‘if you are not prepared to draw it, don’t photograph it’

[NB23]

I once heard the quote ‘if you are not prepared to draw it, don’t photograph it’. I thought that was quite good advice. Would some agree?

Clive, what do you aim by always coming up with these (st***d) topics?

 

[eddie]

I don't find the topic stupid at all. A thought provoking question which elicited some thoughtful responses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I once heard the quote ‘if you are not prepared to draw it, don’t photograph it’. I thought that was quite good advice. Would some agree?

I cannot think of any reason to use the advice or even bother to remember it.

 

[NB23]

I don't find the topic stupid at all. A thought provoking question which elicited some thoughtful responses.

Agent provocateur, yes.

I mean kamawn. Of course I'm not prepared to draw any of my photographs. Not even my masterpieces.
And here's another question: why in the world would I?

 

[eddie]

The quote is simply saying, if the subject is unworthy of being drawn (by someone who can draw) it's unworthy of being photographed (by someone who can make photographs). In other words, the subject is of supreme importance, regardless of how it's captured, and we (as photographers) need to put the same amount of thought into our subject matter as someone who (arguably) spends more time affixing the subject to a piece of paper/canvas/whatever.

 

[RobC]

The quote is simply saying, if the subject is unworthy of being drawn (by someone who can draw) it's unworthy of being photographed (by someone who can make photographs). In other words, the subject is of supreme importance, regardless of how it's captured, and we (as photographers) need to put the same amount of thought into our subject matter as someone who (arguably) spends more time affixing the subject to a piece of paper/canvas/whatever.

Well actually I think quote is quite condescending about photography and most likely made by some pseud artist who thinks he's the dogs bollocks.

 

[cliveh]

The quote is simply saying, if the subject is unworthy of being drawn (by someone who can draw) it's unworthy of being photographed (by someone who can make photographs). In other words, the subject is of supreme importance, regardless of how it's captured, and we (as photographers) need to put the same amount of thought into our subject matter as someone who (arguably) spends more time affixing the subject to a piece of paper/canvas/whatever.

Thanks Eddie, exactly correct.

 

[eddie]

Well actually I think quote is quite condescending about photography and most likely made by some pseud artist who thinks he's the dogs bollocks.

I don't think it's condescending at all. It's a good reminder to think before making an exposure. My guess is it was uttered by a photographer tired of viewing mundane photos.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well actually I think quote is quite condescending about photography and most likely made by some pseud artist who thinks he's the dogs bollocks.

That nails my thoughts about it.

 

[Vaughn]

I make a small (very small) drawing of every scene I photograph, time permitting. Usually immediately afterwards, but during if the exposure is long. Just part of my note-taking in the field.

But as a saying, it is not very well stated. For me, I'd prefer: If it is worth the time to set up the 8x10, it is worth photographing. Tho there are times I have spent a bunch of time under the darkcloth only to tear down the camera without exposing any film.

 

[Silver Halide / Zone]

I agree with this advise totally, anything less and your just a snap shooter wasting time and money.

 

[removed account4]

I agree with this advise totally, anything less and your just a snap shooter wasting time and money.

i don't think so exactly
i think every way of making photographs has its place.
i have made thumbnail sketches ( as vaughn does ) while i
take notes of a building i am photographing or whatever ...
i have projected negatives and drawn images that way,
but i don't take a long time to create an exposure, sometimes
even with cameras that don't focus and have no exposure controls,
sometimes out the window of a speeding car, but does that mean the images
weren't worth taking ?
its is like suggesting, if you aren' t cooking a gastronomic meal it isn't worth cooking at all
or if you don't use a LF camera you are wasting film and resources ( as someone stated recently )

people work in different ways, people make photograph in different ways there is not really a 1 size fits all.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... reminds me of a similar remark...."a real photographer can go out to photograph a scene, set up his camera and tripod, compose, meter, then decide the result will not be up to his standards, pack everything up and go home".
...

I've heard that before and disagree that is a characteristic of a "real photographer". [*]

If the photographer looked at the scene and liked it enough to think it worthy of a photograph, what changed when the equipment got set up? It just sounds pretentious, whoever originally said it. I can just see Ansel driving through Hernandez, spotting the town glowing in the sunset, moon in background, scrambling out of his car, setting up the 4x5 on the roof, calculating the exposure in his head, then saying "naaah, forget it".

Of course, if he missed the precise lighting he wanted, I understand. But the original statement didn't qualify that.


[*] claiming what a "real photographer" would or would not do is yet another No True Scotsman argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the photographer looked at the scene and liked it enough to think it worthy of a photograph, what changed when the equipment got set up? It just sounds pretentious, whoever originally said it. I can just see Ansel driving through Hernandez, spotting the town glowing in the sunset, moon in background, scrambling out of his car, setting up the 4x5 on the roof, calculating the exposure in his head, then saying "naaah, forget it".

I disagree. I have seen something that I wanted to photograph and when I looked at it in the viewfinder changed my mind and moved on to find a better position and find a better subject.

See post number 85 by Vaughn.

 

[NB23]

I've heard that before and disagree that is a characteristic of a "real photographer". [*]

If the photographer looked at the scene and liked it enough to think it worthy of a photograph, what changed when the equipment got set up? It just sounds pretentious, whoever originally said it. I can just see Ansel driving through Hernandez, spotting the town glowing in the sunset, moon in background, scrambling out of his car, setting up the 4x5 on the roof, calculating the exposure in his head, then saying "naaah, forget it".

Of course, if he missed the precise lighting he wanted, I understand. But the original statement didn't qualify that.


[*] claiming what a "real photographer" would or would not do is yet another No True Scotsman argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Wow, those real photographers must be huge pains in the A's.

I am proud of being an Unreal photographer.

 

[darkosaric]

If everybody is so careful with every single frame: not only Kodak, but Ilford and all other would be out of business long time ago .

 

[michr]

I find the attitude toward photography that OP is suggesting is one that stifles creativity, makes one second-guess one's instincts, cling to certainty and formula. I take phtographs because I don't care for the tedium of drawing. And besides, this is cameras and film we're discussing, not moonshoots and Saturn V rockets. What is the risk in taking more photos rather than fewer?

If you aren't prepared to draw it, take a photo of it, it'll actually resemble the subject regardless of your ability, and if you're not satisifed with it, wad it up and throw it out, it's not like you spent twelve hours on it, like a drawing, because it's not a drawing, it's a photo, because you're a photographer, not a draftsman.

 

[markbarendt]

If everybody is so careful with every single frame: not only Kodak, but Ilford and all other would be out of business long time ago .

I don't believe the intent of the saying is a matter of being careful with a "single frame", i.e. stingy with film (though that is one possibility), in my opinion it's more a matter of being careful with "each situation" or opportunity. More a matter of putting in whatever thought and resource is needed to make the intended print.

Being careful may mean bracketing, shooting alternatives, shooting spares, shooting a sequence, ...

 

[removed account4]

i've also heard all sorts of things that one should ALWAYS do:
use a lens shade;
use a tripod;
use stop bath;
eat all your vegetables;
never j-walk;

it doesn't mean the world will end if you don't do these things

 

[Sirius Glass]

I find the attitude toward photography that OP is suggesting is one that stifles creativity, makes one second-guess one's instincts, cling to certainty and formula. I take phtographs because I don't care for the tedium of drawing. And besides, this is cameras and film we're discussing, not moonshoots and Saturn V rockets. What is the risk in taking more photos rather than fewer?

If you aren't prepared to draw it, take a photo of it, it'll actually resemble the subject regardless of your ability, and if you're not satisifed with it, wad it up and throw it out, it's not like you spent twelve hours on it, like a drawing, because it's not a drawing, it's a photo, because you're a photographer, not a draftsman.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

No... but your world might end. Quite a few J-walkers have been run over and killed around here in the past few years.

 

[kb3lms]

Baloney.

Push the button, wind and repeat.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Thanks Eddie, exactly correct.

I'm sorry Cliveh, that's just damn silly.

To paraphrase, If I cannot find an "artist" who would sketch the scene, then I am not to photograph it. -or- If *you* are willing to sketch it, then I should photograph it. Poo poo.

It doesn't matter a whit what someone else thinks of a scene I am considering, If I want to photograph it, I'm going to photograph it... because *I* think the scene warrants it.

The best advice, and advice that should replace the OP advice is this: "If you think something is worth photographing, then photograph it." Of course, both the original advice and my replacement are just painfully obvious, they shouldn't even be considered advice.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm sorry Cliveh, that's just damn silly.

To paraphrase, If I cannot find an "artist" who would sketch the scene, then I am not to photograph it. -or- If *you* are willing to sketch it, then I should photograph it. Poo poo.

It doesn't matter a whit what someone else thinks of a scene I am considering, If I want to photograph it, I'm going to photograph it... because *I* think the scene warrants it.

The best advice, and advice that should replace the OP advice is this: "If you think something is worth photographing, then photograph it." Of course, both the original advice and my replacement are just painfully obvious, they shouldn't even be considered advice.

Exactly spot on correct and right.

 

[eddie]

...If I want to photograph it, I'm going to photograph it... because *I* think the scene warrants it. (emphasis added)

This is exactly what the quote means.