Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,669   Online: 761
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112

Thread: On Technique

  1. #61
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,867
    Images
    333
    Great thread going on here.... I think we can all agree that there are so many combinations of silver based materials out there that eyes will glaze over... That said, the adage of keeping it simple in my mind is paramount. I've been down the path of trying to control EVERY detail about making an image to the point where it has actually got in the way.... I, like everyone else here has tried all sorts of films, developers, papers, toners and combinations... I learned fairly early on that material choice, and equipment choice should not get in the way of your vision. While it certainly helps if you do know the technical side of the equation well enough, only if it becomes second nature by sticking with a combination long enough to know how it can be used. It should not involve too much over thinking as it will distract the main goal which is the creative process.. It adds stress in what should really be an enjoyable step.

    I have settled on a few materials over the last few years, like Thomas mentioned, to create a similar look to the images so that bodies of work can be cohesive. The key for me is CONSISTENCY in the use of the equipment, knowledge of materials, and your own personal vision that knows how to bring all this together without over analyzing all the options. As our work evolves, often, the techniques, equipment, and materials evolve as well. However, for me its usually a gradual process, there are no really abrubt material/equipment or 180 degree changes for me any longer.... Unless a major change happens and a product I use is no longer available!! I have found what works well for me at this point in my evolution, others will need to make their own mind up too.

    With as many choices as we still have in the analog world, it can be daunting for some who are new to it, but it should not deter anyone from learning..... and learning using whatever equipment, and materials they choose. All I would say is that learn as much as you can about a particular combination before switching to something else. To some, it might be fun by switching things up all the time, if that floats your boat, then by all means go ahead...YMMV... And that's what is so cool about analog photography.... There is no wrong or right way to do what we do...
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  2. #62
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    It's in vogue to slam Ansel. He's an easy target. I think a significant part of the reason people find Ansel boring is they've seen the work of the million and one rip-off, knock-off photographers who've come since. It's a shame, really. I'd also point out many people judge Adams's creative talent based on a relatively small selection of his images that have become ubiquitous.

    Helinophoto's comments hold no truths. All it is, is personal taste. I really don't think there are more "better" photographers now than there ever were. It might just seem that way because for every Ansel Adams or Paul Strand or (pick any name from the first half of the century), there are now thousands of copyist photographers.

    Frankly, I'm a little disappointed someone like Maximus agrees with all that nonsense. When you talk about the WOW factor in the darkroom, have you looked at earlier printings of Adams's work? It seems to me people are most familiar only with his late 1970s prints, the ones that appear in all the books and have all the zing. And when you say there is better talent today, what exactly are you basing that on? How is that defined? What does a statement like that even mean?

    What a disappointing turn this thread has taken.

    Statements about how Lennon couldn't write music, etc are such tired arguments. Sure, Hendrix wrote good stuff without knowing what a pentatonic scale is, but Bach also wrote great music, and he knew everything.
    Michael,

    No reason to be disappointed, really. Having a conversation/debate, doesn't mean that I have to agree with your views and vice-versa. It's okay. It doesn't have to be a pissing contest and no one should try to impose one's views/beliefs on others. It's okay to disagree.
    As far as Adam's early work, what does that prove? That me and you enjoy his early work more than the later wizardry? Or that if his later work didn't have all the "zing", it wouldn't be hanging in museums and collectors wouldn't be paying thousands (or millions) for a print?

    As far as the music analogy, we're talking opposite ends of the spectrum, and then there is everything in between. You can't play classical music without knowing theory but that doesn't guarantee you success. Still need to have enormous talent. Just like it's true that great classical players can't play jazz or blues because they are too constricted by technique and can't play with their guts. They just know how to read notes. Improvisation and feeling is not what they were taught. Technique is important but it's not everything and when it comes to photography, it is nothing without a good eye and creative vision, which needs nurturing more than anything else, for me of course. I think that here we all agree to the same things and we are saying it in different ways, which creates conflict. It is all very simple. Again, know your materials and what they can do for you. Then go out and take pictures. If they're good, and someone else enjoys them, besides, you, great.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    Fair enough, Max. These types of threads inevitably end up being somewhat about "what is art". And that kind of thing always me riled up. My original point was simply that there is no causal relationship between interest in the technical minutia of the process, and seeing.

  4. #64
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    My partying thought, as I have already spent too much time here...

    You know what the biggest obstacle is for me in photography and what gets me frustrated? Not being THERE. Being there, wherever that may be, is what a photographer needs. It's visual stimulation, places, people, events. Not technique (yes, we need to know some basics but you get my drift). We all live in our little cocoons, typing on our computers and posting on APUG. All it means is that we're not out there making photographs and we're all playing armchair quarterbacks. Kind of sad actually. It gives APUG a raison d'etre but it also means that we are constricting ourselves and wasting time. Life's too short. Oh yeah..and most of us do have day jobs, which makes all of this even more peculiar

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    What else am I supposed to do at work if not typing messages on APUG?

  6. #66
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,154
    Images
    288
    Maybe you could sneak off and process some film?
    "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

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,206
    Images
    21
    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."
    A particularly interesting quote from someone whose very first photograph was really, really good. ("Sleeping Boy, Budapest, 1912"; to my surprise I can't find a copy online, but it's a terrific example of seeing for composition.)

    This is kind of a slippery topic since there's no real definition of "technique". At one extreme, remembering not to open the box of sheet film in room light is a "technique", and failing to learn that one will mess up your images in a hurry!

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  8. #68
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    What else am I supposed to do at work if not typing messages on APUG?
    Work? Who said anything about work???
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  9. #69
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    549
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    A particularly interesting quote from someone whose very first photograph was really, really good. ("Sleeping Boy, Budapest, 1912"; to my surprise I can't find a copy online, but it's a terrific example of seeing for composition.)
    -NT
    This one? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/...f89db526_b.jpg

    Found it here: http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user...50&size=square

    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  10. #70

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    121
    It’s not clear to me what Steiner really means when she says “I never learned anything. I’m happy to say that after 39 years, I have managed not to know too much about photography”. As other posters have mentioned, this has the potential of sounding somewhat arrogant, as in ‘I’m too cool and my art is so great that I don’t even have to consider technique.’

    Somehow, there’s something wrong with saying that “. . .after 39 years. . .I never learned anything. . .” and then to claim that “. . .I’m happy to say” it. I’m sorry, but as a teacher who has always advocated life-long learning to my students, this kind of attitude isn’t good.

    Take a look as I did and decide for yourself whether not Ms. Steiner’s level of technical ability has had a negative impact on the overall quality of her work.

    You can view her work online here:
    http://www.lislsteiner.com/LislStein...re-Photos.html


    Good photography is an appropriate blend of good visual content and good technique – technique that is at least sufficiently adequate so as not to detract from the visual message. The problem comes if we think we can compensate for the lack of one by obsessing about the other.

    I strive to have good technique, but I’m not a slave to it, or allow it to dominate the image making process. I try to make visual content my first priority, and then work to make sure that the technical aspects are always good enough to convey the visual message.

    This modicum of technical proficiency that we’re talking about is certainly not too difficult to attain for the vast majority of us who want to make good photographs. What’s hard to understand is why someone would boast about their ignorance, rather than look for ways to improve all aspects of their work.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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