On Technique

[Helinophoto]

Well, I for one really didn't say that technique kills anything, nor that it is not important to know what you are doing.
Knowledge and techniques are tools you can use to expand your creativity to create photographic images, but apart from knowing how to expose skin correctly more or less, you really don't need much to create a photograph that hits the viewer.

Off course one shouldn't forget that almost every guy with a camera that did photography before us, left something for others to go on with and build upon.

But there is a major difference between applying pure technical knowledge and think that you are creating something and using your technical knowledge as a tool to accomplish the idea/vision you have and use the tools differently to achieve new things.

My post was written with a slightly sharp pen though, I can see that, I'm just trying to say that there is a huge difference between a technically great photograph and a great photograph, the latter can be unsharp, blocked shadows, burned out highlights and still hit you right in the old blood-pump

Painters use new technique and materials all the time, but it is always the final photo that is the most important, they use/invent tools to accomplish their creative idea.

I'm no master at all (I'm just your average joe-schmoe snapper), but I've taken a few "good" photos, technically. But I can honestly say that I've never taken an "important" photograph or a photo that I love and want to hang on my own wall, or a photo that convey emotion, feeling, messages etc, probably don't have they eye for it, but it is still a fun and rewarding art-form.

[edit]
Regarding the zone system, it must be a widely used misconception that he invented it then, because you woun't have to read many books before you see that many actually state that he is infact the father/inventer of the zone system, in other literature he is noted as the one who perfected the system.
Anyway, can we all agree that he contributed to it atleast?
[/edit]

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sorry about that Thomas I really didn't mean it as an attack or anything negative at all. Apologize if it came off that way. Hopefully I can get you to resume beginning to like me

Is OK. Thanks. It's entirely possible I overreacted and jumped to conclusions. Let's move forward.

 

[VaryaV]

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.

And for me, the 'learning new things or dying' is equivalent to 'creatively pushing' my ideas into new territory, or previously unexplored. Whether I achieve that goal or not, it must be attempted. That is the 'alive' part. But I do think the two must go hand in hand. An artist must aspire to reach all levels of quality not just in ideas but in the print as well. Relying solely on plotting curves will kill your creativity as an artist and continuously turning in shoddy work will not convince anyone of your skills, and the end result will be the same. I have seen too many conceptual artists use that as a lame excuse for turning in crap, it's not excusable. But that is a subject for different debate.

 

[removed account4]

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

i agree with you that ansel adams didn't invent the zone system,
it was used by 19th century photographers who had to deal with ortho
film and glass plates in order to judge and understand exposure
and the tonal range of their materials ...

but i disagree with you that not being concerned with exposure is bizarre.
very infrequently do i concern myself with a light meter,
or the asa of my film ( or paper )
or the time that my film develops. ... no matter the asa, or the scene or the film ( color as well )
it all gets processed for the same time in the same developer ( at the same time ) ... 28mins.
sheet film prints well with a flood light ( like with azo )
roll film will either contact print, enlarge or skan ...

my only technique is that i look through the lens ( or not ) and press the shutter.
you may not enjoy the photographs that i make, but they are made with very little technique ... or care for exposure of materials

 

[VaryaV]

my only technique is that i look through the lens ( or not ) and press the shutter.
you may not enjoy the photographs that i make, but they are made with very little technique ... or care for exposure of materials

And your work is both very creative and beautiful to look at, so you must be doing something right.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Great thread going on here.... I think we can all agree that there are so many combinations of silver based materials out there that eyes will glaze over... That said, the adage of keeping it simple in my mind is paramount. I've been down the path of trying to control EVERY detail about making an image to the point where it has actually got in the way.... I, like everyone else here has tried all sorts of films, developers, papers, toners and combinations... I learned fairly early on that material choice, and equipment choice should not get in the way of your vision. While it certainly helps if you do know the technical side of the equation well enough, only if it becomes second nature by sticking with a combination long enough to know how it can be used. It should not involve too much over thinking as it will distract the main goal which is the creative process.. It adds stress in what should really be an enjoyable step.

