Technical versus compositional excellence.

[Manfred M]

Lew Lorton (a.k.a. “thetraveler”) posted something that caused me to stop and think. Please check out entry #7 on:

What camera settings in RAW?


I also have had some discussions with a couple of creative people over the past couple of weeks that shared a similar opinion; they will always value their artistic expression over technical quality. I had also read something that Robert Capa, the famed photojournalist and war photographer admitted; that his work was not always at its best, at least from a technical standpoint.

I went back and started looking at some of the “old masters” of photography and found that Capa was being quite honest about failings in his own work, as well as that of, say Erich Salomon and Henri Cartier-Bresson. The reason I looked at their work is they, like Capa were photojournalists, working under conditions that challenged the materials (film) and equipment (camera) that they were using. I can’t find any information regarding how Salamon processed and printed his work, but neither Capa not Cartier-Bresson seemed to have any interest other than taking the picture and then they let someone else take care of producing the final product. All three of these fine photographers used miniature cameras and while they often have work that is well done technically, emotionally and compositionally, at other times that statement is not correct.

As a bit of a counterpoint, I looked at two other photographers from that era; Ansel Adams, the great landscape photographer and Yousef Karsh is often viewed as the greatest portrait photographer. Both of these men shot with large view cameras and were intimately involved in the final product. Adams developed and printed his own work while Karsh employed a negative retoucher and printer, who would work to produce the image that Karsh wanted. From a compositional standpoint and from a technical standpoint, the quality of their work is impeccable.

Now, let’s look at the modern camera, which if you look at it is really a computer that takes pictures. The high level of technical sophistication gives us the capability of shooting in conditions that the old masters wouldn’t have dreamt of. Add to that the ability to do astoundingly sophisticated edits on these images in remarkably little time, I find it astounding that people do not put the creative and technical quality on an equal footing. I’m not writing about pixel-peeping quality either; it’s the soft focus, poor exposure and crooked horizons that I’m seeing. I’m not looking at work from new photographers, but rather from people who keep telling me how good they are at their craft. When I ask, I tend to get told that these are unimportant details and I am missing the artistry in the work.

I guess I must be missing something, but I really suspect that with some people just like taking pictures and either can’t be bothered with the details or don’t want to admit that they don’t know how do things well. Or perhaps, all they really want to do is take pictures… I guess there will always be photographers like Garry Winogrand or Vivian Maier who shot tens of thousands of unprocessed images, that were discovered after they died.

Maybe I just don’t understand. Thoughts? What kind of photographer are you?

[Black Pearl]

I studied photography at school then went on to university gaining a degree which I went after mostly on a technical basis so I would say I have a pretty decent grounding on the technical and theoretical side of photography. This was before digital was a thing so it was all film, paper, bellows extensions and getting your hands wet. I spent 25 years working in a camera store pouring my passion into learning about, using and enjoying as wide a range of products as I possible could during which the birth, growth and popularity of digital happened.

This should make me a very technical photographer, it should mean I approach every shot with absolutes in mind and specific goals as a final result. I do at times because I need to and I can but I tend not to pay close attention to the finites preferring to be a little more loose in the way I shoot and create images day to day. I don't pixel peep, I can't recall the last time I set my aperture based upon a lens chart giving me the sharpest setting (I do know where they are for all my lenses because I'm curios) I don't overly worry about using high ISO's and I rarely use a tripod unless the shot I'm after warrants it. I don't always shoot with the best camera I own as I like experimenting and I like having limits in place that I can work with and work around. I shoot a lot of images with my iPhone because I love using it as a camera because it somehow allows me shoot images that are less than perfect. I don't worry about shutter speeds and apertures because I can't - I'll just take the shot and see how it turns out. Thats not to say its a blind stab in the dark I know exactly how it works and I know exactly what it will produce I just have no control over the technical aspects

I would like to think I have a creative eye, I like to think I can see a shot and generally be able to capture and present it in a way that others will enjoy. Overall I do try to be creative but while I may not always pay close attention to the technical aspects I wouldn't want to present a sloppy shot. If I miss the focus it won't get beyond import - if the shutter speed was too low and there's motion/camera blur that I didn't want it won't get beyond import - if the horizon is unintentionally wonky I'll straighten it - if the image doesn't have a balance to its element that I like it won't get beyond import.

Some people are entirely technical and there images lack flair - some people are very arty and their images lack precision - the trick it to be somewhere in the middle.

You need to understand how to take a picture but you also need to know how to make a picture.

[Saorsa]

If you look at the divisions for photo competitions you will find that there are often themes or sub-classes to the major divisions.

The majors are

Color
Monochrome
Nature
Photo Travel
Photojournalism

The RPS or PSA or FIAP or other internationl organization has definitions for these. Except for Nature and Photojournalism there is a lot of room for manipulation. In those two only minimal processing is permitted and they are expected to be a true capture of a real event.

Beyond those primary divisions are themes or subclasses or special awards. The color division is increasingly including a subdivision of creative due to the heavily manipulated images being entered. Nature has always had a wildlife subdivision in which the photographer certifies that the image was created in the wild.

I think most photographers are a lot of different types. Sometimes I'm looking for absolute precision and other times just capturing a moment.

[george013]

Lew Lorton (a.k.a. “thetraveler”) posted something that caused me to stop and think. Please check out entry #7 on:

What camera settings in RAW?


I also have had some discussions with a couple of creative people over the past couple of weeks that shared a similar opinion; they will always value their artistic expression over technical quality. I had also read something that Robert Capa, the famed photojournalist and war photographer admitted; that his work was not always at its best, at least from a technical standpoint.

I went back and started looking at some of the “old masters” of photography and found that Capa was being quite honest about failings in his own work, as well as that of, say Erich Salomon and Henri Cartier-Bresson. The reason I looked at their work is they, like Capa were photojournalists, working under conditions that challenged the materials (film) and equipment (camera) that they were using. I can’t find any information regarding how Salamon processed and printed his work, but neither Capa not Cartier-Bresson seemed to have any interest other than taking the picture and then they let someone else take care of producing the final product. All three of these fine photographers used miniature cameras and while they often have work that is well done technically, emotionally and compositionally, at other times that statement is not correct.

As a bit of a counterpoint, I looked at two other photographers from that era; Ansel Adams, the great landscape photographer and Yousef Karsh is often viewed as the greatest portrait photographer. Both of these men shot with large view cameras and were intimately involved in the final product. Adams developed and printed his own work while Karsh employed a negative retoucher and printer, who would work to produce the image that Karsh wanted. From a compositional standpoint and from a technical standpoint, the quality of their work is impeccable.

Now, let’s look at the modern camera, which if you look at it is really a computer that takes pictures. The high level of technical sophistication gives us the capability of shooting in conditions that the old masters wouldn’t have dreamt of. Add to that the ability to do astoundingly sophisticated edits on these images in remarkably little time, I find it astounding that people do not put the creative and technical quality on an equal footing. I’m not writing about pixel-peeping quality either; it’s the soft focus, poor exposure and crooked horizons that I’m seeing. I’m not looking at work from new photographers, but rather from people who keep telling me how good they are at their craft. When I ask, I tend to get told that these are unimportant details and I am missing the artistry in the work.

I guess I must be missing something, but I really suspect that with some people just like taking pictures and either can’t be bothered with the details or don’t want to admit that they don’t know how do things well. Or perhaps, all they really want to do is take pictures… I guess there will always be photographers like Garry Winogrand or Vivian Maier who shot tens of thousands of unprocessed images, that were discovered after they died.

Maybe I just don’t understand. Thoughts? What kind of photographer are you?

It also depends with what purpose you take pictures. You mentioned some photo journalists. Their main goal is to visualize something happening. Then there is the issue that a journalist isn't delivering an end product. That's done by the editorial staff. That was in the time of Capa and still often in this time.

Search for photo's of HCB. Many of them would have been rejected here and other places. Horizon not level, not sharp enough etc. But with a great expression.

Compare those photo's with photo's for advertisements, Strict organised, technical perfect. Complete different approach. But not my choice.

George

[Wayland]

I too cut my teeth in the analogue days of film and paper and the transition to digital was not comfortable at first.

I used to spend hours in the darkroom to get a good print and then sometimes hours more to get another one the same. Putting those skills aside for the new technology hurt for a while.

Now I hear a lot of photographers muttering about "PhotoShopped" images as if they are a bad thing. Not me. The ability to produce technically perfect, repeatable images is a true gift from the gods.

Noticeably it is often the people who have the least skill at using the new tools that are the loudest complainers that someone else is using them. Well that's easy enough to fix, get off your backside and do some reading or studying. It's not rocket science.

All the technical skills in the world will not help you if you do not know how to take a picture though. I'm not talking about the technical gubbins like aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings. I'm talking about being able to see a picture. I usually say it's the only thing you cannot be taught, you have to find it within yourself somehow.

I try not to get bogged down in the technical side of things. I know enough to make sure I don't foul up too often but I'm aiming to get as much information in the file as possible and then I'll sort it out on the computer.

The capture is just the start of a process for me.

[Rent]

I was always told that a good photograph is taken by the photographer not the camera
Roy

[Shadowman]

How many photographers read the rules of photography, encompass it into their style, and never break those rules? I started shooting with what I used to call an intuitive compositional style. This meant my main subject could be centrally placed, most often because I was using a prime, too close or too far from the subject, and it was pleasing to my eyes. After some criticism and suggestions that I read a bit more about photography, I started redefining my style and once I had a good understanding of those rules I encompassed into my intuitive style.

[Manfred M]

I was always told that a good photograph is taken by the photographer not the camera
Roy

That is at best that is an oversimplification, if not an outright lie. I will agree that competent photographer can take a decent picture with any camera, so long as he or she works within the limitations of that camera. If they want to get an image that they want but cannot manage, they will need a better camera (or lens or both) to get it.

How many sports or wedding photographers are running around taking shots with an iPhone? When I go to a concert and listen to a pianist they always seem to be on a Steinway or Yamaha grand piano, not something lower end electric piano.

That being said, I find that people who are relative newcomers to photography will like get better images with a lower end camera, just because there is less that they screw up the settings on,

[Manfred M]

If you look at the divisions for photo competitions you will find that there are often themes or sub-classes to the major divisions.

The majors are

Color
Monochrome
Nature
Photo Travel
Photojournalism

The RPS or PSA or FIAP or other internationl organization has definitions for these. Except for Nature and Photojournalism there is a lot of room for manipulation. In those two only minimal processing is permitted and they are expected to be a true capture of a real event.

Beyond those primary divisions are themes or subclasses or special awards. The color division is increasingly including a subdivision of creative due to the heavily manipulated images being entered. Nature has always had a wildlife subdivision in which the photographer certifies that the image was created in the wild.

I think most photographers are a lot of different types. Sometimes I'm looking for absolute precision and other times just capturing a moment.

Brian - I'm actually not referring what can or cannot be achieved in post production.

Many of the issues I see are as a result of inappropriate in-camera decisions. Unintended motion blur, DoF issues, etc., i.e. technically flawed images to being with. That being said, I think we have all seen images that were fairly good to begin with that were damaged by ineffective post-production work

[John 2]

I've said this recently in another post. The camera and all the PP paraphernalia are just tools. I totally agree that what's important is the final output even if it is technically imperfect but it is also true that it will always be better if the output exhibits both technical excellence as well as creativity. Having said that , it is difficult to concentrate on being creative if you have to constantly and consciously think about how to use the camera. It's a bit like driving a car. Mastery of the tools (in this case the car) eventually leaves you only needing to think about how you will get from A to B. I see photography as being no different. Once using your camera becomes second nature, you can solely concentrate on "seeing" and capturing what you see, whether that is pure record or art. So that initially, the technical aspects take on an importance but this should reduce as ability develops. As an example of this, I recently traded in my D7100 outfit for the sake of being able to afford a quite expensive long lens for my Fuji. Not a decision I regret if only because there has been an unintended side benefit. It has brought me closer to what I have just described simply because I no longer have to think about which system I am working with. I just pick up the Fuji and go and take photographs.

[James G]

Hi Manfred, I picked upon Lew's point too and have been thinking about it.

I also have had some discussions with a couple of creative people over the past couple of weeks that shared a similar opinion; they will always value their artistic expression over technical quality.

I can perfectly understand that technical quality may not be a primary ‘element’ in an artist’s priorities when developing a concept.
But if the suggestion is that technical quality is of no value, then it is hubristic and astonishing arrogance. (Most 3 year olds naturally have such an opinion as this.)
From a more adult perspective, the opinion can be defended/expressed in a narrower context related to something akin to ‘style’ (eg impressionist),but does not stand up where this would be obviously inappropriate. Say a photograph or ‘realistic’ representation of a flea.
I’m not convinced it represents most artists’ views either. The effort that is needed to acquire the necessary skills to put paint to canvas, or to cast a bronze , or to produce a fine cartoon immediately counters this.

Technical quality is an element of competence which I believe enables and facilitates artistic expression.

What kind of photographer are you?

I generally answer this simplistically.
i.e. I just like taking pictures that please me, and as already posted, when others like my images that pleases me.

But. I suppose this discussion needs a more ‘serious’ response.

So, I must explain where the passion is, which is that I am absolutely entranced, captivated, absorbed, even enraptured by light. I like music, the spoken word, nature and many other things, but for me, light makes my soul sing, allows me to endure sadness and tragedy, avoid despair, etc. ( A bit OTT but I am absolutely serious about this!)

My photography started back in the mid sixties and it was the totally stunning experience of realising I was actually able to capture some small elements of the quality of light that has kept me at it ever since.

I became a scientist, and up to retirement I always worked in technical environments that had no direct connection with (my) photography, but I found that to improve, I needed to continuously develop my technical skills to become more adept capturing and realising images.

I cannot imagine how I would create the images I do, without, the technical knowledge that I have acquired, both in the darkroom and the digital age.

I’m not qualified to call myself an artist, and have no real aspirations to be considered one, that would be up to others to decide.
I’m not even sure I see myself as 'a photographer'. I just like seeing what it is other people see and choose to present to me for my considered attention.

[DanK]

they will always value their artistic expression over technical quality.

Why are these seen as alternatives or substitutes rather than complements?

Perhaps its because I was raised in an environment where music was important, but I have always seen technical quality as a means to artistic expression. Good musicians spend thousands of hours, year after year, practicing in order to master technical details that will in turn let them improve their artistic expression. This is even true--perhaps even more so--of improvisational jazz.

Most of the types of images I try to create depend on clarity and detail. This is essentially always true of bug macros. People differ about flower macros; some like blur, but I want detail. It's also true of the night photography I take. So, technical details matter. Too high an ISO or the wrong aperture means I have to start over. It's even true of some ICM shots I take. For an example, I'll use the photo below, which I posted some months ago. This is an image of the lily pond in front of the Clark Museum in Williamstown, MA. I had to take it over and over again until I got the motion I wanted. It also required a lot of that much-maligned chimping, because that allowed me to see that I needed to keep trying.

The weakest part of my own skill set is composition. That's why I gravitate more toward macro than landscape, as the latter requires (I think) a better eye. So, I work a lot on composition and try to refine my eye. Ignoring technical details wouldn't help that effort.

As George said, people have various goals in taking photographs. The relative importance of creativity and technical will differ depending on these goals. And the people participating in this forum will differ in their strengths. Some (I'm not one of them) will have a particularly good eye; others will be stronger on the technical side. All for the good, IMHO.

[Didace]

There are novels that have a very good (maybe great) story to tell but have writing that is average at best. Many of these are quite popular and enjoyable to read. Some of these might even withstand the test of time and are considered as "classics".

Other novels get published that are technically brilliant but have a story lacking in so many ways that it makes them forgettable at best and unreadable at worst. These are usually forgotten soon after publishing.

Then there are the novels with a story that grabs you to your soul. You care about the characters, both protagonist and antagonist, and cannot wait to find out where it goes. In addition, these novels are written brilliantly. They are technically perfect in every way. These are the novels that end up popular for generations - not only with readers but with critics as well.

I see photography the same way. There has to be something about the scene that is interesting, I need to want to look at it. A photo might be technically perfect but if there is nothing about it that draws me in I don't give it more than a glance. On the other hand, a photo that has some technical deficiencies but has subject matter that draws my interest will get a longer look. I might notice its shortcomings but not really care. And then there are photos of something that draws me in and are technically perfect. These are the photos that that I will come back to time and time again. They are the truly great photos.

Of course the technical and compositional go hand-in-hand; it is very difficult to achieve excellence in one without the other. As I work on attempting to become technically adequate, I hope to take photos that are visually interesting. It is the path on both tracks that I find compelling.

[NorthernFocus]

...Some people are entirely technical and there images lack flair - some people are very arty and their images lack precision - the trick it to be somewhere in the middle.

You need to understand how to take a picture but you also need to know how to make a picture.

Bingo.

[george013]

There are novels that have a very good (maybe great) story to tell but have writing that is average at best. Many of these are quite popular and enjoyable to read. Some of these might even withstand the test of time and are considered as "classics".

Other novels get published that are technically brilliant but have a story lacking in so many ways that it makes them forgettable at best and unreadable at worst. These are usually forgotten soon after publishing.

Then there are the novels with a story that grabs you to your soul. You care about the characters, both protagonist and antagonist, and cannot wait to find out where it goes. In addition, these novels are written brilliantly. They are technically perfect in every way. These are the novels that end up popular for generations - not only with readers but with critics as well.

I see photography the same way. There has to be something about the scene that is interesting, I need to want to look at it. A photo might be technically perfect but if there is nothing about it that draws me in I don't give it more than a glance. On the other hand, a photo that has some technical deficiencies but has subject matter that draws my interest will get a longer look. I might notice its shortcomings but not really care. And then there are photos of something that draws me in and are technically perfect. These are the photos that that I will come back to time and time again. They are the truly great photos.

Of course the technical and compositional go hand-in-hand; it is very difficult to achieve excellence in one without the other. As I work on attempting to become technically adequate, I hope to take photos that are visually interesting. It is the path on both tracks that I find compelling.

I just can't resist.
It says: Please go to bed with a good book, or otherwise with somebody that read on.


Manfred,

You don't need a better camera to make better pictures. Many news photo's are phone pictures. They are the first camera's at the place to be. And no, don't try to print them big sized. But that's not the meaning of journalism and those photo's.

George

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

You don't need a better camera to make better pictures. Many news photo's are phone pictures. They are the first camera's at the place to be. And no, don't try to print them big sized. But that's not the meaning of journalism and those photo's.

George

George - It's that old saying of the best camera is the one you have with you.

When displaying on a 1920 pixel x 1080 pixel sized display, a 2MP camera is more than adequate (assuming you can get a decent image). HD televisions display to that format as well, so whether you are looking at the news on a television or computer screen, it really won't make any difference to you as the end viewer. Your camera phone is quite adequate if you can get close enough to take the picture at full resolution (on a tiny sensor).

As you put is so clearly, don't expect too much on an A4 size print and if you go to A2, the results will unlikely be very pleasing, which is why wedding photographers tend to be shooting full-frame cameras with decent lenses, as they are trying to sell you large format prints. They might also be trying to shoot shallow depth of field to remove distracting elements in the background. I'm pretty sure you can't do that with your iPhone. What about shots at night - the iPhone 6 has a f/2.2 lens but with a tiny 1.5 µm pixel sensor is going to give you pure noise.

[thetraveler]

I can perfectly understand that technical quality may not be a primary ‘element’ in an artist’s priorities when developing a concept.
But if the suggestion is that technical quality is of no value, then it is hubristic and astonishing arrogance.

From a more adult perspective, the opinion can be defended/expressed in a narrower context related to something akin to ‘style’ (eg impressionist),but does not stand up where this would be obviously inappropriate. Say a photograph or ‘realistic’ representation of a flea.

I’m not convinced it represents most artists’ views either. The effort that is needed to acquire the necessary skills to put paint to canvas, or to cast a bronze , or to produce a fine cartoon immediately counters this.

Technical quality is an element of competence which I believe enables and facilitates artistic expression.

Agree totally.

Technical perfection is an alluring 'goal', especially in respect to the constant hard work of actually making good pictures.
It is easy when faced with the steep slope of creativity to take the easier path.

Give me a controllable scene and time to make decisions I can shoot 98%.
Without that, who knows.

[TheBigE]

This thread has been a very interesting read and given me more reflection on the topic - what kind of photographer are you. I think it is more time appropriate for me as I am preparing to attend my first photography workshop at the end of the month. I have been trying to assess my current skills and what I really want to focus on during the workshop.

I am a relative Newbie to this photography hobby as I really only started in the last 3 years. I will not try to compare and contrast different photographers and mindsets today, as I do not think I have enough experience in the matter. I can only offer my reflection of Manfred's question with regards to my 3 years of experience.

Maybe I just don’t understand. Thoughts? What kind of photographer are you?

To answer this question, I kind of think that photography is analogous to building a house - where you need both technical and creative excellence. In the beginning the foundation is largely technical and then as the house begins to take shape, the technical becomes less important (still important) and creativity takes a larger role. Both play a pivotal role and reliey heavily on each other throughout the process. Perhaps this is a bit of a digression...so back to the question at hand

Today, I think I am a photographer that looks to find the unusual and working on creativity and striving less to nail everything technically. By no means have I learned all the "technical" aspects but I feel I have a firm grasp or foundation to build upon. For example, I cannot always go out know the settings I need to get the correct exposure, but I am able to evalute the results and make modification. On a rare occasion I can set the correct exposure based on my experience. For me operating the computer that captures images is becoming more and more second nature, but I still have a long way to go.

As I continue to build the house(eg. photo) with a good foundation there is more a focus on the compositional/creative excellence. This is where I struggle and try to improve and perhaps more challenging for someone who has been classically training more in the left brain side of things (Engineering, Math, etc). I am fully aware without the excellence in this area than the technical excellence is not worth much overall.

So for me, I am moderately strong technically and very weak in compositionally. This assessment has lead me to see where I what to go where I need to focus. While there are many examples of people who maybe better in one area than the other, I think MY goal would be to show excellence in both areas - Technical and Compositional. It is symobotic relationship between the two...

Just my two cents (I probably owe some change).

[ionian]

For me, the ideal situation is to have technique so solid that you don't ever have to think about it - you brain just knows what you must do with the camera to create the image in your head. This is the way a top musician works - years spent in the practice room playing scales so that the fingers know exactly where to go.

Unfortunately for me, I'm nowhere near that level of technical proficiency, but I usually know how I want my images to look. Sometimes I have the skills to do it, sometimes not, but I learn from both.

Each of us - everybody everywhere - has a different view on what they find pleasing, because of myriad experiences and opinions. Technique and artistic flare are just two sides of the same coin. However, for me personally, I'd rather look at a fuzzy interesting picture than a pin-sharp boring one.

[Black Pearl]

For me, the ideal situation is to have technique so solid that you don't ever have to think about it - you brain just knows what you must do with the camera to create the image in your head. This is the way a top musician works - years spent in the practice room playing scales so that the fingers know exactly where to go.

Unfortunately for me, I'm nowhere near that level of technical proficiency, but I usually know how I want my images to look. Sometimes I have the skills to do it, sometimes not, but I learn from both.

Each of us - everybody everywhere - has a different view on what they find pleasing, because of myriad experiences and opinions. Technique and artistic flare are just two sides of the same coin. However, for me personally, I'd rather look at a fuzzy interesting picture than a pin-sharp boring one.

Nailed It