Discussion: Craft, art and style

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/09/2002 02:32:41 PM · #1

So John asked me to start up a discussion on this topic. Iâ��ll start with some background. Iâ��m an engineer by training. Iâ��ve spent many years studying and absorbing technical stuff. I donâ��t have any artistic education or historical perspective to this. I often feel like Iâ��m making it up as I go along and at the same time I have the nagging doubt that I might come across sounding as pretentious as a first year art student.

With that said, I started this whole photography lark about 10 months ago when I bought a camera. Iâ��ve always been interested, but never had the financial means to explore this rather expensive hobby. With a long background in computers I was more interested in digital photography and certainly very well at home with the electronic and computing side of the technical issues.

So I started the search in the technical stuff. I spent a long time worrying over workflows, correct processing techniques, linear colour conversion, JPEG compression and striving to eek the most sharpness and fidelity out of the meager 4 Mp my Canon G2 offered. At the same time I bought gadgets, accessory lenses and other stuff to feed my habit. I took a lot of pictures then. Some of them were even okay. Certainly technically they got better and better. There is still a lot of stuff to learn on the technical side or the â��craftâ�� but I have a good grounding.

Then I realized I wasnâ��t going to find what I was looking for in the technical stuff. The sharpest lens or the highest megapixels doesnâ��t make the best picture. It seems a lot of people are lost in that particular wilderness, obsessing about pin-sharp focus or perfect print reproduction. I now feel that that is missing the whole point â�� at least for what I want from photography.

So I started reading. I devoured everything I could find at my local library, Barnes & Nobles, University book shops and amazon.com. I read book after book on photographic technique, composition and visual design. And my pictures improved again. I started to learn the language of photography. Rules of thirds, strong diagonals, patterns, textures â�� combined with the technical stuff, my pictures started to get even better. Iâ��m sure there is a lot of stuff to learn on the visual design front too, but I have a good grounding.

So this is about where I feel I am now. But I donâ��t think Iâ��m where I want to be. Iâ��ve started not bothering so much about perfect photoshop post-processing. I donâ��t do linear conversion very much any more and only when it really has something to offer. I think I apply the right techniques at the right time, rather than obsessing about it all the time. Iâ��ve spent a lot of focus learning the craft side of photography. Iâ��m struggling to learn the art side of photography. Iâ��ve seen posts on this forum that say â��art has no place in photographyâ��, or â��this isnâ��t art, its photographyâ�� To me, these statements are so wide of the mark for the reasons I started this that I canâ��t even start to understand where the people that think that are coming from.

Iâ��m trying to find a style. Iâ��m trying to understand how to make my pictures have some meaning. I feel I can take pretty pictures, but they donâ��t have much substance â�� I donâ��t know how to introduce the art or style into my pictures. So an open question: if art is a means of communication â�� what do you have to say?

Iâ��d love to hear peopleâ��s thoughts on this â�� even if it is to tell me that I did manage to come off as a pretentious art student that doesnâ��t know what they are talking about J

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 2:35:14 PM.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/09/2002 02:43:16 PM · #2

If you don't already think that you have a visual style, you're quite damaged, Gordon! :)

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 2:42:08 PM.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/09/2002 02:51:18 PM · #3

My background is also in engineering, at least that's what i do during the day.

I have spent a big chunk of my life in music. Starting from 4-5 years old on the piano, and 6-mid 20's on the violin. I no longer play regularly as much as I did in college. I got to the point where I was able to decide if I wanted to pursue the violin performance as a career/major in college and wimped out for the engineering side :) Violin performance is probably the most competitive field out there, a job with the Austin Symphony will attract about 200 auditions. And Austin Symphony is a low-medium quality metropolitan orchestra, imagine the competition for NYC. So that is the bulk of my experience in the "arts". I have spent as much as 8 hours per day practicing at one point in college. I have taken lessons from some of the best out there (Portland String Quartet's first violinist was my teacher for a while when I was younger). Anyway, to make the story short, i have gotten to the point where I know exactly where my "limitation" is and how far i could go as a violinist.

As far as photography goes, i was into it when I was younger (12-17 or so) but never gotten beyond that in college, using an old Canon SLR (totally mechanical, a simple metering and that's it) and didn't start it again until recently. I view photography as a way of communication like music is and it's fascinating for me because I have been using my hearing as the primary way to communicate instead of visualization. So, i view a good photograph as one that will touch me on an emotional level that music can.

