Why are some digital photographers so freaked over tech specs and other technical issues?

Question

I can understand if you're a commercial photographer and you have an assignment you have to fulfill to expect specifications, but for creative and artisitic photography, why are so many digital photographers so obsessed over the most minute tech details. Most artists--including photographers--do their best work by exploiting accidents or 'mistakes.' For example, photographers will get obsessed over reducing noise when 'noise' can be used as a creative artifact--if you're so hung up about getting it 'right,' I'd think you're limiting your chances of doing really original work. Pros and cons to this view?

These are mostly excellent answers and it's truly impossible to select the 'best' since they have varying perspectives. I didn't mean to say being technically oriented was a bad thing--sometimes it seems people get obsessed to the degree they lose sight of the original purpose for inquiring about a particular technical element.

I guess I'll just pick the longest response simply for the effort put into it; best responses I ever had from a yahoo question. Thanks

Answer 1

This is a broad generalization but throughout the history of photography, in particular fine art photography there have been two schools of thought. On one side of the fence resides those photographers who feel photography should be 1:1, that is what is in a photograph should reflect what we see in reality which means broad tonal ranges, minimal grain and sharpness from foreground to background. Ansel Adams and the F64 photographers fit into this group. On the other hand you have the photographers who see photography as something more than what it is. These are your so called soft focus painterly photographers, darkroom manipulators/special effects artists. A lot of photographers fit into this category as well for example Joel Peter Witkin, Ej Belloq, Jan Saudek,Sally Man, and Chuck Closes dagguereotype series. and just about everyone on this website http://www.alternativephotography.com/

People who fall into the category of tech freaks often can be categorized as those who view photography as nothing more than what it is, a reflection of reality. In terms of "tech freaks" fine art photography has had its fair share ever since the invention of the photography. In fact in the early days of photography a great deal of the photographers were chemists, and scientist, not artists. Perhaps the most notable "tech freaks" in recent photo history was the f64 group, in particular Ansel Adams, the Zone system and this thing we call previsualization.
Sometimes when you are photographing a scene you know exactly how you want the final print to look which in the Zone system of photography is called previsualization. However as you know there are limitations as to what you can do with film and if you expose and develop a negative as normal you may not be able to realize the image that you saw in your imagination. Thus we have the zone system which as you know is a set of rules/calculations which you can use to properly expose and develop your images so that you may achieve that image that you had in your imagination. So in the case of F64 photographers and zone system practioners, being concerned with technical side of photography was a way for you to get closer to realizing what it was that you had in your imagination.
On the other hand you have fine art photographers who embrace mistakes or the manipulation of the image either by digital or darkroom means. They will use antiquated photographic processes like wet plate collodion, or dagguereotypes which are almost impossible to practice without making a mistake. Or in the case of Joel Peter witkin, will actually partially destroy the image with scratches and such to give the feeling of age and depth. A lot of people who consider themselves purists, that is practioners of straight photography absolutely despise the manipulator because as they feel they don't embrace the media for what it is. The general belief is why practice photography when what you are really doing is closer to painting.
However, I think that this is a pointless debate, there is no wrong and there is no right. Straight photographers who are concerned with technical aspects have the same artistic merit as those who have painterly tendency and embrace imperfections. Both sides are creative and thats what is really important, not the camera, not the film, not the sensor, its all about creativity.

Answer 2

I often "publish" the meta data with my images, because so many people ask. Most of them are new at photography and they just want to learn. Actually, most pros or advanced amateurs would pretty much know the parameters anyhow, just by looking, or at least they would know the general range of my settings.

You are right that SOME images are no more than happy accidents and they work out beautifully well. But, if you want to increase the odds of getting better results, you eventually have to learn something about controlling the settings on your camera so that things come out the way that you WANT them to instead just stumbling on a good result.

In your example about using digital noise as a creative element, how would you control the amount of noise if you did not know what settings or situations created different levels of noise? If you WANT to use noise as a "creative artifact," you need to know how to create it. Otherwise, you would end up taking five hundred pictures hoping that one or two finally had the amount of noise that you were hoping to "capture" in the image.

A photographer can learn how to exploit accidents and mistakes by paying attention to the conditions and settings that created that mistake in the first place so that it can be created again at some time in the future when you WANT to create it. If you WANT to create something and are able to do it at your own will, then it is no longer an accident.

Your logic reminds me of the basic philosophy behind punk and thrash music, which I pretty much despise. They think that music is so organic that you can just pick up an instruement and see what happens and hope that you make great music. I think it doesn't work that way. Neither does great photography.

