Technique, creativity, and internalization

[JimKasson]

There is a persistent belief in some corners of the photographic world that technical knowledge impedes creativity. The argument goes something like this: if you become too focused on the mechanics, you’ll lose sight of the emotion, the spontaneity, the spark that makes an image resonate. It’s an understandable concern, but it’s based on a false dichotomy. Technical skill and creative expression are not opposing forces; the former can be an essential foundation for the latter.

As someone who has voiced this concern, in a slightly different way, let me speak to the specifics. I think there are often aspects of photography mentioned here, that don't apply to the every day process of taking a photograph, but to the design of lenses, sensor theory, and every sort of extreme esoteric metric that can be devised.

I think these are great when it comes to conversation/history/etc... but when it comes to making a print, you have to shoot it and then make adjustments. Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass.

Your statement is overbroad. It depends on the assignment, the audience, the photographer's vision, the subject matter, and a host of other things.

Not sure how my statement can be overbroad when the topics of this thread, technique, creativity and internalization are incredibly broad.

You said "Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass." That statement needs qualification.

As an example: I have a 61MP Sony that I could use a poorly rated 24-240, and a god rated 50/1.2 GM. Both will capture the shot at 50mm. If I want some other traits then yes understanding aperture and focal range will be of help in composing a look. But the sharpness of the lens (mtf charts) will be of little value in the moment.

Again, it depends on a lot of things. That statement is also IMO overbroad.

I don't think it is overbroad,

I think there are situation where you'll want the sharpest lens that's suitable, and situations where it won't matter much. In that sense, the statement is overbroad.

rather I think I am starting at the simplest point of discussion to make my point. We can add the other criteria to further the discussion, ie astrophotography vs professional portraiture vs capturing a kids play. But the discussion can start from where ever we are.

[SNIP]

The danger isn't in knowing too much. It’s in letting that knowledge sit on the surface, where it can interfere. The solution is not to reject technical skill, but to absorb it so deeply that it disappears from conscious view. When that happens, you’re free, and that freedom is where creativity lives.

On this we agree. Rarely when I ask someone how they took a picture do they give me anything more than, what camera/lens/shutter speed/iso/focal length/processing vector (sooc or pp).

When I ask fellow photographers the same question, I don't get any of that information. They don't consider it germane. I'm the same way with others. That kind of minutiae is assumed to be part of a common knowledge base in the circles that I frequent.

When you ask someone how they took a picture where do you start?

You mean where to they start? They start with their goals for the image, and how what they did helped them achieve those goals. Only in unusual cases do they get into feeds and speeds. These people assume that I know all about that.

How are the components of the process not germane?

See above.

If I have just those items I can come close to the look. Everything else is how I respond in the moment. And for a better response practice and repetition outweigh technical knowledge.

There are many people who do things wrong because those things have worked for them in the past.

Wow... think about how oxymoronic this line is. If it is working for them, how can it be wrong?

It's a local optimum.

They don't understand how they are limiting themselves.

Or they don't care...

In mathematical terms, they have achieved a local optimum, and are missing the golbal one.

Why is the global optimum relevant in photography. Everything with photography is localized to the interests of the photographer and the audience.

I'm talking about an optimum with respect to a objective function defined by the photographer. If you don't understand the environment in which you're working, you may have blinders on that will prevent you from doing better.

 

[jhunna]

Ashe or any tennis player doesn’t need to be an expert in the technology of materials or racquet or shoe design to become proficient. They just have to understand what works for them and develop the skillcraft in using it. The same for a photographer. If developing that skillcraft requires learning about a new technology, then they need to enough of that technology necessary to refine their skillcraft.

Exactly. If you don't use footnotes, you don't need to learn that part of Word. Same with cameras.

I think this analogy compares better with having video as a feature of a camera vs something like understanding why a Bayer sensor is different from a foveon.

What Truman said was "If developing that skillcraft requires learning about a new technology, then they need to enough of that technology necessary to refine their skillcraft."

Foveon sensors perform quite differently from modern CMOS Bayer ones. Anyone coming from one to the other and expecting their former methods will allow them to get the most out of their new camera will be disappointed if they're paying attention to the results.

I am paying attention to the qualifiers you use, and it makes knowing the technical aspects more important. Rather than say "allow them to get the most out of their new camera " I would just stop at "allow them to get what they want out of their new camera".

See the post I made about local and global optima.

I find this comment dismissive and avoidant. Why not share your thought in this thread where it is relevant? In any case I don't believe in global optima in matters of art.

The former is definitely tech focused where as the latter is personal result/desire focused. I submit if you know how to use the controls of the camera to get good exposure/focus/wb your camera will provide what you want without knowing the sensor type.

