Technical vs Creative Shooting / Introduction

[secretcajunmann]

Hey everyone! I'm a newbie to the forum and somewhat new to photography...sort of. I am new to DSLR but have been shooting for a few years now here and there. Since I purchased my DSLR in January, I have been hitting it hard and learning new things. Before going into too much detail, I would like to also ask a couple of questions.

Professionally speaking, what type of work do technical shooters typically chase? i.e. sports photography, 2nd shooter at weddings, ect.? Also, same question for Creative shooters?

Also, is it offensive to any of you to be called a technical shooter? I mean, photography IS a form of art. If so, why? If not, why?

Looking forward to reading your responses. See you around.

 

[fjrabon]

People who are very obsessed with the technical aspects tend to like water drops a lot. Ie people who are more concerned with sharpness, low noise, etc than expressing much of anything about the world at large.

Sports shooters tend to like sports and spending money they either don't have or made doing something else. 2nd shooters at weddings tend to like imagining they'll develop a wedding photography empire if they can just get some publicity and better gear.

That isn't to say that anything is wrong with shooting these subjects per se. Just tendencies I've noticed.

I think the biggest issue new photographers have is that they don't get a clear picture of why they want to be a photographer. They get vague senses, most of which are based on misconceptions of what being a photographer is.

Because photography is an art, people newer to it think that's an excuse to not be clear minded about its practice. They just do... Stuff... Some works, some doesn't. They don't know why they want to be a photographer and they don't know why they have their camera pointed at whatever it's pointed at. Being a photographer means that knowing the answers to these questions is more important, not less. If your purpose is to show how well your camera works in low light conditions, so be it. But at least be aware of that.

I also think that the separation of the technical and the creative is artificial and in fact harmful to the practice of good photography.

I've seen discussions of exposure on here that talked about a histogram for 10 paragraphs without ever mentioning what the goal of the exposure was. I've seen people talk about the moment they captured and how that makes up for the fact that you can't clearly see the person's expression because shutter speed was too slow. I've seen way more of the former than the latter. But they are equally bad in my opinion.

There isn't creative photography or technical photography. There's just photography.

 

[AKUK]

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. You can see "technical" shooters whose primary objective is to document events like sports, putting their own creative stamp upon the images. For example, in the Olympics one photographer shot the athletes through the Olympic Flame, making use of the heat distortion for a creative/artistic effect.

I'd pretty much class it as documentary photographers (sports, news, war, wildlife) and creative photographers (still life, landscape, portraiture). Weddings can either be shot as a fly on the wall or creatively for posed shots. Certainly it's a lot harder to put an artistic slant on documentary type photography when you have no creative control. Not only do you have to be technically perfect in your approach but identifying the shot, either in a split second or ahead of time, requires creative vision.

Personally I like having the ability to control all aspects from lighting, to wardrobe and pose, so gravitated towards portraiture more. However, I also enjoy the challenge and unpredictability of wildlife photography. I don't find the term technical photographer offensive but, perhaps "documentary" is a more accurate description. Just because a photographer is documenting something, it doesn't mean they cannot apply creativity and artistry to their work.

 

[photoguy99]

There are certainly photographers who focus on technical aspects of photography, and photographers who do not. There is a certain amount of motion across the spectrum, but it's somewhat random and always personal.

There are classes of photographs that are technically challenging to make, and the photographers who like the technical side of things do tend to congregate over here. Macro photography. Water droplets. Astrophotography. Less technically inclined photographers will tend to lean in the direction of expressive photographs, exercises in form, photographs with people in them, and so on.

But there are certainly not hard and fast rules. You can make an expressive macro photograph, and there are certainly technophobic photographers who have struggled through the details of rails and ring lights. You can make a technical challenge out of portraiture, and there are technophiles who mainly shoot portraits to test their lighting mojo.

 

[Designer]

Professionally speaking, what type of work do technical shooters typically chase? i.e. sports photography, 2nd shooter at weddings, ect.? Also, same question for Creative shooters?

Also, is it offensive to any of you to be called a technical shooter? I mean, photography IS a form of art. If so, why? If not, why?

