Its NOT All About the IMAGE!

I'll admit it... that going out and using my camera to make photos is the most exciting thing about photography... then the results. How I get to those results is cool to me too, but not to most people. Only other photographers might be interested in technique... unless your technique is so novel that it can't help but be talked about.
 
I think the image is very important. But how we got there is as well, for the reasons mentioned. If I see a really pleasing photo, and I am not sure how it was made, I want to know so I can duplicate that when/if the need/opportunity presents itself. I don't mean I want to exactly copy someone elses work, but to do something in my style, using techniques someone else has proven to give a result I like. Besides helping me get more photos I want, it helps me grow as a photographer.

For those who don't enjoy anything about the process, OK. Enjoy what you can. I will try to enjoy more.
 
Photo_Smith said:
I think the 'it's only the image crowd' are normally made up of more inexperienced folks who don't understand a process...
Click to expand...
NUTS to that!!!! And I fundamentally disagree with Stephen’s original post.

I’m doing a master’s degree in photography, and rarely does talk about lenses and cameras and how a photograph was made occur on the course - and as for the photographer recalling all the technical details of a photograph, as suggested by Stephen - the settings, the equipment: don’t make me laugh! Most of us on the course have no interest in the “how” of an image - just the “why”. For us, photography is most definitely all about the image - it’s all about what we present to the viewer. The exception is if the means of production of the image is crucial to the integrity of an image (e.g. a project relating the image and technology may require its creation through use of digital or film).

This attitude towards cameras - playing no part in the photographic experience except as mere tools - seems right to me. One of my tutors is Mark Power, the Magnum photographer, and he’s never spoken to us about how he uses his equipment, and no one asks him about cameras either. I’m sure he knows loads - probably: who cares!? (I do know that he’s using film less and less - like many other Magnum photographers - and used video for the first the time in his last project.) We also have regular visits to our MA course from established photographers, most recently Mikhael Subotzky and Alessandra Sanguinetti (both Magnum) and Karren Knorr (currently exhibited in the National Gallery - Britain’s, err, national gallery): none spoke about equipment or technical matters, nor were they asked - the discussions revolved entirely around the image - as it should. It’s all about the image.

Sure, you have to know how to use your tools, and settings and equipment are important - but only when necessary to achieve or replicate a certain image or effect. If I recall which lens I used or camera or aperture, then it’s usually because it’s crucial for future images (e.g. completion of a project, or a style I want to retain).

I like to think that I have a good knowledge of cameras, lenses and other photographic tools. And I like well-crafted mechanical objects – one day, I’d love to own a Le Coultre Compass camera simply because, as a mechanical device, it sings; and I can tell you the history of Mandler’s Leica lenses. But this appreciation of the camera as object has NOTHING to do with how or why I take photographs.

I choose the tools that give me the images I’m after, and have zero interest in how photographs are taken, except as means to an end: the image. That means I’ll never use 35mm film (never have, never will - I learnt my craft with digital cameras) because I consider it dead-end technology: I do use medium- and large-format film on occasion in preference to digital when it suits a project, but minuscule 35mm film has no practical benefits whatsoever over larger film formats or digital.

And I used a rangefinder for several years because it suited my photography - an Epson R-D1, then a Leica M8. I collected some nice lenses, including 35mm and 50mm Summiluxes from the 1970s.

But it’s all about the image ...

My photographic needs have changed, and my overriding requirement now is to produce images as efficiently as possible. A rangefinder is not efficient, so I’ve just sold my entire Leica kit, to buy a “workhorse” camera - one that is flexible, and is easy and quick to use.

So, my new camera is a Nikon D800E. Its advantages include the following: as an SLR, it gives me precisely what I see in the viewfinder; zoom lenses allow me adjust the field of view to my exact requirements (no need to walk or - worse - shuffle the tripod back and forth); it’s as easy to use with manual lenses as with autofocus ones (my preference is for the former - the latter will doubtless prove convenient); the technical quality exceeds my requirement; and 36 MP means that I can make prints as large as door that look pin sharp even when viewers stick their nose.

The Nikon D800E may be superlative as an image-making tool but I have no emotional connection with it whatsoever. As a desirable object, it’s far removed - it has nothing in common with my former Leica camera (and lenses), let alone the Compass camera I mentioned earlier - it’s just a pig ugly lump of plastic and metal and electronics, made down to a price (e.g. nasty, wobbly built-in flash) with far too many functions that I’ll never use (face recognition!?). If it gets stolen or broken, I’ll just feel inconvenienced, and get a replacement on my insurance (whereas if my 1971 35mm Summilux had been stolen, I’d have been gutted!). But it lets me get on with the entire point of photography: to make images.

Cameras are simply a means to an end... it’s all about the image.
 
steveniphoto said:
"You’ve got to deal with how photographs look, what’s there, not how they’re made."

"Photos have no narrative content. They only describe light on surface."

"Photographers mistake the emotion they feel while taking the picture as judgment that the photograph is good."

-Garry Winogrand.
Click to expand...

"Photographers mistake the emotion they feel while taking the picture as judgment that the photograph is good." - indeed!
 
The image is very important to me, but why would I stop there if I can also get
the process, the story, the technique, the tools and the "happy-accidents"?

Totally agree with Stephen.
 
dabick42 said:
In my view, the image only REALLY becomes an over-riding priority if you're a professional photographer and your livelihood depends on pleasing your clients.

To me, as a lifelong amateur, the quality and characteristics of the tools I use to obtain the image matter just as much as the image itself.

I love using all-metal precision instruments like old Leicas and Nikons that were made in an era when quality of build, continuity of spare parts and ease of repair and overhaul were prime manufacturing considerations.

Sadly, only hobbyists can indulge such sentiments nowadays. Professionals are tied to the treadmill of constant technological advances that promise them an ''edge'' over their commercial rivals and for whom this year's ''wunderkamera'' is next year's landfill....
Click to expand...

Must not know enough good and successful pros then because this is one size fits all hogwash...

And sorry Stephen, if the final image is boring, bad, average or below, I am not really going to care how it was obtained. Yes indeed, the journey matters, but in the end, the power of a great photograph is what etches into the mind of the viewer, not what camera he used...
 
Right! If you sell your photos (I do), the customer doesn't give a rip how the image was made. They either like it or not. Only we gearhead photographers like all the other stuff - and - it helps us make better quality photos. Not necessarely better images. IMHO
 
The thing is, while process is interesting, for the viewer it's only of limited interest.

Let's look at it this way. If I go to a restaurant first and foremost I care about how the food tastes. I might find it interesting to learn that the vegetables are from a local farm and that the meat has been slow roasted. At a certain point I just want to eat. I don't care about the specific knives, pots and kettles the chef used. I'm just there to eat.
Now for the chef all that stuff is probably very important. He's the one that uses it for cooking.
 
KM-25 said:
Must not know enough good and successful pros then because this is one size fits all hogwash...

And sorry Stephen, if the final image is boring, bad, average or below, I am not really going to care how it was obtained. Yes indeed, the journey matters, but in the end, the power of a great photograph is what etches into the mind of the viewer, not what camera he used...
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree. Well said. Kudos to RichC for his comments above as well.

The process might matter to ME as the photographer in some cases, I may love the smell of a darkroom or relish in the experience of shooting a wonderful camera. In viewing the finished image I may get some additional satisfaction in knowing what I went through and used to produce the result, to the outside viewer it's meaningless in most cases.

Think of Nick Ut's Napalm Girl image that helped turn public sentiment against the Vietnam war. Does anyone at all care about the camera/lens used (I know), developer chosen, agitation method, strap type, timing of recent CLA or even film type and speed? Is that what made the image resonate or what gave it depth! Of course not.

All this said I don't mean to say gear doesn't matter, it does. You need equipment that fits your style and provides the functionality that you require to create the kind of image you seek. For each of us that choice can be wildly different.
 
I’m doing a master’s degree in photography, and rarely does talk about lenses and cameras and how a photograph was made occur on the course - and as for the photographer recalling all the technical details of a photograph, as suggested by Stephen - the settings, the equipment: don’t make me laugh!
Click to expand...

You've certainly given me a good giggle. I've been taking pictures for 45 years. For most of the first fifteen years of that time, I was earning my living from my cameras and I did quite nicely, thank you. I have no idea how many images I've recorded, but certainly well into 6 figures.

Guess what, put one of those images in front of me and in 9 out of 10 cases I'll tell you what camera I was using and and which lens. Oh yes, before you ask, I've used more than a few cameras.

Still, you've reminded me what academics are for...

:D
 
If I go out for a nice afternoon photo walk and come home to find no roll was loaded in the darned camera, it does not detract at all from the fun I've had walking around "seeing" with a photographer's eye and operating a beautifully crafted machine... though I won't deny some sailor-worthy vocabulary might escape my lips upon discovering the mistake.



Some people eat to live and some live to eat. Most are somewhere along the two extremes.
 
KM-25 said:
Yes indeed, the journey matters, but in the end, the power of a great photograph is what etches into the mind of the viewer, not what camera he used...
Click to expand...

Exactly. I couldn't tell you what camera and lens was used for any of my favorite photographs (made by others). Not that I'm immune to wanting to know these things, but if you aren't into photography or gear, you are only going to care about the image.
 
Agreed"...Good to know your Gear & how to maximize its Potential
But Bottom Line
It's 'The Image' that Captivates and resonates thru The Ages
 
Depends how you define 'It's' I guess.

Personally I think the statement 'It's all about the image' is nonsensical. 'It's all about the viewer' more like.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
You've certainly given me a good giggle. I've been taking pictures for 45 years. For most of the first fifteen years of that time, I was earning my living from my cameras...

Guess what, put one of those images in front of me and in 9 out of 10 cases I'll tell you what camera I was using and and which lens. Oh yes, before you ask, I've used more than a few cameras.

Still, you've reminded me what academics are for...

:D
Click to expand...
If you note, you'll see that despite my academic setting, I mention practising photographers - three Magnum photographers no less! And Karen Knorr has been exhibited in the most prestigious national museums and galleries in Britain, including Tate Britain, the V&A and the National Gallery. Hardly "academics"...!

I'm sure I and my fellow MA students and the aforementioned photographers (and my tutors - most of whom are also practising photographers) could talk about cameras and technique - but it's irrelevant when discussing the practice of photography: why we take the photographs we do, and our and others' reaction to them. It's not that we don't know or care about equipment or process or lack the knowledge - you cannot be an effective photographer without knowing or caring about such things - it's about relevance.

What is the point of paying so much attention to process that you recall which camera and lens was used to take a photograph? What possible use is that? Unless it helps your photography in some way - speeds up taking certain types of image, or recreates a certain look.

I often have no idea which camera or lens I used! Nor do I care, as it has no impact whatsoever on my picture-making. But if a particular process, setting or item of equipment is important, I will remember...

Appreciating the equipment isn't photography, and, I'd argue, is anti-photography. The point of photography – the entire raison d’etre for its invention , to which everything else should be subservient – is the making of the photographic image, a record of a slice of reality created by machine.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating or selecting photographic tools because of how they’re made, their connection with history or any other reason – provided this does not get in the way of the image. If your photographs are lessened in any way by the tools or process you use or, worse, if you are more interested in gear than creating images, then you are arguably not a photographer but a collector, because you are failing to put the image first.

That is not to say you cannot use a rangefinder, or 35mm film or eschew digital if that’s your preference - provided that the images you create are not held back in any way. That is, the means of production of your photographs is entirely suited to their creation and intended use. For example, I will never use 35mm film because it is unsuitable for sharp prints much above 15 inches width, and film is a slow process - and I often want big prints and to see my images quickly; but someone else may find 35mm film entirely suitable – requiring neither large prints nor speed.

Lastly:
doolittle said:
Personally I think the statement 'It's all about the image' is nonsensical. 'It's all about the viewer' more like.
Click to expand...
No. A picture – any picture, whether a photograph, a painting or any other medium – is a two-way process: it’s all about the viewer and its author. The intent of its creator is as important as the viewer’s response, and whether the two are in accord or interpret the picture entirely differently is immaterial.

To me, “It’s all about the image” implies consideration of the photographer’s intent and the viewer’s response. How can it not...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom