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

[Rick A]

Ok, but where can I join?

Once you become a paying subscriber you can post to the galleries.

 

[ROL]

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

Solve the artistic problems and challenges.

This has gotta be some kind of watershed event, but for once I agree entirely with cliveh. Couldn't be simpler.

If you're wasting time on forums with the rest of the gear heads, I guess I can see you getting wrapped up in the siren like appeal of exotic and expensive equipment having little or anything to do with actual image or print making. That's hard to figure given your history, but there it is. Here's what I think you're really missing. A goal or project worthy of investing your appreciated technical mastery. That turns out to be a very common malady here. It's why, for instance, there is so much horrid and mundane landscape (or portrait or whatev's) photography out there. No love or understanding of the subject. Merely the desire to be 'someone'. Find something you want to communicate to the world at large and all will be well, whether by picture, song, written word, whatever. Focus doesn't only apply to the distance from lens to film. But then, as an artist, I get the feeling I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[eddie]

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.

What are the confines? What are the limits?

 

[Nikanon]

What are the confines? What are the limits?

A photograph is not a painting, for example.

 

[eddie]

A photograph is not a painting, for example.

I have some that people think are paintings.

Once you think there are limits, there will be.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There are more technical issues with digital since software and hardware changes. I had to update a computer's OS so it can run the camera's software for computer lab at a university. But with most analog issues, once you've learned how to resolve an issue, you've got the solution for a lot longer than digital folks. I've just started to print Ziatypes and I make both digital and analog negs. With the digital negs, if I change inkjet printers, I'll have to test all over again. With my analog negs, I data have a longer shelf life.

 

[Nikanon]

I have some that people think are paintings.

Once you think there are limits, there will be.

I haven't seen them, but it sounds like printmaking.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have some that people think are paintings.

Once you think there are limits, there will be.

A very poignant thought.

 

[Nuff]

To the OP, like others have said, there are no technical problems, there are only artistic ones. But it sounds like to me you are not after creating art, but more willing to play around in different mediums. If the technical side doesn't get in your way anymore, it's time get your creative vision realised. Have you done that yet?

For me the struggle is artistic one, not the technical one. But it's nice to have new toys (cameras, lenses, etc...) to play with.

 

[removed account4]

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.

there really isn't anything sterile about digital photography anymore than there is anything sterile about using film and chemistry. the problem is that people like to put barriers and not let themselves wander. you suggested that the pictorialists were and extreme, but i don't see that at all, i see them pushing the limits of their materials, allowing photographs to become something more than what they were told it could be. sure a camera makes a recording of light
and a scene or thing or whatever and that inturn becomes a negative and in turn can be turned into a photographic print but photography doesn't need to stop there. if the person wants there are options, and have always been options to further develop ( sorry ) that image into something even more personal, or personalized. the straight print or chemical print doesn't have to be the end, but a beginning if one wants it to be. just like a digital file. max martinucci, an active member here on apug uses digital files to make some of the most beautiful photogravures you will ever see. its all about pushing your own limits and doing what you want.

no worries i didn't take it as an attack, i didn't notice

Ok, but where can I join?

not sure what you are talking about joining ..
you could join the site by paying subscribing fees if that is what you mean
otherwise there is no club, no cult ... nothing but using your imagination ..
what you can do with (or without ) a camera or light sensitive emulsion is only limited by
what you can imagine doing with it ... the possibilities are pretty much limitless ...
or as limited as what you think or want or are worried about you should be doing ..

I have some that people think are paintings.

Once you think there are limits, there will be.

+1

 

[eddie]

A very poignant thought.

It took me decades to change my perception of what a photograph was to what a photograph can be. It's amazing the different things you can do with light sensitive materials, chemicals, paints, pencils, and a myriad of other tools. Being boxed in by preconceived notions stunts your artistic growth.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Once you become a paying subscriber you can post to the galleries.

Thanks, however I was enquiring about the defeatist rejectionist cult

I do use a mix of modern and vintage lenses. I find that the vintage ones are generally better. The exceptions are possibly macro lenses and wide angle lenses, which seem to have improved and become cheaper to make.

So I suspect I may be defeatist rejectionist cult material

 

[markbarendt]

... if you want a certain look, your options are seemingly pretty limited.

Always are, so what?

Are good photos about the materials (the look/style) or the subject matter? IMO the latter is more important, the look or form the tools and materials bring are supporting/bit parts, not the reason for taking a photo.

 

[Rick A]

Thanks, however I was enquiring about the defeatist rejectionist cult

I do use a mix of modern and vintage lenses. I find that the vintage ones are generally better. The exceptions are possibly macro lenses and wide angle lenses, which seem to have improved and become cheaper to make.

So I suspect I may be defeatist rejectionist cult material

And once you start paying in, you will really start getting a sense of that.

 

[darkosaric]

So, now what?

All what others already told you stands.

But I think that improving printing skills is never ending story . One thing is to get result that are you want. And another thing is to get any results that is needed.
For example try to get something like this print from Koudelka. Is it working? If not - well, you will have some fun in the darkroom . If yes - please explain me how you do it - I would like to know .

 

[Alan Klein]

If it was the equipment, then people would be creating much better photos considering the equipment today is better for everyone than it's ever been.

 

[cliveh]

If it was the equipment, then people would be creating much better photos considering the equipment today is better for everyone than it's ever been.

But is it?

 

[Alan Klein]

What I was trying to say was that if your photo has nothing to say, has the wrong light, wrong perspective, etc., then a $35,000 camera isn't going to help. Although most people don't have a $35,000 camera, the camera they do have is more than sufficient to take good shots. But it's the creative part that's missing, something most people including me find difficult to capture.

 

[dpurdy]

If you have mastered your craft then you need to master your vision and find what you have to say with it.
If you have nothing to say with it then you mastered the wrong craft.
Dennis

 

[Regular Rod]

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.

The answer is simple. Go out and make photographs, which is what you should have been doing all along anyway...

RR

 

[ntenny]

I agree with everyone, the answer is pretty clear...but it's a pain in the neck, isn't it? The thing about mastering technique is that it's hard to do, but it's fairly easy to see *what* to do---identify a weakness and go forth and practice to get that aspect better, then repeat. And artistic aspects are just the opposite, once you have the necessary technique firmly in hand---it's easy to execute, because that's what you've been practicing to master for all these years, but deciding what to execute is Just Plain Hard!

Some people seem to have the knack for it---maybe it doesn't really feel like this, but from outside, it *looks* like some of you just have a mental tap labeled Creativity and you can turn it on whenever you like. I suppose that's an illusion and that the minds of such people are really working like hell in a non-obvious way? How do y'all do it?

-NT

 

[omaha]

The idea of "photograph as painting" interests me in that that is the direction I've been heading for the last few years. My re-adoption of film is part of that.

There were a few comments earlier in the thread to the effect of "pick an artistic challenge and solve it", and I totally agree with that.

I also get what the OP was talking about. For many of us, photography can be a challenging, "dual-track" endeavor. At the same time we are "finding our voice" (as authors tend to say), we are also climbing a learning curve trying to figure out how to get the equipment to do what we want. How do you get the equipment to do what you want it to when you don't yet know what you want? Its the inherent conundrum to this creative process. Writers don't have that problem. They may not know what to write, but they have the luxury of knowing that no equipment choice (yellow pad and pencil? word processor?) makes any difference. Visual/tangible media are inherently different.

Its also true that photography has always attracted "nerds": people who like technology for its own sake. Thumb through a bunch of 1950's photography magazines, and the discussions are identical (adjusting, of course, for the changes in technology) to any digital photography discussion on dpreview.com today. "Boys and their toys" and all that. Some things never change, and the emergence of digital photography took place at precisely the right time to attract a horde of computer programmers who loved having a new vehicle for indulging their passion for technology.

Mastering the technology (analog or digital or whatever) is a wonderful thing to the extent that doing so liberates you to produce the images you want to produce.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

If it was the equipment, then people would be creating much better photos considering the equipment today is better for everyone than it's ever been.

I think I can answer that.

Beause people let their cameras do their thinking for them, they actually don't develop even the most basic photographic skills.

Sometimes it's even difficult to teach the basic concept of aperture to someone who has been using a DSLR as a point-and-shoot for years.

And for some reason, most lenses today cannot achieve edge to edge sharpness even on a crop sensor, something which was quite the norm 30 years ago.

Even professional modern lenses can suffer from astonishing amounts of chromatic aberrations.

The list goes on...

 

[removed account4]

I think I can answer that.

Beause people let their cameras do their thinking for them, they actually don't develop even the most basic photographic skills.

Sometimes it's even difficult to teach the basic concept of aperture to someone who has been using a DSLR as a point-and-shoot for years.

And for some reason, most lenses today cannot achieve edge to edge sharpness even on a crop sensor, something which was quite the norm 30 years ago.

Even professional modern lenses can suffer from astonishing amounts of chromatic aberrations.

The list goes on...

people look for short cuts, they always have, are and will be automatic cameras.
since the 1880s. just because something is / or isn't sophisticated
doesn't mean it can or can't take good photographs. but what you or i think is good
someone might think is terrible. if someone doesn't want to understand how
an aperture works, its no big deal. some people in fancy camera stores
don't know how apertures work either. in the end it doesn't matter, does it ?

edge to edge sharpness &c doesn't really matter much for the regular person
or even the professional who uses a camera ... i always chuckle when people do all sorts
of air force lens target tests to test the sharpness &c of their lenses.
like a lot of people they spend more time testing than they ever will making photographs.
they are enjoying themselves, which is what counts.

 

[pdeeh]

Quite a lot of rather good photographs have been made with cameras which have no variable aperture at all. Or indeed a focusing mechanism ...

A camera is, after all, just a "black box". Some are a little more fancy than others, of course, but the idea that any "camera does the thinking" doesn't really stand up to a moment's, um, thinking ...

Does a Box Brownie do any thinking for it's users? You don't have to have a single photographic concept in your head to use one, after all.