What Do You Do When You've Solved the Technical Problems & Challenges?

[gone]

This is something that I've been going through for a few weeks, and I was just wondering what others do when/if it hits them. I've always been fortunate in that I knew how I wanted the photos to look, but I didn't technically know how to do it. Finally I have a particular film that I like and understand, along w/ a developer/paper/enlarger that all work fine for what I'm after. In the beginning it was one mistake after another trying different things out. Now I can consistently get the type of shots that I'm after (and thanks to everyone for their help on this too). So, now what?

As a painter and printer for 50 years, I know everyone in the arts goes through this, but w/ the photography it seems to be different. Photography is so equipment driven. For a drawing, all I need is paper and a burnt stick. The paper is perfect just as it is, until you put that first mark down of course. Then, every mark that comes afterwards is essentially trying to fix the error of that first mark! After a while it comes together right in front of your eyes and balances out, or it doesn't, and you start over. And w/ a one person drawing operation, there is never any doubt who messed up when it doesn't work out. I can't blame the film or the developer.

But w/ photography, where you're so dependent on outside film makers, paper makers, lens and camera makers, filter makers, etc, it seems real different. Lately it feels as if I don't even need to be there. All I need is the right gear, the right light and the right subject matter, and anyone could do it. I'll bet that I could explain what and when to do things to my neighbor (who knows nothing about photography) and once the prints were made you wouldn't know which of us did the work. So, why am I doing this?

One of the ways out of this in the older, traditional arts is to switch mediums. The painter who understands painting can switch over to etching and it's all new again, but w/ B&W photography, and if you want a certain look, your options are seemingly pretty limited.

 

[Rick A]

So now you make prints, and continue to improve on your methods, and the prints. It doesn't stop just because you think you have it mastered, because you really haven't mastered anything, merely became somewhat dialed in. There is still so very much more to learn and tweak to develope a style or look to your photography.

 

[JMcLaug351]

That is, in my opinion, the single most important question I've seen asked here at APUG.
It took me years to figure out just how "equipment driven" photography is. Once I got that my images and my understanding got much better.
I can't wait to see what others have to say on the subject.
I think I remember a quote once from someone famous like Strand "the most important thing to know is where to point the camera".
I'm at that place in my life now as well where I often don't take the camera along because I don't know what I wish to photograph.
JOHN

 

[Nikanon]

The problem is you're talking about photography as if the end goal is just a visible result. That is only the beginning. What's interesting about photography is that the photograph is only the illusion of a literal description. It's only what the camera saw. The interest is in what the camera does directly. Photographs are very specific, they should be well described, but what is happening is entirely unknown. Photography is interesting specifically because seeing how the photograph looks is a transformation of what you saw when you took the picture. It is different. The interest is not in just figuring out technical issues, that's an aside and I believe not even relevant to the practice of photography itself. Once you understand that what you see, and what the photograph looks like, are two completely different things, that you can never know if the photograph will really be successful or interesting until you make it, then more becomes available for you to try and photograph.

 

[snapguy]

Not so sure

I am not at all sure that photography suffers from a toxic "equipment driven" syndrome. Steven Speilberg is known to have 144 electricians on the set of one of his uber-action dramas. On the other hand, Charlie Chaplin said he used to take a stepladder, bucket of whitewash and a brush, a camera and a camerman and Mabel Norman to the park and make a movie. Take a look at all the crap an oil painter-on-canvas has to gather up. (S)he has to stretch the canvas, mix the paints, keep the brushes clean, watch out for wind and dust blowing. A person making a silkscreen has a whole industrial gizmo and thingamajig needed to make the art.
When I was a nipper (before 1950) I took a Brownie Reflex loaded with Kodak 127 film and got the gul-durndest photo of a steam locomotive puffing and churning. One shutter speed (slow) and one f-stop. Art? What's that when you are barely out of knee pants? Damn good, though. And remember what Kodak used to say, "you push the button, we do the rest." Pretty simple stuff. An oil painting of the locomotice would have been 100 times more work.

 

[DannL.]

Until my photographs regularly sell at Sotheby's for $30,000 a print, I believe I still have some learning to do. Like photographers, many "painters" today are dependent on someone to make their supplies . . . canvas material, gesso, mixed oils, acrylic paints, tempera, brushes, easels, palettes, thinners, varnish, etc; And that list is endless. The process of making an image that is both "tangible and pleasing" is a true art. I actually can't recall the last time I saw a photograph that was really interesting, let alone breathtaking.

A suggestion . . . go to http://www.alternativephotography.com and find a different process from the one that you have been using. You might be surprised where you find yourself six months from now. For example, as for myself, I recently took up making dry-plates to add mileage to my craft. It works.

"All I need is the right gear, the right light and the right subject matter, and anyone could do it". If that statement were true, why are there so few truly great photographs made today? Of course, anybody can pick up a camera and use it. Even a child two years of age. And just about anybody with minimal training can make a photographic print. But, the making of an "aesthetically pleasing photograph" is an art in the craft that is all but lost. I would have to got back to the time of Éduard Steichen to see prints that I truely enjoy. Has anything significant in photography happened since then? Oh yes! Brett Weston came along.

We can never master all the challenges that photography has to offer. We humans just don't live long enough.

 

[grahamp]

The only real difference between photography and say, painting, is that the technology is indirect. With painting you can touch the surface you paint on, judge the density of the pigment and its textural qualities, evaluate the choice of brush or knife, all with direct feedback.

With photography there is a disconnect between the equipment setting, and the image reveal. You have to trust your skills will deliver later. Even with digital systems where the feedback loop is much shorter, it is not quite the same.

But this is just the craft. What you choose to photograph, how you portray it, and how you present it makes for the meaning. Ironically, pure craftmanship is no guarantee of a good effective photograph - just look at the surviving pictures by Robert Capa of the D-Day landings. Not the sharpest or wisest tonal range, but they tell you a lot about being there at that moment.

The nice thing about mastering a skill is that you don't think about it consciously, and you know just how much of that knowledge you need apply to the current problem.

I consider myself technically competent, but I don't believe that my photographs will ever reveal anything seminal about the human condition

 

[Nikanon]

"All I need is the right gear, the right light and the right subject matter, and anyone could do it".

It is precisely this reason that proves photography is so difficult. Anyone can do it, but how many good photographers are there versus how many photographers overall? It is the more difficult medium. How do you photograph something, and make the photograph more interesting? How do you deal with what you are given? It is incredibly interesting because of this problem alone. Add that photography can happen anywhere, of any subject, and it is even more interesting. It really isn't anything like painting, or drawing, or etching, it is a very special medium. To go beyond the illustration of an idea in a photograph, that's the interesting problem. Photography is a faulty medium for illustration.

 

[removed account4]

i agree, much of photography is equipment driven.
look at photography forums, its all about equipment,
its all about latest acquisition &c ..

how about getting rid of all your fancy cameras, and get a basic camera
one that has no controls, maybe a 4x5 box camera .. and instead of shooting new film
use a different media like paper negatives, or expired film, or hand coat your own glass or paper plates.

using materials that have mutated into something else makes photography more interesting than
using the best film, best camera, best lenses, best developers best enlargers best contact printing papers ..
it keeps it fun because of that bit of randomness and NONcontrol.

john

ps contact me if you decide want to buy some equipment, ill be happy to sell it to you

 

[Hatchetman]

I gotta say, I don't share a similar viewpoint at all, but I'm not an artist by trade. I get frustrated by my limited composition skills and the lack of time in my life to work on that. The tools of photography are pretty simple to understand IMO. Using them to create something of artistic merit is not so easy for me.

 

[ntenny]

I think this sounds like a great problem to have! It means you can quit worrying about the equipment-driven stuff and concentrate on the hard artistic questions...which I suppose are much the same as in the other media with which you have decades of experience.

If, as you describe it, photography feels like you "don't even need to be there", that might mean you're in a gap where you have technique for days but are lacking an artistic concept to use it on---the famous "sharp picture of a fuzzy idea" AA quote, basically. I agree with silveror0 above: pick up a project and run with it.

-NT

 

[cliveh]

"What Do You Do When You've Solved the Technical Problems & Challenges?"

Solve the artistic problems and challenges.

 

[DannL.]

IMO, this sounds like there's a need to select a specific project. Without that, aimless wandering will likely continue.

I also agree. Pick a subject . . . for example textures, or tree silhouettes, rocks only, or dead fish , plant leaves, windows, doors, car hoods, and the list goes on. I worked on a "dead fish" project at a local reservoir that dries up during the summer. Now that I have a few decent cameras, I plan to revisit this project. It' s not only the subject of your photographic efforts that creates a challenge. "Presentation" is a serious challenge. Do you want to present your work as an Albumen print or Carbon print? Maybe a hand-colored print?

 

[pdeeh]

The question rather assumes that one always starts with "mastering" technical things ... neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to make good photographs

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I would say that finding the equipment you like to use is only the first step.

The next 100 steps (or so) is about learning what you can do with the equipment.

I have made a huge circle in film, starting from Portra and Tri-X, testing all sorts of films, only to find that Portra and Tri-X is what I like best.

I wouldn't call it a waste of time and money, though, because now I am certain that I am using the right films for me.

So, I feel much more focused and at ease, trying to explore and learn these films.

So much so that if the ominous prophesies in those ill-fated KA threads should come true, I will probably give up film.

 

[Nikanon]

i agree, much of photography is equipment driven.
look at photography forums, its all about equipment,
its all about latest acquisition &c ..

how about getting rid of all your fancy cameras, and get a basic camera
one that has no controls, maybe a 4x5 box camera .. and instead of shooting new film
use a different media like paper negatives, or expired film, or hand coat your own glass or paper plates.

This is a great modern misunderstanding about photography. As lenses and cameras become more and more automatic and optically "perfect", a cult of rejectionists have appeared and denounce them. This is really just defeatism, and satisfies the requirement of many film users to be different. It isn't a counter punch, it's a dodge. The camera is very specific to the kinds of photographs you want to make. You need to have what best suits your needs. The way the camera operates, the way the images of the lenses look, it's all important. I don't mean specifics, just that, if you want to make reasonably sharp photographs, while moving around with a reasonably sized camera, there are many options available to you. The goal isn't to be different by avoiding some basic and essential aspects of photography and reverting to archaic practices. Use a camera that works for you so that you can make images without hesitation, and pick a machine you will enjoy. The babble over lenses that even I am guilty of, really has nothing to do with photography, it's likened to how some people talk about cars or sports, it's technical as opposed to the actual practice itself. Don't be obscure, there is plenty of mystery in the plainly visible.

 

[pdeeh]

Ah, so you have The Secret of what the True Goal of Photography is and How It Must Be Practised ...

The curious thing is, jnanian is the least prescriptive of photography practitioners, and your post (which purports to refute his position) is entirely prescriptive!

 

[cliveh]

This is a great modern misunderstanding about photography. As lenses and cameras become more and more automatic and optically "perfect", a cult of rejectionists have appeared and denounce them. This is really just defeatism, and satisfies the requirement of many film users to be different. It isn't a counter punch, it's a dodge. The camera is very specific to the kinds of photographs you want to make. You need to have what best suits your needs. The way the camera operates, the way the images of the lenses look, it's all important. I don't mean specifics, just that, if you want to make reasonably sharp photographs, while moving around with a reasonably sized camera, there are many options available to you. The goal isn't to be different by avoiding some basic and essential aspects of photography and reverting to archaic practices. Use a camera that works for you so that you can make images without hesitation, and pick a machine you will enjoy. The babble over lenses that even I am guilty of, really has nothing to do with photography, it's likened to how some people talk about cars or sports, it's technical as opposed to the actual practice itself. Don't be obscure, there is plenty of mystery in the plainly visible.

When I view criticism of someone's statement like this, I often view the gallery uploads of the person being criticised and the gallery uploads by the person making the criticism.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

When I view criticism of someone's statement like this, I often view the gallery uploads of the person being criticised and the gallery uploads by the person making the criticism.

What is your verdict in this match?

 

[Nikanon]

Ah, so you have The Secret of what the True Goal of Photography is and How It Must Be Practised ...

The curious thing is, jnanian is the least prescriptive of photography practitioners, and your post (which purports to refute his position) is entirely prescriptive!

Sure, get a camera that does what you want it to within the confines of what a photograph is. If you want to practice photography you make photographs, there are limits to any medium.

 

[Nikanon]

When I view criticism of someone's statement like this, I often view the gallery uploads of the person being criticised and the gallery uploads by the person making the criticism.

This is completely irrelevant.

 

[David Brown]

Um, back to the OP:

I can consistently get the type of shots that I'm after. So, now what?

So, make the photographs. What's the problem?

For a drawing, all I need is paper and a burnt stick. The paper is perfect just as it is, until you put that first mark down of course. Then, every mark that comes afterwards is essentially trying to fix the error of that first mark!

