After nearly 40 yrs with photography, a question has occurred to me...

[sk66]

So basically in my simplistic way,no I don't think a well executed technical side can really hurt an image,but conversely I think worrying about techs well honestly... anything really.................. does hamper creativity and hence artistic vision at the actual time said image is made.

Maybe there is some way I could have better described the idea/intent. I'm just failing to find it.

It's not about technique/technical skill. Take ISO noise for example. A technical image will attempt to minimize noise. An artistic image may choose to exploit noise/grain. Both approaches require an equal level of knowledge/attention/thought etc to accomplish. And in both cases one could say the level of noise is fitting/technically correct. But the choice to emphasize the noise/grain automatically necessitates a degradation of other technical aspects (the facts) of the image/scene i.e. sharpness/detail.

 

[Mr Badger]

I think what this all boils down to is that there are two main types of photography; documentary and pictorial. Once they've got to know how to work a camera, a photographer will probably be better at one of these two defining categories than the other... the trouble is they might prefer the one they aren't as good at.

The even bigger trouble is that they may never realise they are better at one of these categories than the other, and spend years trying to be a pictorial photographer with mediocre results when they could have taken some really great documentary style photos, or vice versa.

If so, the question to ask is which one of the two suits you? Perhaps a look through your photos file with that thought in mind might be quite revealing?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Maybe there is some way I could have better described the idea/intent. I'm just failing to find it.

It's not about technique/technical skill. Take ISO noise for example. A technical image will attempt to minimize noise. An artistic image may choose to exploit noise/grain. Both approaches require an equal level of knowledge/attention/thought etc to accomplish. And in both cases one could say the level of noise is fitting/technically correct. But the choice to emphasize the noise/grain automatically necessitates a degradation of other technical aspects (the facts) of the image/scene i.e. sharpness/detail.

That helps to understand where you're coming from. So I would say that it requires technical understanding to increase the grain to enhance an image or to deliberately move the camera in order to intentionally blur an image, while you would consider those artistic skills, rather than technical ones.

 

[ancient_mariner]

In the context of our discussion here, this thread is a good example of why you need technical understanding in order to be creative: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/how-can-i-get-them-in-focus.681080/

 

[sk66]

I think what this all boils down to is that there are two main types of photography; documentary and pictorial. Once they've got to know how to work a camera, a photographer will probably be better at one of these two defining categories than the other... the trouble is they might prefer the one they aren't as good at.

Well, I think there is also an infinite amount of blending of the types that may exist/occur.
IMO, the problem (and the point) is that if you only concentrate on the technical aspects... the kind of stuff you see commonly critiqued, the stuff the web is full of (lens MTF/reviews/etc), the things you actually have to learn/understand first... if you only focus on those things you will never be able to advance as a pictorial/art photographer. You must be willing to sacrifice those things in order to achieve any "vision" you might have, and in order to communicate the message you want.
I.e. you can't create a great foggy "mood" image that conveys a feeling and sense of being there, and that also has great focus/sharpness/detail/low noise; because they are essentially mutually exclusive.

I suppose there are those who are naturally gifted towards the art aspect w/o ever having learned/focused-on the technical aspects... but if there are, putting their work out in photography oriented venues (camera clubs, most forums/FB groups, etc) would likely get them beat up/derided to a large extent.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I.e. you can't create a great foggy "mood" image that conveys a feeling and sense of being there, and that also has great focus/sharpness/detail/low noise; because they are essentially mutually exclusive.

I'm not so sure. I learned a long time ago that there's a difference between being in focus and not being sharp. And more recently that fog can be bright enough to use low ISOs handheld.

I don't claim this to be a great photo or to give a sense of being there, but it's foggy and in focus. So a better photographer than I could probably make a picture that is great and meets the other criteria.

I suppose there are those who are naturally gifted towards the art aspect w/o ever having learned/focused-on the technical aspects... but if there are, putting their work out in photography oriented venues (camera clubs, most forums/FB groups, etc) would likely get them beat up/derided to a large extent.

This is why I don't post pics on here very often.

 

[sk66]

That helps to understand where you're coming from. So I would say that it requires technical understanding to increase the grain to enhance an image or to deliberately move the camera in order to intentionally blur an image, while you would consider those artistic skills, rather than technical ones.

I would consider those the same skills/technical knowledge... i.e. how to control noise, how to control motion. But in one case it is applied for an artistic purpose/result, and in another it is applied for a technical purpose/result.

