After reading some of the recent threads I get the feeling that a lot of folks here consider technique ~ composition, exposure, post-processing, printing, etc. ~ to be something that can be (easily) mastered. It may just be me, but contrary to popular wisdom I find this aspect of photography to be one of the hardest. I "always" struggle in the field when using the camera and am often left frustrated when I later work the image toward a print. I wish I had composed the scene a little differently...I am unhappy with the exposure...and so on... Then there is the other half - post-exposure to the final print. Here too, I often find myself lacking the skills to create the image that I am after. Yes, I am studying all this stuff and am slowly improving but I feel that I will never get to the point where I can say that I have mastered the technique I need for my work.
So here is my question to all of you who claim that you have the requisite technique: what is your secret?
Anil, I don't have the answers to all your questions (surprise!) and I don't believe we can actually stop making mistakes.
My way of getting around this issue of making mistakes in the field is to minimize them through discipline. I have a standard checklist I run through (a) before I even pack my equipment for a shoot, (b) before I press the shutter each time, and (c) before I pack up my equipment for the day. This just eliminates the chances of things going haywire and missed opportunities.
There is no standard checklist. You'll have to make your own. I have spent about one year of trial and error through which I have arrived at a checklist that I find suitable for myself. I don't believe it is perfect, and I don't believe it will ever become one. But I believe as time passes, I will commit enough of and learn from my mistakes so as to keep correcting my mistakes.
A very important habit I've developed is toimprove my checklist through a self-introspection session after each shoot - it helps me add and remove items from my standardized checklist.
I could write more about my checklist, but it is likely to be as Greek to you as somebody else's checklist might be Latin to me.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 11, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Boy, am I ever glad to hear someone else say they struggle with composition. That's definitely the hardest (and most frustrating) part of photography to me. I have a very difficult time visualizing a scene through my small viewfinder - I wish Nikon would come out with some type of large viewfinder (the size of the LCD perhaps) where I could get under a dark cloth and actually see what it's going to look like - perhaps that would help. As far as the post processing goes, I find that less daunting than composition, but as soon as I feel I learn something they seem to change or update the version and I have to start a new learning curve. I feel I'm too old for this sometimes.
There is no secret, Anil. In all but the very simplest sense composition is a product of your imagination - a result of all that you think and feel, all that you experienced and learned, all that you like or dislike.
Many musicians can play a score by Mozart, but how many can compose like him? The former is a learned skill. The latter is inherently personal.
We all struggle. The key to success is to keep at it until you satisfy your own vision.
Guy
Posted by Jim Jirka on October 11, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Bill,
They have them out now. They are called view cameras.
Posted by Matt Dallos on October 11, 2006 at 10:16 PM
I think something important to remember is that you don't really need to be looking through your viewfinder to come up with a pleasing composition. Just looking around you can identify what you want and then simply use your viewfinder as the tool to complete your vision. This is one way of thinking that has really openned up my eyes to different shots. Usually the only thing I really do underneath the darkcloth is focus.
Posted by Barb Hansen on October 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM
Thank You Anil for bringing this up. I have to believe that this is an ongoing and perhaps never ending learning experience. IF there is a secret and I'm not sure there is, I'd like to here it too.
NPN seems pretty down to earth to me, but I don't visit all the forums often. I used slide film for many years. I like digital because I can get more feedback than I could locally. There are many splendid photographs shown here, but I don't get the feeling that people suggest that that is easy. ( I am trying to figure out how to use three thats in a row.) Don't be discouraged. Be encouraged. (!)
Pete D.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 11, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Jim - I have a hard enough time without having to stand on my head!
Posted by Anil Rao on October 11, 2006 at 11:23 PM
Okay, perhaps I was not clear in the first place but before this thread gets really side-tracked let me ask: Do you guys feel you have the required technique (and I am not just talking about composition) to realize your vision?
I have found myself to be severely lacking in this department and therefore I am always surprised when people says that its easy to master techninque. Why can't I perfect it like those of you who claim to have done so?
Posted by Mark Hobson on October 12, 2006 at 12:27 AM
yo Anil
you're thinking too much...start feeling, and let go of all the techno babble...
Posted by Jim Goldstein on October 12, 2006 at 1:12 AM
One of the reasons that photography is such an obsession for me is the infinite challenge it provides. I think if you were to frame this question around basketball who would be the player that has/had the skill to do exactly what they want on the court. Clearly Michael Jordan comes to mind for me and some of a different generation would say Bird, or Magic, Dr. J or Jerry West.... in a similar way that such a question is obsurd for basketball or any sport or any art form... the answer is subjective. Personally I find the question a little obsurd because although there are a lot of professional athletes as there are professional photographers few are masters. Of the participants on this forum how many are pros versus up and coming versus enthusiastic amateurs. I think we're all optimistic about our skills and we all wouldn't be here if we weren't trying to improve and share our vision. As to what brought you to raise this question I think its easy to feel insecure, driven or anything inbetween when you see someone discuss a topic they have mastered that you are still struggling with. On that note (not to get personal and return to my original comment) the journey to perfect ones vision is endless. There are too many variables to count that impact how to capture a scene perfectly beyond the subjective artistic interpretation of an image. I fear your question amounts to asking how many grains of sand there are on the beach. Perhaps the answer is whatever you think it is. There is no answer, but only a guess.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jim. However, I don't quite agree with your basketball analogy. For one thing I have never heard any pro basketball player claim that they pocess all the skills required to do whatever they wanted to on the court. Even Michael Jordon never made such a claim. However, photographers (and many here on NPN) regularly say that its easy to perfect the technical aspects of photography. I am still waiting to hear from them as to how they went about doing this?
The more I think about it (I know, it has been suggested that I shouldn't think too much ), I feel that Mark Hobson had put it correctly - first find out what you it is you want want to photograph (and why) and then go about acquiring the necessary technique to realize that vision. Doing the reverse (which seems to be the popular mantra presbcribed here on NPN, based on so many pervious threads) just seems so odd, at least IMHO.
Posted by Jim Goldstein on October 12, 2006 at 2:09 AM
Anil I respect your interpretation of my opinion, but somehow you seemed to have missed out on the fierce trash talk of Michael Jordan's taunting on the court. Reggie Miller was even worse. The analogy isn't meant to be the focus. Perfection is subjective and that needs to be factored in with the amount of loose talk people make. How many people can do anything perfectly at will... photographically or otherwise. Answer... no one. From where I sit experience is what enables people to do close to what you're asking and that in itself is an endless quest.
I understand your question, I think.... Technique is difficult and it does require practice and thought. The more one practices the more it becomes second nature. I can't make a claim to have mastered technique as I still goof up on many photos, but many of the techniques you mentioned are somewhat second nature to me while I am in the field. And it was a reassuring feeling when I first realized for example that I could reliably work out the exposure for a photo and have it come out the way I envisoned it. It gave me confidence, but it did not prevent me from continuing to make mistakes. Now on to what you asked as far as the secrete to it... I don't think I know the answer, like I said I think it is just a matter of practice and the patience to wait until it sinks in. I still struggle in the field and when my photos don't come out the way I envisioned, they usually end up in the garbage and out of my mind, and I go out and try it again. I know you still photograph on film as I do, and one of the things that I did and still do is write down my exposure information as well as composition notes and why and how I came up with the composition and how I arrived at the exposure. Then after I get my films back I sit down and match my notes to the images and figure out what I did if I made a mistake or if I did good. It only took about 12 years but it finally started to sink in and I started to think photographically whenever I came upon a scene, even if I was not trying to photograph it. Like I said, I still do not think I have mastered anything, and I still anxiously wait for my films to come back from the lab with always a sense that I messed everything up. At the same time I don't think technique alone will render a good photo, as I have in this past year seen young students that I have taught with minimal training in technique translate their vision into wonderful photos simply because they photographed what they saw. True had they a better command of technique the photos would be better, but it did not stop or prevent thier vision from coming through 'loud and clear'.
Posted by Tom Gallione on October 12, 2006 at 7:16 AM
Anil, I think your quandry lies more with what it means to truly master something...if that is even possible. Simply put, to "master" technique for you is most likely far beyond what it would mean to another photographer. I get the impression that you hold yourself to higher standards than most accomplished photographers. And while that may lead to frustration at times, I believe it will also lead to a more fruitful creative life.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 12, 2006 at 8:14 AM
you're thinking too much...start feeling, and let go of all the techno babble...
To me, it's simply how most people progress through the photographic learning curve.
Most people start off in photography knowing little or nothing about technique - attaining sharp focus, DOF, use of filters, understanding and using light, etc. The first photos they post usually illustrate that lack of technique.
As they begin to learn the technique of photography, their work - from a technical POV - begins to improve. Finally, they arrive at a point where their photos are "technically competent" with good application of DOF, rules of composition, control of contrast, etc. To the casual observer (the "masses"), these photos may appear spectacular. To the more mature, photographically savvy observer, they may appear as less than that.
It is usally at this point the photographer starts thinking about the "personal vision" thing as they may become bored with just making technically excellent photos that look like everyone else's. IMO, this is where the real fun - and the real challenge - begins.
Perhaps the point to be made is that it's easy to get stuck at this stage. For some photographers and perhaps even certain genres of photography, there is nothing wrong with that - and no one should ever be taken to task because of it. However, for those who strongly desire to develop a vision or style of their own, I think Mr. Hobson's advice quoted above makes a lot of sense.
In many ways, the road to "unique photographic vision" is a personal one, a road that must be traveled individually. Unlike photographic technique, there are no websites, workshops or instructors to teach you how. In all cases, the journey to true individual vision and style is a solitary one, and one that may take a lifetime to develop.
Enjoy the journey!
Posted by Jim Salge on October 12, 2006 at 8:54 AM
I'm on board with composition being the hardest part. I can usually get the camera to do what I want, but to first see what I want is a challenge.
Yesterday I sat in front of a waterfall for 2 hours, changing lenses 4 times, changing positions countless others, and never got a shot that I was happy with...and the scene was BEAUTIFUL! It's frustrating to come home, upload, and have about a gig of 'eh'
That being said, I get extreme joy out of realizing that I just nailed a photo, and it's a high that constantly entices me to improve as a photographer!
Posted by Mary Dennis on October 12, 2006 at 9:16 AM
Well I don't know Anil, but I consider you to be a pretty darn adept at the technical part of photography. You are one of the few photographers at NPN whose prints I have seen and I must say it is a beautiful thing to behold. You, my friend, are no ordinary hack. And I would venture to guess that there are many out here in NPN la-la land that are asking of you "what is your secret?'
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on October 12, 2006 at 9:17 AM
Hi Anil, a question that is almost impossible to answer. Happily most people with time and experience seem to develop their own way of dealing with composition, technique, reading the light, workflow. What works for some may not work for others. One thing that I have learnt from is carefully analysing shots that didn't go well. I think this process of self-auditing is most useful. Learn from your mistakes. Often I see the solution to a problem in a botched composition and I can return an reshoot a better alternative.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 12, 2006 at 9:44 AM
My "secret?" I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get better at all aspects of photography is to shoot something almost every day. Even with that I find that I reject about 90% of the images I take (at least with 35mm) because the composition was weak. It's rare I don't get a shot because of exposure. Since I put a lot more thought into taking a 4x5 shot, they tend to be more satisfying for me.
Kent in SD
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 12, 2006 at 9:52 AM
Once you get beyond the basics (which, from your photos, you have clearly mastered), it is hard to offer advice on technique. The basics are pretty easy - don't bull's eye, rule of thirds, soft lighting, get the eyes in focus, etc. But then what? I am guessing that is where you are struggling.
I have a set beginner's talk, where I try to offer some advice for more advanced photographers. Whether this will help or not for you, I don't know, but maybe someone out there will get something from it.
- Take a lot of photos. Most of them will fail. Look at them carefully and try to understand why. And look for patterns in your work. Is there something you are consistently doing or not doing?
- Look at lots of photos, including bad ones. Why does the photo work, or not work? If you were there, what would you have done differently?
- Read as much as you can about photography, printing, art and art history in general, even if they don't look relevant to your shooting style and interests. I have actually sat in Border's and read their books on nude photography, not that there isn't a chance in hell of ever actually doing that. Trust me, you get some really nasty looks from people... But the point is to exposure yourself to as many ideas as possible.
- Don't be afraid to try something different. Failure is an option.
- Don't stress out from the technicals. Is 1/125 sec at f4 better than 1/8 sec at f13? Shoot both.
- Take a few minutes at a scene and decide what it is that you are really noticing. Is it the entire waterfall, or just a rock in the waterfall? The curve of an unopened calla lily petal, or the flower?
- Try to copy a photo you like. Yeah, I am going to get ripped on that one, but the point is to understand how it was made. The process will become another technique to draw from.
- Enjoy the process and know that as long as you continue to challenge yourself, you will get better. When you stop trying, you will stop improving. In that direction, look at last month's (or at least a recent) Scientific American on becoming an expert. It is actually a rather encouraging article.
- It is just a hobby. Your rent is not dependant on it. Someone else photographed it better, and a third person is making far more money off their shot than you ever will. Don't worry about it. It is okay to put the camera down and the computer down for a month and do something else. It is okay to sit back and watch the sunset, rather than scramble madly for best photographic viewpoint.
To anyone who has mastered anything, I tip my cup and sip. Mastery over anything is only fictional at best or creative death at worst. I can't master the camera or image-making any more than I can "master" my dog, and why would I want to? Both are free-spirits that I open up to to see where the ride goes. I'd sure miss out on a lot by fixing myself into some formula. This image fits the concept. I made it two years ago, but only "got it" last night for the first time.
I'm certain I haven't "arrived" in terms of compositions skills, even after more than 30 years of working with it. I am not born with any kind of natural artistic eye, so I have always had to struggle with it. But I will say that with time and practice, I have become better and more consistent.
For me the biggest help was developing the habit of studying composition without the camera in front of my face. This meant reading as much as I could (more and better info in art books than in photo books BTW), then simply looking for compositions in the world around me as well as in published photos. The latter works besst if you put together or buy a set of cropping frames, then use these on photos you see in mags, etc. It also helps to punch the film out of a slide mount and hold that in front of your eye while looking at scenery. I always carry one in my wallet, and use it frequently while shooting as well as while simply walking around.
Finally, I now always try to shoot at least two comps of any scene- one vertical and one horizontal. Even better is to shoot two of each. That gives me more choices back at home while forcing me to study comp a lot more closely while on site. In my book there is no one RIGHT comp of any scene, and often you won't find the best ones till you shoot a scene for a while.
Do you guys feel you have the required technique (and I am not just talking about composition) to realize your vision?
You make the mistake of assuming "vision" is a static/deterministic concept. I would argue that it is ever-changing and evolving and requires constant learning and refinement of skills to realize.
Yes, I do think I have had the required technique to realize many manifestations of my vision to date. Tomorrow my vision may be entirely different and the learning or development of new skills will be required.
Guy
Posted by Anil Rao on October 12, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Thanks for the additional feedback. I really appreciate you guys taking the time to share your thoughts.
Guy: Although it might have seemed that way (from what I said above), I am not assuming that "vision" is a static concept; I realize that it can and will change over time. In addition, what you write next seems to confirm what Mark [Hobson] has repeatedly said here on NPN -- i.e. first define your vision (which of course will evolve) and then go about acquiring/refining the technique to realize it. The latter will be a continual process as and when your vision evolves/matures.
The funny thing is that now I have broached on this topic, everyone seems to say that technique can't be mastered and has to be developed hand-in-hand. This is contrary to earlier posts where folks said that you ought for first perfect your technique (which apparently was a relatively easy task to accomplish) and only then go about finding your vision. Strange turn of events, isn't it.
Michael: You have really hit the nail on the head. Too many times I have found that I don't curently have the means to turn an idea into a print - due to something lacking in the technique dept. However, as the latter develops, it would be a good idea to go back and revisit earlier efforts (either re-shoot the scene or re-work the scan) as this might lead to a better chance of success. Lovely photo, btw.
technically, learning technique is easier than asthetics. As guy mentioned I can read books, learn playing Guitar or piano and play what Mozart has composed all those centuries ago. That is technique to me. I may not be as good as he was but can do it.
The difficult part is the composition, and if I can come up with something unique.
(And BTW I still strugle with print making but that can be learnt too.)
In the field, I always think of how the scene can be converted into a good image (vision, if you want to call it) and then take out camera, start thinking technique etc. This goes on and on. Even after printing I always think that this could be improved.
And I also agree with MarkH. You think too much. You are really very good. Believe me.
The funny thing is that now I have broached on this topic, everyone seems to say that technique can't be mastered and has to be developed hand-in-hand. This is contrary to earlier posts where folks said that you ought for first perfect your technique (which apparently was a relatively easy task to accomplish) and only then go about finding your vision. Strange turn of events, isn't it.
Actually I think the confusion comes from suggesting that composition is a technique. I don't consider it so. Operating the camera, finding the correct exposure, applying the correct shutter speed and aperture for a desired effect,etc. - these all fall under technique to me and in my opinion are easy to learn and necessary to master early on. Composition is in my opinion a result of seeing - it is not a technical skill to be mastered in the same way as exposure or color correction.
There are technical skills related to composition such as understanding common guidelines, taking inventory and analysing visual elements etc. but to me these would be similar to acquiring a vocabulary rather than writing an essay.
Guy
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM
There are technical skills related to composition such as understanding common guidelines, taking inventory and analysing visual elements etc. but to me these would be similar to acquiring a vocabulary rather than writing an essay.
Guy, well stated. Understanding "the rule of thirds" does not mean one has mastered composition, but only understands a basic formula (technique) that can be used in pursuit of "pleasing compositions."
In regards to exposure, contrast control, focus, basic composition, etc., I believe that these basic photographic skills are relatively easy to acquire for those dedicated to the pursuit. I also believe that they are needed to take the "next step" to growing one's personal style.
Posted by David Senesac on October 12, 2006 at 1:46 PM
I especially agree with above comments by Youssef, Tom, Jim Erhardt, Dan, and Michael.
Anil your question is posed a bit awkwardly as you seem to want to divide success as results viewed with a final print between photographic vision to exposure and post exposure processing. A division of technique and processing. First I would say that the post exposure processing aspect as a dividing point has more validity for black and white work and those that invest a lot of creativity and or image manipulation from their raw files. I can't speak for those at all that do so. For others like me the post processing is just a matter of acquired mainly Photoshop skills and keeping up with current printing processes because my only intent is producing prints that are as is reasonably readily technically feasible, that match my transparencies with considerations to standard corrections to such issues as film luminance compression. Thus for myself, post exposure is more mechanical and static from image to image such that it is the issues prior to exposure that primarily determine potential for the quality of the end print. What is now digitally based color photography has been in continual rapid technology evolution of both hardware and software since its arrival only a decade ago. Before that was optically based processes on rapidly deteriorating media that for practical purposes are rarely used in color work anymore hence what we do now is revolutionary.
Back to the technique aspect I'll comment on a facet not already touched on by others. There are many subjects like popular icon landscapes with limited viewpoints that any photographer of modest talent can easily digest that no matter how talented different photographers may be, relative results are not going to be determined by their skill and talent. An example might be taking an image from the roadside at Valley View in Yosemite. There isn't any special foreground or camera placement, or tricky use of a lens etc that is going to be discovered but rather the uniqueness and exceptionalness of images is pretty much just a matter of being their during those brief periods when weather and light are exceptional and then using standard techniques. On the other hand the more complex a landscape, the more opportunity exists for finding unique perspectives and positions that stands out. Then there are a majority of landscape situations which regardless of the talent and skill a photographer might have are simply too ordinary, unspectacular, limited, boring, and or with inapropriate weather or light that simply have little potential. Knowing what to expend time and effort to take a image of for serious work takes experience, skill, discipline and patience. Working with a view camera can do wonders there. Actually I enjoy taking pictures of some of these later low potential landscapes even with a view camera because doing so broadens my experience and skill even though I don't expect to be surprised.
The more remote a landscape is from the masses of photograhers, likewise the more opportunity to discover subjects that also stand out. For me the whole game is focused on finding remote and or unique subject because I know from my own experiences seriously pounding those more obscure locations here out West since the early 80s that there has until recently been an absolute dearth of photographers with tripods out there as for the most part people have simply been pounding the well beaten known places mainly in close proximity to roads. Of course just getting out in those natural areas will not start producing exceptional images for someone because many of those areas are absolutely vast and take many years of exploration and experience to get consistent fine results. Finally knowing when and having the flexibility in schedules to visit exceptional subjects when conditions as time of day or season, wildflowers, weather, and light has potential to lift images to peak levels may make more difference in results than mere technical skills. ...David
Actually I think the confusion comes from suggesting that composition is a technique. I don't consider it so. Operating the camera, finding the correct exposure, applying the correct shutter speed and aperture for a desired effect,etc. - these all fall under technique to me and in my opinion are easy to learn and necessary to master early on. Composition is in my opinion a result of seeing - it is not a technical skill to be mastered in the same way as exposure or color correction.
Guy, even if we kept composition out of this, I still don't think I have mastered how to properly operate a camera or perform post-exposure adjustments to the image (such as color correction). At least to the degree that I find necessary for realizing what I want to create. Of course, this could be a problem with just "me" (although I find it surprising that others don't suffer from the same) but it is frustrating having to deal with it, even though I have been involved with photography for several years now.
Everytime I am out making photos, I struggle with exposure, contrast control, etc., which to many here at nothing but basic photographic skills. Humm! I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Anil,
I consider the whole of photography as a journey rather than a destination. Like a journey, when you arrive you are finished. Those who procalme they have mastered this thing we do have not even begun the journey for the most part.
Once the basics are understoon (not mastered as Micheal says) then a photographer will work on style if they continue to grow.
You are well along in the journey.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 12, 2006 at 1:59 PM
I consider technique and composition two entirely different things. Any technique can be mastered just through constant repetition, but compositional skills takes an ability to see a 3D scene as it would look in 2D, and for me, that's very difficult, especially if you're thinking of converting to BW as well.
Anil, you are certainly not alone. I know in our workshops exposure is usually a favorite topic and raises a lot of questions even from participants with some prior photography experience.
I can only speculate on the reasons but I suspect two of the main ones are:
1) By far most people are self-taught when it comes to photography and are often missing some of the foundation science behind the craft (i.e. understand why things are a certain way rather than just how to apply them)
2) Most photograpehrs today start off with cameras that offer a high degree of automation and a lot of built-in intelligence, making such things as focus and exposure decisions not as critical to the workflow.
In our workshop we cover some basic theory of metering light and elements of the Zone System and it's always pleasing to see how much more confident participants become once they understand what the meter is actually telling them and how to transform it into a correct exposure.
Guy
Posted by Jerry Greer on October 12, 2006 at 2:10 PM
Anil,
Great question! Guy stated it perfectly! For me I see our person vision changing just as life changes. I can certainly see that my images have evolved over the last year and a half. I've had many changes in life and my ideals have matured. I feel that my move to a different form of image capture has been the driving force to my change.
I see this in my learning to play the mandolin. My teacher told me upfront, it's easy to learn to play music up to a point by reading the music on paper. But to truly be good enough you must have the ability to feel the music and to be able to translate that feeling to the strings. I struggle with this all the time. I've never played an instrument until now and I learn by ear mostly. I'm a bluegrass fanatic so I got that part but the problem is getting the left hand to press the strings at just the right timing to get that perfectly clear sustained ring.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 12, 2006 at 8:20 PM
I find exposure to be a necessary evil. As tempting as firing away on Matrix metering is, it rarely gets my vision across. So spot metering makes me have to think about technicals more than I'd like to but thank god for bracketing.
I don't consider composition to be a technique though. I see it as part of the vision. That's where the fun is, not metering, hyperfocal distance, etc... I've never consciously thought about the rule of thirds or centering while shooting, to me it's about feel. There's probably images where I centered it or bull eye'd, but so what? If there was a formula for taking good pictures, then I'd probably give up photography and find something more fulfilling. Which is also the same reason why I never want to label myself as having a certain style or definitive look.
I like Jerry's music analogy. I played sax in several college jazz bands, and eventually got fed up with having to play off the music charts after several years of it. Once I learned the music theory, I felt like I was mentally hampered by knowing too much. I no longer felt the music anymore. Everything I came into the program with, felt like it got lost as my technique improved. When I quit the college jazz program, I took to writing and recording my own rock instrumental songs for several years until photography became a permanent fixture in my life. The interesting thing is when I stopped thinking so much, and quit trying to perfect my technique, I became a much better musician. In hindsight, I realize that I needed to play jazz for several years in college to realize that it wasn't my cup of tea as it related to my saxophone playing. Charlie Parker was cool, but I never felt it nor have a desire to play it again. I just wanted to rock out, and would bring that mentality every day to practice and our performances. When I was able to, that is when I felt the rush and connected.
Posted by Kent Mearig on October 12, 2006 at 8:27 PM
Anil – you are not alone. I love photography, and I know that I have a personal vision, but I often find that I’ve made a mistake with technique that renders an entire shoot useless. For example, a few weeks ago I took the time to hike to a mountain ridge in the evening to photograph around sunset. The area was captivating, the light was beautiful, and I was having (in my opinion) really wonderful ideas for images. When I got home and viewed the files, I was upset to see that I had been unable to get sufficient depth of field for each of the truly unique and otherwise exciting photos.
Well…I hope that I will never make that mistake again. In an effort to avoid diffraction, I had simply continually chosen too large of an aperture considering the focal length. I knew what I wanted, but I couldn’t get it, and I don’t know if I will ever make it back under similar conditions.
BUT, I had an amazing time that evening with a friend while we combined to take about a hundred underwhelming pictures. And there have been many occasions since then when I’ve called my wife on the way back from a shoot and told her that I had a great time taking no great photos. If lacking technique sometimes gets in the way of your vision, I would remember to be very happy that you have a vision. To have technique and no vision would be far less enjoyable, I think.
Posted by Lori Kincaid on October 14, 2006 at 10:27 PM
Anil,
I didn't read through all of the replies, but the few I did read seemed to be heading in an entirely different direction than what I initially interpreted your original question to be. My take: heck yeah, I have trouble ALL the time with technique. It's very frustrating to me. When I'm out in the field and something moves me I often find my instincts will lead me to where I want to be compostionally, but then I fall down on the technical aspects of getting the exposure just right, or using the right filter, or getting the right balance of GND, or even focusing properly with the view camera, or all manner of technical details. I have more near misses than I can count. I 'know' how to do all of these things, but I often blow it in the field. And just to be clear, when I talk about getting the right exposure or filter, etc. I'm not talking about the one specified on page 327, paragraph 2b of someone's technical manual. I'm talking about the right one to meet my vision. I'd love to 'get it' each time and when I become discouraged I try to remind myself it's all part of living, learning and experiencing and I'll always be glad I was there. As a matter of fact, while writing this I've come to realize I'll probably never be a technical master and I'm no longer sure I want to be.
Lori
Posted by Jose Suro on October 18, 2006 at 7:17 AM
Hi Anil,
I read this thread with great interest as I too am in the middle of my "journey". I've come to realize though that this journey never ends and it is something that I have come to accept. Two excellent points have been made here, Guy mentioned that composition is not part of the technical aspects and Jim mentioned the part about the transition to "one's vision" - both absolutely correct IMHO.
To me the technical side of photography can be spelled in one word: consistency. Consistent results are what technique is all about. It is made up of two very different parts. The first is everything that happens before you press the shutter, excluding where and how you point the camera. The second is everything that happens before you click the print (or save) button on the computer. Two very distinct technical challenges each full of seemingly endless options. Of the two the most important for me is the first one - the camera side or “front end”. The closer you come to capturing what you wanted in the first place the easier the second one becomes. There is a school of thought nowadays that everything can be fixed in PS. I find this thinking flawed as it complicates the technical aspects needlessly by leaving too many things to chance on the front end. This hurts consistency.
Thirty years ago I had my own B&W enlarger and a modest Nikon system. Even back then I realized that the technical aspects of photography were of major importance. In response I studied and practiced Ansel Adams’ Zone System – required reading even today IMO. The most important thing I learned was that Adams left nothing to chance technically. He designed a number of tests so that he knew exactly how everything in his system would work, ergo, complete technical control and consistent results.
Back then it was easier. You stuck with one type of film, developer and paper. You ran your tests and in a short time you knew how it all worked. In this digital age, mastering the technical side has become a much more daunting task. Digital cameras have so many settings and so many “auto this and that” that it’s like they were never meant to duplicate the same image twice! Even 2 identical cameras will have subtle differences.
And here I finally come to the point. Keep it simple! Test your equipment adjusted to a variety of settings, pick the ones that work for you and DON’T change them. Break this down into manageable parts: work on exposure first, then on color. And of course, do this before you are out in the field. At present I’m working on color, even to the point of shooting color cards and adjusting my ACR color settings for each camera so that they all shoot the same :).
Best,
Jose
Posted by Bill Stice on October 18, 2006 at 8:34 AM
Anil, I agree with most everything said above. I particularly think what Mark, Guy and Jerry said are right on. In particular Jerry said in so many words (Jerry, I hope I'm not misinterpreting you here) that photography is an evolution mostly from within. When I first started in photography I was much less demanding of myself than I am today. I still goof up on technical things once in a while but as I have grown both in skill and in age my emphasis has shifted to the image itself not how technically perfect it is. I will admit that a lot of my photography probably doesn't have much appeal to most individuals but I get an enormous amount of enjoyment in doing it. As my life stages have changed so has my photography both in subject matter and in the content (how I view the same subject) of my images. I find it interesting to go back and rephotograph areas that I haven't been to for years and compare the new images to earlier shots of the same area. There are a few similarities but many more differences. I think this evolution is what makes it so enjoyable.
Posted by Anil Rao on October 18, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Thank you all for the additional comments. I have learnt a lot from reading your responses.
Discussion
40 repliesSo here is my question to all of you who claim that you have the requisite technique: what is your secret?
My way of getting around this issue of making mistakes in the field is to minimize them through discipline. I have a standard checklist I run through (a) before I even pack my equipment for a shoot, (b) before I press the shutter each time, and (c) before I pack up my equipment for the day. This just eliminates the chances of things going haywire and missed opportunities.
There is no standard checklist. You'll have to make your own. I have spent about one year of trial and error through which I have arrived at a checklist that I find suitable for myself. I don't believe it is perfect, and I don't believe it will ever become one. But I believe as time passes, I will commit enough of and learn from my mistakes so as to keep correcting my mistakes.
A very important habit I've developed is toimprove my checklist through a self-introspection session after each shoot - it helps me add and remove items from my standardized checklist.
I could write more about my checklist, but it is likely to be as Greek to you as somebody else's checklist might be Latin to me.
Hope that helps.
Many musicians can play a score by Mozart, but how many can compose like him? The former is a learned skill. The latter is inherently personal.
We all struggle. The key to success is to keep at it until you satisfy your own vision.
Guy
They have them out now. They are called view cameras.
Pete D.
I have found myself to be severely lacking in this department and therefore I am always surprised when people says that its easy to master techninque. Why can't I perfect it like those of you who claim to have done so?
you're thinking too much...start feeling, and let go of all the techno babble...
The more I think about it (I know, it has been suggested that I shouldn't think too much
I understand your question, I think.... Technique is difficult and it does require practice and thought. The more one practices the more it becomes second nature. I can't make a claim to have mastered technique as I still goof up on many photos, but many of the techniques you mentioned are somewhat second nature to me while I am in the field. And it was a reassuring feeling when I first realized for example that I could reliably work out the exposure for a photo and have it come out the way I envisoned it. It gave me confidence, but it did not prevent me from continuing to make mistakes. Now on to what you asked as far as the secrete to it... I don't think I know the answer, like I said I think it is just a matter of practice and the patience to wait until it sinks in. I still struggle in the field and when my photos don't come out the way I envisioned, they usually end up in the garbage and out of my mind, and I go out and try it again. I know you still photograph on film as I do, and one of the things that I did and still do is write down my exposure information as well as composition notes and why and how I came up with the composition and how I arrived at the exposure. Then after I get my films back I sit down and match my notes to the images and figure out what I did if I made a mistake or if I did good. It only took about 12 years but it finally started to sink in and I started to think photographically whenever I came upon a scene, even if I was not trying to photograph it. Like I said, I still do not think I have mastered anything, and I still anxiously wait for my films to come back from the lab with always a sense that I messed everything up. At the same time I don't think technique alone will render a good photo, as I have in this past year seen young students that I have taught with minimal training in technique translate their vision into wonderful photos simply because they photographed what they saw. True had they a better command of technique the photos would be better, but it did not stop or prevent thier vision from coming through 'loud and clear'.
To me, it's simply how most people progress through the photographic learning curve.
Most people start off in photography knowing little or nothing about technique - attaining sharp focus, DOF, use of filters, understanding and using light, etc. The first photos they post usually illustrate that lack of technique.
As they begin to learn the technique of photography, their work - from a technical POV - begins to improve. Finally, they arrive at a point where their photos are "technically competent" with good application of DOF, rules of composition, control of contrast, etc. To the casual observer (the "masses"), these photos may appear spectacular. To the more mature, photographically savvy observer, they may appear as less than that.
It is usally at this point the photographer starts thinking about the "personal vision" thing as they may become bored with just making technically excellent photos that look like everyone else's. IMO, this is where the real fun - and the real challenge - begins.
Perhaps the point to be made is that it's easy to get stuck at this stage. For some photographers and perhaps even certain genres of photography, there is nothing wrong with that - and no one should ever be taken to task because of it. However, for those who strongly desire to develop a vision or style of their own, I think Mr. Hobson's advice quoted above makes a lot of sense.
In many ways, the road to "unique photographic vision" is a personal one, a road that must be traveled individually. Unlike photographic technique, there are no websites, workshops or instructors to teach you how. In all cases, the journey to true individual vision and style is a solitary one, and one that may take a lifetime to develop.
Enjoy the journey!
Yesterday I sat in front of a waterfall for 2 hours, changing lenses 4 times, changing positions countless others, and never got a shot that I was happy with...and the scene was BEAUTIFUL! It's frustrating to come home, upload, and have about a gig of 'eh'
That being said, I get extreme joy out of realizing that I just nailed a photo, and it's a high that constantly entices me to improve as a photographer!
Kent in SD
I have a set beginner's talk, where I try to offer some advice for more advanced photographers. Whether this will help or not for you, I don't know, but maybe someone out there will get something from it.
- Take a lot of photos. Most of them will fail. Look at them carefully and try to understand why. And look for patterns in your work. Is there something you are consistently doing or not doing?
- Look at lots of photos, including bad ones. Why does the photo work, or not work? If you were there, what would you have done differently?
- Read as much as you can about photography, printing, art and art history in general, even if they don't look relevant to your shooting style and interests. I have actually sat in Border's and read their books on nude photography, not that there isn't a chance in hell of ever actually doing that.
- Don't be afraid to try something different. Failure is an option.
- Don't stress out from the technicals. Is 1/125 sec at f4 better than 1/8 sec at f13? Shoot both.
- Take a few minutes at a scene and decide what it is that you are really noticing. Is it the entire waterfall, or just a rock in the waterfall? The curve of an unopened calla lily petal, or the flower?
- Try to copy a photo you like. Yeah, I am going to get ripped on that one, but the point is to understand how it was made. The process will become another technique to draw from.
- Enjoy the process and know that as long as you continue to challenge yourself, you will get better. When you stop trying, you will stop improving. In that direction, look at last month's (or at least a recent) Scientific American on becoming an expert. It is actually a rather encouraging article.
- It is just a hobby. Your rent is not dependant on it. Someone else photographed it better, and a third person is making far more money off their shot than you ever will. Don't worry about it. It is okay to put the camera down and the computer down for a month and do something else. It is okay to sit back and watch the sunset, rather than scramble madly for best photographic viewpoint.
To anyone who has mastered anything, I tip my cup and sip. Mastery over anything is only fictional at best or creative death at worst. I can't master the camera or image-making any more than I can "master" my dog, and why would I want to? Both are free-spirits that I open up to to see where the ride goes. I'd sure miss out on a lot by fixing myself into some formula. This image fits the concept. I made it two years ago, but only "got it" last night for the first time.
For me the biggest help was developing the habit of studying composition without the camera in front of my face. This meant reading as much as I could (more and better info in art books than in photo books BTW), then simply looking for compositions in the world around me as well as in published photos. The latter works besst if you put together or buy a set of cropping frames, then use these on photos you see in mags, etc. It also helps to punch the film out of a slide mount and hold that in front of your eye while looking at scenery. I always carry one in my wallet, and use it frequently while shooting as well as while simply walking around.
Finally, I now always try to shoot at least two comps of any scene- one vertical and one horizontal. Even better is to shoot two of each. That gives me more choices back at home while forcing me to study comp a lot more closely while on site. In my book there is no one RIGHT comp of any scene, and often you won't find the best ones till you shoot a scene for a while.
You make the mistake of assuming "vision" is a static/deterministic concept. I would argue that it is ever-changing and evolving and requires constant learning and refinement of skills to realize.
Yes, I do think I have had the required technique to realize many manifestations of my vision to date. Tomorrow my vision may be entirely different and the learning or development of new skills will be required.
Guy
Guy: Although it might have seemed that way (from what I said above), I am not assuming that "vision" is a static concept; I realize that it can and will change over time. In addition, what you write next seems to confirm what Mark [Hobson] has repeatedly said here on NPN -- i.e. first define your vision (which of course will evolve) and then go about acquiring/refining the technique to realize it. The latter will be a continual process as and when your vision evolves/matures.
The funny thing is that now I have broached on this topic, everyone seems to say that technique can't be mastered and has to be developed hand-in-hand. This is contrary to earlier posts where folks said that you ought for first perfect your technique (which apparently was a relatively easy task to accomplish) and only then go about finding your vision. Strange turn of events, isn't it.
Michael: You have really hit the nail on the head. Too many times I have found that I don't curently have the means to turn an idea into a print - due to something lacking in the technique dept. However, as the latter develops, it would be a good idea to go back and revisit earlier efforts (either re-shoot the scene or re-work the scan) as this might lead to a better chance of success. Lovely photo, btw.
The difficult part is the composition, and if I can come up with something unique.
(And BTW I still strugle with print making but that can be learnt too.)
In the field, I always think of how the scene can be converted into a good image (vision, if you want to call it) and then take out camera, start thinking technique etc. This goes on and on. Even after printing I always think that this could be improved.
And I also agree with MarkH. You think too much. You are really very good. Believe me.
Actually I think the confusion comes from suggesting that composition is a technique. I don't consider it so. Operating the camera, finding the correct exposure, applying the correct shutter speed and aperture for a desired effect,etc. - these all fall under technique to me and in my opinion are easy to learn and necessary to master early on. Composition is in my opinion a result of seeing - it is not a technical skill to be mastered in the same way as exposure or color correction.
There are technical skills related to composition such as understanding common guidelines, taking inventory and analysing visual elements etc. but to me these would be similar to acquiring a vocabulary rather than writing an essay.
Guy
Guy, well stated. Understanding "the rule of thirds" does not mean one has mastered composition, but only understands a basic formula (technique) that can be used in pursuit of "pleasing compositions."
In regards to exposure, contrast control, focus, basic composition, etc., I believe that these basic photographic skills are relatively easy to acquire for those dedicated to the pursuit. I also believe that they are needed to take the "next step" to growing one's personal style.
Anil your question is posed a bit awkwardly as you seem to want to divide success as results viewed with a final print between photographic vision to exposure and post exposure processing. A division of technique and processing. First I would say that the post exposure processing aspect as a dividing point has more validity for black and white work and those that invest a lot of creativity and or image manipulation from their raw files. I can't speak for those at all that do so. For others like me the post processing is just a matter of acquired mainly Photoshop skills and keeping up with current printing processes because my only intent is producing prints that are as is reasonably readily technically feasible, that match my transparencies with considerations to standard corrections to such issues as film luminance compression. Thus for myself, post exposure is more mechanical and static from image to image such that it is the issues prior to exposure that primarily determine potential for the quality of the end print. What is now digitally based color photography has been in continual rapid technology evolution of both hardware and software since its arrival only a decade ago. Before that was optically based processes on rapidly deteriorating media that for practical purposes are rarely used in color work anymore hence what we do now is revolutionary.
Back to the technique aspect I'll comment on a facet not already touched on by others. There are many subjects like popular icon landscapes with limited viewpoints that any photographer of modest talent can easily digest that no matter how talented different photographers may be, relative results are not going to be determined by their skill and talent. An example might be taking an image from the roadside at Valley View in Yosemite. There isn't any special foreground or camera placement, or tricky use of a lens etc that is going to be discovered but rather the uniqueness and exceptionalness of images is pretty much just a matter of being their during those brief periods when weather and light are exceptional and then using standard techniques. On the other hand the more complex a landscape, the more opportunity exists for finding unique perspectives and positions that stands out. Then there are a majority of landscape situations which regardless of the talent and skill a photographer might have are simply too ordinary, unspectacular, limited, boring, and or with inapropriate weather or light that simply have little potential. Knowing what to expend time and effort to take a image of for serious work takes experience, skill, discipline and patience. Working with a view camera can do wonders there. Actually I enjoy taking pictures of some of these later low potential landscapes even with a view camera because doing so broadens my experience and skill even though I don't expect to be surprised.
The more remote a landscape is from the masses of photograhers, likewise the more opportunity to discover subjects that also stand out. For me the whole game is focused on finding remote and or unique subject because I know from my own experiences seriously pounding those more obscure locations here out West since the early 80s that there has until recently been an absolute dearth of photographers with tripods out there as for the most part people have simply been pounding the well beaten known places mainly in close proximity to roads. Of course just getting out in those natural areas will not start producing exceptional images for someone because many of those areas are absolutely vast and take many years of exploration and experience to get consistent fine results. Finally knowing when and having the flexibility in schedules to visit exceptional subjects when conditions as time of day or season, wildflowers, weather, and light has potential to lift images to peak levels may make more difference in results than mere technical skills. ...David
Guy, even if we kept composition out of this, I still don't think I have mastered how to properly operate a camera or perform post-exposure adjustments to the image (such as color correction). At least to the degree that I find necessary for realizing what I want to create. Of course, this could be a problem with just "me" (although I find it surprising that others don't suffer from the same) but it is frustrating having to deal with it, even though I have been involved with photography for several years now.
Everytime I am out making photos, I struggle with exposure, contrast control, etc., which to many here at nothing but basic photographic skills. Humm! I wonder what I am doing wrong.
