Can the technical aspects of photography get in the way?

J

Jamie H

Messages
98
Edit My Images
No
This is a rhetorical question to which the obvious answer is - 'yes'. However, having spent several hours leafing through the Life photo book that I got for my birthday last month it occured to me that much of what we worry about in photography forums contributes almost nothing to a great shot.

For example, I spent about an hour the other day tweaking UniWB shots and then remembered some of the classic shots in the Life book - somehow I don't think that the wedding reception shot of JFK and Jackie was fussed over by someone looking to get perfect highlights and a nice 'curve'. Then I thought further - it was probably taken with a Nikon or Leica rangefinder and the exposure would almost certainly have been a (well) educated guess.

The main thing is that the moment is captured and I am certain that I have missed shots in the past when faffing about with some setting or another or 'chimping' to make sure the histogram looks about right.

In short I have come to this totally unfair conclusion - most of what we worry about is complete b******* and I will resolve to focus more on the basics (as I used to) than on whether I've got absolutely perfect tonality or a smidge too much noise because the fact is that only other geeks notice.
 
Jamie H said:
too much noise because the fact is that only other geeks notice.
Click to expand...


99.99% of shots I take I will moan about, either its slightly noisey or slightly exposed wrong or just something is wrong in my eyes.


99.99% of shots I take the wife will go "nice photo"


it is true we get bogged down in the technical side of things i believe :)
 
Applause for a healthy dose of common sense! :)

I was just talking to DiddyDave yesterday about the very same thing. Pixel peeping (at times) does us no favours at all. The eternal "is it sharp" question is one that frustrates the heck out of me. If I want it to be sharp then yes it should be but at what range? We have all seen people looking at 100% on screen, up close at A3 prints. If I want some movement in shot then I'll give it!

We also had a camera club member who thought that because a judge criticised a portrait for not having eye contact thought that EVERY single portrait had to have eye contact. Utter nonsense!

Yes there are some very good guidelines for good images and I've seen a lot broken and while we, as photographers can easily criticise them, the client (or the photographer) has loved them.

Sometimes it has more to do with context and emotion and less to do with technical ability. (Though it is always easier to work with a technically good file ;))
 
Give me a choice between . . .

a) a technically brilliant photograph of a dull and uninspiring subject

or

b) an emotive image full of drama and expression, but with a few technical flaws. . .

. . . and every time I would choose option b.
While I might admire the skill used in option a, it's b that I'd want to look at / print / hang on the wall.

Of course, what we all actually aspire to is an emotive image full of drama and expression that's technically brilliant too :lol: :lol: :lol:
And that's why we get hung up on the technicalities!

EDIT : And it obviously also depends on the purpose of the photograph.
If you were taking a load of product shots of light switches for an electrical catalogue then technical perfection would be high up there on the list of priorities. I doubt that many people would get overly excited about the output though :p
 
In fairness, even though it was taken on a Leica or (more likely, given that date) a Rollei or a Pentax, film offered so much latitude that getting a decent image from a B&W neg was a lot easier than you'd think.
Technology only gets in the way if you don't know how to use it.
Once you're competent with your kit you forget about it and get on with taking photos.
It may be true that there's more to remember now, but once the camera's set up to where you want it to be and your Photoshop skills (and all your automated actions - lol) are up to scratch, then producing a decent digital image is no harder now than producing a decent B&W print was in 1958.
 
Arkady said:
In fairness, even though it was taken on a Leica or (more likely, given that date) a Rollei or a Pentax, film offered so much latitude that getting a decent image from a B&W neg was a lot easier than you'd think.
Technology only gets in the way if you don't know how to use it.
Once you're competent with your kit you forget about it and get on with taking photos.
It may be true that there's more to remember now, but once the camera's set up to where you want it to be and your Photoshop skills (and all your automated actions - lol) are up to scratch, then producing a decent digital image is no harder now than producing a decent B&W print was in 1958.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better. The technical aspects will trip you up and distract you, but only if they are not yet second nature ;) Practice, practice and more practice. It's all part of the fun :thumbs:
 
I kind of agree and disagree with you, the agreement is that we do spend an inordinate amount of time pixel peeping, disagreement is similar to Arkady, and it's about getting to know your camera/lenses/equipment inside out, so you don't have to think about faffing around with settings etc, it just happens, and you take the shot. It's a bit like driving a car, when you are learning, you concentrate on clutch change/gears/breaking etc, when you become a competent driver, you do all these actions naturally, generally without actively thinking when or how to change a gear for example.

Getting to grips with your photography gear is very much akin to this.
 
I always just look at a photo and say to myself "is it pleasing to look at", the technical aspects of it don't really bother me. Maybe thats because I'm just a beginner I don't know but I'm an artistic person by nature and I only ever judge anything I look at simply by saying do I like the look of it or not. I can very much appreciate the technical aspects of a photo or a piece of art but it doesn't really add to my do I like it or not choice.
 
Good points and should lead to healthy discussion, hopefully.

My initial thoughts are that too many of us spend far too long worrying about the technical aspects and worry too much about getting the result supersharp at 800 pixels to post on here rather than getting a good saleable image.
 
Just to give an example of kit-familiarity: a couple of the 'exercises' we were given, many, many moons ago.
One involved putting a lens on the camera blindfolded, then with blindfold still in place, setting a series of shutter-speed/aperture combinations. This was with film cameras and you could tell by how many 'clicks' what shutter speed you'd set by turning all the way to 'B' then counting up to the shutter speed you wanted - likewise for aperture: going from the maximum or minimum aperture to the required setting. So you had to know what was what with regard to your cameras.
I used to pracctice this all the time while sat in front of the telly - drove my parents mad...

Another was 'guessing' exposure. Remembering the basic exposure tables (that used to be printed inside every film packet), the instructor would call out the ISO setting and based on where we were at the time, we'd have to guess the exposure.
He'd then call out different shutter-speeds or apertures and we'd have to mentally compute the variation in the corresponding settings to achieve the correct exposure.

This wasn't in the Army - this was my basic photography course at school when I was about 16...so GCSE equivalent - and it wasn't unusually difficult - this was the expected skill level...
 
Glad to read such an honest & balanced thread. I agree, it is very easy to lose sight of what the hobby is all about (& I say hobby because whilst I accept there are some pros on here there also seem to be plenty of enthusiastic amateurs just like me who take pics just for pleasure), taking pictures that are nice to look at.

It is also interesting to compare the thoughts expressed here with those you find in my other money pit of a pastime; mountain biking, in particular downhill racing. In that sport talk often surrounds the technical side of things; what components to run, discussions over alleged differences of kit, ways to set up a bike etc. What is often forgotten however is the reason why most of us got into the sport in the first place; we just like riding a bike down a hill in the mud as fast as you can.

I am as guilty as anyone I know of tying myself up in knots recently trying to decide what new lens to buy. I need to remind my self to relax, you live longer that way.
 
I'm constantly amazed when I read that people complain because a camera doesn't work quite as they would like at high ISO (or some-such).

There will always be a limit to what technology can do and I wonder why they are looking for problems and worrying since they are only fiddling about at the edges of what it can cope with.

Sometimes I wonder if the loss of the discipline of just having 36 shots on a roll and the time needed to develop and print is greater than the 'benefit' the development in digital technology has given.
 
I agree with whats being said, get to know your kit inside out. It was a bit easier with film cameras, as Arkady says, you feel the clicks, and know where you were, and of course you had less permutations to play with.

Having recently had to spend time with other photographers, I've come to the conclusion that some actually enjoy the technical features of their cameras far more than actually taking any images. So obviously to them it would appear that taking decent images gets in the way of playing with their cameras!
 
I'd agree Arkady, and I wasn't saying that there is any excuse for not becoming familiar with the kit you use. I've had Nikon kit for the last ten years and before that it was Pentax 'K's and Oly OM's that I used most, all of which I can still use on an almost instincitve basis.

