[pacerr]

But the two are not mutually exclusive . . . it's more common to have overlapping art and tech skills, to have both.

Aye, the evolutionary history of photography, from explaining the use of charcoal sticks on cave walls to DSLR's S-modes, AF-C an' PhotoShop requires both genes.

Now if ya wanna seriously get into bashin' photo-related manuals-that-suck dig into post-processing software Help files.

It'd be easier to author a User Manual for upside-down jigsaw puzzles without finished pictures on the box top.

"No, no, NO, Grogg! How many times d' I hav'ta tell ya? Ya gotta use #2 elm wood twigs on smokey walls more 'n three days old on rainy days. Do I gotta draw ya a picture?"

[bertwert]

Now if ya wanna seriously get into bashin' photo-related manuals-that-suck dig into post-processing software Help files.

I actually find the darktable user manual quite helpful and educational when I want to work out what different things do, or how to do a specific thing...

[texandrews]

Yes, most manuals are catalogs of desiccated technicalities.

I find that manuals have a deeper problem because they seldom go beyond saying what some button, knob, or menu item does to explain why one might want to use that button, knob, or menu item. The problem is that each page is like a list of tiny technological solutions with no inking of the problems they are meant to solve or the results they are designed to achieve. Thus using the manual to create a certain look is almost impossible, because that's not how the manual is organized or written.

Sometimes the advice to RTFM reminds me of being told to "use the dictionary" when I did not know how to spell a word. But if I did not know how to spell the word, how could I possibly find it in the dictionary?!?!?!!? Likewise, if I don't know how to make an "ethereal" image, how do I find out which settings in the manual that do it because "ethereal" isn't in the table of contents or the index.

Such a great post! We should get a thread going about manuals and their issues.

My biggest issue that I'll add to yours is how poorly manuals cross reference combinations of settings that pertain to one another. Obviously, not every combination could be done in a manual, but right now it's way too sparse.

My number 2 issue I take from my teaching days: manuals remind me of course syllabi (which speaks to your issue). That's just an outline. Why not link the manual to an online teaching program? It is the 21st century, after all. We dreamed of this in the '80's and '90's---now we could do it pretty easily.

[photoptimist]

I'm not sure breaking things into a dichotomy helps with that. A technically oriented person may be happiest becoming even more technical, an artistic photographer may do something like painting shapes and faces into their photographs making them even more artistic. We do these things with reference to our current interests, not based on where we are on a skills continuum. Where you are on the spectrum doesn't determine what you should do next.

Dichotomies, like all generalizations, tell the skeletal gist of a story while leaving out many important details. For example, it's worth noting there are many kinds of technically oriented people (optics geeks, software lovers, maker-movement DIY, etc.) and many kinds of artist people (such as those focusing on people versus those focusing on more abstracted visuals). It's a polychotomy.

You raise a key point. The "what you should do next" really depends on your goals. Photographers who practice the hobby for their own self-satisfaction and enjoyment can certainly focus only on those elements of photography they enjoy. They can turn their backs on all the other facets of the field that others insist are essential to being a so-called "great" photographer.

But if the "technical" person or the "artistic" person aspires toward greater acceptance, acknowledgement, or sales of their works, they may benefit from learning more about the other side. Although I'd be the last person in the world to tell people to aspire to popularity (e.g., my rule on books is that "best seller" is usually a mark against the book), I do see how if a photographer wants the approval of an audience, they may need to work more on the photographic elements prized by that audience even if those elements are somewhat foreign to the photographer's natural talents and inclinations.

[texandrews]

Dichotomies, like all generalizations, tell the skeletal gist of a story while leaving out many important details. For example, it's worth noting there are many kinds of technically oriented people (optics geeks, software lovers, maker-movement DIY, etc.) and many kinds of artist people (such as those focusing on people versus those focusing on more abstracted visuals). It's a polychotomy.

You raise a key point. The "what you should do next" really depends on your goals. Photographers who practice the hobby for their own self-satisfaction and enjoyment can certainly focus only on those elements of photography they enjoy. They can turn their backs on all the other facets of the field that others insist are essential to being a so-called "great" photographer.

But if the "technical" person or the "artistic" person aspires toward greater acceptance, acknowledgement, or sales of their works, they may benefit from learning more about the other side. Although I'd be the last person in the world to tell people to aspire to popularity (e.g., my rule on books is that "best seller" is usually a mark against the book), I do see how if a photographer wants the approval of an audience, they may need to work more on the photographic elements prized by that audience even if those elements are somewhat foreign to the photographer's natural talents and inclinations.

One thing I've been learning about my branch of technical photography (museum repro work) from training webinars I've been doing is how much subtle artistic work/evaluation goes into what most people would consider a dry as toast sort of photography....

[clackers]

If you look at the possible pairings of a photographer and their assistant, the best combo is usually creative photographer, then technical assistant, rather than the other way round. Pretty formidable lineup when Annie Liebowitz had Martin Schoeller as her tech guy, he's gone on to be a successful portrait photographer himself.

[normhead]

If you look at the possible pairings of a photographer and their assistant, the best combo is usually creative photographer, then technical assistant, rather than the other way round. Pretty formidable lineup when Annie Liebowitz had Martin Schoeller as her tech guy, he's gone on to be a successful portrait photographer himself.

I'm always kind of amused at the Liebowitz /Avedon road to success. If you shoot a lot of famous people, a certain type of people will want to see your work. You're half way to fame already. Not that their work isn't good, they wouldn't have those sessions if they weren't. But, would they be as well known if they shot with the same tech/artistic standards in your corner photo portrait studio taking pictures of everyday people? It's unlikely.

As a starting photographer, you really have to find a way to make a splash and get noticed.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-30-2020 at 06:21 PM.

[clackers]

As a starting photographer, you really have to find a way to make a splash and get noticed.

Not sure how that's different from any field, Norm - music, film, biochemistry, stockbroking.

The only way to get out of the suburbs and be with the players is to actually do the same kind of projects as them - that brings the reputation, the money and the repeat business, of course.

And you would have to have the contacts. To go by your example, I'm not sure Martin Schoeller would be famous if it weren't for being Leibowitz's apprentice.

In a way, Leibowitz was Avedon's apprentice at Rolling Stone. She started shooting in his sparse style, but currently does heavily Photoshopped editorial composites. Or her team does.

So, like everywhere, it's who you know rather than a meritocracy. When Avedon was hired by Vogue in 1962, were there guys sitting miserably in their tiny NY apartments who had similar skills but didn't create or get the opportunity? Sure, why not?

[Dartmoor Dave]

So, like everywhere, it's who you know rather than a meritocracy. When Avedon was hired by Vogue in 1962, were there guys sitting miserably in their tiny NY apartments who had similar skills but didn't create or get the opportunity? Sure, why not?

And there's always the old sports analogy to remember:

Lots of people are high school level good, fewer people are college level good, even fewer people are professional minor league good, and only a small few are good enough for the big league. And even out of the big league talents, you can only ever count the true geniuses on the fingers of one hand.

[normhead]

So, like everywhere, it's who you know rather than a meritocracy. When Avedon was hired by Vogue in 1962, were there guys sitting miserably in their tiny NY apartments who had similar skills but didn't create or get the opportunity? Sure, why not?

Well that's what they get for sitting in their apartments.
They should have bought houses. An investment instead of just throwing away money.

I love the Peter Lik story. He travelled the U.S and put put a book together called the "Spirit of America", an awesome way to get noticed. Pretty much self taught. And start taking the images that became "The Spirit of America" in 89 but the book wasn't published until 2002. A real "stick with it, self made" kinda guy.

Peter Lik - Wikipedia

[clackers]

Well that's what they get for sitting in their apartments.
They would have bought houses. An investment instead of just throwing away money.

I love the Peter Lik story. He travelled the U.S and put put a book together called the "Spirit of America", an awesome way to get noticed. Pretty much self taught. And start taking the images that became "The Spirit of America" in 89 but the book wasn't published until 2002. A real "stick with it, self made" kinda guy.

Peter Lik - Wikipedia

Yeah, exceptions can happen, like the case of chef turned travel photographer Lauren Bath. She had no contacts at National Geographic or whatever, but this is a different age and Instagram was a leveller for her. She became an influencer. She was approached for work by tourist boards because photos in her feed were defacto advertising:

From chef to travel photographer: my story - Lauren Bath