Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,276   Posts: 1,534,711   Online: 893
      
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 112

Thread: On Technique

  1. #21
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post

    That's obviously my opinion, and I can't read her mind.
    I've scheduled a visit with her next month so I will ask details about that quote. This is always an interesting, if polarizing conversation

  2. #22
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,803
    Images
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I don't think she means that you shouldn't know anything at all about photography. You obviously have to know how to see to be any good at it. You know, light, timing, personality, connection with the subject matter, empathy, all that is important obviously.

    What I think she's referring to are those that focus too much on the technical side of photography too much, understanding how all lenses work, how the minute details of one developer is different from another, etc. At least that's how I read her statement. The more you focus on those aspects of photography, the more you will be distracted from focusing on what's in front of you.

    That's obviously my opinion, and I can't read her mind.
    it's always a problem to generalize...

    The bold quote made me think of one of the most expressive exhibitions I have ever seen (held in Prague). Done by blind children! So sensitive - great images....

    I remember Sally Mann saying something about how she so didn't want to be too "good" in wet plate (the pouring part), as she was almost counting on the failures/mistakes on the plates...

    But I also know W Moersch.... a true master in what he does, and I think his techniques helps him achieve his goals....

    Photography is - or so it seems - different to other aspects of Art (?).
    When D Helfgott became famous due to the film "the shine", I heard him play some Rachmaninov - and hated every bit of it - due to the lack of technique...

    On the other hand I don't really like the "new master" of piano playing Lang Lang, and that is partly due to his technique...

    As I see it, technique is a tool. A means to an end. If one makes it the "end", then photography could be a new discipline in the Olympics...

    an image can't be great because of the technique, or lack of it - or even the choise of it..

    the chosen technique should be closely integrated in the subject matter - so in the end, we're not looking at a photograph, but on an image.

    This is why I still try.
    The "perfect" photographs have been made long time ago... Why should we/I also do it?

    Proberly for the same reason some still play Rachmaninov...

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,676
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I believe part of it is simply not having to think about technique.

    What I mean is that if I'm using a bunch of brain cells trying to figure out how to take a shot, while I'm taking the shot, the shot suffers artistically.

    If the technical bits are simply routine or no adjustment is possible, therefore not requiring any significant decisions, the shot improves.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaďs Nin

  4. #24
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,233
    Images
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by gandolfi View Post
    an image can't be great because of the technique, or lack of it - or even the choise of it..

    the chosen technique should be closely integrated in the subject matter - so in the end, we're not looking at a photograph, but on an image.
    I understand what you say about a means to an end, and I largely agree with what you say. In some way shape or form I think that if we print our own prints, then we have to know a little bit about darkroom technique. And knowing about exposure helps the darkroom work with less waste and so on.

    What I don't understand is what the difference is between a photograph and an image. I thought we are all photographers here, and as far as I know we all produce photographs. Is it perhaps a translation thing?

    I just call them all pictures. Drives some people nuts, but that can be fun too. Especially when I say 'take pictures'. Oh yeah... hahaha
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    657
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    .....It seems that many photographers that I admire are disinterested in technique, to a degree that they think the more you know, the worse the results will be. Isn't that interesting in a type of interest that many regard as highly technical?
    Even a Lie detector couldn't catch them if they are honest or no
    Add the fact that some photographers convert to painters and start having identity issues or the issues just got reintroduced in new light...

  6. #26
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    This brings to mind a quote from André Kertész: "Technique isn't important, go on and make mistakes. I've been making mistakes since 1912."

    Anyway, learning technique is very important, of course. But accomplished people eventually realize that the technique was just the very first step along a long path that may ultimately lead nowhere in particular.

    Our culture rates genius so highly, some people find it embarrassing to admit that they had to take that first baby step just like everyone else.

    Other people (a.k.a. teachers) don't have that ego issue and are willing to discuss the complexities in the learning process, with the hope that they might help others.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,233
    Images
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    This brings to mind a quote from André Kertész: "Technique isn't important, go on and make mistakes. I've been making mistakes since 1912."

    Anyway, learning technique is very important, of course. But accomplished people eventually realize that the technique was just the very first step along a long path that may ultimately lead nowhere in particular.

    Our culture rates genius so highly, some people find it embarrassing to admit that they had to take that first baby step just like everyone else.

    Other people (a.k.a. teachers) don't have that ego issue and are willing to discuss the complexities in the learning process, with the hope that they might help others.
    You obviously have to have some technique. If you don't know how to load your camera, or what buttons to push to take the picture, then you can't practice photography.

    Once again, I think it's implied that technique shouldn't be the focusing point of photography. It should be a means to achieve the print. And even though it might be a lot of fun and self satisfying, endless experimentation with materials, lenses, tripod and boot straps isn't necessarily going to make our collections of photographs any better. I think perhaps awareness of that may be important to find a healthy balance.

    In my own experience, and for my own work, I find that simple is best. The less factors and variables I have when I take pictures and make prints the better it is, because I like my results better. Creativity in my process I hope comes from my brain and how I use my materials, and not so much an intricate knowledge of what it all means in words. It's like simply reacting to the subject matter, and make as little as possible stand between myself and it.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,617
    [QUOTE=Rudeofus;1248391]A lot of artists engage in sheer limitless self flattery and self promotion when they talk about their art. "I don't care about technique" and "I know nothing about photography" should be read as "I am so great that even poor technique doesn't make my magnificent pieces of art any less valuable" or "Being a technical imbecile makes me an even greater artist".
    QUOTE]

    I would tend to agree with this. There seem to be two kinds of people who use that. 1) People making excuses for bad craftsmanship, and 2) Talented big names who conveniently forget or gloss over their interest in technical details or their earlier years. Brett Weston is a good example of category 2. His apparent total lack of interest in technique has no doubt added to the mystique. "He's so good he doesn't even have to know what dilution to use for LPD". Give me a break. I am pretty sure over his career, and particularly in his early years, he experimented and tested all sorts of materials, and I'll bet he focused a lot more on technique than he let on. There are clues to this here and there, like how each Weston, including the great "technical idiot" Brett, had his own special ratios for Amidol, etc.

    I stand by my assertion there is nothing inherent in technical thinking that precludes the making of great photographs.

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,233
    Images
    295
    Michael,

    I don't think that there is anything in photography that is correct. And there isn't anything that is entirely wrong either.

    What I wanted this thread to lead to was to perhaps generate some discussion around the topic, so that people can decide for themselves what's important to them.
    While you opine that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, I argue that brilliant technique isn't necessary to be a great photographer. I don't see why those two approaches couldn't coexist, because there's room for both. What is important, however, is to figure out where we want to go with our photography, and more importantly, how to get there. For my own purposes I am almost always entirely happy with my print quality. I honestly don't feel that I need to look at another paper, film, camera, lens, camera strap, or whatever, to get the final print that I want. I do feel it to be absolutely essential to keep my imagination alive, to find interesting subject matter and interesting moments to photograph. The more the technical side of my photography is a constant, I feel the more I am able to develop those areas.

    For someone that is possibly not as happy with their print quality, the situation may be completely different, and it's obviously important what it is we wish to achieve with our photography. You know, we all try to find value in our lives, to fill them with as much joy as possible, so that we can be pleased with ourselves when we can't go after those things anymore. Memories, experiences, and so on. To some that achievement could be to write something like a Darkroom Cookbook, and to others it could be to have portfolios of work that they feel great about. The key is, once we decide what we wish to achieve, we can make decisions. Me, I want to be able to continue to make prints that are easy to make, where it's effortless to express what I want to express. That's all.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,874
    Images
    62
    I'm not convinced there is a "technical side" and "artistic side" beyond the very basics. Assuming goals of art and meaning, photography is a process of seeing; and therefore to assume overly broad generalisations and privilege say "portraiture" over aspects of "landscape" is absurd. Although Ansel Adams is not my favourite photographer as such, I am very dubious of the notion that HCB could be considered superior in some ill-defined sense.

    Tom

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin