Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
    Posts
    5,808

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    Yup... there are always two types of people in every area of specialization. In woodworking there are people who insist on doing everything with hand tools and pick on the "Normies" -- guys who insist on doing everything with power tools. The the Normies make pick right back. The only problem is that both of these types of people keep insisting on talking to each other. Life might be a lot better if we all were hermits and took a vow of silence.

  2. #12

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    The first workshop I ever attended was the 1978 Zone VI program taught by the late Fred Picker.

    I recall one of his pronouncements on the first day. " I will teach you everything you need to know about photography in the next two days. You will spend the next 12 days of this workshop--and the rest of your life on the really HARD stuff, MAKING IMAGES."

    Fred did sometimes oversimpify, but the really hard part of photography is just that. I am often guilty of taking the easy way of photographing by immersing myself in the minutae of technical matters to avoid the really hard task of MAKING IMAGES.

  3. #13
    All metric sizes to 24x30 Ole Tjugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,383

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    I do both.

    I'm fully capable of reading a map, calculating the position of the sun for the light I want, find the time and date for that sun position, then calculating angle of view and depth of field, choosing the appropriate focal length, film size and aperture; working out exposure, contrast range and development is child's play after this.

    In the end I load the camera, a few lenses and a few film holders in the car and go looking for something that just looks good. And I'm likely to develop by inspection since I haven't the faintest idea of which film is which, and which one should have N+2 and which one needs extreme contraction.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,219

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    Any artisitic enterprise requires quite a lot of knowledge of the medium. That applies to music, painting, and the other arts. And it applies to photography. Think about what a digital, point and shoot photographer would have to learn in order to make a large format photograph. First he (or she) would have to learn to focus. Next he would have to know some minimal amount about f-stops and exposure times to get a printable result. If he wanted to do black and white, he would have to be satisfied to let someone else do the considerable creative work in making a print, or he would have to learn something about developing and printing (or possibly scanning). Any one of us would be considered a geek by point and shooters.

    Myself, I've often found that I knew I was doing something wrong or missing something important, but I didn't know what it was. I found by studying different aspects of the subject that when I was able to put names on things, I was then able to see them. If I understood some theory, I could see what the limitations were that kept me from doing certain things. If I was lucky, I might then be able to figure out workarounds.

    Since I am a professional mathematician, I might be considered the ultimate geek. But in doing serious photography, starting over 40 years ago, it was the other way around. I almost always started off intuitively but found the results disappointing. It was only then that I delved further into technical aspects of the subject. Today I am not often entirely satisfied with anything I do, but at least I don't make the obvious mistakes. I am sure there are photographers who, from exeprience or aesthetic sensibility, get better results than I do despite understanding less about the tecnical aspects of the subject. But for me, knowledge has been enabling and has enhanced my progress.

    Everyone has to find his own way. If you are entirely satisfied with what you do, then you need not learn any more. If not, pursuing further understanding of both the technical aspects (craft) and aesthetic aspects (art) of photography will probably help you. But you don't have to learn it any faster than it does you good, and much of it you need never worry about. But if you have the background and are interested, it is not wrong to pursue matters further.

    As to personality types, remember that there are lots of things to be obsessive about; it is not restricted to technical aspects of the subject. Any large format photographer is bound to be somewhat obsessed with detail. Just think of the things you have to do to make a large format photograph. How many of us, for example, just go to a scene, plop down the camera and take a picture? If nothing else, the great majority of us spend considerble time trying to find the best point of view and framing for the picture. I certainly spend much more time at that than I do worrying about depth of field or exposure. That is being compulsive, but without it, our pictures would be pretty disappointing.

  5. #15
    grumpy & miserable Joseph O'Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    830

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    Depends on which part of photography you are talking about.

    Frist off, I have read almost every book on view cameras I coudl lay my hands on, and I even devourved Merklinger's book on focusing from cover to cover. I think you need some kind of technical background or basic understanding of technique before you first decide if you want to be technical or not (if that makes any sense .

    Now when I am out with my camera hiking, I never think about any technical aspect - I just "do it". Do it by feel, by the seat of my pants, by whatever. The "secret" is not the technical aspect, but taking my time, taking a deep breath, and just relaxing. Goin what what "feels right."

    Developing my 4x5 negatives, I am the complete opposite - I am totally anal retentive to technical detials. I measure times with a stop watch, I have some very expensive thermometers and other lab gear for measuing units, and I watch everything like a hawk.

    However, back in the darkroom, when it comes time for prints, I'm back to going by the "feel" of things. I mix by approxamation, in fact my printing habits woudl problaly make most people curddle back in horror, but ti works for me.

    So maybe the real answer is be technical when you think you need to be technical, and not when you need not. Figure which is best for you

    joe
    eta gosha maaba, aaniish gaa zhiwebiziyin ?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    259

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    "...so manny Hippies vs. Geeks disagreements on these message boards..."

    I'm a hippie and 2 of my 3 kids are geeks. My geek son's home from college. He tells my geeky, math-nerd daughter a joke that starts out, "An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar..." Then they said something like, "...and the bartender set two beers on the bar and said 'that should be enough for all of you." My kids started laughing like that was the funniest thing they had ever heard. All night long, all they would have to say to each other was "two beers" and they'd be on the floor holding their sides. I didn't get the joke, and they couldn't explain it (apparently it has something to do with caculus). But then, again, they don't understand some of my hippie stories.

    My point is that I still love them, and enjoy watching their passion about math. So, when I follow some of these threads that flame on about things I can't really get too jazzed about, I still admire and respect that people can be so passionate about something. I'm just glad we're all many miles away from each other....otherwise, at times, I think there would be some bloody noses. And when it gets to personal and mean spirited I'll go google "an infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar" and see if I can figure that one out.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    85

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    You can and should do both. I have taught marital arts for twenty years. We train everyday to build musle memory. repeting things over and over till it becomes part of out natural movements. This is the technical part , learnig how to do something.

    After it becomes second nature then you can start to react and to improvise. Like Ole said you can read maps and do calculations, but in the end you do it by heart because you know what will and will not work by training then you can improvise, you can react and make changes as you go. This wll allow you to express yourselve by not having to think about it.

    So read all you can, talk to people and learn. Then go out and put it to use, because those who can do, everyone else sets around and talks about it.

    Mike

  8. #18

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    "Where does the truth lie? "

    The truth lies everywhere, and it lies all the time. Never trust the truth...

    I think a big distinction is between technical knowledge and craft. They can happily coexist, but they are different mindsets. At its best, technical knowledge can inform craft; at its worst, distract and confuse it.

    Artistic vision (for lack of a better term) is a whole other area, and the hardest to acquire, although to some it seems to come instinctively. Craft can sometimes masquerade as artistic vision, but in the end, it is always found out.

    Assigning them value, I would say vision, then craft, then technical knowledge, but all have unique value, and none precludes another.

    There are other very valuable advantages (again, for lack of a better term) that can bring one success in photography; social skills and professional connections, articulation in speaking and writing, time, money, dedication and desire. We all deal with our own strengths and weaknesses, and develop according to our own values.

    (The "technical" people keep talking about "circles of confusion", but my images all seem to be rectangles of confusion...)

  9. #19
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,960

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    Isn't all this stuff we have been seeing lately proof that there is no one right way?

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    628

    Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

    Take your choice:

    1) Knowledge is Power.

    2) F/16 and Be There.

Similar Threads

  1. mpp 5x4 technical camera
    By lou boileau in forum Gear
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5-Oct-2005, 18:09
  2. wista VX technical
    By Terry Hull in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7-Jun-2005, 16:53
  3. technical pan + rodinal
    By Antony Carvalho in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15-May-2001, 13:35
  4. Technical Pan usage
    By bob moulton in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Mar-2000, 17:25
  5. Technical Pan usage
    By bob moulton in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3-Mar-2000, 14:56

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •