the underlying principles? What do you think?
P.S. Sorry about the forum posting location. I couldn't really see where it would fit, so I stuck it here.
-
Not sure what your intention was with the word repeatability, but it is a hallmark of the competent professional that he can repeat something to client request; failure in this ability only indicates the lucky accident and not mastery of craft.
Agreed. That's what separates a pro from an amateur photographer. An amateur can produce great work, but not necessarily repeatedly, or need to repeatedly. A pro has to in order to earn a living.
Repeatability is a sign of craftsmanship, and not necessarily artistry.
As an aside, "anyone can take a good picture" is one reason why many consider photography less an art form, say than painting.
-
But "taking a good picture" won't get you there. There are great news photos that nobody considers art -- they just are. I think most photos that serious people consider to be serious art are made only after the artist has gone through an apprenticeship and a period of study and contemplation. I'm not sure about this -- this may be a rash statement -- but I don't believe I've ever seen anything that I would consider serious art on an internet forum. (Although I have seen some on private websites, or reproduced on forums.)
JC
-
Ahh, the great ponderables. Art, craft, craft, art. There's something a little wrong with the mouth, his grain is showing, the focus is off, and great gobs of that paint is going to fall off soon. Regardless of craft, technique or insufficient exposure, and the shadows are all blocked up, every so often, the forces of man and nature conspire to produce an object that after much study and contemplation, can still elicit a "wow", or even a quiet smile. 6 monthes is my golden rule; if I still look at it, it's OK, ART or whatever.
I'm very accepting of "randomness", art with out craft, but I also respect craft, but my emotional and aesthetic response is mine, and sometimes I value the craft, but am willing to discard craft that gets in my way. So, in answer to the original question, if the young artiste needs craft, she will find it; it is available. As to craft leading to art (ART), I don't know; I think of Pavarotti, who wasn't noted for his work ethic, but whose voice was, for me, just glorious, high art indeed.
I blather, I must be an artist.
-
There is a vast body of brilliant work that was produced before digital reared it's pixilated head.
Most of it will probably be around long after most of the current stuff has been relegated to the delete button of history.
I hope the question was rhetorical.
-
As an aside, "anyone can take a good picture" is one reason why many consider photography less an art form, say than painting.
[/quote]
Jackson Pollack?
The common joke during the abstract expressionism period was "My kid could do that".
And then there's Warhol.
-
As an aside, "anyone can take a good picture" is one reason why many consider photography less an art form, say than painting.
Jackson Pollack?
The common joke during the abstract expressionism period was "My kid could do that".
And then there's Warhol.
Why are we so insecure about the idea that ANYONE can make art--even a child. Art isn't some rarefied club that only admits the masters. A child can make great art. An untrained adult can make great art. Consistency and determination may make that person call themselves an "artist," and someday they may be "successful."
"Successful," "artist," and "art" are such loaded words that after their use our conversation instantly devolves into pretentiousness. Why don't you just let that amateur digicam user have a fantastic photo? Why can't we just let the 5-year old take a beautiful photo? ...and why can't we call what they do "art?" Not acknowledging this misses the point that artist like Pollack, or even Duchamp, were trying to make.
It needn't diminish our work to acknowledge the accomplishments of others-the art in everyday life--even from the unwashed masses.
Sheesh!!
-
Well, here's some kid work, done a while ago, but pretty nice; of course it may not be ART.
http://nytimes.com/2009/05/13/arts/design/13pain.html (http://nytimes.com/2009/05/13/arts/design/13pain.html)
-
Why are we so insecure about the idea that ANYONE can make art--even a child. Art isn't some rarefied club that only admits the masters. A child can make great art. An untrained adult can make great art. Consistency and determination may make that person call themselves an "artist," and someday they may be "successful."
"Successful," "artist," and "art" are such loaded words that after their use our conversation instantly devolves into pretentiousness. Why don't you just let that amateur digicam user have a fantastic photo? Why can't we just let the 5-year old take a beautiful photo? ...and why can't we call what they do "art?" Not acknowledging this misses the point that artist like Pollack, or even Duchamp, were trying to make.
It needn't diminish our work to acknowledge the accomplishments of others-the art in everyday life--even from the unwashed masses.
Sheesh!!
I don't think anyone can make art. There are people with substantial training who *think* they are making art, and after some years of work, most serious observers say, "No, that's not art. Sorry." And they are correct. A child can't make great art, either. Probably the greatest artist of the 20th century (Picasso), who was trained from early childhood (his father was an art teacher), really only started nailing the drawing and the creative aspects of his craft when he reached his late teens...after more than a decade of work. What these non-trained people -- and monkeys, elephants and cats -- do is make "art like" work. A chimp can push a button, and with an automatic camera, shot from inside a cage, could probably get some pretty interesting photos. Not art. Members of the unwashed masses can certainly make art, but it's not with little effort. In fact, their art is usually the product of mental illness or obsession.
Art is like most products of human activity -- some do a particular thing supremely well, and some can't do it at all, just like playing basketball or hunting deer or singing or discovering new mathematical theorems.
The thing about a camera is that it makes one part of creating art easy -- mastery of photographic technique, to the point of competency, is easier than mastery of paint. It's also easier to lie about. If somebody spends an hour being instructed on how to create a photographic portrait, and is then given an automatic camera, there is a good possibility that even with little talent, he or she can come up with something that is at least credible. Can't do that with a pencil.
One big mistake in photography is to confuse competency with art; they are not the same. I think that "pros" are less likely to create real serious art than are "amateurs," because pros focus on the easy ways to do things, and more often produce glossy cliches than serious observations.
JC
-
Semantics, and personal taste, or preference.
I like other artists more than Picasso, so I would not rank him as the "greatest" of 20th. c. artists. Preference.
On my desk, there is a small "pot", made by one of my daughters, at about 8 or 9 years old. Not because of who made it, but due to its inherent qualities, it has a place of honor. In it sits an exquisitely crafted bronze Toad, about an inch square. Likewise, the hollow knot from an Upper Peninsula pine tree, that holds my fountain pens. Functionality aside, I consider them ART, sorry, art. Over my desk, there are some metal advertising signs, and though one features the work of Haddon Sundblom, who was an artist, these pieces are not art, just reproductions.
My wife, also in the arts, and I have filled our home with art, most of which was acquired reasonably. Value has never been a consideration; like, response, emotion are. Most has NOT been approved by the gods of ART, just us, and though others might see crap, well, that is just opinion. At one time Van Gogh was considered crap, as were many other, now "approved" artists. Opinion. ( Some of our crap has transcended into being ART. )
When art becomes ART, mounted on a lofty pedestal, available only to the "chosen ones", then we have lost our way. Art should be a part of the every day, as in Native American culture, though this certainly does not preclude either specialization or excellence.
-
One big mistake in photography is to confuse competency with art; they are not the same. I think that "pros" are less likely to create real serious art than are "amateurs," because pros focus on the easy ways to do things, and more often produce glossy cliches than serious observations.
JC
I agree with the first sentence but question the assumption in the second that pros "focus on the easy ways to do things," when I feel that it is really quite impossible to make claims like that. Depending on the photographer, the client and the commission, the work can be almost anything you care to imagine it might be. In the case of, say, the passport snapper, you probably have a point and ease of repetition would be a decided plus in making the work profitable. In the case of the editorial fashion photographer, for example, I think your assumption is way, way off: the guy is there because of his slant on life - he wants to impress in order to advance his career within the commercial and advertising world where he might find the money to support the lifestyle and the expenses of the job. The last thing he wants from the opportunity of such a showcase IS the glossy cliché, which anybody of interest to him in his world would instantly recognized as exactly that!
Frankly, I think I have seen more art masquerading as photography in the better titles than the other way around!
And why on Earth should art consist of "serious observation"?
But that is just my own view and certainly doesn´t make yours wrong.
Rob C
-
When art becomes ART, mounted on a lofty pedestal, available only to the "chosen ones", then we have lost our way. Art should be a part of the every day, as in Native American culture, though this certainly does not preclude either specialization or excellence.
I thought that it already was part of daily life; you pass it everywhere you go: in the street, in the subway; you hear it all the time, even when it comes out of somebody else´s earpiece.
You might not like some of it whilst another raves about that very thing - its very ubiquitousness is why we talk about it in places such as this. Hi Art Lo Art - it´s all the same thing but different; isn´t the graffiti star an artist? In the end, it´s all about putting something down on paper or performing on a stage or just on the pavement - articulating, somehow, an emotion that began as an idea in somebody´s head. Were it otherwise there would be nobody left producing anything that might be thought to be art.
The arts always need money, mainly somebody else´s money, to survive. Without patronage of some sort it would never have stood a chance, so is it surprising that it might be found "on a lofty pedestal" as you put it, in a magazine, on a billboard, in a gallery? What was true for the middle ages holds today: there is one art for the pedestal and another for the prole, though either might be of equal merit or lack of such.
Rob C
-
I thought that it already was part of daily life; you pass it everywhere you go: in the street, in the subway; you hear it all the time, even when it comes out of somebody else´s earpiece.
LOL,
Rob C,
I may want it off the pedestal, but that doesn't mean I don't have some standards. What comes out of somebody elses earbuds, or car speakers, is not art. Definitely not art.
-
LOL,
Rob C,
I may want it off the pedestal, but that doesn't mean I don't have some standards. What comes out of somebody elses earbuds, or car speakers, is not art. Definitely not art.
But Bronislaus, you have no idea what might come out of another´s speakers; it could be Mozart (no pun intended), it could Jimmy Giuffre´s Train and the River, Louis Armstrong´s Potato Head Blues - anything at all which, to me, might be the epitome of art whilst to another just sound, part of the exhaust system of the rotting car, the cacophony of wheels on rail.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said about art, with any conviction, is that unlike what you say in your last sentence, nothing about it can ever be definite since even definition escapes it.
Rob C
-
Perhaps the only thing that can be said about art, with any conviction, is that unlike what you say in your last sentence, nothing about it can ever be definite since even definition escapes it.
I don't think the definition escapes it as much as it escapes us. Just my thought.
-
I think it is difficult to talk about artists and art, particularly when it comes to photography. We are probably better off talking about people who are:
- working photo professionals
- Photographers selling in fine art gallery
- Wedding photographers
- documentary photographers
- photojournalists
- event photographers
- hobbyists
Any of these people can and do produce art. Everyday wedding photography or photojournalism really must be pretty formulaic and may as a result not seem very artistic.
Back to my original question about great photographers: I don't think that you could become a great (or even moderately competent) photojournalist or wedding photographer without mastering many advanced photographic techniques--from lighting to post processing, to color, and through the deceptively simple(complex) exposure and focus. The speed and pressure in these endeavors require consistency and repeatability that are not tolerant of experimentation, trial, and error.
But art and artists...that is just too hard to pin-down. Anyone can be an artist with a camera as their tool. That is what is so great about the technology. Photographic technology has democratized a previously arcane art. The same is happening to video too.
-
But Bronislaus, you have no idea what might come out of another´s speakers; it could be Mozart (no pun intended), it could Jimmy Giuffre´s Train and the River, Louis Armstrong´s Potato Head Blues - anything at all which, to me, might be the epitome of art whilst to another just sound, part of the exhaust system of the rotting car, the cacophony of wheels on rail.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said about art, with any conviction, is that unlike what you say in your last sentence, nothing about it can ever be definite since even definition escapes it.
Rob C
If I'm forced to interact with something against my wishes, especially a reproduction of something that may or may not be art, then I reserve the right to claim it is not art. This is another subject about photography; is the print something done by the artist, or some other entity? Are reproductions art? Is a Cole Weston print of an Edward Weston negative art? HCB didn't do his darkroom work, so can his prints be art? Well, that's another thread.
So, I stand by my definiteness.
My "loosey-goosey" definition of art is, my own, and the only correct one, I add. I'm sorry, you're wrong and I'm right. So, there. :-) And, I'm definite.
