Can A Technical Mindset Stifle Creativity?

[Spider67]

"I have probably 500 rare cameras and endless lenses all over the place, but I just pick up what's handy when I want a shot."

Thanks God I am not alone with that habit!
Actually a technically talented person has many things in common with a talented artist: Both find ways of doing/expressing things nobody thought of before. Think of Barnack: He saw what no one else saw when it came to design a compact lightweigt camera. There were others before him who designed cameras that used perforated 35mm film but he had the vision of a genius to develop this elegant little container with a compact lens that even a didital PS canot entirely deny as an ancestor. I think that's the technical genius that can't be learned or taught. So lets not diss the technician per se. maybe his pictures were mundane, but yes he did them in his spare time when he gave the genius in himself a break.
The photographer Oscar mentionned at least knows what kind of directions she would have to give to her assistants.
One thing I noticed (and did) myself: A photographer who makes portraits or even nudes puts his model in a very uncomfortable mood when he keeps mumbling to himself technical data or tinkers on his camera while she's sitting there virtually ignored.
But thanks to all the tinkerers and camera CSI's I now make little repairs and adjustments myself keeping my money when it comes to align an FSU rangefinder or to fix an Exacta bayonet.
.....And then there's this sad confession I have to make: Yes I sometimes mused over buying a piece of gear or a photo book as an ersatz activity to taking photographs (wonderful German expression: Ersatzhandlung). And that's the danger: If I just hadn't this tedious job, if I just had this camera (just thought about buying an M2), I definitely need the Summikton when I have it I will start....or I would smother Newton, Sieff etc If I just had a model....
Another aspect is when we see a single method that produces spectacular results: Like crossdeveloping slide film.......A driend of mine who works as a an art director for a while now like my photos but he nearly threw my cross developed glamourpics at my face because who was still fed up form all the stuff he had to see in the eighties.
What joy and relief when I took yesterday a D40 with an 50mm AF lens put it on P and shot right away! No thinking just watching..and browsing through the aperture/speed combinations I could use in the programm mode......
....But of course ther were some tiny adjustments I had to make before I started.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Maybe we should all give that womens' underwear thing a try.

 

[Tuna]

Ahh,...RFF. I am constantly reminded that this forums discussions are like an Istanbul coffeehouse full of old men. They've run out of things to say so they just keep talking.

 

[Spider67]

A tad unfair....

A tad unfair....

Ahh,...RFF. I am constantly reminded that this forums discussions are like an Istanbul coffeehouse full of old men. They've run out of things to say so they just keep talking.

in that case......but maybe I just don't like to be compared to a coffeehouse...or an old man😛

 

[Jason Sprenger]

Seemingly any fool can create something, a technician can create to a deadline, and a master can create something with an enduring appeal.

I find that technicians get lost in gear and methods which admittedly is something that happens to me frequently.

Seeing my brother's success with a 35mm P&S and no real interest in cameras, I often remind myself that he is only framing the scene and snapping a picture.

Simply put, filling the viewfinder with the right stuff is the most important thing. Working the camera and printing the results are nice but not as important.

 

[photogdave]

I don't believe in the concept of the photographer who "doesn't know an F-stop from a bus stop", who is constantly employed to shoot magazine covers and is celebrated for producing consistently fabulous work while having zero technical knowledge.
I think it's an urban myth.
It's possible and probable that there are photographers, and other kinds of artists, who have LIMITED technical knowledge and can earn a living that way. I know some of them. But they are, and have to be, familiar with the basics of shutter, aperture, ISO etc.
Anyone who claims they know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of photography but earn a living from it are exaggerating their ignorance.

 

[peterm1]

I think it can but am not entirely sure if it is just because those who are technically inclined tend not to be as artistically inclined - generalising I know! So dont jump on me with exceptions. But is this something that cna change over time - some would say not.

Having said that however I can say that there was a time that I was really mainly interested in the "hardare" and took relatively few photos. Now I am more interested in the image making process and actually use my cameras. I think what changed is the ease of shooting digital compared with film. As a result I am slowly rationalising my stock of cameras and lenses to concentrate on the better ones I actually use. So for me it has been a progression from technical to artistic, so perhaps I am that exception "that proves the rule." But it is certainly true no matter what that while I was beguiled with the technology I was less into the art. Now it is visa versa so there is still something in this view.

