where does technique end and creativity begin ?

[Vaughn]

Don't kid yourself. Cultivating good technique does not come easy and does not come out of thin air...

Someone asked a 93 year old musician why he still practised everyday -- his answer was along the lines of, "I am begining to notice some improvement."

 

[blockend]

What about Polaroid/Instax? The only variables are lighting and composition. Still a creative tool.

 

[Rick A]

tech·nique
tekˈnēk/
noun

1. a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.
   • skill or ability in a particular field.
     "he has excellent technique"
     synonyms: skill, ability, proficiency, expertise, mastery, talent, genius, artistry, craftsmanship;More
     
     
   • a skillful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.
     "tape recording is a good technique for evaluating our own communications"
     synonyms: method, approach, procedure, system, modus operandi, MO, way;

So, tell me, what constitutes "good technique" or "bad technique"? The way I see it, there is no such determination, only your versus my technique. That falls under the heading of "YMMV". Technique is merely a means to achievement, fueled by creativity.

 

[Eric Rose]

The following link is a good read. Kirk Tuck is a respected professional photographer, writer and instructor. He makes his living, and a good one at that, by making photographs of people. Also video work. His comments may not resonate with many of the landscape photographers here at Photrio, but he does make some important points. The points he makes need to be digested and put into the context of the OP.

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.ca/2017/09/texturists-versus-contextualist-camera.html

 

[mike c]

Technique takes time to learn, creativity has always been there but not used by many people.

(Someone asked a 93 year old musician why he still practised everyday -- his answer was along the lines of, "I am beginning to notice some improvement.")
I like that one Vaughn.

 

[tedr1]

The original question states that the two processes are sequential (end....begin) whereas my experience is that both technique and creativity are active at the same time.

 

[removed account4]

hi tedr1
it is the way i worded it,
i dont' necessarily believe they are a sequence, but
i do believe that at a certain point they swap places.
i think that when one does something intuitively enough
IT becomes a technique ...
for example..
when using a box camera that has a fixed aperture and shutterspeed
it is an obstacle at first, you have to learn how to use it to make images
and the result becomes a learned technique .. and then improvising on that technique
is the creative part ... and THEN that improvisation becomes technique that is constantly
being worked to maybe tease something else out of the camera in a certain way that hadn't been realized.

not sure if that makes sense ..

 

[papagene]

Makes a lot of sense John.

 

[blockend]

The bulk of my 35mm black and white work is shot at two manual settings, for bright and less bright. I use the same focal length lens, identical development and the negatives come out as I want them. It clearly involves technical know how, but nothing that couldn't be learnt in a weekend. Any creativity happens when I look through the finder and press the button. Many, perhaps most of the photographers I admire have pretty basic technique, the pleasure is all in the seeing.

That shouldn't deter people from experimenting. It took me years to find a way of working that satisfied, but in the end most photographers who keep at it arrive at a simple methodology that allows the vision to shine through. That's as true of large format as street photographers.

 

[foc]

As a professional photographer (LIPPA) I am always amazed when people say that they can learn technical or technique in a weekend. Or maybe I am missing something.

Yes you will learn the bones of something in that short time but like the musician analogy, it takes practice and more practice.

I believe that creativity is the inspiration and technique the conduit.

 

[Kevin Ekstrom]

I think composition should be considered a creative rather than technical act, as is the editing and printing (which are both helped along with technical proficiency). Granted, there are things like the mechanics of setting up the camera, manipulating the controls, and exposing the light sensitive materials that are essentially technique, but it is the least important part of the process. For me, the whole creative act comes from feeling and interpretation of what is seen. Having well practiced technique allows for intuitive response and creative expression without needing to think about the technical stuff.

I come at all of this as first being a musician, and since yesterday would have been John Coltrane's birthday I'll use him as an example. This is like him going away for a year to work on all the harmonic theory and mechanical technique for what would become Giant Steps. When he came back all that work allowed for more creative and expansive expression (on top of all the years he already put in). Of course, he already had something inside him that needed to be expressed, but the command of the technique allowed it to be.

I wouldn't call a photographer who was able to capture what he saw and process what he saw the way he thought it should be processed a simple button pusher. His simplicity in technique would lend to his candid photographs appeal. He knew enough to capture exactly what he wanted to convey, and that goes way beyond being a simple button pusher. A simple button pusher is mom in the backyard shooting the kids. Would call

You can be technically proficient but not creative.
You can be creative but not technically proficient.

OK, people seem to wheel out Ansel as an example of someone who is creative and a technical master.

But what about Cartier Bresson? While he knew composition and enough to take the image, but he was a simple button pusher. I would have hardly called him a technician.

I wouldn't call a photographer who was able to capture what he saw and process what he saw the way he thought it should be processed a simple button pusher. His simplicity in technique would lend to his candid photographs appeal. He knew enough to capture exactly what he wanted to convey, and that goes way beyond being a simple button pusher. A simple button pusher is mom in the backyard shooting the kids.

 

[removed account4]

A simple button pusher is mom in the backyard shooting the kids.

hi kevin

i wouldn't call a mom in the backyard a simple button pusher either.
i am certain she carefully composes images and is not a surveillance camera...
and i am sure whether she uses a digital device or a film point/shoot ( just to make things simple )
she has enough technique down to know how to use the camera to get what she wants ...
who knows, maybe she has strayed off the path and has decided to always use "fill flash"
or puts the iso down ( or uses super slow film ) to capture slow shutter speed effects ...
i think it is a fine line that one crosses from technique to creativity .. and most people
don't even realize they are doing it !

 

[Kevin Ekstrom]

hi kevin

i wouldn't call a mom in the backyard a simple button pusher either.
i am certain she carefully composes images and is not a surveillance camera...
and i am sure whether she uses a digital device or a film point/shoot ( just to make things simple )
she has enough technique down to know how to use the camera to get what she wants ...
who knows, maybe she has strayed off the path and has decided to always use "fill flash"
or puts the iso down ( or uses super slow film ) to capture slow shutter speed effects ...
i think it is a fine line that one crosses from technique to creativity .. and most people
don't even realize they are doing it !

I was speaking in general terms. Yes, i would call the everyday house mom a button pusher, simply because they shoot with the hope of capturing a good image and not the know how to actually get it done. The common mother would typically buy the latest greatest all automatic everything camera and simply point and shoot. Now this is not a knock on women by any means, there are great women photographers, I'm speaking of a common everyday mother. Bresson knew how to handle his Leica and he also knew exactly what the print should and would convey. I would call that a huge difference.

 

[jim10219]

Technique is how you do it. Creativity is what you do. Good technique is a process that gives you the results you want. Good creativity is an idea that inspires others.

One of the things to remember about photographers is that there are a lot of different kinds of people all operating under the name of photographer. You have photojournalists, portrait photographers, product photographers, etc. who make their living by adhering to a set standard. They're not interested in creative expression so much as they are in reliably and delivering a "high quality" product. So to someone like a high school yearbook portrait photographer, creativity is of no value, where "proper technique" is the hallmark of their profession. Of course, some portrait photographers, photojournalists, product photographers, etc. are interested in creativity and to them, creative expression is part of the quality of their product. Going further towards the other extreme, you have some fine art photographers who may be so unconcerned with "proper technique" as to not even use a camera. Creativity is all that matters to them. Then there are other fine art photographers who will scoff at that idea of abstraction and believe in both creativity and "proper technique".

Technique and creativity aren't dualities. They don't run along the same spectrum. They can both be present, neither can be present, or anything in between. You can even have highly creative individuals who don't even know they are, or people who believe their technique is impeccable, but would struggle to convince the anyone else of that. Throw into that mix camera collectors who rarely shoot and family members who shoot all of the time but never consider anything other than who's in the photo, and have to eventually face that truth that it's all relative. What you believe is creativity only applies to you. What you believe is technique only applies to you.

Photography is a medium, not a genre.

 

[blockend]

As a professional photographer (LIPPA) I am always amazed when people say that they can learn technical or technique in a weekend. Or maybe I am missing something.

Yes you will learn the bones of something in that short time but like the musician analogy, it takes practice and more practice.

I believe that creativity is the inspiration and technique the conduit.

I am talking about creative photography as a means of personal expression. I've also been a professional and you have to take what comes. Nevertheless, for the kind of photography I do now, there's no technical secret to be uncovered that couldn't be learned in a couple of days. Same film, same film speed, same dev, same focal length, and a couple of aperture/shutter speed settings covers most things. It took years to arrive at the conclusion that such an approach frees up my creativity instead of restricting it, but the technical aspects aren't beyond the ability of an enthusiastic twelve year old for the same reason a box camera or point and shoot isn't. What they do with the technical know how is a different question.

 

[blockend]

I was speaking in general terms. Yes, i would call the everyday house mom a button pusher, simply because they shoot with the hope of capturing a good image and not the know how to actually get it done. The common mother would typically buy the latest greatest all automatic everything camera and simply point and shoot. Now this is not a knock on women by any means, there are great women photographers, I'm speaking of a common everyday mother. Bresson knew how to handle his Leica and he also knew exactly what the print should and would convey. I would call that a huge difference.

HCB's photographic wizardry began and ended with the viewfinder. His printing was no great shakes and he could afford a printer who was. He mostly used a 50mm lens on the same brand of camera, and whatever the going film of the era was. Technically there was nothing to see. Photographically it was a feast.

 

[removed account4]

I was speaking in general terms. Yes, i would call the everyday house mom a button pusher, simply because they shoot with the hope of capturing a good image and not the know how to actually get it done. The common mother would typically buy the latest greatest all automatic everything camera and simply point and shoot. Now this is not a knock on women by any means, there are great women photographers, I'm speaking of a common everyday mother. Bresson knew how to handle his Leica and he also knew exactly what the print should and would convey. I would call that a huge difference.

huh
if that is where you draw the line, knowing exactly what the print should and would convey
i would say that probably more than 90% of everyone with any sort of camera are just button pushers, not just
the someone in the backyard photographing their kid.
i tend to give people a lot of credit, .. after someone does something once or 2x they get the hang of things
and improvise ... using a camera is not rocket science, or even almost rocket science ...

but to each their own ...

 

[NJH]

HCBs genius IMHO was in being able to read his environment around him and place himself in just the right place at the right time to get those wonderful photographs. For many landscape photographers it will be about visualising the end result and reading the light (I guess). If there is skill involved in this then surely it is intertwined with technique, in that one has a repeatable method to what they are doing. Without technical proficiency aren't we just reducing creativity to pot luck? The idea that technique is only about knowing how to push buttons and twiddle dials is a bizarre idea to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

HCB's photographic wizardry began and ended with the viewfinder. His printing was no great shakes and he could afford a printer who was. He mostly used a 50mm lens on the same brand of camera, and whatever the going film of the era was. Technically there was nothing to see. Photographically it was a feast.

Which proved the point that not all photographs must be printed by the photographer to be good. When one shoots slides, the developed film IS the final product.

 

[faberryman]

Which proved the point that not all photographs must be printed by the photographer to be good. When one shoots slides, the developed film IS the final product.

Any photography collectors buying slides?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any photography collectors buying slides?

Duh, like who cares, but really prints have been known to be made from slides. Nice try to weasel word an argument, but no cigar for you.

 

[hoffy]

I wouldn't call a photographer who was able to capture what he saw and process what he saw the way he thought it should be processed a simple button pusher. His simplicity in technique would lend to his candid photographs appeal. He knew enough to capture exactly what he wanted to convey, and that goes way beyond being a simple button pusher. A simple button pusher is mom in the backyard shooting the kids. Would call

I wouldn't call a photographer who was able to capture what he saw and process what he saw the way he thought it should be processed a simple button pusher. His simplicity in technique would lend to his candid photographs appeal. He knew enough to capture exactly what he wanted to convey, and that goes way beyond being a simple button pusher. A simple button pusher is mom in the backyard shooting the kids.

True, yes, I am not giving him as much credit as I should. He obviously was fully proficient in using a camera and was a master at composition and reading the scene (or should that be staging a scene - controversy!). The truth is, compared to say Ansel, he wasn't a technical master. But, IMHO, I find his work far more engaging.

 

[faberryman]

It seems to be a little disingenuous to separate creativity and technique. A painter who can't paint? A sculptor who can't sculpt? A photographer who can't operate a camera? I dare say most artists are masters of their craft.

 

[markbarendt]

It seems to be a little disingenuous to separate creativity and technique. A painter who can't paint? A sculptor who can't sculpt? A photographer who can't operate a camera? I dare say most artists are masters of their craft.

I think otherwise.

If one has defined what they want and figured out how to get it, IMO the creative process is mostly over. Once you reach that point the task becomes a technical exercise.

HCB for example knew exactly what he was after, ‘the decisive moment’. He knew what he wanted in terms of composition and timing and subject matter. HCB’s work is so formulaic that it defined a photgraphic genre. Designing his ‘formula’ was a very creative exercise. Applying his formula was (is) a technical exercise.

This idea is typical of professional work (photographic or otherwise).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It seems to be a little disingenuous to separate creativity and technique. A painter who can't paint? A sculptor who can't sculpt? A photographer who can't operate a camera? I dare say most artists are masters of their craft.

I think otherwise.

If one has defined what they want and figured out how to get it, IMO the creative process is mostly over. Once you reach that point the task becomes a technical exercise.

HCB for example knew exactly what he was after, ‘the decisive moment’. He knew what he wanted in terms of composition and timing and subject matter. HCB’s work is so formulaic that it defined a photgraphic genre. Designing his ‘formula’ was a very creative exercise. Applying his formula was (is) a technical exercise.

This idea is typical of professional work (photographic or otherwise).

That's true to a degree, Mark, but a painter or sculptor must have control of his/her tools to fully realize their visions. The true 'hurt' for we 'non-artists' is... cameras are far easier to use (as tools) than hammers/chisels or paints/brushes. So, truly artistic images are made by folks using auto-everything 'capture devices'. Those people are not techies but they can 'see'. Often times those with great technical skills can't 'see'. Others are variably adept at both.