Let's Discuss: The Perfectionist

Mike,

 

I apologize. I shouldn't force everybody to accept my view of photography which ends at the exposure. This is a typical HC-B v.s. AA debate and both sides are right.

 

It seems that my view on photography offended many traditionally trained master photographers. That is easy to explain. I started with a digital camera, then downward "upgraded" to manual SLR, fix-lens point and shoot and finally to a Holga ($600 -> $400 -> $80 -> $16). I have never developed a single roll of film, or made a true photographic print, chemical or digital. I simple have no right to judge the technical quality of my photographs because most of them were shown on LCD screen at 72 dpi. In the viewer of experts, people like me shouldn't do photography.

 

My experience, or the experience I have chosen determined my view of photography and my style. It usually takes me weeks to finish a roll of film. That is another kind of perfectionism. Although I am a minority on photo.net, I do represent another type of photographers.

 

As to my quick answer to AZ's quick comment: STFU (IMQLNR ;-)

<i> It usually takes me weeks to finish a roll of film. That is another kind of perfectionism.

</i><p>

 

No it isn't. You need experience shooting. You need to shoot more. You need to shoot to

hone compositional skills, make errors you'll learn from, become more comfortable with

your gear, and more. Feel free to disagree, but I suspect that virtually no one here will

agree with your idea that the best way to learn photography is by shooting a handful of

rolls a year.

<i>It seems that my view on photography offended many traditionally trained master photographers</i><p>

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You didn't offend anyone. It's just that virtually everyone who has any, even minimal, amount of real photographic training has a very different viewpoint than you espouse. Mike, me, probably Mr Z, we all have modest amounts of training and probably not in the Ansel Adams school (nice try there, but it doesn't stick), and we're not buying it.<p>

 

Post-shooting processing is <i>critical</i>, not something practiced by a certain group, but pretty much by anyone who wants to communicate with photography. Editing, in particular, is what gives style and substance to a body of work. The photo above should <i>never</i> be shown as an example, yet you've put it on two separate threads.<p>

 

Your so-called "apology" rings hollow and is so filled with misunderstanding and ignorance, it's obvious you're not going to learn more. Your concept of "perfectionism" is absurd. You should listen to what the photographers around you are saying. Your "inner voice" is taking you in the wrong direction. What you are hearing from people here may sound harsh, but it's from people who have been through the process. Learning can be difficult, it's important to accept that.

Sam, two years ago you wrote here that you were <i>"afraid of ... messing up a perfect

scene because of my inferior skill/lighting/timing/equipment." </i> <p>

 

Aside from the fact that there are hardly any "perfect scenes" people just trip over, I

don't understand how you think your beginner skills will be improved by not shooting

more, not considering and editing your photos, and by leaving them without and post-

work. It simply does not make sense to people who have gone before you. <p>

 

From <u>Art & Fear:Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking</u> by David

Bayles & Ted Orland: <p>

 

<b> <i> The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class

into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on

the <u>quantity</u> of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its

<u>quality</u>. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his

bathroom scales and weigh the work of the 'quantity' group: fifty pound of pots rated an

'A', forty pounds a 'B', and so on. Those being graded on 'quality', however, needed to

produce only one pot - albeit a perfect one - to get an 'A'. Well, came grading time and a

curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being

graded for quantity. It seems that while the 'quantity' group was busily churning out piles

of work - and learning from their mistakes - the 'quality' group had sat theorizing about

perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories

and a pile of dead clay. </i> </b>

When defend our views, we tend to get emotional and arrogant. I don't see any difference between me and Jeff, AZ and other experts (no pun).

 

The real difference between us is about post-exposure work and practice.

 

1. I am against post-exposure work, that is my philosophy. If you refuse to appreicate photos without photoshop touch-up, be my guest.

 

2. As to practice, I constantly practice shooting, with my eyes. I have tried shooting more than one frames for the same scene for a short period in the last couple of years. But exam on the light table almost always shows that the first frame is the best. The more I shoot, the worse it gets. That is just the fact of my shooting. So I stopped that practice. Instead, I started to practice "no shooting". (Trust me, this is not easy when you have a desire of finishing frame #36 so that you can get it developed next day.) Although I have only finished less than a hundred rolls of film and less than 10GB of digital, I have run through much more than that in my mind.

 

Being a teacher myself, I know that all students are different. You cannot simply force every one to do the same "quantity learning". (I should not force every one to do "quality learning" either.) The quality learning in photography is different from the one in clay work. In photography, you do look at things, thing about the angle, composition and light. It is not theoretical. I know my camera by not shooting the scene it cannot handle, not by discarding bad shots to the trash can.

 

As to the quality of the images, I admit the technical quality of most my posts on PN is not the best. But about the visual quality, I can not speak for sure your guys are right. There is simply no real measure on this. It depends on the viewers and their mood. If Jeff says that "The photo above should never be shown as an example", so let it be because Jeff is the moderator.

 

The purpose of the Holga image in this thread is totally different from the one in Street Forum: in this thread I used it to support my point of view in this discussion of "perfectionism". The one on Street Forum supposed to be NW to introduce more interesting medium format street shots. The image was not for critique in either thread. Of course you can judge it and you did. But that is not the point. We all have our views on someone's images, but that should not be mixed with our views about the topic in the discussion. (I never said any judgemental comments on Jeff, and AZ's images in my discussion.)

"As to practice, I constantly practice shooting, with my eyes. "

 

"The eyes are not a camera. The retina is not film. A blink is not an exposure." (Zen master Xinbad, presently sailing the seas of cheez.)

 

Much has been written about this (characteristically) enigmatic pronouncement by the great Xinbad. Indeed, given the failure even among his disciples to agree on an interpretation, many more cynical commentators have supposed that the great teacher and practitioner was (characteristically) drunk when he said it. Others have remarked that this latter intepretation is simply a sign of non-understanding (utta-sama-maha-samadhi - literally, "failing to inhale the fragrance of the proffered flower"). However, some have found guidance in these words. Then again, some have not.

 

As for me, I think it's all bollocks.

It doesn't matter how much you shoot or don't shoot or what your theories are, it's the <b>result</b> that counts. Verbal explanation for mediocre photographs is common, but this is a <b>visual</b> medium, get it? <b>VISUAL</b>. It doesn't matter if you post edited or pre-edited or photoshopped or didn't photoshop or stood on your head, it's what you have to show us as a photograph that counts, and this doesn't get it. It doesn't matter if the photographer was Liu or Spirer or Appleby or God, this is <b>not</b> an effective photo. Move on, <b>try again</b>.

What do you mean, "Appleby _or_ God"?

nuthin. ;)

Ghost of Alfie.

<i> "The eyes are not a camera. The retina is not film. A blink is not an exposure." (Zen

master Xinbad </i><p>

 

I thought it was St. Augustine.

Or St. Anselm of Canterbury.

Sam has produced and shown here (photo.net, not necessarily the Leica Forum) some very good photographs in the past, but I have to confess Sam, I think you did your best work when you were using the Nikon Coolpix, and not experimenting with different cameras, formats, and films ;)

Ditto.

Andrew, I think you are right on this.

<p>

Couple of years ago I wrote on my photo.net homepage: "I am not a photographer." And I remember I wrote to you saying that I am not a street shooter. Since I got a real film camera, I started to treat photography too seriously and try to convince myself that I made a good investment. The quality of my photographs started going down since then, and it costed me more money than the investment on Coolpix. And I spent too much time on photo.net to debate with AZ on philosophy of photography. That is just not worth it.

<p>

BTW, the Holga image you see was produced by Coolpix and I am still proud of it. It breaks many rules (such as put the subject at the dead center) but it works from my point of view. I have this 511 pixel image printed on an office laser printer at 8.5x11 and nailed it on the wall. When I look at it from six feet away, it gives a very subtle feeling. Like looking at the world through a hole. It is also interesting that the shape of the man resembles the treet. The edge blur of the car and fruit stand gives a dreamy feeling. The more I look into it, the more surprising it becomes to me.

<p>

I will stop participating photo.net forums from now on, but you might see more holga photos in my portfolio in the future. (With 4/4 from AZ)

<p>

<i> I spent too much time on photo.net to debate with AZ on philosophy of photography.

</i><p>

 

That was you debating?

 

<i> you might see more holga photos in my portfolio in the future. (With 4/4 from AZ)

</i><p>

 

If they're like that one shot, they won't be 4/4.

And if you want to peruse some interesting Holga photos:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004uVP

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1784780&size=lg

 

http://www.southlight.com.au/photographers_bric.asp?GroupID=12

 

http://www.viscom.ohiou.edu/bennett/holga01.html

 

http://www.susanbowenphoto.com/

 

http://www.dakotacom.net/~giordano1/toy%20camera.htm

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/020103.htm

<i>

Engineer, Artist

<br>

Perfection, Imperfection

<br>

Cindy Crawford's mole

</i>