Looking For Perfection

if there's a hallmark for the frustrated ammateur photographer it is the amount of experimentation that is performed. As I'm guilty of this I do know whereof I speak.

Not only is experimenting time consuming, it often means that even when we aren't conducting an experiment, we are in fact using tools we have not yet become skilled with. Any poor results obtained are so tied up with technical aspects that it's hard to know or at least recognize that the real problem with the photograph is you pointed it in the wrong direction. We fuss about excess grain, lack of sharpness, we worry about lens quality, enough pixels, we can't decide which format is right for us. That much worrying sure takes away from the important question of how do I make a meaningful photograph.

Another problem with experimentation is that the average photographer has minimal scientific training and either hasn't a clue about setting up a useful experiment, or doesn't bother to.

I'm a doctor and I treat depression. Sometimes patients end up on several medications and counselling and if they continue to struggle, I have to decide what to do next. I commonly point out to patients that in doing an experiment, if you change more than one variable at a time, it's a lot harder to assess the significance of results.

Another issue in experimentation is that of cause and effect. Were I to put a patient on penicillin for a cold, I could reasonably predict that within a week or so they'd be better. Of course, since colds are viral and don't respond to penicillin, the 'response' in fact is simple resolution of the infection on it's own and despite the penicillin - colds naturally get better.

So what happens when you change films for example for a new project, and you like the results - is it an effect of the film change or is it simply because you are getting better or because this particular film suits the new project? This kind of experiment where you change something but then simply use the new tool and hope that you can see a difference.

Few of us have the time, money or inclination to do the rigorous testing which would truly show the differences between two products or methods. We read about using high contrast copy film with low contrast developers for the ultimate resolution, but we forget to check to see how many successful photographers use that method (none that I know of). We agonize over the perfect large format camera, even though the majority of sucessful 4X5 landscape photographers use Technikas (Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, Craig Richards, etc. It's true that Technikas are not perfect and no, they aren't particularly pretty, and some people hate the four knob back tilt system, and using 90 mm. lenses and shorter is problematic, especially if the lens has excess coverage and you want to take advantage of it. So we hunt for the ideal camera - we hear that nothing is better than a $5000 Ebony so we agonize over how to justify such a huge outlay of cash (and stay married).

Sometimes we try to copy the successful photographers in their equipment choices, not realizing the reasons for their choices may have little if anything to do with the quality of the pictures and more to do with the kinds of pictures they get paid to do or with the demands for very large prints that they receive.

There's little point in drooling over a 16 mp camera if the only printer you own is 8.5 by 11 and you are hoping for 13X19 one of these days. The only landscape photographers who use a medium format digital back are people who are rich enough (from other occupations) to afford a luxury item. These are the same people who drive luxury cars, live in big houses and can afford exotic holidays - and more power to them for having earned that money. But they aren't like most of us and they aren't like most sucessful photographers who haven't gone that route.

A common error is to seek perfection in prints from images that are inherently boring - if the image is boring, the only thing you can do to it is at least make a perfect print - but at the end it's still a boring image.

Yes, an 8X10 contact print looks better than a blow up from 35 mm. but if the subject matter wasn't worth recording, was it really worth it?

So:

1) Ask yourself if you are experimenter or a photographer.

2) If you do decide to experiment, then limit the variables, eliminate the distractions (like camera shake) and ask yourself if you can reasonably expect an answer to the question you have asked with the experiment you have designed.

3) Don't use experimements to do real photography - they should never mix.

4) Limit the number of experiments you do and take as a guide the photographers whose work you admire.

5) Ask yourself sensible questions - asking whether 4X5 makes better pictures than 35 mm. isn't the issue - the real question is which format is best suited to your needs. If you truly hate using a tripod, then use equipment well designed for hand holding. If you prefer to take pictures when you see something interesting, rather than deliberately going out shooting, then you need equipment that is easy to carry so you can always have it with you.

6) Instead of experimenting at all, get out and photograph - with whatever you have to hand. It doesn't really matter whether it's minox or 8X10, cell phone camera or full frame digital - it can't take good pictures if it isn't being used and using it to photograph brick walls to check resolution doesn't count.