What technical points are important to you?

Why is one stopped long and hard by certain photographs? Set aside image content and composition per Roger's limits and isn't it most important that the technical points DON'T STAND OUT, that the technique of the maker is so good (or lucky), the techniques don't 'show'?

Helen B said it best, if I've isolated right:

"I value the absence of obvious technical qualities or technique....my idea of perfection is to be technique-neutral."

"Anything technical that distracts from what I perceive the photographer's intent to be....is....telling me more than I want to be told."

Yeah.

Bruce

blansky said:

I don't really know how I feel about this stuff. While being a proponent of the technique/ craft side as well as the vision/art side of photography and the fact that to me they need a great marriage, I'm torn on the autopsy of photographs.

It has been interesting in the last few weeks that we've had works shown by people who rave about a certain photographers pictures, who personally, didn't even hit may radar as being mildly interesting.

I think that if a picture has "impact" to me I don't want to tear it down to see what makes it tick. I don't want to treat photographs like food and say this is a nice "whatever" but think how much better it would be with a bit more paprika or garlic or ...........

If the photograph doesn't strike me, nothing can fix it. It is an entity. Either I like it or I don't. I don't say, I sort of like it, BUT..... the bokeh sucks.

So unless someone is asking for a critique, I usually don't autopsy pictures. I accept them as they are and they move me or they don't.


Michael

Click to expand...

I agree that in most cases an image either works for me or it doesn't. Once in awhile someone comes along who produces work I may not like initially but over time I learn to appreciate. But that would have nothng to do with the technical merits of the image. If I don't like a photograph I find it a pointless exercise to critique the technical aspects since any changes I would make would no longer make it the vsion of the original photographer. For images I like, I do find it useful to try understand why I like it. Usually that has more to do with style, content and the visual language employed more then technical considerations.

A good photograph will almost always contain dynamic subject matter and/or great composition of elements. I think it is perfectly appropriate to discuss these aspects of an image and why a particular work is perceived as masterful by many. But without either or both a dynamic subject or successful composition, no "technical" consideration is going to make a photograph a great or memorable image.

I always look at contrast and tonality in relation to the content of the image. My view is that once we have committed ourselves to what we wish to photograph, having chosen the film, lens etc, all that we have left to express our feelings or message is contrast and tonality. These two elements are in my view the two most powerful factors in expressive print making. The level of contrast and depth of tonality do make the image live and give the printer the ability to guide the viewer to the reason for making it in the first place.

I have used this analogy many times over; the mechanics, techniques of photography are not rocket science, it is more like learning to cook. If you can follow a recipe, you can learn to make technically sound negatives and prints. Learn the basics, there are only a handful of variables, and perfect your technique. Choose one film/developer/paper combination and perfect it. Keep the variables constant and to a minimum.

What we should be concentrating on as the photographer, artist is what and how, we place within the confines of the four borders, what we are working with. This is what really matters.

Techniques and individual vision should eventually merge together so that the viewing auidience really doesn't care how the image was made, but are caught up in the subject itself. If repeatedly asked the whats or hows of technique, maybe the image really doesn't say anything at all.

When I first saw Roger's thread I thought he meant technique involved in the capturing of an image. I think post-production technique is rather different, and don't have so much of a problem trying to define what I don't like, or what grates, when it comes to the printing although I think it's still not necessarily anything very precise, apart from when I feel the photographer (or printer) hasn't done the best for the image and what it's trying to portray, so it's let down in the final stages. The trouble is I generally have a doubt that this is often the case with my own printing...

Although I still don't think that it's possible to extrapolate from peoples' dislikes general theories about infant imprinting and/or historical accident, that are in any way more meaningful than saying we're all products of our upbringing and experiences, I do think there may be some very general cultural differences concerning what is conventionally acceptable (for example between Eastern and Western cultures).

Cate

RAP said:

What we should be concentrating on as the photographer, artist is what and how, we place within the confines of the four borders, what we are working with. This is what really matters.

Techniques and individual vision should eventually merge together so that the viewing auidience really doesn't care how the image was made, but are caught up in the subject itself. If repeatedly asked the whats or hows of technique, maybe the image really doesn't say anything at all.

Click to expand...

Thanks, RAP. I was all set to write, very nearly, the same words, and it has been a trying, and rewarding day.

I'll agree with Susan Sontag. To me, deconstruction and trying to reduce photography into "basic elements" is a fruitless misuse of time. I may well "learn" all the things to watch out for and correct, next time but that will be a LONG list, and the same scene, under closely comparable conditions happens very infrequently - in fact I can't remember one time.

I wonder how many of us have taken a photograph, and come to the conclusion that "it ALMOST works ... but ... And returned to the same place, with he same equipment, and TRIED to make the necessary corrections. I have, and that has never been successful.

One characteristic seems to be essential: spontaneity. The less I 'think", the more I let "my inner self" takeover, the better the work seems to be. Undeniably, the reverse of spontaneity is overworking, trying with every ounce of one's fiber to get everything absolutely "right" - when there is NO absolutely right. .

I've worked with - witnessed is a better choice of word - with a few of the most significant photographers of the time ... and even with extensive preparation, hundreds of miles of travel, careful consideration and preparation of studio backgrounds and lighting, the photograph is ultimately the result of a momentary impulse. One example was Arnold Newman. After much preparation, he would say, "There is a photograph here somewhere. All I have to do is find it." Then, suddenly, "There it is!!" and the shutter would be tripped.

One thing bothers me - why is there such a predisposition to condemn other photographers for "cheating"? "They are only trying to pass off inferior, seriously flawed, incompetent work as art". I refuse to "judge"another artists motivation. I always look at the work. If it works, it is a good piece of work. If afterwards I find that the artist was criminally immoral, or cheated, or even if he stole anothers work, I may have an extremely negative perception of the person, but that does not affect the way I feel about the piece of art.

As the curator of a local Art Gallery, I have met a few artists who firmly believe someone else is "cheating" - "but not me, I never cheat." In truth, although there a many strange characters among artists, I've never met one who honestly believed their work was "inferior", and had chosen the course of "covering up their faults" by labeling the work art- cheated.

Take that as a compliment, all. Certainly we all have our faults, but I do NOT believe a lack of integrity is one of them.

I've had it for today. Time to kick back and shake hands with Mr. Jim Beam.

HerrBremerhaven said:

I think I notice more obvious faults in those exhibiting images that were post-processed in a computer.

Click to expand...

Dear Gordon,

Another intriguing one. It would not have occurred to me to separate (or at least, to separate so much) such factors as film choice and exposure from post-production, the more so as film development can be seen as part of post production. And yet you and Cate make a major distinction.

Having said this, I fully take your point about excessive Photoshopping, especially oversharpening.

Cheers,

R.

Les McLean said:

I always look at contrast and tonality in relation to the content of the image.

Click to expand...

Dear Les,

I think you have stripped it to the bare essentials. A black-and-white picture with a good separation of/interplay between tones, and clear subject matter, can stand almost anything, including bad photomechanical reproduction.

Cheers,

Roger

In July 06 issue of Black & White Photography magazine (the British one, not the American Black & White Magazine) Keith Carter showed some of his out-of-focus and blurred pictures (http://www.keithcarterphotographs.com), that I personally like, and he says that fuzziness is as much about life as sharpness (well, more or less, as I don't recall his exact words). He uses a wide variety of ways for that fuzziness, from Hasselblad flexbody to home-made lenses.

In September 06 issue, a reader says that now, after watching Keith Carter's pictures, he will reconsider his blurred pictures and think twice before sending them to the scrap bin. The editor, also member of APUG, replays that it is valid when you have in your mind that effect as an integral part of the picture, also more or less. I tend to agree with her point of view.

But after thinking overnight (not very hard, I must say), I prefer, as a general concept, well exposed, well focus pictures. Although I like pictures that are not well exposed or focus, they are properly (not well) exposed or focus as that was the picture taker intention (as Roger and Frances say in one of their books, perfect exposure doesn't exist, but correct exposure yes, the one you want to your picture). What I mean is that although I like this kind of "faults" in some pictures, too much of them together makes the thing a bit boring and repetitive. I also have some of fuzzy pictures (you could see them in my gallery in photonet), but I don't base my pictures in that special effect.

Well, it was not my intention to make a boring post, sorry for that. And Roger, you will always be ongi etorri Euskal Herrira (welcome to the Basque Country).

Cheers

Stargazer said:

... apart from when I feel the photographer (or printer) hasn't done the best for the image and what it's trying to portray, so it's let down in the final stages.

Click to expand...

Dear Cate,

As I said to Gordon, it hadn't really occurred to me to separate 'the final stages' from such topics as film choice, exposure, developer choice, and development regime. What do you see as the difference?

Cheers,

Roger

Ed Sukach said:

I wonder how many of us have taken a photograph, and come to the conclusion that "it ALMOST works ... but ... And returned to the same place, with he same equipment, and TRIED to make the necessary corrections. I have, and that has never been successful.

One thing bothers me - why is there such a predisposition to condemn other photographers for "cheating"? .

Click to expand...

Dear Ed,

For the first, I completely agree: it would be a waste of time, and some degree of sponteneity is essential (though less so with a still life, for example). But equally, what you learn in one place is often transferable to another. That is, I suggest, one of the definitions of 'learning'.

Is the idea of 'cheating' widespread? I am astonished. You can't cheat in art: it's a meaningless concept. How do people phrase it when they accuse others of it?

Cheers,

R.

goros said:

What I mean is that although I like this kind of "faults" in some pictures, too much of them together makes the thing a bit boring and repetitive.
Roger, you will always be ongi etorri Euskal Herrira (welcome to the Basque Country).

Click to expand...

Dear Alfonso

I think that the idea of repetition is extremely important. Even with a genius such as Bill Brandt, there's a limit to how many out-of-focus nudes I want to see. Then again, look at Jock Sturges. His (usually) sharp 8x10 photographs of pubescent girls with their clothes on are sometimes a welcome relief from his equally sharp pictures of pubescent girls in the nude.

As for the welcome, thanks. We were last there a few weeks ago, passing through on our way to northern Portugal where we wanted to try the spas (which were alas awful). Next time we may dally longer in Euskal Herrira.

Cheers,

Roger

Of course the two are part of the process BUT the negative is the essence of what you have. You can't make a good print out of a really poor neg (or I can't), poor in the sense that the technique you've used has failed. You can however bring out the essence of your vision that you had when you took the photo (and have on the neg) by good printing.
Cate

goros said:

".. (as Roger and Frances say in one of their books, perfect exposure doesn't exist, but correct exposure yes, the one you want to your picture)...."

"...And Roger, you will always be ongi etorri Euskal Herrira (welcome to the Basque Country)."

Cheers

Click to expand...

I have checked my copy of Perfect Exposure and what it is really said is "There is no such thing as 'correct' exposure but there is such a thing as 'perfect' exposure".

It could be a misunderstanding or a bad translation (in any case, very difficult to translate) but I don't agree with it.

For me, the perfect exposure is the one that records as much detail in the highlights as in the deepest shadows, with a continuous tonal range. And I also think that, sometimes, it is impossible to achieve. On the other hand, the correct exposure is the one you feel the most adequate according to the subejct you are photographing and mainly to your mood. It has happened to me to underexposed a picture because I was in that mood. Not only the subject was grey and sad, but I also was sad. I agree that it is better to get a perfect exposed negative and then, get that sad look in the print but that way does't work to me.

Anyway, the concept is completely valid and I really enjoyed reading the book.

Another thing: Euskal Herrira means "to the Basque Country". The Basque Country in Basque is Euskal Herria and it comprises the three Spanish Basque provinces as well as the three French Basque provinces (included in the Atlantic Pirinees department) and Navarra, also in Spain. The three Spanish provinces form Euskadi, that is the political name given to this region. Well, this is part of the complexity of this old Europe.

Cheers

Stargazer said:

You can't make a good print out of a really poor neg

Click to expand...

Dear Cate,

Surely a slightly circular definition; a really poor neg is one you can't make a good print from...

But I already gave the example of Marie's grievously under-developed neg, from which Frances managed to extract a superb print using every trick in the book (which admittedly she part-wrote) to get extra contrast: graded paper grade 5, contrasty dev, and very, very critical exposure.

I'll also quote the famous Ansel Adams view (with which I agree) that the negative is the score, while the print is the performance.

Cheers,

Roger

goros said:

It could be a misunderstanding or a bad translation (in any case, very difficult to translate) but I don't agree with it.

Click to expand...

Dear Alfonso,

You have at a stroke multiplied my knowledge of Basque grammar ten thousand-fold, though I fear it will not lead to my becoming fluent overnight. Nor had I realized that Euskadi and Euskal Herria are not synonymous. I knew where Euskal Herria covered (France as well as Spain) but I did not know that Euskadi was confined only to the Spanish bit.

Your retranslation is exact; I checked La Exposicion Perfecta and I am perfectly happy with the Spanish there, though not everywhere -- I forget where, but there are a couple of places where the translator was clearly not a very knowledgeable photographer, and even my poor Spanish can see that the translation could probably be bettered.

The thing is, 'correct' implies to me a scientific accuracy that would be agreed by all photographers. Such 'correctness' does not and cannot exist, whereas 'perfect' implies an exposure that does all that the individual photographer wants. 'Perfect' exposures are not always attainable, it is very true, but if they are not, you drop down to the 'best possible', which will have even more scope for disputation than 'correct'.

Anyway, as I always say, if someone reads one of our books, and says, "I can take better pictures than that," and then goes away and does so with even a small amount of help from the book, I have succeeded. Your comments demonstrate also that if they think "No, it doesn't work like that, it works like this," again as a result of reading the book, that's a success too.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks said:

Surely a slightly circular definition; a really poor neg is one you can't make a good print from...
Roger

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure of your point here....

Roger, did you know you have a habit of asking for opinions, and then engaging in one-to-one(often) discussions with respondants, disagreeing with the opinions they have given. It begins to seem like a game of tennis, with you at one end and everyone else grouped around the court, taking it in turns to lob back balls to you. I'm not complaining, just observing!

I don't think you are saying anything different in your reply to me from what I am saying myself. All I am saying is I can object to specifically technical issues in printing because these are elaborations (or not) if you like, of the "score". But the score holds the fundamental elements, and the technical details of these I judge (or not) in association with the intention of the photographer, and not in isolation (therefore I cannot make statements such as "I like - or do not like - wide depth of field"..). Or, "It is always important to have a sharp point of focus" - because I immediately think - "maybe it isn't"...But I can say "I don't like edges that miss the easel when it's not intended" or "I don't like hairs in that highlight".

But I think it's easier to separate the neg. and printing issues such as contrast and tonality with regard to my own work, and when I'm the photographer, when I know when one begins and the other ends - the neg and the print - , and probably not with regard to other peoples' work because without seeing the negative, you do not have this information.
Cate

Stargazer said:

Roger, did you know you have a habit of asking for opinions, and then engaging in one-to-one(often) discussions with respondants, disagreeing with the opinions they have given. It begins to seem like a game of tennis, with you at one end and everyone else grouped around the court, taking it in turns to lob back balls to you. I'm not complaining, just observing!

Click to expand...

Dear Cate,

Yes, I do know that, and it seems to me the only worthwhile way to use a thread that I start myself. I regard a forum as sometimes a conversation (the model you have just described) and sometimes a lecture (listening to others).

I am a great believer in the dialectic and the syllogism, not because they can tell us everything, but because they help us to think more clearly, and indeed to re-think our premises. A forum is an excellent tool for testing premises, and you have helped me more than once (including now) for which I thank you.

The problem comes with the communications medium, though. There is no room for body language, gesture, interruption, swift apology, brief irritation. Everything is set in stone, as far as stone and the aether may be compared. Sooner or later things -- ideas, arguments, lines of inquiry, semantic differences -- bog down, as I think they have here. That's fine. Their carcasses can be left to rust, as long as we have learned something from them. I have. I hope you have.

How is the wall-painting going?

Cheers,

Roger

To return to a location to reshoot, explore is very important for both the student and the master. When it comes to the landscape, conditions vary from day to day, season to season and the sublime will not reveal itself at our own time of choosing. Photographers, painters, make repeated visits to their favorite locations. AA had the High Sierras, Yosemite, Weston had Pt Lobos etc, etc.

I think every artist, photographer should have a circuit of locations in and around where they live where they can explore and re-explore year round.

A personal project of mine over the years has been Asbury Park, NJ.

RAP said:

To return to a location to reshoot, explore is very important for both the student and the master.

Click to expand...

Very true. You can't cross the same river twice. But I think there's a difference between what you describe, which exploration, and a reshoot, which is trying to take the same picture twice. A mere semantic difference with your usage, that's all.

Then again, there's always that 'shock of the new' when you go somewhere for the first time. Something I've noticed -- which may be worth another thread -- is that on several occasions I have got a disproportionate number of good pictures from places I didn't actually like, including Istanbul and Han China.

Cheers,

Roger

I personally do not mind going back and reshooting something if it did not work the first time or even the second time. So long as I get it right in the end.

I know Fred Picker used a good teaching exercise by sending the student out with a polaroid camera, take pictures, keep notes as to location, exposure, etc. Then bring the results back, discuss the successes and failures, and return to see what went wrong and make imporvements.

Yes, new locations, bring fresh ideas, and points of view. Even working with a different format then what one normally uses can loosen up the creative constipations.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Cate,

Surely a slightly circular definition; a really poor neg is one you can't make a good print from...

But I already gave the example of Marie's grievously under-developed neg, from which Frances managed to extract a superb print using every trick in the book (which admittedly she part-wrote) to get extra contrast: graded paper grade 5, contrasty dev, and very, very critical exposure.

I'll also quote the famous Ansel Adams view (with which I agree) that the negative is the score, while the print is the performance.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Hello Roger,

First thing I thought when reading Cate's comment was the Robert Capa D-Day images. Then when I read your comments, I was sure that was the best example I could recall. Famously improper negatives, but the prints are so effective.

I think if we looked further at other historical images, we might find similar examples. Even an images as well known as Behind the Gare at St. Lazar (I probably butchered the spelling on that) by Henri Cartier Bresson, I recall a comment by his long time printer of how bad the negative was and what was needed to get that to make a good print.

If there is anything to all this typing, perhaps I could claim that a really compelling image will transcend technical issues. Maybe as the years of technology developed technically better gear we just see fewer technical problems?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

HerrBremerhaven said:

Even an images as well known as Behind the Gare at St. Lazar (I probably butchered the spelling on that) by Henri Cartier Bresson, I recall a comment by his long time printer of how bad the negative was and what was needed to get that to make a good print.
Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

This thread, and in particular Gordon's post, makes me wonder if I am "throwing away" (or at least ignoring) images that I shouldn't neglect, but instead should be investing time and effort in "rehabilitating" same.

Does any one else here have the desire to look back at their problem negatives?

Matt

Roger Hicks said:

... even (Gods help us all) bokeh...
R.

Click to expand...

Rodger,

What do you 'have' with bo...

Philippe

Roger,
Sorry, I sliped away, I mispelled your name, sorry again!
(The APUG SpellCheck does not work on my iMac)
Philippe