• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Image making: macro or micro?

Jack_Flesher

New member
What's most important, the art or the technology, semantics or result?

A recent thread has prompted this question, as I realized there are those of us concerned with the minutiae surrounding the technology and science of making an image, and some even wanting to argue the verbiage or semantics used in discussing same, while others could care less about any of that and just want to make a good image.

So I am curious, where do you as individuals fall in this spectrum and how does it all relate to you and your images?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What's most important, the art or the technology, semantics or result?

.......
Jack,

Semantics is only truly important in selling or buying work. Who's the photographer, if it's documentary, is it representative of what happened or biased; if sold as a chromogenic print, is it made on an inkjet or is it a Cibachrome or Lightjet print? Is it archival and how to I look after it?

For art, the photographer can do what he/she likes, using a soft focus lens, slow shutter, smearing on vaseline or blurring it in photoshop, whatever needed to get the gentler effect required. I don't need to know any such details to buy the print.

However, if a unique and fascinating picture is shown and I want to learn from that, I might wish enough to be able to try that approach. Then terminology may matter again. It does make a difference to know if I can get that handheld with my 50mm macro or I need a special setup with a stage, twin lights and a software program to merge stacked slices of the subject.

We should enjoy art in a gallery and embed ourselves in the esthetic, sensotic, social experience and implications of an image, not obsess about gear and terms used. Still, if the artist will describe it, I'll never miss the opportunity to learn.

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Agreed Asher. But if one's stated purpose is say "getting to an impressive photograph," then they are likely to favor art over technology in achieving that goal. However, I think there are also individuals who enjoy photography primarily because of the technical/scientific acumen involved and may not care much about the final image. Moreover, I think both are valid reasons to enjoy it as a hobby. (Obviously as an avocation, one needs to be concerned with output if they expect to derive income from it, so I'll leave that out for now.)

My entire reason for asking this question is I have been dense. And maybe it's not worth discussing, but it seemed an interesting observation to me: I have assumed everyone involved in photography was concerned at least to some degree with an output result --- or why else pursue it? I only recently realized that perhaps there is an element who could care less about output and simply enjoy the process of exploring the raw technical aspects.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I only recently realized that perhaps there is an element who could care less about output and simply enjoy the process of exploring the raw technical aspects.
Jack,

That's the last epithet I'd apply to you, LOL! Not only are you knowledgeable but artful too! In any group, even in ditch digging, not everyone actually moves dirt, so to speak! Some plan, or think they do, others are "on break" and maybe, just maybe, 6 of the ten in the crew really put in the effort and actually dig.

Still, the guy who tells jokes or argues for the right pay or advises that the odd pipe is actually a 10,000 volt trunk-line, is useful too!

By example, if you want to understand how it comes that f-stop works at different focal lengths to allow the same illumination for a correct exposure, then Doug Kerr's writing might be helpful. Same if you would need to know how magnification of an image by changing the bellows or macro tubes, might decrease exposure.

Normally we don't need such explanations but it's good to have it available here, at least for reference when such questions are raised every now and then.

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
ART! It's always the art. Technology is only relevant in so far as it aids the pursuit of art.

Thank you Rachel! Perfectly stated for the pure artist (art purist?) among us. Anyway, if Asher had emoticons enabled on his site, I'd give you a two-thumbs-up!

(As more of a technician myself, I envy and marvel at the pure artist spirit and wish I had more natural inclination that direction -- for me, the art is harder work ;-) )
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
In any group, even in ditch digging, not everyone actually moves dirt, so to speak! Some plan, or think they do, others are "on break" and maybe, just maybe, 6 of the ten in the crew really put in the effort and actually dig.

Exactly! There is a wide spectrum here, and where we each will fall is interesting.
 
Jack,

I pondered the same question as I read the recent posts. Photography consists of elements that can involve the darkest corners of both hemispheres of the brain, and that might be large part if its broad appeal. The same might be said for the skill sets of the members of this forum, and again, may account for its appeal.

For myself, the focus is always on the final image.

Something new is always learned by experimenting with different approaches - near infrared and cross polarization, for example. However, I've become cautious about sharing the results of such experiences here because anything inaccurately stated will be quickly noted as such. This is unfortunate, on the one hand, because if stifles the sharing of ideas. On the other hand, it fosters a more rigorous review of one's posts before the "submit reply" button is clicked.

Tom
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"The Darkest corners of both Hemispheres of the Brain"....

Jack,

I pondered the same question as I read the recent posts. Photography consists of elements that can involve the darkest corners of both hemispheres of the brain, and that might be large part if its broad appeal.
Tom,

I think you have expressed, perhaps accidentally, maybe by intent, my view of art. First it can recruit anything good or bad to give that creative concept and then it's made in a mechanical or material form as a kind of performance for the exterior world of the rest of us. Maybe there's a message to transfer, or it's just entertainent or a scaffolding for our wandering, musing, lust, resentment or even a call to action.

Art, coming from even the darkest corners of our minds and looked at from that space too, has a wide form of intent, being and then changes as we change. Here, each of us so different, that we can appreciate the same thing is still remarkable and shows we must have lots of values wired in us at birth.

The rest is overlapping cultures and spheres of knowledge and experience. That's why I get to learn a lot and enjoy what we cannot or did not do ourselves. Art essentially allows us to make living robots that go about expressing or eliciting sentiments in and across our communities.

"Pixel Peeping", Design Acceptance and Critique: Some, like detectives examining bullets for the marks of a particular barrel, try to deconstruct someone's evil art, the murder, if we may call it "art". We do that ourselves, looking at the brush strokes of Van Gogh or the faces of Michelangelo, reflecting, perhaps his own face from the mirror. Eventually we know the scheme of each person's oeovre, (look it up) and so just spend little time any more on the technicals. At that stage we "know" the family of work, (from which the art comes) and straight off are primed to "like" or "dislike" what's before us. Until then, we might use technical minutiae to kind of protect us from the embarassment of welcoming in our midst "fraud" masquerading as a photograph worthy of our praise.

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
However, I've become cautious about sharing the results of such experiences here because anything inaccurately stated will be quickly noted as such. This is unfortunate, on the one hand, because if stifles the sharing of ideas.

Outstanding observation Tom! And I think that tendency has made the more artistic members (usually the same individuals are also somewhat less technically inclined) unwilling to engage in any constructive artistic discourse on this site. Which is unfortunate for those of us trying to learn and understand more about pure "art"...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Outstanding observation Tom! And I think that tendency has made the more artistic members (usually the same individuals are also somewhat less technically inclined) unwilling to engage in any constructive artistic discourse on this site. Which is unfortunate for those of us trying to learn and understand more about pure "art"...
Again "artful", Jack!

You are not unfortunate and are already skilled in both the technical aspects of photograph assembly from your wishes and whims and the culture and experience to appreciate "pure" and "impure" art. So this, I must say is false modesty used to imply you need to learn something for which you already have quite an aptitude. And the "pure art" you seek to learn about? What about that?

Pure Art: This is something that will just grow with all of us as we try to produce work, appreciate each other's photography, attend galleries, spend time in museums and then use our imagination, talent, knowledge and intellect to integrate the movements we see and the structures that have been offered to us as art.

So you are unjustified to imply that any difficulty in grasping the parameters of , "Pure Art" is a failing of this particular website! I think you know that. We already agreed that different folk being different value to the table and some of us often add nothing or just want to knock everything else off the menu!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Asher,

First off, I do not feel I am an accomplished or fully facile "artist" so this is not a ruse. I may be a facile camera technician, but the art part remains hard work for me and I would like it to become more natural. Yes, I get lucky on occasion, but would ideally like that to become a more purposeful artistic result. Second, I do not wish to "knock anything off the menu," but admittedly I do get irritated when an interesting topic gets knocked off track because the discussion gets sidetracked by debate of technical semantics instead of discussing the intended point.

Perhaps my point is moot...

Best,
 
What's most important, the art or the technology, semantics or result?

The result, obviously, which can be art if that's one's goal. Art that fails to stimulate our emotions is a non-result.

However, to achieve the previsioned result one is often required to master the craft. Mastering the craft may also (besides creative talent) require to understand technical explanations/preparations, especially when one desires to explore the boundaries of what is physically possible. Without that, the results are more likely to be the result of luck, and become harder to produce on demand.

What may seem like mere semantics to some, can be important for a fundamental understanding without which progress becomes slow (trial and mostly error) or impossible (result not achieved).

Bart
 

Rachel Foster

New member
"Art" can be more readily achieved if one knows how to use one's camera to get the result one is aiming for. Not having the technical knowledge has frustrated me no end.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher,

First off, I do not feel I am an accomplished or fully facile "artist" so this is not a ruse. I may be a facile camera technician, but the art part remains hard work for me and I would like it to become more natural. Yes, I get lucky on occasion, but would ideally like that to become a more purposeful artistic result.

I think of your soft focus still life images of pears and know it was no accident. However, since you also wander from that, there's nuances and dependencies for each new avenue you take. So yes, there's more, much for each of us to learn to be able to work naturally in a particular field of interest.


I do get irritated when an interesting topic gets knocked off track because the discussion gets sidetracked by debate of technical semantics instead of discussing the intended point.

As an example:

I could bring in the word clouds associated with "sidetracked" and push you to explain what you mean. After all how can we be "sidetracked" when the topic is already "derailed" by the term "knocked off track? I'm taking cheap advantage of your seemingly inconsistent carry-through of the world of the metaphor, "Traveling on rails to a destination." to get some supposed one-upmanship over you by semantic means, (where I might fail addressing the substance of your ideas or propsitions).

Such objections annoy me even in a writing class! This type of explanation request appears more of showmanship in rhetoric than useful for photography. Rather, it becomes a debate about semantics for it's own worth only. If this is, indeed, what you refer to, then we are in agreement!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
However, to achieve the previsioned result one is often required to master the craft. Mastering the craft may also (besides creative talent) require to understand technical explanations/preparations, especially when one desires to explore the boundaries of what is physically possible. Without that, the results are more likely to be the result of luck, and become harder to produce on demand.
Hi Bart:

I certainly agree that being proficient at the craft of photography requires not only artistic skill, but technical acumen as well.

What may seem like mere semantics to some, can be important for a fundamental understanding without which progress becomes slow (trial and mostly error) or impossible (result not achieved).

Where I disagree with you is perhaps the level of technical knowledge required to be a successful craftsman: For example I cannot fathom that one would ever need to clearly understand the distinction between the first nodal point and the second nodal point or calculate same to be an outstanding photographic craftsperson. Mind you, I have NO problem with somebody starting a NEW thread to discuss that or any other technical point they desire to the limits of physical understanding --- and my compliments to those who do just that! But to be clear, I resent the same level of discussion when it takes over a thread where for example somebody was simply interested in learning some basics of creating panorama with their new DSLR. That's all...

Cheers,
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Jack,

But to be clear, I resent the same level of discussion when it takes over a thread where for example somebody was simply interested in learning some basics of creating panorama with their new DSLR.

And all he wanted to know was how to find out where the nodal point of his lens is. And you're right - the difference between the first nodal point and the second nodal point is not something he needs to know. That's because neither one is what he needs to find. And he probably needs to know that.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Hi, Jack,



And all he wanted to know was how to find out where the nodal point of his lens is. And you're right - the difference between the first nodal point and the second nodal point is not something he needs to know. That's because neither one is what he needs to find. And he probably needs to know that.

Best regards,

Doug

Seriously Doug, this is precisely my point. All the technical information he NEEDS to know is to slide his camera rearward until he finds a point where as he pans across his capture field, near and far objects seen in the viewfinder don't move relative to one-another. He done.

To suggest he needs to know any formula, or any optical definitions, or be able to calculate the precise location of a theoretical point inside the lens absurd! In fact I submit he can accomplish the above empirical exercise long before calculating that point using a formula and figuring out where to measure from and how to translate the numerical result to a precisely correct physical camera position! Moreover, once he gets to that point, he's still going to have to confirm he actually got it right by checking it empirically!!!

Cheers,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mind you, I have NO problem with somebody starting a NEW thread to discuss that or any other technical point they desire to the limits of physical understanding --- and my compliments to those who do just that! But to be clear, I resent the same level of discussion when it takes over a thread where for example somebody was simply interested in learning some basics of creating panorama with their new DSLR. That's all...
Jack,

If you notice that, let me know and we'll split off that new part!
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Jack,

Seriously Doug, this is precisely my point. All the technical information he NEEDS to know is to slide his camera rearward until he finds a point where as he pans across his capture field, near and far objects seen in the viewfinder don't move relative to one-another. He done.

Indeed.

To suggest he needs to know any formula, or any optical definitions, or be able to calculate the precise location of a theoretical point inside the lens absurd!

Well, I for one have never advocated locating the entrance pupil by calculation. For one thing, we couldn't do that even if we wanted to - we don't have the source data needed to do that.

I advocate doing what you say, or, even easier, just looking into the lens and seeing where the entrance pupil is (which is what I usually do).

But of course one can't understand the latter highly-pragmatic, wholly non-mathematical technique without at least hearing that (a) the entrance pupil is what you need to locate, and (b) happily enough, that is what you see when peering into the lens.

I'm not sure what you're fighting here, Jack. You seem to be struggling to conjure up the beast so you can trounce it head-on. But it won't report for battle.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Rachel,

Um.....seriously, what is the "entrance pupil?"
It is the virtual image of the aperture stop from in front of the lens. It is the "window" through which the lens seems to collect light from the scene.

If we look into the front of the lens we can usually see the "iris" (the actual aperture stop). But of course, owing to the refractive effects of the lens elements in front of it, we do not see the aperture stop in its real size or at its real location. But what we see is in fact the entrance pupil, whose size and location are just what we see.

One significance of it is that, for multi-frame panoramic photography free of parallax shift, the axis of rotation should pass through the entrance pupil.

It is also the diameter of the entrance pupil, not that of the physical aperture stop itself, that is used to reckon the f/number of a lens.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tim Armes

New member
Wow, great thread,

The division of personality types that you refer to is most evidentally seen in camera clubs. There are those who enjoy photography for the art, and there are those who revel in its technical aspects. It's fascinating because rarely are two such opposing personality types bought together to participate in the same hobby in the same club. Tensions often rise :)

At the extremes, the pure artists rarely produce good images due to bad technique and inability to work past the inheritant technical aspects of photography, and the pure technicians tend to produce technically perfect yet utterly soleless images. Most people fit somewhere inbetween.

The greatest photographers, however, are those that achieve both. They have both the strong technical understanding of what their doing, and the creative juices that urge them to create great images.

Personally, I think it's the fact that photography is both an artistic and technical challenge that drives my passion for it.

Tim
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Tim,

At the extremes, the pure artists rarely produce good images due to bad technique and inability to work past the inheritant technical aspects of photography, and the pure technicians tend to produce technically perfect yet utterly soleless images. Most people fit somewhere inbetween.

And there are those "technicians" who produce almost no images!

The greatest photographers, however, are those that achieve both. They have both the strong technical understanding of what their doing, and the creative juices that urge them to create great images.

Personally, I think it's the fact that photography is both an artistic and technical challenge that drives my passion for it.

Well (and succinctly) said.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top