Learning the technical side of photography really does have its place after all

<p >As someone who initially was attracted to the conceptual part of photography, I very quickly was seduced by the technical early on, it became and stayed my guiding force for many years while I was a student in elementary school, middle school, high school, and into college. But then partway through college, I began to wake up to what I viewed at that time as the truth: that art was far more important than technique. I still enjoyed the technical to an extent, but I focused more on the art of photography and adopted the motto "Learn as much of the technical as possible, but then forget it all as quickly as possible". I lost patience with myself and felt I had been cheated and decided to stop pursuing the technical.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Innately, I always knew that a balance between the two was best, and that I wanted to achieve that balance. Slowly, I would see hints of the technical and the artistic flirting deeply with each other as I photographed. Sometimes, they would get so interconnected with each other that I no longer was thinking strictly about just camera settings and composition on the one hand, or emotion, light, form, and space on the other hand. What would happen, was that I would start to make photographs without much conscious thought about anything. I just saw, and I photographed what I saw because I appreciated it, and it felt right. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had read Csíkszentmihályi before, so I knew what the state of flow was, and I was getting better at getting into this state of mind. But what I didn't appreciate until very recently was that getting to the point where photography became an automatic process, an extension of my senses and emotions, owed a great deal to the technical material that I once practiced exclusively. I am no longer so hard on myself for being almost exclusively devoted to the technical side of photography for many years. I now understand that it was for me a necessary step in the process.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here is an excerpt from an article that was in Scientific American several years ago that sums up my new appreciation and acceptance for the technical side of art and how it has a necessary role:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I never really thought of it this way until now. I had previously found it hard to believe that someone who loves something might not progress. But now it makes perfect sense; without practicing the technique, one may indeed not progress linearly. Thus, the many hours of technical practice is indeed a necessary key component to the photographic artist's well rounded education. We must embrace the technical as well as the artistic. It's not a choice, it's a must if one wishes to progress in the sense of developing great accuracy in one's artistic pursuit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Wow. I am humbled by this new realization.</p>

<p > <br>

Here is the full article: <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945</a></p>

<p>Thanks for this insight. It explains very well what I've tried to explain to new camera addicts, particularly those in our local photo group: learn the technique and try to understand why something is as it is! These guys will go out and buy the biggest camera they can find without having the slightest notion of how photography works, because "you can always work it out halfway in PS afterwards..." (No, you can't!)<br>

Maybe I should translate all this.</p>

<p>Any athlete will tell you that you don't learn to play well by playing games; you learn to play well in practice sessions. Unless you train, you won't improve. Musicians know you must do technical practice and exercises to play well. You can't paint unless you understand the medium. You don't learn to drive race cars in the Indianapolis 500. </p>

<p>I thought this was well understood.</p>

<p> Too many people obsess on the technical, and it stunts their artistic growth. Worse, they begin to think that it is part of a grand formula. Acquire the right hardware, learn some things, extract a little mentoring, and the rising tide will float the rest.</p>

<p> Remember learning to drive a stick-shift (manual) car? It's awkward and clumsy until you get past it. Then you can focus on driving. In photography, it is the same. The technical gets in the way until you know it well enough to forget it. No internal dialogue about anything but the visual enables one to stay focused.</p>

<p> In the end, you can only see what you're ready to see. If you want your photographs to change, a new fat white lens or a DX3 isn't going to do it. You have to change.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The other great finding is that expertise is a product of willful effort, not inborn talent. Too often high achievers are billed as "naturals," which does a disservice to their hard work and discourages others from trying. The few, absolute best in each field probably have innate talent in the area, but there's nothing stopping the rest of us from developing into highly skilled practitioners.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thus, the many hours of technical practice is indeed a necessary key component to the photographic artist's well rounded education. We must embrace the technical as well as the artistic. It's not a choice, it's a must if one wishes to progress in the sense of developing great accuracy in one's artistic pursuit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I read the <em>Scientific American</em> article, and it neither says nor clearly implies this. If you want your technical skills to increase, then yes, you should put effort into mastering techniques which you currently find challenging. However, it's quite possible to develop substantial artistry while only "mastering" a very-limited set of technical skills. </p>

<p>An example from music would be B.B. King. He can't play chords worth a damn, he can't sing while he's playing, he can't play fast; his technical skills are actually rather crude. There are many thousands of musicians whose technical mastery far exceeds that of B.B. King. On the other hand, B.B. King is a blues legend because of his <strong>artistry</strong> , knowing how to convey feeling with those few notes he plays.</p>

<p>Luis, I think you posted something close to this on another Philosophy thread, but in both cases you raised good points...but of course we're not in 100% agreement.</p>

<p>I do think changing one's technology can change one's way of looking at the world, change one's photography. For example, my first "serious" camera was a Mamiya knockoff on Pentax...I had one lens, 28mm. My next camera was an Agfa Ansco 8X10 view camera...I used the Mamiya for a meter. The 8X10 did change my way of photographing and my subsequent work in various formats, both "artistically" (a term we use too carelessly IMO) and professionally, was leveraged by that technical experience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's the great photographer Mario Giacomelli talking about his technical knowledge of shooting:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mario Giacomelli : I had it [his camera] made. By dismantling a camera given to me by a friend and removing whatever seemed useless. I only need distance and that other thing - what's that other thing called again? I don't know how these machines work, what counts is that light shouldn't get in. It's just a box.<br>

...<br>

Frank Horvat : At what speed does it work? a thirtieth, a hundredth of a second?<br>

Mario Giacomelli : I don't know any more. It doesn't go over two hundred. To photograph from a plane I have to borrow a friend's camera, I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I don't care. It doesn't matter to me, I would take photos without a camera if I could. I've no great passion for mechanics.<br>

Frank Horvat : And what's the lens aperture?<br>

Mario Giacomelli : It depends. At Scanno, I did nearly everything at a 25th. For landscapes I use 2 and 22.<br>

Frank Horvat : Half a second at aperture 22?<br>

Mario Giacomelli : I know there is a 2 and a 22, that's the aperture of the lens, I learnt it by heart.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>He was a master printmaker, I'm not sure how much he knew about that on the technical side, but he certainly made a huge number of great photographs without knowing the technical stuff.<br>

<br /> Ellen von Unwerth is another great photographer, very different type of work, who also took no technical interest in photography.</p>

<p>In spite of the examples given, photographic technique is a necessary evil. Mario's interview may sound clever, but I would wager that Mario knows much more about technique and cameras than is admitted.</p>

<p>Cute story, but at some point, on some photographically technical level he had to know what what was useless and what two items he was going to need when he took the camera apart, if that actually happened, which is the first clue that the tale falls apart.</p>

<p>He knows enough to know that he has to borrow a camera to photograph from an airplane.</p>

<p>In the first place, technique is what gives sentence structure to the visual language of photography. On the other hand to be totally consumed by technique is to always remain a technician, which is where way too many photographers will always remain; especially those that hang out on Internet forums where technique is ninety percent of the emphasis.</p>

<p>There is no such thing a good photographic technique nor is there such a thing as bad photographic technique. There is only technique applied appropriately or inappropriately.</p>

<p>VAL, the author of the study (Philip E. Ross) goes on to say the following immediately after the section that you quoted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even the novice engages in effortful study at first, which is why beginners so often improve rapidly in playing golf, say, or in driving a car. But having reached an acceptable performance--for instance, keeping up with one's golf buddies or passing a driver's exam--most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement. In contrast, experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For many of us who do <em>not</em> do photography for a living, this tendency to relax our efforts is, I believe, the common pattern: we reach a plateau. Perhaps we think that we are "good enough," but, more important, I think that we tend to think that we likely <em>cannot</em> get much better. In addition, there are the numerous interruptions in our efforts to get better by the other requirements of simply staying alive in the fields in which we make our living, family obligations, etc. In any case, I think that what is required for excellence is a certain kind of intensity--and perhaps continuity (and even continuing intensity?). The author makes reference as well to a period of about ten years of intense study in a field as a prerequisite to attaining a level of proficiency that is outstanding.</p>

<p>My first reaction is to think that what seems to distinguish those persist in "effortful study" of a skill or a topic is that they are <em>never satisfied with their present level of skill or understanding. </em> Their intensity, that is, seems to be a function of their dissatisfaction with their present level of skill or understanding.<em> </em> Something impels them to want to try to keep getting better. What is it? <em><br /> </em></p>

<p>At this point one wants to sit back for a moment and ask what all this has to do with "the technical side of photography." I think that the technical aspects are (or can be) relevant to one's growth--especially if one's failures to get the images or effects that one wanted impel one to ask "Why?" Does one at that point tend to turn to technical issues or instead to turn to other questions that relate to imagination and innovation (not that one need be concerned with one to the exclusion of the other)?</p>

<p>I do believe that more technical knowledge can be helpful, or course. I think that very often, however, an obsession with technical knowledge is closely bound up in photography with an obsession with equipment (NAS, etc.). The two are factorable, but it appears to me that they tend to go together. (Perhaps not. I'm really not sure.)</p>

<p>The really creative work, on the other hand, might be more likely to be done by those who channel their intensity and "effortful study" down a different avenue from mere technical skill, as important as that may be. The truly artistic types seem to be always coming up with a new<em> idea </em> for a shot, not simply more technical expertise. For them, artistic imagination and inspiration seem to be more important than improvements in technical skill--although I think that those who succeed while being fairly indifferent to technical skills are a tiny, tiny minority.</p>

<p>Issues of motivation also come into play in the article you cite, indicating that successes also tend to motivate us to do better. If so, then it is not merely our dissatisfactions (as a manifestation of perfectionism?) that tend to make us better, but also our patterns of satisfactions and successes.</p>

<p>There is an entire complex of issues raised by the article you have cited, and I am left, as usual, with more questions than answers. There is a lot of food for thought here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> John Kelly wrote: "I do think changing one's technology can change one's way of looking at the world, change one's photography."</p>

<p> Of course it does, to a point. Everything matters -- and affects you -- specially the 10,000 hrs, but for every photographic Master, there are hundreds of thousands who know far more technically, as Jeff S. points out.</p>

<p> I have seen zillions of beautiful, technically perfect and perfectly boring, cliche'd, and forgettable prints for every single stunning, brilliant, and unforgettable one.</p>

<p> I want to make it clear that no matter where you are on the photographic continuum, there you are. Whether you're a whiz or a schlub, (and there are plenty of pro schlubs, too, even at the lower levels in the art world), the personal growth and enjoyment derived from the marvels and terrors in the medium make it worthwhile.</p>

<p>If you want your pictures to change, you need to change.</p>

<p> Nor am I saying that technique doesn't matter. It does. But it is only a (necessary) means to an end.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, yes.</p>

<p>Edward Weston moved to Mexico substantially to get away from his Pictorial/Studio roots. While his perhaps-increased interest in Graphic Reflex may have been relevant, the technical expertise he'd developed as a professional was used in a "changed" direction by a "changed" man.</p>

<p>It's obvious that a lot of DSLR work has asked less of its photographers than film would have (particularly bug/bird/street photos), but the flip side is that it's my impression that DSLR work potentially <strong>asks more </strong> of its photographers than film did because it offers so many more nuances and possibilities. That doesn't make either one of them "better" or more likely to produce "art," especially since "art" has come to mean less than Velvet Elvis, so doesn't elevate photography."</p>

<p>A fine photo is, IMO, likely to be better thing in every traditional "art" respect than a photo that's dubbed "art" because all sorts of accidental, merely amusing or decorative images get that title on P.N and elsewhere. If we see technical expertise AS WELL AS some sort of extra value, we move closer to the traditional meaning of art, but we don't if all we see is the genius of some purchased gizmo. In that sense the traditional meaning might almost/sometimes apply better to work done with primative equipment than work done with sophisticated equipment. <strong>Maybe art was more likely with glass plates than with D3?<br /> </strong></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My first reaction is to think that what seems to distinguish those persist in "effortful study" of a skill or a topic is that they are <em>never satisfied with their present level of skill or understanding. </em>Their intensity, that is, seems to be a function of their dissatisfaction with their present level of skill or understanding.<em> </em>Something impels them to want to try to keep getting better. What is it?</p>

<em></em></blockquote>

<p>I don't know what it is, Landrum, that impels some people to keep going. But I do know that you've described me perfectly. I can be satisfied, but even when I am, I understand that satisfaction is fleeting. I can hold the two contradictory thoughts in my mind simultaneously--that I am temporarily satisfied by something I did, but I still have the urge to do "better" the next time. Whether that means composing better, connecting better with the subject, being in the right place sooner, being more focused, reducing my reaction time, learning to see light or space better, improving my eyesight and focusing accuracy, or whatever. If I get a tingly feeling down my spine, I know that I have succeeded in reaching a new level, and therefore, seeing something or acting on it in a different way than the last time. If I feel that I am syncing up better with what's around me, I can make better photos, and I have a better time doing it. Finally, not a day has gone by since May of 1997 when I have not thought about photography. So, even while I am not actively photographing, I am often practicing mentally, reading about technique, viewing photographs, or learning more about what makes me as a person "tick".<br>

<br />And I did have a tendency to want more gear for many years. But now that I have practically all focal length I need covered, it does not bother me as much. What bothers me more is that I cannot take all my lenses with me at a given time, so I tend to pick and choose 1, 2, 3, or 4 lenses to take at a time, and them use the heck out of them, pretending there is no other lens available than what is currently on my camera.</p>

<p>John Kelly:</p>

<p>A question comes to mind. Was Doc Edgerton producing art? He was a scientist.</p>

<p>I think that depends upon the definition of art one chooses to go by.</p>

<p>But nothing changes the fact that he a was a technical pioneer who happened to have an interest in photography and successfully used said medium to achieve an end.</p>

<p>Lennart Nilsson always has been and will be one of my biggest inspirations. And so will Galen Rowell. Both were technical masters who have/had a strong vision and are/were able to find unique ways to record photographically what they wish/wished to record.</p>

<p>In the end, isn't that the goal, folks?</p>

<p>Two terms that are often misunderstood in general are:</p>

<p><strong>thoughtfulness</strong> - It need not imply over-sensitivity or weakness</p>

<p><strong>spirituality</strong> - Organized religion is not a necessary component</p>

<p>Both of these traits are fundamental in bridging the gap between the technical and the artistic, unifying them into one end. But people have to understand what they are in their purest forms in order to be able to put them to work successfully.</p>

<p>" Before enlightenment ; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment ; chop wood, carry water." Zen proverb</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Musicians know you must do technical practice and exercises to play well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally, yes. But one of the best guitarists I know says "don't practice, just play".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would wager that Mario knows much more about technique and cameras than is admitted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mario is dead, so it's "knew" and having seen his work, I think he was a printmaker and really didn't care that much about how he got the images onto the film.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Musicians know you must do technical practice and exercises to play well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You must have missed the punk rock era.</p>

<p>V A L, I've seen a lot of Edgertons original work ...it isn't elevated by the "art" label. In fact, his equipment may have been closer to art in much the way Deardorff cameras and old Goertz Dagors were, but IMO his photos transcended that easy label.</p>

<p>I dealt some with Galen Rowell, played a minor role in producing his internegatives and c-prints. IMO he was more important as a mountaineer/outdoorsman/athlete than photographer. He was an enthusiast for outdoor challenges and photography paid his way, just as rebuilding engines did before he started selling photos. I think he, like most of the best, was above art. I have a hunch he'd prefer that mountaineer label to "artist."</p>

<p> I saw an exhibition of Richard Avedon prints in NYC 11/08, promoted as art and displayed as potential Holiday gifts...well below the standards of prints shown while he lived. I idolize Avedon and have seen many of his images printed to exquisite standards. Are mediocre Xmas gifts art when they only approximate the photographer's best? </p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Musicians know you must do technical practice and exercises to play well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Generally, yes. But one of the best guitarists I know says "don't practice, just play".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that comment actually telling us to view practice as actual, free-flowing play, so that we don't lose interest and get fed up with technical repetition. Just as there are many ways to play, there is no one correct way to practice. Personally, I favor the hands-on approach, too, because it just feels good. If you think you're playing, but you're actually practicing, it's a win-win situation!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I dealt some with Galen Rowell, played a minor role in producing his internegatives and c-prints. IMO he was more important as a mountaineer/outdoorsman/athlete than photographer. He was an enthusiast for outdoor challenges and photography paid his way, just as rebuilding engines did before he started selling photos. I think he, like most of the best, was above art. I have a hunch he'd prefer that mountaineer label to "artist."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting, John. I always hoped to meet him, but never got the chance. As much as I liked his photos, I liked his articles as much or even more.</p>

<p>Can you clarify what you mean by "above art" with respect to Galen Rowell's vision? I know that a lot of people in the art world have never heard of him (and I don't pretend to be in the art world either).</p>

<p>Technique is of great importance but only as a means not an end. Still, stating that you don't care about technique and don't find it important becomes a bit too easy if your work clearly proves you're really good at it.</p>

<p>The trick is to learn that stuff and internalize it to the point that you aren't thinking about it at all while shooting.<br>

Coltrane studied and ran scales like a madman, but always said he didn't think about the technical aspects at all while playing. I think the best photographers do this as well.</p>

<p>I like that last comment.</p>

<p>I would like to put forth a challenge to anyone who is positive that there definitely exist photographs which are either purely technical or purely artistic in nature. Please upload or link to such a photograph (either one of your own or a famous work). And then we can have a discussion about what makes it purely technical or purely artistic, and maybe come to some consensus overall. I really want to see specific examples that approach one extreme or the other, so that I can internalize what people are viewing as technique and what people are viewing as artistic.</p>

<p>Ian, Joe Pass, perhaps the ultimate American guitarist, DID think about technical aspects constantly while he played. Said he could name every note. Herb Ellis said something similar, and said he could sing every note he played. I don't think Coltrane's sax can be generalized so readily to photography...cameras may be more like guitars :-)</p>

<p>V A L, by "above art" I simply mean that "art" has become a relatively meaningless word...I think its demeaning to call someone an artist when we know what's meant today by most who use the word. Most photographers who try to accomplish more than pictures OF something, "artistic' or otherwise IMO, are "above art."</p>