pesphoto
Veteran
Does one need to be technically inclined to be a good or great photographer? What I mean is, can a person shoot one camera, one or two lenses, one type of film, one developer, paper, etc. Keep it simple and concentrate on the images. Were the masters technically inclined beyond knowing the basics of the mecahnics? Did Kertesz lust after every new lens, every new camera? Maybe he did...just wondering.
blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
Is there a difference in being technically minded and knowing how to extract the best out your art whichever form it is in? When should an aritst use oils, when to use watercolours, when to use f2.8 and when to use 28mm?
A good artist can overcome the shackles of his tools, but he will know his tools inside out.
literiter
Well-known
I'm technically inclined. It doesn't help or hinder the creative component to photography. Especially today with the extraordinarily automated cameras available.
I think, those who aren't technically inclined would have an advantage in that they wouldn't be drawn to the technology but to the image.
I think, those who aren't technically inclined would have an advantage in that they wouldn't be drawn to the technology but to the image.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's also a lot of BS about this, with some people pretending they know nothing about technique because they think that makes them more Artistic with a capital A. For example, Beaton is often represented as being pig-ignorant about kit, but I strongly suspect he knew more than he let on.
Some great photographers are equipment freaks -- the late, great Terence Donovan springs to mind -- while others learn the bare minimum they need about one camera and a couple of lenses.
It's a balancing act: too little technical knowledge can leave you unable to solve photographic problems, making you unable to get the pictures you want, but concentrating too much on technique can distract you from the aesthetic side of things.
Cheers,
Roger
Some great photographers are equipment freaks -- the late, great Terence Donovan springs to mind -- while others learn the bare minimum they need about one camera and a couple of lenses.
It's a balancing act: too little technical knowledge can leave you unable to solve photographic problems, making you unable to get the pictures you want, but concentrating too much on technique can distract you from the aesthetic side of things.
Cheers,
Roger
pfoto
Well-known
There was a photo exhibit at the ICP in New York last year called Scrapbook, it was a collection of HCB pictures put together after his death. Quite a few of them were really quite poor technically, including the famous one of the man jumping over the puddle. That one was atrocious. I think HCB had a brilliant printer who took an ordinary negative (technically speaking) and made an iconic picture out of it. HCB is a sample of one but he is considered great. At least from this exhibit, he didn't appear to be a great technician.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's also the question of what you mean by 'technically inclined' and 'basics'. In the days of manual film cameras you had to know quite a bit more than you'd need with a point-and-shoot. What one regards as absolutey basic, another might call 'technically inclined'.
To add another sample of 1, a few years ago I saw a Rodchenko exhibition in Arles. If that had been the only Rodchenko I'd ever seen, I'd wonder why he was regarded as great, too. Muddy, dull prints of uninteresting subjects.
Then again, among the few original Ansel Adams prints I've seen, I found it hard to believe how bad one of his Yosemite pictures was (over-enlarged from Hasselblad) and Karsh's focus wasn't always spot on: I'd be surprised if he meant to focus on the arm of Desmond Tutu's chair rather than the dear man's eyes. And Brandt's later prints were often 'soot and whitwash'.
Moral: it's often quite hard to make generalizations...
(Reason for flurry of postings: waiting for backups of 800 M8 pics to be written to different drives).
Cheers,
R.
To add another sample of 1, a few years ago I saw a Rodchenko exhibition in Arles. If that had been the only Rodchenko I'd ever seen, I'd wonder why he was regarded as great, too. Muddy, dull prints of uninteresting subjects.
Then again, among the few original Ansel Adams prints I've seen, I found it hard to believe how bad one of his Yosemite pictures was (over-enlarged from Hasselblad) and Karsh's focus wasn't always spot on: I'd be surprised if he meant to focus on the arm of Desmond Tutu's chair rather than the dear man's eyes. And Brandt's later prints were often 'soot and whitwash'.
Moral: it's often quite hard to make generalizations...
(Reason for flurry of postings: waiting for backups of 800 M8 pics to be written to different drives).
Cheers,
R.
gns
Well-known
Technique (or craft) needs to be sufficient or appropriate to the final product. In other words, the finished work needs to be complete in that everything about it (including craft) must support the whole. I think it would be easy to say that someone like Winogrand did not have the level of craft or technique that Ansel Adams or Minor White had, but it would be kind of pointless and maybe even indicate a gross misunderstanding of Winogrand's work.
Of course one can make great work with a simple minimalist outfit (one camera, one lens) There have been many to prove this. But one still needs an understanding of what the tools and process are capable of. If you have a chance, take a look at the Poloroids of Walker Evans, or the Kodak Brownie/drugstore-processed images of William Christenberry. I think these can be seen as lessons in reducing or limiting the process to it's simplest form and accepting that the root of photography lies in the act of acknowledement.
Cheers,
Gary
Of course one can make great work with a simple minimalist outfit (one camera, one lens) There have been many to prove this. But one still needs an understanding of what the tools and process are capable of. If you have a chance, take a look at the Poloroids of Walker Evans, or the Kodak Brownie/drugstore-processed images of William Christenberry. I think these can be seen as lessons in reducing or limiting the process to it's simplest form and accepting that the root of photography lies in the act of acknowledement.
Cheers,
Gary
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Fred,
WHADDAYA F***ING MEAN? JUST HAND ME THE F***ING CAMERA, ALL RIGHT!
(You can see I've worked with some of them too).
Cheers,
R.
WHADDAYA F***ING MEAN? JUST HAND ME THE F***ING CAMERA, ALL RIGHT!
(You can see I've worked with some of them too).
Cheers,
R.
dee
Well-known
Technically , I find it easier standing up ...
pesphoto
Veteran
....so thats my problem!aniMal
Well-known
I think you need to know exactly what happens in all aspects of the type/style of photography you choose to do. And that goes also for seemingly wild and chaotic styles!
And choosing is also hard work, because to choose something you have to reject other styles, sorting them out and having a reason for doing so...
This is the part I find the hardest, and also what gives the best results - constantly censoring myself both in themes and individual images...
And choosing is also hard work, because to choose something you have to reject other styles, sorting them out and having a reason for doing so...
This is the part I find the hardest, and also what gives the best results - constantly censoring myself both in themes and individual images...
V
varjag
Guest
As pointed out, there's a difference between technique and technical inclination. Does understanding and mastering your process help? Surely so. Does understanding Seidel's five aberrations help? Not in any significant way IMHO.