On Technique

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 16, 2011

keithwms said:
This brings to mind a quote from André Kertész: "Technique isn't important, go on and make mistakes. I've been making mistakes since 1912."

Anyway, learning technique is very important, of course. But accomplished people eventually realize that the technique was just the very first step along a long path that may ultimately lead nowhere in particular.

Our culture rates genius so highly, some people find it embarrassing to admit that they had to take that first baby step just like everyone else.

Other people (a.k.a. teachers) don't have that ego issue and are willing to discuss the complexities in the learning process, with the hope that they might help others.

You obviously have to have some technique. If you don't know how to load your camera, or what buttons to push to take the picture, then you can't practice photography.

Once again, I think it's implied that technique shouldn't be the focusing point of photography. It should be a means to achieve the print. And even though it might be a lot of fun and self satisfying, endless experimentation with materials, lenses, tripod and boot straps isn't necessarily going to make our collections of photographs any better. I think perhaps awareness of that may be important to find a healthy balance.

In my own experience, and for my own work, I find that simple is best. The less factors and variables I have when I take pictures and make prints the better it is, because I like my results better. Creativity in my process I hope comes from my brain and how I use my materials, and not so much an intricate knowledge of what it all means in words. It's like simply reacting to the subject matter, and make as little as possible stand between myself and it.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 16, 2011

Michael,

I don't think that there is anything in photography that is correct. And there isn't anything that is entirely wrong either.

What I wanted this thread to lead to was to perhaps generate some discussion around the topic, so that people can decide for themselves what's important to them.
While you opine that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, I argue that brilliant technique isn't necessary to be a great photographer. I don't see why those two approaches couldn't coexist, because there's room for both. What is important, however, is to figure out where we want to go with our photography, and more importantly, how to get there. For my own purposes I am almost always entirely happy with my print quality. I honestly don't feel that I need to look at another paper, film, camera, lens, camera strap, or whatever, to get the final print that I want. I do feel it to be absolutely essential to keep my imagination alive, to find interesting subject matter and interesting moments to photograph. The more the technical side of my photography is a constant, I feel the more I am able to develop those areas.

For someone that is possibly not as happy with their print quality, the situation may be completely different, and it's obviously important what it is we wish to achieve with our photography. You know, we all try to find value in our lives, to fill them with as much joy as possible, so that we can be pleased with ourselves when we can't go after those things anymore. Memories, experiences, and so on. To some that achievement could be to write something like a Darkroom Cookbook, and to others it could be to have portfolios of work that they feel great about. The key is, once we decide what we wish to achieve, we can make decisions. Me, I want to be able to continue to make prints that are easy to make, where it's effortless to express what I want to express. That's all.

Tom Kershaw · Oct 16, 2011

I'm not convinced there is a "technical side" and "artistic side" beyond the very basics. Assuming goals of art and meaning, photography is a process of seeing; and therefore to assume overly broad generalisations and privilege say "portraiture" over aspects of "landscape" is absurd. Although Ansel Adams is not my favourite photographer as such, I am very dubious of the notion that HCB could be considered superior in some ill-defined sense.

Tom

MattKing · Oct 16, 2011

Photography is a communicative art. The purpose of technique is to aid us in that communication - it gives us tools that we can use for our intended purpose.

I'm sure there are thousands (millions?) of musicians out there who would like to make music in a particular way, in order to create what they envision, but cannot, because they haven't as yet acquired the technique necessary to do so.

Why should photographers be different?

Photo Engineer · Oct 16, 2011

We have neglected to mention that there is photographic technique and laboratory technique; both active in photography.

PE

Photo Engineer · Oct 16, 2011

Michael;

You might look at my work and decide which was better; Technicqe or whatever...........

I could not have taken some of them if I had worried about technique. I just relied on gut feeling and fired away.

PE

Toffle · Oct 16, 2011

Technique does not trump vision, it serves vision.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 16, 2011

Michael R 1974 said:
Thomas Bertilsson said:

For my own purposes I am almost always entirely happy with my print quality. I honestly don't feel that I need to look at another paper, film, camera, lens, camera strap, or whatever, to get the final print that I want.QUOTE]

And yet over the relatively short time I've been a member here and looked at the images you post, you've used quite a variety of cameras, films, developers, papers and toners.

Don't get me wrong here I'm not saying this to knock your work, just to point out you've used a pretty wide array of materials. I recall all sorts of things, from Edwal 12 to XTOL to Rodinal at various dilutions etc, and that's just a few of the film developers. Had you not experimented and practiced with different products and techniques, you wouldn't know they had applications relevant to your images (I use the term "image" as the raw compositional decision, before any materials are applied). Granted you're not interested in plotting characteristic curves, but it's all quite similar in the end. These people you refer to who have no interest in technique, they might say who needs the subtelties of something like Edwal 12? Or a Hasselblad? Just load up whatever piece of crap with Tri-X and use that for everything, develop it all in D76 at Kodak's recommended time, print it straight on whatever paper developed in whatever is on the shelf at the local store and done.

Click to expand...

So we're down to personal attacks now, are we? I was beginning to like you.

Did it ever occur to you that I might be printing old negatives? Did it ever occur to you that I might have not always reasoned the way I have for the last three years, trying to get away from using too many materials, which I feel got me nowhere? Can we get back on schedule now, discussing something important, like not counting how many developers Thomas used to use?

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 16, 2011

And yes. Tri-X in D76 in my old Pentax. Sure. Why not?

lxdude · Oct 16, 2011

Toffle said:
Technique does not trump vision, it serves vision.

Now that could make a good sig line!

mgb74 · Oct 16, 2011

I don't buy it. I believe every talented photographer has a technique. It may be innate or learned. It may be purposeful or intuitive (though usually more intuitive). It may be static or evolving. It may be "a" technique or multiple techniques. In fact, it's technique that separates the talented from the lucky. Technique is repeatable, luck isn't.

I do believe, however, that mechanics can be confused for technique. And that focusing (no pun intended) on the mechanics of taking a photograph can interfere not just with spontaneity but the process of "seeing" itself. But I'd be hard pressed to articulate where mechanics end and technique begins. The best I can do at first glance is that technique is "what" and mechanics are" how".

removed account4 · Oct 16, 2011

threads like this crack me up ..
technique, no technique ... who cares
it's not like it matters ...

Toffle · Oct 17, 2011

mgb74 said:
But I'd be hard pressed to articulate where mechanics end and technique begins. The best I can do at first glance is that technique is "what" and mechanics are" how".

And vision is... WHY.

Vision is why Shakespeare picked up a quill, Rodin a chisel, Van Gogh a brush (his technique and mechanics were considered way sub-standard by the way... too bad, he had quite the eye) and Ronis a camera.

I'm not knocking technique, or mechanics (or "craft") but they are pointless without the creative spark. Technique and colour theory and film curves and the minutia of the craft are great topics to debate and/or argue on the internet, but they are not reasons to create photographs. A creative vision - even a small one - is WHY we make photographs.

markbarendt · Oct 17, 2011

In the relatively short time I've been here at APUG I have gone through various phases. I've had a variety of ah ha moments that have fundamentally changed the way I shoot and process.

Many of the things I thought I knew about photography when I got here were skewed or flat out wrong. I look at some of my posts and wonder how I could ever have been so goofed up.

I have grown and changed and learned. I hope that anyone who comes here can learn and change for the better, as much a I have.

I do find it a bit odd to think that someone might expect me or someone else to follow my/our old patterns forever and call me/us out for exploring a new path or new idea.

Rudeofus · Oct 17, 2011

Thomas, a lot of people here, and I am definitely including myself in this list would be very happy if we had your level of technical skill and knowledge or ever got close to reaching it. I understand your point that you have reached a level where you prefer to focus on vision and seeing, but for quite a few of us here improvement of our technical skill set will positively improve our images.

BTW I don't think Michael R tried to rip on you, he just pointed out what I try to say here. What you consider simple technique may be completely out of reach for quite a few here, just read your postings about Rodinal vs. HC110.

MaximusM3 · Oct 17, 2011

Toffle said:
And vision is... WHY.

Vision is why Shakespeare picked up a quill, Rodin a chisel, Van Gogh a brush (his technique and mechanics were considered way sub-standard by the way... too bad, he had quite the eye) and Ronis a camera.

