Re: Talking vs Doing

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D Karen Obusek wrote:

Just some comments, no flames

> He laughed out loud and told me that he would love to see the work of
> many who posted technical notes on the list
> claiming that " science oriented people more often than not are lousy
> photographers and do all theoretical dreaming and speculation....and
> can't create a good image to save their lives!"

Frankly, this is scarcely a new allegation.  However, a few things are
being overlooked.  The scitech people are not artistic in their work, in
fact it is frowned on.  People that manipulate data for a pleasing
presentation are viewed with the same distaste as those who cheat the
elderly with roofing scams!

Bob however equates his concept of photography to exclude scientific and
technical photography.  I can assure you that scientific and technical
photographers do not practise artistic composition. Most of the time they
are fortunate to get useable data because they are always pushing the
envelope under abysmal conditions.

So what you have is a body of people who have no inherent use for "artistic
merit", but whom nonetheless do practise amateur photography for their own
pleasure.  It is no big shock if their quality as a group may be below
average.

Note they are unlikely to practise "artistic photography" as a profession,
since their current profession pays a whole lot better.


> He maintains that a good image is created with
> 90% emotion, opportunity and excitement and
> 10% technical merit (assuming that the person has a good working
> knowledge of photography to begin with)

The problem is the assumption.  The depth of knowledge required to be
competent varies among each field of photography.

As for technical comments, most people are trying to tell you that you have
been sold a bill of goods.

Take the ongoing 50s vs 90s lens discussion.

What I have learned is that many of the artistic people place a relatively
low value on resolution and contrast.  And I learned why.  OTH, if you have
never used a camera /lens/film combination with superb resolution and
contrast, how can you understand the tradeoff.  Now I know some people in
this group have used such cameras and they are far more accomplished than
I, so I am learning about artistic merit.  The scitech crowd would sell
their eldest for more resolution and contrast.

My concern is that a lot of the specsmanship for photographic products is
meaningless or misleading and that design deficiencies are rarely discussed
in product reviews.  So if I see someone quoting what in my opinion is
propaganda, I'll point it out tactfully (I hope).


> Bob admits to the fact that many
> of his peers know alot more than him about photography, but considering
> the accounts this guy has in his portfolio.....he may have a good point.

 Obviously, Bob is an accomplished artist but I'd be leary of his claim of
being less knowledgable than his peers.  Knowledge is not easily
measureable and experience is a means of acquiring knowledge.  For example,
many people are content to know that something "works".   Some of us by
nature like to know why it works.  If this tendency runs unchecked, you can
end up knowing why a few things work but learn less about what "works".


There is no way I am going to compete with Bob as a photographer, ever.
But when the "Bobs" of this world give me guidelines on composition and I
acquire more experience, I expect the quality of my work to improve
dramatically.  And that is what I am looking for!

Regards to you and Bob,

--

John Ohrt * Toronto * ON * Canada





------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2349
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************