On Technique

MaximusM3 · Oct 18, 2011

Tom Kershaw said:
Massimo,

It is not faulting the photojournalist. More faulting the assumption that if one is a photo journalist there is limited value in craft, technique, "vision", printing etc. for everyone else.

Landscape is a difficult subject to do well; but I really do not understand your aversion to nature... Bad work can be done with all subject matter.

Tom

Tom,

I don't think there is limited value for everyone else at all. In fact, I think that the different aspects should not be confused and that comparisons are futile. I don't have aversion to nature, as I do landscape as well, like many others here. I appreciate the work of photojournalists more for a number of reasons but that's just my taste and opinion. I can appreciate the hard work that goes into both categories but again, when it comes to technique, requirements are different and therefore I find comparisons not to be quite fair. My comments about landscape are not made in a derogatory manner but to outline the fact that demands are different from a technical standpoint and a deeper knowledge of process and materials is required to deliver something worthwhile.

Best,

Max

Tom Kershaw · Oct 18, 2011

I'd agree about some comparisons being unfair. However, technical skill required often depends on the negative and works along side a judgement on aesthetic grounds as to contrast levels, print colour etc; although I disagree that landscape, however it might be defined, requires substantial manipulation to be interesting.

And anyway, a photojournalist's negative might well provide plenty of challenge to the printer for exhibition results; compared to the more integrated approach of a photographer who is reasonably consistent in exposure and is aware of how they want to print the negative in their own darkroom.

Tom

MaximusM3 · Oct 18, 2011

Tom Kershaw said:
I'd agree about some comparisons being unfair. However, technical skill required often depends on the negative and works along side a judgement on aesthetic grounds as to contrast levels, print colour etc; although I disagree that landscape, however it might be defined, requires substantial manipulation to be interesting.

And anyway, a photojournalist's negative might well provide plenty of challenge to the printer for exhibition results; compared to the more integrated approach of a photographer who is reasonably consistent in exposure and is aware of how they want to print the negative in their own darkroom.

Tom

True, my landscape comment is a generalization, as not all needs manipulation to be interesting. On the other hand it is true that extensive manipulation is often used as a crutch for poor content...and then there is everything in between

Photojournalists negatives were invariably the nightmare of printers. But photojournalists got paid to deliver images and printers got paid to print their tough negatives. Everyone was happy. For us who photograph and print (and not professionally under assignment pressures), technical requirements are obviously different and need to be at a higher level to achieve meaningful results. Having said that, I do believe there has to be a fine balance between creativity/vision and the technical side, where the latter should not become an obsession and therefore be a hinder to someone's progress.

markbarendt · Oct 18, 2011

Tom Kershaw said:
And anyway, a photojournalist's negative might well provide plenty of challenge to the printer for exhibition results; compared to the more integrated approach of a photographer who is reasonably consistent in exposure and is aware of how they want to print the negative in their own darkroom.

Tom

PJ style work and environmental portraits are what I enjoy shooting most and over the years I have become very proficient at nailing exposure to make my printing easier.

Good exposure is always my intent but I never wait to find the perfect exposure when a great composition pops up.

The old saying "f/8 and be there" is an important recognition of the fact that fiddling with exposure and focus takes time and that time is a luxury that a PJ probably will not have. It also comes from understanding that in PJ work detail in the shadows and highlights are often a detriment/distraction.

Tom Kershaw · Oct 18, 2011

markbarendt said:
PJ style work and environmental portraits are what I enjoy shooting most and over the years I have become very proficient at nailing exposure to make my printing easier.

Good exposure is always my intent but I never wait to find the perfect exposure when a great composition pops up.

The old saying "f/8 and be there" is an important recognition of the fact that fiddling with exposure and focus takes time and that time is a luxury that a PJ probably will not have. It also comes from understanding that in PJ work detail in the shadows and highlights are often a detriment/distraction.

I think the problem appears when the photographer / journalist thinks or pretends to think that they need to have no understanding of exposure and the photographic process what-so-ever, and that somehow that ignorance will make them a more "connected" and "creative" person.

Tom

Tom Kershaw · Oct 18, 2011

On the other hand it is true that extensive manipulation is often used as a crutch for poor content.

- well I can agree with that.

I do believe there has to be a fine balance between creativity/vision and the technical side, where the latter should not become an obsession and therefore be a hinder to someone's progress.

- the latter part of this is particularly true. Conducting vast numbers of tests is not particularly interesting if it is done to the detriment of creative work; although I would not include development of new processes and lab work in this assessment; more along the path of overwrought testing of minute and insignificant details associated with already well understood processes.

From personal experience, in spring of 2009 I spent a significant amount of time and effort exploring different photographic paper and developer combinations along with toning and other techniques in an attempt to systematise my understanding of how particular results could be achieved, what worked and what didn't. - there are many vague assertions in books and on the internet that become questionably when tested in a reasonably systematic manner, and in certain instances may or may not be associated with the differing characteristics of modern materials. The conclusion being I now have a demonstrably better understanding of the practical use of photographic paper in the darkroom, and how to go about getting to a particular point.

Tom

L Gebhardt · Oct 18, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Does that make sense? I fought so hard for so many years, struggling to improve the work I put out, for the very simple reason that I plainly didn't understand that the shortcomings were not of my materials, but that it was instead me and how I approached it. After ditching my attempts at finding the end of my photographic rainbow by swapping materials, I mostly don't have to try very hard in the darkroom at all, and that helps me enjoy the craft infinitely more. There is more time to shoot, more time to process film, and when I go into the darkroom, I come out happy, unless I decide to bring old negatives in with me.

Makes perfect sense to me. For me the the issue wasn't constantly switching films, but rather trying all sorts of zone system tricks to get that one perfect negative that will print with no effort. I don't know where I got that stupid notion from, but it's a fool's errand. The best thing I figured put was to quickly and accurately expose to get enough density on the negative, and then to just develop to get a negative that prints well on grade 2 paper, on average. If it ideally needs N+1 or N-1 simply changing the filter or paper grade will get you a good print. Mucking around with calculators, notes and tables to determine exposure resulted in missed pictures, and takes me out of seeing the image so the ones I do take aren't as good.

So now if I wanted to try out a new film I'd buy 10 rolls and devote about three of them to film testing in an afternoon with both a gray card and real subjects. After that I'd know my film speed and development time close enough to get easily printed negatives. But for now I am happy with Across and TMY2, so no need to do this until they change either one. Then just go take pictures to your heart's content and don't worry about the development. I just load them in the Jobo and let it do the work.

I do however continue to experiment with filters in the field to learn the responses for both films. So I guess I do like to experiment and focus on technique. But I'm hoping to get to the point where I can look at the scene and determine I want an orange filter and not second guess myself into try three different ones. Then I'll be able to focus even more in just seeing the image.

MaximusM3 · Oct 18, 2011

Tom Kershaw said:
I think the problem appears when the photographer / journalist thinks or pretends to think that they need to have no understanding of exposure and the photographic process what-so-ever, and that somehow that ignorance will make them a more "connected" and "creative" person.

Tom

Tom,

I don't think they are pretending anything. They genuinely don't know and/or don't care.
Anyway, it is simply a choice and, if that helps them achieve their goals, so be it. It is true that some may give off that attitude of "I'm just so good that all I need to know is where the shutter release is" but hey, all artists are a little cocky and eccentric

georg16nik · Oct 18, 2011

In most cases, photojournalists work is not ideologically, spiritually pure - so its natural they would say technique/technology and such doesn't matter.
When Ansel Adams and the folks formed Group f/64, they wanted to promote photographic style characterized by sharp-focused and carefully framed images seen through a particularly Western (U.S.) viewpoint.
Those folks possessed a high degree of environmental awareness, promoted with great success - You can feel that synergy of vision and technique/technology screaming out of their prints.
While most PJ prints are a low-fi facts about how soulless the modern man is.
Of course PJ wont be interested in technique - their exhausted soul whisper that the subject is not that important and that they should just click that button.. at the same time their guts are screaming - go ahead, this is ART (or whatever the name is)

markbarendt · Oct 18, 2011

Tom Kershaw said:
I think the problem appears when the photographer / journalist thinks or pretends to think that they need to have no understanding of exposure and the photographic process what-so-ever, and that somehow that ignorance will make them a more "connected" and "creative" person.

Tom

I agree that some very basic knowledge is needed but part of my photographic maturation has been falling back to "knowing nothing" (well at least thinking very little) about my material and process choices once the roll is in the camera.

I've even gone back to simply using the manufacturer's recommendations at each step of the process getting good at following directions and classic incident meter readings to peg the mid-tones.

Because of the path I took to get here I understand why I chose this path, but any newby can do exactly what I do from their first day by just following the directions.

This has provided the flexibility for me to use whatever material is at hand nicely and normally get exposures that print nicely.

clay · Oct 18, 2011

I can't believe I am jumping in on one of these sort of threads, but here's my two cents: If lack of technique prevents you from doing what you envision doing, then you need to acquire it. If your technique is sufficient to give you the end result you want, photographically speaking, then you're good. Make your stuff.

Toffle · Oct 18, 2011

clay said:
I can't believe I am jumping in on one of these sort of threads, but here's my two cents: If lack of technique prevents you from doing what you envision doing, then you need to acquire it. If your technique is sufficient to give you the end result you want, photographically speaking, then you're good. Make your stuff.

Thank you, Clay. The man knows whereof he speaks. This is about being a photographer - taking pictures and getting prints that satisfy you. Do it.

removed account4 · Oct 18, 2011

jglass said:
"The point they go on to make is one of the common threads observable across artforms when one studies the work of great artists, is an ability to somehow resist that normal maturing process from a technical perspective, the learning that comes from the study of rules, conventions and opinions established by outside influences. Picasso was famous for saying he could always draw like Rembrandt, but it took him years to learn to draw like a child."

This makes no sense, really: Picasso could draw like Rembrandt, in part, because he worked at it and learned all the "rules and techniques." He did not, at least at first, "resist the normal maturing process from a technical perspective." He went right on through the normal maturing process and then went beyond it to make his art.

Frankly, no artist defends the red herring that this thread and Lisl Steiner's self-congratulatory quote have decided to do battle with: that technique is sufficient. No one argues that from an artistic viewpoint. There's a lot of over-emphasis on technique here on this site, but for cryin out loud that's what this place is for, learning the techniques. When you're ready to go beyond it, you're on your own.

Any artist can benefit from the mastery of technique that Picasso had and deployed in a radical way. It was not an absence of technique that made him great but a mastery of it and an ability to transcend it. All artists understand that. Even some journalists understand it!

hi jeff

picasso was drawing at a very early age. his father ( from what i can remember )
enlisted him to apply and take the entrance exam for l'academie des beaux arts
when he was 14 ... it usually took a year ( at least ) to complete the drawings &C and picasso
completed it in 2 weeks. the school said it was turned in earlier than anyone had
ever turned it in, and it was better than an exam they had ever seen.
i can totally understand his quote because he had the charm and technique within him and was a masterful artist even at the age of 10 or 14 ...
like with many artforms, you are taught to follow rules ( techniques ? ) to create
a work of art and breaking the rule and making up one's own technique
being playful and whimsical, not caring, having distain towards ones materials &C is not something "serious artists" are supposed to do.

motzart knew a little about being whimsical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 18, 2011

clay said:
I can't believe I am jumping in on one of these sort of threads, but here's my two cents: If lack of technique prevents you from doing what you envision doing, then you need to acquire it. If your technique is sufficient to give you the end result you want, photographically speaking, then you're good. Make your stuff.

Some people are gifted in the way that they can cram the meaning of a thousand words into a couple of lines. Thank you.

guitstik · Oct 18, 2011

Shoot, print, repeat

MattKing · Oct 18, 2011

L Gebhardt said:
....

I do however continue to experiment with filters in the field to learn the responses for both films. So I guess I do like to experiment and focus on technique. But I'm hoping to get to the point where I can look at the scene and determine I want an orange filter and not second guess myself into try three different ones. Then I'll be able to focus even more in just seeing the image.

This highlights part of the difficulty with the subject. What do we mean when we use the word "technique(s)"?

Your post is a point about a narrowly focussed area of technique - you want to be able to do certain things in a certain way, so you learn the technique(s) necessary to get the results you want.

Compare that to other posts in this thread that are referring to technique more as a set of methods, knowledge and skills.

A discussion about the relative benefit and burden of achieving mastery of technique in general is very different than a discussion about the value of mastering the use of filters - that value is both clear and clearly limited.

jglass · Oct 18, 2011

jnanian said:
hi jeff

picasso was drawing at a very early age. his father ( from what i can remember )
enlisted him to apply and take the entrance exam for l'academie des beaux arts
when he was 14 ... it usually took a year ( at least ) to complete the drawings &C and picasso
completed it in 2 weeks. the school said it was turned in earlier than anyone had
ever turned it in, and it was better than an exam they had ever seen.

Agreed, John, and that's why I said he mastered technique, in part, by learning the rules. The other "part" was a native gift. But I feel sure the academie approved his exam because he had excellent technique, whether from hard work or from nature. Once you have the technique, you can fruitfully disregard it and get all whimsical -- for example by shooting paper negs without exposure info and developing in coffee -- or you can exploit the technique itself in a different context, for example by panning the camera on a still object, or the like, etc. So:

1. Technique is good but not sufficient.

2.Vision is good but not sufficient. I think the first statement is non-controversial. The second, maybe not.

keithwms · Oct 18, 2011

I have to interject one observation about American culture that is perhaps relevant to this discussion. I offer this as someone who's spent approximately half his life inside and half outside the U.S.

Americans have this abiding belief in natural talent / gift. It pervades all aspects of society. The idea is that you are born with most of your talent, and you simply have to find that. And once you do, you will be Steve Jobs. Or Albert Einstein. Or Barack.... And too much training or indoctrination in any particular area will keep you from realizing that inner genius.

