Creativity vs Technicality...
I'd like to raise a discussion about where the boundary is between the technical and the creative sides of our art... Where is it for you...
The art comes first, that is what drives you to make an image (or it does me) then you have to get certain technical aspects right to achieve what you envisaged in your mind.
Don't get me wrong you see a lot of images that are not technically perfect but they can still work very well, some times total disregard of the technical aspects can help, it can add mystery and intrigue, you only have to look at high key and low key images, the absence of detail in highlights or shadows adds something to the image, it makes you think what could be there.
Engagement in a photograph is very important, to make your audience spend more time thinking about the image helps them to see more.
I tend to use nature for my creativity and apply technical aspects to suit, I sometimes increase the ISO for more noise, or move the camera during exposure, I suppose these are flagrant rule breaking from a technical point of view but it can create visual impact.
Ian
Don't get me wrong you see a lot of images that are not technically perfect but they can still work very well, some times total disregard of the technical aspects can help, it can add mystery and intrigue, you only have to look at high key and low key images, the absence of detail in highlights or shadows adds something to the image, it makes you think what could be there.
Engagement in a photograph is very important, to make your audience spend more time thinking about the image helps them to see more.
I tend to use nature for my creativity and apply technical aspects to suit, I sometimes increase the ISO for more noise, or move the camera during exposure, I suppose these are flagrant rule breaking from a technical point of view but it can create visual impact.
Ian
Technical is not enough on its own. I hope to envisage how my final image should look (the artistic part) and then use technical skills to achieve that. Ideally the art comes in from the planning and capturing the image right through the editing process. Unfortunately my artistic side is not that strong and though I am strong technically it is not an advantage. At my club, the most successful photographers are the artistic based who know enough technology to achieve what they want.
Dave
Dave
Ideally, aim to have the technique that is relevant to what you want to do at your fingertips, real familiarity with your kit, so that you can work relatively instinctively, not fixate about technique, concentrate on what matters. Technique as a means to an end...
Equally technical skill facilitates experiment, adventure.
It's sad when you see a brilliant idea let down by really poor workmanship. But equally I see no virtue in a technically immaculate image that doesn't say something to me, apart from 'Look how clever I am'.
Equally technical skill facilitates experiment, adventure.
It's sad when you see a brilliant idea let down by really poor workmanship. But equally I see no virtue in a technically immaculate image that doesn't say something to me, apart from 'Look how clever I am'.
Quote:Technical is not enough on its own. I hope to envisage how my final image should look (the artistic part) and then use technical skills to achieve that. Ideally the art comes in from the planning and capturing the image right through the editing process. Unfortunately my artistic side is not that strong and though I am strong technically it is not an advantage. At my club, the most successful photographers are the artistic based who know enough technology to achieve what they want.
Dave
I'm with Dave, envisaging how the final image should look (the artistic part) and then use technical skills to achieve that.
Daryl
Good question Somnath.
For me, if you don't 'see' it you can't create it no matter what equipment you have at your disposal, the technical bit is getting the seen image as you first envisaged it to be.
I have to see the finished image before I start working out how to get there, sometimes it takes a while with an image going round and round in my head.
For me, if you don't 'see' it you can't create it no matter what equipment you have at your disposal, the technical bit is getting the seen image as you first envisaged it to be.
I have to see the finished image before I start working out how to get there, sometimes it takes a while with an image going round and round in my head.
Quote:I am not creative so for me there is no boundary, it is all technical.
I made a similar comment in a forum a while ago and was firmly told that everyone has some creativity. I did pursue this with a couple of creative photographers and it was not that I was never "seeing the image" but frequently missing it. So do not assume that you have none.
Dave
I'm like Janet (chase). I have to envisage how the finished image will look. Especially as I work in b&w, I see in my head what the end result of converting from colour will be. (I don't shoot b&w in-camera, but convert in post).
As my main photographic interest is close ups of insects, the technical side has to be a given.
Composition, background, pov etc is for me where the artistic side comes into its own.
In my chosen genre I find a badly processed, unsharp image has no merit no matter how artistic.
This is of course only my opinion
Composition, background, pov etc is for me where the artistic side comes into its own.
In my chosen genre I find a badly processed, unsharp image has no merit no matter how artistic.
This is of course only my opinion
Many of you are with the view that creativity is the goal which can be achieved by means of technicality...Much of what’s focused on when learning photography is camera technique...Creative aspects are often left out, even after you’ve picked up some camera skills...Developing a balanced approach to photography is important...If you’re content to just document what’s in front of you, don’t worry about it...
The more technique you have, the less you need to think about it when working. And putting more tools in your toolbox... in terms of both camera skills and processing skills... means that more creative choices and possibilities become available to you. How creative you really are determines the extent to which you are able to actually take advantage of those possibilities.
My basic philosophy is to keep it simple and stay flexible in my thinking. I usually previsualize the final image when taking the photograph, but sometimes during processing I'll notice something I didn't pick up on at the time of taking, or a new idea will pop into my head, and things will start to move in a different direction so that I end up with something quite different from my original concept.
Technique without creativity usually means little, and creativity without technique usually achieves little... ( I say 'usually' because there can always be exceptions )... that's my view. There needs to be a balance.
My basic philosophy is to keep it simple and stay flexible in my thinking. I usually previsualize the final image when taking the photograph, but sometimes during processing I'll notice something I didn't pick up on at the time of taking, or a new idea will pop into my head, and things will start to move in a different direction so that I end up with something quite different from my original concept.
Technique without creativity usually means little, and creativity without technique usually achieves little... ( I say 'usually' because there can always be exceptions )... that's my view. There needs to be a balance.
Quote:
Technique without creativity usually means little, and creativity without technique usually achieves little... ( I say 'usually' because there can always be exceptions )... that's my view. There needs to be a balance.
A "few" exceptions could perhaps be more than 50% of photos taken!
Police photography of a night accident scene, camera on a tripod, can take up to 30 minutes for a single image - because everything has to illuminated from near to far - requiring multiple flash shots. This is primarily a technique situation.
Photos of damage to perhaps a car after an accident is no more than recording information - so technique.
When I repaint a room in the house - it is primarily technique (or craft if you prefer this term) - and definitely not art.
Probably more than 90% of photos taken on smart phones are records of people or events - with no pretension of being creative - though some use smart phones with great creativity.
There is no general consensus on where to draw a line between technique and creativity.
It is difficult to be creative without having at least some technique.
Summary - a general consensus is unlikely.
Quote:A "few" exceptions could perhaps be more than 50% of photos taken!
It could indeed. Though I didn't use the word " few." I did say "usually," though on reflection "often" might be nearer the mark.
I wonder if you might be missing the point of the discussion as proposed by Somnath in his opening statement... or at least the point as I interpret it... which is the relationship between technique and creativity in photography considered as art. I don't feel that photography as used by the police, insurance companies, or house painters has any relevance in that context.... although deciding which colour to paint your wall might sometimes be considered a creative choice.
