Composition and technical perfection

I am very into photography, and tend to "think photography". I look

at something and study the light, the angles, the spacial layout, and

put it all together to come up with the best composition

(technically) Depth of field is always a big concern, as is camera

position and viewing angle... all considered and balanced into some

logical equation. In some ways, this has improved my photography, but

I feel like it's really holding me back... dulling my creative

instincts. I tend to choose camera position and angle for best depth

of field, instead of going with what feels right, and

avoid "offsided" compositions, or even extreme camera angles, to end

up with a "techincally correct" image that leaves me wanting more...

some drama, confusion, or at least a spark of originality. How do you

balance your scientific self with your artistic self? When does the

pursuit of technical perfection become a hinderance to creativity? Do

I just think to much? It's kind of like this song that says"... your

brain gets smart, but your head gets dumb..."

Hi Jeffrey. Simply put, I don't balance anything, and I don't pursue technical perfection. I enjoy both aspects of photography, and that keeps it interesting for me. I go through periods in which I concentrate almost totally on technique, and others in which I almost totally ignore technique in favor of a more relaxed and creative approach. I think that the pursuit of technical perfection becomes a hindrance to creativity when technique is not second nature. Is it possible that you have nothing more to express with your photography than your technique? I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but technique should be a means to an expressive end, and not a demonstration. The pursuit of perfection is a creative dead end, because perfection doesn't exist. It can also become a crutch that distracts from the real work of creative expression. Technique is the easy part. What is it that your artistic self wants to express? How is your technique preventing you from expressing it? If you acheived perfect technique, how would your photography be different than it is? Maybe you're not thinking too much, you're just distracted by superficial technicalities.

Well, Jeffrey, you've opened an intriguing dilemma which cuts to the heart and soul of most non-commercial photographers. There exists a shadowy boundry between the reliance on technique and unfettered creativity, no doubt. Discussions about the sources of creativity (in any medium) tend to be abstract and of not much practical value, particularly when it's about photography. By its very nature, photography is, to a degree, dependent on light, angles, spacial relationships, composition, etc...all the things you mention. Yet, there's something in our conscious that desires to break from the confines of photo technique, to explore other concepts. Hell, maybe photography is just a phase, and we should move on to explore other mediums. I've considered this many times.

 

I think the truely great photographers have their pulse on technique AND creativity. Whenever I see original prints by Atget, Weston, Strand, and other "masters" I think about the historical and cultural context in which they worked, and about how creative these folks were for their time. Today, when it seems all the great photos have already been taken, it's difficult to establish a creative niche that hasn't already been gobbled up.

 

As for myself, I'm too old to think about these things much anymore. I go out with the camera and look for good subject matter, THE MOST IMPORTANT element. Then I try to use my knowledge of technique to do the best job I can rendering the subject. I also think many over-emphasize photography as a creative art. It's a beautiful medium to record people and places, using as much creativity and technique one can muster for the "decisive moment." Also, go look at Michael Kenna's work, and some other modern masters, to see how they meld wonderful technique with creative impact. The darkroom and digital printing also adds other dimensions and outlets to creativity.

 

You're on the right track. The fact you're even considering any short-comings on your creative side is good. Study more and take lots of pics!

Hi Jeffrey,

<p>

You make a point I recognize in my own work. I think it comes down, for me, to two points:

</p>

<p>

1) I should be more self confident. I know I can do some good work, stop hesitating if every thing in every image is right. I have to give myself room for making errors.<br />

I try to be very critical afterwards though!<br /><br />

2) As soon as I have a purpose with my photography (some self assignment, or a client's one), I tend to care less about technique and to be able to work more creatively and spontaneously.

<p>

This said, I don't want to suggest that my technique is perfect, far from that!

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

My own views on this may be tempered by the fact that I earn my living as a commercial photographer - but I was an amateur long before I was a pro and I like to think of myself as an amateur still, so here goes....<br>Both technical and creative elements are very important. It's important to understand the technical issues because unless you do you are unlikely (except by accident) to achieve the picture that you 'see' - but there's no point in taking a photo that is technically good unless it's interesting enough for people to want to look at it.

You have raised some very good issues, re:

 

"How do you balance your scientific self with your artistic self?...When does the pursuit of technical perfection become a hinderance to creativity?...Do I just think too much?"

 

Let me offer a practical suggestion that has helped me to deal with these issues. Experiment with shooting with an extreme wide angle lens, say 17mm in focal length. If you are utilizing an older manual focus camera, such a lens can be picked up used nowadays for a reasonable price. Using a lens such as this forces the photographer to think about the overall composition (and of course the subject of the image) in unconventional ways, compared to working with the standard 50mm lens with its "normal" perspective.

This is a great question and I find myself asking myself this and loads of other questions a lot of times. My philosophy and take on this matter is: "If it looks good, do it". Rules are meant to be broken. Go with your instinct and don't let anything hinder it. If everyone were to follow the rules to a tee, then all pictures would look the same. Be different, creative ... then let technical stuff come in to aid you in getting the creative effects you want.

I like Anthony's comment about rules being meant to be broken. Formulae or convention ultimately produce just that: conventional images, conforming to some popular, pre-defined set of parameters. Sometimes that's good; don't discount the conventional wisdom. After all, that many people can't be all wrong. Right?

 

I like to think about breaking the conventions as similar to genetic variations within a species. If nothing changes, nothing can improve.

 

Those who are the ground-breakers have to break popular conventions - until they, too, are recognized by the masses, at which time they become the herald of the next popular movement!

 

To use an analogy from my line of work (chip manufacturing): flash memory was invented by mistake. Some technician made a goof, and sent a lot-box of wafers back through the gate portion of the process line a second time. When the wafers were tested at end of line, it was found that they retained charge after power was removed. Hence the discovery of the 'floating gate', and flash memory.

 

Without the 'statistical noise' in a process, there can be no room for discovery, for improvement. Mistakes are merely opportunities to discover something new - if nothing more than discovering why the rules were there in the first place.

 

So understand the usefullness of conventions and rules. Then go out and break them, and learn from that.

Everyone probably hits those periods where they think all their pictures suck. The good news is that this is how we improve.

 

I think you need to evaluate how you think about photography. There is no such thing as "technically" correct composition. Composition is an aesthetic problem, not a technical one. "Composition" means nothing more than how the picture is put together: what is put in the frame and where it is put. The aim of composition is simply to let the photo make its point.

 

I recall a story about Bob Gilka at Nat Geo going through someone's film (David Alan Harvey, I think) and dismissing frame after frame with a simple question: "Why did you take this picture?" That question is *the* important question. Composition is nothing more than how you answer it.

 

Think of technique as a support, not an aim.

I was always under the impression that how you photograph, at a basic level, was an unalterable reflection of you as a person. If you are very technical (and anal about it) in how you photograph then chances are you are like this in every aspect of your life. You might be able to do excersizes to loosen up but in reality you will probably only be 'acting' like you don't care about technique. However, if you are not that anal then perhaps you can bring out your artistic side more by taking courses that challenge you artistically. At worst it'll give you a break from what you are doing so that when you return it'll seem fresh.

Jeffery

 

How do you balance your scientific self with your artistic self?

 

-----------------------------

 

By throwing caution to the wind and letting personal experience provide the balance. It will take time, maybe a year, maybe two, maybe never. I hope my below is in the direction of what you're asking and helps.

 

I've been going through this growing phase that I think you're asking about.

 

The first thing I did was start capturing images that I had never captured before. When I felt comfortable with this new imaging, I would then move on to other imaging that I had not done before and didn't feel comfortable with. Constantly pushing myself to what I term the next level. Currently, I'm over the cliff in what I've been comfortable with and doing images that I don't feel comfortable with, purposefully. Some of which, I don't even like doing. Yuck! My wife approval factor is currently in the toilet. My hit rates online are a fifth to a tenth of what I'm use to. My wife nods at me when I ask what she thinks as she really doesn't want to speak up in a truthful fashion:) But I can see change and improvement. This is a good thing.

 

I questioned the artistic critique process. When is a critique valid and when is it invalid? What makes for a valid critique process? How do you know if someone is being kind or someone's being a bu++head? What's the truth that works for you personally? Is the person making the critique just part of an artistic conspriacy to further their personal agenda? There are personal agendas being fostered as artistic content and you need to identify them as such even if they tell you you're nuts. Trust me, they're just as nutty as they're calling you:) Is the validity of their critique in the direction that you want to go? These are questions you'll need to find answers to that serve you and not others. Realise that critiques are a double edge sword of meaning, as opposed to having no meaning. Hence the need to learn about the validity of the process.

 

I questioned terms like impact, compelling and soul. How can I add these terms to any images that I might create.

 

Another thing that I've done is challenge myself philosophically. What was it that I was doing and why was I doing what I was doing. Is it a valid reason? Is it comfortable? Is the direction that I'm going, remotely making me happy? What is coming of this direction when I blend new ideas with old comfort zones? Do I like what I see or do I not like what I see and why?

 

Another thing you need to do is listen but not listen to what you read online as a response to your questions, including what I have to write:) Why? It's all a clue but in the end, you have to go out and take the information and make it into a reality, your reality by putting effort into the act of making the image. Bits and pieces of what you read will jive with your thinking and other valid pieces will act as a compass to give you direction.

 

It's a process of exploration, trial and error as well as constant education but questioning yourself and asking lots of why questions of yourself is a big part of the process.

 

Eventually, a new you will emerge and you'll find this balance that your asking about developing. Then you'll be in gear:)

 

Again, hope this helps.

Thank you for the great responses! Andrew, composition (what I am specifically have trouble with) is partly technical. The point of view (camera position) determines what will be in focus, and also what objects line up in a certain way, including background... it can be very scientific, but I think all that logic is keeping me from really getting in touch with the emotional aspects of photography. I used to see something that strikes me, then "feel my way around"... asking myself: what looks right, what feels right? Now I tend to start anylising the scene before I even experience it. Part of the issue may be my tripod. When I run around using the camera handheld, it's much easier to compose by instinct... it kinda flows, but since I almost always use a tripod, it's less instinctive. Thomas, I have been trying many different things (nature, landscape, night, pinhole, close-ups, special effects, abstracts, and currently considering portraiture) but I don't jump around because I'm not comfortable with any of them... if anything I'm very excited... can't get enough. You pose the question: Why? (as in why do I take the photos?) Yes, that is THE question. My excuse so far is that I'm busy trying everything. Anyway, back to the subject... do you ever find that you can "pre-visualize" a scene, even fom differnt angles/positions besides where you are standing? I have a talent for this, but does it really help? Maybe I'd be better off going back to "running around and looking". Do we miss interesting compositions by making assumptions? Finally, does a technically imperfect composition appeal to us partly because it's imperfect?

I still haven't figured out what "technically perfect composition"

means, but I suspect it's akin to "the perfect woman"--in other

words, it's something that only exists in your mind based on

certain assumptions and preferences you hold (and which may

not be shared by anyone else).

 

I'll also dispute that composition is in any way scientific. While

the laws of physics, chemisty, and optics will govern how you

control certain physical aspects of the image (such as focus,

DOF, contrast, convergence, etc.), there aren't any scientifically

determined principles for how those aspects must be organized

to form a good picture. [i have heard some arguments that such

principles exist, but no one has ever backed them up with

anything more than the repeated insistence that they're true. But

that's another topic . . .] There's a large body of dogma

pertaining to what constitutes "good composition," but following

all the "rules" in no way assures a good result.

 

I think I'm fundamentally in agreement with Andrew Somerset in

this thread. Technique is something you use to effectively say

what you're trying to say with your images; it's not a goal unto

itself. Perhaps you should reexamine those beliefs underlying

your concept of compositions which are "technically perfect" or

"best."

Jeffrey

 

Part of the issue may be my tripod. When I run around using the camera handheld, it's much easier to compose by instinct... it kinda flows, but since I almost always use a tripod, it's less instinctive.

 

------------------------

 

Have you learned how to dance with a monopod/ballhead combo yet? Working a monopod is sort of like dancing, you have to learn how to move with the monopod and not get in each other's way:) Also, take some time to check out a few other tripods. Keep looking until you find one that works with you and not against you. It sounds like you have the wrong tripod. Tripods can be looked upon like a spouse, the wrong one will be restrictive but the right one will compliment your person.

I'd definitely ditch the tripod.

Nah, the tripod is irrelevant. It's only a means to avoid blurred photographs (if that's the desired intent). Monopod, tripod, schmipod, it really doesn't matter. The placement of the camera, lens perspective, shutter and DOF determinations, etc, are the stuff that separates photography from other mediums. Whether you hand-hold the camera, use a tripod or monopod, the results will ultimately be judged by how much impact the image has. It's obvious that freedom from using a tripod allows more spontaneous work, but still, it depends on the photographer being able to produce. I have a friend who has NEVER ever used a tripod, and he produces very creative work. Myself? My camera is welded to a tripod because my subjects tend to be static and I value certain qualities in my prints that using the tripod allows. It's all a matter of style and our subject preferences which dictate the use of camera supports and the speed in which we work. Over time, everyone seems to sort this out.

 

I agree with Mike Dixon (once again) - composition isn't scientific or technical at all. Where you place the camera, perspective via lens selection, DOF determination, etc., are conscious and aesthetic decisions. Lens perspective, DOF, etc, can be technical, but not really. Not rocket science, certainly. You see what the effects are through the viewfinder, and you don't need a background in optical science to understand what's taking place when you use lenses of different focal lengths set at various depth of fields. This area of expertise comes with trial and error experience.

 

The real challenge, it seems to me, is finding worthwhile subjects and themes, not whether or not to use a tripod.

Yes tripods are an aid but they do restrict movement alot. I also photograph static objects but have found that messing around with tripods invariably kills the moment for me and the results were even more static than the original scene. But I guess it all depends on your style. If you are doing nature then there's more setup and waiting for the moment to happen. A tripod is good for that. I do alot of wandering in the urban environment so there's nothing to wait for. The subject is there, the light is usually bright enough for any DOF and a fast shutter, so I take the image and move on. A tripod for me is pointless. However when I use my 4x5 I have no choice :)

Andy

 

I do alot of wandering in the urban environment so there's nothing to wait for.

 

--------------------------

 

And you just don't come across as the wandering kind:)

 

Whether or not I'm wandering the urban or rural environment, I prefer to do so with a monopod/ballhead attached. By learning how to kick (dance) the monopod out to the side, it helps with low light imaging situations. This image was captured using a monopod/ballhead combo where the sensor was about eighteen inches off the ground.

Andy, Tom...If I were shooting 35mm all the time, which I only do rarely, I probably would ditch the tripod, simply because you can take a lot of snaps on a 36 exp. roll of 35mm, and the format and size lends itself to more spontaneous photography (at least in my experience). Now, though I can hand-hold my Pentax 67, I almost never do. I do a lot of low light photography using the Pentax and a Fuji 67; hence, my reliance on a tripod.

 

This is the point I'm trying to make. The way we function (equipment choices, camera position, DOF choices, etc) depends on our particular style and the substance of our subjects. All of which we somehow work out through experience. I still think this technical "stuff" is totally unrelated to creativity. Nor does it necessarily trump or stifle creativity, as Jeffrey, the original poster, seems to question. Creativity is more of a mental and emotional process, or so it seems to me.

 

I suppose it's possible one can be so overburdened by technique one can't conjure up a creative notion. Certainly, what we get in college courses, workshops, and other venues leans way too heavily on learning technique. Some years ago I drove all the way up into Canada for a Howard Bond workshop, which was 99% technique. I'm not implying I know all there is to know about technical matters - far from it - but how much of this type of instruction do you really need once you're accustomed to the essential principles? I know people who return year after year to the same workshop given by the same instructors, covering the same topics. On the other hand, how do you teach "creativity?"

Peter

 

I suppose it's possible one can be so overburdened by technique one can't conjure up a creative notion.

 

------------------------------

 

I think we're both in agreement in your above comments.

 

To me, you learn technique so it won't be a burden. You run the technicals through your head as you're checking the information display. Let's see, anything growing out of his head? What's the speed or f/stop? How about Sun reflections? Any reflections:) Where's the lettering? Is the lettering all in the image and properly balanced. What do you have the ISO set at. "Hey!" "Why aren't you smiling and what's that band aid on your hand for?"

 

All has to be fluid and without flaw so one can concentrate on getting a shot that get's the job done.

 

As to the creativity question, if you read my reply a few comments up, the comments will let you see what I'm doing personally and I'm guessing that the methods will work for others. Two points. The individual has to be self-motivated and the person has to be willing to put forth educational effort to aid in their training.

 

Wishing you and all a Happy New Year:)

I compare photography to driving a car, when you're learning to drive you must make every a concious mechanical effort to do the right thing and this consumes your conciouness, after a number of years the mechanics of steering, operating the brakes and so forth become second nature and you can even daydream while driving effortlessly, same thing after you've taken enough photographs, after a while taking a shot becomes a fluid process you don't have to 'think' about, and technique becomes second nature.

Good points, Jonathan and Tom. I suspect most of the instruction given to photographers is technical because a) it's important that students get through this learning curve so it becomes second nature; b) many instructors don't know HOW to teach creativity. I know I wouldn't.

 

Why are some people more intuitively creative than others? Might be a topic for another thread, though it's probably been discussed before.

Peter

 

b) many instructors don't know HOW to teach creativity. I know I wouldn't.

 

-----------------------

 

And they don't know how to teach you zip about the photo business either:) That's why they're a prof:)

I don't think a tripod restricts movement much. Sure, a tall tripod can be heavy, but that's good for the carrier's physical health. If the tripod is too small, it can prohibit certain camera positions / angles that you may be interested in. But the main question is, <I>how lazy are you, the photographer?</I> I've often dismissed taking a bad picture after setting up the tripod, thinking: "This shot isn't worth the trouble." So tripod use reduces the number of poor pictures taken. I sometimes come up with a good shot, and regret not setting up the tripod to do it. I'm learning not to shoot hand-held, through bitter experience. Since you know that you have a good shot ahead of you, why not improve it by doing it properly? It can't hurt really. If, on the other hand, you don't know that you've got a good subject and angle, then hand-holding the exposure won't make it better.

<p>

If the viewpoint is not obvious I scan the scene by hand-holding the camera to my eye and once I've found the spot, I just move the tripod there. For a great part of the year there's no taking pictures without a tripod in Finland, as the angle of the sun is so low.

<p>

I don't think the city photographer benefits any less from the tripod, unless of course, they're taking pictures of people. Architecture photography benefits from precise positioning, close-ups require depth of field only available with a tripod. People photography is really the one exception where timing is so critical that hand-holding makes sense (and usually is necessary to get the shot).

<p>

I think it's very important to not to compromise on the subject, light, camera position and angle. If these are not well thought out, the shot isn't going to work. If they are present, then it's just a question of minor technical decisions and taking the exposure. I don't think depth of field should affect the choice of camera position and angle, it's better to leave it last.

Jeffrey,

 

My prescription for your malady is this. Pick a film that you like, preferably a negative film with an ASA that gives you a broad range, like 400 or 800. Put a normal lens on your camera and place a piece of opaque tape over your viewfinder. Switch your camera to manual and ignore the light meter. Determine your exposure using the sunny 16 rule and follow the exposure instructions on the box the film came in. They will tell you all you really need to know about exposure. Focus by guessing the distance to your subject and setting the focus using the numbers on your focus ring. Then walk out into the world and photograph by looking with your eyes.

 

Shoot a roll a day for a week. Then take a look at what you and your camera saw.

 

Your brain is going to complain a lot when it realizes how simple photography really is. The truth is, anyone who can make brownies by following a recipe can master the technical craft of photography. Seeing is the real art. I bet your results will be surprising and new.

 

Aric