Style wise, that will take time. I suspect it'll take a while for anyone to discover that for themselves. Some people will never get passed the stage of "snapshots", just as some violinist will not get better to play some of the great concertos. The difference is: everyone can learn the technical stuff for photography but not everyone can master the violin technically (i know i can't get to the level that some can with violin), however, the CREATIVE side is the same for both. I haven't seen my limitation with photography, yet, and until i do, i'll continue to take photographs :) and i haven't found my style yet, and I don't suspect I will for a while. But as far as the "types" of photography, i think i like landscape/nature the best, don't know why, maybe for the unpredicability of it,the lack of control of lighting conditions outdoors. The problem for me is that since i haven't trained my eyes as child to look at things DIFFERENTLY, my eyes get molded to the "norm" and ends up seeing everything as objects. That's my biggest obstacle to overcome.

Seeker

Canon EOS-30D

10/09/2002 02:54:39 PM · #4

GMG - In a different thread I posted a quote that I use as a guidepoint for my photograph, it went:

A man who works with his hands is a laborer.
A man who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.
A man who works with his hand, his head and his heart is an artist.

I too come from an engineering background. For a long time the things I've created came from my mind. With photography I want to create with my heart and/or soul. Photography, in my opinion, is just another vehicle for the expression of ideas, thoughts, feelings and concepts. Isn't this what art is? Just as there are painting styles, music styles, etc there are photographic styles. Photography is a vehicle for ideas and we've got our learners permits. I look forward to where it takes me.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 2:54:49 PM.

just-married

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/09/2002 05:39:06 PM · #5

I think we all look at the world differently, from our own unique perspective. Two people looking at the same object don't see the same thing. For me, I am happy with a photograph when I can make it represent what I saw, what moved me, what reached out to me and made me want to make the photo in the first place. It's my opportunity to share a moment with someone as genuinely and sincerely as possible.

This thread is interesting and helpful to me because it gave me cause to reflect on my own intentions and and desires in creating images. Largely, I have been dissatisfied with my participation here at dpc - with respect to the photos I've submitted. I haven't quite been able to put my finger on why. I think this is it: I wasn't moved to take these photos; I was assigned to. (Exception: Day One, which coincidentally is the only one I'm truly pleased with...)

That said, I think that shooting for an assignment is an interesting challenge in itself, but it hasn't left me creating anything I find artistic or expressive. I suppose I have two options: 1) restrain myself from submitting when I don't have an image that is the marriage of art/expression and the challenge topic or 2) continue to submit until I feel I've mastered the shooting for a challenge portion and let the art/expression be married later.

In either case, I've definitely been inspired by dpc to shoot more; so that frees me to go out there and shoot what I want.

Thanks for the thread.
Dawn

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

10/09/2002 05:42:46 PM · #6

Gordon: It does not surprise me in the least that so many engineers become involved in photography. After all, you have been working with balance and symmetry in spatial relationships (even if only in mathmatical abstraction). It seems perfectly natural (and essential) to learn the technical aspects of a medium before moving on to esoterica like 'emotive quality'.

As you play with other design elements (lighting, color, texture, etc.)you become more accomplished at knowing what you want to accomplish with an image. I think many times you can surprise yourself with what you have captured. Soon you will recognize in your work what speaks to you and others...and there you find your 'style'.

Paganini: focusing on 1 form (landscape you say) is an excellent way to hone your skills in all forms of a medium. I had previously done alot of nature work (35mm) but am presently finding more challenge in still lives, especially B&W, and really find it aids me in all areas.

In general, you must be happy with your image, but feedback from others means you have wordlessly communicated and that is an awesome thing.

So, essentially I guess the answer is to shoot everyday and practice, practice, practice!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/09/2002 06:28:06 PM · #7

Originally posted by just-married:

This thread is interesting and helpful to me because it gave me cause to reflect on my own intentions and and desires in creating images. Largely, I have been dissatisfied with my participation here at dpc - with respect to the photos I've submitted. I haven't quite been able to put my finger on why. I think this is it: I wasn't moved to take these photos; I was assigned to. (Exception: Day One, which coincidentally is the only one I'm truly pleased with...)

That said, I think that shooting for an assignment is an interesting challenge in itself, but it hasn't left me creating anything I find artistic or expressive. I suppose I have two options: 1) restrain myself from submitting when I don't have an image that is the marriage of art/expression and the challenge topic or 2) continue to submit until I feel I've mastered the shooting for a challenge portion and let the art/expression be married later.

I can certainly relate to that. I don't think I'm happy with many of
my DPC entries, if any. The first one I like, but I happened to shoot
that the week I found dpc, rather than actually going and shooting for
the challenge.

Although, shooting to a constrained subject is an interesting way of
improving your skills - but I don't think it has led to my best work
except on very few occasions. (Although I actually feel extremely pleased
with my 'sins' entry and my reflections entries. Maybe I'm starting
to get the hang of this. No doubt my sins entry will tank totally ;)

Though I think I get the feeling that my personal preferences or embrionic
style is at odds with the mainstream dpc view of good photography.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/09/2002 06:28:08 PM · #8

Originally posted by mcmurma:
So, essentially I guess the answer is to shoot everyday and practice, practice, practice!

Hey, that's what my violin teacher used to say :)

i think maybe i'll hire a professional photographer where i can get constructive feedbacks. Or better yet, where we could go shoot at the same subject and compare the prints on a weekly basis. That's essentially what most photographic workshops do where you congregate at the same place and shoot at the same things but differnet people will see the same thing differently.

Natasha

Nikon D50

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

10/09/2002 09:51:02 PM · #9

Interesting discussion....

I think for me, I am coming from the opposite side. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the technical stuff and this is what I need to learn. Sometimes though, thinking too much can stop you seeing. This is maybe why its hard to go out and take a picture on a specified topic, instead of letting something appear to you naturally, you have to look for it. I have been told that I have "good eyes" and can find something different in things, I dont know if this is true, but I know that without the technical ability, it will be very hard to take pictures like some of those on this site.

Gracious

10/09/2002 11:36:23 PM · #10

So an open question: if art is a means of communication â�� what do you have to say?

Having the liberty to communicate what I have to say through my photographs/art is that it is a good thing to see from a different perspective. I possess a vehicle to show people what they may otherwise overlook. It may be something tangible, such as subtle color differences in fruit, or bird feathers, or whatever. On the other hand it may be insight to a lifestyle, a culture, an emotion, etc.

Mostly what I have to say in my art is there is a vast amount of beauty in our world, and it desparately needs to be brought to light. It's like I am mining for it. Of course I also recognize the darkness and pain in the world and feel that also needs to be brought to light, but for me, a person who aches for the hurting, I need mostly to do more uplifting works.

I used to be very involved in prison ministry, on a local and national level. I received art from many of the men, all in maximum security, and some on death row. How amazing that so much beautiful art was manifested in their dark world.

Some of the great art I've seen is also from physically disfigured people, who are rejected by many. I marvel! Such beauty within, in spite of the harsh realities they face daily.

So I guess what I'm thinking is that more passion goes into art when a person has suffered. We've all heard of the stereotypical "starving artist." (hey....that's me!..lol) When everything is A-OK with a person they may be missing the passion to bring their art to life.

'Nuff said for now. Mebbe more later...Peace!

RLS

Canon EOS-10D

10/10/2002 12:33:18 AM · #11

Originally posted by mcmurma:
Gordon: It does not surprise me in the least that so many engineers become involved in photography. After all, you have been working with balance and symmetry in spatial relationships (even if only in mathmatical abstraction). It seems perfectly natural (and essential) to learn the technical aspects of a medium before moving on to esoterica like 'emotive quality'.

As you play with other design elements (lighting, color, texture, etc.)you become more accomplished at knowing what you want to accomplish with an image. I think many times you can surprise yourself with what you have captured. Soon you will recognize in your work what speaks to you and others...and there you find your 'style'.

Paganini: focusing on 1 form (landscape you say) is an excellent way to hone your skills in all forms of a medium. I had previously done alot of nature work (35mm) but am presently finding more challenge in still lives, especially B&W, and really find it aids me in all areas.

In general, you must be happy with your image, but feedback from others means you have wordlessly communicated and that is an awesome thing.

So, essentially I guess the answer is to shoot everyday and practice, practice, practice!

I have always believed - perfect practice makes perfect.

One must practice the correct things to perfect the technical side and the aesthetic side of photography. When this has happened the two can meld harmoniously to create art.

I believe to become a good amateur photographer people must expend much time, energy, and resources learning and doing the right things at the right time with regard to all aspects of photography.

Having said this I realize I have a long way to go but think I will greatly enjoy the journey.

I'll get off my soapbox now ...

Bob

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

10/10/2002 01:20:33 AM · #12

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/10/2002 02:32:08 AM · #13

Originally posted by Natasha:
Interesting discussion....

I think for me, I am coming from the opposite side. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the technical stuff and this is what I need to learn. Sometimes though, thinking too much can stop you seeing. This is maybe why its hard to go out and take a picture on a specified topic, instead of letting something appear to you naturally, you have to look for it. I have been told that I have "good eyes" and can find something different in things, I dont know if this is true, but I know that without the technical ability, it will be very hard to take pictures like some of those on this site.

The technical side...

Well, with the camera that I have there is not really much technical stuff I can do. I can't adjust shutterspeeds, aperture, or anything like that, so for me, one of the most important things is getting the picture to look good BEFORE I take a photo of it, whether this is created through the props I use, lighting, or whatever.

You don't need to be too technical while doing this because by experimenting, you can see what looks good. Then you can play around with angles and distances to get your creation in the best photo you can.

For a lot of the best photographers on the site, what I've said may seem simple, well that's because it is!

The first step in photography is knowing what looks good. Technical ability just helps you out :)

At least, that's my opinion. Others may, and will, disagree.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

10/10/2002 03:53:14 AM · #14

Hmm... I think there's a lot of that left brain/right brain stuff going on in this thread, although there isn't much scientific validity to that conception of the bain anymore. There is definitely a different way of seeing involved in switching over from taking technically and stylistically good photos to taking photos that satisfy you as an artist.

If you're looking for an answer or a rule to follow, it's not going to happen. You have to change the way you see the world before you can start to reflect that in your photos. I'm so glad my parents encouraged me to draw as a very young child, because I kept that up all through my development and taught myself a lot of the things I later learned officially in art classes in school (and extracurricular) when I was still only a kid. It's about being able to look at things around you, forgetting what they "are" (ie. what they're called, what they're used for, all the concepts invested in them) and just seeing what they look like... their shape, their texture, the way the light hits them, the way perspective distorts them, etc. Drawing helps you to do this much more easily than photography does, although it's possible with photography.

Once you've learned how to see that way, objects will kind of take on a dual meaning to you. A piece of paper lying on the ground might be "garbage", and because of that label and its meaning you would normally have a negative reaction to it or ignore it and walk right past. But if you've learned to SEE it the way an artist will, it will have a dual meaning to you... first of all the label "garbage" but alongside that the feeling you get from seeing its shapes, its textures, its position on the ground, the shadows it makes, the way the light hits it, etc.

Once you have that double meaning going on every time you see things around you, you'll start to compose images in a different way. You'll try to maximise both types of meaning in your photos - the labels, ideas and concepts involved in objects and those feelings you get just from their form, colour, texture, lighting conditions, etc. THEN you'll have all the tools available to you to make the photos that please and satisfy you the most.

If you do see the world this way and still feel unhappy about your abilities as an "artist", then I think it's just a lack of self-confidence or perhaps self knowledge. Listen to what makes you feel good, what makes you feel as though you're touching something with your photos, or revealing something. That's what your art will be.

Partly, art is about self-love in the purest, most childish, most egotistical way. When you look at a photo and love it, it's partly because you love yourself for making it and being able to see what you do in it. Not having that quality isn't necessarily a bad thing :). So don't feel down about it. Most artists have some kind of deep insecurity that drives them to try and love themselves through their work, I think. It's a frustrating way to live.

10/10/2002 09:16:23 AM · #15

I think this reflections entry has a lot
of that disassociation with reality going on. The simple rotation makes
you focus more on the shapes and how they interact than what the shapes
actually are. It becomes an abstract study, without really trees, sky
and water and I think, ends up more interesting because of it.

I've read drawing books discussing techniques like drawing upside down,
to try and free you from your critical, analytical naming side (whether
you think or believe in left/ right brain ideas or not, the underlying
principle is the same) Part of your brain works flat out on naming things,
the other part works more with shapes and relationships, but we tend to
focus on the naming of things rather than on the larger impact of what
they are.