I have settled on a few materials over the last few years, like Thomas mentioned, to create a similar look to the images so that bodies of work can be cohesive. The key for me is CONSISTENCY in the use of the equipment, knowledge of materials, and your own personal vision that knows how to bring all this together without over analyzing all the options. As our work evolves, often, the techniques, equipment, and materials evolve as well. However, for me its usually a gradual process, there are no really abrubt material/equipment or 180 degree changes for me any longer.... Unless a major change happens and a product I use is no longer available!! I have found what works well for me at this point in my evolution, others will need to make their own mind up too.

With as many choices as we still have in the analog world, it can be daunting for some who are new to it, but it should not deter anyone from learning..... and learning using whatever equipment, and materials they choose. All I would say is that learn as much as you can about a particular combination before switching to something else. To some, it might be fun by switching things up all the time, if that floats your boat, then by all means go ahead...YMMV... And that's what is so cool about analog photography.... There is no wrong or right way to do what we do...

 

[MaximusM3]

It's in vogue to slam Ansel. He's an easy target. I think a significant part of the reason people find Ansel boring is they've seen the work of the million and one rip-off, knock-off photographers who've come since. It's a shame, really. I'd also point out many people judge Adams's creative talent based on a relatively small selection of his images that have become ubiquitous.

Helinophoto's comments hold no truths. All it is, is personal taste. I really don't think there are more "better" photographers now than there ever were. It might just seem that way because for every Ansel Adams or Paul Strand or (pick any name from the first half of the century), there are now thousands of copyist photographers.

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed someone like Maximus agrees with all that nonsense. When you talk about the WOW factor in the darkroom, have you looked at earlier printings of Adams's work? It seems to me people are most familiar only with his late 1970s prints, the ones that appear in all the books and have all the zing. And when you say there is better talent today, what exactly are you basing that on? How is that defined? What does a statement like that even mean?

What a disappointing turn this thread has taken.

Statements about how Lennon couldn't write music, etc are such tired arguments. Sure, Hendrix wrote good stuff without knowing what a pentatonic scale is, but Bach also wrote great music, and he knew everything.

Michael,

No reason to be disappointed, really. Having a conversation/debate, doesn't mean that I have to agree with your views and vice-versa. It's okay. It doesn't have to be a pissing contest and no one should try to impose one's views/beliefs on others. It's okay to disagree.
As far as Adam's early work, what does that prove? That me and you enjoy his early work more than the later wizardry? Or that if his later work didn't have all the "zing", it wouldn't be hanging in museums and collectors wouldn't be paying thousands (or millions) for a print?

As far as the music analogy, we're talking opposite ends of the spectrum, and then there is everything in between. You can't play classical music without knowing theory but that doesn't guarantee you success. Still need to have enormous talent. Just like it's true that great classical players can't play jazz or blues because they are too constricted by technique and can't play with their guts. They just know how to read notes. Improvisation and feeling is not what they were taught. Technique is important but it's not everything and when it comes to photography, it is nothing without a good eye and creative vision, which needs nurturing more than anything else, for me of course. I think that here we all agree to the same things and we are saying it in different ways, which creates conflict. It is all very simple. Again, know your materials and what they can do for you. Then go out and take pictures. If they're good, and someone else enjoys them, besides, you, great.

 

[MaximusM3]

My partying thought, as I have already spent too much time here...

You know what the biggest obstacle is for me in photography and what gets me frustrated? Not being THERE. Being there, wherever that may be, is what a photographer needs. It's visual stimulation, places, people, events. Not technique (yes, we need to know some basics but you get my drift). We all live in our little cocoons, typing on our computers and posting on APUG. All it means is that we're not out there making photographs and we're all playing armchair quarterbacks. Kind of sad actually. It gives APUG a raison d'etre but it also means that we are constricting ourselves and wasting time. Life's too short. Oh yeah..and most of us do have day jobs, which makes all of this even more peculiar

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Maybe you could sneak off and process some film?

 

[ntenny]

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."

A particularly interesting quote from someone whose very first photograph was really, really good. ("Sleeping Boy, Budapest, 1912"; to my surprise I can't find a copy online, but it's a terrific example of seeing for composition.)