I've studied and worked as a photographer, painter, gilder, paintings conservator, framer, frame conservator. I can fix my cars, and bikes, rewire a house, and operate a 10 ton electro-magnetic crane. I have a lot of technical skills and knowledge, none of which assures me of making art, nor prevents me from making art. I stand with Fike on the original question.
I have the confidence and experience to be able to decide all by myself if something is art. The only technical short comings I decry are those practiced by the teachers of art, they should be able to provide the students who want it, a sound technical basis, but that will not make them artists.
I blather, again. :-)
-
I think it is difficult to talk about artists and art, particularly when it comes to photography. We are probably better off talking about people who are:
- working photo professionals
- Photographers selling in fine art gallery
- Wedding photographers
- documentary photographers
- photojournalists
- event photographers
- hobbyists
Any of these people can and do produce art. Everyday wedding photography or photojournalism really must be pretty formulaic and may as a result not seem very artistic.
Back to my original question about great photographers: I don't think that you could become a great (or even moderately competent) photojournalist or wedding photographer without mastering many advanced photographic techniques--from lighting to post processing, to color, and through the deceptively simple(complex) exposure and focus. The speed and pressure in these endeavors require consistency and repeatability that are not tolerant of experimentation, trial, and error.
But art and artists...that is just too hard to pin-down. Anyone can be an artist with a camera as their tool. That is what is so great about the technology. Photographic technology has democratized a previously arcane art. The same is happening to video too.
No, most of those people don't produce art. They produce a kind of craft, equivalent to excellent basket-making, or excellent rug-making, or excellent chair making. Or not-so-excellent, depending on their skill. (Notice that I don't say unique, forward-looking, spiritual rug-making.) The photography may be truly excellent; it's not art.
No, not anyone can be an artist with a camera. As I said before, and I will argue this until the cows come home, there's a difference between art and art-like objects. One of photography's problems is that too many people who identify themselves as photographers insist that any photographer can make art -- which is why a lot of people who are serious about art still don't accept photography as art.
In the drawing/painting arts, because of a long history of argument, criticism and judgement, in which the artists themselves are deeply immersed, there is quite a finely-tuned understanding of what constitutes serious art. New Yorker cartoons, book illustrations, etc., can be extremely well done, but everyone understands that they are not really fine art. In most of the world, illustrators as great as Norman Rockwell and N.C. Wyeth are not considered fine artists, although they are universally recognized as exceptional craftsmen.
Photography has never come to a similar understanding, which is why so much photographic crap is called "art."
Further up this thread, there's a story of a piece of work that a child did and the father accepts it as art; that's fine, he's her father. But give the kid a bunch of boards, a drill, some screws, a screwdriver and a spokeshave, and using her "talent," try to produce a really beautiful and useful chair. She won't be able to do it...not without a few years of training. So is the argument here that "great art" is easier to produce than chairs? Likeable snapshots are -- the camera's automatic, after all. But great art? No. Ansel Adams only produced a half-dozen pieces of arguably "great" photographic art in his entire career.
So don't call your kid's pictures, or the wedding photographer's picture, great art. Or art at all.
Call it something else.
-
JC,
I understand your point, though the reference to my kid making a chair, is wrong, in that the chair would be craft, and probably poor craft. But, the craftsman, will on occasion produce something sublime. Is that not art? Or does it bleed mere craft?
I agree that photography is a difficult medium to approach art with; I've brooded on it since I was a teenager. I don't think, even considering my kid's piece, that art is easy, but I also believe, that, regardless of faith or religion, art can happen.
John Singer Sargent was IMO, the greatest, alla prima, technical painter ever. When he was "on", the paintings dominate a room or gallery. Sometimes, though, he didn't have anything to say, and the paintings are lovely, vapid, and not art. Ansel would probably agree with you, and I do as well, but the reverse can also be true.
The comment about illustrators brings to mind James M. Flagg's comment, that the difference between an illustrator and an artist, was the illustrator could afford to eat.
Maybe just a matter of degree, but I'm personally willing to accept that the sublime can happen, regardless of who, what, or what degree of hard earned technical proficiency.