I consider the whole of photography as a journey rather than a destination. Like a journey, when you arrive you are finished. Those who procalme they have mastered this thing we do have not even begun the journey for the most part.
Once the basics are understoon (not mastered as Micheal says) then a photographer will work on style if they continue to grow.
You are well along in the journey.
I can only speculate on the reasons but I suspect two of the main ones are:
1) By far most people are self-taught when it comes to photography and are often missing some of the foundation science behind the craft (i.e. understand why things are a certain way rather than just how to apply them)
2) Most photograpehrs today start off with cameras that offer a high degree of automation and a lot of built-in intelligence, making such things as focus and exposure decisions not as critical to the workflow.
In our workshop we cover some basic theory of metering light and elements of the Zone System and it's always pleasing to see how much more confident participants become once they understand what the meter is actually telling them and how to transform it into a correct exposure.
Guy
Great question! Guy stated it perfectly! For me I see our person vision changing just as life changes. I can certainly see that my images have evolved over the last year and a half. I've had many changes in life and my ideals have matured. I feel that my move to a different form of image capture has been the driving force to my change.
I see this in my learning to play the mandolin. My teacher told me upfront, it's easy to learn to play music up to a point by reading the music on paper. But to truly be good enough you must have the ability to feel the music and to be able to translate that feeling to the strings. I struggle with this all the time. I've never played an instrument until now and I learn by ear mostly. I'm a bluegrass fanatic so I got that part but the problem is getting the left hand to press the strings at just the right timing to get that perfectly clear sustained ring.
I don't consider composition to be a technique though. I see it as part of the vision. That's where the fun is, not metering, hyperfocal distance, etc... I've never consciously thought about the rule of thirds or centering while shooting, to me it's about feel. There's probably images where I centered it or bull eye'd, but so what? If there was a formula for taking good pictures, then I'd probably give up photography and find something more fulfilling. Which is also the same reason why I never want to label myself as having a certain style or definitive look.
I like Jerry's music analogy. I played sax in several college jazz bands, and eventually got fed up with having to play off the music charts after several years of it. Once I learned the music theory, I felt like I was mentally hampered by knowing too much. I no longer felt the music anymore. Everything I came into the program with, felt like it got lost as my technique improved. When I quit the college jazz program, I took to writing and recording my own rock instrumental songs for several years until photography became a permanent fixture in my life. The interesting thing is when I stopped thinking so much, and quit trying to perfect my technique, I became a much better musician. In hindsight, I realize that I needed to play jazz for several years in college to realize that it wasn't my cup of tea as it related to my saxophone playing. Charlie Parker was cool, but I never felt it nor have a desire to play it again. I just wanted to rock out, and would bring that mentality every day to practice and our performances. When I was able to, that is when I felt the rush and connected.
Well…I hope that I will never make that mistake again. In an effort to avoid diffraction, I had simply continually chosen too large of an aperture considering the focal length. I knew what I wanted, but I couldn’t get it, and I don’t know if I will ever make it back under similar conditions.
BUT, I had an amazing time that evening with a friend while we combined to take about a hundred underwhelming pictures. And there have been many occasions since then when I’ve called my wife on the way back from a shoot and told her that I had a great time taking no great photos. If lacking technique sometimes gets in the way of your vision, I would remember to be very happy that you have a vision. To have technique and no vision would be far less enjoyable, I think.
I didn't read through all of the replies, but the few I did read seemed to be heading in an entirely different direction than what I initially interpreted your original question to be. My take: heck yeah, I have trouble ALL the time with technique. It's very frustrating to me. When I'm out in the field and something moves me I often find my instincts will lead me to where I want to be compostionally, but then I fall down on the technical aspects of getting the exposure just right, or using the right filter, or getting the right balance of GND, or even focusing properly with the view camera, or all manner of technical details. I have more near misses than I can count. I 'know' how to do all of these things, but I often blow it in the field. And just to be clear, when I talk about getting the right exposure or filter, etc. I'm not talking about the one specified on page 327, paragraph 2b of someone's technical manual. I'm talking about the right one to meet my vision. I'd love to 'get it' each time and when I become discouraged I try to remind myself it's all part of living, learning and experiencing and I'll always be glad I was there. As a matter of fact, while writing this I've come to realize I'll probably never be a technical master and I'm no longer sure I want to be.
Lori
I read this thread with great interest as I too am in the middle of my "journey". I've come to realize though that this journey never ends and it is something that I have come to accept. Two excellent points have been made here, Guy mentioned that composition is not part of the technical aspects and Jim mentioned the part about the transition to "one's vision" - both absolutely correct IMHO.
To me the technical side of photography can be spelled in one word: consistency. Consistent results are what technique is all about. It is made up of two very different parts. The first is everything that happens before you press the shutter, excluding where and how you point the camera. The second is everything that happens before you click the print (or save) button on the computer. Two very distinct technical challenges each full of seemingly endless options. Of the two the most important for me is the first one - the camera side or “front end”. The closer you come to capturing what you wanted in the first place the easier the second one becomes. There is a school of thought nowadays that everything can be fixed in PS. I find this thinking flawed as it complicates the technical aspects needlessly by leaving too many things to chance on the front end. This hurts consistency.
Thirty years ago I had my own B&W enlarger and a modest Nikon system. Even back then I realized that the technical aspects of photography were of major importance. In response I studied and practiced Ansel Adams’ Zone System – required reading even today IMO. The most important thing I learned was that Adams left nothing to chance technically. He designed a number of tests so that he knew exactly how everything in his system would work, ergo, complete technical control and consistent results.
Back then it was easier. You stuck with one type of film, developer and paper. You ran your tests and in a short time you knew how it all worked. In this digital age, mastering the technical side has become a much more daunting task. Digital cameras have so many settings and so many “auto this and that” that it’s like they were never meant to duplicate the same image twice! Even 2 identical cameras will have subtle differences.
And here I finally come to the point. Keep it simple! Test your equipment adjusted to a variety of settings, pick the ones that work for you and DON’T change them. Break this down into manageable parts: work on exposure first, then on color. And of course, do this before you are out in the field. At present I’m working on color, even to the point of shooting color cards and adjusting my ACR color settings for each camera so that they all shoot the same :).
Best,
Jose