Answer 3

I agree that sometimes people get too hung up on specifications and technical issues but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. To quote Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) "A man has got to know his limitations." IMO a photographer has to know the limitations of his equipment and how to work around them and/or exploit them.

Where the problem arises is, I think, when that's all people know - specifications. You probably know someone who is always buying the latest offering from the various manufacturers - they sell a 7mp camera to buy a 10mp one; they fret until they can afford the latest f2.8 constant aperture 18-300mm zoom; they have every gadget and gizmo. Yet somehow, they never actually manage to take a photograph worth hanging on their wall. Camera and lens manufacturers and gadget and gizmo manufacturers love these people.

Then there are those who are more concerned with making good images. Their technical expertise is knowing how light, ISO, aperture and shutter speed interact to make a good exposure. Their concern is how to see photographically and how to compose their photograph. They know how to maximize the equipment they have and how to work around its limitations. They strive to "get it right" in the camera rather than hoping to be able to "fix it" in Photoshop.

I disagree totally with the statement "Most artists - including photographers - do their best work by exploiting accidents or 'mistakes'." No doubt Ansel Adams would get a good laugh from such a statement. Yes, occasionally a really strong image is the result of an accident. Such instances are rare, however. The vast majority of good images are the products of visualization and use of good photographic techniques.

My biggest knock against digital cameras is that they encourage what I call "shotgun photography" - take 300, 400 images and hope you can find 20 or 30 worth keeping. IMO, digital cameras also discourage actual learning about photography. Just turn it on, point it and press the shutter release - and then wonder why all your vacation photos turned out blurry (a recent lament from someone in here). Or spend hours at the computer trying to fix an image with one of the editing programs.

Also, from some of the questions in here, many people seem (IMO) to think that digital cameras are somehow "magical". How often do we read "I want to buy a camera that takes really good pictures at night without flash."? Or, "Which camera should I buy to be a professional photographer"? Or, "I'm shooting a wedding next week. What settings should I use and should I use flash"?

No, I don't agree that someone who is "hung up about getting it right" is in any way shape or form limiting their creativity or lessening their chances of doing original work. Creativity and originality come from the photographer's skill and knowledge. To Edward Weston, this was "seeing photographically," a process by which we concentrate on an object or observe an event, decide what kind of image we want to make from it, and then see the image in our mind as a picture." *

Yes, I am a "dinosaur" (I prefer the term "traditional photographer" haha), still happily using film and carrying cameras that are approaching middle age. I've never earned my living as a photographer. Most of my photos are for me. My "education" in photography has been by reading and doing, although I did take a darkroom class. I also taught darkroom classes on a small scale.

* From "Object & Image: An Introduction To Photography, Third Edition" by George M. Craven

Answer 4

i don't know of many photographers willing to work with noise, noise pretty much turns everybody's stomach, both photographers and customers. What a lot of photographers really like to work with is film grain, which is hard to produce with digital. Many artfull photographers go back to film just to get the effect. Photoshop CS3 has this feature in it, but it doesn't work as well as some stand alone programs specifically made for producing the film grain look. When using these programs, you'll have to start with a pretty clean image or it becomes even more of a stomach turner when you mix noise with film grain. Hpe this helps.

Answer 5

Of course, you're right ... but remember: not all photographers are artists.

Those who are "hung up" on technical specs are NOT artists, they're (at best) technicians. And that's fine. Don't judge them ... and don't concern yourself if they judge you.

However ... I DO think it's really important to know the basic principles and to understand the tools you have to work with before you start getting "creative."

Art, after all, is something we do for ourselves. The moment one starts worrying about whether or not anybody else is going to "like" what we do, we cease to be an artist and become something else.

Concerning "Noise," well ... I just think it's ugly. But I've never seen your work. Maybe if I did I would like the way you use noise. I doubt it ... but it's possible.

The possibilities in the digital realm are endless. I experiment all the time and have discovered many images that are very satisfying for me. And sometimes ... just sometimes ... other people like them too.

The most important thing is for you to be happy doing your thing. Just don't ever expect to make a living at it. Your odds of supporting yourself with your art alone are very slim.

But, hey ... you're an artist ... and that's a wonderful thing to be!

Answer 6

My friend had a photography class and the teacher told them to buy optical cameras instead of digital cameras. Apparently he thought they were superior to digital cameras but i couldn't tell you why other then maybe the quality is a little better. I know for sure they last a lot longer. With digital prints the paint eventually fades over the years.

Answer 7

Because they're gear-heads first, photographers second.