Artistic vision vs technical perfection?

[webestang64]

I use my technical perfection to create my artistic vision.

 

[Bollygum]

The idea that creative = artistic has always struck me as very odd. Was Einstein not creative? It may be that the best artists are also creative, but so are the best scientists or mathematicians. I tend to think of artists as communicators, so Shakespeare was an artist, as was Byron and so was Rembrandt. We are all artists, but most of us don't stand out very much or very often when compared to the greats.

 

[otherprof]

I take three approaches:
1. Hey, look at that!
2. Let's see what this slider does.
3. Hey, look at that now!

 

[Derrel]

I try to maintain good technique standards while also creating pleasing compositions. I look at the histogram while editing... it's"there"... but I never use it as an absolute or inviolable standard. As to blinkies...often times some portions of a photo need to be specular highlights, so if that's the case they're OK. I studied composition, and drawing, and design. I don't believe in the rule of thirds--that's nonsense and modern, from an issue of Popular Mechanics magazine in the 1960's, and that "hack"'is not found in the fine arts.

Different photos demand different things. Some photos are built on emotional content, while other photos rely upon technical mastery. A good example of technical mastery would be some of the boring landscape photos (like this=boring image... Adams+-+Tree,+Stump+and+Mist.jpg] of Ansel Adams,which if printed straight, would have looked very uninspiring. But by virtue of incredible dodge and burn and bleaching and complex darkroom work many of his photos appear impressive. It's an example of how technically perfect images can appear impressive, while being rather mundane and boring. The severely under exposed then push-processed, badly-lit news photo of Bobby Kennedy's assassination aftermath [ NBVLQW2J6NDIDBU4PYR5R4YVBM.jpg ] is an example of horrible technical values, but incredible emotional,visceral appeal. Somewhere in the middle are all the other photos in the world.

I think a certain level of technical proficiency is necessary to convey things in a photographic language. But the technical proficiency is, today, pretty easy to achieve.

 

[DanOstergren]

I think it's important to have a grasp on both aspects. Photography is a mix of craft and artistry, and one should strive to master both.

 

[Derrel]

I think it's important to have a grasp on both aspects. Photography is a mix of craft and artistry, and one should strive to master both.

^^^^^^^^
The above. Exactly.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gary A.]

I think it's important to have a grasp on both aspects. Photography is a mix of craft and artistry, and one should strive to master both.

Mastery Yes ... Slave No.

 

[DanOstergren]

I think it's important to have a grasp on both aspects. Photography is a mix of craft and artistry, and one should strive to master both.

Mastery Yes ... Slave No.

I don't remember saying slave...

 

[Gary A.]

I think it's important to have a grasp on both aspects. Photography is a mix of craft and artistry, and one should strive to master both.

Mastery Yes ... Slave No.

I don't remember saying slave...

I never said you did. I said slave. I’m sorry for any confusion.

For clarity:

1. Mastery Yes ... needs no clarification.
2. Slave No ... I mean to say that the photog should not feel compelled to follow ... the Rule of Thirds (as an example) .... or compelled to expose for the widest dynamic range available or process with detail in the shadows, et cetera.

 

[Derrel]

Just a bit of explanation about my earlier comment, regarding the so-called "rule of thirds" not being a real design principle...it was designed as a "hack" to teach non-photographers how to make photos in a facile, paint-by-numbers type of way, and was first published in the 1960's, in Popular Mechanics.The so-called "Rule of Thirds" is NOT a real fine arts concept; many confuse it with classical landscape painting's rule of one-third foreground, one third mid-ground, one-third farthest viewpoint, which is an Eighteenth Century shorthand formula that was used to tell noob landscape painters how to paint landscapes, in a sort of paint-by-numbers way. I just want to point out that "artistic vision" is not a rule of thirds type of deal...

There are elements and principles of design. THOSE are the things that artists learn about, and utilize.

See this primer for actual, university-level basics about this topic. It's from 1999,and as such, it pre-dates idiots on Wikipedia adding "the rule of thirds" to articles on how to compose photos.

https://www.johnlovett.com/design-overview

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Just a bit of explanation about my earlier comment, regarding the so-called "rule of thirds" not being a real design principle...it was designed as a "hack" to teach non-photographers how to make photos in a facile, paint-by-numbers type of way, and was first published in the 1960's, in Popular Mechanics.The so-called "Rule of Thirds" is NOT a real fine arts concept; many confuse it with classical landscape painting's rule of one-third foreground, one third mid-ground, one-third farthest viewpoint, which is an Eighteenth Century shorthand formula that was used to tell noob landscape painters how to paint landscapes, in a sort of paint-by-numbers way. I just want to point out that "artistic vision" is not a rule of thirds type of deal...

There are elements and principles of design. THOSE are the things that artists learn about, and utilize.

See this primer for actual, university-level basics about this topic. It's from 1999,and as such, it pre-dates idiots on Wikipedia adding "the rule of thirds" to articles on how to compose photos.

https://www.johnlovett.com/design-overview

Though I would certainly agree up to a point there is an elephant in the room.

We like there to be a neat and logical reason for everything. We like composition to be neat and logical because we *desire* a neat and logical answer. We like it to be mathematical and follow simple geometry, it's a simple logic that we find as photographers elegant and easy to understand. If we understand simple geometry then we can label all composition as it becomes simple division of the rectangle.

We *teach* ourselves to see and recognise its use in *thirds* or *leading lines* and when we see it we see a pattern we recognise and understand. The picture is thought to be composed because it follows a logical order, one that we can see, one that we have learnt and understand. And because we see and recognise both we think it absolutely works.

But, as you say, it doesn't describe or understand composition, and it's the elephant in the room.

We can see and recognise it.

It tells us what composition is and why it works. We seek to gain an understanding when we look so we try to impose a framework. Now because we call it a framework some photographers will automatically see a grid as that is what they associate the meaning of the word *framework* with. A lot of *understanding* is this, the logical connection of the definitions of words we use to label. (If you look at TAP's arguments they are exactly this, a series of keywords and your *understanding* is by making connections between your definitions of the words. There is no actual observation it's just a part numbering exercise as in there is no real connection between the part and the number. But we recognise the logical sequence in the numbers and allows us the illusion that we understand the logical sequence of the parts. It's why a lot of arguments on some forums degrade into exact definition of words.)

Our understanding of thirds is much the same, but we still see and recognise it. When you enclose something in a rectangle you provide a grid against which we can measure. We don't measure it against any absolute number but by simple division of the space, it's relationship to the frame. We can see half, we can see thirds and fifths, we can divide a rectangle into a square. Sevenths and elevenths are a little more difficult, but eighths and sixteenths not so. When we see diagonals we start to associate them with an understanding of depth. Dynamic is just the part number for a diagonal, it is not it's explanation or observation just as thirds is a part number for the second simplest grid or division of a rectangle. It works because we can see it but it doesn't explain why we can see it easily and it doesn't give any explanation or understanding of composition.

It's why some photographs look flat. We understand and teach ourselves to *see* a language we understand; one of detail everywhere, contrast, thirds and leading lines. What we don't see or understand so is how to compose with the impression of light, depth, colour. I'm not saying that these things need to be in an image, or that an image shouldn't look flat as a lot of modern art has challenged the five Renaissance perspectives and has embraced the nature of the 2D picture rather than hide it in 3D illusion. What 'm saying is that many do not even seem able to see or understand how to do this. Or most importantly understand why they don't see it as this again is at the heart of a fundamental understanding of composition.

Stop the ROT....

Addition: We are not born with composition in our DNA, we learn to recognise shapes we find pleasing. Part of that recognition resides in the way we learn and the language we use to apply order, maths and geometry.

It is because we learn geometry that we apply it to our understanding of images, images are not magically transformed because they are geometrical. Ask our elephant, if he's still in the room, and see if he understands or even sees any geometric order of thirds. Similarly with Golden Ratio, though it has a geometrical symmetry it does not in itself contain any magical harmony. We've just learnt geometry and so recognition of such patterns, and it's recognition is more to it being an elegant solution that satisfies our desire for there to be an elegant solution rather than it being inherent in our DNA that we find it more pleasing. It was from an age where buildings were laid out with posts and lengths of string. It was revived in the Renaissance and Neo-Classical periods because of our desire for an elegant solution. But the truth is that we now design with computer, lasers, and GPS; build with steel, glass, and composites so we've learnt to see and understand a different geometry because our language of such is more complete and not bound by the same roots.

Take a look at Greek and Roman perspective. Each object sits in it's own space and has it's own perspective. There is no common vanishing point because the concept of infinity was simply not understood or part of our understanding. We did not see it or apply it as a framework in images because it was not part of our understanding or language of the time.

 

[bulldurham]

"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."

It's not that commercial or even art analog photographers couldn't do what is being done in today's digital environment, it's that in today's environment we have more ways to entice, trick, harden, soften - pick an adjective - the image to sell our own vision. If used correctly, overlays, masking and blend modes alone can change almost anyone's emotional response to an image. The end point though, like "the Hanging Man" is that no matter your vision, not everyone is going to like it, agree with it or embrace it...sometimes I even have to get "over it."

Or play with it and see if I cannot find a happy ground for my eye. For me, I found the two left side frame trims (where I cut and pasted then changed blend modes and opacities), more appealing to where I might have gone making the same point as Tim did. It is, and always will be as simple as "whatever floats your boat," just don't expect everyone will go hog wild in an enthusiastic response.

Ansel Adams as well as Al Weber (he was one of Adam's printers) said he loved the darkroom creation as much as he loved inventing the image in the camera. Note the words, "invent," and "create." This has been a good dialogue.

Happy trails.

 

[SquarePeg]

1. Mastery Yes ... needs no clarification.
2. Slave No ... I mean to say that the photog should not feel compelled to follow ... the Rule of Thirds (as an example) .... or compelled to expose for the widest dynamic range available or process with detail in the shadows, et cetera.

I think this gets quickly to the heart of the discussion. Someone who is very technically oriented in their photography would not be happy with a photo that leaves the blacks with no details or has some blown highlights or has a slightly off white balance. Artistically, those issues may not negatively impact the photo or may even be what draws viewers to the photo to begin with.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

It's not that commercial or even art analog photographers couldn't do what is being done in today's digital environment, it's that in today's environment we have more ways to entice, trick, harden, soften - pick an adjective - the image to sell our own vision. If used correctly, overlays, masking and blend modes alone can change almost anyone's emotional response to an image. The end point though, like "the Hanging Man" is that no matter your vision, not everyone is going to like it, agree with it or embrace it...sometimes I even have to get "over it."

Or play with it and see if I cannot find a happy ground for my eye. For me, I found the two left side frame trims (where I cut and pasted then changed blend modes and opacities), more appealing to where I might have gone making the same point as Tim did. It is, and always will be as simple as "whatever floats your boat," just don't expect everyone will go hog wild in an enthusiastic response.

Ansel Adams as well as Al Weber (he was one of Adam's printers) said he loved the darkroom creation as much as he loved inventing the image in the camera. Note the words, "invent," and "create." This has been a good dialogue.

Happy trails.

Yes, but...

There's a common failing among photographer in the digital age; that we fail to recognise or allow for the fact that our vision is not absolute and that we do not see things correctly. This affects both the image we present and the way people view it. Vision is relative in that we see the difference between things rather than the absolute. When we edit we generally use our knowledge and understanding of photographic processes as a reference to *correct*. There are two main problems with this; we tend to use the image as a point of reference, we see the difference between two images or what the camera captured and how we altered it. We use our understanding and rationalisations to recognise where we succeed, as in we see the extra detail in the shadows, the contrast etc. But we don't see where we fail. This is in part a failing of the global nature of many of the digital tools, we understand white points as absolute, we understand highlights and shadows as absolutes. What is not transferred or understood is that in the real world white is entirely relative and rarely white at all. It is often blown out and without detail, it's what makes it white. Look closely and parts of it will change to colour and tone, but then other parts of our field of vision will change as well.

The second point is that we fail to realise that our audience not only do not see the image correctly but that they use a completely different reference point against which to judge. They compare the image against their experience of the real world and not to any understanding of cameras and technology. They see clearly how the image differs, they see different failings to you.

This is not to say that we must strive for *correct* as it is simply not possible to show a high DR scene in a space of limited DR. The whole compression of contrast to fit it within that space alters your perception of colour and light. You must alter it, and given that your audience will not see it correctly anyway you can actually alter it quite extensively and still they will relate it to their experience of reality.

All I'm trying to point out is as David Hurn said, "all you really need to do is learn to observe rather than just look." We need to use our vision of the real world as a reference and not our understanding of cameras. Not everybody will see the world the way you do but many may relate to it, this is your artistic vision and not the way you move the sliders or apply software. Technical ability is often only the skill to be able to understand and replicate what we observe rather than just attaching artistic significance to what we do. Using the skill rather than being a slave to it. It is not an odd coincidence that a scientific mind trained in observation rather than assumption is capable of communicating through images...

As indicated, neither of the two versions presented were correct. And even with the four edits you presented how many really noticed the flaws, where the images failed or how they differed? The last is far closer to the true colour of the van and the relative brightnesses of the beach and sky when you stood in the actual landscape and looked:

 

[Solarflare]

Mostly I want my images to bleed. Thus I will take any strong image, even if it has some technical errors.

Perfection is often perfectly boring. Many famous images have shortcomings. You dont have to be as extreme as this guy: Miroslav Tichý - Wikipedia but not to be too stuck up about perfection is a good thing, as far as I'm converned.

That said, having a great, well made camera in hand with an equally great lens is very motivating for me.