Hey there, welcome!

Please define your terms; "technical" and "creative".

Looking forward to reading your response.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I also think that the separation of the technical and the creative is artificial and in fact harmful to the practice of good photography.

^This.

But it should be noted that a Technical mindset can, in some situations, stem the flow of creativity and vice-versa. Being too absorbed by the technicality's can make you loose sight of any sort of expression you may have originally planned for a shot making the image lose its "life" and delving too far into your own ideas and opinions can lead to your vision being realized through your imagrey by noone but yourself.

I like to think of it as the Ying and Yang of photography. Working together and opposing eachother simultaniously until a perfect balance is found (in a good photograph)

 

[fjrabon]

There are certainly photographers who focus on technical aspects of photography, and photographers who do not. There is a certain amount of motion across the spectrum, but it's somewhat random and always personal.

There are classes of photographs that are technically challenging to make, and the photographers who like the technical side of things do tend to congregate over here. Macro photography. Water droplets. Astrophotography. Less technically inclined photographers will tend to lean in the direction of expressive photographs, exercises in form, photographs with people in them, and so on.

But there are certainly not hard and fast rules. You can make an expressive macro photograph, and there are certainly technophobic photographers who have struggled through the details of rails and ring lights. You can make a technical challenge out of portraiture, and there are technophiles who mainly shoot portraits to test their lighting mojo.

Right, I'd say if any genre of photography is the most technically in demanding, it's the people who do outdoor shoots with models with big lights.

balancing sync speed, multi-level lighting, ambient light and a model is a delicate technical dance that makes any "water drop" technicality seem juvenile in comparison. And you have to do it so seamlessly that the model feels comfortable and you can capture the moment.

 

[fjrabon]

I also think that the separation of the technical and the creative is artificial and in fact harmful to the practice of good photography.

^This.

But it should be noted that a Technical mindset can, in some situations, stem the flow of creativity and vice-versa. Being too absorbed by the technicality's can make you loose sight of any sort of expression you may have originally planned for a shot making the image lose its "life" and delving too far into your own ideas and opinions can lead to your vision being realized through your imagrey by noone but yourself.

I like to think of it as the Ying and Yang of photography. Working together and opposing eachother simultaniously until a perfect balance is found (in a good photograph)

My goal is to always know the technical so clearly that the technical is a habit, and I can just focus on expression. However, there are times when the technical comes to the fore, usually because a problem is happening.

I once saw a "brilliant creative" photographer who truly was very good at posing and ideas for shoots. But she was brought to tears because she didn't realize that the black band running through her photos was because she had exceeded her sync speed. A million times I've seen technically perfect, completely boring photographs too. If I wanted to look at something mundane but technically perfect, I'd walk outside and use my eyeballs.

 

[Derrel]

Welcome to TPF! I hope you enjoy your time here.

Every shot has technical values. Some shots have high technical value, others have low technical values, such as for instance slightly missed focus, or a bit of blur, or camera shake, or maybe lens flare.

I think the idea of a technical/creative barrier is an artificial mental contstruct.

Lookin forward to your response. See you around.

 

[secretcajunmann]

People who are very obsessed with the technical aspects tend to like water drops a lot. Ie people who are more concerned with sharpness, low noise, etc than expressing much of anything about the world at large.

Sports shooters tend to like sports and spending money they either don't have or made doing something else. 2nd shooters at weddings tend to like imagining they'll develop a wedding photography empire if they can just get some publicity and better gear.

That isn't to say that anything is wrong with shooting these subjects per se. Just tendencies I've noticed.

I think the biggest issue new photographers have is that they don't get a clear picture of why they want to be a photographer. They get vague senses, most of which are based on misconceptions of what being a photographer is.

Because photography is an art, people newer to it think that's an excuse to not be clear minded about its practice. They just do... Stuff... Some works, some doesn't. They don't know why they want to be a photographer and they don't know why they have their camera pointed at whatever it's pointed at. Being a photographer means that knowing the answers to these questions is more important, not less. If your purpose is to show how well your camera works in low light conditions, so be it. But at least be aware of that.

