Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
Addicted to “How”
May 13th, 2008
Sorry to keep throwing these think-pieces at you. 5 years in theology school as a young man and the preacher is bound to come out eventually. Feel free to just take a nap and put 5 bucks in the offering plate as it goes by.
I think we’re addicted to technology and technique. I think at a certain point that addiction remains harmless. But eventually we abandon the photograph and our vision and we run off with the gear with which we produce it. Ok, once again I’m switching metaphors midstream. So we’re addicted and having an affair.
I was reading some reviews of McNally’s The Moment It Clicks on Amazon.com and was particularly drawn to the negative reviews – call it curiousity. The reviews accompanied by low ratings of the book were unanimous in their critiques and they all shared the same “McNally didn’t tell me how to do it, McNally didn’t give lighting diagrams, McNally’s book was only for professionals.” Somebody call the Waaaahmbulance.
McNally’s book was not marketed as a “how to,” and it was not sold as an instruction manual. In fact, McNally gives his readers much more than “How,” he gives them “Why.”
We are addicted to How and ignore Why. We’d rather have shortcuts or lighting diagrams or the GPS coordinates of an Ansel Adams shot, than an afternoon sitting at the feet of a legend and hearing thoughts and stories about the very things that make great photographers great. Sure, Joe could give you a lighting diagram. Go to his blog and he occasionally does. But Joe is not great because he can light a plane with a warehouse full of SB800s. Joe is not great because he puts a CTO gel on a strobe. And you and I won’t be either. Technique – the HOW – is important, but without the WHY, it’s nothing.
The flood of perfectly-exposed, but desperately mediocre, photographs that inundate the internet is witness to this and we ignore books like McNally’s, and the reality of our addiction, at our peril. Un-checked it will cost us our vision and our craft.
Henri Cartier-Bresson said, “photography is nothing – it’s life that interests me.” Because he loved life, and capturing the decisive moments of which life is comprised, more than the technique of his craft, he created images that reflect that. He was no slouch with his technique, but his WHY was more important than his HOW.
3 Ways To Break The Power of HOW
1. Limit yourself, for a day, a week, a month, to shooting your personal work with a point and shoot. Or a Holga and your favourite black and white film. Go low-tech and re-discover the discipline of the frame without the distractions.
2. Embrace the spiritual discipline of fasting – take a break from the magazines, the tech-blogs, the how-to stuff, the catalogs, and instead get distracted by some really great images by some really great photographers.
3. Read Freeman Patterson’s Photography and The Art of Seeing, and McNally’s The Moment It Clicks
I love your suggestions on breaking the power of How. I heard Jay Maisel give a lecture where he said he does “visual push-ups” every morning. He will go out with his camera and shoot for an hour without any preconceived notions or thoughts about where he will point his camera. I like to look at the “interestingness” page on the Flickr website every morning. It gives me a chance to see some work I would not normally get to see.
First, let me say that I love your new web site design. I have been reading your blog for months now and I think it keeps getting better.
Second, I personally enjoy the theoretical behind the lens and sometimes get quite tired of the how-to’s and tech details. While they are great to learn and share info, I believe you also need to relay your passion and vision for your craft. I like to believe that I show my passion for travel and places in each of the photos I shoot. Now, I could be trapped by a case of not having objectivity with my own work. But isn’t that a challenge for everyone to overcome?
Woody and Kelly – Thanks so much. Nice to have you part of the conversation. It’s a shame so few photographers seem to care deeply about this stuff, but I suspect that those that do will eventually rub off on those that don’t.
I TOTALLY agree with this post!!! I’ve actually been getting a little frustrated lately that so much is said about technique, and so little about content. I have to say I’m not much of a gear-head; I would much, much rather read and talk about what a photograph means, why it was taken, and the feeling and inspiration behind it. If our work is going to mean anything to anyone else, it must first mean something to us, and that is worth discussing.
I think so too, Nicole. I think what is important is what I’ve started calling the geek:artist ratio. This is a technical craft, so technique is vital, but technique to the exclusion of artistry and meaning is pretty hollow. Balance is key.
I think part of my problem is that I’m way more engaged by the why and try to ignore the how. So I get some interesting shots (IMHO) with exposure problems and when I edit them in photoshop I just can’t seem to make them work. (Can you tell I’ve just spent the last two hours working on a bunch of images from Havana that I thought would be really good but by the time I have it sort of looking like what I want, the noise is out of control and refuses to be removed…)
If you could choose between capturing a moment but poorly exposed and not capturing it at all, which would you choose?
I’m just an amateur, but I loved every bit of Joe’s book. There’s nothing better than a great artistic mind sharing his/her thoughts the way Joe does in his book. Lots of folks can teach you the how, fundamentals are fundamentals. Not everyone can tell you what went throught their head in the moments leading up to shooting people like James Brown or Wynton Marsalis. The stories in that book are priceless, the “how’s” in the book are icing on the cake.
Your so right on so many different levels – I have a shelf of how to books – I am taking a break from them, I am not looking at the histogram for clipping, I am shooting .Jpeg – I am breaking the habit of systems and just trying to make a interesting image. I like Kate’s ending comment – get the moment -
I’m with you guys, really I am – but Mike, buddy, shooting JPG – that’s just crazy talk.
Kate – I think if the only two options are capturing a moment but missing the exposure and not capturing it at all, then yes, I’d try. Passion trumps focus or perfect exposure anytime. But in the end if I’m REALLY blowing the exposure, I’m not capturing my vision and really there’s no choice there – ultimately my vision isn’t served.
I think the key is balancing what I call the geek:artist ratio. We all need to remember that neglecting the technical side of things is not good art anymore than neglecting the poetic side.
Still, it’s nice to see you artists coming out of the woodwork.
Well – sanity will creep in, i am doing a portrait tomorrow, and I will shoot raw – but my point really was that I am making a effort to do things differently – I am working on making photography a FT gig and have really not found a direction that I want to follow. I am trying to look at what I like in others photography, what I am seeing is that I like the blown highs and the deep blacks. The technical side is never ending – It was becoming a process, shoot raw, fix WB, fix exposure, pop clarity, vibrance, curve, go to cs3 and do the rest…. print – The jpeg was a challenge to myself to try and get some of the steps in camera. Last week on my blog I posted abstract’s from a local garden, I had fun, small adjustments and they were to my liking. I need to be able to make more in camera adjustments on the fly when I am shooting, and try to not count on software to fix it. That is the technical side I need to be better at, When I find myself in a low light setting, I NEVER remember to pump up the ISO, I kick myself in the car later.
Mike – Really well expressed – thank you!
It’s funny how two people can look at the same histogram and see them so differently. We’re in danger of making this more science than art. I have no problem with blown highlights are plunged shadows – but only if they serve your vision.
Your other points are equally well-made – thanks for chiming in.
It’s the difference between ability and intention. I see a lot of things (photography, but not just photography) that are done because they can be, with little consideration of whether they should be. My response: “Yep, you sure did that alright. Now can you tell me what it means? Hmmm, didn’t think so…”
Oh, btw, I *hate* raw. If I’m not shooting for jpg, then I’m making too many unneeded edits in post, and taking up unnecessary storage. Right!? Who’s with me!? [cricket, cricket]
Nope, sorry you lost me on that last bit about not shooting RAW. JPG is just too limiting a format for serious work unless you have a really good reason (no, a REALLY good one!) for using it.
Sorry, but the crickets have spoken.
Of course at this point someone brilliant and famous will chime in and say “I never shoot RAW either” – this isn’t a rule, it’s a principle. And for me the best digital negative is the one with the most data. RAW has it, JPG does not. But again, if you can great incredible images and prefer JPG – more power to you. The point is your vision, not the way you get there.
Well, I’m not brilliant or famous, but I don’t shoot RAW. Funnily enough, right after I commented, I wondered if maybe shooting RAW would solve some of my frustration. I’ve tried it once or twice, but I don’t use Lightroom and Bridge is too slow and my PC can’t view RAW images so I can’t easily choose frames to work with. Any tips for moving to RAW? I s’pose I should bite the bullet and get lightroom, eh?
[...] Addicted to “How” [...]
I like the idea of concentrating on the “HOW + WHY” rather than “HOW TO only” .. Thank you
[...] Addicted to “How” [...]
[...] guest post on Scott Kelby’s blog this week. He’s tapping in to the whole “addicted to HOW” stream of consciousness. The dude just gets it, and is really articulate about [...]