are we image makers or technicians?

I take pride in being able to manipulate my images to get something I like. On that basis some may say I am a technician. But first and last I regard myself as an artist - or nothing. Technical skills are nothing without art. If Michelangelo only had technical skills he would have been nothing more than a stone mason and house painter. He had his art. I don't aspire to be as great as him but I know that if I cannot create some kind of art I will not be in the least interested in photography.
 
Only a very few are techs. For me a technician are someone who dives into the technology and creates something new technology-wise to create something new photo-wise. I don't think many of us are creating new lenses, reprogramming our cameras or similar?

So the most of us are artists. The question should perhaps then be how deep into available tools are we. Some would say we are to occupied by the tool, and that we are loosing the artistic. This might be, but tool competence has never been a disadvantage for doing great art. On the other hand can missing tool knowledge hinder the creation of a truly great piece of art.
 
i'm tired of the technical side of it…the side that people get all yucked up about!
now, i know i need to know some things…dof helps…fov for a lens…how to work my camera…

but it seems lately that the talk is more about the computer end of shooting than the image end of shooting.
yes, it has always been such…there has always been chatter about the camera, the film flatness etc…i know that!
but i cannot remember the last conversation had, here or here at home, that involved the image and not the sensor, dynamic range or what have you!!
 
back alley said:
. . . .
but i cannot remember the last conversation had, here or here at home, that involved the image and not the sensor, dynamic range or what have you!!
Click to expand...


Joe, in terms of what people talk about in this forum, I don't think that it's wise to judge them as "technicians or artists" based on what they bring to this party. I think the topics and the technical . . . umm . . . ambiance are more the character of this forum than of the people who participate here.

I personally dislike analysing and sharing critiques of other people's images in a group. I will do it via PM's if requested. So you might assume I am a technician because all I talk about in groups is hardware and philosophy, but you would be wrong in that assumption. I think that applies to a lot of others here as well.
 
Joe, what you really need to know from a technical perspective is how to capture the properties of light. Everything else is derivative and little else is significant.
 
Given the pristine condition of many of the Leicas I've purchased I'd say many are neither artists nor technicians. You may want to add "camera fondlers" to the list.
 
thinking about it some more…i guess my initial query was more about folks beings obsessd with their cameras and the camera's capabilities than what they are able to produce using that camera.
camera vs. image sort of thing…

i am the first to admit to being a gear freak but i am slowly losing interest/excitement with my gear and looking at my images more.
 
back alley said:
thinking about it some more…i guess my initial query was more about folks beings obsessd with their cameras and the camera's capabilities than what they are able to produce using that camera.
camera vs. image sort of thing…

i am the first to admit to being a gear freak but i am slowly losing interest/excitement with my gear and looking at my images more.
Click to expand...

Joe, I think most of us start out as gear freaks. I know I did, but because I get into photography so young compared to most RFF members, it doesn't seem like that to those of you who have gotten to know me as an adult. I learned to shoot a manual camera when I was 8 years old, when my dad taught me how to use his Olympus OM-G 35mm SLR. When I was 11, he bought one for me, and we began collecting lenses for it. From then until I graduated from college many years later, I was always wanting (and buying when I had the money) more lenses, cameras, accessories.

By the time I graduated from Indiana University in 1999, I was producing and exhibiting serious art and was already set in the direction I wanted to take my work. Over the years since then, gear has been less and less important and the image has become everything. I only buy gear now if I have a specific need for the item, and some things I own (like my studio equipment) were bought purely to do commercial work with.

If you're more interested in your photos than your gear now, it means you're starting to find your way as an artist. Most photographers never get to where you are now finding yourself. :)
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If you're more interested in your photos than your gear now, it means you're starting to find your way as an artist. Most photographers never get to where you are now finding yourself. :)
Click to expand...

Well and succinctly said, Chris.

Joe, it's not about the equipment, it's about what you can make the equipment do.
 
Chris, you hit it on the head!

That said, we have to be technicians if we want to be able to translate our vision to the final image. While today's auto-everything cameras might make getting good results easier, having technical skills let's you have consistency.

That said, too much technical knowledge can stifle the occasional, magical "happy accidents."
 
Bang-on, Chris.

I would add, though, that technical aptitude can only be the means to an artistic end. Technique and technology alone are sterile.

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
To amplify on what Chris said, about a year ago I was at SFMOMA, in a room full of photos pulled from the permanent collection. All or nearly all were by acknoledged masters of the discipline. One print fairly jumped off the wall. Now, this is an extraordinary photograph to begin with; but the print itself was luminous. It made prints nearby look drab. Koudelka's print was a demonstration of extraordinary technical virtuosity and I can assure you that seeing the print was not equivalent to seeing the picture on the web or even in a well-printed book. Koudelka does much of his own printing and supervises all of it. The technical virtuosity is, unquestionably, central to his artistic process -- every bit as much as is sleeping on park benches. Photography is for Koudelka life-and-death, and so the man does not mess around.

Another example: Imogen Cunningham, who earned her B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Washington (where I teach), and then earned her master's degree in Photographic Chemistry in Germany. Not messin' around.

To get what you want, you have to learn how to get it.

True in sculpture, true in stone lithography (I had a printmaker friend who lived in Poland for several years because that was where he could get stone blanks of the quality required for his work), true in jazz drumming, true in dance, true in rock guitar, true in photography.
 
As a professional you have to be both.

Lighting and post processing is a skill that has to keep being refined and tinkered with.
 
If technical ability gets in the way of expressing one's self clearly, that is a problem. With every "art", there is certain amount of "craft" that one has to learn or learn as needed to be proficiently expressive. One has to crack eggs to begin to make an omelet.
 
To call yourself a photographer you need to be both an image maker and a technician.

For me, the image comes first. When I take a photograph, I picture it in my mind, and the camera is simply a tool I use to capture that image - but to do so I need complete control over the camera and the resultant image.

To match the previsualised image, I need to know how to achieve the exposure, depth of field, motion blur, shadows, highlights, etc. that I see in my mind - and what is possible or best done using the camera controls and what is best manipulated later using the negative or digital file.

The well-known photographer Terry O'Neill was recently interviewed: he said he's still passionate about photographs but hates using cameras - they're a necessary evil, to extract the pictures from his imagination...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom