# Do photographers care too much about technicalities? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 28, 2008, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784 "2008-11-28T10:23:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/21 "2008-11-29T06:00:47Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > But it’s a game: once you start playing, it’s hard to stop. Deciding which camera or lens to buy is quite an investment, and if the only difference is minute, you’re going to have to make your purchasing decision based on that tiny difference. Fair enough. But is your target audience – or are you - going to appreciate, or even see, that difference? It also depends on what you are photographing. If you are working in the mid range of standard lenses, then there may not be as much difference. For example, if you are photographing people at a pretty standard distance. I am into macro-photography due to my obsession with spiders, and am producing photographs for my books and magazine articles. As I take all my photos in the wild, I am working in natural light and often with brown spiders on brown backgrounds. I want my readers to be able to see the details of the palp, for example, to see if it is male or female. Or of the eyes or hairs. Most often, I am trying to get a sympathetic photo of the spider showing the behavior and just how gorgeous and fascinating they are (I am a recovered arachnophobe who overdid the cure). So I have very specific needs and as I learn more, I find the technical details are critical. A ring flash, for example, compared to a normal flash, reduces the number of legs from 16 to 8 by eliminating the confusing shadows. So I think the need for the technical stuff depends on what you are trying to bring out in your photos. I want to now try working with filters to bring out contrast and color better. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/22 "2008-11-29T06:02:56Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I’m sure there are hoards of artistic photographers out there, but I tend to meet the techy ones, more interested in the camera than the subject. > > Kind of like how, have you ever noticed, most people who really love movies don’t give a shit about HDTV (or Blu-Ray DVD), and vice versa? Most photographers, me included, simply aren’t any good. It’s not the end of the world. But we can demonstrate to those with talent that we have a great deal of knowledge and thus respect for what they do by knowing the technical details. My guess is that you should get some nice equipment that fits a series of lenses and then spend a lifetime really knowing the ins and outs of that equipment so that when the “Moonrise” moment comes, you will have the technical know how to get the shot in time. > [@anu-la1979](#): > > Also, I have no idea whether or not this is a well composed shot or not but I [loves it](http://www.flickr.com/photos/olopez/323182142/). I likes it too. It’s warm and fuzzy. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/23 "2008-11-29T10:13:18Z")
You might enjoy the reaction when someone posted [a photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson](http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366) on a flickr photography criticism group. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/24 "2008-11-29T10:45:22Z")
Talking about the creative side of photography - whether you’re talking about film or stills - is a “soft” subject which is intangible and “soft.” Talking about it lacks facts - a photograph cannot be accused of being composed badly outside of technical details, if the photographer can make a case for what he wants to communicate. Talking about the technical aspects - lenses, apertures, cameras, lighting, proper use of softboxes and diffusion filters - is much easier, because it’s falsifiable. Saying “lens X 28mm f1.2” on “setup XDCAM HD EX1” with a “Letus 35mm adapter” will “give you better depth of field and crisper focus” than alternative Y can be tested and proved, right or wrong. A lot of photographers I know - myself included - could give you a flow chart of why they use equipment X to achieve result Y, but go mum when you ask them the big “Why?” Why do you want that composition? What makes that inherently better looking than this other composition. Some very rare photographers are talented both in photography _and_ explaining it, like Odd Geir Sæther or Sjur Fedje. Most either have it in the eye or in the mouth and for both those groups, using the technical aspects as a conversation point is easier than mumbing around about gut feelings, subconscious calculations and “getting it right.” But yes, some photographers seem to get into it because they have a technology fetish. Some just like owning the biggest technical penis enchancer in the field, whether it’s cars, computers or cameras. Their pictures are usually adequate - practice does make one better - but they rarely take the occasion to set up and light their own pictures. And, as such, rarely get noteworthy creative results. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/25 "2008-11-29T11:34:14Z")
> [@Gukumatz](#): > > Talking about the creative side of photography - whether you’re talking about film or stills - is a “soft” subject which is intangible and “soft.” Talking about it lacks facts - a photograph cannot be accused of being composed badly outside of technical details, if the photographer can make a case for what he wants to communicate. Good point. I agree that talking about the technicalities is easier: once the facts are presented (and agreed upon) - that’s it. Discussing the artistic merits of any art form depends on the viewer’s opinions and putting those across requires skills that are beyond many of us. I \*am \*interested in the technicalities; but they can be covered pretty succinctly. What I think is more stimulating is mulling over the artistic merits. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/26 "2008-11-29T17:28:18Z")
Toot my own horn: I’ve sold well over a million dollars of my photography. While certain types of photography will force you into buying expensive equipment (macro, astrophotgraphy, ultra high speed etc.) the vast majority of shots can be pulled off with a cheap DSLR. The rest of it is dick measuring. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/27 "2008-11-29T17:48:31Z")
> [@chacoguy420](#): > > Toot my own horn: I’ve sold well over a million dollars of my photography. While certain types of photography will force you into buying expensive equipment (macro, astrophotgraphy, ultra high speed etc.) the vast majority of shots can be pulled off with a cheap DSLR. The rest of it is dick measuring. Wow. I appreciate you may not want to give away your real life identity, but is there anywhere I could see any of your work? And I’m glad to hear what you’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/28 "2008-11-29T18:33:29Z")
I have taught several classes in Photoshop, and one thing I notice is that 95% of my students can hardly tell if there is an iota of improvement using many of the tools in exercises that we do in class. Perhaps a few people have “the eye”, but it seems most people are just interested in the photo content and any major photographic glitches…otherwise, very few seem to notice, or care, if that bird two miles away in the background is slightly blurry. I suppose the remaining 5% might find the photo inferior though. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/29 "2008-11-29T22:32:16Z")
One of the funniest things I’ve ever read, from a photography standpoint, was a satire where someone simulated what would happen if some of the great photographers had their work critiqued by the internet photography forum crowd… ---
**Author:** ![Galena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Galena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galena)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/30 "2008-11-29T23:13:44Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > One of the funniest things I’ve ever read, from a photography standpoint, was a satire where someone simulated what would happen if some of the great photographers had their work critiqued by the internet photography forum crowd… Is this the blog you mean? [http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html](http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html) Pure satire genius. My favorite comment is: > [@](#): > > Maybe you should study some other peoples’ photographs here on this forum and get an idea of what a good photograph should look like. But more apropos to this discussion: > [@](#): > > George Spelvin [Nikon D200, Nikon D70s backup, 17-35 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 4GB Microdrive (2), Photoshop CS, Epson 2200] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2008, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/31 "2008-11-29T23:39:10Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > You might enjoy the reaction when someone posted [a photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson](http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366) on a flickr photography criticism group. I recognized the photo immediately, and the thread was hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784/32 "2008-11-30T01:00:20Z")
> [@Galena](#): > > Is this the blog you mean? > [http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html](http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html) > > Pure satire genius. Yeah, that’s it…thanks, I had lost the link. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-photographers-care-too-much-about-technicalities/474784.md?page=1)