This is kind of a slippery topic since there's no real definition of "technique". At one extreme, remembering not to open the box of sheet film in room light is a "technique", and failing to learn that one will mess up your images in a hurry!

-NT

 

[mhcfires]

What else am I supposed to do at work if not typing messages on APUG?

Work? Who said anything about work???

 

[Helinophoto]

A particularly interesting quote from someone whose very first photograph was really, really good. ("Sleeping Boy, Budapest, 1912"; to my surprise I can't find a copy online, but it's a terrific example of seeing for composition.)
-NT

This one? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/5753851476_19f89db526_b.jpg

Found it here: Dead Link Removed

 

[Dave Martiny]

It’s not clear to me what Steiner really means when she says “I never learned anything. I’m happy to say that after 39 years, I have managed not to know too much about photography”. As other posters have mentioned, this has the potential of sounding somewhat arrogant, as in ‘I’m too cool and my art is so great that I don’t even have to consider technique.’

Somehow, there’s something wrong with saying that “. . .after 39 years. . .I never learned anything. . .” and then to claim that “. . .I’m happy to say” it. I’m sorry, but as a teacher who has always advocated life-long learning to my students, this kind of attitude isn’t good.

Take a look as I did and decide for yourself whether not Ms. Steiner’s level of technical ability has had a negative impact on the overall quality of her work.

You can view her work online here:
http://www.lislsteiner.com/LislSteiner-Photographs-More-Photos.html


Good photography is an appropriate blend of good visual content and good technique – technique that is at least sufficiently adequate so as not to detract from the visual message. The problem comes if we think we can compensate for the lack of one by obsessing about the other.

I strive to have good technique, but I’m not a slave to it, or allow it to dominate the image making process. I try to make visual content my first priority, and then work to make sure that the technical aspects are always good enough to convey the visual message.

This modicum of technical proficiency that we’re talking about is certainly not too difficult to attain for the vast majority of us who want to make good photographs. What’s hard to understand is why someone would boast about their ignorance, rather than look for ways to improve all aspects of their work.

 

[MaximusM3]

Somehow, there’s something wrong with saying that “. . .after 39 years. . .I never learned anything. . .” and then to claim that “. . .I’m happy to say” it. I’m sorry, but as a teacher who has always advocated life-long learning to my students, this kind of attitude isn’t good.

Take a look as I did and decide for yourself whether not Ms. Steiner’s level of technical ability has had a negative impact on the overall quality of her work.

You can view her work online here:
http://www.lislsteiner.com/LislSteiner-Photographs-More-Photos.html

Back after a short break

First of all, her "not learning" probably applies only to photography but that's irrelevant. Now, I don't know where academics fit into anything. As a teacher, it is your job to advocate learning but you can't tell me that academic knowledge is always a requirement for success nor a guarantee of real life brilliance, in almost any field. Her attitude pertains to her choices in life and what has worked for her. Why pass judgement? She's not telling anyone to quit school and be a derelict. She was just never concerned in overtly technical aspects of photography and that has worked for her. Whether her work is to yours, mine, or anyone else's liking is irrelevant. She made a good living out of it, she can be proud of it, she's now close to 80 years old (I think) and she leads a happy, comfortable life. We should all be so lucky.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think Steiner truly means the technical side of photography. Lenses, camera widgets, darkroom toys, etc It seems to me her focus is entirely on doing.

Ponder the following. Say you have a decent 35mm or 120 camera. Someone hands you unlimited amounts of Tri-X, HC110, Ilford Multigrade paper and developer, stop, and fix. If you keep practicing and working with these same tools you will eventually reach a level where you know what to expect out of your materials - every frame. After you're comfortable with your materials and you know how to instinctively react to the subject matter, so in tune with your materials that you don't even have to think much, does anybody really expect that the pictures will be THAT much better by switching to something different? I argue that the opposite might happen, where all of a sudden you don't know what to expect anymore, and everything you learned about exposure, lighting, and developing to get the best results in those conditions, will have to be re-learned and re-applied, possibly causing a halt in your creative flow of work.

