the great schism of photography

[blansky]

I guess there just aren't very many people who approach their work like I do. Most of this thread is off topic or moot when I apply it to my own working methods.
I always start with the end result in my head and then try to figure out how to get to where I want to go. Take for instance that wire series I shared a bit with you. That was in my head in my imagination for over a year before I did anything. I didn't analyze why I wanted to do it or see it, only how to do it. I knew I wanted to use the wire in a series and I knew that I wanted strong lines and curves and energy. That was the easy part. The background and lighting was what I had to figure out how to do. I knew I wanted a sharp reflection but I wanted it in a blank white environment. I knew I wanted it to seem bathed in light. I actually wanted the finished print on the wall to look like a light source. I wanted it to seem to glow with light and then within that to have the crazy abstract energy of the wire. I finally found what I thought would be perfect for the reflective fore ground that would allow me to avoid horizon lines or reflections. At that point I could set the camera up and get the wire and start the series. But I had to figure out how to get the glow into the wire and the sense of light so I had to experiment not only with the lighting and focus but with different developers.

In the end I was unable to get exactly what was in my head. I shot the entire series and processed the film 1 sheet at a time after every exposure and tried to judge if I was getting what I wanted just by examining the negs on a light box. I kept adjusting things and shooting different arrangements and trying for different energy until I got to the point that I was done with it and didn't want to do any more. In the end where I failed was in the glowing whiteness of the background. It always printed with tone. If I tried to adjust the contrast of the platinum prints too much I ran into print quality issues with grain and mottling.

So I had to let it be what it was rather than what I intended it to be. I had to forget the light source affect I wanted and instead work with the seemingly smudgy background... almost a charcoal drawing affect. In the end I decided it is "good enough". I lost control of it and it took on a life of it's own. It does satisfy the need I had to create it. I am left with the feeling of being done with it. I like it, it is part of my family.

Every aspect of it was a technical challenge but was never about technique. It was about trying to create the thing in my head. Then of course the final kick ass problem I ran into is that they don't scan very well... or I need a new scanner, because my scans are way off.

It is actually the same thing for me when doing landscape or portraits or what ever. I see the finished product before I make the photo.

But I think this is the schism.

In this case you were working on a project. With definitive parameters, and required results. You are like the guys who do product photography. We used to call the "engineers". They almost always shot large format, due to perspective control, built their own sets, spend days and weeks overcoming the obstacles, shot dozens of boxes of polaroids and finally presented their results to the ad agencies. They rarely liked, or enjoyed working with people but almost all products and food advertising were done by them.

They are extremely analytical, technical, and creative in a different way than the more seat of the pants "emotional" photographers are.

By the way, loved that wire series.

 

[markbarendt]

They are extremely analytical, technical, and creative in a different way than the more seat of the pants "emotional" photographers are.

We all know people who just pick up a camera and actually do some great photographs right off without a lot of technical knowledge. I also know people that as they learn more about photography they get frustrated because the quality of their finished photos actually gets worse. Technical knowledge and skill it's not a free ticket to great photo.

Both types of photographers can make great photos, they just don't arrive at the print the same way

 

[pdeeh]

The last two or three posts are very much to the point about how photography is practised praxis), but the very idea of a schism is very much connected historically to religious controversy, and I see the photo-schism as pretty much a matter of faith.

It's not that the "scientist-photographer" (or the "intuitive-photographer") doesn't recognise that the other type can produce a good photo, but that the former thinks the latter is doing it by accident and is not doing things properly, while the latter thinks the former is making something unnecessarily complicated that is really very simple.

The schism such as it is seems to be between people who all believe that "if you're not doing it my way then you're doing it wrong"

FWIW, my impression is that the orthodox side is a bit more intolerant of the reform side than converse ...

 

[benjiboy]

We all know people who just pick up a camera and actually do some great photographs right off without a lot of technical knowledge. I also know people that as they learn more about photography they get frustrated because the quality of their finished photos actually gets worse. Technical knowledge and skill it's not a free ticket to great photo.

Both types of photographers can make great photos, they just don't arrive at the print the same way

Very few of the photographers I have ever known who constantly test their equipment and processing ever take a creative photograph because all their energies and mindset are directed in the wrong direction and they become too inhibited by the the technicalities to do so

 

[removed account4]

Very few of the photographers I have ever known who constantly test their equipment and processing ever take a creative photograph because all their energies and mindset are directed in the wrong direction and they become too inhibited by the the technicalities to do so

and chances are they might not want to take any creative photographs because they would rather solve problems and become technical masters ..

 

[cliveh]

Thanks. ........I think.

An interesting thing about unconsciously doing things, is that as we have talked about on this and another thread, is muscle memory or ability to do something without really thinking about it.

It's much like the "being in the zone" thing. We are working at a certain level that's beyond thinking, or at least conscious thinking.

My hockey analogy is the natural goal scorer. Some guys are called that because when they come down on the best goalies in the world, they can process, and find the holes and score. When asked how they do that, they say usually, "well I just shot it and it went in".

I think what you are referring to is Zen modus operandi.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very few of the photographers I have ever known who constantly test their equipment and processing ever take a creative photograph because all their energies and mindset are directed in the wrong direction and they become too inhibited by the the technicalities to do so

They do not want to product anything, just test, test, test.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think what you are referring to is Zen modus operandi.

Or they just fell higher on the hockey shooting random distribution curve. There's a reason for that really big hump in the middle of those curves. In this example that's the oceans of less talented hockey players who "just shot it" and it didn't go in.

The naturals in anything—including photography—are natural because they had no control over the creation of their perfectly adapted set of genes. Nature did however, and randomly dealt them a winning hand. The rest of us must work harder. And sometimes even that isn't enough.

Zen capability in any skill is not a cause, it's an effect...



Ken

 

[cliveh]

What a load of bunkum. Nothing to do with genes and a comment worthy of discussion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What a load of bunkum. Nothing to do with genes and a comment worthy of discussion.

Are you sure???



Ken

 

[removed account4]

Cliveh seems to be as sure that it isn't genetic
as you are sure that it is all genetic...

as if lartrigues images are artful, and interesting because
of a genitic predisposition, or countless other photographers ( atget, talbot, bayard &c. )
from 1920 back would have had to have a genetic disposition as well, and it seems far fetched to me ...
until recent times, a lot of people saw art ( paintings and drawings ) which helps to learn and
understand composition / " what is pleasing to the eye " ... seeing images on ground glass or a view finder and knowing what
"looks good" comes from practice and being surrounded by things that are accepted to "look good" and learning
it really doesn't seem to have to do with genetics, just an understanding about composition, or putting someone at ease to make their portrait, ...
and not being bogged down with every intricate detail because in many cases the intricate details don't matter.
if not being bogged down by every possible detail so one can't think about composition, is genetic, maybe
artful photography is genetic, but it seems to be something different to me.

 

[blansky]

What a load of bunkum. Nothing to do with genes and a comment worthy of discussion.

It has been described as "god given talent".

But along with that a lot of work. But still the less talented work hard also.

I'm not really familiar with the term you mentioned. Zen modus operandi. I googled it and it didn't show up.

But perhaps as I mentioned the "in the zone" one is the same. The only problem is, is that both the extremely talent and the less talented can both be in the zone during a game and the "natural goal scorer" will still score more.

 

[removed account4]

hi michael

i don't think that creative photographers // photographers who thow caution to the wind, who might not care about the tehchical side of things
( all the time ) have a genetic presisposition. i, for example, studied genetics + microbiology + geneology and have rebuilt carborators and autombobiles using a manual
have folowed recipes to the letter, made measured drawings of structures, exixting condition photographs, and written technical papers that require technique and
rigor but i am also able to and not afraid to improvise if i have to. i don' t think the ability to improvise ( be creative ) is a inate talent, or a genetic predisposition at all.
but something that is learned. not sure if zen has anything to do with it, it isn't anything religious i am talking about, but a skill.

 

[benjiboy]

and chances are they might not want to take any creative photographs because they would rather solve problems and become technical masters ..

Then they are photographic technicians, not photographers.

 

[MattKing]

Then they are photographic technicians, not photographers.

Photography is a very generous pastime. It accepts all sorts - the snap-shooter, the impressionist, the scientific recorder, the journalist, the portraitist, the hipster, the trend setter, the wedding aficionado, the trend follower, the creative whirlwind and, yes, the brilliant technician - and permits them all to refer to themselves as "photographer".

 

[rbultman]

Photography is a very generous pastime. It accepts all sorts - the snap-shooter, the impressionist, the scientific recorder, the journalist, the portraitist, the hipster, the trend setter, the wedding aficionado, the trend follower, the creative whirlwind and, yes, the brilliant technician - and permits them all to refer to themselves as "photographer".

+1

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[dpurdy]

I think everybody here is technical to a degree. Everybody draws a line at which they are comfortable with their technique and consider others who go beyond that line to be overly technical. To be completely unconcerned with technique is to mean you have no concern with any quality of what you create. To decide that you prefer film to digital is a technical decision.

 

[pdeeh]

I think everybody here is technical to a degree. Everybody draws a line at which they are comfortable with their technique and consider others who go beyond that line to be overly technical. To be completely unconcerned with technique is to mean you have no concern with any quality of what you create. To decide that you prefer film to digital is a technical decision.

I think some people probably believe all or some of these things, but I think you are utterly incorrect to generalise so grossly.

 

[blansky]

Well after 31 pages and a lot of disagreement, there seems to definitely be a schism.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Well after 31 pages and a lot of disagreement, there seems to definitely be a schism.

Yes there is. Basically it's between those who desperately need one to exist because it plays into their grand world view, and the rest of us who go through life just fine without requiring one.

Life is more transparent than many wish to believe.



Ken

 

[blansky]

Yes there is. Basically it's between those who desperately need one to exist because it plays into their grand world view, and the rest of us who go through life just fine without requiring one.

Life is more transparent than many wish to believe.



Ken

Ken, I often see flashes of brilliance on what you write, then other times it goes right off the rails.

You are one of the main subscribers of the divisive us vs them, on this site, which is your right, but then claiming to be a victim in all this, seems rather disingenuous.

I have said all along that vive la difference but recognize that there are definite differences in approach and mindset.

 

[Dali]

I think everybody here is technical to a degree. Everybody draws a line at which they are comfortable with their technique and consider others who go beyond that line to be overly technical. To be completely unconcerned with technique is to mean you have no concern with any quality of what you create. To decide that you prefer film to digital is a technical decision.

Who is completely unconcerned with technique??? To me divide is among those who consider technique and the mastery of it as THE goal in photography under the pretext it is a technical activity and those who go beyond the technical aspect of it.

To be clear, look at the most famous pictures. Are they famous because they demonstrate any technical mastery or because they "talk" to us?

 

[Griff]

Well for me personally, I like to take pictures...............
I like to try and re-create old processes,
I like to make pictures that appear very old, until you look closely.
Its just for fun, its an interst which is getting rarer to encounter, The highly techie people on here have been greatly helpful, the not so techie artistic types are inspirational. Everyone has something to offer, and arguing about who is what is a little pointless.

 

[Dali]

How would you talk about your pictures? From a technical standpoint or from a more personal one?

 

[removed account4]

hi dali

sorry to answer questions for Griff
but... with my own experience ...

with photography, it is very hard not to speak of images made through technique,
while one might speak of technique when speaking about paintings or sculpture or architecture... photography is different
since it is a democratic art form it is spoken about in terms most everyone is able to understand - type of camera, maybe type of film
maybe type of lens maybe shutter speed / fstop ( and these days what "actions" were done )
... while it might be easy for some to speak of esoteric things having to do with a photograph, how it makes one feel, the movement,
gesture, how it might remind of another piece of known art, "style" &c, sometimes when people do that on THIS website
some folks might think that person is sort of pompous. in additon, people sometimes ask for critique ( here i am talking )
and what they get is pleasantries, because well, a lot of people don't speak the language of art, just technique.... and
critques are mainly about burn this in more, dodge that out more, or crop this &c, nothing esoteric, nothing "art"
... now, in the 21st century most people are removed from art, they don't know how to speak about art, they don't "get" art
in the 19th and early 20th century most people who used a camera KNEW art, KNEW of art maybe even were
tutored in art ( mainly the rich were able to use cameras ) ... a lot of people were well to do it was an expensive hobby ( and might have been excentric dilettantes or scientists )
the original kodak cost a fortune ... and since that original kodak photography has been
more about snapshots and memories and pretty pictures that might be as good as ansel adams ( i am using his name
because he is synonymous with black/white photography ) and for a long time, people who do something different with their
camera, things that are different than memories or snapshots or pretty pictures are outside of what a lot of people are comfortable with ...
and that might also be part of the schism too because one can look at a kitten with a ball of yarn and love it, all day long,
but if you look at some abberation of that, made with distressed materials, glass plates from 90 years ago
printed through scratched up glass, and developed in deveoper at 90ºF how does one talk about that other than
what the person might have done wrong ( and people who know better might be uncomfortable with that )
... and how s/he is forcing his world view on everyone who looks at that photograph.
after all more people look at kittens on the internet, than anything else, and we all know you don't process anything in 90ºF developer
unless you have a tropical developer, whose formula is in the articles section of this website ...
and use the proper technique so the emulsion doesn't lift off the plate, frill and cause trouble ...