It all depends on your aspirations.

What aspiration starts outside of those metrics? I am not speaking to absolute/perfect focus, rather I am speaking to getting the exposure you want (underexposed to show darkness), focus you want (focus blur to show motion, or crisp focus to show detail as an example) and wb (go mono and ignore WB). Not sure knowing how the sensor captures photons of light will help if you can control the output.

There's a saying in the circles that I run in: "If you buy a violin, you own a violin. If you buy a camera, you are a photographer." Usually delivered with a sardonic smile.

Yes, I hear this a lot, and not sure how it applies here. I have a violin and a camera, and I am a violinist and a photographer (some would question how good but that is beside the point. ).

 

[JimKasson]

There's a saying in the circles that I run in: "If you buy a violin, you own a violin. If you buy a camera, you are a photographer." Usually delivered with a sardonic smile.

Yes, I hear this a lot, and not sure how it applies here. I have a violin and a camera, and I am a violinist and a photographer (some would question how good but that is beside the point. ).

Actually, that is the point. At some place along their road to expertise, violin students get to the point where they are good enough to be called a violinist by themselves, their teachers, and their audience. A lot of folks seem to feel that they have reached to point where they can call themselves photographers when they unpack their first camera.

I have played the guitar for decades, but I would not call myself a guitarist.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[jhunna]

There is a persistent belief in some corners of the photographic world that technical knowledge impedes creativity. The argument goes something like this: if you become too focused on the mechanics, you’ll lose sight of the emotion, the spontaneity, the spark that makes an image resonate. It’s an understandable concern, but it’s based on a false dichotomy. Technical skill and creative expression are not opposing forces; the former can be an essential foundation for the latter.

As someone who has voiced this concern, in a slightly different way, let me speak to the specifics. I think there are often aspects of photography mentioned here, that don't apply to the every day process of taking a photograph, but to the design of lenses, sensor theory, and every sort of extreme esoteric metric that can be devised.

I think these are great when it comes to conversation/history/etc... but when it comes to making a print, you have to shoot it and then make adjustments. Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass.

Your statement is overbroad. It depends on the assignment, the audience, the photographer's vision, the subject matter, and a host of other things.

Not sure how my statement can be overbroad when the topics of this thread, technique, creativity and internalization are incredibly broad.

You said "Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass." That statement needs qualification.

As an example: I have a 61MP Sony that I could use a poorly rated 24-240, and a god rated 50/1.2 GM. Both will capture the shot at 50mm. If I want some other traits then yes understanding aperture and focal range will be of help in composing a look. But the sharpness of the lens (mtf charts) will be of little value in the moment.

Again, it depends on a lot of things. That statement is also IMO overbroad.

I don't think it is overbroad,

I think there are situation where you'll want the sharpest lens that's suitable, and situations where it won't matter much. In that sense, the statement is overbroad.

rather I think I am starting at the simplest point of discussion to make my point. We can add the other criteria to further the discussion, ie astrophotography vs professional portraiture vs capturing a kids play. But the discussion can start from where ever we are.

[SNIP]

The danger isn't in knowing too much. It’s in letting that knowledge sit on the surface, where it can interfere. The solution is not to reject technical skill, but to absorb it so deeply that it disappears from conscious view. When that happens, you’re free, and that freedom is where creativity lives.

On this we agree. Rarely when I ask someone how they took a picture do they give me anything more than, what camera/lens/shutter speed/iso/focal length/processing vector (sooc or pp).

When I ask fellow photographers the same question, I don't get any of that information. They don't consider it germane. I'm the same way with others. That kind of minutiae is assumed to be part of a common knowledge base in the circles that I frequent.

When you ask someone how they took a picture where do you start?

You mean where to they start?

Yes.

They start with their goals for the image, and how what they did helped them achieve those goals. Only in unusual cases do they get into feeds and speeds. These people assume that I know all about that.

Understood, but you and your friends are a very select group of people, but I follow what you mean.

How are the components of the process not germane?

See above.

If I have just those items I can come close to the look. Everything else is how I respond in the moment. And for a better response practice and repetition outweigh technical knowledge.

There are many people who do things wrong because those things have worked for them in the past.

Wow... think about how oxymoronic this line is. If it is working for them, how can it be wrong?

It's a local optimum.

Even if it is local optimum, it is local to their desires, not to the scenario. Who decides if everything needs to be in focus, or what part needs to be well lit? There are too many options for their to be a single optimum.

How does the idea of local optimum deal with individual interpretations?

They don't understand how they are limiting themselves.

Or they don't care...

In mathematical terms, they have achieved a local optimum, and are missing the golbal one.

Why is the global optimum relevant in photography. Everything with photography is localized to the interests of the photographer and the audience.

I'm talking about an optimum with respect to a objective function defined by the photographer.

I get that, and I think it is an aspect that remains local.

If you don't understand the environment in which you're working, you may have blinders on that will prevent you from doing better.

Agreed. But in those cases, the local optimum would change based on the person and equipment. If there is a true global optimum, there isn't a combination of camera or photographer that could take advantage of the global optimum. Who decides what is global optimum? I submit once that decision on global optimum is made it becomes local.

 

[JimKasson]

There is a persistent belief in some corners of the photographic world that technical knowledge impedes creativity. The argument goes something like this: if you become too focused on the mechanics, you’ll lose sight of the emotion, the spontaneity, the spark that makes an image resonate. It’s an understandable concern, but it’s based on a false dichotomy. Technical skill and creative expression are not opposing forces; the former can be an essential foundation for the latter.

As someone who has voiced this concern, in a slightly different way, let me speak to the specifics. I think there are often aspects of photography mentioned here, that don't apply to the every day process of taking a photograph, but to the design of lenses, sensor theory, and every sort of extreme esoteric metric that can be devised.

I think these are great when it comes to conversation/history/etc... but when it comes to making a print, you have to shoot it and then make adjustments. Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass.

Your statement is overbroad. It depends on the assignment, the audience, the photographer's vision, the subject matter, and a host of other things.

Not sure how my statement can be overbroad when the topics of this thread, technique, creativity and internalization are incredibly broad.

You said "Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass." That statement needs qualification.

As an example: I have a 61MP Sony that I could use a poorly rated 24-240, and a god rated 50/1.2 GM. Both will capture the shot at 50mm. If I want some other traits then yes understanding aperture and focal range will be of help in composing a look. But the sharpness of the lens (mtf charts) will be of little value in the moment.

Again, it depends on a lot of things. That statement is also IMO overbroad.

I don't think it is overbroad,

I think there are situation where you'll want the sharpest lens that's suitable, and situations where it won't matter much. In that sense, the statement is overbroad.

rather I think I am starting at the simplest point of discussion to make my point. We can add the other criteria to further the discussion, ie astrophotography vs professional portraiture vs capturing a kids play. But the discussion can start from where ever we are.

[SNIP]

The danger isn't in knowing too much. It’s in letting that knowledge sit on the surface, where it can interfere. The solution is not to reject technical skill, but to absorb it so deeply that it disappears from conscious view. When that happens, you’re free, and that freedom is where creativity lives.

On this we agree. Rarely when I ask someone how they took a picture do they give me anything more than, what camera/lens/shutter speed/iso/focal length/processing vector (sooc or pp).

When I ask fellow photographers the same question, I don't get any of that information. They don't consider it germane. I'm the same way with others. That kind of minutiae is assumed to be part of a common knowledge base in the circles that I frequent.

When you ask someone how they took a picture where do you start?

You mean where to they start?

Yes.

They start with their goals for the image, and how what they did helped them achieve those goals. Only in unusual cases do they get into feeds and speeds. These people assume that I know all about that.

Understood, but you and your friends are a very select group of people,

They are serious photographers. That's one of the reasons why I moved to the Monterey Bay Area.

but I follow what you mean.

How are the components of the process not germane?

See above.

If I have just those items I can come close to the look. Everything else is how I respond in the moment. And for a better response practice and repetition outweigh technical knowledge.

There are many people who do things wrong because those things have worked for them in the past.

Wow... think about how oxymoronic this line is. If it is working for them, how can it be wrong?

It's a local optimum.

Even if it is local optimum, it is local to their desires, not to the scenario. Who decides if everything needs to be in focus, or what part needs to be well lit? There are too many options for their to be a single optimum.

A local or global optimum is defined in terms of the objective function. The photographer defines that function. If a photographer is doing something that has worked in the past without any knowledge of methods that could produce better results by the photographer's own criteria for success, they are missing the global optimum.

In optimum seeking abandoning a local optimum in search of a global one sometimes produces worse results before they get better. Many people find the analogous experience in photography unsettling.

How does the idea of local optimum deal with individual interpretations?

See above.

They don't understand how they are limiting themselves.

Or they don't care...

In mathematical terms, they have achieved a local optimum, and are missing the golbal one.

Why is the global optimum relevant in photography. Everything with photography is localized to the interests of the photographer and the audience.

I'm talking about an optimum with respect to a objective function defined by the photographer.

I get that, and I think it is an aspect that remains local.

The local and global optima are defined in terms of the objective function, which in this case is defined by the photographer.

If you don't understand the environment in which you're working, you may have blinders on that will prevent you from doing better.

Agreed. But in those cases, the local optimum would change based on the person and equipment.

Based on the person, not the equipment. Pick the equipment required to achieve the objective.

If there is a true global optimum, there isn't a combination of camera or photographer that could take advantage of the global optimum. Who decides what is global optimum?

The photographer, with the choice of objective function. But the issue of the vastness of hyperspace applies here.

I submit once that decision on global optimum is made it becomes local.

We don't seem to be communicating.

Optimum seeking methods are mathematical and computational techniques used to find the best possible solution to a problem defined by an objective function. The objective function represents a quantitative measure of performance, cost, utility, or some other criterion that depends on a set of decision variables. The goal is to identify the combination of these variables that either maximizes or minimizes the value of the objective function.

A key concept in optimization is the distinction between local and global optima. A local optimum is a solution where the objective function value is better than that of all neighboring solutions, but not necessarily the best possible overall. In contrast, a global optimum is the absolute best solution across the entire search space. Some methods are guaranteed only to find local optima, especially in complex or high-dimensional problems where the objective function may have many peaks and valleys. This complexity is compounded by the vastness of hyperspace, where each added dimension exponentially increases the volume that must be explored. In such spaces, intuition often fails, and seemingly modest problems can become computationally intractable, or intellectually intractable if we're talking about the analogy above. Global optimization methods attempt to overcome this by exploring the search space more broadly or probabilistically, often at the cost of longer computation times.

 

[jhunna]

There's a saying in the circles that I run in: "If you buy a violin, you own a violin. If you buy a camera, you are a photographer." Usually delivered with a sardonic smile.

Yes, I hear this a lot, and not sure how it applies here. I have a violin and a camera, and I am a violinist and a photographer (some would question how good but that is beside the point. ).

Actually, that is the point. At some place along their road to expertise, violin students get to the point where they are good enough to be called a violinist by themselves, their teachers, and their audience. A lot of folks seem to feel that they have reached to point where they can call themselves photographers when they unpack their first camera.

I have played the guitar for decades, but I would not call myself a guitarist.

aaahh... that speaks to definitions not results. I am focused on results, and if you can play a song or even make a good sounding note, I would call you a guitarist.

I consider both of these gentlemen guitarists:

Andres Segovia

Bushy One String

I consider my daughter's phone pictures of our dog/family make her as much a photographer, as my photography.

I am enjoying the conversation, so please don't take this comment as a negative as that is not how I intend it, but there is an arrogance around perfection in a craft that can take the joy out of it. And I think that's what people are complaining about when technology, etc... are mentioned.

Trust me I get where you are coming from. In my line of work, I am often compared to someone's nephew who knows how to set up a wireless printer, and since it is "computer based" they think the same nephew can build and manage a data center. That said, I would call both of us nerds, geeks, technologists, computer people, and even system admins. But we often leave people behind when we get into the more enigmatic aspects of our expertise. Everyday I find myself "dumbing down" a subject to make it accessible, and that's often times what's required to bring people along in their craft and for them to find joy.

 

[JimKasson]

There's a saying in the circles that I run in: "If you buy a violin, you own a violin. If you buy a camera, you are a photographer." Usually delivered with a sardonic smile.

Yes, I hear this a lot, and not sure how it applies here. I have a violin and a camera, and I am a violinist and a photographer (some would question how good but that is beside the point. ).

Actually, that is the point. At some place along their road to expertise, violin students get to the point where they are good enough to be called a violinist by themselves, their teachers, and their audience. A lot of folks seem to feel that they have reached to point where they can call themselves photographers when they unpack their first camera.

I have played the guitar for decades, but I would not call myself a guitarist.

aaahh... that speaks to definitions not results. I am focused on results, and if you can play a song or even make a good sounding note, I would call you a guitarist.

As I mentioned earlier, this relates to aspirations as well as definitions. I aspire to be an excellent photographer, and I think that I occasionally achieve that after 70 years of photography in journalistic, commercial, editorial, and artistic endeavors. For the past 30 years I've worked at photography nearly every day. On the other hand, with a guitar in my hand, I am at best mediocre.

I consider both of these gentlemen guitarists:

Andres Segovia

Bushy One String

I consider my daughter's phone pictures of our dog/family make her as much a photographer, as my photography.

There you have it. Aspirations.

I am enjoying the conversation, so please don't take this comment as a negative as that is not how I intend it, but there is an arrogance around perfection in a craft that can take the joy out of it.

And add joy to it.

And I think that's what people are complaining about when technology, etc... are mentioned.

Trust me I get where you are coming from. In my line of work, I am often compared to someone's nephew who knows how to set up a wireless printer, and since it is "computer based" they think the same nephew can build and manage a data center. That said, I would call both of us nerds, geeks, technologists, computer people, and even system admins. But we often leave people behind when we get into the more enigmatic aspects of our expertise. Everyday I find myself "dumbing down" a subject to make it accessible, and that's often times what's required to bring people along in their craft and for them to find joy.

 

[jhunna]

There is a persistent belief in some corners of the photographic world that technical knowledge impedes creativity. The argument goes something like this: if you become too focused on the mechanics, you’ll lose sight of the emotion, the spontaneity, the spark that makes an image resonate. It’s an understandable concern, but it’s based on a false dichotomy. Technical skill and creative expression are not opposing forces; the former can be an essential foundation for the latter.

As someone who has voiced this concern, in a slightly different way, let me speak to the specifics. I think there are often aspects of photography mentioned here, that don't apply to the every day process of taking a photograph, but to the design of lenses, sensor theory, and every sort of extreme esoteric metric that can be devised.

I think these are great when it comes to conversation/history/etc... but when it comes to making a print, you have to shoot it and then make adjustments. Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass.

Your statement is overbroad. It depends on the assignment, the audience, the photographer's vision, the subject matter, and a host of other things.

Not sure how my statement can be overbroad when the topics of this thread, technique, creativity and internalization are incredibly broad.

You said "Knowing the maximum sharpness of a lens is not important, especially in today's world of glass." That statement needs qualification.

As an example: I have a 61MP Sony that I could use a poorly rated 24-240, and a god rated 50/1.2 GM. Both will capture the shot at 50mm. If I want some other traits then yes understanding aperture and focal range will be of help in composing a look. But the sharpness of the lens (mtf charts) will be of little value in the moment.

Again, it depends on a lot of things. That statement is also IMO overbroad.

I don't think it is overbroad,

I think there are situation where you'll want the sharpest lens that's suitable, and situations where it won't matter much. In that sense, the statement is overbroad.

rather I think I am starting at the simplest point of discussion to make my point. We can add the other criteria to further the discussion, ie astrophotography vs professional portraiture vs capturing a kids play. But the discussion can start from where ever we are.

[SNIP]

The danger isn't in knowing too much. It’s in letting that knowledge sit on the surface, where it can interfere. The solution is not to reject technical skill, but to absorb it so deeply that it disappears from conscious view. When that happens, you’re free, and that freedom is where creativity lives.

On this we agree. Rarely when I ask someone how they took a picture do they give me anything more than, what camera/lens/shutter speed/iso/focal length/processing vector (sooc or pp).

When I ask fellow photographers the same question, I don't get any of that information. They don't consider it germane. I'm the same way with others. That kind of minutiae is assumed to be part of a common knowledge base in the circles that I frequent.

When you ask someone how they took a picture where do you start?

You mean where to they start?

Yes.

They start with their goals for the image, and how what they did helped them achieve those goals. Only in unusual cases do they get into feeds and speeds. These people assume that I know all about that.

Understood, but you and your friends are a very select group of people,

They are serious photographers. That's one of the reasons why I moved to the Monterey Bay Area.

Understood, but in the forum our audience will not be this specific. I am generally making my posts for the audience I am engaging. So most of my examples are relevant to those in the the forum/thread.

Ask your self, how would I know about your friends in the Monterey Bay Area to give context to your examples?

but I follow what you mean.

How are the components of the process not germane?

See above.

If I have just those items I can come close to the look. Everything else is how I respond in the moment. And for a better response practice and repetition outweigh technical knowledge.

There are many people who do things wrong because those things have worked for them in the past.

Wow... think about how oxymoronic this line is. If it is working for them, how can it be wrong?

It's a local optimum.

Even if it is local optimum, it is local to their desires, not to the scenario. Who decides if everything needs to be in focus, or what part needs to be well lit? There are too many options for their to be a single optimum.

A local or global optimum is defined in terms of the objective function. The photographer defines that function. If a photographer is doing something that has worked in the past without any knowledge of methods that could produce better results by the photographer's own criteria for success, they are missing the global optimum.

In optimum seeking abandoning a local optimum in search of a global one sometimes produces worse results before they get better. Many people find the analogous experience in photography unsettling.

How does the idea of local optimum deal with individual interpretations?

See above.

They don't understand how they are limiting themselves.

Or they don't care...

In mathematical terms, they have achieved a local optimum, and are missing the golbal one.

Why is the global optimum relevant in photography. Everything with photography is localized to the interests of the photographer and the audience.

I'm talking about an optimum with respect to a objective function defined by the photographer.

I get that, and I think it is an aspect that remains local.

The local and global optima are defined in terms of the objective function, which in this case is defined by the photographer.

If you don't understand the environment in which you're working, you may have blinders on that will prevent you from doing better.

Agreed. But in those cases, the local optimum would change based on the person and equipment.

Based on the person, not the equipment. Pick the equipment required to achieve the objective.

If there is a true global optimum, there isn't a combination of camera or photographer that could take advantage of the global optimum. Who decides what is global optimum?

The photographer, with the choice of objective function. But the issue of the vastness of hyperspace applies here.

I submit once that decision on global optimum is made it becomes local.

We don't seem to be communicating.

You are correct. I was focused on optima of the process of capturing a scene, not the optima of the ability of the photographer.

Optimum seeking methods are mathematical and computational techniques used to find the best possible solution to a problem defined by an objective function. The objective function represents a quantitative measure of performance, cost, utility, or some other criterion that depends on a set of decision variables. The goal is to identify the combination of these variables that either maximizes or minimizes the value of the objective function.

Understood, and I can see how you impose this to the photographer.

A key concept in optimization is the distinction between local and global optima. A local optimum is a solution where the objective function value is better than that of all neighboring solutions, but not necessarily the best possible overall. In contrast, a global optimum is the absolute best solution across the entire search space.

I think it is easier to apply this definition to the process of capturing a scene than it is to the ability of the photographer.

Some methods are guaranteed only to find local optima, especially in complex or high-dimensional problems where the objective function may have many peaks and valleys. Global optimization methods attempt to overcome this by exploring the search space more broadly or probabilistically, often at the cost of longer computation times.

Now we are going into how these definitions are applied. I will just say that for some these optimization methods are inherent in how they work. Maybe focusing on a larger search space and taking things into consideration make for a better photo, but I don't know. And I think there are more accessible ways of using your technology to get the results one wants, mainly practice.

I follow what you are saying. I need to think more on it to decide if it has merit in my workflow. I appreciate the time.

 

[jhunna]

[SNIP]

As I mentioned earlier, this relates to aspirations as well as definitions. I aspire to be an excellent photographer, and I think that I occasionally achieve that after 70 years of photography in journalistic, commercial, editorial, and artistic endeavors. For the past 30 years I've worked at photography nearly every day. On the other hand, with a guitar in my hand, I am at best mediocre.

I consider both of these gentlemen guitarists:

Andres Segovia

Bushy One String

I consider my daughter's phone pictures of our dog/family make her as much a photographer, as my photography.

There you have it. Aspirations.

Yes! Aspirations is a good container for this conversation.

I am enjoying the conversation, so please don't take this comment as a negative as that is not how I intend it, but there is an arrogance around perfection in a craft that can take the joy out of it.

And add joy to it.

Agreed! I often find joy in the challenge of just knowing I can do something at a level others don't perceive.

 

[DavidMillier]

I'm quite interested in the contribution of craft in photography and where it contributes to the final result.

I think I am of the opinion that you can get away with the minimum of craft if additional knowledge of the tools doesn't bring improvements to your particular work. It's often very much a case of diminishing returns if you are not engineering/mathematically minded.

I find that certain bits of craft lend themselves easily to getting the result (eg understanding the use of depth of field control), but other bits of craft are of no particular worth in my photography (i.e. optimising sensor ISO choice). Actually, the opposite: I've spent years foolishly trying to squeeze the lowest noise out my sensors by trying to understand sensor behaviour, and striving for the optimal results; while just sticking the thing on auto ISO works best for me because it (almost) guarantees me a camera-shake free result (camera shake being probably my worst common technical flaw over my lifetime in photography). I've decided I'll take that over the perfect noise free result any day.

Striving for technical optimisation can become a thing in its own right that doesn't really contribute to better practical results. It depends how much you are pushing the equipment. In my case, I usually find there is a lot of headroom in the gear for what I do and that allows me a lot of leeway for error that has no visible effect on the results. Good enough is good enough.

I do find myself in a kind of dual interest world, though, because I find the technology interesting in its own right and can get into that side of things simply from curiosity.

 

[JimKasson]

Understood, but in the forum our audience will not be this specific. I am generally making my posts for the audience I am engaging. So most of my examples are relevant to those in the the forum/thread.
Ask your self, how would I know about your friends in the Monterey Bay Area to give context to your examples?

Start here:

https://imagemakers.photo/index.php

Center for Photographic Art

Visit the Center for Photographic Art today! Our historic contemporary fine art photography gallery is in Carmel California and showcases rotating exhibits of works from innovators in the field. In person viewing is free and open to the public: photographers, collectors, and art enthusiasts alike wi

www.photography.org

 

[jhunna]

Understood, but in the forum our audience will not be this specific. I am generally making my posts for the audience I am engaging. So most of my examples are relevant to those in the the forum/thread.
Ask your self, how would I know about your friends in the Monterey Bay Area to give context to your examples?

Start here:

https://imagemakers.photo/index.php

https://www.photography.org/

Got it... This brings a lot of context to what you are sharing. I get the feeling most people in this forum know this is you and your lot. But some of us newer people need to brought up to speed. Again, thanks for the time.

 

[JimKasson]

It really helps to have a decent understanding of "how things work"* so that I can form and manage expectations. I'll never have (or need) the knowledge of the people who designed and built the gear. But I do enjoy having enough knowledge to be able to modify and customize my equipment to suit my specific needs, and to get more out of it.

* This was the title of a fantastic pair of books I had as a kid.

The Way Things Work.

https://www.amazon.com/Way-Things-Work-David-Macaulay/dp/0395428572

I don't know where they ended up, when I moved away from home; I wish I'd kept them because they were terrific resources. They contained simple explanations with diagrams that explained how all kinds of mechanical things and basic processes worked. I confess I paid much more attention to the section on how black powder works than was safe and healthy. I still can't believe the guy at the feed store accepted my bogus explanation of why I needed to buy a bag of saltpetre.

 

[JimKasson]

Driving a car is a good example.

You don't need to be able to design a car, build a car, or repair a car to be a good driver.

A d you don’t need to be able to design a camera, build a camera, or repair a camera to be a good photographer.

Right, but as with a car, it's the part in bold two paragraphs later that I think is crucial.

It certainly doesn't hurt to have a deep understanding of the system, but it's not necessary.

It is necessary to know how your vehicle behaves under the conditions that exist where you drive it. The first snowstorm of winter in my part of the world quickly sorts the people who know how to drive on snow and ice from the ones who do not...

When I get a new piece of equipment -- car, camera, whatever -- I read the manual carefully, and then spend a lot of time using it to learn it.

I'm not doing doughnuts in the parking lot to test a new car! But I am pushing it around corners at first and paying attention to how it steers, as one example. I don't want to be figuring out whether my car can do what I need to do in an emergency situation...

With new cameras and lenses, I do the same thing: I work the gear hard to learn functions, and to figure out its strengths and weaknesses. What can I do with this thing? What can't I do? I use the expression "shooting envelope" to describe the sum of this learning.

The analogy between driving and using a camera is instructive. There are different levels of both, and aspirations differ. Some people just want to get to and from the Safeway safely. Others want to explore the limits and be ready for anything. In a car, it's hard to do the exploration on the street. It's much too dangerous, and offs are more expensive.

But over and over again, I see drivers who seem not to have the foggiest idea of how their vehicles operate. If I'm following somebody down a rainy mountain road and I see them taking an early apex or missing the apex altogether, I give them a wide berth. Ditto with braking late in the corner.

There are a couple of good ways to handle the steering wheel. I prefer the Bob Bondurant approach, because that is what he taught me. There seem to be a myriad of bad ways to hold a steering wheel, something that is, ahem, driven home to me just about every time I'm a passenger in a car.

There are technical skills and behaviors that many people don't know that are useful. Here are a few examples:

• Late and early apexes.
• Heel and toeing.
• Double clutching.
• Weight transfer (the reason why, if you don't know what you're doing, your 911 understeers in low-speed corners).
• The various ways of achieving the desired weight transfer.
• Circle of friction and trail braking
• Understanding how tire compounds influence traction and the relationship of heat and tread depth to that. (If you don't understand that, you could end up in the ditch with your summer tires on at the first cold snap).
• Trailing throttle oversteer.
• Power oversteer.
• Center of mass relationship to center of pressure
• Center of mass relationship to handling
• How to use ABS
• How to brake if there is no ABS
• What do do in a spin
• Countersteering without overcorrection.
• How driving techniques differ in FWD, RWD, and AWD cars. Counterintuitive example: simultaneous application of brake and throttle in FWD cars to control rotation, torque steer, and weight transfer while balancing over and understeer. Another counterintuitive example with the 911: if you overcook it in a corner, don't lift.
• Steering with the throttle.
• Picking tires by desired slip angles.
• Using the slip angles built into your tires properly. Understanding the concept of peak slip angle.

I think there are similar things to know about cameras.

And to circle back to joy, I don't think the knowledge of all the above detracts one whit from the joy of driving. Quite the contrary.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Rob de Loe]

It really helps to have a decent understanding of "how things work"* so that I can form and manage expectations. I'll never have (or need) the knowledge of the people who designed and built the gear. But I do enjoy having enough knowledge to be able to modify and customize my equipment to suit my specific needs, and to get more out of it.

* This was the title of a fantastic pair of books I had as a kid.

The Way Things Work.

https://www.amazon.com/Way-Things-Work-David-Macaulay/dp/0395428572

After posting, I looked around. It's not that one.

It's also not the four-volume series called "How Things Work" by Roger Jean Segalat, although that's closest in terms of level. The Segalat book looks much older, and is for an older audience. The one you found is for Grade 4 and up.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

It seems we are getting concepts conflated. The flawless execution of a task, from Curry nailing a three pointer at the buzzer or Henri Cartier-Bresson nailing the decisive moment

Have you looked at HCB's contact sheets? There's a lot more methodology and preplanning than the "decisive moment" alone would suggest.

Yep and Steph Curry only hits 42% beyond the line. Baseball is a place at succeeding 3 times out of 10 gets you in the Hall of Fame. HCB actually staged a lot of his shots and still had more misses than successes. But he also didn't have a machine gun of a camera with 40 frames a second. His camera didn't even have a motor winder. His skillcraft along with his vision was the intuitive instinct on when to press the shutter button. Of course he didn't hit a home run every time.

and the understanding of the technology associated with basketball shoes or the latest development in developers or film.

In the ‘70s and 80s I played a lol of tennis. Tim Gallwey wrote a classic book, “The Inner Game of Tennis.” It proposed a thesis that while technical proficiency is important it matters little that one could hit 90% of a 140 mph first serve in practice if they tense up and can’t get a first serve between the lines when it matterers. In an interview Author Ashe said the reason he finally won Wimbledon was his finally mastering his Zen and keep his brain out of the game.

Ashe or any tennis player doesn’t need to be an expert in the technology of materials or racquet or shoe design to become proficient. They just have to understand what works for them and develop the skillcraft in using it. The same for a photographer. If developing that skillcraft requires learning about a new technology, then they need to enough of that technology necessary to refine their skillcraft.

Exactly. If you don't use footnotes, you don't need to learn that part of Word. Same with cameras.

 

[emdundronald]

I started to paint some years ago. And one day I realized why people went into concept art: Youngsters want to make their mark, they want to become Artists, and learning to sketch properly, to pain academicallyt takes some talent and years and years of technique -try and make a likeness of someone with a pencil instead of a camera and you'll see what I mean. And the young people who were unwilling to pay this price of long and painful apprenticeship were those who made American Art famous. The proof is in the pudding, Warhol sold well, still sells well and is instantly recognizable from 20 steps away.

A story: I'm in a well known camera shop and a Fashion Photographer is trying out a Hasselblad digital camera. Leather jacket, larger than life, charismatic, discusses it all with the shop manager, salespeople crowded around. And then in the end he turns to a sallow faced, tubercular figure with droopy eyelids and baggy trousers who is standing by the entrance. And says "what do you think"? The thin guy shrugs. And then the photographer says "You're the first photo assistant"! Subtext: Speak! Explanation: In Paris the photographer is the name on the door, he deals with the client, stylist, models. The first photo assistant adjusts the lights, camera, composition and takes the shot, and actually knows about tech.

--

Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

 

[jhunna]

There are a couple of good ways to handle the steering wheel. I prefer the Bob Bondurant approach, because that is what he taught me.

Starting to think you were the model for Forest Gump.... Obviously not the mental aspect but "damn how did he get there" aspect .. next thing you are going to tell us is that jammed with Jimmy...

(Page or Hendrix, but probably both)

 

[JimKasson]

There are a couple of good ways to handle the steering wheel. I prefer the Bob Bondurant approach, because that is what he taught me.

Starting to think you were the model for Forest Gump.... Obviously not the mental aspect but "damn how did he get there" aspect .. next thing you are going to tell us is that jammed with Jimmy...

When I took the Bondurant course in the late 70s, it wasn't an exclusive club. Anybody who showed up at Sears Point with his checkbook could do it.

OTOH, when you see these images that I made in the 60s, you're going to think that I spent all my time hanging out with great race drivers, when in reality I was just a weekend motorsports photographer for Competition Press and Autoweek.


























Bruce to Denny: The loud pedal is the one on the right.









--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[Rob de Loe]

There are a couple of good ways to handle the steering wheel. I prefer the Bob Bondurant approach, because that is what he taught me.

Starting to think you were the model for Forest Gump.... Obviously not the mental aspect but "damn how did he get there" aspect .. next thing you are going to tell us is that jammed with Jimmy...

When I took the Bondurant course in the late 70s, it wasn't an exclusive club. Anybody who showed up at Sears Point with his checkbook could do it.

OTOH, when you see these images that I made in the 60s, you're going to think that I spent all my time hanging out with great race drivers, when in reality I was just a weekend motorsports photographer for Competition Press and Autoweek.












Bruce to Denny: The loud pedal is the one on the right.

These are wonderful -- such a nice window into another time.