What technical points are important to you?

[Roger Hicks]

...technique-neutral...

On one level, I see exactly what you mean. It's a bit like the fashion designer who said, "If a woman enters the room wearing one of my dresses, and people say, 'What a beautiful dress,' I have failed. But if they say, 'What a beautiful woman,' I have succeeded."

On another level, I'm not sure it's possible to be 'technique-neutral'. Everything affects the picture: film, format, depth of field, sharpness, even (Gods help us all) bokeh. Perhaps 'technique-neutral' is close to Cate's 'appropriate technique' -- which wasn't really what I was trying to get at. I was more interested in what people notice in others' pictures; in what, to be brutal, most often lets a picture down in your eyes when it doesn't quite make it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

What's the difference?

For me, content would be subject matter and composition would be how that subject matter fits within the frame of the photograph.

Sorry, but I can't think about just the technical aspects because, well, it's a PHOTOGRAPH, and the image (content - subject matter) is the most important thing when I'm looking at the work of other photographers.

Murray

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, but I can't think about just the technical aspects because, well, it's a PHOTOGRAPH, and the image (content - subject matter) is the most important thing when I'm looking at the work of other photographers.
Murray

Dear Murray,

Heartily agreed, but don't you ever look at a picture and think, "Urgh, looks like shades of cigarette ash" or (as with a Karsh portrait I saw a while back) "Pity he focused on the arm of the chair instead of his face" (a portrait of Desmond Tutu, incidentally).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[catem]

close to Cate's 'appropriate technique' -- which wasn't really what I was trying to get at. I was more interested in what people notice in others' pictures; in what, to be brutal, most often lets a picture down in your eyes when it doesn't quite make it.

Cheers,

R.

Ah....that's when it's things like trite, boring, pretentious, offensive...

But in truth I don't so very often feel 'let down' exactly. If I do, I would say it is virtually never for technical reasons.

See, it's the different language - or yes, maybe world view - creeping in again.

Cate

 

[Helen B]

-- which wasn't really what I was trying to get at. I was more interested in what people notice in others' pictures; in what, to be brutal, most often lets a picture down in your eyes when it doesn't quite make it.

'And if you ask How does that love seem now
I must admit I really can't remember
And yet I know what you are trying to say'*

I think that I understand what you are asking, but find it hard to answer. When viewing pictures: Anything technical that distracts from what I perceive the photographer's intent to be. If the photographer's intent appears to have included obvious technique (an inflection, an effect), then is it telling me more than I want to be told, is it restrictive? Rather like the Diane Arbus quote that Cate has in her signature - the more it tells you the less you know. Fuzziness can tell you too much.

Best,
Helen


*Remembering Marie A by Brecht, purely from memory though I have no idea how the original was punctuated.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Guten Tag Roger,

This is a very difficult question for me. While there must be some reason I have all these various cameras and lenses, or even why I have a refrigerator holding more film than food, I cannot seem to find technical reasons behind these choices. At least, there is not a technical aspect in my images that someone could point out as being a certain camera, lens, or film . . . except maybe my Polaroid manipulations. If I leave out the Polaroid manipulations, I am left with a wide variety of approaches.

When I first started reading this thread, I thought about colour being the technical aspect I valued the most. However, that does not explain why I shoot B/W, which I find to be more illustrative. Funny thing is that I also shoot B/W when I need images to work up a painting, since I don't want the colour of what I photographed to influence my choice of paint colours that I will use on the painting.

At one point I was doing a ton of selective focus or ultra short DoF shots, which I still do quite often. However, I also find some concepts work nicely with a very large DoF. Then there are view camera shots that are done with a skewed plain of focus. I once told some people at an exhibit opening that I use film and cameras the way they were not intended . . . might be why I do Polaroid manipulations.

I have some very good lenses, and very good cameras. Many were chosen based upon their ergonomics, since what I wanted was gear that became an extension of my creative vision, and that did not intrude upon nor distract that creative vision. On smaller cameras, fast lenses make for very clear viewfinders on SLRs. Focus is technically important to me only in that I need to be able to control it. An extremely short shutter lag seems somewhat important, though it would be nearly impossible to pick that out in my images. The old folder cameras I use are well maintained or even functionally restored, but what I like is the lack of precision . . . simplicity.

Finally, I just dropped off a 4x5 transparency at the lab to be printed for an upcoming group exhibit. It is a selective focus image with a shifted plain of focus, shot on Fuji Astia 100F. I managed to swing, tilt and shift the lens far enough to cause one corner to be a bit dark, though it is in an area of deep blue sky. The lab commented that they could touch up the image and get rid of the dark corner, but I thought that it created a more interesting image. Life is not perfect, so a little imperfection might be something viewers of that image find interesting. I guess that today with so many polished and post processed images showing up as prints, something selectively focused with a dark corner lacks that all too common striving for technical perfection.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ah....that's when it's things like trite, boring, pretentious, offensive...

See, it's the different language - or yes, maybe world view - creeping in again.

Cate

Dear Cate,

Back to the walls!

But do you never see pictures which are not completely trite, boring, pretentious or offensive, and which would, if they were more competently executed, be at least pleasant?

Or for that matter, ones that are trite, boring or pretentious (this rarely works with offensive) but are not too bad because they are exquisitely rendered? I turn once again to some of Ansel Adams's later work, or for that matter, to some homosexual pin-ups (heterosexual pin-ups are more rarely so exquisite).

If not, we really do have a difference in world-picture.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Roger,

Not really, because if the image that looked like cigarette ash, or was actually made of cigarette ash for that matter, was compelling or strong enough, technique would be secondary to the image.

Regarding the Karsh-Tutu example; from your vantage point the moment or expression captured (content) and the composition were not strong enough to overcome the technical deficit. If Karsh had captured an amazingly revealing moment you might have forgiven the mistake in focus, therefore putting content ahead of technique.

I am 4x5 photographer who loves small apertures, yet I'm a huge fan of jnanian's creativity. Say no more.

Murray

 

[catem]

If not, we really do have a difference in world-picture.

Cheers,

Roger

This may be the case. I suppose I think life's too short to get het-up about technical issues.

Also, I think I have a fairly open mind to what is or is not acceptable technically, and I am not one to be bound by technical conventions.

Cate

 

[DBP]

The thing I notice most in otherwise pleasant photos, and am most careful about with my own, is careful selection of focus and depth of field.

 

[firecracker]

I use the quality of lenses as the essence to the images I produce. Sometimes some undesirable characteristics of the lenses such as distortion and light fall-off become desireable for certain images.

 

[catem]

[ Rather like the Diane Arbus quote that Cate has in her signature - the more it tells you the less you know. Fuzziness can tell you too much.

So can the f64 shot from here to eternity?

Cate

 

[MattKing]

It would be my guess that the more experienced you are at viewing a wide variety of photography, the better you are at seeing past the technical imperfections, and seeing the quality of the image itself.

Sort of like being able to appreciate the beauty of a fine performance of a piece by J.S. Bach, even though the recording was flat and lifeless and muddy.

Given that though, I think I see what Roger is getting at - what technical imperfections distract us the most from the quality of the image?

My father used to have great troubles with movies shown in the theatre. After spending years working with colour materials - prints and transparencies, still and motion pictures - it would drive him nuts if there was a scratch on the (movie) print, or dust or a hair stuck in the gate. In addition, if when they changed reels the colour balance shifted, even slightly, it would throw him out of the "suspension of disbelief" and definitely disturb his enjoyment of the film. I am not as sensitive to this as he is, but it can certainly affect my enjoyment too.

My vote for the technical imperfection that assumes an inordinant amount of importance - dust!, especially enlarged dust!

Matt

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fuzziness can tell you too much.

Hmmmm...

Again, in a way, yes -- like most of Camera Work. But sharpness can also tell you too much (Ansel Adams again).

Obviously, any technique including 'faults' can be used creatively. But there are plenty of pictures in which the 'fault' is either misapplied or, fairly clearly, simple incompetence.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is a very difficult question for me . . . I am left with a wide variety of approaches.

Dear Gordon,

Difficult for me too, but overnight I have come to the conclusion that there is perhaps an excess of generosity towards the incompetent.

There are pictures that 'work' despite or sometimes because of deliberate or accidental faults. One of my own favourite architectural shots is of the semi-ruinous Italian governor's mansion in Rhodes, shot on Type 55 P/N, which I washed in the shower in my hotel room.

Thanks to an unclear water control it was washed in hot water instead of cold and the emulsion is rubbed off in one place. In the print, it looks as if I have rediscovered some ancient and damaged plate, and it's very effective. The accident -- like your dark corner -- 'worked'.

But the other three negs that were washed at the same time were simply write-offs. What I am getting at is the way that some people will try to pass off accidents like this as deliberate, even when they don't work, and the way that others will try to pass off simple incompetence as either deliberate or inconsequential.

They are then aided in this by those relativists who say (when I say it's muddy, or dirty, or tonally awful), "That's just your opinion." Yes, of course it is. And it would also (I believe) be the opinion of counless others. Otherwise, technical quality becomes meaningless and we would all stick with 4x6 inch mini-lab prints.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

Not really, because if the image that looked like cigarette ash, or was actually made of cigarette ash for that matter, was compelling or strong enough, technique would be secondary to the image.

Regarding the Karsh-Tutu example; from your vantage point the moment or expression captured (content) and the composition were not strong enough to overcome the technical deficit. If Karsh had captured an amazingly revealing moment you might have forgiven the mistake in focus, therefore putting content ahead of technique.

I am 4x5 photographer who loves small apertures, yet I'm a huge fan of jnanian's creativity. Say no more.

Murray

Dear Murray,

My reply to Gordon answers the cigatette-ash point, and as for the out-of-focus portrait, seriously, I'd be amazed if ANY formal portrait of someone sitting in a chair could be an 'amazingly revealing moment'. It was a hack portrait, poorly executed -- even Karsh could do 'em, which surprised me. What REALLY surprised me was that it was in an exhibition.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ray Heath]

an interesting thread Roger, thank you

for me the one over-riding consideration is sharpness of the main picture element

the single most important characteristic of photography is that it has the ability to render some part of an image sharply and other parts sharp or not as intended by the artist

photography does not need to emulate other art forms, by whatever means, it is able to render a subject as important and worthy of consideration by the simple technique of making it visually strong ie sharp

for me out of focus is never acceptable, a badly focused image is a poor image

'arty' by virtue of out of focus is poor imaging

 

[Curt]

My theory is that each of us is sensitive to different things, as a result of historical accident including our 'brain wiring' as babies.

Like serial murders Roger? Do you have a Pet scan to prove it or some other scientific evidence? Just how did you come up with that theory? What's a "Historic accident"?

Cheers,

Curt

 

[goros]

Hi all,

Roger, I think you have touched a very subjective matter. From my point of view, leaving aside that the picture says something to me, what I look for is a technically correct picture.

I have to explain my point of view: I mean technically correct when it is being done on purpose. I don't mind a blurred or a completely out of focus or a scratched picture if that was the intention of the picture maker. A picture with a full tonal range would be very pleasant, but look at some Giacomelli's pictures, just pure black and pure white. There are examples for any kind of "technical errors" that really help to make the picture. What I don't like at all is to relay on the technicalities to get a picture.

Of course, there are also exceptions and some accidental errors can also make a picture more "attractive" (as your uneven washing). On the other hand, I don't disregard a picture that I like if there is a bearable dust spot or hair on it but I would like it more without it.

I think I have made a mess. Please, forgive me. Sometimes I find very difficult to explain my feelings even in Spanish, so imagine in English.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

the single most important characteristic of photography is that it has the ability to render some part of an image sharply and other parts sharp or not as intended by the artist

photography does not need to emulate other art forms, by whatever means,

Dear Ray,

I'll agree almost 100 per cent. I can think of a very few out-of-focus images that were both deliberate and successful, such as some of Bill Brandt's nudes, but for the most part I'd certainly agree that the considered and controlled use of focus is essential.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Like serial murders Roger? Do you have a Pet scan to prove it or some other scientific evidence? Just how did you come up with that theory? What's a "Historic accident"?

Cheers,

Curt

Dear Curt,

Historical, not historic. For example: we encountered (and admired) Cartier-Bresson before Ansel Adams, or Raghu Rai before Edward Weston. Or we did (or did not) have an uncle who was a photographer. Or we were given 800 feet of outdated 35mm film to learn with... All these things are historical accidents, and each person will have been subjected to a different sequence of them.

As for the 'brain wiring' theory, you flatter me by suggesting that I came up with it, as it is hardly either original or controversial. Nor does it have a great deal to do with mass murderers.

I gave one example, the way in which children lose the ability to differentiate and reproduce certain sounds. Read any reasonably modern book on consciousness or perception for more information. For an entertaining but still reasonably rigorous introduction, look for pretty much anything in this realm by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. You might also care to look at Richard Gregory's books, The Intelligent Eye and Eye and Brain; Richard is (or was when I knew him -- he may have retired by now) Professor of Perception at the University of Bristol.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

From my point of view, leaving aside that the picture says something to me, what I look for is a technically correct picture. . . I mean technically correct when it is being done on purpose.

Dear Alfonso,

I think this point of intention is central. What is most important to me in this thread is what people intend or intended to do -- and I believe you can usually tell when a 'fault' (even an accidental one) is exploited or used creatively, rather than being the result of laziness, incompetence or ill luck.

As for your English, would that I could READ Spanish as well as you WRITE English -- or that I could read Basque at all!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ah, the "simple" questions...

To be concise, all, and none.

I have learned ...?? evolved... ? into experiencing every photograph holistically. I can't divorce "technicals" from "aesthetics". At times, precise focus and "sharpness" will be of great concern; at others either weakly secondary, or even detrimental.

I will confess to having used many of the so-called "sins" for their effect. At times, I WANT to "blow out the highlights", or print WITHOUT "an absolute white or an absolute black"... or "skew the color balance." My CHOICE.

Deliberate or accidental? I don't really care - the supreme test is the final image... how it came to be, either through hard work or fortunate accident, really means very little to me. It is the work of the photographer, and that is al that matters.

A couple of quotes that might be of interest, albeit obliquely:

"We need to take artists at their word ..."

"Pictures are either yesses or nos. Once it is a yes, then you can talk about its meaning, its qualities, its associations, its emotion. But there is no point in talking about a different picture that might have been. What is there is there, and what isn't, isn't."

- Susan Sontag

One point of clarification: With me, "what WORKS" is precisely equal to Sontag's "yes".

This is a hurried response - I have a Model scheduled for right now.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ed,

Hope the model shoot went well!

I completely agree about what you call choice (or rather CHOICE); it is what I described a post or two before as 'intention', what Alfonso described as 'on purpose' and so forth.

But that is not what I am getting at -- and I think that Susan Sontag was (as usual) completely wrong in her 'yes/no' dichotomy.

Surely we have all taken pictures that have not turned out as we hoped, and we may or may not have been able to analyze where the failure occurred. In other words, there is a category of 'almost', not just yes/no. And, I suggest, we apply this to others' pictures as well as our own.

There is also a category of 'better': an example I can think of is a superb portrait of her father by Marie Muscat-King, which as a result of inexperience (this was almost a decade ago) she under-developed and did not know how to print well. Frances reprinted it for her and made a fatally flawed (flat, grey) picture into a superb portrait.

And, of course, different people have different opinions about whether a picture is a success or not. This applies even when the 'different people' are the same photographer at different ages: an experienced photographer may look back on a picture of which he was inordinately proud when he started, and see its faults all too clearly.

In other words, it isn't yes/no at all: its a spectrum, and it's democratic at that.

In my own experience -- and that of most photographers I know -- aesthetics and technique are readily separable in the sense that one drags the other forward in fits and starts. Only very rarely do compositional and aesthetic skills progress at exactly the same rate. You get better aesthetically; you raise your sights; you work harder on technique. You realize that there is no point in wasting more time in technique, because your pictures are becoming stale and predictable; the aesthetics (just getting out and taking pictures) suddenly becomes more important; and so forth.

The point of the thread -- and I did not realize this fully when I started it -- is to make it easier to analyze what went right and what went wrong, in a technical sense. It is clearly nonsensical to say that technique doesn't matter (I know you're not saying that) because if it didn't, no-one would ever need to learn anything.

What I'm looking for, and what I have found most gloriously, is that different people not only have different priorities: those priorities often include things I hadn't even thought of. When it comes to analyzing 'what went right and what went wrong', I now have several new tools to apply, and so, I hope, do others who have followed the thread. Even where those tools appear worthless or perverse, the mere act of thinking about them may enable us to create new tools that are useful to us.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Dear Gordon,

Difficult for me too, but overnight I have come to the conclusion that there is perhaps an excess of generosity towards the incompetent . . . . . . . What I am getting at is the way that some people will try to pass off accidents like this as deliberate, even when they don't work, and the way that others will try to pass off simple incompetence as either deliberate or inconsequential.

They are then aided in this by those relativists who say (when I say it's muddy, or dirty, or tonally awful), "That's just your opinion." Yes, of course it is. And it would also (I believe) be the opinion of counless others. Otherwise, technical quality becomes meaningless and we would all stick with 4x6 inch mini-lab prints.

Cheers,

Roger

Hello Roger,

I think I notice more obvious faults in those exhibiting images that were post-processed in a computer. Oversharpening or way too much saturation, or even too much contrast scream out they are not film original prints, which is something that turns me off to many images I see at exhibits. Oddly enough I rarely notice technical issues in prints from film; perhaps film photographers doing exhibits are less bogged down by technical issues.

Obviously I make mistakes, just like anyone else, but I don't try passing off most of them as creative. I suppose if I become famous at some point in the future, or after I am gone, someone might print many of my not so good images. It has been something of a letdown to me to pick up newer books of some famous photographers and see that they also produced some fairly mundane work . . . not technically bad, other than maybe obviously incorrect focus in some Henri Cartier-Bresson images . . . rather just plain boring.

My recent return to shooting 4x5 after a few years absence went through the lots of good ideas phase, then some better ideas phase, and finally I reached a level when I have made mundane images with my 4x5. After creating some truly mundane images, I can now go on towards better images, and better editing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio