# Artistic vision vs technical perfection?



## SquarePeg (Sep 13, 2018)

Another thread got me thinking about technical perfection/rules vs artistic vision (yes that thread).  It seems like we have a good mix on TPF of technicians and artists and everything in between. I’ve seen some photos that, while technically excellent, were just boring and others that broke so many “rules” that they were hard to look at.  Just curious where you think you fall on this?  I d0nt think either way is wrong or right, just different approaches. 

Do you check your histogram when editing and if you do, do you ever ignore it and let your eye be the judge?  Do you care if you’ve got highlights blinking if the photo looks good to you?   When composing/cropping, are you thinking of compositional rules to improve it or do you crop as you like?  If you’re horizon looks good right in the middle, do you move it up or down to follow the rules?

For me, I fall pretty far from the technical side of things.  I have certain “rules” that I follow because that is what is pleasing to me in a photo BUT, honestly if I didn’t have a histogram when shooting or editing, I wouldn’t miss it.  I rarely, if ever, use it.  Same goes for a lot of posing and compositional rules.  I go by what I like.  Maybe that’s holding me back?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2018)

If I'm objective, I would say that I'm more technical than artistic, however, I like to think that I have some grasp of the artistic.  About the only time I ever check my histogram is while shooting to see how I am for shadows & highlights.  I do have certain compositional "rules" that I try and adhere to, but nothing is written in stone.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 13, 2018)

I can sit here and have a lengthy discussion about inverse square law, speedlight GN, fluorine coating,  OCF, DOF calculation, etc.  I can hold my own when it comes to technical proficiency.  However, you'll rarely hear me talk about those.  I don't even remember the last time I looked at a histogram, it doesn't mean I don't know what it is or how to use it.

People will never remember if you didn't blow out the highlights, or the horizon is straight/crooked, or if it has too much negative space, distracting background, etc.  However, they will remember how a photograph makes them feel when they look at it.  Since my job is to convey love so posing, emotions, and non-verbal communication are important.  For me posing, lighting, and background are in that order of importance.  My technical understanding of photography,  my knowledge of composition, and my eye for lighting all work together to create feelings for a specific viewing audience.  Photography is a form of expression.  The guidelines are there so that you can be consistent with your results, but it shouldn't become something that would hold you back.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 13, 2018)

I started out Photography with being a technical perfectionist, but I actually shot in a purely artistically point of view. This may be because I had already an artistic as I was drawing and painting before I took up photography ... but I had always been technically minded ? Though, I have never used a histogram while shooting ... but I do recall spending many minutes light metering everything I think was important and trying to calculate how that would equate to what appeared on film.
Not sure if that makes any sense to anyone other than me.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 13, 2018)

... to continue ... these days with shooting digital, I really don't give a crap about that technical/rules stuff. I take a picture because I like what I see ... and also the tools we have are much better than playing with film and paper development.


----------



## Destin (Sep 13, 2018)

tirediron said:


> If I'm objective, I would say that I'm more technical than artistic, however, I like to think that I have some grasp of the artistic.  About the only time I ever check my histogram is while shooting to see how I am for shadows & highlights.  I do have certain compositional "rules" that I try and adhere to, but nothing is written in stone.



This is exactly what my response would have been. 

I feel like I struggle with the artistic side of things sometimes, while technical proficiency is easy to maintain.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 13, 2018)

I try to make-up my technical deficiencies with imagination and a willingness to go the extra miles to get the job done.  I try to get as much right as possible in the viewfinder.  There was a time, when I was on my game, I even cropped entirely in the camera.  If I had to crop in post, even straightening the horizon, I’d dump the photo.  I am trying to get back to that level. 

I rarely used the histogram ... hell, I rarely chimp. Now that I am shooting with an EVF, I am checking the light meter less and less.  In post, I only use the tools available to me which were/are available in a wet darkroom.  This is my code, what others do is their code ... My code is right for me and your code should be right for you.

For me, every photo tells a story ... artistic expression and technical perfection are secondary to telling the story. Those secondary consideration are not ignored, they just don’t get as much attention as story telling.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 13, 2018)

PS- If I was a commercial/studio/landscape photographer, I think I would be much more concerned with technical perfection than I am now.


----------



## Bollygum (Sep 14, 2018)

It is very refreshing to find a site that has a mix of both sides.  It is quite rare to find that.  I have read posts from people who say that they have no artistic side and in fact don't really care what their photos look like and just focus on the process.  Yet they dominate the posts.  
As for me, I am quite technical, but I only see that as a means to an end.  I don't think I am a great artist, but making the picture look good is a major part of my intent.  That and conveying information.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Sep 14, 2018)

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?


----------



## Fujidave (Sep 14, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> ... to continue ... these days with shooting digital, I really don't give a crap about that technical/rules stuff. I take a picture because I like what I see ... and also the tools we have are much better than playing with film and paper development.



This is my way of thinking too, if I like/love what I see then I`ll take the image plus I love breaking the rules too in photography.


----------



## Overread (Sep 14, 2018)

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.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Sep 14, 2018)

Being nothing more than an interested hobbyist, I suppose my opinion doesn't count but here goes! I always try editing with highlights and shadows being the first focus, color second, and tweaking all points to please my eye. I am almost always editing on a laptop, so depending on the angle of the screen, sometimes it works and sometimes it bellyflops!


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Sep 14, 2018)

Overread said:


> 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.



Absolutely.  

What is *technically correct*? An understanding of how a camera forms an image and how to record an image with a camera?
Then the image demonstrates this understanding, that you know how to get maximum detail and sharpness.

People rarely view images with a technical understanding of how cameras work, (except on photo forums), but by how they relate to the world as humans. When I look at tone-mapped and sharpened images where every detail is recorded and shown I don't see the technical mastery of the photographer. I just see how it differs from the natural world I see every day, how the sense of light, depth and colour has been de-familiarised. The image becomes sterile, removed from my experience of walking through this world. The photographer doesn't see this because they've taught themselves to judge images against the technical understanding of the camera and how it records rather than a human understanding and how we see the world.

As you say, somewhere along the line you realise this and have to make that leap.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Sep 14, 2018)

Being neither very artistic nor technically proficient,  I tend to bear some compositional guidelines in mind which I encountered as a student dabbling in art history for a couple of semesters many moons ago whilst trying to make up my mind what I really wanted to study. I avoided computer studies in school taking geography instead and have very little knowledge or understanding of editing software and programs. The photo stuff that was on the laptop when we bought it is all I use and it's more than enough. I tend to use  the camera the same way as I always have,  taking advantage of the different modes where they are available according to what I think will get me the sort of result I'm looking for. Cropping is very much something my stomach does: it's gut feeling mainly.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 14, 2018)

I'm the blind pig in the woods that finds an acorn every now and then. From a technical side I "try" to remember everything but then the artistic side kicks. Now I shoot with both eyes open to constantly be aware of the entire scene, and focus on composition.. I use the histogram initially to assure that I'm getting a full exposure, and don't pay much attention to it after.


----------



## Overread (Sep 14, 2018)

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. (Sep 14, 2018)

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 (Sep 14, 2018)

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 (Sep 14, 2018)

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 (Sep 14, 2018)

Overread said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 14, 2018)

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 (Sep 14, 2018)

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 (Sep 14, 2018)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 14, 2018)

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. (Sep 14, 2018)

Overread said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 15, 2018)

weepete said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2018)

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 (Sep 15, 2018)

weepete said:


> 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)
> 
> ...



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.



weepete said:


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





weepete said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2018)

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 (Sep 15, 2018)

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.


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 15, 2018)

I use my technical perfection to create my artistic vision.


----------



## Bollygum (Sep 15, 2018)

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 (Sep 15, 2018)

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


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2018)

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 (Sep 17, 2018)

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 (Sep 17, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> 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. (Sep 17, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> 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 (Sep 17, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


I don't remember saying slave...


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 17, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


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 (Sep 17, 2018)

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 (Sep 18, 2018)

Derrel said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 18, 2018)

"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 (Sep 18, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2018)

bulldurham said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 21, 2018)

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.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 21, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> 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.



I seen a movie on that guy. He made me first think about giving up drawing and painting. I agreed with a lot of what he said.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 10, 2018)

Vision will always trump technique. 

“A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit.”

-Spirit Vision Photography


----------



## Bollygum (Oct 10, 2018)

Kiron Kid said:


> Vision will always trump technique.
> 
> “A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit.”
> 
> -Spirit Vision Photography


That probably depends on your reality.  Or your spirit, though that sounds a little fluffy.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 22, 2018)

You need both, but to different degrees.
And the shot calls for what degrees.
An artistic shot will generally call for more artistic talent.
A documentary shot, more technical, but artistic can play a role here also.

I'm a techie.  I recognize that I have POOR artistic/composition skills.  Left brain vs. right brain.
It takes me much longer to figure out a shot than someone who is good with composition.  And I may still not get a good composition.
And now being a senior citizen, I don't have the flexibility or agility to get into positions to get certain shots that I may want to get.  So I end up passing up shots that I would have tried, when younger.

In high school, one of the best photographers, used to win the competitions with a Kodak Instamatic (the box camera of the day).  Leaving us techies with the SLRs way behind.  The eye wins over the gear.

Composition and photo rules, to me are a guideline to help me.  
And I NEED all the help I can get, in composition.

Artistic shots is where I most often break the exposure rules.  To me, the exposure is whatever I need, to get the image that I want.  Usually it is various degrees of underexposure to darken or richen the colors.  Such as this shot where I kept reducing the exposure until the tower went black.




And this is sooooo much easier to do in digital than in film, where I had no idea of what I had until I got the film back from the lab, a week later.


----------



## nateliv (Dec 3, 2018)

You see that kind of thing in any craft. On this and other fora, you have folks who can tell you the most miniscule detail about their gear, but you never see them taking a picture. I went to a writers conference once where many of the attendees had Masters of Fine Arts degrees. They knew all the jargon, every aspect of writing and publishing. But none of them could come up with a compelling story. It was largely artifice.

From my own experience, capturing a compelling moment is the most trying aspect of photography.


----------



## Jeff15 (Dec 3, 2018)

Both definately......


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2018)

Content always wins. Taking a perfect photo of nothing just means you have a pointless perfect photo


----------