I think it's that sort of thing that Steiner alludes to, and in my opinion this is where we can learn a valuable lesson. Her style of photography is largely journalism or documentary work, in the same way Danny Lyon did it. Let's not forget that. Everything they do relies on a split second of consciousness in a moment most people will simply miss, and then it's gone forever. Other photographers may have the luxury of scouting a location, and then go for a coffee while waiting for the right moment of light to arrive. They are two completely different forms of practicing photography. While Steiner's opinion may work very well for those that have a split second to capture a moment, it may be less applicable to others. Why else would you have Bruce Barnbaum give lecturs about how to place all shadows in Zone 4 as opposed to Zone 3? It's because he has time to do that, as do other landscape photographers. That information doesn't have the same level of usefulness to a street shooter, even though exposure is important.

So we have to put her comment into context before we analyse it. I thought it was a very radical thing to say, and I chose to use it to start this conversation, because it is a bit controversial. I did that on purpose. And it sure did make quite a few people react, fortunately with really insightful and interesting comments.

I think that I'm really happy with how this thread has gone, because I think we can maybe all learn a little from all compiled posts. And I think that's really cool.

As Max said, though, it's time to roll up the camera and go do some shooting. I hope to burn a roll of film before the end of the day.

 

[VaryaV]

Take a look as I did and decide for yourself whether not Ms. Steiner’s level of technical ability has had a negative impact on the overall quality of her work.

You can view her work online here:
http://www.lislsteiner.com/LislSteiner-Photographs-More-Photos.html

Personally I have to say... and please don't skewer me, I think the quality of her work (printing) is terrible. Though it doesn't diminish the value of it one iota. There are a ton of people here alone, that have her beat by miles. Her subject matter is great and very interesting, but think how much more it could have been if we could be stunned by a beautiful print.

I take her comment of 'not learning anything', to be that she couldn't learn anything. It requires someone with left brain capabilities to understand a lot of this technical stuff... it's like calculus, it can be rather challenging... many artists are right brained to the point where the technical stuff just goes right over their heads. Some artists can jump back and forth, though most I know can't. Just food for thought. I am speaking in generalities, I come from an art school background and know it to be true in some cases.

ps. Arbus's printing was terrible too (according to master technicians) but does it lessen the value of her work?

My opinion is to strive for the highest quality one can get. the print has got to stand alone without a concept to back it up. Is it a beautiful to look at? or do you need a statement to accompany it because the beauty fails?

 

[L Gebhardt]

Ponder the following. Say you have a decent 35mm or 120 camera. Someone hands you unlimited amounts of Tri-X, HC110, Ilford Multigrade paper and developer, stop, and fix. If you keep practicing and working with these same tools you will eventually reach a level where you know what to expect out of your materials - every frame. After you're comfortable with your materials and you know how to instinctively react to the subject matter, so in tune with your materials that you don't even have to think much, does anybody really expect that the pictures will be THAT much better by switching to something different? I argue that the opposite might happen, where all of a sudden you don't know what to expect anymore, and everything you learned about exposure, lighting, and developing to get the best results in those conditions, will have to be re-learned and re-applied, possibly causing a halt in your creative flow of work.

But using those same materials is just one limit/constraint on where you can go. You can experiment with exposure, development of the negs and prints, different ways of dodging and burning, masks, studio lighting, etc. All of this is potentially invaluable to letting you make the prints you want. For example learning to make dodge and burn masks has really let me improve my prints. In getting comfortable with different masking techniques I did throw away many trash bags full of work prints. But I don't feel bad about it since I can now make better prints (with less hitting the trash).

I do agree that switching between materials is for the most part a waste of time and limits the speed of learning new techniques which are to me where the skill comes in. I have also spent way to much time playing with different films, cameras and papers. But if I hadn't experimented with different papers I wouldn't have found how much I prefer warm tone paper for some (most) images.

One of the biggest time and paper wasters for me has been learning to print color. I finally feel I am becoming a halfway decent color printer, but still a lousy color photographer. I'm not ready to give it up entirely, but I plan to focus much more on my black and white work for sake of my sanity (continual disappointment isn't healthy).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

But using those same materials is just one limit/constraint on where you can go. You can experiment with exposure, development of the negs and prints, different ways of dodging and burning, masks, studio lighting, etc. All of this is potentially invaluable to letting you make the prints you want. For example learning to make dodge and burn masks has really let me improve my prints.

Absolutely. I was merely making one example. There are many ways to think about it.

Some experimentation is obviously necessary, and I do confess that I enjoy a well crafted print (obviously as long as the subject matter doesn't suck). There would probably be no master printers if it were not for experimentation, for example. But in the end, to me, great pictures are not made in the darkroom, they are made with our minds when we hold the camera, and then we complete the idea when we print. And I stress that strong familiarity with our surrounding equipment and materials is paramount so that we can make the moment of exposure a sort of instant chain reaction, as we see something that draws our attention. In my opinion, it helps us to see and understand how the subject matter in front of us will be rendered in a print, without having to think about it much; instead it becomes almost instinct, or second nature, a natural reaction where all the technical stuff stops being something that slows us down because we're diverting some of the energy that's focused on subject matter to thinking about other things, cluttering our minds.

In my opinion no film or darkroom trick in the world can substitute for that purity of vision. While we may be able to take a mediocre negative and make an acceptable print from them if we possess great skill, I do for the most part not encounter many of those negatives since I stopped farting around.
I would say that about 90% of my newer, more consistent negatives are such that I simply don't need to fight them at the printing stage. A few strokes of simple split grade printing, dodging and burning at each contrast grade usually gets me there.

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.

 

[MattKing]

Thomas:

I expect that the time and efforts you see as wasted were actually quite valuable, even if they were somewhat expensive and frustrating.

Here is a question - if you had read your own posts in this thread before you went on your journey, would you have left it earlier or avoided it altogether?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas:

I expect that the time and efforts you see as wasted were actually quite valuable, even if they were somewhat expensive and frustrating.

Here is a question - if you had read your own posts in this thread before you went on your journey, would you have left it earlier or avoided it altogether?

They could surely be considered valuable as there is something to be learned from everything. What I want is that they were a lot MORE valuable. My only goal with this thread is to hopefully pass on to other photographers that I don't consider my experience to be a very rewarding one, and that I am trying to help others avoid having the same one.

I don't know if I would have followed my own advice or not. Impossible to say, Matt. It's an interesting question, though.

 

[jglass]

"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!

 

[Helinophoto]

Well, Steiner isn't unique in this respect, here's a direct quote from the fore-mentioned Bresson:

"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks."
- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Hmmmm.......

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm not sure I'd agree with HCB much, whether on photography or food. I suspect a fair number of people cook with game they've hunted themselves, and in terms of photography, the print is a very important avenue of expression. It strikes me as a rather intellectually limited attitude.

Tom

 

[MaximusM3]

Well, Steiner isn't unique in this respect, here's a direct quote from the fore-mentioned Bresson:

"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks."
- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Hmmmm.......

The thread started with the quote from a photojournalist and this is true for most of them. Shouldn't after all be this way? Why should a photojournalist be concerned with anything else but capturing an image? That is what it is asked of them. They are not asked to use unsharp masks, dodge, burn, do somersaults in the darkroom and deliver a pretty print. Their job is to capture events, moments. Their mind should be free and clear to do that without any concerns for what happens after the shutter is clicked. Their technique is concentrated on composition and a basic knowledge of exposure. Most of them had others do their printing anyway.
As you step away from photojournalism, you have people like Ralph Gibson who have simply found their voice and use basic materials to deliver visual pleasure to viewers. Tri-X, Rodinal, overexpose, over-develop, grade 4-5 paper.
Then we have landscape, fine art photographers, who need to go deeper into darkroom technique to achieve something worth framing and hanging on a wall. After all, a perfectly exposed image of of the sea, a couple of rocks, and pretty clouds, is usually quite boring unless we start burning corners, dodging water, darkening clouds, and tone it all cute. Then it becomes about technical process, with content being secondary.

In closing, we really can't generalize here. Why fault any photojournalist for not being overly concerned about technique when so many aspects of of photographic technique do not really apply or are asked for to deliver a successful image that engages the viewer because of content?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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