What technical points are important to you?

[Roger Hicks]

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

Dear Matt,

Frances recently completed an article on this very subject: I forget whether it was for Shutterbug or Black and White. She reckons that printers improve both steadily and in spurts, and that if you really like a neg but were never quite happy with it -- or if you merely reckon you could do better -- then you should go back. She says she aims to revisit these 'almost there' negatives about once a year, though I think that's an overstatement for rhetorical effect: every year or two would be near enough.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

First thing I thought when reading Cate's comment was the Robert Capa D-Day images. . . 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 . . . 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.

Dear Gordon,

I think we're looking at three different things here.

First, there's extraordinary subject matter, where ANY image will be compelling, e.g. a flying saucer landing in Red Square.

Second. there's extraordinary composition (use of tone, as Les said). This renders some images that are in a way idiot-proof and can survive any printing, no matter how bad.

Third, there are negatives that require an enormous amount of printing skill (perhaps more than the photographer possesses) to get anything out of them. These may be the result of incompetence, bad luck, or 'subject failure' (a lovely phrase).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What do you 'have' with bo...

Dear Phillippe,

Nothing, really. It's just that suddenly the term 'bokeh' came from nowhere and was immediately seized upon by a lot of pretentious twerps (especially Leica users trying to explain how their lenses were different from everyone else's). It exists; some people are sensitive to it; but it will rarely if ever make or break a picture.

Don't worry about the misspelling: I am certain to be an 'l' or a 'p' short in your name, sooner or later. These things happen.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ed Sukach]

After the "dust" settles - now I have a LOT of darkroom work, but I'm not paying $XXX per hour ...

I'll try to clarify some...

I am not blind, nor do I ignore those characteristics that cause a photograph not to work ... or at least SEEM to have that effect ... I am never sure of what DOES make a photograph work. The errors are CONSIDERED, but I do not dwell on them.

We are back to an old, well-beaten question: Do we learn from our mistakes or do we learn from our successes?
I am firmly, adamantly convinced it is Successes.
As an exercise, try describing the route that you would take from your front door to the local Library:

"Learned Mistakes":

1. Do not stay in the house. Do not leave by the back or side doors.

2. Do not proceed straight ahead. Do not turn left.

3. At the first intersection, do not turn left.

4. At the next intersection, do not continue straight ahead. Do not turn left.

5. Do not turn right or left at the next intersection.

6. Do not turn right or left at the next intersection.

.... etc.

That is negative mapping. There will be a long and tedious list of mistakes to avoid.


"Learned Successes":

1. Exit from the front door.

2. Turn right.

3. Turn right at the next intersection.

4. Turn left at the next intersection.

5. Turn left at the fourth intersection.

6. Keep going until you park in front of the Library.

Enough said?


Who was the author ... "You know that you have learned something when you have forgotten HOW you learned it in the first place."

One CAN learn from mistakes. I believe it is far more efficient to seize upon our successes, to internalize them, to burn them into our insides.
The "mistakes"? All in all, it is best to forget them. They really mean very little.

 

[catem]

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).

Well it's one way to describe a conversation - though I tend to see forums more as discussions - i.e. about group communication, not just one-to-one, or one-to-one taking it in turns. The art of conversation, also, is about listening as much as anything else and for a conversation to turn into discussion, sometimes a bit of listening is even more important - oh, and letting the ranks chatter amongst themselves a bit.

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.

Thank you for those kind words, I'm not sure I've deserved them. I hope you don't want to take them back now.

How is the wall-painting going?
Cheers,
Roger

Finished, thank you very much. Onto the gloss now. That's the first room, anyway, a few more to go...

 

[Iskra 2]

Subject matter/Technical points are very subjective and can be discussed forever depending on one's interests.

For me, a Jupiter 8 over some Kodachrome 64 is unbeatable for all the obvious SF reasons. It used to be good Canon glass. For MF wall hangers Portra 160VC is not bad. I haven't decided yet what I like best in the Speed Graphic/old Xenar when out and about. Regards.

 

[Black Dog]

"the highest technique is to have no technique"-Bruce lee in 'Enter The Dragon'-in other words, learn it and then refine it to the point where you don't have to think about it consciously any more.It's a bit like that old native American saying about rocks and sky really. I'd also say that while I normally prefer an image to be sharp, fine grained and with a full range of tones from black to white, there are many fine images I like that break some or all of these rules-eg Julia Margaret Cameron, Giacomelli, the previously mentioned Robert Capa and Keith Carter etc.But then if someone has a vision then that's very different from just making excuses for lack of knowledge and sloppy technique.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd also say that while I normally prefer an image to be sharp, fine grained and with a full range of tones from black to white, there are many fine images I like that break some or all of these rules-eg Julia Margaret Cameron, Giacomelli, the previously mentioned Robert Capa and Keith Carter etc.But then if someone has a vision then that's very different from just making excuses for lack of knowledge and sloppy technique.

That's just about the point I have been trying to make. You notice fine grain; I don't. It's not essential,. as you say, but it's part of your picture of what a photograph 'ought' to look like, even though there are plenty of good ones that don't. Different people notice different things and I wondered what their priorities were. And your last sentence reflects my own views entirely.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- where, in the galleries that are mostly sharp silver halide shots you'll also find a page of semi-soft-focus Dreamagon still lifes shots taken on d*gital).

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I hate these questions. I believe that this is mostly because I tend to find them early in the morning before I go to sleep and, therefore, have trouble completely collecting my thoughts on the subject. But here goes nothing anyway.

What is technically important to me? Hm. This could take a while.

When I was first introduced to film photography back when I was young (not that I'm old now, of course), nothing mattered as long as I could take a picture. I was too young then to understand about bokeh and aperture and shutter speed and other more technical things...I just wanted something to show friends and family. I remember being interested in my Uncle's Pentax K1000 almost since I CAN remember...but never asking if I could use it because it seemed intimidating to me. All the cameras I had before I was 18 were all point and shoots of various makes and models, some of them digital.

Then I bought a Minolta QTsi.

This was the first (and last, funnily enough) new camera I'd ever bought myself. It was the first (and last) autofocus camera I had. It was the first (and last) camera I had with a zoom lens. It was my first SLR. It was my first time handling an SLR. And this is where my research into film speed, aperture, and shutter speed began.

The QTsi was a horrible camera with almost no manual controls. It was essentially a point and shoot with interchangable lenses. I regretted that purchase almost as soon as I made it, and I sold the camera no more than 8 months after getting it for $100 to my Dad. This is when my real journey began.

I got on Ebay and found myself a Nikon FE and a 50mm f/1.4 AI Nikkor. I got the kit for less than $200 and was quite pleased with myself. I started using the camera and, when I got my first roll of film back, I was astounded. Something had been missing from my photos before this. Something important. They had no real passion. That roll, though, was full to 24 exposures of photos where *I* had to calculate exposure, *I* had to set the aperture, *I* had to set shutter speed, and *I* had to focus the lens. I had no trouble focusing on whatever I wanted, center of the frame or not. I didn't have to turn off autofocus because there wasn't any. It did have an auto exposure mode, but that was always turned off. This camera was my pride and joy and the first camera I felt comfortable using.

The journey took me then to rangefinders. It was a logical progression because I was interested in street shooting and needed something smaller and quieter to carry around with me than an SLR with a big lens. My first rangefinder was the Canonet 28 I still have...auto exposure but manual focus. I loved it and soon found myself looking for an interchangable lens camera. Someone stepped up and let me borrow the Canon P that I now have, which he later let me take from him.

The Canon P was the start of a long spiral down into obsessing about technical merit of certain lenses. Is this one better than the other? How's the bokeh on this one? Should I buy this or this? I was so obsessed that I sold my Canon 50/1.8 to fund something else that I didn't even get.

I had thought for a long time about buying a Leica next year. I was all set and had the decision made these six months in advance, but then I had an epiphany that I should have had long ago: what the bloody hell is wrong with my Canon P? It is the perfect camera for me and it has proven itself to me again and again. Why should I switch from something I know will perform for me day in and day out? The Leica lust has ceased. I'm finally at peace in that way.

However, I know that my photos aren't at there best because of all this screwing around and testing things. I'm done with testing. I'm through with worrying so much about the technical merits of my glass and I'm done testing 50-thousand things trying to make myself happier. I'm buying myself some Voigtlander glass next year and making that the end of my gear acquisition for a while. The end of my GAS has finally come to pass.

But what does this have to do with what I want in a camera or lens? Everything.

I've learned to be happy with what I have, imperfect as it is. I've learned that sharpness and bokeh are not the only things that are important in photography. I've learned to focus more on the composition of my photos and I've learned to use the DOF scale so that I'm not always shooting with 2-foot shallow DOF. I've learned that choosing the right developer can improve your photography by quite a bit if you had problems with certain things like shadow detail and graininess before. I've learned that experimentation can lend itself to bettering your photography by a large margin. I've learned not to be so anal in my focusing and that a little camera shake doesn't always hurt a photo.

In my mind, the best photos are taken by those who care more about composition than technical merit. I've seen excellent photos shot with pinhole cameras which I liked better than a portrait shot by a pro with a Leica and a Summicron lens.

It isn't your equipment, but how you use it. I believe this whole-heartedly. If you have no vision and no direction to take your photography it isn't going to be good no matter what you do. Photography is only limited by your own vision and imagination.

I'm going to stop now. I think lack of sleep has finally caught up with me.

 

[Ed Sukach]

It isn't your equipment, but how you use it. I believe this whole-heartedly. If you have no vision and no direction to take your photography it isn't going to be good no matter what you do. Photography is only limited by your own vision and imagination.

I'm going to stop now. I think lack of sleep has finally caught up with me.

If lack of sleep causes you to write so eloquently... well, it only proves that there is compensation for every misery that befalls us in life. My burden, at the moment, is writing through the fog that clouds things before my morning coffee.

I think both you and I, and probably MANY others, have reached the same place, essentially by the same process.

It is the "humaness" that is important, not the nuts-and-bolts.

BTW, gang... Capa landed with the rest of the troops on D-Day. His Leica went underwater - things like that happen when people are shooting at you. The Army photographers managed to save the images ... and they are certainly not "perfect" ... but, IMHO, all the better for their "flaws".

 

[goros]

"the highest technique is to have no technique"-Bruce lee in 'Enter The Dragon'-in other words, learn it and then refine it to the point where you don't have to think about it consciously any more.

This is a basic martial arts concept. You have to repeat the techniques as many times as needed to not being concious of doing it: they have to flow naturally. It is basically a Zen concept as well: you must have your mind free of any thought so it could fly from one to other.

And I think it could be perfectly applied to photography.

But I think it is out of what Roger wants to know: When looking a picture or when making a picture which are the technicalities you look for.

When looking a picture, after reading all the replays, at the end of the day I could only say that, although I could have very clear ideas of what I am looking for, if the picture strikes those technicalities don't matter at all.

When making a picture, it will depend on the subject, the mood of the moment and the luck.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Army photographers managed to save the images ... QUOTE]

According to all that I have ever read, his film was damaged in processing (by being dried too hot). Far from 'saving' the pictures, the darkroom tech was the one who damaged them -- even to the point destroying many or most of them, rendering them unprintable.

Nor have I previously heard that his Leica 'went underwater'. He made no mention of it in what I have read of his own accounts. That does not mean it didn't happen, but again I've never heard this.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

When looking a picture, after reading all the replays, at the end of the day I could only say that, although I could have very clear ideas of what I am looking for, if the picture strikes those technicalities don't matter at all.

Dear Alfonso,

You have put it better than I. OF COURSE the picture matters most. But I can't help feeling that a photographer with no preconceptions about what constitutes 'technical quality' is a strange beast. Otherwise, as I have said before, why would anyone bother to learn any of the craft at all?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Dan Fromm]

<snip> Otherwise, as I have said before, why would anyone bother to learn any of the craft at all?

Cheers,

Roger

Roger, several centuries ago my girlfriend of the moment acquired a meterless Nikon F with a normal lens and proposed to go a-shootin' with it. Fool that I was, I asked her how she was going to meter. Her response was to the effect that she was going to go out in the woods with her camera and set the controls creatively.

She did just that. The results were usually so poorly exposed that whatever aesthetic quality they might have had was lost. Eventually she wised up a bit, learned what the camera's controls did and how to meter. These days she's a very capable photographer -- I fear she does better work than I do -- fully in command of the technique she needs, and more.

Why learn the craft? It improves the odds.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[goros]

Good day Roger,

The point I'm trying to explain is that I don't care the technical quality of a picture that I'm looking at (of course, not any of my pictures): if it is a good picture, then no more questions.

But for the pictures I'm making, in some I will try to get a very narrow DoF, or a front to back sharpness, or a leveled horizont line or a blurred image, depending on the subject, my state of mind or my personal preferences at that time. I also had included luck, for those pictures with that accidental fault that works on the picture. For most of these things, I'm trying to get a bunch of nice glass, but keeping a Lensbaby in my bag just in case i have the mood.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why learn the craft? It improves the odds.

Dear Dan,

Exactly.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Alfonso,

Yes, I think it comes down to what you say.

We all seek appropriate technique, which can vary from picture to picture.

Some people elevate one aspect of technique above all others, as I said in my original post. I was interested in what people look at first, or indeed at all -- and I've found a number of things (such as flat field) that I hadn't even considered.

As Dan says, learning the craft improves the odds. I regard all this as part of learning the craft. I'm certainly still learning.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JBrunner]

You learn and continue to learn so you know what to let go of. So when you do break the rules, you know what you did, and how to do it again, how to do it better, or even more to what you are looking for. Trying to pass poor technique and laziness as "creativity" is usually pretty transparent. As somebody (Nigel, I think) once said, "Its a fine line between clever and stupid"

 

[Ed Sukach]

The Army photographers managed to save the images ... QUOTE]

According to all that I have ever read, his film was damaged in processing (by being dried too hot). Far from 'saving' the pictures, the darkroom tech was the one who damaged them -- even to the point destroying many or most of them, rendering them unprintable.

Nor have I previously heard that his Leica 'went underwater'. He made no mention of it in what I have read of his own accounts. That does not mean it didn't happen, but again I've never heard this.

I wrote that from memory, so I can't quote chapter and line.

I'll try to look it up, but I am fairly sure that *IS* the way it happened.

Recently I gave my aunt a print I made from an internegative of a 4" x 5" color transparency taken by an Army Photographer in England, ca. ~ 1943, where she was an Army Nurse.

The image was in great shape - remarkable after all this time. I have *no* idea of what the film was.

I'll check the Capa story, as soon as I get the chance.

 

[Claire Senft]

I thought he used a Contax.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Recently I gave my aunt a print I made from an internegative of a 4" x 5" color transparency taken by an Army Photographer in England, ca. ~ 1943, where she was an Army Nurse.

It'll have to be a Kodachrome, as the only alternative would have been Agfa, not readily obtainable in the UK at the time for obvious reasons. I'm pretty sure that colour processes such as Lumiere Autochrome were extinct, and Ektachrome was a post-war introduction (1946) based on 1936 Agfa patents. I have a few Kodachromes from the 40s, from 35mm to quarter-plate; they have survived astonishingly well.

The Oxford Companion to the Photograph tells the same story I did about the Capa shots (it's not one of the bits I wrote); it was the only quick, easy reference I had to hand, but it is far from the first place I read it. A quick web search turns up the same story too, including the Imperial War Museum site (who add that only 11 pictures survived) so I fear your memory must be momentarily at fault.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Daniel_OB]

Tonality. But for some photographs bokeh, and for some details in shades and sometimes details in highlight. It depend of the photograph, and is not always the same think.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[Lachlan Young]

According to all that I have ever read, his film was damaged in processing (by being dried too hot). Far from 'saving' the pictures, the darkroom tech was the one who damaged them -- even to the point destroying many or most of them, rendering them unprintable.

I seem to remember reading that the Life darkroom technician responsible for drying those negatives was Larry Burrows...


Lachlan

 

[DBP]

I thought he used a Contax.

I seem to remember his autobiography saying he went ashore with two Contaxes, and maybe a Rollei. Can't find the book right now to check.

 

[Woolliscroft]

Most of my work basically centres around recording information, via air photos, archaeological site photography and artefact recording, so resolution and accurate lens drawing is my priority. I can see why Roger and others hated Tech Pan, but you will now see why I love it (and panic bought a whole freezer full when it was discontinued). I am photographer enough to recognise, admire and even envy the artistry in the work of more creative photographers, but if one of my pictures is also impactful, or aesthetic it's just a bonus, however, if I can see the very texture of a soil in a site photo, then I have done my job.

David.