Artistic vision vs technical perfection?

[Overread]

One thing to bare in mind is that the average person might not comment on the exposure, but its just the same way most won't mention the brush strokes on a painting or the grain of the wood on a sculpture. There are a LOT of subtle elements that combine together to make a photograph (or anything) and many of them will go by totally unnoticed by the average person.

Or rather they will be noticed, but only on the fringes of their attention. It contributes toward it and if you made a mistake on all the little things they would add up. Furthermore any fan who gets more involved will start to see those little things too.


Of course along with that comes personal preference. Some hate to see heavily tone-mapped photos; others love them and some are either way depending on the photo and context.

 

[Gary A.]

One of my earlier photography professors said "... When all else fails, use the Rule of Thirds." That is not only how I photograph ... but ... in retrospect, how I have transversed much of my life.

 

[jcdeboever]

I am over technical because I need to understand my tools. As most of you know, I haven't been at it that long, 2 years is all. I have a pretty good understanding of the tools and what they can do now, so I am venturing out into my imagination more. I am also shooting different things (drag cars lately) to get better at focusing under the gun. I would say 90% of my shooting has been to learn my camera and practice what a couple of mentors have been guiding me towards. I assume they are a little frustrated with my boring photos ans slow progress. I am very happy I took up film shooting as it really makes me slow down, so as I better understand the tool, and execute the image with confidence. I have a journal that I compare what I wanted and what actually happened, very beneficial in my personal development. I really feel I can be more free moving forward. Did I learn everything? No. But I feel I have earned the right to get more creative. I shoot more film than digital because I can and want to. I use digital when I have the desire to do so.

As far as histogram, I used to do it a lot in the beginning because it was a tool available to me. However, I can pretty much see it in the viewfinder now. I almost never use the LCD, other than converting the raw in the camera. Even when I was using the histogram, I would view it in the viewfinder. I hardly ever chimp, only because I don't think to look at it, that comes from shooting film I suppose. I always forget how to turn the darn thing on when I need to.

Funny thing is, my highlights are almost never blown out on B & W film. Even those look pretty good from the scanner. I'm almost always around 7-8 seconds on the enlarger, only go longer if it's a problem shot, like chrome on a bumper of a car or I want to enhance a shadow area and need the time to screw it up, LOL.

I really don't take myself to seriously though. After many years of drawing and painting, I learned everything is a process, including the creative thought process. It really is about putting the little things together to make one big one. But the big but is, you have to know your tools or you'll never but those small things together.

 

[bulldurham]

Just for the record, I never look at a histogram on my camera, and for that matter, I never or rarely look at images on the rear screen as I know at times I am going to shoot up to two stops over or under and let Photoshop handle the exposure issues if there are any. If, in the PP examination I do find I have blown highlights, in 99% of the cases I am going to dump the file. It's a part of having learned the Zone system. I cannot ignore my past and embrace the "new" stuff in photography...no apologies. I didn't' start shooting digital until 2004 When I purchased a set of Nikon D40's for my class and though I did have a fairly extensive BG in Photoshop doing commercial advertising, using it strictly for photography was a whole new ballgame. For me, there is a very fine line between art and technical. Technical is a must for understanding what is happening inside the camera while art is something you acquire through experience and from innate "talent," though I don't give that nearly the credence some people do. You can count the number of people who can play classical piano without any lesson on one hand, but the number of professional photographers who become instant pros on maybe one-half of an ingrown fingernail. I could never teach "art" but I could give the student all the tools to understand what made an artistic print and what just constituted a snapshot.

Though I still do some shooting for wildlife and whatever else strikes my fancy, most of my "one dimensional" work is in Pt/PD, Salt, Albumen, and gum bichromate. I love the old processes, old cameras, old chemicals, etc...but then I am an old fart so why not.

 

[Bollygum]

A few thoughts:

1) I think that a lot of technical and artistic sides to photography can be learned and repeated to a point where a person doing a lot of photography and either doing it in a wide variety of settings or working within regular constraints - can achieve a level of learning where they don't have to "think" about things as much as they once did. Most of us here I wager can change settings, adjust values and do most of that on the camera controls without having to think of things - if we see 2 stops overexposure we know that is several clicks on the dial to change it to what we need etc...

Thus I think one can reach a point where one doesn't need to rely on histograms or light meters as much as when they first started; or have to think about leading lines or the golden circle etc... It's not that they are not using such tools, its that they don't need to double check them and that its running on experience and repetition as much as one might call "instinct".

Of course some people never reach that point, they either don't shoot as much or continually; or they are always in different conditions that makes it harder to guess the settings and situation etc... Others are just not as "clued in" or observant and thus might still rely heavily on technical and artistic aids and thinking and run less on "instinct".

2) Technical VS artistic mindset stems most from the early days of most peoples photography learning where there is often a heavy bias toward the technical. This is because you can have all the artistic skill in the world, but if you can't control your tools and if you can't read the light and situation you can't put that creative talent to much use. It's also a LOT easier to critique and I would say builds on the fact that art as a subject is VERY poorly taught at many schools (thus meaning many people often have a poor understanding of it). So the technical side tends to dominate more so.

There then comes a big learning moment when people realise that technical "perfection" is not a real thing and that real world situations vary what is and isn't possible and that there are choices to be made. These choices hinging on the photographers artistic interpretation of the scene. So suddenly all those technical things seem less important, almost incidental, to the artistic vision that is going to make the photograph rather than just a record shot.

3) My personal view is that any photo is a sum of it parts and that technical and artistic are equal in importance overall. Photographer also throws in the wildcard two other elements which are content and context. These two latter parts can complicate matters as they can both trump both the technical AND the artistic. Some of the most powerful photographs in the world that have had the biggest impact are artistically and technically rubbish. They are little more than untrained snapshots - and yet they capture a moment of great importance - the context and content of the photograph becomes the key element. Context can also extend to how the photo is displayed; some photos on their own say nothing, but when shown as part of a series they gain power and impact.



Personally my view is that both art and technical are of great importance, but neither is the be-all and the end-all. Fail in one enough and the photo fails even if the other is very strong. And above both of those is the context and content of the photo - which can even extend to the context of its display not just its content.

Myself I still use the histogram, I know that some blown out highlights are always going to be blown and that's fine; I know dark areas are not always to be avoided. The histogram tells me where those things are and shows me (blinkies) where the overexposed areas are. With those I can best judge how the settings have allowed me to capture the artistic vision I want for the photograph. I've no doubt that if I shot a lot lot more I'd be far more instinctive with the settings to the point where I'd know pretty much what to set without having to even think about it and without having to double check or chimp. Often I find that these days I only have to check once or twice at the very start and, so long as the light holds steady, I know that the settings I've got will continue to work.

All very good sense and beautifully put. I think many people miss the point of what photography is all about. At it's very best, a photo is "just a record shot". That record shot may be technically superb and it may be artistically extraordinary, but it doesn't have to be.

I'm a photographer of nature and particularly macros of fungi (both still photos and time lapse). It is a highly technical field. I don't think I put a lot of "art" into my photographs, but there is a lot of creativity that does go in. People seem genuinely enthusiastic when they see them and they they certainly do help with conveying knowledge about fungi, but I have no idea if they are art or not. I doubt that it matters as their purpose is to show what is, in as accurate and attractive a way as possible.

When I hear the techno types discuss photography I always think "but what about the subject?" and when I hear the arty types discuss it, it seems that everything is anthropomorphic and I think "but the universe isn't all about us". I should put a note here that I really do not understand what art is, except that I do like good art and some people seem to have a talent for it and others don't. Mozart could apparently imagine an entire symphony in his head as a single entity. I can't even imagine that with a very short piece, at least not consciously.

 

[Overread]

Art is a very variable term and in a sense almost has no fixed meaning that you can "work" toward. I've heard it said that art is works created to encourage or create an emotional response in the subjects viewing it.

Others try to attach elements of quality and skill to the term, but those often end up very contrived and tend to show bias from the person creating the list to limit it to specific things that they like/respect. At the same time most of us know that a square inside another square on a wall is not "art" even if places like the Tate Modern call it Art (and also stick an insane price label on it).


In the end Art is what you make of it be that in viewing and/or creation.

 

[weepete]

Yes, I use the histogram while editing. I find it useful to help judge exposure especially since light levels vary at my desktop and I'm eding on a TN panel more geared towards gaming than photography. I also find exposure hard to judge when using a backlit screen. I pretty much do the same thing with highlights and though I don't mind if the specular highlights are blown I do normally try and keep them tight. It does really depend on how intrinisic is is to the image however, sometimes it may be what you are shooting for.

As for composition and croping, yeah, I have it in mind when I'm shooting and when I edit. Breaking composition down into rules is a bit strong though. I've been lucky to have a good education in the fundimentals of composition, so what I look for is balance in an image and where your eye goes within the frame. I'll try and create boundaries to keep the viewer contained in the image while providing a visual path to follow.

I'm definatley on the more technical side, I could totally understand some who'd think my images are boring and twee. Indeed I'm not even doing anything unique, merely above average. But that, to me is where a little bit of the beauty lies. I can show people my images of Scotland, and largley they are suprised. Not that I'm a unique talent, just that I'm showing a side of the landscape that often people who live here don't know is there. And here there is beauty in abundance, if you know where to look.

Addendum: Technical and creative are kind of two sides of the same coin. Often these are seperated, especially when it comes to dealing with art. To be really good you need a bit of both, the artistic vision and the technical skill to pull it off. A prime example would be Salvador Dali and his surrealist illusion paintings. They work so well because he had both. Lacking in either it wouldn't have worked. Or to take the Adams quote and turn it on it's head a bit you need the the technical knowledge to turn a sharp concept into a blurry image.

 

[weepete]

I was recently on Jura and walked up to the loch above the distillery. Looking across the water into the sun the specular reflections were *bright*, they really conjured feelings of crystal and clear.

As I sit here writing this is is a rainy, gloomy day. That is it is gloomy in the room, outside though the sky is bright and fairly featureless, not near back and full of stormy detail and contrast.

So why does everything in a photograph have to have detail? Why does it all have to exist *between* the numbers that *represent* black and white? Why do we look to a graph to define how the image should look?

This is from my last blog:

It’s a very real pitfall for us photographers in that once we learn a few rules we apply that understanding to make sense of every picture we see. We teach ourselves to see the order we wish to impose, an order that allows us the illusion that we understand photography, and in doing so lose the ability to see beyond it because an order we don’t understand can appear invisible simply because we don’t learn to see it. I was having a conversation with a friend and a rough overview was that I was not seeing things clearly. But what is clearly other than the imposition of somebody else’s framework that allows them the illusion of understanding? It went much like this; “the pieces are this shape and fit together this way.”

“I’m not so sure they fit together, some of the joins look a little fuzzy to me. Let’s take it apart and discuss the shapes a little more, see if the edges become clearer and then see if they still fit together that way or another.”

“No, they have to be this shape or they don’t fit together.”

How many really good images have you seen that you can fully express in words? It's the biggest problem I find with photo forums, that we always seem to need an understanding, or narrative, in words to explain *why*.

I've absorbed a lot of information in my time, a lot I probably still don't fully understand. But I do realise that there are large gaps in our spoken language because it fails to fully describe everything we see. And this is a problem because if you need to put into words to understand then you will only see what you can describe in words. Somewhere along the line, and it's a slow realisation, you begin to see this and start to let go of the logic. This is when you start to *see*, beyond words, gain a visual understanding rather than a spoken one.

