Are we too obsessed with materials and technique?

[Allen Herbert]

, but I was surprised how many questions relate to equipment and materials, and not to the philosophy or psychology of image perception, and to the whys of our interest in this medium.

 

Folks like gear talk because it's a comfortable subject to talk about. Folks like new gear because it gives them an instant rush; a quick fix.....new gear is urgently needed when the temporary fix starts to fail. Folk are scared to post photos because....

 

Video is part of photography-John.

 

It always has been, so what is different, u-tube? just folks finding a new place to do their video thing...so what.

 

A powerful still image has always been a potent communication device, always will be. Not only does it freeze a significant moment in time it also clears and focuses the mind on one single relevant thought...as opposed to a mass of data where the significance can be easily lost.

[Allen Herbert]

It tells all...

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/napalm.jpg

[Allen Herbert]

Now, do you really Beethoven?s 9th playing in the background? the sound of jet exhausts, and the crackle of burning flesh.

 

Yet, again, another video about war to soften the mind. The truth of videos...the numbing mind effect.

[aplumpton]

Allen, you seem to have run out of steam with your thought:

 

"Folk are scared to post photos because.... "

 

Possibly it should read...

 

(Artist) Folk are scarred in posting photos?

 

Off of the subject line here, perhaps, but maybe you could create a post based upon

your statement?

[Allen Herbert]

"Folk are scared to post photos because.... "

 

An after thought,Arthur. More of a question for folks to ask themslves.

[spanky]

A lot has to do with why such people are so obsessed. For some the resulting work is secondary to the gratification of owning the latest and greatest. If these folks get more pleasure from this then who are the rest of us to judge? If they have the money then why not? We all have to have something to live for do we not?

 

For others, the frustration (and we all have it to some degree) of producing work that falls short of our intentions becomes magnified in the minds echo chamber. For those whose work is closely tied to their identity as a person this can take on monumental importance. However, we are also an increasingly impatient society. We want simple quick fixes and going through cameras like shoes is just the sort of quick fix some are looking for. Who wants to bother with such time consuming and frivolous things like taking classes in art and the humanities or spending time visiting museums for inspiration and education? No, it's much easier to solve ones creative problems with buying new gear isn't it?

 

This isn't to say that one should never consider adding or dropping gear as deemed necessary. I remember the day I decided to get into medium format. I was standing in Kamera Korner in San Jose about to buy a cheap lens for my Pentax 35mm. I was unhappy with the work I was producing up to that point and thought a wider lens would be just the thing. I had just finished my first course in b&w because I was also unhappy with the results I was getting from the labs. However, my eyes kept going back to the Mamiyas and Hassys in the other display case. I thought those cameras looked cool. So I gave back the lens I was about to buy and asked to see some of the stuff in the other case. I cannot really describe it other then it was a little like realizing you've met the love of your life. I knew nothing about such cameras but handling them in the store that day I knew right then that this was the type of camera I needed to be using.

 

So really this is what it's all about for everyone. We all struggle with these issues until we find something that fits us and what we want to do like a glove. Once we find what we need, then we can get on with the task of creating the work we need to.

[jtk]

Allen, you're right about mind-numbing videos, and of course mind-numbing portraits of handsome gents and pretty women, street photos of people we neither know nor care about (unless they're "above average" :-), press releases from government offices, porn, schmaltz...lots of stuff is mind-numbing. We rarely see striking photos from Iraq, but we see some crazy-powerful videos if we don't turn away.

 

What counts is what's unique....not singular necessarily, but apart from routine "correct" imagery. This has nothing to do with composition, lighting, the image, prettiness, the camera, the materials, perhaps not even shock...it has only to do with what's unique enough to draw and hold our attention, while we process at some mysterious (not analytic)level what we see.

 

Fred, you seem a little out of sorts. Everything any of us has posted is of course digital. Nobody reduces "digital" to digicam/dslr do they? Not when they're alert. Musicians don't confuse recordings of pianists with music, and few confuse painting with photography. Perhaps a stiff cup of tea...

[colin carron]

I would divide photographers into two camps. Those who are obsessed with materials and technique for a reason that has to do with the end product - the photograph, and those who are obsessed with materials and technique for reasons unrelalted to the end product.

 

These latter would include all those who see cameras as (male) jewellery, all those who think that the more you spend on equipment the better your photo will be, and all those who obsess for weeks, months, about the next piece of kit to buy, posting anguished questions on sites like this, then take a few pictures of their cat, dog, baby, girlfriend, bike etc then pop their latest acquisition in a cupboard and start obsessing about the next piece of equipment.