I'm not knocking technique, or mechanics (or "craft") but they are pointless without the creative spark. Technique and colour theory and film curves and the minutia of the craft are great topics to debate and/or argue on the internet, but they are not reasons to create photographs. A creative vision - even a small one - is WHY we make photographs.

Well said, Tom. The plain truth is that all the technical knowledge in the world is not going to buy anyone a great image. Sometimes a bit of ignorance is indeed bliss because there is nothing to clutter the creative mind. The key is to know just enough to master your materials. That's it.

From a personal standpoint, and just as a little anecdote about the importance of knowing a few fundamentals, which are invariably what drives so many here crazy. I've always loved APX100 and Rodinal but my results where always spotty, like I was missing it most of the time. There were no answers from everyone's opinion on the internet because it's my Rodinal, my water, my agitation, etc. Just winging it all the time only added frustration, which in turn hindered creativity, since I was always doubting myself. So, I've sent 12 rolls (6 35mm and 6 120) to Fred Newman at the View Camera Store and $90 for a film test. Exposed it with a 21 step tablet and calibrated lighting, sent it back to me, I developed with my method, sent it back to him, and he plotted everything there is to know for me now about that film. I've shot two rolls over this past weekend and it was an epiphany. Slapped some grade 2 paper under the enlarger and blasted 5 prints in 45 minutes with just minor burning for cosmetics. On the field, I took two incident meter readings to establish my average development time based on brightness range, a couple of meter readings with my Leica in shadows to establish exposure and spent the rest of the day enjoying shooting with APX100 like I had not in a while. Best $90 I've ever spent.

Now, I know just enough about my materials to take good photographs. If they are not good, it is because my creativity or vision sucks and I can't blame it on process and waste time finding magic bullets or holy grails. Test your materials once, learn, and enjoy shooting. Simple technique at the service of creativity.

Helinophoto · Oct 17, 2011

You just have to listen to half a classic-rock album, or a famous classical pianist/violinist, to realize that, anyone can learn how to play an instrument, technically, from a sheet of paper with notes on it, but it's a far cry from actual musical and creative talent.

Dare I say..... If Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson, Cappa or any other "icon" started out today, they would never have been the icons that they are conceived to be, they would simply drown in the massive amount of better talent that exist today.

Decisive moment...hmm...most things that I find interesting with Bresson's photos, are the times he documented, what they wore, how the world looked back then. I cannot see this "perfect moment" in many of his photos, other when some curator's sub-text over-explains how the photo "is supposed to work" for the viewer. You can critique a photographic image any way you want, you can crush it trough finding all it's faults, or you can start seeing things and start praising them, things the photographer may never even have realized while taking the actual photo.
- You can critique by saying that the corn-fields straight lines, creates an unbalanced photo, and thus it's a bad composition, or you can say that the corn-fields straight line, creates an unbalanced photo, giving it a more dynamic impression and thus helping the eye to move around and follow the photo better.

Funny isn't it? =)

I've seen A. Adams photos and I find most of them utterly boring and lifeless, the man totally lacked (in my view) a closeness to his subject. Sure, a pioneer, creating the zone system, but an artist...no way. So what if you can have all the zones in the zone-system in your final print, it's utter crap if it doesn't move the viewer/you/people in general.

I've also seen many war photograps depicting various situations much more telling than the melted photos of Cappa from D-Day, or his photo from the Spanish civil war(?), the soldier getting shot. The thing is, Cappa's photograps are historical documents, the melting of the D-day photos added to their nature somehow (as luck would have it, imagine if they turned white instead).

(Am I getting to anyone yet? because I can go on and on about these so-called "great icons of our time" ).

I bet you that on Apug alone, there are literary hundreds of "Bressons", "Ansels" with more creative talent, more technical know-how and expertise than the old icons that everyone is looking so much up to.
- Being a magnum photographer, wasn't about being the "best", it was basically a workers-union for photographers. Nowdays, when you hear that someone is a Magnum photographer, people assume they can make water into wine, walk on water and fly.

And you can never calculate your way to a "good photo", a good photo has nothing to do with the technical expertise therein, as long as it moves the viewer/you/people in general. BUT, I think that if you got the talent, the creativity and the will to learn all the "tools" and "techniques" you can, you will have a much broader repertoire to create and that will be amazing....but without TALENT and CREATIVITY, you can read all the books you like, it will still be crap.

VaryaV · Oct 17, 2011

Very well put HelinoP... and I couldn't agree more.

I have much to say on this topic as well and will add to it.

Tom Kershaw · Oct 17, 2011

Ansel Adams did not "create" the zone system. The Zone System is a rough and very useful practical approximation for sensitometry, inherent in all film photographical. Not being concerned with exposure is bizarre; for a start it makes printing much more straightforward.

Tom

MaximusM3 · Oct 17, 2011

Helinophoto said:
You just have to listen to half a classic-rock album, or a famous classical pianist/violinist, to realize that, anyone can learn how to play an instrument, technically, from a sheet of paper with notes on it, but it's a far cry from actual musical and creative talent.

Dare I say..... If Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson, Cappa or any other "icon" started out today, they would never have been the icons that they are conceived to be, they would simply drown in the massive amount of better talent that exist today.

Decisive moment...hmm...most things that I find interesting with Bresson's photos, are the times he documented, what they wore, how the world looked back then. I cannot see this "perfect moment" in many of his photos, other when some curator's sub-text over-explains how the photo "is supposed to work" for the viewer. You can critique a photographic image any way you want, you can crush it trough finding all it's faults, or you can start seeing things and start praising them, things the photographer may never even have realized while taking the actual photo.

I've seen A. Adams photos and I find most of them utterly boring and lifeless, the man totally lacked (in my view) a closeness to his subject. Sure, a pioneer, creating the zone system, but an artist...no way. So what if you can have all the zones in the zone-system in your final print, it's utter crap if it doesn't move the viewer/you/people in general.

I've also seen many war photograps depicting various situations much more telling than the melted photos of Cappa from D-Day, or his photo from the Spanish civil war(?), the soldier getting shot. The thing is, Cappa's photograps are historical documents, the melting of the D-day photos added to their nature somehow (as luck would have it, imagine if they turned white instead).

(Am I getting to anyone yet? because I can go on and on about these so-called "great icons of our time" ).

I bet you that on Apug alone, there are literary hundreds of "Bressons", "Ansels" with more creative talent, more technical know-how and expertise than the old icons that everyone is looking so much up to.
- Being a magnum photographer, wasn't about being the "best", it was basically a workers-union for photographers. Nowdays, when you hear that someone is a Magnum photographer, people assume they can make water into wine, walk on water and fly.

And you can never calculate your way to a "good photo", a good photo has nothing to do with the technical expertise therein, as long as it moves the viewer/you/people in general. BUT, I think that if you got the talent, the creativity and the will to learn all the "tools" and "techniques" you can, you will have a much broader repertoire to create and that will be amazing....but without TALENT and CREATIVITY, you can read all the books you like, it will still be crap.

Boy aren't you correct on all counts You may ruffle some feathers here but it is the truth. The interesting part is that people like Bresson, never thought of their photographs to be anything more than "good"..sometimes. They snapped, sent them out to be processed, someone else printed them. The viewers, galleries, art collectors, are the ones who elevated them to legend status. For them, it was their bread and butter, if that. It is all so subjective that it is impossible to slap any labels on anything. For me Ansel Adams's photographs are glorified vacation snapshots made by a guy who really knew his materials, how to expose, and most of all, how to create the WOW factor in the darkroom. He was a Photoshop man of his time all the way. Yes, there is better talent today but it is hard to discern because it is largely diluted by incredible amounts of junk, which makes it harder to sift through.
Anyway, Steve Jobs never finished college, John Lennon didn't know how to write or read music, and Hendrix didn't know what a pentatonic scale was. You get my drift

keithwms · Oct 17, 2011

Why this notion that someone learns techniques and then is finished with that, forever?

I find myself learning new techniques and also inventing new ones as I go. Sometimes you have a vision and the existing techniques don't work, so you expand them. Thank goodness that the early pioneers of photography didn't learn the existing techniques of salt printing or whatever and then give themselves to pure art! Somebody said, wait, my art requires better techniques, so... what about this, what about that...

This isn't like school, where you graduate with a piece of paper and settle into one workflow and that's it, done forever. From my perspective, you are either learning new things or you are dying.