The *rules* of composition are just visual principles distilled into written language, quite a lot of the meaning is also lost in the translation...

Vision isn't absolute or scientific, it's human.

Here's a question to ponder: We interpret emotion in an image by relating facial expressions to our experiences. In many ways they are generic as in we do not truly understand the subject, only ourselves and so will only understand emotion we can relate to.
But how does this change in wedding photography where the audience will have an intimate understanding of peoples personalities? Does this mean that the images need to be more honest to the couple, less *high art* and ideals of the photographer?

I think you've lost me in some places Tim, I suspect if I was to hear it in person I'd understand a bit better, but I think we'd agree on the main points.

What I'd say is it totally depends on the image and what the artist was trying to convey. Let's take an extreme example of something emerging from the dark. In that situation you wouldn't want detail in the deep shadows. Take for example Toulouse-Lautrec's "The Hanged Man" (link below)

https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIs...B4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=fe7e0ba8e7820952

Large parts of that image are blacked out quite deliberatley for adding interest, definition and emphasis.

Or Rembrandt and his Slaughtered Ox (link below)

https://nielsbergervoet.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/ox.jpg

again using a lack of detail in the shadows to de emphasise the unimportant.

So I'd argue that having the ability to choose whither or not to use that type of technique is a valuable tool in the box. But it totally depends on your initial vision.

I'd also say that the technical details of how that darkness was achived is acedemic, as lonv as it was in line with the quality of the finished article.

 

[Bollygum]

To Weepete - Geez. I don't think I'd want either of those paintings hanging on my wall, certainly not the slaughtered ox. Are they art? Well, I'd be loath to suggest that anything by either of those two wasn't art, and they certainly did evoke a strong emotion. I guess that they were very much more topical and common place when they were painted, but I'll bet that many were repulsed and shouted "this is not art". The definition of art seems to tend towards - "that stuff that is created by an artist", and Rembrandt and Toulouse-Lautrec were definitely artists.

 

[Gary A.]

Art is a very variable term and in a sense almost has no fixed meaning that you can "work" toward. I've heard it said that art is works created to encourage or create an emotional response in the subjects viewing it.

Others try to attach elements of quality and skill to the term, but those often end up very contrived and tend to show bias from the person creating the list to limit it to specific things that they like/respect. At the same time most of us know that a square inside another square on a wall is not "art" even if places like the Tate Modern call it Art (and also stick an insane price label on it).


In the end Art is what you make of it be that in viewing and/or creation.

To me and my very simple cream-cheese brain, ‘Art’ is anything above and beyond utilitarian. A coffee mug is a tool. A coffee mug with a picture of a cat on it is art. There is high art and there’s lesser art, there’s good art and bad art. But if something is to be appreciated beyond any utilitarian/tool value, then there is art.

 

[Overread]

Addendum: Technical and creative are kind of two sides of the same coin. Often these are seperated, especially when it comes to dealing with art. To be really good you need a bit of both, the artistic vision and the technical skill to pull it off.

There was a phase (probably still lingering and ongoing) through education where someone with a degree got themselves into a position of influence based on the concept that people could be divided into scientific and creative. That you'd either have a brain of a scientist and be all super good at maths but hopeless at the arts; or you'd be arty and creative but useless at the sciences.

It's utterly daft; but it sort of stuck and I think stained generations into that way of thinking and perceiving themselves and their skills. I think it also stuck because it broadly let schools push under-performing academic students into arts subjects.

Thing is I know people who are super smart with maths who are very creative and capable of some outstanding painting skills. If you doubt me consider Warhammer. A hobby favoured by geeks and nerds and those who like to chat about impossible and invisible numbers and how 1+1 doesn't equal 2. And if you look past the dice you'll see some outstanding creative works of art made with paint plastic and superglue.

Similarly many of the great artists (esp of history) were renowned as being well educated and smart in many subjects. Many operated at the cutting edge of sciences for their day in their creative endeavours.



I do agree that technical and art are divide. Myself when helping someone new I often lean toward the technical first and the art second; purely from the standpoint that to realise the artistic creativity and to make use of that learning; one must first gain a mastery and control over the tools they have. For a photographer this means the camera and the exposure. For a painter it means leaning to mix colours and how to layer paints; how to sweep with brushstrokes etc... And along the way you'll learn a lot of creative methods and once the technical becomes second nature its a lot easier to focus on refining the creative.

Like yourself I agree that they are two sides of the coin and that both are needed. Both are of equal value.

 

[pixmedic]

there are those that are strictly and irrevocably bound by the technical aspects of proper form and function, and there are those whose artistic visions are completely and unequivocally unfettered by the stifling rules of man.
somewhere in the middle is a truly great photographer.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I think you've lost me in some places Tim, I suspect if I was to hear it in person I'd understand a bit better, but I think we'd agree on the main points.

What I'd say is it totally depends on the image and what the artist was trying to convey. Let's take an extreme example of something emerging from the dark. In that situation you wouldn't want detail in the deep shadows. Take for example Toulouse-Lautrec's "The Hanged Man" (link below)

https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIs...B4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=fe7e0ba8e7820952

Large parts of that image are blacked out quite deliberatley for adding interest, definition and emphasis.

Or Rembrandt and his Slaughtered Ox (link below)

https://nielsbergervoet.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/ox.jpg

again using a lack of detail in the shadows to de emphasise the unimportant.

So I'd argue that having the ability to choose whither or not to use that type of technique is a valuable tool in the box. But it totally depends on your initial vision.

I'd also say that the technical details of how that darkness was achived is acedemic, as lonv as it was in line with the quality of the finished article.

Sort of, and sort of not...

I'm not trying to critique but highlight why we see things differently, (as individuals in general), and the dangers inherent in that.

Let's generalise. We don't understand this world and form a logic based on that understanding. What we do is form a logic that allows us to impose a framework of understanding, and this allows us to navigate and make sense of the world more easily. Blinkered, bigoted, indoctrinated, extremist, are all examples of words we use to describe people that we don't feel see the world correctly, who do not understand our framework. But I've chosen the somewhat obvious extremes where beliefs and how some people view the world seems obviously distorted by environment, learning, language and experience. So why would we assume that these people are in a different category to us, in the way they form opinion and not the opinion they form? Innocent, over-trusting are examples are examples of environment and learning have not exposed other people to our *rational* point of experience.

They all share something in common, they are labels we apply. They are not absolute categories but ways of describing how other's beliefs *differ* from ours. They are relative descriptions and not absolute.

If we accept that our experience, learning, the language we hear and use all contribute to how others view the world then we must also accept that it applies to us.

And if this colours the way we view the real world why should it not colour the way we view images?

We suffer one fundamental mis-conception, that we see clearly. But it is also that which allows us to navigate the world with confidence. If we accept that our vision is not absolute and that we rarely see what's there then it fills us with far more uncertainty in our beliefs. And though you may fully accept the above it's also very common that we also make the assumption that what we see is absolute without question.

A contradiction.

What I'll try to explain is what you don't see, and why you don't see it. But it's very hard to counter years of learning and experience with one or two sentences.

When we view the world we do it through a framework we apply to allow us an understanding of what we see. When we look at images we do the same. When you compose an image you must therefore include elements of order to enable your viewer to gain an understanding. But the trouble is that because we think we see clearly and what we see is actually there we fail to notice something else. That the order we impose is our framework, it is what we impose to make sense of an image. It is neither logical or really correct, it is not the whole truth or really absolute and exists within the frame of the image. Most of it comes from our experience, our learning and language, how we classify and impose order on our surrounding to gain understanding. It comes from being human and seeing the world through human eyes.

But yet many photographers still believe in absolutes, that things are clearly in images and that they obey the logic and science of how they were formed by the camera and software. Because a lens and sensor recorded it, it is there. It may well be, but in order to see it you first have to view it as a human, with all the above baggage...

The trouble is that we are influenced by how we learn and categorise things, so if our logical framework is one of absolutes then we learn to see images as absolutes and it becomes very difficult to see beyond that.

What we don't always see is that vision is relative, we see the difference between two things and not the absolute nature of one. If we judge an image by sharpness we see it as an absolute quality. Not that we necessarily believe that all images should be sharp, we often believe that sharpness is a tool, and softness has it's place. What we fail to see is that they are relative terms for the same thing. When you reduce the real world to 2 dimensions and contain it within a space that has limited contrast you find that a lot of things that existed separately in the real world become dichotomies. They exist as yin and yang, a balance between visual opposites and not as absolutes at all. You don't always realise what you need new glasses until you have your eyes tested because sharpness is relative and only revealed when you see a difference.

Light and dark. You can stand in a space where the overall brightness is almost blinding, you can stand in a dark space where it becomes difficult to see. But can you achieve that in an image? No. It becomes a dichotomy, you can achieve the appearance of light by contrasting it with dark, or the appearance of dark by contrasting it with light. But you can't achieve a blinding light or a claustrophobic dark on their own.

Large parts of that image are blacked out quite deliberatley for adding interest, definition and emphasis.

again using a lack of detail in the shadows to de emphasise the unimportant.

They are not absolutes, this is the way you label and classify, apply order and understanding. They are part of the same thing. In the Lautrec the sense of light on the man's dead son and his sense of shock at the *sudden* discovery is very much communicated by the visual contrast created by combining the two things together. The shadows have to be dark in the limited contrast and reveal little detail in order for the effect of the light to be so much more graphic and sudden. The trouble is that many of these digitalised copies recognise the need to see the absolute detail. The actual installation image shows the visual effect far better and is also shown against a darker ground:

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. Hanging Man (Le Pendu). 1895 | MoMA

Similarly with colour and volume, to achieve colour you have to paint with colour and volume requires chiaroscuro, but shading involves the removal to some extent of colour and replacing it with shades and tones.

If we see only in absolutes we teach ourselves to evaluate by absolute qualities and so fail to see in images things are always a balance between two opposites. If we teach ourselves a language of sharpness, detail, contrast and skies with drama then we fail to see how it impacts on the impression of volume, depth, colour, light within the confines of a 2 dimensional space of limited contrast. We fail to realise things that exist simultaneously in the natural world are reduced to opposites in a visual image because it's not allowed for in a narrative of absolute defined by the way a camera captures. Our narrative, or framework, that we use to describe our photographs does not include that distinction. Most photographers on some forums would universally prefer the image on the left because it is a language they've taught themselves to recognise and understand. Most non-photographers see the one on the left as cartoonish and unreal because they recognise the one on the right as being more consistent with their framework based on looking at the real world with human eyes. Neither is either real, correct, or the way we would actually see. But they both reveal the framework, or logic, imposed by the photographer. The viewer makes a judgement based on *their* understanding and framework as to which makes most sense to them, or which one they would like to make most sense.

 

[paigew]

I'm an artistic, technicalist [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] I absolutely can't stand when a photo is out of focus, or has such dark/shadowed skin tones, or completely false colors (greens?!). Basically I shoot to print so that's my bottom line. I see so many popular photos that won't print worth a crap and it baffles me that people deliver these types of photos to their clients.

I don't care about histogram as long as the important parts of the image aren't blown. I try to shoot more true to life light and color. So if dark areas are clipped that won't bother me either [emoji16]

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[dennybeall]

I know I'm a photojournalist and if any shot is artistic it's purely by accident. The "story" I'm trying to tell may be artistic and that's fine too.
Experience (50+years) lets me glance at the back of the camera and know if I need to re-shoot or Photoshop can touch it up later.
The histogram is my main PP tool in PS.