I also think that the separation of the technical and the creative is artificial and in fact harmful to the practice of good photography.

I've seen discussions of exposure on here that talked about a histogram for 10 paragraphs without ever mentioning what the goal of the exposure was. I've seen people talk about the moment they captured and how that makes up for the fact that you can't clearly see the person's expression because shutter speed was too slow. I've seen way more of the former than the latter. But they are equally bad in my opinion.

There isn't creative photography or technical photography. There's just photography.

 

[sashbar]

Just think about the technical side of photography as your driving skills. As soon as you have learned how to drive your car (buttons and wheels on your camera) and the Highway code (composition, light, exposure etc) you are technically fine.
The creative side is actually knowing where the hell are you going to drive now.

 

[secretcajunmann]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your feedback. So, I'm very amateur and am currently taking some classes, picking the brains of those with abundant knowledge and of course working on what I am learning. I am a realist and know that I have much to learn, but I put in the work. I come from a Private Investigation background (11+ yrs) and I also understand that the technical AND creative are indeed part of photography. You can't have a well executed photo with just one of these.

With that said, the reason I ask the questions is this: My photography instructor (Wedding Photographer, btw) likes what I am doing so far but told me that I'm 'definitely more technical than creative'. I wasn't really sure how to take that comment.

My first thought was...well, I know that I have to learn how compose models but my creative hasn't been questioned yet. If fact, the instructor has really liked my creative perspective, focal points, depth of field and execution on probably (guessing here) 90% of my work. I am certainly motivated to learn more, do more and earn my keep.

So....Since I am not yet part of the professional photography industry, I guess I was wondering if such labels were fair and if so, are they suited to personality types, different styles or types of photographers (i.e. Sports vs Wedding, ect.)?

Thanks again, everyone!

 

[Designer]

With that said, the reason I ask the questions is this: My photography instructor (Wedding Photographer, btw) likes what I am doing so far but told me that I'm 'definitely more technical than creative'. I wasn't really sure how to take that comment.

Without having met and spoken with either one of you, I will simply guess that what he means is that you're not "artistic".

If he will speak frankly about this, you should ask him what he meant by that.

Meanwhile, continue working on the "technical" side of photography, and learn it well, because when you want to try some more "artistic" stuff, you will need to know how to do it.

 

[fjrabon]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your feedback. So, I'm very amateur and am currently taking some classes, picking the brains of those with abundant knowledge and of course working on what I am learning. I am a realist and know that I have much to learn, but I put in the work. I come from a Private Investigation background (11+ yrs) and I also understand that the technical AND creative are indeed part of photography. You can't have a well executed photo with just one of these.

With that said, the reason I ask the questions is this: My photography instructor (Wedding Photographer, btw) likes what I am doing so far but told me that I'm 'definitely more technical than creative'. I wasn't really sure how to take that comment.

My first thought was...well, I know that I have to learn how compose models but my creative hasn't been questioned yet. If fact, the instructor has really liked my creative perspective, focal points, depth of field and execution on probably (guessing here) 90% of my work. I am certainly motivated to learn more, do more and earn my keep.

So....Since I am not yet part of the professional photography industry, I guess I was wondering if such labels were fair and if so, are they suited to personality types, different styles or types of photographers (i.e. Sports vs Wedding, ect.)?

Thanks again, everyone!

I think everybody is creative, it's just that some people find it easier to turn their creative impulses into art.

To me, creativity is having an interesting but intelligible thought or feeling and then expressing that via an artistic medium in an interesting but intelligible way.

Interesting means not trite. Nobody thinks that a baby in a handbasket photo is creative. It's a trite image. That doesn't mean that it can't be pleasing, but it's not interesting. Intelligible means that people can take something away from it. Most people don't find a pure black image interesting or the image of a TV tuned to a channel with no reception.

The first step in being more creative is being more attuned to your thoughts and feelings and how they relate to the external world. I don't think it's a coincidence that many highly creative types meditate a lot. It helps them find *their* voice.

When I'm stuck in a creative rut, first I meditate for a bit and then I take out a pad of graph paper and a sharpie pen and just start writing out thoughts and feelings I have. Dump everything out and then look for connections. Look for ways to "stack" those thoughts and feelings together until some vision for a theme comes together. It doesn't have to be a completed photograph in my mind, it can simply be a theme, a germ of an idea in gestation. Then look at a bunch of photographs until you see some that I think "this sort of gets it" and build all those parts together.

Alternatively, you can go out and find images with your camera in the wild that resonate with you. But in my experience, you have to be pretty in tune with yourself and your environment for this approach to yield very good results. Unfortunately we are so wrapped up in surface things and the moment and our immediate worries that we let a lot of great images pass us by a lot of the time.

The creative/technical split happens because most people can't think about the technical aspects of photography while simultaneously letting their creativity flourish. With experience, the technical focus will fade because it will become just second nature. I don't really think about exposure anymore. I don't think about what shutter speed I need to avoid motion blur. I don't think about what depth of field I need. Those are all instincts from taking thousands of photos under pressure at this point. The most technical thing I ever give thought is lighting. I hope that one day even lighting becomes an instinct more than a thing I give actual conscious thought to. Everything else I think about and try to get in touch with is the idea of the photo, what I want it to get across. How to either construct that moment or how to anticipate that moment, depending on the nature of the type of photography I'm doing.

I think when you're at that point there is no longer such a thing as a creative/technical split. The split I think of is "controlled versus reactionary" and both, to me, are equally as creative. Controlled is when you are in control of most aspects of the shoot. You are the author and editor of the image. Reactionary is when you are using your instincts to capture moments that you have no control over. Here you are the editor. But in an editorial role, you have creative control too. You control exactly how the action is expressed, even if you don't control the actual action. What you chose to show and how you chose to show is a creative choice.

While the controlled shoot may seem more creative at first glance, the reactionary shoot, to me, demands as much, if not more creative power, since your toolbag is more limited, you have to be more creative with how you employ the tools you do have. In a controlled shoot, the moment of shutter actuation isn't all that important, those apples will be in the same position in 10 more minutes as they are in now. In reactionary photography the moment of shutter actuation is everything. A kiss won't be a kiss in 10 more minutes.

Anyway, all of this to say you are creative, you just need to find it. The better you understand the technical, the more the technical can eventually fade into the background. Remember that the goal of technical proficiency isn't to become the most technically proficient photographer possible, it's so that you can stop thinking about technical things except for in exceptional circumstances. However, I think it's folly to believe that this means you should focus on the technical exclusively early on. I think that you should be working on your voice from photograph 1. Always work on your voice and vision. Your voice and vision will become clearer as you become more proficient technically, but don't neglect it early.

 

[Overread]

When teacher tells you that you're more technical than creative what they likely mean is that you've not mastered, but certainly become competent in the technical side. That will likely mean that you can shoot a good technical shot - focus is where you want it - exposure is right - depth of field is right etc.... However what is lacking is that whilst you're getting good solid exposures, you're maybe not getting creative shots. IT might mean that you're using a handful or even just one or two compositional theories and methods and re-using them over and over.

The best thing you can do at that point is to ask for the teaching to go more toward the artistic; to also study artistic theories and ideas and look at other peoples work yourself. It's a phase of experimentation somewhat; you try things and see what you like and what others like and what others are doing and how.

The technical skills you have will let you realise the artistic vision you go for so trust in that and start to experiment. Chances are you'll take some rubbish shots but you'll learn what does and doesn't work; rather than just sticking to the "tried and tested formula"


Note some artistic/photography people often state that others lack "creativity" not because the person shows no artistic nor creative skill; but because what they do has been done before. And not just done before; but has been done to the point where the person commenting (eg the teacher) has seen "this shot" 10001 times over. Eg if you're doing weddings and they are doing weddings chances are most shots are things they've seen. So sometimes you can't always win unless you go right outside the box - that might work and it might fail totally. It can also mean that you end up working on skills that photographers want to see; but clients might not be all that interested in (like it or not the bread and butter of most pros is standard regular shots - which whilst allowing artistic expression, still contain core elements that are tried and tested and done a lot)