Does the shooting process matter, or only the end result?

[torger]

Considering the billions of images available and presented to viewers, the idea about what camera and process is never even considered except in a few forums. The public at large could care less, and most images are seen for second before people move onto to something else. There is a smaller group of people who are interested in photography enough to pay attention to what makes a compelling image and which photographers they like, but most of them also do not consider the process.  A very small subset of those people do wonder about what equipment and process was used, but its hard to say that to those few what is more important - the end result or the process.   There seems to be a group of "technologists" who do spend a lot more interest and time in the process than the final image, and that group is very well represented here on LuLa, but it would be a mistake to think the rest of the world is similar.   

I jury a photo contest which awards cameras and cash to the winners, and as much as I enjoy technology and gear that never factors into my decision on the winners and runners up. In the end what matters most to me and my fellow jurors is the final image, the idea.  The technique or execution only comes into play when it's not well done and even then a better idea, or simply being in the right place and time can win over a better technically executed image.   The technique or process has a way of spoiling images when the image becomes more about that than about the subject or idea.

That's all very sound, but I think you can see it in the opposite way. If you only care about the end result and you want that end result highest quality you can become very technical in your shooting process. For example some choose to shoot film, others use multi-shot super-resolution digital. The one that shoots film obviously have chosen an inferior process because of some other non-technical reason.

It also extends into post-processing, if you only care about the result you can do exactly anything to make it a "better" image, but if the process is important to you, you may want some connection to what was happening at the scene.

In a professional assignment I'd guess result is the only thing that matters, it would be for me. When making art photography the process has considerable importance, at least to me. Some shooting techniques makes me more "connected" to the scene, while others disconnect me. I quit using stitching because it made me feel disconnected, but I have used it in an assignment to cover wider angle than I had at hand.

What I find a bit unfortunate is that medium format digital seems to be driven by result and less by process, and of course why wouldn't it as their target is professional photographers with deadlines... but this means that we won't get 6x6 digital backs, we probably won't get tech cam friendly backs again, instead we're headed towards one standardized way to shoot, and cameras with movements will probably not be a part of that, at least not on the wide end.

I've also noted an interesting thing, many of those claiming to care the least about gear have the most exotic cameras, and not rarely plenty of them. I guess they just like to buy stuff... 

[Theodoros]

I believe there is no point to argue on the matter... you are both right but with a different perspective of looking at things... IMO, the answer is covered by A.Adams in his very first chapter of his very first book where he sets visualization as being the fundamental behind photography... IMO, for one to visualize the outcome (the final photograph), he has (other than the capture) to have the whole process well thought out and pre-decided... even the paper (or other) he'll use as to print. Obviously, the more the technical knowledge, the better the use of tools for the end result.

[torger]

Yes Ansel Adams and many of the "old masters" way of thinking is interesting. In order to make art you must know what you're doing. If you're making decisions after the image was shot (eg come up with a new crop when you get home, or some new look), you're cheating and your work is not real art.

I think few have this strict way to view art photography these days, but I find that type of discussion and ideas interesting and in my own work I relate to that but I'm surely not as strict as mr Adams.

[dchew]

When looking at images from others I agree with Eric. But I don't think that was Ander's intent in the original question.

I think it would be a sad world if the process didn't matter. If we assume a pro can afford to say "no", how many would accept a job knowing the art director is an absolute misery to work with, just to get a specific image in their portfolio?

This will sound extreme, but it helps explain why, like Anders, I put so much value in the technical camera experience: When I use a DSLR, viewfinder or other compact system camera, I feel like I am looking at the wilderness through a window or a door. When I use the technical camera, I feel like I am in the wilderness.

Even if I place the a7rII on a tripod and look at the screen, not through the viewfinder. Not having a viewfinder, light meter, autofocus, having to reach around to cock the shutter, etc. All these things probably seem cumbersome to others. But to me it feels like the chains have been cut.

I photograph so I can be outside. I don't go outside so I can photograph.

Dave

[Theodoros]

Visualization is a fundamental with all arts, no writer wrights a novel without having it completed in his mind, nor any painter paints without having the end canvas in his mind... But as a musician has a certain "sound" in his mind and needs the right guitar, the right amp, the right pedals, the right valves & the right recording as to shave it, a photographer needs the respective tools as to achieve his own "looks"...  Simple isn't it?

[MichaelEzra]

I'd like to reference this quote from Peter C. Bunnel I stumbled upon yesterday:

"The maker of a photograph takes subjects — things — as he finds them and, with the selectivity necessary to determine their significance, manipulates them into an expression of his sensibilities so that they may constitute a revelation. It is not what is nominally said that counts in a work of art, it is what the artist makes with such intensity of perception that it lives with an intrinsic truth of its own. "

I don't think that doing it in post has anything to do with this. Doing it at all is what really matters.

[JoeKitchen]

The idea of cropping after the shot was created has always been a hot topic. 

And prior to digital, it really was not practical if an image was going to press.  For any page printed prior to digital, a "mechanical" had to be created of that page and photographed in 4 different colors of light to create the 4 plates needed for the printing.  This was a highly skilled job and usually the person who handled it, only handled that job, and did not talk with clients and/or artist whose work was being used.

So if you shot with the intention of cropping, there was no guarantee that your crop would be accurately reproduced in the printing.  This is why it was so important to shoot without cropping. 

Now in digital, though, things are different. 

But the idea of cropping afterwards can still be an issue. 

I recently started to put together a new printed book for advertising use and choose a portrait orientation.  Something I would like to incorporate into this portfolio are full spreads, like in magazines.  The image below I shot this weekend knowing that I would use it as a full spread and made sure it worked in the aspect ratio of the spread.  This image is strongest in this crop, which I made sure it would. 

However, I have other horizontals that I composed using the native aspect ratio of my camera, 3:4.  There are a couple that could work as a full spread, but they loose something when cropped. 

[Ken R]

Since the release of IQ3 100MP a question has returned to me, namely how important the way I shoot images matter to me compared to the end result. Using a Linhof Techno with sliding back and a bunch of Schneider Digitars it's as close as you can get to traditional large format view camera photography in the digital world. I think this has its days numbered and we're looking at more rigid cameras with ultra-high resolution and you use cropping and keystone correction instead of camera movements, automatic focus stacking is probably coming eventually. At some point that new way to shoot will surpass the quality I get out of my gear.

To me this is a bit scary development though. I don't even stitch with my tech cam as I feel it takes away some of the shooting magic. And then pushing this further to shooting in the general direction and finalize the composition in post-processing sounds awfully unsexy to me, although I see the huge workflow advantages for a professional photographer. You could create several different compositions out of a single wide angle image, to fit different needs in magazine for example.

How do you others look at this, does it matter how you capture an image, or is it only the most efficient way to get the highest quality that matters?

Ok. First off, I love single image capture.

Image capturing is a VERY personal process that only involves others when on supervised shoots and or when other people are part in the shoots (that includes access to locations which might be limited in time and/or escorted).

Assuming shoots that only you are involved then the capturing process is more about what you like and what you want to achieve. Photo gear are tools to make the images you want. Nothing else. That is how I see it. They all have limitations. I am trying to isolate the capturing process from the post-production process but IMHO they are integrated and part of the image making process since choices and decisions made during capturing have a big effect on the post-production.

No matter the advances in technology photo gear has to deal with physics. So rigid or SLR cameras in the future will require the same techniques to achieve the same results ,in regards to the optical limitations, that they do now. Namely focus stacking to achieve large depth of field. Yes, some automation is expected to be added in the future and of course processing power will keep increasing which will shorten post processing times and or increase the amount of post production that is tolerable in one's workflow.

Still, for ultimate control the CAPcam, available today, seems the pinnacle of view camera style technology. http://www.capcam.org

I am sure that with longer lenses a IQ3 100mp back will work amazingly well with the CAPcam.

Regarding keystone correction since one looses a lot of the effective angle of view during the process vs shifting one generally needs quite a bit more wide angle coverage and as you know wide angle lens selection for medium format digital is more limited but good enough. I am sure you can do the calculations of which lenses are required (given equal format and composition) with keystone correction vs shifting.

As with anything photographic there are usually many ways to get a similar end result hence the endless discussions about gear in this and other forums.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My approach is that we have a process starting with an idea and ending with an image, possibly in form of a print.

The way I usually start is:

• Looking for a subject
• Thinking about composition
• Looking for a point of view
• Thinking about composition, field view and crop. Choosing lens.
• Doing some early decisions like initial composition, need for stitching, HDR or focus stacking
• Shooting the images

So, now I have a bunch of images and some pretty clear ideas about what to make of them. So I go into the processing stage:

• Do some basic adjustments.
• Do stitch, HDR, stacking
• Decide on crop. I care little about aspect ratio, but a lot about finding a well balanced crop.
• Basic adjustments, often using graduated filters in LR
• Fine tuning

Essentially, I feel that there is a process from scene to processed image. There is a need to have a good concept to start with and the basic exposure(s) are a good starting point. But, the final image is the result of the processing pipeline.

Most images require just one exposure. Scene illumination range is not a problem, mostly.

The hardest part is more often than not finding a good and unobstructed point of view. Sometimes I plan to remove some obstruction in post, if I cannot find a solution when shooting.

Depth of field is often problematic, sometimes I resort to combining several exposures with different focus. Tilt can help, but it is still single plane of focus.

Stitching is very practical. It can often be replacement for a zoom lens. I usually end up with some stitched images on each shoot.

Best regards
Erik