Image quality…the mission continues.
September 9th, 2008. Filed under: Thinking about Photography and Art.
The way to Art is through Craft, not around it
-Ansel Adams
There’s nothing worse than the technically brilliant execution of a fuzzy concept
-Edward Weston
Dear Reader (Just indulging myself. Hey, it worked for Charles Dickens):
The last post threw up questions from a couple of you that I wanted to talk about in a full post, rather than hide in the comments section. It is a bit of a ramble with disparate elements that won’t appear to hang together at first.
I will say it again:
I am pedantic about image quality.
Quality has always mattered to me. Quality is a matter of Craft. I think it was Ansel Adams who said: The way to art is through Craft, not around it. For as long as I can remember, quality has been a kind of Everest for me, a summit I never quite seem to conquer. Just when I think I have it in my sights, it moves out of reach again, and I discover some aspect of Process I hadn’t thought about before or even been aware of. Perhaps I am more philosophically aligned to Group f64 than I thought. Interestingly their manifesto stated:
Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the “Pictorialist,” on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.
The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.
Well, technically at least…
Capturing the image itself is only part of the process. Post-production is as important to the realisation of an idea that began before the shutter was pressed. Part of that consideration (previsualisation) is an understanding and acknowledgement of the final image’s size and printed form. Understanding this takes time and has implications. It also has history. Art History.
Consider the portrait. By and large most of us who do this for a living will tend to sell these in the smaller sizes ( 13 x 18, 20 x 25), for a number of reasons: the depth of the client’s pockets, the way they want to display it, the amount of wall space they have and the importance of the images to them. It is a hangover from the days of the bourgeoisie’s discovery of the photograph which in its infancy was the wallet-sized tintype and daguerreotype. It was some time before photography was able to deliver life-sized prints .This mantelpiece mentality has continued to the present.
The life-sized portrait (where the head(s) in the work is/are life-sized) presents an entirely different aesthetic. Because it is at 100%, our reading of it is quite different than when we peer into a 13 x 18 in a Warehouse frame on top of someone’s telly. It immediately assumes a grandeur, significance and a presence that demands our attention. Now this portrait is firmly linked to the traditions of painting. Now it references Art’s past. Just look at the work of Phillip Stewart Charis. We view it differently because it is life-sized and, because it is life-size, we expect it to be life-like. This means that every hair needs to be in place, every nuance of expression perfectly-timed, the lighting entirely appropriate and of course the skin tone has to be representative, to reflect what we might expect to see. If not, our trust is disturbed, our expectations dis-placed. We don’t buy it, either metaphorically or probably literally. If I am going to undertake a commission with an eventual result at that size, I need to consider it before I begin. If I think the client might want a portrait that big, I need to factor it in. It has implications for lighting, posing, choice of sensor, everything. And of course the emotion the image will convey. Which has implications for lighting, posing, choice of sensor, everything. It is a circular thing. I know what you are thinking. How many portraits have I done that big? None. But I might be asked to so. As a consequence I plan it so that possibility is covered. And increase my skills in the process.
As I said, I am pedantic about quality.
As for my landscapes, it is about near and far. I want viewers to feel that same thing I did, to feel as if they were there. I want them to feel the same sense of awe or perhaps the sublime I did when I made the exposure. I want them to participate through the willing suspension of disbelief (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1817) and feel the moment I felt. I want them to feel as if they are in the image. To so, they need to experience a blade of grass at a fencepost occupying less than 0.001% of the picture space at the same time that a scale-defying sky is overhead. The micro-details help to establish this sense of scale, with a visual weight far beyond their proportion in the picture-space. I am sure we all try to achieve that. I am sure that is why we exhibit; we enter competitions at our local camera club (and even join the committee) or try and sell our work. We want to share the moment.
And quality is a part of that. I want my viewers to feel the Power of the Moment as I did. And I need to make my work big to do so. Does the large (A1) size affect the number of sales? Curiously, Ian, no. I have sold more A1 prints at the price I do than I have at A2, 3 or even 4. I am not sure .
I guess that if you want a portfolio of you best work to share, and then A3 or even A2 is the way to go. Perfect. Or better still, one of those online books printed on the new HP Indigo, such as the one Eva Polak has done, using Blurb ( I want one). I think it was Pedro Meyer who said that the immortality of your images lies in printed form, i.e the book.
Back to quality. Of late I have begun, in my workshops, to suggest people concerned about quality avoid using f22, since at that aperture the optics and hence the image becomes diffraction limited. I was wrong. The actual maximum aperture a digital photographer should use is (depending on the camera) closer to f8. Yes, you are probably as stunned as I was! You can read more here.
In addition, my recent experience with making very large works has led me to realise that the appearance of a print at A4 is quite different when I upscale it to A1. There is a shift in the tonal relationships and the gaps between begin to be more apparent. It is more, much more, than merely noise or resolution or sensor size, although it begins there. I intend to cover this in some detail during the advanced digital workshop I will be offering on the front of the workshops Sally, Freeman and I will be offering in February, 2009 in Akaroa.
In the end, it depends what you do. If sharpness and micro-detail are irrelevancies for you, as with Eva’s work, then pedantries like mine are a non- event. However, if your picture-making concerns involve these issue then quality is an issue.
We never really master anything.
We only refine.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I think that there are 2 issues that you are talking about.
First is the quality thing. Thats a bit like the perfect golf swing. You need to always strive for a better swing and how good you are will depend on where you are at in the development of your game. But you cant let striving for the perfect swing effect the way you play the game on a particular day. There is also no point at all in trying to be Tiger Woods when you are on an 18 handicap.
Making creative images is more important than technical perfection.
Striving for achievable technical goals is the key. Dont worry too much about defraction at f22 when you havnt got the picture in proper focus.
I think that the craft comes with time if you are aware of it and just let it happen.
I also think that although big prints make technical issues more obvious that the issues are real no matter the size of the print. Ive often seen 2 similar images in my Lightroom library and one has a 3 dimensional quality with lots more “pop”. A quick look at 100% and the focus is off just a little bit on the lesser image. When I think about it the difference was obvious on a small thumbnail.
The second is print size.
I think that you hit it with your comments about “power of the moment”.
Print size is about power.
Thinking of portraits. The huge paintings of noblemen and Kings which were painted in years gone by were actually all about power. The lines of pictures made it quite clear to the servants that “my dead Grandfather is still more important than you are” and to the current crop of noblefolks it said “Grandfather was a real man and you better live up to that standard”. Nothing delecate about that at all.
We are probably more comfortable with a small portrait because we dont really want to tell our visitors that we are all powerful in this house.
But in landscape terms your Maniototo image just sing when they are big because they are all about the power of the place.
A delecate, detailed image would, however, lose its subtlety if it is made too big.
I think Ive concluded that selecting a picture size is like cropping an image. The feeling that you are trying to produce is greatly effected by the size and the shape of the picture. Sometimes, in an exhibit or portfolio perhaps, both size and shape are constrained. However “in a perfect world” each image would be the size and shape that it needs to be to tell its story………..and it would be technically perfect!!
Ian
PS Hope this doesnt sound like too much of a lecture on your blog. Your posts made me think about it and here is my response
September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ian: Many thanks for the comments and taking the time to write this. I appreciate it.
Now to my reply:
Firstly I agree with the comments about my landscapes. remeber that these are important picture-making concerns for me. Years ago I would look at the work of the greats and wonder how they got images that were so perfect. I just couldn’t seem to do it. Then I realised they had their technique so down that it happened. It has taken me nearly 20 years to draw the pieces together so they fitted.
Back then I would have agreed with you. Creativity must precede Art. A golf swing is a golf swing.Now I know otherwise. It is just not that simple. Tiger Woods understands more about a golf swing than most golfers will ever know. Some will see the subtleties but not know how to get there. Others will not even be aware of them. I include myself (handicap of 245 000) in that category.
Does that mean that I will concentrate on staggering drunk around the course because I want to be creative? (interesting idea!) Does that mean my lack of awareness gives me permission to turn my back on it and stop trying to be the best golfer I can? I do not think so. Of course, if I focus so hard on my finger tip (technique) that I miss all that heavenly glory (ideas, creativity)then I fall into the trap Weston so eloquently outlines.
So it is with photography.At what point does my lack of awareness become an excuse?
At what point is my message blurred by understandings I am not even aware I need?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ian:
PS:
It is going to be great fly fishing season, methinks!
September 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
So I feel like a rainbow trout in a sunny patch of a mountain stream. A big juicy fly lands nearby….but it doesnt look quite right….no Ill leave it…..but it does look interesting…… ah what the hell……….
Firstly, to take that golfing metaphor a bit further (probably too far), I ask who is it that knows more about golf – the creative drunk or the guy who spends days at the driving range trying to get “good” enough to step onto a golf course. My experience of the golfing gods is that once or twice in every round they let you make a shot which just feels right. It isnt controlled, it isnt repeatable but you do know what it feels like and it is those one or two shots which bring you back each time. That feeling just doesnt exist on a four story high driving range and its the feeling that really matters.
I think it the same feeling you had when you looked at “the work of the greats”. You knew the feeling and you hunted it down.
So what turns a landscape photographer such as the (in)famous Sedgwick-Effington, whose work was made in full sun because of the bright colours with a red car as a point of interest, into a dramatic artist whose work is full of power and feeling.
Is it an advancment of technical skills?
I think not.
The first step any photographer makes is not made using a camera. The first step is made by seeing the drama in a sunset.
Once you have seen the drama and felt the passion you start to chase that feeling just as the new golfer chases the perfect shot. Technical skills grow because there is a vision to chase not just as an exercise in tachnical excellence. Sure there are misundertsood blurry messages sent along the way but if the vision remains then there is a path to follow and the rest will happen.
One significant difference between photographers today and Weston and F64 is that there is a level of technical excellence which today is “given”. Th engineers at Canon, Nikon and now Sony (24 mp full frame for $3000us!!!) have made sure that most photographs “turn out”. The first step towards the craft is easy so we can get on with the Why more quickly.
A challenge – have a look in your old visual dairies and see if you can find any reference to a technical skill you have developed which has been useful for its own sake. I think technical advancments which help to express a vision are the ones which help us grow.
Ian
September 10th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Ian:
More like a cockabully in the Cam, in your case!
Rupert would not be interested in such trivial matters as fine technique. He would rather return home to his Mum by 5pm, giving him time to polish the Austin Princess and Armorall the vinyl roof before tucking into his meat and 3 veg!
You miss the point. No technical skill is useful for its own sake. Reread Weston’s comment. And the golfing analogy is off-compass. you visit a driving range to improve your swing, so that when you do it for real, i.e on a course, the results are more favourable and the satisfaction consummated on the nineteenth.
True, digital has made technical accuracy more easily attainable, but it has also raised the bar for excellence.We now take good control for granted.But “turning out” is like saying that because I finished the full 18 holes I am now a great golfer. I am sure you would agree that is not the case.
perhaps a better analogy is martial arts, and Tai Ch’i Chuan in particular. After a while you have all the moves in whatever form you are learning in your memory, and can repeat them without having to stumble. Does this mean you have it sorted? Of course not. You have only begun. Ask any martial arts master and they will tell you they themselves have only begun. You never master anything. You only refine. The I Ching offers that message to those who can see.
And photography is no different.
Mastering exposure, to give an example, is never completed. There are layers of understanding. To say you have it sorted is to deny yourself the understandings that come as you constantly revisit it.
and the potential for new understandings in your work.
Or another analogy. Have you mastered flying when you go solo? Of course not. Have you mastered it when they let you behind the wheel/tiller/stick/whatever of an A4 because you have completed the training course? Of course not.when they tire of you and send you off to trundle around the world in a C-130 for the rest of your career, did you have the A4 sorted? Mostly, but never quite…
You never master anything. You only refine.
You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
George W. Bush
September 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
So why do we call some people MASTERS?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hi Tony,
Ive re-read the whole string and basically I agree with you. So why the discussion?
I guess that it is the nature of a hooked cockabully to swim against the pull of the line regardless of the direction he wants to go!!
Time to stop with the metaphors and say what I am really thinking.
Perhaps Ive given the impression that I think that craft is less important than creativity. Not so. I have found that, for me, improvements in craft come more easily than improvements in creativity.
In the past few years of my photographic journey Ive come a long way. I have found that technically that development wasnt difficult to achieve. This is partly because of the huge range of resources that are easily available. The are “how to” articles in every magazine, the “University of Google” is amasing and courses and workshops have helped a lot. Perhaps Ive just climbed the steep part of the learning curve and it gets hard from here. Whatever the reason my experience is that when driven by a passion to grow that technical improvments just happened.
Im not there yet (wherever there is) and I dont expect to ever be there. But I do expect that as long as the passion remains that growth of my craft will follow.
It seems to me that photography as a creative endevour attracts technical sorts of people. Ive met engineers, nuclear physisists, IT gurus, science teachers, pilots….the list goes on. We must all be attracted to the shiney buttons on the camera. The difference photography offers to people like me, who work in a technical world, is that to get good at it you must get creative. The craft is a familiar technical thing but to really follow the path you must let your right brain take over.
For each of us our craft will grow in a different way depending on the vision we are following. You have pursued the big print because the powerful passionate landscapes you are driven to make need big prints. The craft skills have followed the vision.
Im not yet sure where my vision will take me. Thats why I think that creativity is the harder thing to achieve. I am however confident that my craft skills will get me where I need to go.
The cockabully is getting puffed!!!! I think I need Pinot to continue this conversation.
Am I wrong…… Do others think “vision is easy , craft is hard”???
Ian
September 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hi Ian:
I think “vision is easy,craft is hard” is for Pros.
“vision is hard,craft is easy” is for amateurs.
And when you can do both easily,then you are a master.
Ray
September 14th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Ray:
That is good. Very good.
Thank you.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I found myself here after retrieving an email of Tony’s from the trash bin, and as they have never been sent there before I was intrigued!
I think the significant difference between the majority of photographers of today and Weston, group F64, and countless other great photographers in history is primarily that they were continually doing things that weren’t being done by their contemporaries.
Nobody at all escapes being limited by their skill and vision, there is no destination so you cant get there! and creativity is not a process, it is originality of thought or expression!
So being creative photographically can be as simple as avoiding making a picture when presented with a potential image you’ve seen countless times before! Exploring the possibilities within any given situation and asking yourself why you make photographs, and how you can express that in that moment will encourage originality, and therefore creativity. If you think back to Ansel Adams, he knew what his prints would look like at the time of making his exposure, but this was more than simply knowing how he was going to print them, he knew why he was making photographs! And those people who also know why he did rarely find his work boring, as many do!
What one has to say in their photographs will always outweigh and can even lessen the apparentness of any lack of skill. But no amount of skill can give one vision!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
[QUOTE]So what turns a landscape photographer such as the (in)famous Sedgwick-Effington, whose work was made in full sun because of the bright colours with a red car as a point of interest, into a dramatic artist whose work is full of power and feeling.
Is it an advancment of technical skills?
I think not.
The first step any photographer makes is not made using a camera. The first step is made by seeing the drama in a sunset.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry but I have to agree (very much) with Ian’s phrase here. I’m sure Anthony Rupert has just the same technical skill as our Tony, but produces none of the emotion or drama or mystery which draws us in. And that’s not just because he misses chilly dawn shoots for him mum’s brekkie in bed!
I think with the advent of digital more and more people will produce technically perfect photos as the technology makes it progressively easier to do so. But those will not be the images which history will remember. Those images will have something extra. Many of them may well turn out to be Ian’s and Tony’s. (And I’m not just taking this side because of my issues with mirror slap!). Indeed (well hopefully!) with the joe public accessing more high end equipment (there are more than a few tourists who arrive here with D300’s, 5D’s and 40D’s firmly lodged in auto) it may become more and more essential for professional photographers to have a high level of creativity and art to survive in the industry. But I guess technique too if they want to have their prints big…
I can mostly capture expression and emotion reasonably well in humans. But to do it in the landscape is a true skill I have yet to master…
megs last blog post..More for Mylie…
September 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Hi Meg:
Almost all of you have missed the point and to a degree, I amm with you all.
I supplied both quotes because both are valid. Weston’s quote is so true. technique of itself will not make a great image. If you follow that road only, your work becomes technically brilliant but boring. It says nothing.
On the other hand an image that began with an idea can be very interesting but confuse because the technique does not support it or is inept. In other words it gets in the way. Here Ansel is correct.
What happens past a certain point is that technique becomes important to adequately support the statement being made. Does this mean you give up on technique because you have all you need?
That might work for some. To me that is to lounge back into the Slough of Complacency. Your work then runs a severe risk of becoming formulaic.
I am continually developing my ideas as they come to me and as they do, they demand more of me technically to better realise them and to get the message across. Therein lies the challenge. Vision and craft proceed together.
Anthony Rupert is foremost a craftsman. But he has no vision, no sensitivity towards his subject. It is a job. His real passion, if he has any, is to lead a quiet life and look after his Mum. He is a part-time photographer, both aesthetically and emotionally.
You comment that the new kit makes it possible to “produce technically perfect photos”. I do not accept that. They will only ever appear that to those who can’t see beyond that level. and there are levels beyond that. Bruce Lee understood things about Martial Arts that most of us will never know. There is always a road ahead.
furthermore landscape photography is NOT a skill. Skill is about technique. Landscape photography is about a response to it, and that comes from taking the time to make a response to oneself.
I heard recently that Colin McCahon, the great New Zealand painter, described all his works as autobiographical. Look at the work and you would know where he was in his life at the point where he mad e the image.
The same holds true for me.
You may wonder why I do my story posts. They are the greatest gift I have to offer you all (along with the visual diary!). They are the signposts I would offer. Reread this one and it may become clear. Or not. The image was made and chosen for this post quite deliberately. I am happy to share all I know. And the real answers are in there.
Finally, a quote:
Unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
September 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“You comment that the new kit makes it possible to “produce technically perfect photos”.”
-no I didn’t say that that’s possible now- I said “more people WILL produce technically perfect photos as the technology makes it progressively easier to do so.” and it was probably unfair and distracting to throw my vision of the future into the mix! But I do think that will be the case, VR lenses and faster autofocus, huge ISO’s, auto sensor cleaning etc etc are only just the beginning… It is more than possible the digi camera of 15 years from now could make any sort of shake a thing of the past, or complex LR programs fix all those little faults we try to currently fix in camera. They may be photos with absolutely no compositional merit at all. But will they have mirror slap? I think not. But this is not an invite to debate tech advances!!
However I do absolutely concede to using the term skill incorrectly (my husband says I never admit to being wrong so this is for him!)
SKILL: noun [C or U]
an ability to do an activity or job well, especially because you have practised it:
Ruth had/possessed great writing skills.
I have no skill at/in sewing… I’m not entirely sure my phrase “skill I have yet to master” doesn’t still have an element of truth!
But we are in agreement essentially about Mr Sedgewick Effington, I think (I have had a glass of Mummy’s pamol ie wine). I’m sure there was never an attempt to belittle the koha of your posts with the comments, rather an enthusiam to extrapolate further the idea, and hence learn. It’s all knowlege I both need and want…
megs last blog post..More for Mylie…
September 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The front page of The Photographers Mail has a wonderful quote from Jackie Ranken which brilliantly sums up how I feel about this.
She says: “Creativity is more about ideas than techniques. Its about looking at things differently and developing an idea or a theme. Technique alone is not enopugh, because it doesnt say anything – you start with the idea and use techniques to make the image effective, not the other way around”.
Actually I think that we are all probably saying the same thing with a slightly different emphasis. Both craft and vision must grow together and this is just a “chicklen or the egg” argument.
Ray I liked your comment and I see it this way. A pro (on a commercial shoot anyway) it told what to photograph. Effectivly and efficiently achieving the aim is what he seeks to do and that is all about craft. Thats what earns the $$$. While and amateur (lets say an artist so we can include pros shooting for themselves) is driven by his own ideas so vision must be the driver.
Ian
September 19th, 2008 at 5:44 am
I have just spent 4 weeks in berlin taking it all in. How can I express with photography what I feel for berlin? This amazing ciy where the world feels at home but those from here search the world for a better place..like me. Looking for my own identity in this big city that is home made my head spinning and image ideas were plenty. But I was so busy absorbing and following my eyes, that I ended up with hardly any mages at all. So sometimes being a creative photographer even works without producing no images at all and it puts all technical matter aside. I must say it was powerful and I will have to return to berlin to finally take all y shots.
But what I actually wanted to share with you is Leonard Freed’s point of view, I just returned from his exhibition. His photgraphs were without exception technically superb. He knows his stuff but what matters most is that you can see in his images that he has pursued his projects over long periods of time. His photo documentaries took years to come to fruition. His quiet, respectful way of looking at life and people is what makes his work so fascinating, and what creates the visual power behind his poignant studies. And I studied what final image he has selected from a dozen of images lets say for for a magazine or an exhibition…It was the one with the best composition and where what he saw/felt was best expressed. But and here is the point, all of his other negatives were of technical perfection too. So he is a true master.
I still have a lot to learn but its fun and worth it! One day I will hopefully be able to express with photography how I feel about Berlin.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi Michaela
I was once told that you MUST have images for the mind BEFORE you can make images in the camera! And it sounds as if you have done just that (and very happily too I imagine) in Berlin.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
in 1981 Ansel Adams wrote:
“I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such system will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them”
so right
June 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Super-Duper site! I am loving it!! Will come back again – taking your feeds also, Thanks.