This is not a criticism of American perspective on promoting real talent, mind you. I felt greatly reassured when I left the colonial British schooling of my childhood and came to the U.S. and was informed, on a daily if not hourly basis, that I was a raving genius who would be an astronaut or a President or both. What kid doesn't want to hear that? Especially when you've been raised to believe that your class and your stream defined who you were, and you were threatened with a rap of the cane over the knuckles to work harder to outcompete your neighbour or you might spend eternity in a lower caste....

The relevance to this discussion is that some people really are fantastically gifted and quickly exceed all constraints of the technical. But sometimes I wonder if our emphasis on genius in American society skews our educational system so much to the outliers that we forget how many wonderful things are done by the humble among us. It concerns me just how freely people use the terms 'genius' and 'gifted' etc. I never once heard it 'til I came to the US as a teenager.

This is perhaps too tangential, but these thoughts came to mind while I read through the many pages of this thread. There is something cultural in evidence here, perhaps. Based on my own hybrid upbringing, I have no problem saying that I had to do some hard work to understand what my capabilities are. There were frustrations, tears, sweat, epiphanies... all of these things.

Genius is very rare, that is all I am saying, I suppose. I also find it odd that people don't realize that it usually takes a genius to recognize one, and is therefore rather self-serving to use the term. Particularly on one's own children

Photo Engineer · Oct 18, 2011

That post should be repeated on the thread about Americanisms!

But, your having been born in the UK, you could not have become president!

EDIT: I corrected my grammar.

PE

keithwms · Oct 18, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
That post should be repeated on the thread about Americanisms!

But, your having been born in the UK, you could not have become president!

EDIT: I corrected my grammar.

PE

LOL actually I am (barely) a native born Georgia peach so I am good to go. Just have to find my inner political genius.... In fact, I have been thinking about founding the Dinner Party with a good friend of mine.

Allen Friday · Oct 18, 2011

I just finished the book "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else." It seems that all those "naturals", whether in sports, music, the arts, business etc., worked at it very hard. The book is worth checking out.

VaryaV · Oct 18, 2011

That was great Keith and well stated.

Personally, I think words like 'genius' and 'brilliant' are used too loosely in our culture. I don't believe in genius. I think those words are used by people who are impressed with skills that they do not themselves possess, or someone outside the norm or regarded as eccentric.

Anyway, that was a very interesting perspective I hadn't considered it before.

I also think it has a lot to do with our society today and the educational system pandering to children who might be considered mediocre. Know what I mean?

CHEERS!

Paul Jenkin · Nov 7, 2011

"Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." Thomas Edison
"The harder you practice, the luckier you get." Gary Player

There are, of course, many people who have (or appear to have) an innate "gift" for something. However, I believe that mastery of a skill usually takes serious effort. Once the "bar" has been achieved, it's possible to fine-tune the skill by practice or focused training on any weak spots. Once the skill is truly mastered, then it's time to leave the grind behind and use the skill subliminally.

I would argue that if Ansel Adams and Cartier-Bresson hadn't put the hours into becoming experts in their chosen photographic techniques, the best they would have achieved is mediocrity. In my opinion, there isn't a substitute for really understanding your kit and knowing how to get the best out of it.

lesm · Dec 30, 2011

Having read most of this fascinating thread I'm reminded of the Emperor's new clothes. It takes a child's intuitive grasp of truth to see the deceit. If people are satisfied with sloppy technique and indifferent prints, that's fine if they just want to show friends and family. The crunch comes when one puts work before the public and asks to be taken seriously. It may be possible, if you have the gift of the gab, to persuade some people that one's sloppy work is "art" and better grab it now because it's gonna be collectible. And sure, there are plenty of gullible people out there with bulging wallets. But sooner or later some child/person-with-clear-vision is going to say, "Hang on. This is shite. The Emperor has no clothes." When I look back at the great artists, musicians, architects, sculptors of our civilization the ones that endure, to my mind, are the ones who first mastered technique in every detail then used it or not as they chose.

John Austin · Dec 30, 2011

Too many words to read them all, so I may be repeating already stated thoughts

Simplicity and balance, put simply, a well seen image that is technically bad is unreadable and a badly seen image that is sharp from Zone I to IX isn't worth reading

Kenneth White on Sesshu Toyo wrote

"After years in China
Emptiness achieved
He painted
With the fewest of strokes
The hardness of rocks
The twistedness of roots

Both seeing and technique are needed, find your balance and then strive for simplicity - Simplicity can be a 10x8" for contact prints or a 35mm camera for well printed snapshots - To make a good negative and then be sloppy with the printing is an insult to the materials used and the people viewing your prints, but by this I do not exclude harshly made prints if done purpose and care

On Technique

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency