are we image makers or technicians?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
2:48 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
not sure if it's always been this way or if we have electronic cameras and digital sensors to blame?
sometimes photography is like an art, full of creative images and lovely renderings and interpretations of what the world presents to us and sometimes it seems like photography is all dynamic ranges, white balances, evf displays etc.!
have we been scientists all along?
or artists?
or both?
i don't want to be both…i have little to no interest in the science of it all…i always say that i'm a sloppy worker, not paying attention to the details of it all but in truth, i'm not all that sloppy, i'm just not interested in what makes it work as long as it works for me.
we read about a new lens and most of the comments center around what kind of clutch it has, does it have machanical this or electronic that?!
not so much about what sort of image it might help to create.

i can't help but feel sad that we may be losing something in the process.
 
To be successful, I think, we need to be more artist that technician.

I now many cameras has great OOC images, but, I think those here most likely shoot in RAW.
And film is the Analog RAW, that needs developing and printing (which requires skill and experience).
Or scanning followed by editing in LR, or PS or whatever.
And Film is just as technical as digital.. maybe more so, if you enjoy the whole process.

I think leaning on the artist/image maker side more, for us is more beneficial in the long run.

I am skilled enough in editing, but not a Guru...
 
Every great artist is a master of many techniques be it painting clouds with oil or selectively burning a print/image.

The tools have changed so the techniques have changed, but the end is the same. A photograph.
 
I think we are all technicians to some degree as we need to understand out equipment and how it works just to get a picture at all. But there are certainly some who are very happy discussing the technical details. For myself I just like to take pictures of things and people that I like. But I am just as happy doing it with an old 105mm Color Skopar on a Bessa or a Super Tak 55/2 on my Pentax ist DL2 as I am with the newest piece of equipment out there.

Of course I am not sure whether that makes me a techie or not. :)
 
Both.

The trick is of course to have sufficient technical knowledge to produce the images that you want, and leave it at that.

Many years ago I studied scientific photography/photographic science. Today many of the complicated techniques I learned about are quite commonplace and others now available were a mere dream (focus-stacking for example). At the same time the interest and fascination for minutiae has become almost an end in itself. So whilst there are often more techniques which should enhance creativity readily availablethan are frequently utilised , this might well be partly due to a preference to discuss photographic detail rather than take pictures.

I seem to be going backwards in that I'm less interested in the science and technology now than I once was, and am more interested in the final result. Despite this there is more to absorb and learn in order to achieve 'better' results. Life seems overly centred around computers (so why am I writing this.....?).
 
All forms of art require technical knowledge. This is not unique to photography. Ceramics, for example, requires knowledge of the properties of different types of clay so that they can be fired in the kiln the correct length of time at the correct temperature, and they also must understand the chemical properties of different glazes for the same reasons.

Painters have to know the drying rates of different pigments, since painting a fast-drying color over a slow-drying one can cause the painting to crack. They need to know the properties of different mediums (mixtures of oils, varnishes, and thinners used to dilute paints) because they affect dry time, and the final texture of the painting.

Lithography and etching also require a lot of technical knowledge.

It saddens me to see so many photographers who have so little respect for the medium that they allow themselves to believe these false ideas about photography and other forms of art.
 
It seems to me that everyone wants to talk about everything but the photograph and that's wrong in my opinion..My thoughts have been for a while that people don't know how to talk about the photograph because they don't have enough of a vocabulary to. Lots of folks take pictures very few make photographs there is a difference…Its about vision and I think people need to look harder because what I'm seeing a lot are just boring lame pictures. I want to see photographs that make me want to look at them more, ask questions, have me come back and look more later, try to figure out what is going on in the photograph..If you find that in a photograph then you might call it art.. sorry for the rant I'm not sure that was the response your looking for, but you got it..
 
Both.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Before I left the photography business, I had worked as a darkroom tech/printer/manager, covered weddings, commercial and press photography, did some laboratory work documenting tests, equipment set ups and such-like.

Far from making me exceptional, it was pretty much what most young "professional" photographers did in Britain, during the 'sixties and 'seventies. There was a demand for competent, not exceptional, photography and you could earn a reasonable living by being fast on your feet.

It was this diversity that made it all so enjoyable.

These days, the technical side can be taken, pretty much, for granted. Switch the camera to 'P' and concentrate on the composition. Then adjust the image on the screen until it shows what you want it to. We're still both "techs" and "artists" but just don't notice it so much.
 
Well, with b/w film developing and wet printing, plus dealing with CLA for old mechanical cameras I feel exactly like technician comparing to nothing but pictures taking with digital gear :)
But then I look at results...
 
35photo said:
It seems to me that everyone wants to talk about everything but the photograph and that's wrong in my opinion..My thoughts have been for a while that people don't know how to talk about the photograph because they don't have enough of a vocabulary to. Lots of folks take pictures very few make photographs there is a difference…Its about vision and I think people need to look harder because what I'm seeing a lot are just boring lame pictures. I want to see photographs that make me want to look at them more, ask questions, have me come back and look more later, try to figure out what is going on in the photograph..If you find that in a photograph then you might call it art.. sorry for the rant I'm not sure that was the response your looking for, but you got it..
Click to expand...

i like the rant.

there are times that i wish we talked at least as much about the images as the gear.
 
in my opinion, if you want to be a "master" artist you need to be both. And by that i mean you can achieve repeatable results with certain degree of consistency in your work.

however, for myself who is just a hobbyist that has limited time and resources, i consider myself neither a technician nor an artist. i know enough about the mechanics and technology to use the camera for my purpose. and i think i have some artistic appreciation understanding to be able to take pleasing photographs; some of the time :). I would admit that my artistic skill is way less than my technical ability at this point.
 
In history of photography there are photographs that are poor technically, which, nevertheless speak intimately to the viewer (Robert Capa's shots from Invasion of Normandy). There are some that are perfectly executed, but have no soul. I think we have to have a little of both: technique and vision. At some point the technique becomes a tool to bring forth the vision.
 
For me photography is a hobby... It removes me from the pressure of my professional life, lets my mind relax. I know my pictures are not very good.. I tend to be a gear head which maybe also part of the reason my profession is in the embedded sw industry. So in the rff discussions i tend to fall toward all the tech stuff. When I am out taking pictures, I actually don't really think about much of the technical once I decide what camera on what lens.

My wife on the other hand is an artist type. She just takes pictures no matter what camera. Btw she is good..

Gary
 
I'd say I am more on a technical side. I like to try out different equipment, different lenses, filters, developers e.t.c. For me the end result is not important, that is the process and equipment that gives me joy of photography. I rarely publish my works anywhere, or even look at some of my developed stuff. I guess I am not an artist
 
White balance with digital can be simple. I just shoot a gray card with the camera configured to auto-set the color balance in the light I'm shooting. Takes 10 seconds and then I don't have to do much with it later. Figuring this out was huge for me as I fought with in during post and was rarely happy with the look. Much simpler than getting it right with color film unless I want to throw away a shot with a card there.

This isn't so much a technical issue to me as it is about getting the shot I want with the least amount of work.
 
I don't think this distinction should be an "either/or" choice; I approach my photography with a view that both are important skills.

Lately I have become interested in making macro photos and I don't know very much about the technical process so I am trying to educate myself about that part of it so that I can then get the results I want.
Which means, for me, that I am putting any artistic concerns on a lesser priority right now as I learn how to choose and use the tools I will need to get the photos I want. Once I have got the "how" part sorted, I can then concentrate more on the "why" part.
Certainly it is very easy, for me, to become swept up in the mechanical aspects of this and I will need to be careful to consciously remember that.

As to the discussions about our art rather than about our gear, I do not have the knowledge nor the vocabulary for anything much beyond "I like or dislike" any given example. Educating myself on those things is a more difficult thing, for me. So I tend to not say very much or participate in those discussions. I do read most of them, though.

Rob
 
It's easy to think that people who post here are more equipment oriented than into photos, but this is, despite what so many want to believe, an equipment site more so than a photography site (meaning more threads about equipment than photos).

I show my photos in person to people and I find that more rewarding than online. Additionally, I go elsewhere to talk about photos.

Anyone who knows me knows I get annoyed at the technical side if the actual results play second fiddle. Of course we need to know how certain technical aspects work, but it's not a hard concept. Once you've learned the basics, its just a notch in the belt in a journey towards making, hopefully, compelling images.
 
back alley said:
not sure if it's always been this way or if we have electronic cameras and digital sensors to blame?
sometimes photography is like an art, full of creative images and lovely renderings and interpretations of what the world presents to us and sometimes it seems like photography is all dynamic ranges, white balances, evf displays etc.!
have we been scientists all along?
or artists?
or both?
i don't want to be both…i have little to no interest in the science of it all…i always say that i'm a sloppy worker, not paying attention to the details of it all but in truth, i'm not all that sloppy, i'm just not interested in what makes it work as long as it works for me.
we read about a new lens and most of the comments center around what kind of clutch it has, does it have machanical this or electronic that?!
not so much about what sort of image it might help to create.

i can't help but feel sad that we may be losing something in the process.
Click to expand...

I think you are both but you do not realize it. If you are using anything more than a basic P&S camera and you are playing with the various possibilities then you are an artist and tech. I could even say that framing and composing with light and shapes involves some technique hidden in your long acquired knowledge.
 
35photo said:
It seems to me that everyone wants to talk about everything but the photograph and that's wrong in my opinion..My thoughts have been for a while that people don't know how to talk about the photograph because they don't have enough of a vocabulary to. Lots of folks take pictures very few make photographs there is a difference…Its about vision and I think people need to look harder because what I'm seeing a lot are just boring lame pictures. I want to see photographs that make me want to look at them more, ask questions, have me come back and look more later, try to figure out what is going on in the photograph..If you find that in a photograph then you might call it art.. sorry for the rant I'm not sure that was the response your looking for, but you got it..
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's so much that people don't want to talk about the photography or don't have the vocabulary to do so. What I think is really going on is that people are afraid to talk about the photography.

I think this fear doesn't come from a lack of understanding or being scared of looking dumb. I think it's much more simple. They are afraid that it's going to cause a "fight". Look at it this way, people get absolutely hateful when talking about camera brands, now take that level of "passion" and apply it to a piece of art that someone personally created and you have a ticking time bomb (unless you have nothing but praises for the photograph). People will get downright evil when defending their artwork or even artwork of their friends and idols.

I hesitate to critique people's online work even when I get a request to do so. I probably get a dozen emails a week from my readers asking me to critique their work. I keep the "critiques" very light. I would actually go so far to say I don't critique as I give out pointers.

On the other hand, I have had to undergo peer critiques and I will critique someone's work with them in person. It's easier to explain things an talk about the photographs face to face.

But online. No f'n way. I will never go that route because the internet sucks and people who are probably awesome in real life can be real dicks on the internet.

Maybe "fear" isn't the right word, but I think most people just steer away from discussing the photograph because they know that unless they give unconditional praise it's probably going to end badly.
 
I think u may have a valid point here. But for me, I am more interested in the tech discussions. I will post pics, but I am not expecting comments when I post. I don't tend to critique other peoples works on general..

But I think Joe's thread is more about just critique.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom