Shooting in P mode

[The_Traveler]

Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'

Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards

Interesting that they now say that the above photo: "Falling Soldier" was faked/staged. How Capa's camera does lie: The photographic proof that iconic 'Falling Soldier' image was staged | Mail Online

Logical since there is no visual indication of injury, or blood.

skieur

Absolutely not my point, so please don't dance away.
My point is that technical issues can hurt an image but can't elevate it beyond technical perfection.
Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.

The idea that great images do NOT depend upon technical perfection is pretty well-proven, I would say. I have seen many,many "great images" out of the billions and billions of photographs that have been made. And a good many of these great images have what could easily be considered technical faults, but because of the content of the images, or the rarity of the subject matter, or the sheer unusual nature of the photograph, the photo can still be considered a legitimately "great image". The falling solidier Capra photographed in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's, or the Vietnamese general pointing his revolver to the temple of the crying, screaming suspected Viet Cong enemy that he was about to execute, photographed by Edie Adams, or the screaming, naked Vietnamese girl running down the middle of a roadway, fleeing her village that was being napalm-bombed...those images of war ALL have what might be considered "technical flaws", or photographic weaknesses...but the subject matter transcends the weaknesses of the technique, or the camera's EXACT settings.

Back to shooting in Program mode...hey...whatever...whatever floats yer boat. As far as technical weaknesses and great images: one of the things we are seeing these days are ever-increasing standards of technical excellence. HCB's blurred 1932 image of a man leaping from a ladder and trying to hop across a puddle...technically, pretty weak. Why? The era it was made in...what was the ASA rating of even a fast 35mm film back in 1932? Was it 25 or maybe as high as 50 ASA??? TODAY, if HCB were walking the streets, he could EASILY shoot that shot at ISO 2,000 with a good d-slr or a Leica M-9. As we move forward into this era of super-high ISO ratings and AMAZING dynamic range and post-capture exposure adjustment/recovery, Program will become more and more useful for those who use it.

Same thing goes for AUTO ISO. In my opinion, AUTO ISO used to be somewhat useless, much of the time. Not so these days. Not with the killer sensor technology that has appeared in the last couple of generations of d-slrs.

 

[skieur]

Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'

Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards

Interesting that they now say that the above photo: "Falling Soldier" was faked/staged. How Capa's camera does lie: The photographic proof that iconic 'Falling Soldier' image was staged | Mail Online

Logical since there is no visual indication of injury, or blood.

skieur

Absolutely not my point, so please don't dance away.
My point is that technical issues can hurt an image but can't elevate it beyond technical perfection.
Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.

No but great images aren't dependent on compositional/artistic perfection either. As I said at the very beginning BOTH are EQUALLY necessary and it is valid to completely judge both in critique.

skieur

 

[The_Traveler]

You can believe what you want but neither believing it nor repeating it will make it so.

It's your opinion.

I don't agree.

 

[tevo]

Learning shutter, aperture and ISO/ASA is crucial because regardless of what mode you are shooting, these are the variables that make your photo. However, learning them first is not necessary. Composition is the first step to a photo, and it is done moments before capture. Every single camera ever requires the setting of shutter, aperture, and ISO/ASA in order to properly expose a photo. In my humble opinion, one should not pass themselves off as a photographer without this knowledge, but learning these things should not interfere with their initial creativity. This knowledge should not be a barrier, rather it is a tool to any photographer as it allows them to depart from the realm of 'Auto' and push the creative envelope even further.

 

[skieur]

You can believe what you want but neither believing it nor repeating it will make it so.

It's your opinion.

I don't agree.

Not my opinion, at all. I picked it up from the Canadian Photographic Art Association, the American Professional Photographers Association and the rules of judging for several professional photography Competitions.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

 

[The_Traveler]

That's called an 'Argument from Authority' and, in certain circumstances that might bolster your argument.

Here, to me, nope, because I don't care what their opinion is.

It's not the length of a lightyear or gravity's acceleration or number of photons released every second from the sun, it's an opinion and you can subscribe to theirs and I don't agree.

 

[amolitor]

I can appeal to authority, too: Impressionism, Pictorialism, Surrealism, Cubism, etc etc.

To pick on one technical flaw, so that it may serve to illustrate the point:

If you're going to claim that No Image is improved by being out of focus, you're going to have to define what "improved" is. Since there is a broad consensus about certain images requiring their lack of focus, which images would indeed be worsened by being in focus, whatever definition you choose must defy that broad consensus. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. However, at this point you're pretty much entering the land of "in my opinion". Yes, it's your opinion and it is held by some others, but that doesn't make it equal to the broader consensus. You're in the minority, which isn't quite the same thing as wrong, but it's about as close to "wrong" as you can get in the world of judging art.

Not quite as wrong as the guys who flounce off after a while saying "You just don't GET my VISION" but you're in that direction.

 

[The_Traveler]

I've been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.

If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.

True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?

One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.

Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual's control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you can’t teach artistic talent.

So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill. So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn't the most important thing, people got defensive.

 

[Derrel]

Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works?

Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:

1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or---

2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well.

Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...danger lurks where Program is set...right???

 

[amolitor]

Yep, P is PDragons! Scarrry stuff!

 

[skieur]

just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.

skieur

 

[fjrabon]

Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.

skieur

I am not impressed by the photo, irrespective of its iconic nature and history.

skieur

Within just a couple of posts you've cited popular opinion as an authority, and also stated how you disagree with popular opinion on an iconic image that is almost universally loved. You've stated how you think the image would be better with fewer 'technical flaws' while almost every one of the people you later cite would agree that the technical 'flaws' in some way made that image. You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Where consensus agrees with you it's near law, and where it doesn't it's mere opinion.

 

[skieur]

I’ve been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.

If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.

Well, first of all in order to produce a "beautiful/great/important" photographic image it is rather important that you use a camera. Since the camera is your "artistic tool", skilled use of a camera is rather a basic requisite. And yes there are requirements in other kinds of art. Great piano pieces by an unskilled pianist.:lmao: Great literature from illiterate authors. Artistic masterpieces from an artist whose skill with a brush is very poor. These forms of art are WITHIN THE PARAMETERS of the particular medium. A basic structure, medium, format, procedure, is required. Kicking a garbage can may be expressing itself, but anyone would be intellectually challenged to call it art.

True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?

Yes, knowing how to use a camera would definitely be "useful"....I would say a necessity to get to any endpoint of producing an artistic photo image.


One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.

By calling it a "skill based art" means that technical skill is an important element and just as important as composition. "Achieving a skill and exercising it" is NOT achieved at all if you have made all kinds of technical errors.

Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual’s control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you can’t teach artistic talent.

Having taught in an Arts School, I certainly agree that you can't teach artistic talent, but you certainly can teach the technical skills necessary to achieve success in better expression of their talent.

So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill. So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn’t the most important thing, people got defensive.

You also don't seem to be reading well. I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant. I am saying that:

TECHNIQUE(the technical end) AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end) ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.

skieur