Another article to irritate people

[Vaughn]

A good photographer uses light to expose darkness.

[Heroique]

A good photographer uses light to expose darkness.

Darkness uses good light to expose a photographer.

(Sorry, last time, promise. Vaughn & I always have fun w/ this.)

;^)

[Richard Mahoney]

A painter friend has already asked to give it to all her students. But they're painters.

Thank you Bruce. A good number of years ago I spent some while trying to gain some sort of working proficiency in Classical Greek and then again, more recently, in Sanskrit. A willingness to engage in constant, patient and often tedious practice has always been a basic prerequisite for any kind of progress. On this necessity, I think school masters used to regularly repeat one form or other of this Anglican collect. Although it may be out of place in more recent forms of `education', where any sort of protracted and sustained practice in the Arts is perhaps seen as a precious waste of time, an indulgence, and possibly a luxury, the meaning of the collect, I believe, still holds up:

The Book of Common Prayer, The Second Sunday in Advent, The Collect:

Blessed Lord, who hast caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us ...

And on this pious note I think I'll just take my self off ...


Best regards,

Richard

[Emil Schildt]

practice is good - practice is essential for all craftman ship.

I read the article, and I was struck by this sentence:

"Casals, and other
top musicians, might regularly practice six to nine hours a day. Then they perform."

Being a trained musician my self I can't help remembering a teacher telling me this:

"NO ONE can practice more than about 4 hours a day... If more, then they play, even if they think they practice".. and "If you use your mind right - practice right, you'll learn double in half the time"...

the story about the photographer that bought 1000 films is nice, but doesn't make sense to me..
A swedish photographer gave his students one film, and 36 assignments; that makes more sense to me.

It all depends on how you practice.

if the 1000film guy (sorry: forgot his name) was right, then all the digital photographers I know practice a lot!!

(which they don't - they just fire away, hoping..... they are "playing")

[mdm]

Practice+performance=no fun
play=fun
all fun=no progress
therefore gota put all 3 together, practice, performance and play
(assuming its your your life)
Its not my life. It may be yours.
Its play to me.

[Bruce Barlow]

Sorry, Gandolfi, the musicians I knew were doing far more than four hours a day, and studying with some of the finest teachers who, I'm sure, would not permit them sloppy practice habits. If Casals was doing all six Bach Suites as a warmup ("one a day is a meat grinder," says my four-Grammy cellist friend), then he could hardly be doing merely four hours a day. By all accounts, he wasn't.

Did you succeed, professionally, as a musician? Did you become the best? How do the best practice? And for how long? Did your teacher earn a living primarily as a performer or as a teacher? The folks I knew were studying with members of the Chicago Symphony, where the rent got paid by performing, and the teaching was secondary. They knew what it takes.

If I get "keepers" from my practice photography exercises, am I practicing or performing? Does it matter? If a musician performs for only his cat, is it performing or practicing performing? Does it matter? And isn't practicing performing a necessary part of practicing well?

If you learn twice as much in half the time, do you learn four times as much in the same time? What commitment is necessary to be the best that I can be? And why would I settle for less than being my best?

David Hurn's (a Magnum photographer of some repute) 1,000 roll story makes total sense. A photographer makes photographs. There was the story of the pottery class, where the teacher had two ways to do the class: make a lot of pots and pass, or make one great pot and pass. Students' choice. At the end of the class, those who made a lot of pots (who practiced...) made better pots than those who talked a lot beforehand about perfect pots, but then made just one.

One roll and 36 assignments won't make even a decent photographer. That's just bad teaching, especially for beginners.

Your comparison to digital clowns contradicts your own notion of good practice habits, has nothing to do with what I wrote, and implies that one of the top photographers in the world was an incompetent boob. The first insults you, the second me, and the third insults David Hurn. Clean sweep. You got us all.

Not to mention doing the math: Josef Koudelka, who could photograph rings around me on his worst day, said that he "had to expose a cassette a day just to keep the eye sharp." OK. A roll a day is 365 rolls a year before doing any serious photography. Two more rolls a day of "making pictures" takes one well over 1,000 rolls in a year, so at that level it makes even more sense, given that David Hurn and Josef Koudelka put bread on the table making photographs. They were (are) performers.

It would appear that you are precisely the kind of photographer I was writing about. I submit that one needs to practice well - there we agree, but also a lot. There we seem to disagree.

Most of the article talks about how to practice well, but you seem to criticize me by saying "It all depends on how you practice."

I might not be too out of line to suggest that you practice reading.

[Heroique]

Some clever clarifications, in the preceding posts.

I often wonder how many people here feel like they’re “practicing” to be on online, when they’re in the field setting up a shot.

That is, field work for some makes it easier to participate in this forum, and that might be what they mean by “practice.”

“Bye Honey, I’m heading out into the field for some practice!”

A sort of reversal to the meaning of the “P” word, as it applies to us.

[Emil Schildt]

"I might not be too out of line to suggest that you practice reading."

will respond later.
In my book it is out of line, but then again, I proberly can't read....

[Emil Schildt]

allright - I'll try...
I don't know how to put multiple quotes in a text so I'll just quote when needed.

Also, I want to state the obvious: I am not American... so my language skills are lacking, but I'll try my best (should proberly have practiced more...)

"Sorry, Gandolfi, the musicians I knew were doing far more than four hours a day, and studying with some of the finest teachers who, I'm sure, would not permit them sloppy practice habits. If Casals was doing all six Bach Suites as a warmup ("one a day is a meat grinder," says my four-Grammy cellist friend), then he could hardly be doing merely four hours a day. By all accounts, he wasn't."

First: did I write in any place that I agreed to the comments on practice time?

I have heard the stories of musicians practicing up to 10 hours a day many times. I've had fellow students that claimed the same.

I also have had a fantastic conversation with the then world famous cellist Paul Tortelier - he invited me to his hotel room, and talked about music in general but also about practicing. He actually told me that many musicians played to much - but practicing too little - that if they really consentrated them selves, they would'nt need all the hours they claimed to use...

More of the same was told to me by one of the very best flutist's when she lived (Manuela Wiesler).

I was generalizating in my first comment - shouldn't have.

I am sure some can practice longer than others, and I am also sure some instruments would be hard to practice on for those hours - and some wouldn't..

"Did you succeed, professionally, as a musician? Did you become the best? How do the best practice? And for how long? Did your teacher earn a living primarily as a performer or as a teacher? The folks I knew were studying with members of the Chicago Symphony, where the rent got paid by performing, and the teaching was secondary. They knew what it takes."

I don't see why my person comes into this (as musician), but since you ask.
No - but at my graduation I was jugded the most talented; most likely to suceed well by the jugdes.
My teacher was both performer and teacher - brilliant in both counts. He claimed he couldn't teach without performing and vica versa.

"If you learn twice as much in half the time, do you learn four times as much in the same time?"

that was his point...

"David Hurn's (a Magnum photographer of some repute) 1,000 roll story makes total sense. (snip)
One roll and 36 assignments won't make even a decent photographer. That's just bad teaching, especially for beginners."

But we're not talking about beginners, are we? I we were, then I would be interested in seeing how my students would react if I told them to go use 1000 rolls of film...

And I think there's a huge difference in practicing photography, depending on what type of photography you're interested in.
David Hurn and as you later mention Koudelka makes very different images than, say Sally Mann (?)

I urge my students - after a while (so not beginners) to try medium format photography - among other reasons, because that forces them to think - to take less exposures. It makes sense to me..

I once saw a story in TV from New York (I think) about a fashion photographer that used a whole day, and thousands of exposures to try to get a front page for Vouge....
(I thought he was a really bad photographer)
I also know a story about Horst P Horst that was asked to make some images for Vouge... He took two of one model - he only needed two... (Urban legend? I don't know)

"Your comparison to digital clowns contradicts your own notion of good practice habits, has nothing to do with what I wrote, and implies that one of the top photographers in the world was an incompetent boob. The first insults you, the second me, and the third insults David Hurn. Clean sweep. You got us all."

Why would you think that?
I am not saying he was an incompetent boob - I was trying (in vain) to say, that using all this film is not neccesarily a sign of a great photographer.
I am not out to get anybody.

"Not to mention doing the math: Josef Koudelka, who could photograph rings around me on his worst day, said that he "had to expose a cassette a day just to keep the eye sharp." OK. A roll a day is 365 rolls a year before doing any serious photography. Two more rolls a day of "making pictures" takes one well over 1,000 rolls in a year, so at that level it makes even more sense, given that David Hurn and Josef Koudelka put bread on the table making photographs. They were (are) performers."

Again - they were them. I respect Koudelka and Hurn a lot, but their way of making images (to keep the eye sharp) might not be for everybody (?)

"It would appear that you are precisely the kind of photographer I was writing about. I submit that one needs to practice well - there we agree, but also a lot. There we seem to disagree."

And it would appear that you have no clue on what kind of photographer I am.

The "a lot" part is hilarious... I am just suggesting that "a lot" can be something other than taking two rolls a day.

"I might not be too out of line to suggest that you practice reading."

you're proberly right - I'll go and buy 1000 books and start practice reading them...

[Dan Fromm]

Did your teacher earn a living primarily as a performer or as a teacher? The folks I knew were studying with members of the Chicago Symphony, where the rent got paid by performing, and the teaching was secondary. They knew what it takes.

Bruce. this is just plain stupid.

When I was at University of Chicago I took lessons from Leonard Chaussow, then principal cellist of the Chicago Symphony. Later, when at Ohio State, I studied with Gordon Epperson.

There was no comparison between the two as teachers. Mr. Epperson was the most intelligent musician I've ever met and was by far the better teacher.