Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?

[Robert McClure]

I have noticed in the year since I began to actively participate in the forum that folks usually tend to come down one one side or the other.

Either they tend to discount a highly technical approach to large format photography in general, or they tend to discount a very simplistic approach.

The very technical remind us there is much information to be considered before making an adequate photograph. Those who prefer a simpler approach tend to remind us that it is very possible to make wonderful photographs without, in effect, the many considerations the more technically-oriented folks might believe need to be looked at.

Where does the truth lie?

First, it seems to me, a technical versus a non-technical orientation may lie in the personality of the photographer. The highly technical person may appreciate and enjoy the technicality of his approach, to some extent, for it's own sake. He or she likes how technicality, in effect, makes the world a more understandable and stable place. Often, these folks remind us where those of us who are less technical may be missing important issues - or might even be wrong.

Some would say that an overly-technical approach stems from learning in childhood that in order to be "good" we had to do everything "just right." That's speculation at best, I think. Although it describes me.

The less technical person, or the person who likes things simpler (and who, nonetheless, makes wonderful photographs) also has a valid position. Michael A. Smith is a case in point.

Not long ago when I was talking to him about attending one of his 2006 workshops he explained his philosophy and approach. He said, basically, "Why get so involved in technique that you lose sight of your end product and vision?"

It was shortly after my conversation with Michael Smith that I realized again my own tendency toward obsessive-compulsiveness. Or more simply, perfectionism.

I have since paid my deposit and plan to attend one of Michael Smith's May, 2006, workshops in Pennsylvania.

[Christopher Perez]

I believe St. Ansel put it best when he covered this topic. So I'll paraphrase.

An artist should know enough about their materials and processes to know how to control them. Only in this way will they have the ability to create what they desire.

Anything short of this is just stumbling around (sometimes for years) until something "pleasing" emerges.

Ray Bidegain and I were talking about this very topic last night as he hauled my beautiful 7x17 Korona away for the "test drive". Both and I felt that people who don't understand their tools or processes may get lucky (in attracting customers or in creating something they like), but if they don't know what they're doing, they may not be as successful as an artist or working commercial photographer as they could.

Case in point: Someone did a photo shoot with images that ended up on a billboard here in town. They used Ray's camera knowledge and studio space to snap a couple things. The results were photoshopped and put on display for all the world to see. The "photographer" was paid a premium rate for their work. They now think they've got this thing figured out and have stopped doing other money making work to pursue this new avenue of apparent opportunity. Alas, if they didn't have a close friend in the industry (billboard advertising in this case) they'd not stand a chance in getting further work. Their original works were demonstrably bad. But they think they've now got the tiger by the tail.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, anyone remember Avedon's 8x10 color spread in New Yorker Magazine several years back? The one with the model and the skeleton? Well, that person obviously had some knowledge of their tools, materials, and processes. The results were consistant, well thought out, and beautifully photographed.

This is why I feel it's very important to understand what's going on. Otherwise it's just hit and miss.

Just how technical an artist becomes depends upon how far the artist chooses to extend their art.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I don't think there is one "truth" to this question but I think you hit it when you said it is a matter of personality.

For me, I want to have enough command over my tools to be confident in their use and then forget it and worry about making images. In other words, have my skills to the point where they are second nature which allows me to concentrate on the image.

One of the fun characteristics of this forum is that it draws from both sides, most folks probably fall somewhere in the middle.

Technical knowledge should compliment the vision of the artist. It is what allows a photographer to realize the end product, the image. However, all the technical knowledge in the world will not help you create great photographs if you don't have a vision you want to express.

Some people really love the technical aspects of the art, the drive to make the "perfect" negative. This is great, and the process of photography has greatly benefited from the technical folks as they have helped expand our knowledge and understanding of photography. Our chosen art, is after all, very dependent on technology.

However, technique as an end to itself is pretty hollow as there is nothing but "sharp pictures of fuzzy concepts" to semi quote Ansel Adams. A photographer has to bring emotion and some vision to the work they produce to have anything that is meaningful. Many people less technically inclined, have enough knowledge to create work that is meaningful to them, and in the end that ( IMHO) is all that really matters.

If you are happy with the photographs you are creating, then that is really all that matters.

Not sure if that helped, but thanks for the post.

www.ericbiggerstaff.com

[paulr]

"I don't think there is one "truth" to this question but I think you hit it when you said it is a matter of personality."

exactly. there are so manny Hippies vs. Geeks disagreements on these message boards, with little acknowledgement that both groups often end up in the same place.

The geeks say "why do you waste all that time flying blind?" and the hippies say "why do you waste all that time doing tests?"

What's a good use of time and what isn't probably depends on how your particular brain works. And how you enjoy spending your time.

As Eric points out, a lot of us are somewhere in the middle. I'm a little bit hippie, a little bit geek. I tend to stuff my brain with theory and information when i get into something new, but when it comes time to actually doing some work, I rarely hav the patience to use the knowledge systematically. So I dive in, with vague hopes that what I learned will provide som kind of unconscious guidance. Works for me. Usually. Everyone's mileage likely to vary.

I suspect at the extremes, either approach can hold you back. Geeks need to leave some room for the imagination to come through. Hippies need to learn how the tools work.

I like Charlie Parker's advice: "learn everything you can about your horn, then learn everything you can about the music, and then forget all that shit and just play."

[Aaron van de Sande]

There is nothing wrong with either approach, however you need to keep your eyes open and think with either one. Although I probably would not bother with Rob's advice to measure the back, I think that his advice to stick with a single brand of film holder is easy to do and appeals to the simplistic approach from the standpoint of eliminating variables in your work.
In some ways the simplistic approach can be more thoughtful, as you will probably agonize a bit more over changes you make. Simplistic does not mean sloppy or casual.

[Luca Merlo]

Robert, I think that photography is an art and therefore should be free of any restriction or academic approach. What can be technical good for a photographer can be absolutely not good for another. If you read the Weston daybooks you will find that his approach to photography was definitely not technical but he was anyway able to reach the best results out of the media. Trial and error was Weston approach to the media. The same can be said of Joseph Sudek that was forced for all almost all his life to use materials that were technically highly inferiors to the ones used in the Western World. He was anyway able to photograph Prague in a unrivalled way 8mind, with only one arm ....).

Once I met in Vietnam for a pure coincidence Sebastiao Salgado (that I consider him one of the living masters of the small format) and when I asked him what was the developing/film he used to attain the astounding results and he answerd that he was using Tri-x but he did not know anything about the developer and/or the developing times .......

I could on with the quotes but I prefer to stop here. .........

[John O'Connell]

I doubt any LF user is non-technical. I think the difference is more rehtorical: some people want to be the vates and some people want to be the clericus.

Michael A. Smith is a case in point. I like Michael. I like some of his work. But to claim that he's not technical isn't really correct. He's so technical that he purchased a lifetime supply of both the film and the paper he uses. He's tested those materials, knows them well, and prefers their consistency with his methods. He does things exactly one way, because that is the way he's found that meets his requirements. Which is fine. He chooses to present his methods in a manner that makes them seem intuitive and inspired rather than rigorously controlled, which is also fine. (It helps his persona that his method doesn't require measuring equipment in the darkroom, though.)

Other people prefer measurement and machines. Their ways are equally valid, and they seek exactly the same thing: predictable results that meet their expectations of quality. They just present them in a way that makes sense when you have numbers and machines.

I'm probably like most LFers, in that I don't develop film by inspection and don't own a densitometer. I do what works for me.

[John Kasaian]

IMHO First you've got to have some idea of what you want to accomplish, then you go out and learn what you think you'll need to know in order to accomplish what you think you want to accomplish, then you change your mind because you've just startled a skunk or the suns not coming from the right angle or the water level isn't high enough, or the water level is too high or the snow level isn't low enough, but since you've packed your 8x10 three miles and you're being eaten by mosquitos you set up and take a picture anyway, wishing you'd loaded a faster(or slower) film in your holders and that you had brought the lens you left at home, while wondering which of the two light meters you've brought along is accurate before giving up and guesstimating the exposure only to hike three miles back to the car, drive home and soup the film to discover either A) You mistakenly picked up an empty stack of holders this morning or B) You've got a pretty nice photograph.

Repeat often, smile and have FUN!

[Eric Biggerstaff]

John-

That sounds a lot like my last trip to the field! :-)

[Neal Shields]

I am not a very good photographer often I just don't have the "eye" for it. However, I understand the technical aspects better than most.

It seems to be that it is much less heart breaking to have the skills and lack the vision that to have the vision and not be able to realize it because of lack of skills.

I thing that there are also two groups of large format people those that just want a bigger negative and those that also want the focus control allowed by tilts and shifts.

I take a lot of mediocure photographs but I always try to use all the capibilities of the medium that are approprate. If I didn't I would get better pictures but I would forgo the quest for that "great" on.

Someone once said that the only real failure was setting the bar too low.

[BrianShaw]

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.

[Barry Trabitz]

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.

[Ole Tjugen]

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.

[Leonard Evens]

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.

[Joseph O'Neil]

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

[Brian Sims]

"...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.

[Mike Cockerham]

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

[William Mortensen]

"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...)

[David Karp]

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

[CXC]

Take your choice:

1) Knowledge is Power.

2) F/16 and Be There.

[William Mortensen]

"2) F/16 and Be There."

Odd, I have a friend who flies fighters for the National Guard. They have the same saying...

[Dan Fromm]

Robert, I do a fair amount of closeup photography. The only calculations I now do just before pushing the button when shooting closeup have to do with exposure. When I'm not using a pre-calibrated flash rig, I have have to calculate adjustments to exposure given magnification and, if using flash I have to do GN arithmetic too. When I'm using a pre-calibrated flash rig, I measure extension, calculate magnification, and set aperture/flash power from a table.

I did a lot of calculations back when after I figured out what I was trying to accomplish. They had two goals. To find out what couldn't be done, which led to the rules of thumb about limiting aperture given magnification. Diffraction, magnification, film resolution, and intended magnification from subject to final print all affect choice of aperture when working closeup. And to refine the designs of my pre-calibrated flash rigs.

When shooting distant subjects, I pick aperture by rule of thumb, don't calculate. I have a hard time seeing what is and isn't reasonably sharp on the GG at small apertures, so focus wide open as best I can, stop down as suggested by rule of thumb, and hope for the best. After making informal tests at distance, I resist stopping down below f/22.

For what I do, I think that the calculations were, if not absolutely necessary, very helpful. If nothing else, they cut down on directed trial and error. They didn't eliminate t & e completely, though. After all that, there's not much need to recalculate -- except aperture when the gear's not calibrated -- in the field or even to revisit my original calculations. If I got them right in the first place, I'll get the same answers every time.

But understand that my big problem is "choose aperture and, given that, get the exposure right." Given what I do, I have little freedom to choose aperture after I've chosen magnification.

Hope this helps,

[John_4185]

There are not just two different modes of working, except to those inclined to think so. Pity them. One is of just words, the other is floundering to realize just that. To the former I say nothing; you have your own particular Hell. To the later I say Get to Work, be happy, find the Other Way.

Photography is not rocket science.

[Steven Nestler]

f/16 and be where? That, really, is the question.

[Kirk Keyes]

"2) F/16 and Be There."

At f/16 with a circle of confusion of 1/225 inch, your depth of focus is about 0.14 inches.

[CXC]

Okay, okay, I made a mistake! Maybe I was distracted by the Sunny 16 rule. I meant:

F/64 and Be There

[John_4185]

At f/16 with a circle of confusion of 1/225 inch, your depth of focus is about 0.14 inches.

You can't get away with that without showing us the givens. What FC, what subject distance (or magnification), and what universe really cares?

[John Kasaian]

An approach is only that---an approach. Approaches change with each new thing we learn or forget. I think what messes the works up is that many of us don't look at photography as a "whole" getting caught up in whims and fashions like exotic chemicals, theories for focusing, lenses from antiquity(or the latest and greatest gizmo) and esoteric formulas for the so-called perfect proportion(among other things.)

Hey, its fun. But is it The Truth ? Or The Right Way? Any of it? I think if you want to get Platonic about this, then its a lost cause. A better question would be: "Does Photography lead somewhere meaningful, or is it merely a distraction?

Do we see nature, or do we merely look at it through a ground glass "windshield" like when driving a car?

Do we 'live' the moment or do we steal it, like putting a rarewild animal in a zoo?

Is a truly great photograph something that represents a split second in the life of the person tripping the shutter as much as it is the subject? Or is something mechanical, like those cameras that record bank robbers?

Maybe That is what is true or right, and the approach is just the path leading there. Of course some paths are more funner than others. Just another thought to rip into.

[BrianShaw]

"Photography is not rocket science."

Even rocket science isn't always rocket science!

[John_4185]

I think if you want to get Platonic about this, then its a lost cause.

Not to a Platonist. Methinks you mean Sophist. :)

Fortunately, this kind of thing never incites a flame war; way too obscure.

I be a Platonist, BTW.

[John Kasaian]

jj:

Right you are!

How about that "Myth of The Cave?" Would that have been ULF or what??? :-)

[William Mortensen]

John, are you suggesting the philosophical analogy of a man who lives his life under a dark-cloth, perceiving the world only as an image on the ground glass? "Plato's ULF," hmmm, I like it...

[Jay DeFehr]

This is an oft debated subject, and I am sympathetic to both sides. I think most of us start out using the trial and error method, and evolve towards a more technical approach to solve specific problems. A trial and error approach will provide all of the information needed for a given set of conditions. This kind of limited understanding is adequate for those whose work is limited in scope, but when faced with unfamiliar working conditions, the trial and error process must begin all over again. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is anything inherently wrong with working in a limited scope, in fact, my own work is 90% portraiture. Wether I learn about effective Aperture and bellows compensation by trial and error, or by memorizing the applicable formulae, the result is the same, so long as my working conditions are the same. However, if I decide to do some table top work at greater than 1:1 magnifications, my trial and error experience with portraits will be of little use to me, while the formulae used to calculate Effective Aperture, and magnification, etc., will be just as useful as they were for portraiture.

The technically astute often treat those who prefer a more intuitive approach as inferiors, and those who prefer the intuitive approach often suggest that too much technical knowledge can interfere with creativity. I think both reactions are defensive and inaccurate. Everyone working with photographic materials must possess some degree of technical expertise in order to produce satisfying work, and that expertise does not preclude intuition and creativity, but enhances them.

Jay

[Aaron van de Sande]

Trial and error at least for me facilitates learning in a different manner. I have a hard time learning about something new that I don't have any experience with. Generally I screw around with something until I mess it up, and then i read the directions. It's just easier for me to learn this way.

[paulr]

"At f/16 with a circle of confusion of 1/225 inch, your depth of focus is about 0.14 inches."

so can we all agree on 'f/16 and be 0.14 inches from there' ...?