Oh, that may be your problem. You are contradicting yourself. Can you get the "shots (you're) after", or is everything a mistake? :confused:

Just make some pictures.

 

[removed account4]

This is a great modern misunderstanding about photography. As lenses and cameras become more and more automatic and optically "perfect", a cult of rejectionists have appeared and denounce them. This is really just defeatism, and satisfies the requirement of many film users to be different. It isn't a counter punch, it's a dodge. The camera is very specific to the kinds of photographs you want to make. You need to have what best suits your needs. The way the camera operates, the way the images of the lenses look, it's all important. I don't mean specifics, just that, if you want to make reasonably sharp photographs, while moving around with a reasonably sized camera, there are many options available to you. The goal isn't to be different by avoiding some basic and essential aspects of photography and reverting to archaic practices. Use a camera that works for you so that you can make images without hesitation, and pick a machine you will enjoy. The babble over lenses that even I am guilty of, really has nothing to do with photography, it's likened to how some people talk about cars or sports, it's technical as opposed to the actual practice itself. Don't be obscure, there is plenty of mystery in the plainly visible.

hi nikanon

the way i read the OP's initial post was that he was bored with what he was doing with photography because
he had come to a mastery of camera film development printing and it was boring because there was nothing else

i am not part of a cult, my suggesting was not defeatist, or rejectionist but to offer a different perspective.
sure cameras can do anything and nothing the person behind the camera can do everything or nothing and different cameras for different needs.
if your camera is an extension of you that is great, you can make images without thinking and that's great.
there is nothing like being able to pick up a camera and know what the result will most likely be even before you depress the shutter.
what i am suggesting isn't to do some archaic process to escape any sort of self imposed rigid aesthetic of photography
but to free oneself of the whole buy more gear because better gear makes better photographs, which is pretty much
what photography and photography fan-sites suggest.
bigger negative makes bigger photographs, better camera makes better photographs, which is a boatload of krap.

as far as i am concerned having a camera with the least amount of controls allows the user to focus on the things that count
understanding light and composition for one, and personal vision ( i hate that word ) for another.

sorry jaf-photo, since i started with apug in 2003 i have uploaded probably 3000-3500 images to the server
and i have deleted them off and on, purging my gallery so i don't hog the server. if you or anyone else would like
to see my work and my whole defeatist, rejectionist cult images, feel free to follow my signature's suggestions.
i've been shooting professionally since about 1986 and i am neither a cult member, a defeatist or a rejectionist.

 

[Nikanon]

sorry jaf-photo, since i started with apug in 2003 i have uploaded probably 3000-3500 images to the server
and i have deleted them off and on, purging my gallery so i don't hog the server. if you or anyone else would like
to see my work and my whole defeatist, rejectionist cult images, feel free to follow my signature's suggestions.
i've been shooting professionally since about 1986 and i am neither a cult member, a defeatist or a rejectionist.

Jnanian,

Im not familiar with your work, and I don't think that what I was saying refers to you at all.

how about getting rid of all your fancy cameras, and get a basic camera
one that has no controls, maybe a 4x5 box camera .. and instead of shooting new film
use a different media like paper negatives, or expired film, or hand coat your own glass or paper plates.

I don't know that this is something you even do, and my counter really isn't directed at you specifically. I believe that I took part of what you said and applied it to something I have been surrounded by and witnessed within schools and "upcoming" photographers in my area. The "black-boxifying of photography occurs on both ends, in the digital realm where manufacturers have little regard for camera design and ergonomics like they used to and really look to make a "one-size fits all" factory stamped camera. In the film realm photographers fall back into pictorialism in their images and try to run away from the clinical ambiguity of digital cameras and the sterile process of digital imaging. Both ends are extreme. In the end, making photographs of the world around you offers so many interesting possibilities that as long as the camera records visible information and sufficient detail to be specific, it is enough to begin making interesting photographs. Choosing a camera that fits well in the hand, lenses that focus easily, a mechanism for focus that makes sense, and an appropriate size for the workflow are some basic requirements for choosing a camera. I apologize if you felt this was an attack on you, it really isn't.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

sorry jaf-photo, since i started with apug in 2003 i have uploaded probably 3000-3500 images to the server
and i have deleted them off and on, purging my gallery so i don't hog the server. if you or anyone else would like
to see my work and my whole defeatist, rejectionist cult images, feel free to follow my signature's suggestions.

Ok, but where can I join?