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

[frank]

So, now what?


Time for you to go, grasshopper.

 

[Rick A]

I've been at this for well over 50 years and feel I have a pretty firm grasp of the technical aspects of photography, but mastered it, I think not. The only thing I've mastered in my life is baiting.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

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.

I think that lens manufacturers today assume that people use their cameras for photographing their friends and family, bang in the middle of the frame, so they won't even notice if the edges are blurred. They're probably right too.

But to someone who wants to do good compositions, it doesn't work if you only have a small circle of sharpness in the middle of the frame.

Most serious photographers I know and know of, do want the best possible equipment, which is why there always have been a market for high end gear.

I always do a number of test shots when I get a lens. First of all, I want to know that I didn't get a dud. This has happened, due to the lax quality control these days. I swear that some manufacturers send out sub-par lenses, because it's cheaper to correct the few returns, than check and correct them all. Second, I want to know where the lens is weak and strong, so I can adapt my shooting.

It takes no more than a day or two and after that, I will use it only for real world photography.

 

[removed account4]

oh well,
the serious / professional and pro-amateur photographers i know
and know of know that if you stop a lens down a little bit you will most likely get edge to edge sharpness
and wide open chances are slim. ... i guess the ones you know cancel the ones i know and its a draw

there has been quality control issues with everything ... for a long time,
not just today ... just google wollensak or schneider, for example and see how their lenses
have run the gamut of great to sub par... ( never buy a car on a monday or a friday &c )
it doesn't matter much to me if lens or camera makers think their cameras and lenses will be made for
snapshots, that is what most photographs have been since about 1883.
and it is all those snapshot makers who fueled the whole photographic economy selling
millions and millions and millions of miles of film and paper since ... the 1880s...

 

[Jaf-Photo]

oh well,
the serious / professional and pro-amateur photographers i know
and know of know that if you stop a lens down a little bit you will most likely get edge to edge sharpness
and wide open chances are slim. ... i guess the ones you know cancel the ones i know and its a draw

there has been quality control issues with everything ... for a long time,
not just today ... just google wollensak or schneider, for example and see how their lenses
have run the gamut of great to sub par... ( never buy a car on a monday or a friday &c )
it doesn't matter much to me if lens or camera makers think their cameras and lenses will be made for
snapshots, that is what most photographs have been since about 1883.
and it is all those snapshot makers who fueled the whole photographic economy selling
millions and millions and millions of miles of film and paper since ... the 1880s...

I think we are bordering on splitting hairs, if we haven't already begun.

We're probably not that far apart, if we could just take the time to talk it over properly.

But I don't agree wih the oft repeated mantra that the equipment doesn't matter. Clearly, it does matter to most photographers and always have done.

There may be some people who think that the equipment is all that matters, and they will prove themselves wrong.

But people who buy good gear most often do it because they know exactly what they are after and how to best use it.

 

[pdeeh]

Equipment only matters to the photographer, the photograph doesn't give a damn

 

[Pioneer]

Equipment only matters to the photographer, the photograph doesn't give a damn

Poor photograph.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Equipment only matters to the photographer, the photograph doesn't give a damn

Hmmm... the photograph is the result of all the equipment that went into making it.

So the lens and camera are the father and mother of the photo.

Of course it cares

 

[Nikanon]

A very poignant thought.

Not really. A photograph is very specific, paintings are less so, but a photograph certainly isn't a painting. If it looks like one, its more likely to be one than a photograph. People get upset by definitions because they feel "limited". Words allows us to choose exactly what we want to say, and photographs define very specifically the thing that they capture, it is well described, it is already limited to what you can see, the illusion of literal description. There's nothing to argue really, and theres nothing to be worried about, it is I believe the most interesting and creative medium specifically because the process is so specific and limited, the only option is to make photographs. Once you have all your films chosen and development times and lenses and cameras, you just photograph, its very freeing.

 

[Nikanon]

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

This is really way off the mark from the original point. If the resulting photograph is visibly an illusion of reality, then you have a photograph. If the result is mushed tones printed on paper, its probably closer to a photogram or lithograph or some form of printmaking. Most people who use cameras to make whatever their work is seem dead set on calling it photography. Why does it matter? If its not a photograph its not, its just something else, it doesn't mean its nothing. It becomes rejectionist and pictorialist, which is really disrespectful to the medium of photography and making photographs to take something like a fine print medium or painting and call it a photograph.

 

[removed account4]

This is really way off the mark from the original point. If the resulting photograph is visibly an illusion of reality, then you have a photograph. If the result is mushed tones printed on paper, its probably closer to a photogram or lithograph or some form of printmaking. Most people who use cameras to make whatever their work is seem dead set on calling it photography. Why does it matter? If its not a photograph its not, its just something else, it doesn't mean its nothing. It becomes rejectionist and pictorialist, which is really disrespectful to the medium of photography and making photographs to take something like a fine print medium or painting and call it a photograph.

i find your comments to be disrespectful to the medium.

best of luck making your "freeing" negatives and prints !

 

[sly]

What do you do if you can't see any point in making more photographs? Send your film, paper, and gear to me!!!

 

[eddie]

If the resulting photograph is visibly an illusion of reality, then you have a photograph. If the result is mushed tones printed on paper, its probably closer to a photogram or lithograph or some form of printmaking. Most people who use cameras to make whatever their work is seem dead set on calling it photography.

"An illusion of reality" is a vast area. If you're implying that the photo has to be as close to representing the original scene as possible, I flat out reject that. The beauty of analogue is in how we can use it to expand the possibilities of image making. I wish people wouldn't place limits on their conception of what a photograph is. A photograph is an image made on light sensitive materials. If your definition is different, that's OK, but your definition would be different than every dictionary definition.

 

[omaha]

I just want to make pretty pictures.

 

[Bill Burk]

Not really. A photograph is very specific ... photographs define very specifically the thing that they capture, it is well described, it is already limited to what you can see, the illusion of literal description... it is I believe the most interesting and creative medium specifically because the process is so specific and limited... Once you have all your films chosen and development times and lenses and cameras, you just photograph, its very freeing.

I just looked it up... poignant wasn't the right word. I meant something with a positive connotation, because I liked what eddie said. Poignant apparently implies something sad.

Nikanon,

I appreciate and make photographs which fit the definition exactly as you describe (I took out some of your words, let me know if I changed your thought by taking what you said out of context, or if the edit clarifies).

I really like the work described by Group f/64's manifesto, and if I understand art history, it was a necessary movement at the time to keep the opposing movement from successfully categorizing clear and detailed photographs as utilitarian and unworthy of recognition as art.

Your definition seems to fit Group f/64's ideal. As I said, that is a kind of photograph that I appreciate. I came here originally with a plan to make clear, high resolution black and white photographs. I planned to make prints from properly exposed and developed 4x5 film printed by enlarger on 11x14 Single Grade Fiber Based paper. And I did, so momus, I have solved these technical challenges because I clearly defined them.

That's where I was at when I started having discussions with Thomas Bertilsson and cliveh about the beauty of 35mm. I did some experiments, had a bit of fun (jnanian inspires fun so I hope you get to see that) and found that although I still prefer the crispness of 4x5 and love "that look", I also can achieve beautiful prints from 35mm and I can enjoy a print that is technically inferior but which has some more personal impact even though it is not clear. I joke that I'm going to have my Group f/64 card taken away some day.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

This is really way off the mark from the original point. If the resulting photograph is visibly an illusion of reality, then you have a photograph. If the result is mushed tones printed on paper, its probably closer to a photogram or lithograph or some form of printmaking. Most people who use cameras to make whatever their work is seem dead set on calling it photography. Why does it matter? If its not a photograph its not, its just something else, it doesn't mean its nothing. It becomes rejectionist and pictorialist, which is really disrespectful to the medium of photography and making photographs to take something like a fine print medium or painting and call it a photograph.

A lot of arguments stem from the fact that people use words differently.

In my understanding, a photograph is a technical term, not a qualitative one.

A photograph is simply an image produced with photographic equipment, i.e. captured with a camera on a light sensitive surface.

The way the photograph looks, does not qualify it as a photograph or not.

 

[pdeeh]

People can think about and practice photography however the hell they like.

The "If you don't think and do the way I think and do then you're thinking and doing wrongly" position is the one that's so wrong-headed.

Making statements about "definitions" of what makes a photograph is pointless if there is no single definition, if the "definition" is one you simply choose to subscribe to.

Statments about what is "freeing" aren't definitive. They're true for person who is saying it, at the time they are saying it; it may apply to some other people too, of course, but just saying it doesn't make it a universal truth.

People practice photography for as many reasons and with as many motives as there are practitioners. Photography does not have some special status that means it must be done in particular ways, any more than any medium.

 

[Rick A]

A person who takes a snapshot of the family with a P&S is no less a photographer than Richard Avadon, as is anyone in between. The only thing that delineates them is their desired end results. It doesn't matter one whit the equipment used, or the finished product. If a person spends a great deal of their waking moments consumed with capturing photons to show others what they saw is, in my book, a photographer.
It eludes me why some people are hell-bent on labeling everything and being derogatory whilst doing so. Maybe they are over compensating for a low self image so being an elitist and demeaning others is just a defense against being found out. The only illusion I see, is thinking one has mastered anything, you never do, only become very proficient at a skill set. A "master" is someone who recognizes they have reached that point and still strives to be better at it.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I don't know.

Not everyone who writes is a writer.

Not everyone who plays the piano is a musician.

Not everyone who engages in sports is a sportsman.

If a person is to be described by the activities they engage in it usually implies that the do it with a certain degree of dedication and skill.

I would not call anyone who takes pictures without an understanding and apoeciation of the photographic medium a photographer.

They are camera users.

 

[markbarendt]

I still prefer the crispness of 4x5 and love "that look", I also can achieve beautiful prints from 35mm and I can enjoy a print that is technically inferior but which has some more personal impact even though it is not clear. I joke that I'm going to have my Group f/64 card taken away some day.

I love the look, tonality, and detail of prints from 4x5s at 11x14 too. I really like it at 16x20 too but the smaller magnification of 11x14 is something special.

Where you have a very tight definition of best I can see coming to the conclusion that smaller formats don't cut it.

For me each combination has it's own redeeming quality, I don't find any technically inferior, just different. Each is a different tool meant for different situations.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't know.

Not everyone who writes is a writer.

Not everyone who plays the piano is a musician.

Not everyone who engages in sports is a sportsman.

If a person is to be described by the activities they engage in it usually implies that the do it with a certain degree of dedication and skill.

I would not call anyone who takes pictures without an understanding and apoeciation of the photographic medium a photographer.

They are camera users.

That's a great commercial "definition", "if you can't make a living at it (or get shown) you are not a ..."

IMO it's also pure elitist BS.

 

[darkosaric]

Didn't we had this conversation like a month ago in thread "Do you call yourself a photographer"? It is starting to be like digital vs. analog ... Original post had different ideas and thoughts - lets go back to this .

 

[Jaf-Photo]

That's a great commercial "definition", "if you can't make a living at it (or get shown) you are not a ..."

IMO it's also pure elitist BS.

There are many accomplished artists who never made a penny off their art. But they engage in it with dedication and skill. That was my definition, not whether they make a living.

It's a tangent perhaps, but it does relate to the question of acquiring mastery of the chosen equipment, which is related to the OP.

I'm not an elitist but I see a clear difference between a dedicated photographer and the camera users who spew millions of random and pointless pictures all over the internet.

 

[pdeeh]

camera users who spew millions of random and pointless pictures all over the internet.

In the tens of decades up until the advent of "the internet" and digital photographs and/or digitised photographs, there were just as many "random and pointless" pictures .. but they were just "spewed" over people's private walls, drawers, albums and so on, where they were unable to offend the refined sensibilities of the "dedicated photographer".

"random", "pointless", "spew" .. when we use the language of contempt about others, it invites only contempt from others ...

 

[Rick A]

In the tens of decades up until the advent of "the internet" and digital photographs and/or digitised photographs, there were just as many "random and pointless" pictures .. but they were just "spewed" over people's private walls, drawers, albums and so on, where they were unable to offend the refined sensibilities of the "dedicated photographer".

"random", "pointless", "spew" .. when we use the language of contempt about others, it invites only contempt from others ...

Amen brother!