| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Is there any real `one true way`?
Asked by Dan Smith
(K=1407) on 3/12/1999
|
Having just read another batch of answers to some questions on another forum where the advice given was "the only way that really works", I wondered at those who give absolutes in many of their answers. From such(in my observation) come the Fred Pickers of the world. "If Ansel did it, it must be right and nothing else will work" is the attitude. While hung up on Tri-X & D-76, Fred trashes any other approach in blindly following his "one true way" and while doing good in his teaching does more harm in not pushing all to find what works for them instead. Others have "one way" and deride all others and inhibit their own growth as photographers. Whether a specific film/developer devotee(B&W seems to have more of these one way types than color for some reason) or a certain brand(Nikon or go to hell), I find them difficult to be around. Has anyone out there really found that there is only one way to do much of anything in photography?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old Gray Beard
(K=162) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
Hmmm. My auto-do-everything camera has umpteen different ways of doing exposure compensation. One of them must be the one true way.
|
|
|
|
Darron Spohn
(K=781) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
The one true way for great photos:
1) Remain sober until after you finish shooting 2) Concentrate on the job at hand 3) Relax 4) Have fun
Oh yeah, and use a tripod if at all possible. This last one gets more important as I get older.
Seriously, photographers who who preach the absolute superiority of one brand of film, developer, lens, etc. are self-indulgent at best. At worst, as you imply, they will inhibit other photographers' growth. I don't care if they inhibit their own growth, I just hate to see them hold back other photographers.
We've discussed Picker on photo.net, and I was one of the few who defended him. Not because he is an excellent photograper, but because he wrote a book that clearly laid out a methodical way to shoot/develop/print. I knew Picker was outdated when he pushed Tri-X and HC-110 as the end all film/developer combination. It took me about one roll to realize Tri-X didn't meet my needs, and I settled on Ilford HP5 Plus despite Picker's advice. I currently use T-Max 100 almost exclusively for black-and-white. My slide film varies among Kodak E100SW, Disneychrome, and Agfa RSX100, depending upon the lighting, the subject and my mood.
Someone on another forum last week wanted exact instructions for using the Zone System without bothering to experiment on his own. When I posted a reply pointing out the Zone System will not work for him unless he does his own tests he replied privately and politely reamed me a new orifice for being uppity and not answering his question. Maybe some people deserve those absolutists as mentors.
Getting back to your question. I have found many ways to accomplish anything in photography. I've shot with Canon and Nikon gear at the same time, switching back and forth with no problems. Of course that was back when we used manual gear so I didn't have to RTFM just to switch apertures. I've shot sports with and without motor drives. I've used Hassleblads, Mamiya 645s, RB67s, and C330s; Pentax 6x7s, and an odd assortment of TLRs. I've enjoyed them all and taken wonderful and dreadful pictures with them all.
The only true absolute I can think of is: Lighting is everything.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
You'll notice too Shooter, that most of these types (follower not the sage) don't necessarily understand why what they subscribe to so unbendingly works. Kind of a blind faith...so when you ask them why they feel so strongly they blurt out a quote or just keep repeating "so and so says" On the other side of the coin there's me... I tend to get self-righteous and mean when I face-off with these "blind followers" unless they've done the testing to prove it to themselves and can prove that to me. Instead of an explanation too many times I get the "it is so because kodak...Adams...said it/printed it" that response infuriates me and over and above that, it does not inform or educate me and that's what I want. I'm not helping photography anymore than they are but I can laugh about it. I'm first and foremost devoted to my understanding of photography not Picker's or Merklinger's or Ctein's. I depend on their help, not their disciples. - Trib
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
Re Darron's post: well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one to get privately (politely) blasted. Some people really do want absolute, simple answers. While it may be possible with individual contact (I might look at his negs, and tell him to give 20% more development), the more distant we are, the more general our answers have to be.
There are comparatively few absolutes in photography, and those are essentially technical issues. The much harder (and more interesting) questions are the ones for which there is no simple answer, even for one individual, let alone all photographers. I have found various different materials and gear that work well for me in different circumstances, and am happy to share those experiences, but I'm unsure of the value of this information to the recipient.
I suppose this depends on a person's position along the path of photography. The raw beginner might benefit most from being taught what to do. Only later does real learning begin. A pitfall for the teachers is to believe entirely in the teaching, which inhibits themselves from learning.
|
|
|
|
Daryl Hiebert
(K=81) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
Well Dan, I have my one true way and you have yours. As an amateur, I look to more experienced photographers such as yourself for advice and guidance, but it is still me who trips the shutter. I find that as I shoot more and more my ways become modified or evolved. For one person to push his or her own methods on another are purely ego (as in, "use my method. it's the best"). I think the notion that there is only ONE exact way of doing things is grossly wrong. Since there is no quantitative method of evaluating a photo's overall impact it comes down to PERSONAL PREFERENCE. I've shown what I consider to be some of best work to some people who are completely unimpressed, but the images were what I wanted to produce. Has anyone out there really found that there is only one way to do much of anything in photography? YES Get out there and shoot. When done, edit the hell out of it and shoot some more. As a matter of fact, that's what I'm going to do right now instead of sitting front of this damn computer!!
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
There are methodologies that can be followed that will help towards making successful photographs, but they are like cooking recipes. The serve only as a departure point for self expression.
I too get tired of the photo "experts" who turn people off from very useful methods, techniques or equipment by proclaiming that, "I've tried it and - it doesn't work for me, so don't waste your time."
I've had a letter war with a pompous, bearded, Englishman who writes for Shutterbug. He basically trashed the Zone System because he thought it was a waste of time (he didn't understand how it works) & that the people who used it constituted a religion. He was advocating the use of a densitometer to evaluate negatives - with no methodology to relate the density readings to in-field exposure application. I pointed out that Ansel & Minor White both used and understood densitometers & that the Zone System was well founded in sensitometry. Oooooh, the naaasty beligerant reply I got from him accusing me of all sorts of things had to be read to be believed.
But to me, the worst part is that he was purposely trying to turn people off to a very useful method of determining exposures. Not even allowing that it might be a valid method for some people, or that it even worked.
Had much the same letter war with the editor of Shutterbug when he told people that there was no difference between using a condenser enlarger and a diffusion enlarger. I pointed out what the benefits to using a diffusion enlarger were in terms or image reproduction and being able to give a negative more exposure (= more detail in the shadows, etc.). Well, now 10 years later he's a big proponent of diffusion enlargers. But again, he was using his ignorance to try & turn people off.
I think photographers are generally able to make up their own minds when presented with technically correct, unbiased information, IF they will do the testing or trials required to validate the information and integrate into their own working methods.
Finding people who will give unbiased information, or at least qualify that it is only their opinion, is the difficult part.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
I'm about to go off-topic.
1) Remain sober until after you finish shooting
I've sometimes wondered about this. Given the number of musicans, writers, and artists who have well-known alcohol and drug habits, why wouldn't altered states work with photography? I haven't tried it because I don't want to drop or lose my equipment, but I find that when I work in "exotic" locations, the combination of fatigue, vague food/water related discomfort, unfamiliarity with language/culture, loss of bearings, etc. etc. all cause me to feel similar to how I do when I'ver over-imbibed (not to the stumbling, falling down and slurry state, but close.) And I find that this sometimes alters how I see things so much that I take photographs I might not have taken otherwise.
Anyway, the thing that gets me are the constant references to Adams in particular, it seems that he has created a huge legion of one-true- belief followers. I don't know if this was his intent (probably wasn't), but there are a lot of photo conversations I walk away from quickly because of this. On one of the other forums, someone asked a question about shipping prints and someone responded with a detailed explanation of how Adams shipped prints. I was floored with how deep true belief runs...
|
|
|
|
Sean yates
(K=1240) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
In "Monty Python's Life of Brian" Brian's disciples are houding for rules on how to run their lives and he says something to the affect of "Bugger off!" to which the true bellevers reply, after a short silence, "How Shall we Bugger Off oh Lord?"
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
Well there is only ONE way to load 120 rollfim into an interchangeable back. I borrowed a Bronica 645, and being used to my relatively unsophisticated Pentax 67 into which I am unconsciously aware of the film backing paper being outward, loaded the damn thing with the paper outwards. And of course exposed the MOST WONDERFUL PICTURES THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN.........onto the backing paper. Sigh! Will I do it again? Do you need to ask that question! (But hey you should have seen the pictures that got away...) JOHN
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
John, you should have read Adams first on how to load your Bronica.
I would suggest a little rephrase of Dan's question: has anyone copied Adams or Picker and found out that it really worked out for him, that he was really happy now and/or famous?
I 'followed' Picker on TriX/HC110 (I don't know his dilutions, temperatures and times however - not interested actually) and I still did not make my best picture yet. Dissatisfaction with your results is an essential drive for creative work, but it's a mistake to go follow someone as a consequence of this.
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=1387) - Comment Date 3/12/1999
|
I haven't found that there's "one true way" to do much of anything in any field.
I especially get a kick out of "experts" who pronounce that film X plus developer Y is the "best film and developer combination." They convenienly overlook that the paper you use and the subjects you shoot (and how they interact with your film/developer) will dramatically effect the look of your prints.
I'll even say that many "rules of thumb" are 90% crap. I don't know how many times I've seen someone say "You should use a slow speed film--your pictures will be sharper and the colors will be better." They never mention that the blur caused by camera shake at lower shutter speeds will negate any benefit of finer-grained film. Or that if you're stuck using a single on-camera flash to provide enough light for that slow film, your lighting will be harsh and unflattering and your backgrounds will be dark (but at least you can make big, fine-grained enlargements of those ugly photos).
I like to hear how people reach their conclusions about what works and what doesn't--what kind of materials they used, the methods they followed, how they metered the scene. A simple pronouncement that "this is the best" is meaningless to me.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
But why reinvent the wheel again and again and again? I try and read and play with all the information I can find and use it till it's no good and then dis the hell out of it. I'm a zonie and in a class I have consequently dropped I had a to do with the teacher. He was touted as a fine photographer and everyone listened to him as gospel. Well the assignment was to shoot portrait at wide open on x film with x developer and make 11x14. Well I don't shoot people very often in this setting so I ax him, "massa, what should the lighting ratio be from short side to long side?" And I quote" just look at the light and shoot. You techno weenies make it to hard." Well seeing that I was just asking for info that I thought he could supply I didn't think his response was appropriate and let him know. I could have figured it out but thought why should I if he'd already done it thousands of times? I agree that you should do the calibrating yourself and learn as much as you can because you might put 2 and 4 together and come up with chocolate chip cookies. But why should I test for n2 when I can ask someone already doing it and have some kind of starting point? I like what I've seen Shooter doing so when I meet him I'll drain him of all he knows and use it to get better.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
Ah, yes. The Prophet is without honor in his own class. Anyway, obviously the answer you got was wrong. Unless your instuctor had made some specific lighting requirements part of the assignment, the best answer (at least mine...) would have been "That's up to you. Why don't you try several different ratios and see which you like best for that subject?" Then there is room for creativity. Even a class which as pure technique as it content has room for creativity. And for creativity there is NEVER "only one right answer"
|
|
|
|
Jryder
(K=396) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
Almost Everything I know about photography I have learned from someone else and I thank them for passing it on. I have learned much from Adams and Picker and some from people on the web and the most important from face to face teachers who taught me how to find and place the spirit in my prints. If I am any kind of photographer much of the credit must go to them. I have learned that even though I do what Picker says or what ever Adams or Weston may have done, my photos still do not look even remotely like theirs. There are simply too many variable. like chess. The biggest variable is the photographer/the temperment, personality. There is no one way to do it. I could not make a Picker if I tried. My photos while technically not near as good have much more of whatever his are missing. Life? I could not copy anyone and get their results. So thanks to all my teachers for showing me their ways of working and I hope I don't disappoint them too much by using either too much or too little, following too closely or just sucking their dust.
|
|
|
|
Doremus Scudder
(K=197) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
"Question Authority!"
"If Authority answers, will you listen?"
This graffiti exchange appeared on the blackboard of a philosophy classroom at a university I attended and its wisdom was instantly apparent. Many people are "authority bashers" and accuse anyone with knowledge, a system, or even success of being pedantic and overbearing (largely because they will not, or are intellectually unable to acquire the knowledge themselves and are bitter and vindictive). The other extreme is the blind devotees who memorize the motions without understanding the reasons and then canonize them as some kind of Gospel. These people are suffering from another symptom of the same disease, fear of knowledge and closed-mindedness. The realization of ignorance can be very fightening and many prefer not to face it, and therefore, remain igorant of their own ignorance. Is there "one true way" to make meaningful art? Probably not. Is there "one true way" a given photsensitive material reacts to x amount of light when handled under strict controlled variables? You bet there is! Let's not make the logical mistake of confusing a subjective concept like beauty with experimental science. There is a lot of "truth" in the form of scientific facts to be had about photography and serious workers concerns themselves with just these things to the extent to which their vision requires. Need more control? Learn more! Rejecting the research and knowledge of others is a great way to waste your time doing it all yourself. Our civilization is based on building on the work of others, but, you do have to know it first. The problem lies in separating the people who think they know from those who really do! In defence of the aforementioned great photographers, none of them set themselves up as "Prophets" or indisputable authorities. Adams in particular was instrumental in adapting the scientific discipline of sensitometry to practical photography and his teaching has been indispensible to many. They were, however, successful and did extensive testing and searching to arrive at, and become experts in using the choice of materials which best suited their vision. This element, the "Vision", is what determines the "One True Way" for each artist, even if that way is technically and physically impossible and can only be approximated with the materials at hand. Let's not dismiss the research of others out of hand simply because it does not apply to us. There is probably much to be learned from Fred Picker about Tri-X and HC-110. Whether it is right for your individual vision is a different question. Unfortunately, their are all to many people with opinions and no vision and with answers but no questions. These, I fear, are the loudest among us. Regards, ;^D
|
|
|
|
Chris Hawkins
(K=1508) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
Doremus has answered the question very very well.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=1327) - Comment Date 6/2/1999
|
All I have to say about Fred Picker is that I HATE the son-of-a-bitch for the Zone VI photobag he designed. If that is the One True Bag, then he's in a world of a hurtin afterlife. The bag is a moisture magnet, a fungus farm, a piece of crap. Anyone want one? :)
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 6/3/1999
|
Yeah Dan. The only one true way to get a good picture is to shoot one. Of course if you use 4x5 it makes it better. Especially if you use schnieder and toyo and gitzo and..... oh yeah. Wrong forum.
|
|
|
|
|