 

[helen.HH]

I always preferred Blind Faith's "Do What You Like." 🙂

As for never-touch-the-stuff-m'self, A-list artists...Warhol did a fair amount of that, if I remember right, but we're talking about hands-on sorts. If someone creates something that truly rivets me, does it matter if the artist is a technical ignoramus? To me, it might if the person made a point of parading his/her ignorance as if she's just pulled Excalibur from the stone, but that's an attitudinal response quite apart from the work itself.
Knowing what you're doing is ideal, but don't let it get in the way of doing interesting work. (Took me ages to get the hang of that, and I still need refresher courses now and then...)
- Barrett

BARRETT: LOVELY...so well said ...LOVED it & in agreement 😀

XRAY: we once butt heads over the 21 Super Angulon & Signature concept
You got so cross with me I believe You left the site for a number of Months....
So I never had the Opportunity to tell YOU
how Much I ADMIRED your work in the Gallery
Your civil Rights shots & most of your work here Does NOT have that commercial technical appeal to my EYE
They are 'Artsy' & filled with Human Emotion..something a Technocrat would Not understand
So I do think You are abit hard on Yourself
and Great to Hear your Back & Letting GO...

My apologies to the Past & Good Will to the Future
Best to You - Helen 🙂

 

[snausages]

XRay, your work in the Gallery is ****ing beautiful.

Now go have some whiskey, put on panties, and shoot whatever you feel like, whether it's painstaking or reckless...

 

[x-ray]

Im not saying I'm not creative. I wouldn't have worked for the clients and shot the assignments that I have if I wasn't creative. I just feel bound by the need for technical perfection. I'm hoping that I can break the chains by using simpler cameras and tossing caution to the wind. AF and program mode seem to be helping. I want to be able to overlook technical flaws in favor of content. I would like to become less structured and more fluid in my photography. P & AF have been a part of my commercial work since those modes appeared but I've used them like the auto pilot when I'm flying. I use the AP in the aircraft to relieve the work load while I deal with other aspects of the journey and that's how I use P & AF on a camera. I use the auto functions so that I can concentrate on what my model or models are doing. Now I'm trying to train myself to usevthese functions so that I can do more creative shooting such as shooting from the hip or shoot from near the ground while walking with my subject.

 

[amateriat]

I don't believe in the concept of the photographer who "doesn't know an F-stop from a bus stop", who is constantly employed to shoot magazine covers and is celebrated for producing consistently fabulous work while having zero technical knowledge.
I think it's an urban myth.
It's possible and probable that there are photographers, and other kinds of artists, who have LIMITED technical knowledge and can earn a living that way. I know some of them. But they are, and have to be, familiar with the basics of shutter, aperture, ISO etc.
Anyone who claims they know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of photography but earn a living from it are exaggerating their ignorance.

Well, in another thread, a short while ago, I mentioned the story of working in a b/w custom lab around 1980, which had Jill Krementz as a client. She was shooting work for a book she was working on, and was sending in a lot of film for developing and contact sheets. The guy making the contacts (Kodak Azo paper, I think) was pulling his hair out to get workable contacts, because Krementz exposures were literally all over the place, and she kept sending the contacts back to be redone. After several weeks of this, the lab's owner gave Krementz a call and asked to meet with her over lunch to discuss the problem. They then went to a local camera shop, at his suggestion. She left the shop with a new Nikon FM and several lenses.

And, just like that, the problem was solved. Her film was suddenly so evenly exposed it was almost eerie. (Edit: Her previous camera had no meter, and apparently she didn't use a handheld meter.) Our Contact Guy was laughing out loud at how some so well-known for her photography, with a bunch of books under her belt, as well as being published in magazines, could appear to be so clueless about a basic, non-esoteric technical aspect of photography. The lab owner reminded him that this goes on a lot more than he thinks, and that between a good eye and a headful of tech notes, the eye wins...usually.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

XRay, your work in the Gallery is ****ing beautiful.

Now go have some whiskey, put on panties, and shoot whatever you feel like, whether it's painstaking or reckless...

Better still, have some vodka with a twist, but don't get your panties in one. 😀


- Barrett

 

[helen.HH]

Magritte wore women's underwear.

Haven't we all from time to time?

YES, I always Do....
make mine a Martini 😱

Cheers- H

 

[mfunnell]

Anyone who claims they know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of photography but earn a living from it are exaggerating their ignorance.

I don't know many people who make a living from photography, but I do know a few people who, as you say, have limited technical knowledge of photography yet manage to take what I see as good photographs - because they seem to have a good eye.

I guess it comes down to how "absolutely" you want to interpret knowing "nothing". The people I'm talking about are entirely uninterested in the theory behind things: they tend to want to know how to achieve an effect, they'll take notes, and when they want the effect they'll refer to the notes and dial in the settings, cook-book style. If they use some settings frequently enough they just remember, without referring to their notes. I'm not sure that translates, really, as technical knowledge.

What is true is the approach can work pretty well in these days of auto-everything cameras (although, of course, it also creates opportunities for things to go awry).

...Mike

 

[kkdanamatt]

I don't believe in the concept of the photographer who "doesn't know an F-stop from a bus stop", who is constantly employed to shoot magazine covers and is celebrated for producing consistently fabulous work while having zero technical knowledge.
I think it's an urban myth.
It's possible and probable that there are photographers, and other kinds of artists, who have LIMITED technical knowledge and can earn a living that way. I know some of them. But they are, and have to be, familiar with the basics of shutter, aperture, ISO etc.
Anyone who claims they know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of photography but earn a living from it are exaggerating their ignorance.

True story: back in the 1970's I sold some Hasselblad equipment to Constance Bannister, the famous baby photographer (remember her book, "Bannister's Babies"?). Anyway, I drove out to her country home in Long Island and delivered the Hassy stuff...bodies, lenses, film backs, etc.
Her studio was filled with Hassies on tripods, lighting equipment, props, etc. I then found out that she didn't even know how to load a roll of 120 film into a Hassy magazine. Her husband, Joe, loaded the mags, and set the correct shutter speed and f/stop. Constance "just" posed the baby, composed the shot and pushed the cable release. Joe did the rest.

 

[x-ray]

Thanks Helen. My appology too.

One thing I've noticed about artists, photographers, writers and others involved in creating is that many of us know our own work like the back of our hand. Its just too familiar to be exciting any longer. I guess changing style brings a degree of uncertainty and new unfamiliar images. Our images become fresh again.

 

[amateriat]

Thanks Helen. My appology too.

One thing I've noticed about artists, photographers, writers and others involved in creating is that many of us know our own work like the back of our hand. Its just too familiar to be exciting any longer. I guess changing style brings a degree of uncertainty and new unfamiliar images. Our images become fresh again.

I think that's what Winogrand hit upon when he explained why he sat on so much of his work for months or even years after shooting it. A degree of detachment from the "moment", if you will, allows one to approach one's own work with a relatively clean palate, so to speak, although this obviously works better from some than for others.


- Barrett

 

[x-ray]

I rarely put my work on the wall for my pleasure. I put it up for clients and guests. My wife is a painter and feels much the same about her work. We both get great pleasure from others work but little from our own. Our home is filled with other photographers and artists work.

 

[JohnnyT]

Hmmm

Hmmm

When I began to work as an editor, I was persuade that the perfection lied on the edge of the technique mastering... I think ...I was right...and wrong...:bang:

So I've studied all form of video technique...mastered my editing software...mastered the dreadful After Effects... to lend me... to nothing actually... I was so fond in the technical that I've forgot the most important... my heart... I was at the time a video editor offline (I assemble the stuff), online (the finishing) and a Compositing Artist (high end visual effects).

When I decide to became an editor, I wanted to edit movies and stuff... But... the market of today ask for technically perfect editors... so...

Then, my best friend told me that I'm not really an artist...but more a technician... He had no evil intention; he was, actually right....

After, I've decided to stop reading all those techical stuff all the time... I turn myself again to screenplay...photography... I rediscovered how life was beautiful and the act of creating was so simple... I could say that I do not regret my technical studies because I use those techniques to achieve what I've got in mind... You must understand the world to control it... It's what I think... You can, by mistake, create a wonderful piece of art... but not all the time... To create a masterpiece, it take times, effort, talent....and techniques.

For example, you can't write a screenplay without knowing what the dramaturgy is. This can be indeed an inner talent; but you still need to master it.

Concerning the cinematography, you can't actually light a movie without being a really good technician. First, movie cost a LOT of money.... Second, it's far more complicated to create a shot for the cinema than for the photography, more people, more thing implicated, less margin in post-production.... So, a newbie on a set do not have his place... This maybe sound rigid, but my experience with newbie always been painful in this business. Everybody as his chance to begin, but master the craft before mastering the art.

Of course, this is totally subjective... but it's working for me...

 

[Oscar Levant]

It's not an "urban myth". I hired her and I used her photos.

There's plenty of "photographers" right now who barely have a clue as to what they're doing, but they're making a living.

Go here right now and read this forum:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33

You have people buying $4100 lenses to take photos of their kids who don't know anything at all about basic exposure or aperture, all of them encouraging each other, and 9 out of 10 of them don't have any idea what they're talking about. It's astonishing, the power of the cult group-think to influence behavior.

I don't believe in the concept of the photographer who "doesn't know an F-stop from a bus stop", who is constantly employed to shoot magazine covers and is celebrated for producing consistently fabulous work while having zero technical knowledge.
I think it's an urban myth.
It's possible and probable that there are photographers, and other kinds of artists, who have LIMITED technical knowledge and can earn a living that way. I know some of them. But they are, and have to be, familiar with the basics of shutter, aperture, ISO etc.
Anyone who claims they know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of photography but earn a living from it are exaggerating their ignorance.