learning from photos on line????

[stradibarrius]

When you look at photographs that have been posted on line, here and other photo forums, what are the things you look for or hoping to learn?
Do you just look at it or do you hope to learn anything from the photo?
Because the image is digitized can you expect to learn anything about the film, developer, lens etc.?
I hope this question reveals the question I am "trying" to ask.
I spend a lot of time looking at others photo trying and hoping to learn something.
I think I will leave it at that and see what responses are posted.

[Martin Aislabie]

I'm sure my composition has improved from looking at the photographs of others.

I'm not sure you can get anything else from them though.

The nuances of tones on a forum are nothing like as rich as a real print.

Martin

[Ken Lee]

Not everyone is interested in beauty - or even has it as a priority - but if you are, you can learn about it everywhere.

[Kirk Gittings]

A properly exposed linear scanned negative can be pretty much made to look like virtually any film/developer combination by a skilled worker. So no I don't think you can tell much about an image online beyond composition and final presentation of tones.

[Peter Lewin]

I enjoy seeing what others are doing for inspiration and ideas. I also do some amount of private critiquing, asking myself "why did the photographer make/post that image?" or "wow, what a great perspective" and sometimes "gee, I wish I lived in the Southwest or California, we just don't have that in NJ!"

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]Because the image is digitized can you expect to learn anything about the film, developer, lens etc.?

Well, when I started there were only halftone photo reproductions. Still, except for the very rare Scitex equipment there existed nothing common like our current post-processing tools. I rarely trust that a digital image has not been overly processed.

IMHO, once a film has been scanned it enters the uncertain world of monitor presentation.
.

[Jim Jones]

Traditional darkroom manipulations have long simulated some of the effects of digital editing. Several dissimilar examples of Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico are available online for comparison. More dramatic are the darkroom alternations of William Mortensen as seen in some of the links in the thread
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?117541-Mortensen-the-Antichrist. We can't always tell from either prints or online images what the photographer initially saw or captured on film. However, either source should be a useful guide for most of us. Certainly they can be inspiring.

[ic-racer]

When you look at photographs that have been posted on line, here and other photo forums, what are the things you look for or hoping to learn?

Not much. All have some digital manipulation or are not products of darkroom photography. Not many people have scanners that can even accept a typical 16x20 image. I know I don't, so there is no way to see my images on a computer.

[John Olsen]

Some of us may be looking at the question too narrowly. I took a long hike and decided there were three reasons why I look at the on-line images:
1. They nudge me to get back out there and try again.
2. Some may push me in a new direction, e.g. the paper negative portrait thread here.
3. Properly presented details can teach even at web resolution (this is how I selected my infrared films over the years)

Frankly, I don't need to see an entire 16x20 print in all its glory on the web. If the composition is wonderful it will be apparent. If the concept is an inspiration, it won't be dependent upon the resolution. Conversely, if you're locked into a banal repetition of Half-dome in Yosemite, more resolution won't help.

As technicians we may get too involved with magnifying glass details that the art-buying public may not even recognize. Please keep sharing your efforts, even if the resolution is not up to your standards.

[mdarnton]

I don't know what digital manipulation has to do with anything. The student who will only learn from something that's been made according to his own specifications is a very dull student and probably can't learn from anything at all, so don't pay any attention to those people. :-(

I've learned from paintings, other art, advertising illustrations in newspapers and magazines, and from watching films on the TV. When I was first interested in photography, at about 11 years old, I went to the library and checked out every photography book they had, multiple times, then I started in on the art books. When I wanted to be a newspaper photographer, I immersed myself in Cartier-Bresson and Gene Smith, because they were the people whose work in that genre I most admired, and looked at every news magazine and newspaper I could get my hands on, for ideas. I will still pick up any magazine and flip through looking at the photos to find people doing things I wish I had done, and try to figure out what they did to make that happen, and what it is that makes the picture click for me, compositionally and otherwise.

Currently I'm learning about portrait photography by diligently reading fashion magazine and advertising photos, books by famous portrait photographers, looking at portraits in art books, and buying old manuals on portrait photography to learn and understand the original rules of the game. I'm categorizing, dividing, cataloging, developing preferences for lighting, poses, framing, contexts, and getting ideas I'd like to try out in my own studio. I'm thinking up different ways to hammer "portrait" plus other words into Google, so different new results will come up in the image search every time to give me more to look at. I'm finding portrait photographers doing work I wish I could do. When I see a portrait, like it or not, I try to figure out the lighting, and how the pose might have come about, what the hands are doing, where the subject is looking, his expression, etc....... everything.

First you try to figure out what you like, then you try to do that. That's how you learn. Then when you have that under control, you play with what you have learned to make things that are your own. This is how artists have learned--by copying other artists--for the last millenium or so, at least. That goes for technical things as well as artistic. Photographers have manipulated photos ever since there was photography. Ultimately, you will find your own way to make the pictures you want happen, and you shouldn't limit yourself as to what you'll do to get what you want.

But first you have to teach yourself to see. Looking at pictures and learning to see comes ahead of everything else. Technical things are dead last--they're only needed when you finally know what you want to see in what you do, to make that happen. The technical stuff is the tiniest little bit of the whole process, meaningless without solidly conceived and executed subject matter. On on its own, it doesn't mean a thing.

[Preston]

But first you have to teach yourself to see. Looking at pictures and learning to see comes ahead of everything else. Technical things are dead last--they're only needed when you finally know what you want to see in what you do, to make that happen. The technical stuff is the tiniest little bit of the whole process, meaningless without solidly conceived and executed subject matter. On on its own, it doesn't mean a thing.

+1 This really is the crux of the matter, in my opinion.

Nice post, Michael.

--P

[alavergh]

?...and sometimes "gee, I wish I lived in the Southwest or California, we just don't have that in NJ!"

Same here, but insert Indiana.

By looking at the photos here, I know what I'm actually looking for when I make test strips. "Oh! That's how I can get a print to look like the one so-and-so posted the other day."

[SergeiR]

Inspiration/ideas on gear use/ideas on light/ideas on composition and so on. There is a lot to learn

[stradibarrius]

I think that ideas and inspiration are the two main thing that I get from looking at others work. Through the years I have learned that you can't really tell much about the specifics of the image from a digital rendering. Your monitor plays such a big part, how the image was processed etc.
Thanks for all the great post!

[h2oman]

Same here, but insert Indiana.

By looking at the photos here, I know what I'm actually looking for when I make test strips. "Oh! That's how I can get a print to look like the one so-and-so posted the other day."

This guy used to post some here:

http://www.dlinphotography.com/Main.html

Frankly, I'd rather look at his pics from Indiana than a lot of southwest/Yosemite images I've seen.

[Kuzano]

As far as I can see, the process of digitizing (scanning) an image from film to digital, DOES NOT carry forward any of the information that one would normally find in a file produced by a digital camera. I don't think you will ever see EXIF information about the original film capture, such as focal length, exposure settings, and other useful specs about the original camera settings on the film camera. A scanner cannot create that information, because it is not in the film image being scanned.

So, my response would be NO, other than composition, but even then, you don't know if the digital image was cropped for composition, which is the routine lazy man way of composing through any viewfinder.

So again, No to any useful information looking at files on the internet, unless there is text explanation for each image giving you the information you seek.

My suggestion would be that looking at images on the internet would be a relative waste of time for specifics used to take the image in the first place.

Now a site dedicated to teaching photography might be another story altogether, where images are used to illustrate results, where the image specifications are explained in course material.

Depending on how you specifically learn best, an actual seminar or classes that you attend personally may be better. As a Community Education instructor, I know, and you may know as well, that everybody has a way that they learn best. I suggest that videos and internet courses may be one of the least effective means of learning for a lot of people.

First examine how you learn best... what system of information delivery seems to stick in place for you.

[jbenedict]

I have gotten much more out of AA's book of examples where he explains what he did and why than I have ever gotten just from looking at one of his photographs. I enjoy his photos unexplained much more now that I've had them explained to me. I can get more out of others work and am able to decided what it is I want to try to do after the examples. AA was a great photographer but I think his ability to explain himself as his greatest gift.

[Harold_4074]

Technical things are dead last--they're only needed when you finally know what you want to see in what you do, to make that happen. The technical stuff is the tiniest little bit of the whole process, meaningless without solidly conceived and executed subject matter. On on its own, it doesn't mean a thing.

I agree completely, if "technical stuff" is meant to mean the kinds of things---film, developer, sharpness--that are so easily changed in translation from film to raster image. But there is a great deal of "technique" that sets really good work (Ken Lee, Christopher Broadbent, and Gandolfi come immediately to mind, but there are many, many others) apart from anything that I would be likely to come up with on my own. So when I look at the galleries, my first thought is: "do I like this?" and if the answer is yes, the second thought is: "okay, why, exactly?". I have learned an enormous amount by trying, not to make the exact same picture, but one which "works" for the same reasons. Sometimes this is a matter of technique, sometimes not, but it is nearly always enlightening.

[swmcl]

Although the sentiment that technical things are dead last is true in the end, I think the technical issues are the icing on the cake so to speak. It starts with an ability to 'see' but to get to the final product you cannot proceed without a knowledge of 'how'. In fact, the 'how' cuts in the moment after the 'seeing' has taken place. It would be only an unrepeatable fluke to get an image to turn out on film as envisioned without a good handle on technical issues. I guess that I am referring to images that require something a bit more than shooting at a mid-range aperture and a middle distance with an incident meter reading in average lighting conditions !

Personally, I am very indebted to the LF community for sorting out my stupid thinking at times. It is also actually very difficult to get precise and objective facts sometimes in a community of arty people. The mystery and black-art of technique is a barrier to my progress for sure. Sorry, but I like to know enough about the techniques so that they aren't a barrier to my final image. It would be good to get a good amount of the 'how' out of the way early in one's photographic 'career' and I hope that there is a limit to how much 'how' you really need.

[Rory_5244]

On viewing the pictures here I've learned that my pictures really suck!

[Vaughn]

Although the sentiment that technical things are dead last is true in the end, I think the technical issues are the icing on the cake so to speak...

Well said. Everything goes into creating an image -- from concept to equipment to technique to execution. All are equally important to me. I need to know the ins and outs of the carbon printing process -- and the technical details of exposing and developing film -- in order to be able to create a negative that will translate my concept into a finished print.

[Matsushime]

On viewing the pictures here I've learned that my pictures really suck!

Haha, I second this. I know now that most of my work is total crap! But I suppose that's a learning experience in itself.

[Harley Goldman]

But first you have to teach yourself to see. Looking at pictures and learning to see comes ahead of everything else. Technical things are dead last--they're only needed when you finally know what you want to see in what you do, to make that happen. The technical stuff is the tiniest little bit of the whole process, meaningless without solidly conceived and executed subject matter. On on its own, it doesn't mean a thing.

I totally agree, Michael. I think too many people get hung up on equipment or some technique. You have to learn how to see and from there, develop a style and an eye that works for you. It takes practice and time behind a camera, any camera. I think a strong composition gets you 90% there.

A crappy composition is still a crappy composition, whether you have the really great soft focus lens on your camera or are shooting an 8x10, 20x24 or whatever. No equipment makes a composition better. I would rather see a well done phone image than a contact print from an ULF camera that is a lousy comp. That is my $0.02, anyway.

[Greg Miller]

I totally agree, Michael. I think too many people get hung up on equipment or some technique. You have to learn how to see and from there, develop a style and an eye that works for you. It takes practice and time behind a camera, any camera. I think a strong composition gets you 90% there.

A crappy composition is still a crappy composition, whether you have the really great soft focus lens on your camera or are shooting an 8x10, 20x24 or whatever. No equipment makes a composition better. I would rather see a well done phone image than a contact print from an ULF camera that is a lousy comp. That is my $0.02, anyway.

Agreed. The technical aspect of photography is simply a foundation. It is necessary because the artistic vision cannot vision cannot flourish if the photographer is consumed by technical matters. But there are thousands of camera clubs out there filled people making with very well executed, but very formulaic and mechanics photos. Boring.

But once the technical aspects are mastered, the creative process is free to flourish. Then its up to the artistic vision to be revealed. I'm much more interested in seeing visually inspired and unique photos than I am in seeing technically well executed photos.

It is similar to musicians. There are hoards of instrumentalists who play at a high level technically (but that's what player pianos do). But only a few that can play musically. Those are the musicians worth listening to.

[Kirk Gittings]

But its not really like you get the technique down and then your artistic vision flourishes. Its more like you learn some stuff make some mistakes-make some images that hint at what is possible get excited, go around again, go around again, go around again. Each time you flourish a bit and that wets your appetite for more. I'm still doing the rounds many decades later. Still learning, still stumbling, still succeeding, still getting excited, ready for the next round of challenges, learning and flourishing.

[Greg Miller]

But its not really like you get the technique down and then your artistic vision flourishes. Its more like you learn some stuff make some mistakes-make some images that hint at what is possible get excited, go around again, go around again, go around again. Each time you flourish a bit and that wets your appetite for more. I'm still doing the rounds many decades later. Still learning, still stumbling, still succeeding, still getting excited, ready for the next round of challenges, learning and flourishing.

I believe that if you are worried about the technical things, then there's very little chance for the artistic vision to flourish. You are stuck in the left side of the brain. It's only after the technical stuff becomes more automatic that the right side of the brain can dominate. Sure there is an iterative process and both skills grow over time. But the deficiencies in technical skills will impede the artistic expression. I see people struggling all the time deciding on exposure, what lens to use, what aperture to use, ... There's no way they are going to be seeing artistically if they are so tied up in those technical matters.

[Bernice Loui]

There are two starting points that can end up in a very similar place.

Highly artistic and creative individuals that have been born with great expressive talent limited by their technical ability to express what they have to share with the world.

Technically versed, skilled individuals who fully understand completely the technical aspects of image making limited by their artistic and creative ability to express what their technical abilities are fully capable of.

There needs to be a balance of the two and both skill sets must be developed enough to allow the expressive image making process to work. It is too easy to get overly wrapped up in one or the other and lose sight of the expressive image making goal (s).

There is much that can be learned from studying art and photographic history. It does matter to see and know what others have done in the past as points of reference and examples of what can and cannot be done.

Once a set of image making tools (camera, lens, film, processing, print making and..) have been mastered enough, then one needs to apply these tools towards expressive image making. This is looking and studying imaged in real life, on line, in book, in print and simply just observing the world can make all the difference. Composition is much about making form and order out of dis-order in a way that gives voice to the object or scene being imaged or the image maker using these items as a means of expression. Great images often have a bit of what the scene or object being photographed has to say with aspects of the image maker revealed in the image created.


Bernice



I believe that if you are worried about the technical things, then there's very little chance for the artistic vision to flourish. You are stuck in the left side of the brain. It's only after the technical stuff becomes more automatic that the right side of the brain can dominate. Sure there is an iterative process and both skills grow over time. But the deficiencies in technical skills will impede the artistic expression. I see people struggling all the time deciding on exposure, what lens to use, what aperture to use, ... There's no way they are going to be seeing artistically if they are so tied up in those technical matters.

[mdm]

I will never forget Paul Caponigro's advice somewhere on YouTube to work on yourself because that's where great prints come from. Great vision will come from a calm focused mind, junk from a scattered or boring mind. That's what makes a ken lee recognisable, an Austin granger what it is, a Jonathan or a Christopher broadbent. It's what changes formulaic or cliched shit into something special. That slippery thing Life.

[mdarnton]

However, there's no need at all to master, or even minimally understand technical things to take great photos. There are tons of wonderful pictures on Flickr by people who I think only know which button to push. Cartier-Bresson could possibly be an example, or look at Allen Ginsberg's book, for that matter. There is, though, no possibility of taking great pictures if you don't know how to do the art stuff.


I believe that if you are worried about the technical things, then there's very little chance for the artistic vision to flourish. You are stuck in the left side of the brain. It's only after the technical stuff becomes more automatic that the right side of the brain can dominate. Sure there is an iterative process and both skills grow over time. But the deficiencies in technical skills will impede the artistic expression. I see people struggling all the time deciding on exposure, what lens to use, what aperture to use, ... There's no way they are going to be seeing artistically if they are so tied up in those technical matters.

[Greg Miller]

There are two starting points that can end up in a very similar place.

Highly artistic and creative individuals that have been born with great expressive talent limited by their technical ability to express what they have to share with the world.

Technically versed, skilled individuals who fully understand completely the technical aspects of image making limited by their artistic and creative ability to express what their technical abilities are fully capable of.

There needs to be a balance of the two and both skill sets must be developed enough to allow the expressive image making process to work. It is too easy to get overly wrapped up in one or the other and lose sight of the expressive image making goal (s).


Agreed. There is great diversity in innate and learned skills, learning styles, and right/left brain dominance. In virtually all cases, if a person is absorbed in technical details, they will not be excelling in creativity.

I see the technical skills as a foundation. Mastering technical skills is highly desirable. But that is simply a beginning. Technically excellent photos are not in and of themselves excellent photos. They may be interesting for a short time. Much like a player piano is technically perfect - yet boring as hell after a few minutes. It is the unique artistic vision that separates the best photographers & photographs, and keeps the photographs interesting over the long haul.

[Greg Miller]

However, there's no need at all to master, or even minimally understand technical things to take great photos. There are tons of wonderful pictures on Flickr by people who I think only know which button to push. Cartier-Bresson could possibly be an example, or look at Allen Ginsberg's book, for that matter. There is, though, no possibility of taking great pictures if you don't know how to do the art stuff.


Agreed. But mastering the technical side will increase the odds of making a great photo. Those who do not understand need to be lucky to end up with a great photo (where the automated decisions, or random selections of the technical aspects, just happen to work).

But my point is more about those actually thinking about the techncial aspects of the photograph. Once they get absorbed into thinking about the technical aspects, the left brain dominates, and the creative right brain becomes submissive - the result being the artistry suffers. For those people, only after the technical aspects become intuitive and second nature does the creative right brain become able to flourish.

[stradibarrius]

Do you think you can gather any information on lens performance???

[mdarnton]

I'm not sure you can even get that from an 8x10 photographic silver print, except in extreme cases.