I have seen some images that kind of cross lines... which is part of why I originally said "I almost think it does." They are generally images of scenes that are highly manipulated/controlled/created, and "the art" is really the subject of the photograph which is executed with a technical intent. The question here is, does that make the photo "art?" I think it does when the art being photographed is highly temporary... i.e. the photograph is required in order for the artist to communicate their vision.

 

[sk66]

'm not so sure. I learned a long time ago that there's a difference between being in focus and not being sharp. And more recently that fog can be bright enough to use low ISOs handheld.

"Focus/sharpness/detail" are all elements of the same thing... and the image posted is definitely lacking in critical sharpness/detail. And I can almost guarantee the image has a good amount of noise when viewed critically, IME it is an inherent quality of fog. But all of that is irrelevant depending on the intent.

 

[Ed Sutton]

"Focus/sharpness/detail" are all elements of the same thing... and the image posted is definitely lacking in critical sharpness/detail. And I can almost guarantee the image has a good amount of noise when viewed critically, IME it is an inherent quality of fog. But all of that is irrelevant depending on the intent.

Of course critical detail and sharpness are lacking, but I deliberately didn't mention them. Nor did I mention noise. As for a 'good amount' of it. Afraid not.

The picture might not be critically sharp, but it's in bloody focus. Fog doesn't prevent you focusing on things, nor does it magically make images noisy.

That's me done on this sidebar.

 

[Geoham]

This is a really interesting thread, particularly the comparisons between photography and music. (side note:- The Jeff Beck and Imelda May video was great!)

I’m a total novice photographer, having owned a camera all of six weeks. However, I’ve been playing bass guitar since I was 13 and consider myself a competent musician - I play 2 - 3 gigs a month on average. I have a good knowledge of music theory and of music equipment. To me, this technical knowledge is what helps me be a better musician. I don’t fret about theory or particular settings while I’m playing, but I almost instinctively know how to achieve what I want. Similarly, with equipment, I can be quite specific with certain things like string spacing and material (and countless other boring things!). But, when it comes to playing a show, I can have a really good time and focus on entertaining people, I have confidence in my own ability - the theory and all the rest of it is never consciously thought about.

So back to photography - I am getting to grips with the theory side of thIngs, however applying it practice is another thing. I can get my settings in the right ballpark, but aren’t yet sure of the finer nuances. With regards to equipment, I’m not sure what benefit I’d really get from upgrading the kit lens or buying new filters or whatever. I kind of compare where I am now to the teenage bassist with the £100 no-name bass guitar all those years ago, lusting after a proper Fender without really knowing why!
I’d love to get to the stage where I could just take confidently take the photo I want first time, no nonsense. I’ll just need to keep practicing to get there, and appreciate AI may need an equipment upgrade a time some point in the future.

George

 

[sk66]

Of course critical detail and sharpness are lacking, but I deliberately didn't mention them. Nor did I mention noise. As for a 'good amount' of it. Afraid not.

The picture might not be critically sharp, but it's in bloody focus. Fog doesn't prevent you focusing on things, nor does it magically make images noisy.

That's me done on this sidebar.

That was entertaining...

 

[sk66]

This is a really interesting thread, particularly the comparisons between photography and music.

I also have a small business making custom hand wound pickups for electric guitars. I don't make "vintage" pickups, instead a customer tells me what their guitar/rig/style is and what they need the pickup to do. We come to an agreement on the design (type, magnets, wire gauge, output, etc) which I then make to suit.
But one of the things I put out there is the fact that the pickups really don't matter much. What matters most is what happens at either end of the process... the talent/style/skill of the player, and the presentation (amp/speaker/etc).

There's a saying with music; a great player can make anything sound great, and a crappy player can make anything sound like crap. I think the analogy holds true with photography as well.

 

[Raymond Lin]

As much as I like 100% nailed focus to the mm, there are images that I can't let it go because of a fraction out. (We are talking about like mm here, but i can tell)

This ought to be level too strictly speaking.

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is a really interesting thread, particularly the comparisons between photography and music. (side note:- The Jeff Beck and Imelda May video was great!)

I’m a total novice photographer, having owned a camera all of six weeks. However, I’ve been playing bass guitar since I was 13 and consider myself a competent musician - I play 2 - 3 gigs a month on average. I have a good knowledge of music theory and of music equipment. To me, this technical knowledge is what helps me be a better musician. I don’t fret about theory or particular settings while I’m playing, but I almost instinctively know how to achieve what I want. Similarly, with equipment, I can be quite specific with certain things like string spacing and material (and countless other boring things!). But, when it comes to playing a show, I can have a really good time and focus on entertaining people, I have confidence in my own ability - the theory and all the rest of it is never consciously thought about.



George

Of course it does, your technical understanding allows you to focus on your music without thinking about how to do it - the same with photography.

So back to photography - I am getting to grips with the theory side of thIngs, however applying it practice is another thing. I can get my settings in the right ballpark, but aren’t yet sure of the finer nuances. With regards to equipment, I’m not sure what benefit I’d really get from upgrading the kit lens or buying new filters or whatever. I kind of compare where I am now to the teenage bassist with the £100 no-name bass guitar all those years ago, lusting after a proper Fender without really knowing why!

George

What a better lens will do is to improve sharpness in general, and especially at larger apertures. It will also allow you to use apertures that are not available on your kit lens.
Filters - A neutral density filter is potentially useful, and so is a polariser (although a polariser isn't actually a filter). No other filters are worth having.

So back to photography - I am getting to grips with the theory side of thIngs, however applying it practice is another thing. I can get my settings in the right ballpark, but aren’t yet sure of the finer nuances. With regards to equipment, I’m not sure what benefit I’d really get from upgrading the kit lens or buying new filters or whatever. I kind of compare where I am now to the teenage bassist with the £100 no-name bass guitar all those years ago, lusting after a proper Fender without really knowing why!
I’d love to get to the stage where I could just take confidently take the photo I want first time, no nonsense. I’ll just need to keep practicing to get there, and appreciate AI may need an equipment upgrade a time some point in the future.

George

Well, once your understanding of the technical aspects has improved to the point where you no longer need to actively think about them, you'll be able to concentrate on the composition, motivation, emotional content and so on - just like your music!

People are going on about sharpness, which is very simple to achieve, so much so that I wouldn't even put it in the 'technical' category.

 

[Ed Sutton]

That was entertaining...

Thanks.

 

[Mr Badger]

So go on, who do the socks and sandals belong to then?

 

[Ed Sutton]

So go on, who do the socks and sandals belong to then?

 

[Mr Badger]

I had a feeling when I saw them that he might be responsible!

 

[Bythesea]

Lol - I was going to say Martin Parr but given your signature thought it was too obvious

 

[Ed Sutton]

He was very obliging when I asked if I could photograph his sandals. I even popped up the flash on my camera in 'homage' to his style!

 

[droj]

Well I was close, then (blush / sob), but then I've never seen him in the life.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Well I was close, then (blush / sob), but then I've never seen him in the life.

I reckon your subconscious knew.

 

[HoppyUK]

To become a good photographer, strong technical understanding is essential - that's the route to creative techniques that vastly increase the potential for art. I've met and spoken with a lot of very good photographers through my career on photo magazines, including some of true greats, and without exception they all have very high technical understanding. They tend not to talk about it much, because it's a given, taken as read, but it's most certainly there.

An interest in photography obviously draws you into technical and equipment areas and some get stuck there and never push through to the 'higher ground' but so what? If that's what you enjoy?

 

[HoppyUK]

Question: was Ansel Adams a great artist or a mere technician? When you break it down to what he did and how he did it, you could argue that it's little more than a series of carefully applied craft skills. Maybe, but somewhere in the process he crossed the line into true art IMO. I think it's possible to do that with a lot of photography when various methods and techniques are used in creative combination to produce art - where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[sk66]

Question: was Ansel Adams a great artist or a mere technician?

I think "the art" of his work (and most good landscape stuff) came from waiting for mother nature to provide the weather/lighting he envisioned/want... which is incredibly frustrating. But I also think a large part of his fame is due to the fact most were not willing to go through what was required with that equipment at that time.

It goes with the idea that showing "facts" that others haven't/can't see in real life can be enough (i.e. wildlife, technical macro, etc). But is it "art?" Some may appreciate them enough for their technical qualities (the artistry) to put them on their wall, but unless it conveys something more (entirely subjective), I don't think it is.
Similarly, I think the "value" and "art" of Adams' work has decreased in terms of appreciation/meaning because they no longer convey something "more"/"unique." I.e. I have not, and would not, pay for an Adams print to hang on my wall... at least not most of them. Part of that is because they (mostly) don't particularly move me (probably because I've seen it/similar a million times). And part is because there is other work I think is of equal quality (skill/artistry) that can be had at a much lower cost.

(I do have a book with 400 of his images. I bought it as more of a education/study kind of thing though, and it wasn't really expensive at all...)

 

[ancient_mariner]

Similarly, I think the "value" and "art" of Adams' work has decreased in terms of appreciation/meaning because they no longer convey something "more"/"unique." I.e. I have not, and would not, pay for an Adams print to hang on my wall... at least not most of them. Part of that is because they (mostly) don't particularly move me (probably because I've seen it/similar a million times). And part is because there is other work I think is of equal quality (skill/artistry) that can be had at a much lower cost.

This is an interesting point Steven. I do wonder if some photographs that have been perceived as wonderful art can have a very distinct 'use by' date due to advances in technology (so much easier to re-create spectacular images like he did) or because tastes change and what was once special is now passe? Would anyone look twice if Cartier Bresson started posting his images, exactly as he took them, to Facebook? Would Bill Brandt create more than minority interest with his use of a pinhole camera? Would anyone care about Martin Parr's work if he were starting in that style now?

I'm inclined to ask, if they no longer have an impact or seem relevent, were they ever art at all?

 

[NPUK]

This is an interesting point Steven. I do wonder if some photographs that have been perceived as wonderful art can have a very distinct 'use by' date due to advances in technology (so much easier to re-create spectacular images like he did) or because tastes change and what was once special is now passe? Would anyone look twice if Cartier Bresson started posting his images, exactly as he took them, to Facebook? Would Bill Brandt create more than minority interest with his use of a pinhole camera? Would anyone care about Martin Parr's work if he were starting in that style now?

I'm inclined to ask, if they no longer have an impact or seem relevent, were they ever art at all?

I suppose that comes down to art being so subjective.... I wouldn't have the Mona Lisa on my wall if you paid me, but that doesn't stop it being art.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I suppose that comes down to art being so subjective.... I wouldn't have the Mona Lisa on my wall if you paid me, but that doesn't stop it being art.

And it is subjective. But would you not have it because you don't like it or because you don't think it's art?

 

[NPUK]

And it is subjective. But would you not have it because you don't like it or because you don't think it's art?

Because it's not to my taste. But if the much more qualified art world say it's a masterpiece I will bow to their better judgement. Although having said all that, I haven't seen it in person so would maybe think it was great if I did...... But I doubt it.

 

[sk66]

This is an interesting point Steven. I do wonder if some photographs that have been perceived as wonderful art can have a very distinct 'use by' date due to advances in technology (so much easier to re-create spectacular images like he did) or because tastes change and what was once special is now passe?

Probably... consider at all of the editing techniques/effects that become popular for a while and then burn out, and are even considered by some to be "bad." Things like HDR/Tone mapping, selective color, etc. The problem with them is when the technique is used solely for the sake of the technique/look rather than for any specific purpose/intent of the photographer.
Otherwise, there isn't anything inherently bad about any of the techniques/effects/ideas, and I've seen all of them used to great effect at one time or another. But IMO, it is only when things are done with intent/purpose/meaning can they really be successful.

As for the topic of technical, it could be argued that even the great landscape images use weather/lighting/clouds to obscure technical details ("facts") of the subject.

I'm not making any absolute statements about what is/isn't "art" and what qualities it has. But it does seem to me that the more "factual" an image is, the less it leaves for the viewer to interpret/imagine, the less likely it is to convey some meaning/emotion through interpretation, the less likely it is to be "successful," and it is probably less likely to remain relevant over time.

I realize I am a technical type of person. But looking back at nearly 40 years of photographs (mine and others) I think my photography has also been heavily technical, primarily due to a lack of purpose/vision. And because of that I chose to specialize in genres that are more technical, never really developing the full potential of my ability to be "artistic" and create work that I would consider art... never really developing "vision/creativity."
But I have also come to realize that none of that had/has to be that way... it's kind of rare, but I've even seen a good bit of wildlife photography that is more artistic than factual...

This is really more of a question that arose from personal reflection I chose to share... if there is any validity to the question/idea (and I really think there is), maybe it can help others w/o it taking 40yrs.