Technology or Talent?

A Visual Arts reporter wrote a column about the MN State Fair Fine Arts exhibition ( http://www.startribune.com/1375/story/633609.html ) and has this to say about my photo posted below:

"Photography lacks the edge it showed in recent years. First place went to Ryan Kane's digital print of a baby splashing in a bathtub. Its astounding high-megapixel detail makes each airborne water droplet a world unto itself. Should we thank talent or technology?"

Now the question is interesting, but I have to wonder about its validity. The photo was taken with a Konica-Minolta A2, cropped to less than 5MP, and printed as a 16x20. So the camera is 2.5 years since its release and the "high-megapixel detail" is a level of detail achieved in the digital realm around 4 years ago. Not exactly what one would call "cutting edge".

But this still begs the question, in the area of detail, does film provide more detail than a 5MP? I believe so and if so, the technology to produce the level of detail in that photo has been around over 100 years.

Something tells me when analyzing the level of detail, the question of talent or technology is fairly nonsensical.

I would think questioning the sharpness would be more of a technology vs. talent question, but not the detail. I used autofocus to capture the shot and with the A2's low shutter lag and speedy shot-to-shot times, the technology surely helped. Then again, film cameras had no shutter lag and were generally much faster shot-to-shot than my digital camera. Mine is simply not in the game when comparing to SLRs or dSLRs today or even from many years back.

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a long time. So, Talent or Technology?

Anyone else?

BroncoGuy said:

Thanks to the help of the photography and A2 experts, a photo I
took with my A2 won the photography competition at the 2006
Minnesota State Fair.

Here is the picture:



Thank you all very much. And if you live near Minnesota and can
get to the fair, stop by and check out the Fine Arts gallery. The
Fair opens tomorrow and runs until Labor Day.

Ryan Kane

Click to expand...

Not sure what answer exactly you are trying to get

the picture is a snap shot taken with flash (which stops the water drops)

Neither any special talent nor any special technology is nessecary for this picture

depth of field is so large that everything is in focus anyway and the flash makes everything nice and sharp

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

BroncoGuy said:

A Visual Arts reporter wrote a column about the MN State Fair Fine
Arts exhibition ( http://www.startribune.com/1375/story/633609.html )
and has this to say about my photo posted below:

"Photography lacks the edge it showed in recent years. First place
went to Ryan Kane's digital print of a baby splashing in a bathtub.
Its astounding high-megapixel detail makes each airborne water
droplet a world unto itself. Should we thank talent or technology?"

Click to expand...

BroncoGuy said:

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a
long time. So, Talent or Technology?

Click to expand...

Whether film or digital, the answer is obvious: technology is responsible for the picture, not talent. The photographer did NOT

a) control the speed of the child's hand as it splashed the water.
b) set up the angle of the child's hand entering the water.

c) observe the pattern of water droplets as they fell in real time, waiting for "just the right moment" to take the photo.

After setting the aperture (maybe) and turning on the flash, the photographer pressed the shutter button, leaving every other aspect of the photo to be handled automatically by the camera's electronics. Intending no disrepect to the photographer, how could this be called talent?

The composition is not even particularly compelling, aside from the frozen-in-time droplets. While I'm happy the photographer won a prize, his success was due to luck, physics, and technology -- talent doesn't enter the picture at all, as far as I can see.

Paul H said:

BroncoGuy said:

A Visual Arts reporter wrote a column about the MN State Fair Fine
Arts exhibition ( http://www.startribune.com/1375/story/633609.html )
and has this to say about my photo posted below:

"Photography lacks the edge it showed in recent years. First place
went to Ryan Kane's digital print of a baby splashing in a bathtub.
Its astounding high-megapixel detail makes each airborne water
droplet a world unto itself. Should we thank talent or technology?"

Click to expand...

Paul H46473 said:

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a
long time. So, Talent or Technology?

Click to expand...

Whether film or digital, the answer is obvious: technology is
responsible for the picture, not talent. The photographer did NOT

a) control the speed of the child's hand as it splashed the water.
b) set up the angle of the child's hand entering the water.
c) observe the pattern of water droplets as they fell in real time,
waiting for "just the right moment" to take the photo.

Click to expand...

All very true. What the photographer did do is recognize the potential of the situation, time the shot to capture the splash (not necessarily observing the pattern, and position the camera at a "child's-eye view" to get a slightly different perspective than the standard "Adult taking picture of child" angle. (I was the photographer, BTW, and make no claim to any other "talent" than stated above).

Paul H46473 said:

After setting the aperture (maybe) and turning on the flash, the
photographer pressed the shutter button, leaving every other aspect
of the photo to be handled automatically by the camera's
electronics. Intending no disrepect to the photographer, how could
this be called talent?

Click to expand...

What I found interesting about the writer's comment, though, is that he seemed to be making a point about an advance of technology enabling the shot. In referring to it as having "high megapixel detail", he sounds like he is making a point that this photograph would not have been possible a few years ago and the endless march of photography is solely to credit.

Paul H46473 said:

The composition is not even particularly compelling, aside from the
frozen-in-time droplets. While I'm happy the photographer won a
prize, his success was due to luck, physics, and technology --
talent doesn't enter the picture at all, as far as I can see.

Click to expand...

As a hobbyist photographer, I feel that way about most of my pictures, but am constantly confused when people think my pictures are better than ones they could have or do produce. There is some talent involved, but it is hard to put a finger on the level. I will agree that it does not take much talent, but I do feel there is some there. At least, I hope. YMMV.

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Not sure what answer exactly you are trying to get

the picture is a snap shot taken with flash (which stops the water
drops)

Neither any special talent nor any special technology is nessecary
for this picture

depth of field is so large that everything is in focus anyway and
the flash makes everything nice and sharp

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in my other reply, I found it interesting that the writer comments on the technology of the shot after referring to the "high-megapixel detail" as if this shot would not have been possible a year or two ago. In your statement above, you refer to no "special" technology being needed and, to me, the writer is referring to a "special" technology. And essentially, I agree with you. The technology has been around for ages. I guess, it was just an odd question to throw in.

But he was there, and he grabbed the oportunity to shoot this image... that's already something.

And the point he tries to make is that he could have done it with film 10 years ago (with another child), which turns the reporter's comment as pure bullsh* .

BroncoGuy said:

BroncoGuy said:

Whether film or digital, the answer is obvious: technology is
responsible for the picture, not talent. The photographer did NOT

a) control the speed of the child's hand as it splashed the water.
b) set up the angle of the child's hand entering the water.
c) observe the pattern of water droplets as they fell in real time,
waiting for "just the right moment" to take the photo.

Click to expand...

All very true. What the photographer did do is recognize the
potential of the situation, time the shot to capture the splash
(not necessarily observing the pattern, and position the camera at
a "child's-eye view" to get a slightly different perspective than
the standard "Adult taking picture of child" angle. (I was the
photographer, BTW, and make no claim to any other "talent" than
stated above).

Click to expand...

BroncoGuy said:

BroncoGuy said:

The composition is not even particularly compelling, aside from the
frozen-in-time droplets. While I'm happy the photographer won a
prize, his success was due to luck, physics, and technology --
talent doesn't enter the picture at all, as far as I can see.

Click to expand...

As a hobbyist photographer, I feel that way about most of my
pictures, but am constantly confused when people think my pictures
are better than ones they could have or do produce. There is some
talent involved, but it is hard to put a finger on the level. I
will agree that it does not take much talent, but I do feel there
is some there. At least, I hope. YMMV.

Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of this picture - no criticism, it's not my kind of shooting. But the larger question your raising, has been, and will be raised again. The camera or the photographer?

If you shoot birds from a hundred yards with a 50mm prime, you're not going to get any awards for your close-up shots. But you might very well win one with a birdscape.

The photographer uses the technology they have and produces the best result possible. But your shot would be easy to blow. And while a baby in the bath doesn't need a rocket scientist to decide to shoot, it's a nice shot, taken in a competent manner.

The mechanics of photography is learnable skill. The ability to frame is partially inherent, although we can all learn the rules. So we have two aspects - the mechanics of the trade, and the artistic knowledge of framing.

And then theres a third, that indefinable aspect which makes some photographers masters. When and where to shoot. To recognise the potential of a scene or situation worth photographing.

Ultimately it is the photographer who makes great images.

True, we all know about "found art." And anyone can get lucky. But when someone, time after time, produces superior images, they deserve the credit and not the camera.

Dave

Chato said:

I'm not a big fan of this picture - no criticism, it's not my kind
of shooting. But the larger question your raising, has been, and
will be raised again. The camera or the photographer?

Click to expand...

Don't worry, no offense taken. It wasn't my favorite shot and I only submitted it because my wife loved it and as the one I liked from last year was rejected, I decided to use her intuition. I think I will trust her more in the future.

...

Chato said:

True, we all know about "found art." And anyone can get lucky. But
when someone, time after time, produces superior images, they
deserve the credit and not the camera.

Dave

Click to expand...

I hear you there. Thanks for commenting. I have had trouble for years with comments about my photos being good. I have tried to explain it in many different ways, but in the end, it just comes down to that something you mention above. Not that I am a great photographer, or even worthy of comparison to very good ones, but many people just see something special in my photos and see them as being of better quality than their own or others they have seen. It has to be more than technology.

Ryan

jpp said:

But he was there, and he grabbed the oportunity to shoot this
image... that's already something.
And the point he tries to make is that he could have done it with
film 10 years ago (with another child), which turns the reporter's
comment as pure bullsh* .

Click to expand...

That was a big part of my complaint with his statement. You got it.

The one thing I know for sure about taking great photographs, you cannot get a great picture if you don't take the picture. If you are a golfer, I compare that comment to "never up, never in".

The winner of this photo got lucky. Anyone can get lucky and produce a decent photo. It's the body of work..can they consistantly produce excellent photos? If so, then they have talent. If not, then it was luck.

The technology is essentially the same except for 1 factor. Barrier to amount of photos is no longer an issue. This can excelerate the learning curve.

My 2 cents

--
Todd
http://www.teewebco.com

BroncoGuy said:

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a
long time. So, Talent or Technology?

BroncoGuy said:

Ryan Kane

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ryan, I wouldn't worry too much about these negative replies. It's amazing how some people will twist their logic just to put someone down. In fact you've hit the nail on the head here. This sort of picture has been possible for 50 years or more.

The fact is that this is a nice picture and it didn't take itself. That means you visualised it before you took it - and that's at least half the skill of photography. The other half is the technical side and you've done that well too. So the answer to your question is clear - the picture is a result of talent. Your talent.
--
Laurie Strachan

I agree, and I should have changed the title when I gave my first answer...

Laurie Strachan said:

Laurie Strachan said:

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a
long time. So, Talent or Technology?

Laurie Strachan said:

Ryan Kane

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ryan, I wouldn't worry too much about these negative replies. It's
amazing how some people will twist their logic just to put someone
down. In fact you've hit the nail on the head here. This sort of
picture has been possible for 50 years or more.
The fact is that this is a nice picture and it didn't take itself.
That means you visualised it before you took it - and that's at
least half the skill of photography. The other half is the
technical side and you've done that well too. So the answer to your
question is clear - the picture is a result of talent. Your talent.
--
Laurie Strachan

Click to expand...

Thanks Laurie, but there is no need to worry. None of the comments have been cruel or demeaning in any way and I take no offense. (I heard far more critical comments from a few people who stopped by the image on an early preview night, but some of that was from people who think they should have won.)

The truth of the matter is that it is a snapshot and I did get lucky. I feel that way about a lot of my pictures. I am essentially a snapshot photographer with enough knowledge of how to tweak my camera to get pleasing technical results a high percentage of times and a good enough eye to know what will make a good photo in the end. Take this shot for instance:



I didn't make the sunset, the haze or get my neice to sit looking at it. I love the shot anyway.

Or this one:



Again, my son, but I did nothing special for this photo except get a different perspective of a child crawling on grass. This same photo from the standard adult point of view would have been boring and lame, IMO.

So, I know how to use the technology to get a technically pleasing image and have a bit of talent to take the right shot. That's good enough for me.

Technology exist for a long time, and artist use whatever tool that fits his/her need. I can see photographers debating over the matter as they want to be able to grasp with the technology, and learn to harness and con trol the tools.

But for a report thats suppose to deal with the ARTs side of the hobby ... Hmmm ... I suppose they need to get over the issue. Its a picture, its a picture. Doesn;t matter if its film or digital !!

--
Franka

First of all, congrats on your photo winning the prize!

I read the critics article and the main point he seems to be making is he found most of the entries to lack provocativeness. I don't think that many can argue that your photo is provacative and pushing the boundaries of creativity; instead it's a nice image well executed technically. I really didn't read it in a way that he was overly dissing your work. He would just rather have seen more cutting edge imagry in the exhibition. It could be argued he was criticizing the judging more than anything. The talent or technology quip, although I can see how it can be taken as insulting, was his attempt at alliteration, that's what writers do. Another critic, one with a more technological rather than creative bent, might have praised the exhibition, and your photo. But unluckily, this guy got the assignment, and this article was his creative output. Agree or disagree. Just like the entries in the competition

I've been on the receiving end of negative comments on my work, overhearing patrons in galleries, lurking online where my award winning image was discussed. I've been tempted to jump in and defend my work, but decided that putting it out there to see should be my final word, the image speaks for itself, and it's now up to whoever choses to listen to it.

In a way, with the article and this discussion, your photo did end up being provocative after all! Take that, critic Enjoy the honor you've earned!

BroncoGuy said:

Paul H said:

BroncoGuy said:

I guess, technologically, this image has been possible for quite a
long time. So, Talent or Technology?

Click to expand...

Whether film or digital, the answer is obvious: technology is
responsible for the picture, not talent. The photographer did NOT

a) control the speed of the child's hand as it splashed the water.
b) set up the angle of the child's hand entering the water.
c) observe the pattern of water droplets as they fell in real time,
waiting for "just the right moment" to take the photo.

Click to expand...

All very true. What the photographer did do is recognize the
potential of the situation, time the shot to capture the splash
(not necessarily observing the pattern, and position the camera at
a "child's-eye view" to get a slightly different perspective than
the standard "Adult taking picture of child" angle. (I was the
photographer, BTW, and make no claim to any other "talent" than
stated above).

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh; that was not my intention, nor did I mean to say it wasn't a good photo. It was. But I still believe it was the kind of photo which did not require any great degree talent for its production. I do understand there is skill in framing a shot, choosing the right angle, etc., just as there is skill involved in stringing and tuning a violin. But the talent shows up when the instrument is put under the chin and the bow hits the strings. In photography, something in the photos must transcend technology in order to show talent.

So what might have demonstrated artistic talent in this particular shot, in my opinion of dubious value? I don't know -- maybe mounting a slave flash at right angles to the camera, masked so that the beam only illuminated the droplets, picking up some interesting specular highlights, etc. Showing talent in photography is a difficult thing to do -- first and foremost, the subject matter has to grab the viewer, but in such way that the viewer comes away with the impression that what he's just seen is no accident or "lucky shot."

A good picture and a picture demonstrating talent are not necessarily the same thing. And please don't misunderstand: you may be a highly talented photographer -- I'm only speaking to this particular photo. Photographers establish portfolios because a photographer's overall talent can't be judged by one or two examples.

BroncoGuy said:

BroncoGuy said:

After setting the aperture (maybe) and turning on the flash, the
photographer pressed the shutter button, leaving every other aspect
of the photo to be handled automatically by the camera's
electronics. Intending no disrepect to the photographer, how could
this be called talent?

Click to expand...

What I found interesting about the writer's comment, though, is
that he seemed to be making a point about an advance of technology
enabling the shot.

Click to expand...

Consider an artist who does an oil painting of a child splashing in a tub: The paint, brushes, and canvas comprise the technology which*enables* the creation of the painting, but the artist has to know quite a lot about the behaviour of falling droplets and children in tubs; not only that, the artist must have the requisite physical and mental skills to mechanically produce a realistic image of the scene he or she is attempting to display. In this case, artistic effort drives the technology to produce art, but the art itself depends critically upon the skill of the artist wielding the technology; such is not the case with this particular photo. In fact, a tripod-mounted camera with a sound-actuated shutter button to detect splashes might have taken exactly the same photo as would have a human photographer. Or, as another example, if a photographer frames a table at a coffee house, a likely place for photo opportunities, then sets up a camera to take pictures every five seconds over the course of a day, he might get some great candid shots of the human condition, but I don't think anyone could say there was any photographic talent involved in obtaining such pictures.

Perhaps visual art needs to be labeled like juice boxes. A photo might be designated "Contains at least 5% real art", while oiling paintings could declare an artistic content approaching 100 percent.

(BTW, my comment about the aperture was not a slam; I didn't have the EXIF data, so I had no idea if the photo was taken in AP, SP, full manual, or full auto. I kinda/sorta assumed AP.)

BroncoGuy said:

BroncoGuy said:

The composition is not even particularly compelling, aside from the
frozen-in-time droplets. While I'm happy the photographer won a
prize, his success was due to luck, physics, and technology --
talent doesn't enter the picture at all, as far as I can see.

Click to expand...

As a hobbyist photographer, I feel that way about most of my
pictures, but am constantly confused when people think my pictures
are better than ones they could have or do produce.

Click to expand...

Most of us on this forum are amateurs, I'd bet. And you've won a prize while many others, including myself, have not.

Paul H said:

Perhaps visual art needs to be labeled like juice boxes. A photo
might be designated "Contains at least 5% real art", while oiling
paintings could declare an artistic content approaching 100 percent.

Click to expand...

Well, no one on this thread has yet to "flame" anyone. It's a good discussion.

May I point out all the hack artists in the world? There are even factories where a roll of canvass passes the artist who in fifteen minutes puts out a set scene. An old sail boat in a storm, each one with a minute variation...

Anyone if they are determined to put in the time, can master the mechanics of painting. More difficult than learning the skill of photography, but quite doable.

But you are certainly correct in saying that no masterpiece of a painting is done by luck. Whereas a photographer, like the recently deceased Joe Rosenthal, is most famous for the photograph at Iwo Jima, which he himself described as a lucky shot.

But I have a number of artist friends. They go out and place themselves in sitauations, scenes that they can capture. So that mechanical skill that I reference, needs something to activate it...

Here's the website of a "Street artist." She would be the last to say that she can paint only from the imagination.

http://patriciamelvin.com/

Dave

pixellina said:

First of all, congrats on your photo winning the prize!

Click to expand...

Thank you very much. It was very unexpected.

...

pixellina said:

It could be argued he
was criticizing the judging more than anything.

Click to expand...

That was certainly his point.

pixellina said:

The talent or
technology quip, although I can see how it can be taken as
insulting, was his attempt at alliteration, that's what writers do.
Another critic, one with a more technological rather than creative
bent, might have praised the exhibition, and your photo. But
unluckily, this guy got the assignment, and this article was his
creative output. Agree or disagree. Just like the entries in the
competition

Click to expand...

I don't even know that I fully disagree with him on an overall question of Technology or Talent. My issue is that he seems to be referring to the detail as a result of a great advance in technology. That may be true, but that technological advancement happened maybe 50 years ago.

pixellina said:

I've been on the receiving end of negative comments on my work,
overhearing patrons in galleries, lurking online where my award
winning image was discussed. I've been tempted to jump in and
defend my work, but decided that putting it out there to see should
be my final word, the image speaks for itself, and it's now up to
whoever choses to listen to it.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat here. I got to stand by and listen to a few comments on the preview night when I found out I had won. There were certainly a few "I could have done that" comments. Truth be told, there are a number of photos in the exhibit that I would choose over mine. I would like to talk to the judge to learn something of his thoughts.

pixellina said:

In a way, with the article and this discussion, your photo did end
up being provocative after all! Take that, critic Enjoy the
honor you've earned!

Click to expand...

I am. Thanks.

I was going through some of my son's baby photos a few days ago and have a similar photo taken with film but using a bounce flash off the ceiling. The level of "detail" is similar but does not have the harsh look of that direct flash.

K1000Photographer said:

I was going through some of my son's baby photos a few days ago and
have a similar photo taken with film but using a bounce flash off
the ceiling. The level of "detail" is similar but does not have the
harsh look of that direct flash.

Click to expand...

Could you scan it and post it in this thread? I would love to see the difference with the bounce. When I took the picture, I did not have an external flash and was forced to use the on-board direct one. Since then, I have gotten a nice external flash and have really loved the effect that bounce flash provides and nearly never use a direct flash any more.

That being said, some people have commented that the shadowing gives this picture a 3-D feel with the water drops. I would like to see the difference and what difference the bounce makes.