are we image makers or technicians?

Photography involves both artistic and technical skills and their discerning application.

It seems to me that film based photography requires more of an artistic approach, while digital requires more of a technical approach.

Then there's the hybrid approach - photographers who photograph with film, develop it and then outsource the print making to a printer who scans the negs and makes inkjet prints (or do this themselves), AKA changing horses in midstream. If this hybrid approach works for them and they are satisfied with the resulting prints, I see no harm.
 
jsrockit said:
an equipment site more so than a photography site
Click to expand...

anyone who knows about the technical side of photography also knows the limitation and potential of equipment. for instance anyone who knows the basics of digital photography should also know that fuji jpgs are very good because fuji knows how to process xtrans RAW files, but why is it that fuji not sharing that knowledge with its customers?

knowledge of photography technique frees you from GAS
 
rivercityrocker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough I can totally understand that. I hold back my feelings most of the time about photographs I don't like. There are times where I will just point out certain things just deepening how sensitive that person is other times I'll just tell it like it is and be pretty direct about it, but I do like to be constructive..There is no right or wrong really its opinion and everyone has a different opinion. It might not might not be a lack of vocabulary, but knowing how to read a photograph and express what the viewer sees. When I see comments about photographs they are usually in the effect, Nice Work, Well done, I like it..etc…I mean if you like it give me something more I want to learn something for someone else's comment and apply it to what see or not see..
 
noisycheese said:
Photography involves both artistic and technical skills and their discerning application.

It seems to me that film based photography requires more of an artistic approach, while digital requires more of a technical approach.

Then there's the hybrid approach - photographers who photograph with film, develop it and then outsource the print making to a printer who scans the negs and makes inkjet prints (or do this themselves), AKA changing horses in midstream. If this hybrid approach works for them and they are satisfied with the resulting prints, I see no harm.
Click to expand...

Sorry I have to disagree It just doesn't matter whether its film or digital the artistic approach is the same the technical approach is a bit different you have to know the limitations of both..I've shot film for 20+ years and now shoot mostly digital to me the only difference between the 2 is from a technical standpoint and you could argue an aesthetics of each..
 
My tuppence for the technician.

The image we produce is a product of choices we make. Those choices are technique. Even more -- the possibilities we see in a scene are, in many ways, products of our technical knowledge.

The world looks different at f1.4 and f8
The world looks different at 1/10th of a second and 1/125th of a second
The world looks different through a 24mm and a 75.
The world looks different shot at EV10 and EV14
The world looks different depending on whether it's shot with a Sonnar design or a Planar.
The degree to which a lens is spherically corrected makes a difference. Coma makes a difference, flatness of field makes a difference. Tri-X is different from TMAX or HP5.

When you look out at the world you see what is there but you also see what is possible as a result of all of the choices that you know can be made. If you don't know what can be done, technically, you are missing things. You don't necessarily see them if you do know what can be done, but lack of technique is blinding. And it's so very easy to learn.
 
Photography allows you to be whatever you want to be - gearhead or artist or anything between the two.
IMO turning to internet photo forums to define "photography" for you is a cruel joke, because these forums
represent various things to all kinds of people, some of whom come to the internet simply to pi$$ on people's shoes.

It's important to stop agonizing over other peoples' opinions, and just get on with making your pictures,
or collecting your gear or whatever it is that you love to do.
 
Margu said:
anyone who knows about the technical side of photography also knows the limitation and potential of equipment. for instance anyone who knows the basics of digital photography should also know that fuji jpgs are very good because fuji knows how to process xtrans RAW files, but why is it that fuji not sharing that knowledge with its customers?

knowledge of photography technique frees you from GAS
Click to expand...

Not sure why you quoted me on this rant...
 
35photo said:
Fair enough I can totally understand that. I hold back my feelings most of the time about photographs I don't like. There are times where I will just point out certain things just deepening how sensitive that person is other times I'll just tell it like it is and be pretty direct about it, but I do like to be constructive..There is no right or wrong really its opinion and everyone has a different opinion. It might not might not be a lack of vocabulary, but knowing how to read a photograph and express what the viewer sees. When I see comments about photographs they are usually in the effect, Nice Work, Well done, I like it..etc…I mean if you like it give me something more I want to learn something for someone else's comment and apply it to what see or not see..
Click to expand...

I don't have problems telling people that a photo is good, and I always make it a point to say what I like about it when I do. There's nothing worse than seeing all these photos on flickr with a million comments that all say "COOL PIC!" and have a million sparkly "awards".

By far my most hated comment is nice bokeh. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN!?!

As far as the "no right or wrong" thing goes, that's true to an extent but there are standards (or there should be). A lot of people use those words as an excuse for their bad photos. When you're in a juried exhibit there's a semblance of standards that constitutes "right or wrong" and that's used as a criteria for inclusion. Sure there's some flexibility and opinions are obviously involved, but there are lots of "rules" that if broken will get a photo excluded.

I mean this is a slippery slope to go down because some people will say that it doesn't matter what judges or other people think, etc... But without some guidelines how do you even establish standards? Is it OK to have blown out highlights just because "there is no right or wrong"? Then again sometimes the wrong thing works and therefore it's "right".

Then you have the people that say, "it doesn't matter if the picture isn't perfect as long as the customer is happy". But if the photographer knows that they could have made it better, but didn't because the customer doesn't know any better what does that say about the photographer?

I guess what I'm saying is that if you have the ability to make a technically perfect photograph, but you don't because you think it's "good enough" and you're too lazy then you're not really a photographer, just a picture-taker. There are rules to photography and you need to learn them first, THEN you can break them because you will know why you are breaking them.

Then again, what do I know?
 
I don't understand why people give a hoot about whether or not their camera shows external signs of wear, much less base the value in the second-hand market on such superficial criteria.

On a site here in France that some people here will surely remember, I have seen a thread by a fellow with a highly-brassed M9-P. I thought it looked fine, but the image raised a lot of polarized reactions. Eventually people calmed down and remembered that the key thing was what kind of photos it has been used to make (some were quite nice, in fact).

Rarely do I see people sell or buy an item saying "this is the body that helped me capture some of the most amazing photos of my life!"
 
The range of opinions in this thread is amazing.

The technical discussions have raged as long as there have been two people involved in making photographs. I recall once upon a time there was a controversy about whether or not to give film a wet bath before the developer went in the tank. And then endless discussions about which developer was 'best' with which film. And frankly, I have great disdain for ANY person who can't rattle off the formula for the bellows extension factor. Even more important is IFGA, or the ability to calculate the actual size on the ground of an object in an aerial negative knowing the altitude of the aircraft, focal length of the lens, and size of the negative. (Ok... that last part about the formulas is tongue-in-cheek.)

Ok, so how technical do we need to get? There's a huge difference though between knowing how to make a camera work, even if the menus are deep and complex, and being a photographer. Making the camera work is, frankly, only a very small part of making images.

There's nothing wrong with making snapshots. I do it all the time. It can be fun and they don't have to be technically perfect. Some of my favorite images are snapshots of my family at gatherings.

It's the technical knowledge I possess, however, and knowing exactly when and how to deploy that technical knowledge to make the image I want that makes me a photographer. Knowing how much DOF I'll get with a specific lens, and then using that knowledge to have what I want in-focus in the frame, for example. And knowing how to deal with a limited dynamic range in a high-contrast situation... knowing what my options are and then choosing one instead of just pressing the button and hoping for the best.

I'd say you are what you want to be by how willing you are to actually learn the deep technical end of this craft that we here share in common.
 
Both, and it has always been that way.

It takes a substantial degree of technical ability to be a good photographer. Without good technique even the best "artist" isn't any good if they can't get their vision into the print.

I do agree that many here, and most on some of the other forums I read, are pure gearheads, often with weak knowledge of the basics of photography and little, if any, of the art.
 
danielsterno said:
content rules
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth in that statement.

One of my photographic peers used to reserve his most scalding condemnation for a select few images that were beyond abysmal. When I'd ask him what he thought of such an image, his only reply would be "Absolutely no content."

You can't really say much worse than that about a photograph...
 
It is an interesting question but I would answer that I am neither.

I have friends in a local photo group who regularly obsess over the latest cameras, their functions, sensor size, etc and who pixel-peep to be sure they get the best shadow performance for the money. I can't relate at all because I have made my choice and that is film and I am happy with what I use. Really liberating feeling.

I have never really considered myself a "photographer" because I always thought they were the ones working professionally. Silly viewpoint, perhaps.

Does that make me an "image maker" (which is a bit of an odd term really)?

Perhaps yes. But I'd rather use the label observer, which is how I've always seen myself.

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