 

However to be obseessed with how well your photographic gear functions in producing a photo seems to me to be a perfectly rational thing. Like a concert violinist searching for a violin that produces the right voice and tonal qualities to express the music.

 

You can of course deliberately take pictures using Holgas and so on that deliberately run counter to this ideal but that is a self-conscious decision of the post-modern variety and is still selecting the best equipment for the perceived job.

[GerrySiegel]

Didn't read it all. Marc seems to have captured it a lot.

 

Wanted to react though to that word obsessed.Sounds like something that needs treatment with drugs and therapy and is not for sure. Some love new toys.And like to keep up with the technical. I do. Perhaps 40 years ago one got fixated with D 76 vs Rodinal. Now it is something less prosaic and more costly.

 

Cameras are certainly jewelry,fine and dandy. Confer status. Show mastery of complex tools. Whether the collecting of tools supersedes the craft, no doubt it often does and now more than ever with the number of gizmos and plug ins. I will say this from my following camera forums. Folks who read in as beginners want to overbuy and we support that urge. As soon as they get the basic kit it is " Which lens will make me better?" I see that. And we,me and others here, may contribute to that perception by our answers...rarely say 'Stop, buy nothing.Come back in six months. Read two books a month. And give yourself a self assignment. No,it is 'well,I think you need a wider than 35 mm lens,28 is sweeter and I want this or that."

[felixg]

I think the distinction you make in your second para, between tools and the nature of rock, is crucial: your question title mentions materials and technique, but (as most of the answers follow) what many photographers (especially in here) are more concerned with is equipment.

 

I would say that there is a definite over concern with equipment, a tendency to insufficient concern with materials, technique is either over or under considered but rarely assigned its real place.

 

Your sculptor will have spent a long time learning technique, then internalised it and forgotten about it at a conscious level - like driving a car. The same will probably be true of the nature of those materials and tools which he uses regularly.

 

My ex-wife is a painter; she spends one eight-hour day per week making (from scratch, grinding pigments and so on) her paints, pastels, charcoal, gessoed panels ... because she has perfect the techniques involved, she can then forget about them and get on with using them for the purpose for which they are intended.

 

The same should be true of any creative process (photography, painting, dance, writing, whatever): the tools, materials and techniques have to be mastered; after that, they and the mastery drop back into the basement and simply underpin what is really important. Only when a new situation arises should the technical underpinnings be consciously reviewed.

[jtk]

Techniques and materials:

 

In New Mexico, santeros (backwoods Catholics who carve sculptures of santos)increasingly use pigments they've made from natural sources (combined with linseed oil), and almost always use wood (cottonwood) harvested next to the least polluted parts of the Rio Grande or feeder rivers.

 

They passionately attribute prayer-like value to use of these non-commercial, low tech materials. They typically make their own wood-carving tools from discarded steel, abandoning power tools as they acquire their skills...values are also attributed to techniques and maturity.

 

Pueblo Indian potters usually make their own clay and pigments from local minerals, often using twigs for brushes, and they fire the pots using local wood and manure. I doubt they ever use modern kilns.

 

Navajo bowyers (make bows) are said (by the one I know, and the several I've read about) from materials found within walking distance of their hogans. This has something to do with the rituals that add significance to the hunt. In addition there's an economic aspect: the wood in the desert Southwest is prone to break, so ease of acquisiton is important (like ease of acquisition of inexpensive technology: e.g.eternally superb Leica film cameras Vs briefly acceptable DSLRs)

 

Low-tech back stories add value for both the craftspeople (who are often both highly sophisticated and innocent)

and the buyers (pots and santos...real bows aren't sold), who are typically pious in the extremes of Catholicism or "art collection" or, in the case of the Navajo, seeking traditional life values that, seemingly by definition, are essential to "walking in beauty."

[GerrySiegel]

Much free association. Got lost at pass. Seek safe harbor in Olympus forum. Talk about lust for new Oly E-3.Spend two thousand,buy happiness and inspiration. Says all. Analysis= hard work.

[keith selmes]

"The present poll of opinions of photonetters is no doubt a valuable undertaking, but I was surprised how many questions relate to equipment and materials"<br>

This website carries advertising, so I thought the questions about brand names and types of goods etc. were pretty standard for market research.<br>

[ilkka_nissila]

Most of the digitally shared photos and videos are of such atrociously poor quality (both technically as well as content wise) that it's irrelevant to the art of photography.

 

I think quality photography and quality print-making tools are far more accessible than they ever were before, and I still think the print is the photograph. I share photos online but these are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

Video and still photography are fundamentally different media. It is in my opinion, very much more difficult to make a good video than a good still photograph, and this is still photography's great asset: it is focused on one moment, and is far more controlled and of higher quality.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would like to add that video will never be the equivalent to still images since in many cases when information is conveyed to the viewer, a specific image is desired, instead of a continuous flow of images, which doesn't necessary make the main point of the presentation since the attention of the viewer will vary during the video.

 

Secondly, editing even just HD video, which is very low res compared to good still digital capture, is extremely tedious and slow to edit. This relationship will remain always: it is easier to control and edit a single image than a video.

 

As to the main question of the discussion, yes, people can get too excited about equipment in photography. It is especially true on online forums since a great proportion of people who spend time here are technically oriented. Those who are not, are busy taking pictures. They won't have time to report here, nor do they care.

 

I don't think there is anything to worry about - I like to get the details of the image just right as far as I can, and so I pay attention to the technique as well as content.

[mjack1]

I think that materials and technique are very important. If a camera inspires you to go out there and love what you are doing then it can only be a good thing - and the more you work - usually the better your technique gets.

 

I think that the problem sometimes comes when photographers get the message that they just have to keep on getting better and better gear - maybe to keep on inspiring them to go out there again. I find the ones that have found what they want and 'settled' on their choice quite often are at a better position mentally to use their equipment.

 

Having said that - a sudden change of gear can inspire new and better work too!

[jtk]

Re still vs video: "I don't think there is anything to worry about"

 

I didn't suggest worrying. Its meaningful that worrying came to mind.

 

I pointed to the current morphing of the two, and with sound as well (as at Magnum). There will continue to be people who paint with egg tempera, shoot glass plates or Leicas, and hunt turkeys with hand-made calls. That's great.

[steve_swinehart]

Photographs will not be supplanted by continuous streaming video - despite Mr. Kelly's claims. As was previously pointed out, moving pictures have a completely different aesthetic and reason for being, as compared to still pictures.

 

A fixed, two dimensional image (painting, print, photograph) has a reason for being created in that medium - and that is part of the message - as the viewer is presented with a single image to interact with. This is NOT the same as seeing a stream of images with or without sound. Within the context of "the medium is the message," a stream of video would be a "hot" medium while a still image would be a "cold" medium.

 

The hot medium needing passive attention from the viewer, while the cold medium would need the viewer to participate by actively looking at the image and evaluating it - with books being even colder because you have to hold them, read, AND turn pages.

 

Now to the original question - that is, being obsessed with technique and equipment.

 

Mastering the equipment and techniques is a task that many people never get past. The equipment becomes a sports car like experience, where just operating the machinery is the "fun" aspect. Likewise, many people get caught up in mastering the next technique hoping that by doing so, a doorway will open and their work will become more interesting because of the technique.

 

The mastery of equipment and technique becomes the reason for working in photography - and gives fulfillment, and a metric to measure success. (I can competently operate that piece of equipment / and can make a print using xxxx process.)

 

If you look at audiophile websites, you see the same type of activity where the "hobby" is purchasing equipment and confecting systems as opposed to actually listening to, and appreciating, music.

 

If you can get beyond that point (fondling equipment and chasing techniques) - then the image itself is the reason for making a photograph, and the equipment and processes are the tools that allow you to do that.

 

However, it's far easier for most people to talk about tools and techniques than the photographs themselves...

[bobtodrick]

I feel better tools help even the playing field, so to speak...but the master (of whatever) isn't really concerned.

 

Experienced a perfect examle this weekend. I attended an International Air Rifle match. The majority of shooters were using high end air rifles (Feinwerkbau and Hammerli) such as this http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/cms/main.php5?cPageId=20 at $3K and up. Plus they were all attired in expensive shooting shoes/jackets, etc.

 

Placing very close to the top was a middle-aged gent who says he has been shooting for 20 years with an Avanti air rifle...made by Daisy, it is a very conventional looking air-rifle, though with a very good barrel. Definitley had none of the 'Star Wars' looks of the other guns their. probably 1/10 their cost.

 

Seemed a lot like cameras to me. Or anything with a technical aspect. Some will pay gazillions of dollars to get the slightest edge. But the person who really knows what they are doing...whether it be shooting with a gun or a camera will do very well no matter what equipment he is using.

[steve_swinehart]

"I feel better tools help even the playing field"

 

How? I don't understand the statement. Can you explain that further?

 

While I can understand that in relation to the shooting example (a specialty item with more accuracy inherent within the rifle) - I don't see that being portable to photography.

 

Granted, if you use a Holga, you are constrained to taking photographs within the operating parameters of the equipment (fixed shutter speed and two f/stops - unless modified). That has nothing to do with the ability to see creatively - which is the real challenge in photography - and if lacking, no amount of equipment can provide.

[jtk]

Sites as photo-communicative as Photo.net (eg youtube and Magnum) already carry tremendous photo imagery...accompanied by talking and singing and moving, whatever the photographer wants.

 

A few think still images will forever define "photography." Some say serious photography begins at 5X7, or that it requires a darkroom.

 

Many of us think our own photography remains today's, but time does march on.

 

My current goal is an online slide show, with interviews and sound...not technically harder than a fine inkjet print. Might not succeed, might take six months ...the photographers I most admire are presented that way (again, Magnum).

 

 

McLuhan's "hot" and "cold" were like lava lamps, quickly became popular among bell-bottomed ad agency account executives and pop psychologists. EST, Scientology, and Bucky Fuller come to mind.

[bobtodrick]

Steve...give someone who knows little about photography a current DSLR with mulitple programs modes.

 

Tell them to take a portrait and then let them set it to 'portrait mode'...you know, where the camera gives you shallow depth of field, likely has face recognition to insure 'proper focus'...one new Sony model even has 'smile recognition.

 

Then give them a Pentax Spotmatic 1000.

 

Both are capable of the same end result as far as a photograph is concerned.

 

Which do you think this particular person will get the best result our of?

[Allen Herbert]

My current goal is an online slide show, with interviews and sound

 

Cool, John. Looking forward to a viewing at some future date.

 

Which do you think this particular person will get the best result our of?

 

Either, or, Bob. Both really need time and effort to be used in the most effective way...pressing a button does not "a photographer make".

 

Sort of like being able to tie your shoe laces.

[bobtodrick]

Of course not Allan...but my original comment was that it does level the playing field.

 

Many pros, especially wedding photographers have felt the sting of lost business because of all the 'photographers' out there who have bought into the advertising that with this or that camera, you to can take photos like a pro.

 

Of course they can't...but it allows them to get passable images much easier than before...they had no clue how aperture affected depth of field...how shutter speed affected motion stoppage, etc.

 

Now they don't need to know...on most digitals there is a setting for 'portrait' or 'sports'.

 

Whether this is a bad thing or not is not for me to say...but it is a fact.

 

Case in point. I sell this stuff. On the weekend I dealt with a 'new' wedding photographer...already has 3 bookings for this summer. She has a Canon 40D and a couple of lenses. A week or so ago she purchased, on advice of the professional association she is a member of (PPOC...Professional Photographers of Canada), a 3 head lighting strobe kit and flashmeter for her formals.

 

She brought them all back because:

 

a) she couldn't figure out the lightmeter

 

b) and I quote..."if the camera won't figure it out for me why should I bother"...

 

But you know what...if she leaves her camera on 'PROGRAM' and is just a little bit careful with her composition...and luck is on her side, her wedding clients will probably be happy.

[steve_swinehart]

"Which do you think this particular person will get the best result our of?"

 

You're going to have to better quantify "best result." If you mean a properly exposed photograph, probably the all automatic camera. If you mean an interesting photograph....probably neither camera....although with either piece of equipment, you can't rule out luck.

 

But, fully automatic cameras have been around for at least 25 years, and I haven't really seen that people make more interesting photographs because they're using a fully automatic camera.

 

Think about it. George Eastman provided the means for anyone to take a photograph. In the 100 years since, "You push the button, we do the rest," just ubiquitously giving people the ability to make photographs doesn't automatically result in good photographs.

 

In fact, I could take your argument and turn it around by making it even simpler. If I gave someone a Holga loaded with 400 ISO color negative film, they wouldn't have to really worry about much of anything except choosing the correct zone focus point (single person, multiple persons, mountain) - and pushing the shutter button.

 

The Holga would certainly be simpler and less intimidating than using an all automatic camera with multiple menus, etc. The use of the 400 ISO color negative film, negates the need to expose "correctly" as it can be easily printed even if under or way over exposed.

 

But, the use of an unimposing camera and simplification of the total process through having to only point and push the shutter doesn't make a successful image anymore probable than your example with a fully automatic digital wonder-cam.

 

You can't buy an interesting image. You have to see it and make it.