(N.b. I could easily write negative comments about the tendency for academization of art to kill it, but I will hold off on that for now)

Tom Kershaw · Oct 17, 2011

Keith,

I think there is a strong element of anti-science in some of the posts (not yours); along with an illogical disparaging of technique and craft.

Tom

Jim Jones · Oct 17, 2011

gandolfi said:
[/I]. . . The "perfect" photographs have been made long time ago... Why should we/I also do it?

Proberly for the same reason some still play Rachmaninov...

Yes, indeed. We live in our mileau, not Rachmaninoff's. Much has happened since his time, such as the greatest war in human history and the expansion of communications from crude B&W TV to the internet. We are not the people our grandparents were. Today's interpretation of Rachmaninoff may have some significance to us that the composer's own performance could not. The printing of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston changed as materials and their vision evolved. A Cole Weston print of his father's negatives is another interpretation of that image. We have the advantage of enjoying both the old and the contemporary performances of photographs as well as music, but it does not stop with us. We are merely stepping stones to the future.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 17, 2011

Rudeofus said:
Thomas, a lot of people here, and I am definitely including myself in this list would be very happy if we had your level of technical skill and knowledge or ever got close to reaching it. I understand your point that you have reached a level where you prefer to focus on vision and seeing, but for quite a few of us here improvement of our technical skill set will positively improve our images.

BTW I don't think Michael R tried to rip on you, he just pointed out what I try to say here. What you consider simple technique may be completely out of reach for quite a few here, just read your postings about Rodinal vs. HC110.

I'm trying to make the point that I don't feel that all those different materials moved me anywhere. All I did was spinning my wheels. It wasn't until I stopped working with lots of different materials that I could start to really develop my portfolios to where I wanted them to be. All it did, in retrospect, was making it difficult for me in the darkroom, wasting tons of paper and time, just because I didn't know what to expect. If you want to, then try this some time (it's how I used to do it):
1. Use seven different films: APX 100, TMax 100, FP4+, Foma 100, Foma 400, Tri-X, and Delta 3200 (some of them outdated, to make it worse)
2. Use three developers: Rodinal, Pyrocat, and DD-X
3. Use a plethora of papers, like: Fotokemika Emaks, Kentmere Bromide, Ilford MGIV, Ilford MGWT, Fotokemika Varycon, and Foma 112.
4. Use whatever print developer that sounded good: Edwal Ultra Black, Kodak Dektol, Ilford Multigrade, 130, Amidol, and two different lith developers.
5. Toners.

Now try go into the darkroom and make something worthwhile. What you end up with is a massive mess of prints that all look different and won't look good together. I was working on eight different portfolios of things I had photographed in the past and present. All of them printed on matt, glossy, warmtone, standard tone, in different developers, from negatives with different properties.
As I now go through those negs and pick one out to print, it takes me a lot of paper to get to where I want the print to be. So it's wasteful of precious natural resources, as well as time, and it's frustrating beyond belief.

So, I urge you all to think about your goals, and where you want to end up with your photographs. If you love tinkering in the darkroom, and don't mind spending a lot of time on each print, great! Tinker away. But if you like to develop portfolios and come up with work that consistently looks good, and prints with minimal frustration and waste, then getting to grips with a few good materials and just focusing on the pictures is the best way to go, in my humble opinion.

I thank you for your kind words, but I just don't wish my experience upon anyone else. Fortunately, some of it was due to the fact that I was hunting bargains, scavenging eBay for the cheapest deal on everything, simply because it was all I could afford. So I can lay some of the blame on that. But the point is still that it got me absolutely nowhere, because here I am reprinting all of those old negatives that I like, with great frustration and tons of paper in the trash can. I can't help but feel that it could have been put to better use if I had it clearly figured out what I wanted to achieve. I wish it would have all been Tri-X and D76, or any other Brand X/Y combination that would have served me consistent results.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 17, 2011

keithwms said:
From my perspective, you are either learning new things or you are dying.

Yes! Precisely. And learning new things can be anything in the photographic chain of events, from seeing, to cutting nice overmats for your prints. I think we all choose differently what we want to learn, however, and hopefully the decision of what we choose is based on where we want our photography to go.

On Technique

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency