What technical points are important to you?

[catem]

Dear All,

It has just occurred to me that I chose the wrong title for this thread. A much better title than 'What is important to you?' would have been 'What technical points do you notice first?' I have amended the original post accordingly; especial thanks to Cate for clarification.

OF COURSE technique is secondary to a good picture, but I don't see much need to discuss this. Surely we all agree on it.
Roger

My answers are the same as before.

Sorry Roger, it's not that I was taking the discussion in another direction. I wasn't saying technique is secondary, I was saying it is fundamental, and varied.

But that's just me - I think we talk a different language. If I may say so, that fact is possibly at least as important and interesting as the discussion you are trying to lead, which seemed initially to be leaning in the direction of a Robert Winston-type analysis (oh dear, Autumn's coming. he'll be on the telly again soon) but seems to have lost that direction even ...can't say I'm altogether surprised...

It's O.K., I'm off now

best wishes,
Cate

 

[Claire Senft]

Good gradation and image clarity are what I prize. I did not appreciate the extended red sensitivity of Techpan in most cases. It was certainly great for sharp portraits to eliminate skin defects. I do not generally care to have a buit in red filter. This was rather nicely solved by using a 40cc cyan filter with no filter factor; However, other than grain, it is almost impossible to get more image clarity from Techpan than from 100 Tmax.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think we talk a different language. If I may say so, that fact is possibly at least as important and interesting as the discussion you are trying to lead

Dear Cate,

Indeed, the point that we talk different languages may be identical to the discussion I am trying to lead.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Well, I don't have that approach either, and that wasn't what I was saying. Neither was I 'getting at you' or anyone else with my comments, sorry if it came across that way.
Cate

No real need to apologize, I wasn't getting at you personally either! It's just that IN GENERAL I find it annoying that some [amateur] photographers assume that, if you show any interest in technical specifications, you must be a sad git who only photographs lens test charts and counts line pairs with a loupe! Good equipment (which need not necessarily be super-expensive), including of course film as well as hardware, is equipment which you can rely on without thinking, freeing up mental capacity for emotional/creative matters!

Regards,

David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear All,

I've been thinking some more about Cate's "And?" and have come to the following conclusion:

I took up photography about 40 years ago. Since then, my understanding, technique and artistry have progressed in fits and starts.

The artistry is mostly a matter of practice. I'm a better photographer than I was 40 years ago and it would be unfortunate if I were not.

Understanding and technique have however progressed most and fastest when I thought about something new. The beginner, led by the nose by the weaker elements of the photo press, considers a very limited range of things: for example, he is led to believe that film grain and lens sharpness are the be-all and end-all.

Then he discovers other things, be they tonality or bokeh or (thanks, Claire) the difference that extended red sensitivity makes. He realizes that his general feeling that he liked or disliked something, but had not the vocabulary or framework to analyze why, can in fact be put into words.

What I was looking for -- and have found -- is different ways of looking at things: Dave's lens criteria, Ole's contrast classification, Claire's red sensitivity observations. I hope there will be more.

Some of these may help me. Some may not. Some I may disagree with, but at least, if I disagree, I am thinking.

This seems to me adequate justification for this thread. Even if no-one else has learned anything, I have. I hope others have (and will) too.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

Maybe Ole could change the title?

Done.

It's a useful clarification, IMO...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ole,

Thanks. A classic case of "I knew what I meant so I thought everyone else would too."

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I suppose that tonality probably comes up there with content and composition for me. Tonality is part of what that transmits the emotional content of the work on an unconscious level.

I think of sharpness and bokeh as related to the much older categories of figure and ground. Of course the figure is what an image or work of music is "about," but that doesn't make the ground or the harmony or counterpoint irrelevant. Historically and even today, it might be the case that a painter or composer leaves the background painting to assistants or writes a melody with a figured bass or a jazz chart with chord changes, leaving the "ground" to the musicians, but that's a choice. To say that sharpness is important and bokeh is not, is to say that the ground doesn't matter too much--it's all about the figure. To be concerned about bokeh--well some of it is just collecting nuttiness, but on a more interesting level, it's a concern about controlling the ground and has roots in pictorialism, when lenses were often described in terms of their out of focus rendering abilities.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Roger, I'm going to answer your question in terms of what I try to achieve, not how I evaluate the results. They're related, but ...

I aim for good exposure. Sounds simple, isn't always. When I'm not sure, I bracket. I shoot a lot of reversal film, so am plagued by its narrow latitude and am basically stuck with the results. With b/w negative film, there's always dodging etc. while printing, but with transparencies, no. Most of my closeup shots are lit entirely by flash; this gives me better control.

I aim for good focus. Since I do a lot of closeup, this usually comes down to putting the plane of best focus where I want it. Not always as easy as it sounds.

I aim for good sharpness. Which means, besides focusing well, good steadiness when shooting. And motionless subjects. Do you know Aeolus' big number "Come down" from Purcell's music for the Tempest? I sing it a lot, usually to no avail.

I aim for good sharpness. Which means not stopping down so far that the result can't be enlarged as much as I'd like. It seems to me that discussions of lenses' "sharpness" make no sense without consideration of the final print's size.

All of these are under my control when I'm shooting. Lens attributes like contrast, rendering of out-of-focus highlights, ... are pretty much what they are. Yes, I know that what people call bokeh can be affected by aperture.

I"m relatively blind to "boke" and can't discern different lenses' "signatures."

I run all of my lenses through acceptance testing, have sometimes run shootoffs to decide which lens of a focal length to use. A few of my lenses have stood out from the rest for poor quality; macro lenses that couldn't be focused wide open, a very soft Industar-51, a horribly flary Goerz dialyte type, ... I have a hard time finding rational grounds for choice among the better ones, especially since some of the differences in my trials seem to be due to operator -- that's me -- error. Retests are killers.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[catem]

Dear Cate,

Indeed, the point that we talk different languages may be identical to the discussion I am trying to lead.

Cheers,

Roger

No, it's not identical at all, (although it might be parallel) because my answer to your question is "I have no answer to this, and moreover I don't care about the different answers that might arise" Not because I don't value peoples' opinions in themselves (I do - or up to a point) but because I do not expect any further (or deeper) enlightenmnet from their answers - which is NOT the same as saying I don't value technique.

But I really have to get on with painting the blinking walls....I have not meant to be obstructive, but please stop telling me I agree with you, and I might be able to stop declaring otherwise.
Cate

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think of sharpness and bokeh as related to the much older categories of figure and ground ..... roots in pictorialism, when lenses were often described in terms of their out of focus rendering abilities.

Dear David,

Thanks very much for the parallels, which I find easier to understand with painting than with music (being acutely non-musical).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I'm going to answer your question in terms of what I try to achieve, not how I evaluate the results. They're related, but ...
Dan

Dear Dan,

Yes! Thanks.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, it's not identical at all, (although it might be parallel) because my answer to your question is "I have no answer to this, and moreover I don't care about the different answers that might arise" Not because I don't value peoples' opinions in themselves (I do - or up to a point) but because I do not expect any further (or deeper) enlightenmnet from their answers - which is NOT the same as saying I don't value technique.

But I really have to get on with painting the blinking walls....I have not meant to be obstructive, but please stop telling me I agree with you, and I might be able to stop declaring otherwise.
Cate

Dear Cate,

Sorry to interfere with your wall-painting, but with languages, 'parallel' and 'identical' are hard to distinguish, because a language isn't a code, it's a world-picture. I think I'm looking at world-pictures...

But let's take it as read we don't agree, to save further agreement/disagreement.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jovo]

I've already used the example of Ansel Adams, and I'll do so again. How popular would he be without his technical skill?

Geez, is this true and easy to prove (albeit using books rather than originals). AA chose Little Brown as his publisher, and for good reason; the reproductions, even those made in his lifetime, are superb. Whenever I see a book of or about AA's work, I make the decision whether or not to even pick it up based on this. There are some volumes of his photographs from other publishers, and they simply don't begin to compare. (I've also seen a good deal of AA originals at AIPAD shows and in galleries, especially the now defunct Edward Carter Gallery in NYC so my opinion isn't only formed by reproductions.)

There is a sense of light...brilliance if you will...that animates the photographs I like best. Micro, meso, and macro contrast are important, and offer many satisfactions when taking the time to really examine a fine print, but there's the depth of 'black' and pop of 'white' that are most arresting to me. When I picked up to look closely at a few Brett Weston prints I was blown away by thay kind of vividness. It's taken a while to appreciate the Edward Weston originals I've seen because they have a very different set of tones...more muted and subtle. And it's only the rare platinum print by others that I want to linger over. Heresy, I'm sure, but I'm just one member of a very large audience.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

if i read something what is like this and is run together and ungramatiocal and mispeled withoyut any puntuation thenm i soon stop reading and it has no impact and i assume the preson doing it dosnm't know or probably care any better

Roger

Roger,
I was surprised to read this reaction comming from a gentlemen...
Philippe

 

[blansky]

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

 

[roteague]

Great thread, Roger.

For me, I think the most important points are; sharpness, and a film's ability to render the subtle colors of a scene.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

For me, right now at this point in time, it is exposure. If I can get the right exposure, I can accomplish everything else in the darkroom. I am assuming that when the time comes to press the shutter all pre-release (focus, comp., etc.) are all in place as I want them to be.

 

[Claire Senft]

Some thoughts on bokeh. I am not one to get all worked up on bokeh because the great majority of my photos do not us selective focus. If I did more of it I might be more sensitive to it.

I believe that bokeh can be an important issue to some. I believe that there exists clear categories of bokeh type.

My only real gripe about the issue is that since it is an esthetic concern that some would categorize a lens as having good or bad bokeh. I beleive that such an opinion is fine as long as they confine it to themselves and not presume tell others what esthetics they should like or dislike.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Content, then composition...or...composition, then content.

Murray

 

[Helen B]

By and large I value the absence of obvious technical qualities or technique, so my idea of perfection is to be technique-neutral. To show the cause of an intellectual or emotional response rather than the effect. I don't find that an easy balance to achieve.

Best,
Helen

 

[catem]

Dear Cate,

Sorry to interfere with your wall-painting, but with languages, 'parallel' and 'identical' are hard to distinguish, because a language isn't a code, it's a world-picture. I think I'm looking at world-pictures...

But let's take it as read we don't agree, to save further agreement/disagreement.

Cheers,

Roger

I thought we were looking at photograph-pictures :confused:

And it's O.K., I take full responsiblity for any distractions that may have occurred today.

 

[c6h6o3]

Content, then composition...or...composition, then content.

Murray

What's the difference?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm torn on the autopsy of photographs.
Michael

Dear Michael,

I would very much agree. As you say, either it works or it doesn't. But equally, I'd say that each of us, when he applies whatever technical skill that he (or she) can muster in creating a picture, has some priorities. The same priorities, I suggest, come into play when looking at someone else's pictures.

As I've tried to explain, I'm not holding this up as the most important thing on earth. I'm just interested in what people notice in pictures good or bad, not least because it turns out that some people notice things I hadn't even thought of.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some thoughts on bokeh. I am not one to get all worked up on bokeh because the great majority of my photos do not us selective focus. If I did more of it I might be more sensitive to it.

Dear Claire,

Thanks again. Believe it or not, this had not really occurred to me: I generally prefer 'deep field' focus, even though I shoot fast lenses wide open when I have to. Reading your observation made me realize, "Ah, that's (maybe) why I care so little about bokeh".

Cheers,

Roger