My point is that once you get to grips with what I would consider the 'basics' of knowing the core controls of the gear and how to apply the adjustments to achieve the desired outcome then the degree of control we are offered (whilst a good thing in many cases) beyond shutter speed, aperture, focus and ISO can start to become a hinderance.

I would also say that knowledge of whatever software you use is important but I was focussing (forgive the pun) on the 'sharp end' of getting the shot in the first place.
 
Arkady said:
This wasn't in the Army - this was my basic photography course at school when I was about 16...so GCSE equivalent - and it wasn't unusually difficult - this was the expected skill level...
Click to expand...

Is there anyone here who might confirm the content of today's equivalent course? I suspect dumbing down might have occurred.


As to the general point I've just been to a small local charity publicity photoshoot where I had to be in the frame. I'd set up my camera - 5D on back-button focus, 50mm f/1.4 lens, 580EXII flash and do you think I could get anyone to pick it up and have a play? All stuck their compacts which, in fairness, will have got the job done. Do I need a compact? Possibly. Do I want to buy a compact? Not at all.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Is there anyone here who might confirm the content of today's equivalent course? I suspect dumbing down might have occurred...
Click to expand...

I attempted to integrate a measure of these 'drills' when I taught a basic photography course a couple of years ago.
Unless the course specifies that students come equipped with manual-mechanical film SLRs then there's no way you could do this.
The sheer number of different cameras available and the difference in menu systems and control layouts meant I was beaten before I'd even started.
I couldn't even give the students a decent understanding of the varying effects of shutter speed versus aperture as many of thier cameras had no manual options available - or if they did they were only available by going through the menu...wa-aaaay too complicated for beginners to get their heads around...
 
Jamie H said:
I would also say that knowledge of whatever software you use is important but I was focussing (forgive the pun) on the 'sharp end' of getting the shot in the first place.
Click to expand...
I wonder if pointing the camera at something and twisting the lens to focus it and perhaps considering what setting the shutter speed and aperture requires, along with the limit on the number of shots you can take on a roll of film, encouraged some thought about the subject before pressing the shutter that is in danger of being lost with programmed metering, near instant autofocus and huge memory cards?
 
Voyager said:
I wonder if pointing the camera at something and twisting the lens to focus it and perhaps considering what setting the shutter speed and aperture requires, along with the limit on the number of shots you can take on a roll of film, encouraged some thought about the subject before pressing the shutter that is in danger of being lost with programmed metering, near instant autofocus and huge memory cards?
Click to expand...

Looking at the amount of dross available on the internet, I'd have to say 'Yes' - maybe for those of use who were trained in the 'old-fashioned' way it's less of an issue...
I still take images the way I did when using film...
Any 'never-used-a-film-camera' photographers care to comment?
 
Arkady said:
Looking at the amount of dross available on the internet, I'd have to say 'Yes' - maybe for those of use who were trained in the 'old-fashioned' way it's less of an issue...
I still take images the way I did when using film...
Click to expand...
There is an interesting experiment about to take place in this household. The wife - whose job involves focusing lenses on movie cameras - has just bought a D700 and retired her T90 (its a old 35mm Canon SLR, newbies). She never really liked using the Contax G kit as she thought she did not have 'enough control' over the camera.

It will be interesting to see if her photography changes.
 
Voyager said:
The wife - whose job involves focusing lenses on movie cameras
Click to expand...

Is she a "focus puller"?, always fascinated by the various jobs that come up at the end of films.

This job must involve a bit more than "focusing", would you care to enlighten us a bit?

Oh and I guess autofocus is still a "no no" in the film industry, even though they do seem to be moving to digital capture.

David
 
My tuppence is that I don't think much of this is anything to do with the cameras - most people who shoot regularly get into a routine and know what are there 'go to' settings and do them instinctively.

It's the ease with which we can play in Photoshop where I think a lot of this worry about technical merit happens - especially the 100% pixel peeping.
 
Well jamie, today I got the opertunity to thumb through several years of fashion photos from vogue and many others,, and the ones that made me go "OOOOOOOOOO I LIKE THAT" couldent fit any of the 1000 requirements of a perfect photo,,

They all just had a wow factor to them,, and every last one of them following the "rules" had under or over exposure, poor framing, bits cropped out, shoddy contrast, or look flat,,
and every last one of them still keeps me going back to look.

I got real hung up on the "rules" some time back aiming for my liecientship and I stopped enjoying photography for that while I was so hung up.
Since I left and just make photos look good, I not only feal better but seem to be doing a better job all together.

Oh and while I think about it,, there was an interveiw with BAILEY and some art critic/admirier and Bailey was practically taking the mick of this art lover breaking down the inner meaning of everything putting accross "does it look right"

See if I can find it still :)
 
Willid1 said:
Is she a "focus puller"?, always fascinated by the various jobs that come up at the end of films.
Click to expand...
Exactly that.
Willid1 said:
This job must involve a bit more than "focusing", would you care to enlighten us a bit?
Click to expand...
Well, she gets to boss the more junior camera assistants around. :D But the focus pullers job is pretty much to keep the image in focus to suit the requirements of the operator/DoP/director.
Willid1 said:
Oh and I guess autofocus is still a "no no" in the film industry, even though they do seem to be moving to digital capture.
Click to expand...
They can use supremely high quality lenses that can be decades old - the Arri PL mount is pretty much universal (you can even get adapters for 4:3's cameras!) and is used on the latest D21 as it was on the old Arriflex 35mm film cameras. Film (and TV) autofocus lenses are not about to put her out of work!
 
Arkady said:
Looking at the amount of dross available on the internet, I'd have to say 'Yes' - maybe for those of use who were trained in the 'old-fashioned' way it's less of an issue...
I still take images the way I did when using film...
Any 'never-used-a-film-camera' photographers care to comment?
Click to expand...

I do bang out frames I must confess for example I was shooting with a lens that was brutally back focussing so I used af then shot with the motor drive pulling it through the field of focus, something that wouldn't have worked with film. I mean binning 2/3 frames just to nail focus is a bit of a b****r

not a never used a film guy, just that I learned on digi
 
I started out (but then stopped) with film in the 90's on a fully automatic SLR. I never quite grasped the fundamentals (effect of aperture etc...).

My recent interest in photograph has come from having a mind bogglingly techincal piece of kit, that is a modern DSLR.

However, I have now started using my Father's old SLR, not the fully automatic one this one at least has TTL metering, but no auto focus, no motor wind.

It is sobbering to realise that fundamentally I have no fancy options (e.g. I can't change the ISO at a whim). This really means that I spend far more time getting the image in focus and checking the shutter speed/aperture.

I have started to wonder "Are digital cameras just too complicated?"
 
I would imagine that "Talk Equipment" is the busiest section on here, which kinda proves the infatuation with equipment over ability,or maybe i`m wrong?
 
Arkady said:
Looking at the amount of dross available on the internet, I'd have to say 'Yes' - maybe for those of use who were trained in the 'old-fashioned' way it's less of an issue...
I still take images the way I did when using film...
Any 'never-used-a-film-camera' photographers care to comment?
Click to expand...

I'm a film (for 20 years) photographer but it took me about 7 years of digital shooting to make the most of the new found freedoms.
Up until about a year ago, my shooting style was based on how I shot film - but expanded to allow for the extra flexibility. Now I work completely differently, my keeper rate is about the same, but my confidence is exponentially better.
 
fracster said:
I would imagine that "Talk Equipment" is the busiest section on here, which kinda proves the infatuation with equipment over ability,or maybe i`m wrong?
Click to expand...

Thats because asking a technical question will, if framed correctly (excuse the pun), yield a fairly precise answer.

Everything else, the creative bit, is purely subjective as illustrated by many of the comments in this thread. The more subjective it is, the more contencious it is.

You are less likely to upset the status quo by telling someone that their lens only has a maximum aperture of f2.8 or the new flash they are thinking about has a certain guide number than by saying "I don't like the way the lighting is lighting her moustache and the lighthouse is the wrong shade of red to match her eyes too".

People tend to not feel too comfortable talking about subjective things in case it turns into an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top