This series of essays by Alain Briot could be pretty interesting, though I have to say that so far, I disagree with most of his main points. First of all, photogaphy ain't science. It's a mechanical aspects do represent a form of technology, but that's not science. Science is that thing about observation, hypothesis and repeatable proof; technology is about the wheel and how many spokes it should have. Further, a statement from a trained painter that photography is more technical than painting seems passing strange. The technology of painting is so complex that even very good painters have a hard time with it. Supposedly, you can find small parts of Jackson Pollock paintings on the floor beneath the paintings themselves, because he didn't understand the technology of paint and grounds -- and I think you could make a pretty good argument that almost *nobody* yet fully understands the relationship between paint and grounds. And that's just one tiny aspect of painting. If you are smart and went a good photography school for a year and studied diligently, you'd know just about everything you need to know about the technical aspects of photography to make very good photographs (assuming you have the artistic ability to do that.) Can't say the same of painting; the technical problems are endless. I don't do much math, but assuming that Winsor and Newton produce about 140 different hues of oil color, and that you can often mix as many of three of them without getting mud, how many different combinations would that be, using equal amounts of color for each mixture? Then think about varying amounts of color in each mixture...No, the technology of painting is far more complex than the technology of photography, at least as it applies to the artist. You can be a very good photographer without knowing much about how a chip counts photons, but a painter even controls how photons are absorbed and reflected.

I personally don't think painting and photography have much to do with each other, in an essential artistic way, as opposed to a business way (photography ruined most of the low end portrait business, for example.) Roland Barthes' idea that "the referent adheres" is the essential core of photography; in painting, a referent may not even exist outside the mind.

JC

I, too, think that Mr. Briot's essays might be interesting judging by his previous series. This is obviously a fellow who likes to muse matters of aesthetic theory.

But Briot's first essay of the series , "Art and Science", made me wince. It was a strained, contorted train-of-thought spaghetti bowl of flimsy assertions and weak similes that read more like a high school composition than a well considered essay. It was awful.

I knew Briot was in trouble as soon I read the first paragraph, which was a seminal statement for all that followed. It read:



No. For starters, photography is not intrinsically an art form, "world-class" or otherwise, as is implied in this paragraph. An insurance adjuster taking pictures of your bashed fender is not seeking self expression. Art is a matter of intention, not a matter of medium. So to be more precise, albeit less rhetorically dramatic, we might restate that paragraph as,

"All photographic processes rely upon science. Using photography for artistic expression must therefore, in effect, amalgamate science with art."

But that's still an awfully lame thesis, isn't it? It just got worse from there as more strands of pasta were mixed into the bowl.

Briot seems to have a problem quite common today: an utter misunderstanding of what "science" means. He misused the word and concept as a prop for his thesis. "Science", as a noun, refers to a contiguous body of knowledge. (Ex: genetics, electronics, et.al.) "Science", as a verb, refers generally to the "scientific method" which is a structured process of discovery through experimentation to build that body of knowledge.

"Technology" is not a synonym for science; it's a different matter altogether. Technology refers to the application of a science. Consequently, all art forms -photography, painting, sculpture, drawing- rely on various technologies, not directly on sciences. But I suppose that might be pedantic.

Here's hoping that Briot's future essays will be somewhat more cooked. We can always use good 10,000 foot essays on photography and its aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual factors.

As a trained scientist I fully agree about the misuse of the terminology. I would describe the technical side of photography as "engineering" myself.

For a good treatise on the art & philosophy of landscape photography, I would strongly recommend David Ward's short but wonderful book, which I commented on here.

I'm a little puzzled about Alain's direction. He seems to have really kicked into high gear on the "educator" front. I appreciate what he writes, and find much value in it - and indeed quite enough to buy some of his stuff - but I do wonder of he is over-extending himself. I'm also a little disapointed that his long overdue article on the business of photography - which subscribers have paid for in advance - seems to be a low priority. Whilst he is erudite and knowledgeable, I can't help but wonder if he might not consider letting his photography speak for itself just a touch more. I don't think anybody would dispute that on that front he is rock solid.

I too, like the commenters above, found much to question in Alain Briot's beginning essay. It was replete with assumptions that are highly challengable.

I have a suspicion that his whole Art + Science thrust is aimed at placing photography on a plane on which it doesn't necessarily exist and attempting to immunize it from the situation that photography has the lowest entry barrier of just about all the Art media. I have commented elsewhere about this. To wit - one's un-tutored Uncle Ned or Aunt Sally has a better chance of taking a great photograph than creating a work of merit/substance in any other medium - think ballet, music, painting*, etc. Look at the recent interest and elevation to Art status of Anonymous photos. Uncle Ned's and Aunt Sally's Master work may not be recognized as such simply because they are not connected to the Arts community. Also they may not have access to the post-processing that can elevate snapshots into Art. The fact that their output may be drugstore-processed 4x6" prints is only a drawback in that they don't have a critical support group touting "ordinary-ness" as a virtue. (Think William Christenberry's Polaroids.)

Much of the photography that is produced and exhibited in Art venues is created somewhat in spite of technology. Artists muddle through and obtain expressive results without much knowledge of the technology, in fact, often through an inadvertent or even willful mis-understanding of technology. Calibration, pristine histograms, etc. are not necessary ingredients. Luck alone may suffice. Luck plus a good eye can increase the odds of repeated success. From that point on, a knowledge of the technology just functions to increase consistency and repeatability, but only in service of luck and a good eye. As we all know, technology alone cannot carry the day and can be applied to the point that it contradicts the results.

I recall hearing the proprietor of an artist's printing service (one which runs Artisans, Epsons, Imageprint, etc. all the "requisites") admit that, when working with artists they ran through lots of paper doing trial and error. Well, doggone!


* although much of the history of painting of the last 50 years has lowered the entry barrier significantly.

I find all these dichotomies between "art" and "science" and "photography" and "art" to be not terribly useful. Science underpins the technical potential of both media - in different ways to be sure - and there can be just as much art in photography as there is in painting - depending on what one means by "art" and whether the person doing the painting or the photographing has the kind of vision and mastery of technique needed to create "art". I'm not going to write a parallel essay on a definition of "art" or the meaning of art in photography - whole books have been written about this and I'm sure many of us have read at least one or several of them. While Alain's first essay was amusing, frivolous, flawed and interesting all at once, let us await the next instalments with open minds.

I liked the essay.

Semantics aside, the camera is between me and what I want to create, and if I do not understand the technical limitations and requirements of the medium, the camera can actually be a barrier. Even if if I understand the technology, having to stop and think about something technical can derail my train of creative thought.

I have given some thought to the difference between painting and photography. Both have their technical limitations, but in my mind, the technical aspects of photography are much more rigorous. Of course, if my hobby was painting and not photography, I might feel quite differently about that.

I'd say that was debatable. Whilst it may be that pure technique is less valued in recent decades, there is then an underlying assumption that technique == art. The legions of technically competent journeyman portrait or landscape painters that predated the photographic era where not artists, at least not in the strictest sense of the word. Art is about communicating a concept, essentially, through abstract or literal means, but the significant point is that a work of art is multilayered. The concept is the key, not the technique. An example would be Rachel Whiteread's incredibly moving "House" - effectively a plaster cast of the interior of a house, made prior to demolition. The artist had no part in the technique. The casual onlooker just didn't get it, or worse, decided it was rubbish. But at an emotional, and intellectual level, it was very, very powerful.

I have say that I'm pretty sceptical about most photographers who describe themselves as "fine artists". There are some, and I'm sure Alain Briot is one, for whom the term is justified. Michael, I know from personal experience, is certainly at times also within that group. But most are competent, maybe even highly gifted, technicians (I'd classify myself as an incompetent technician, but I have had enough exposure to trained, professional artists to understand what I lack).

The reason I find David Ward's writings so appealing is that he has actually thought a lot about what an artistic process actually means, how it relates to the wider world, and how it is applied to landscape photograpy - an area which has a hard time escaping from the "pretty pictures" trap.

I think that elsewhere, Alain Briot has made a very good job of describing his view of the intersection between photography and the artistic process. In this new article, if you do a global edit on "science" and replace with "technique", I think it reads just fine.

This is ridiculous. While it is true that there isn't much "science" involved in the mere act of pressing the shutter release, having a good grasp of the scientific principles of optics, the behavior of photodiodes and A/D converters, and the chemistry of film and developers will go a long way toward enabling one to master the equipment to achieve the desired result, instead of employing blind guesswork and generally being disappointed in the results. And how is the scientific method not applicable to the technical aspects of photography? Much of learning to be a technically proficient photographer can be thought of as using one's technical expertise to formulate a hypothesis regarding what lens and camera settings are appropriate to the task at hand, shooting with those settings (AKA conducting an experiment), and comparing the results obtained to what the hypothesis predicted, then adjusting the hypothesis as necessary based on the results of the shoot (experiment). Given decent quality equipment, the results are testable and repeatable. With a disciplined approach, there's nothing unscientific about the technical side of photography at all.



This is also ridiculous. A year of dedicated study of photography will indeed ground you fairly well in the basics of operating a camera competently (getting focus and exposure correct), but when you start throwing in things like lighting and the vagaries of different types of photography (shooting food is not the same as shooting a horse show, which is not the same as shooting a wedding, which is not the same as shooting artistic landscapes), truly mastering all aspects of photography takes a lifetime.

And given the fact that most color print processes can duplicate the range of colors found in a painting with only 4 to 8 inks, your example of 140 paint colors complicates the issue unnecessarily. Painting with a specific color is no more difficult than photographing and reproducing that color; given the difficulties many people have with color management, one could make a fairly convincing case that the photographer has a more difficult path to follow than the painter.



This is also quite off base. The basic idea of both photography and painting is to express something visually--an idea, an emotion, or perhaps a record of the appearance of a person, place, or thing. Both disciplines can be used to create a very literal representation of something (although photography can do so somewhat more conveniently than painting), and both can be employed to create images that are far removed from from "reality". The end product of both disciplines is a static, two dimensional image that is generally interpreted as representing a single moment in time. THe only real difference between photography and painting is the process between the concept and the finished product.

"If you do a global edit on "science" and replace with "technique", I think it reads just fine."

Doesn't art make use of technique? And if so, wouldn’t titling the series "Art & Technique" be confusing the issue?

And, as an example, aren't certain, if not most, reviews of lenses done scientifically? A number of reviewers may be insulted if they are told that such reviews are not scientific when they aim at making use of facts, facts, and only facts.

And aren't those who purchase lenses based on these reviews making a decision informed by scientific facts?

And isn't profiling a printer a science? And aren't many photographers profiling their own printers and studying the science of color management?

Or is all this not science? And if it is not science, what is it if not art?

Alain

I agree with Jonathan. I think the posts above are being unnecessarily pedantic regarding use of the term science. Here I use “science” to mean an understanding of the principles which explain the physical world. Scientific principles are both deterministic and objective. They apply the same way for everyone, whether you believe them or not. There is little need for science in literature. However, a photographer ignorant of the principles of optics, color, and exposure (time, aperture, and ISO) is lost.

As for Jonathan, unfortunately I must tell Rummy to cancel your Army tour since leaving this forum without the benefit of your well reasoned input presents more of a national security risk than the additional security you can provide as an Army of one. Think about it. Is there anything more disheartening to the morale of a nation then a bunch of bad photos? Sorry Jonathan. You are hereby ordered to put the M-16 down and pickup the 1Ds.

Respectfully,
p

"And aren't those who purchase lenses based on these reviews making a decision informed by scientific facts?"

No. Making an informed purchase based on a review is not "doing science"

And isn't profiling a printer a science? And aren't many photographers profiling their own printers and studying the science of color management?"

No. Profiling a printer is not doing science anymore than repairing a flat tire is doing science. (Let's see, I'll do this experiment to see if placing a plug in the hole and filling the tire with air will restore its functionality. Eureka! Call the American Journal of Physics!) Studying color management (which may be a craft, not a science) is not doing science.

This is fuzzy thinking.

Well, this part we agree on, Jonathon. Just like the only difference between a raft and a lunar lander is the process between the concept and the finished product; I mean, hey, they both take you somewhere.

Technique and technology are not science, and to think that making the distinction is pedantic demonstrates a thorough misunderstanding of the differences. Understanding optics -- studying a physics text -- does not make you a scientist, it makes you a student. I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but the differences between science and technology are critical, and Mr. Briot doesn't seem to understand them. Think: science on this hand, engineering on the other. People may cross-over, but the root concepts don't.

As for the idea that a few inks can reproduce color in a painting, again, I really don't want to seem like a jerk, but that concept is laughable -- ask any pro who works for a museum, trying to get the colors right. My example of Winsor and Newton colors was not pulled out of thin air: and if you look at references on paintings, you'll find whole treatises just on color, and where it comes from, and how to use it, and how even to use the texture of oil color to pick up highlights...

I don't have a problem with photography. I like it. I just think it's distinct from painting is essential ways -- not better or worse, just distinct, and it sure as hell is not less technical.

JC

So explain how it is that commercial and fine art photographers are able to match colors in their prints for the most demanding corporate clients using printing processes that use only 4-8 ink colors. What you're calling "laughable" is done every single day, and it seems to work quite well. Setting gamut issues to the side for a moment, are you seriously proposing that painings in general cannot be accurately color matched without using hundreds of ink colors?

"Studying color management (which may be a craft, not a science) is not doing science."

I trust that GretagMc Beth, Chromix, Color Vision, X-Rite, Epson, ColorByte and numerous other companies involved in color management will be delighted that you are setting them straight on the exact nature of their endeavors.

Yours looking for the Gretag McBeth Spectrolino/ Spectroscan bundle in my local craft store,

Alain

I have to demur here. The matching of color in printed materials is an approximate process and one shouldn't give the impression that there are slam dunk methods. My wife is frequently disappointed by illustrations in "mail-order" clothing catalogs that do not accurately represent the color of the garment that arrives, in spite of what I am sure is a lot of effort expended to attempt accuracy. As for the reproduction of paintings - I believe that no one-layer printing process can adequately reproduce the effect of underpainting and what it does to the top layer of color - not to mention issues of irridescence and other optical effects in transparent/transluscent layered paint. The aformentioned proprieter of an artist's reproduction printing service feels he is most successful when he or his staff works with an artist to "achieve a result better (my emphasis, I might read 'different') than the original".

This sub-topic is drifting a bit from the original thrust - but this should give Alain Briot some sense that subsequent articles in his series will be read by an active rather than passive audience.

That means nothing. There are still a lot of graphic artists and printing establishments who don't even know what color management is; they don't even use Adobe Gamma, and if you ask them for a printer profile so you can soft proof to their press, they look at you like you have cockroaches crawling from your eye sockets. I've dealt with quite a few of these outfits, some of which print books and catalogs, signs and even photo enlargements, and certainly ought to know better. Most mail order catalogs are generally printed by the lowest bidder; certainly not always the one with the best color management practices.

Texture aside, color matching is fairly easy to do to a high degree of accuracy if one uses a decent spectrophotometer to profile one's gear. This is particularly true when matching text color to a specific item; you can use the spectrophotometer to measure the color of the item and then export that color to Photoshop in RGB or CMYK, and if you've profiled the printer with the same spectro, the color match can be close enough to be startling when you place a print next to the original object. I've done this a few times, so I'm speaking from experience here.

Color matching isn't nearly as approximate as you claim if you use good quality cameras, monitors, printers, and calibration equipment, and use good measurement and calibration practices when profiling.

"Subsequent articles in his series will be read by an active rather than passive audience."

I very much appreciate that, whether readers agree or disagree with me. If I wanted a passive audience I would be writing essays that everyone agrees with ;- )

Alain

The best, highest-level art books don't claim to match color precisely, because it can't be done (yet.) I know there are all kinds of color measuring tools and so on, but I also know that you can't perfectly match the colors in paintings. You can come close on some, but you don't get the cigar for getting close. As to the point about matching fabrics, we're not dealing here with people who don't know about color matching -- with high-end catalogs, we're talking about the best catalog pros and fashion shooters doing the work, and you'll still see warnings that the color is not precise.

That is, after all, what the whole term "out of gamut" was invented to express, when it comes to photography and color matching. Is there ANY photographic color set that will match all visible colors, all at once?

This discussion has grown a bit more testy than I intended when I started it. I like the idea of these essays, and think this kind of discussion has been missed on the LL; it gets a little bit tiresome for the non-technically oriented to read even more articles about bit depth. I personally look forward to further essays by Alain.

JC

No, "out of gamut" refers to a color that is brighter, darker, and/or more saturated than the inkset can reproduce, not a color within the gamut that is not reproduced sufficiently accurately. There is a significant difference between "out of gamut" and inaccurate color matching.

Jonathan's distinction is correct, but "out of gamut" poses an additional color matching challenge for those colors that are out of gamut - we vary rendering intents and do a number of other things to improve matching in these situations.

Further to John Camp's initial critique. I have looked up in the "Oxford Advanced Dictionary of current English" (Oxford University Press) what the words "science " and "technique" really mean.

Science: knowledge arranged in an orderly manner, especially knowledge obtained by observation and testing of facts; pursuit of such knowledge.

Scientific: of, for, connected with, used in, science; guided by the rule of science.

Technique: technical or mechanical skill in music, painting etc., method of doing this expertly; method of of artistic expression in music, painting etc.

Technology: study, mastering and utilization of manufacturing and industrial methods: systematic application of knowledge to practical tasks in industry etc.

Jo,

Thank you for looking up these definitions. Personally, I am very careful regarding which words I use in my essays. I literally spend months working out details of my writings as well as verifying the definition of the terms I use.

Alain

Pardon me for intruding in a thread where people actually do know what they are talking about

The 'technical' side to photography, or art for that matter is something that the photographer/artist must have under their belt before even starting. There is no point to taking a photo as an artistic endevour if you cannot use the equipment to express what you wish it to, ditto a painter who doesn't know how to get the correct mix of paint onto the canvas.

Cartier Bresson writes that a photographer needs to have the technical aspects of photography as a subconscious reflex, he compares it to changing gears on a car.

Once I do have that technical expertise, I can paint what I have in my mind, that which I want to express using the tools I have. If I have used my choice of film, lenses, filtration, exposure, post processing and printing to bring to life on paper the emotions I wish to convey from a particular scene, is that not art? Composition is not a science, it's not even technical, it could not be done by a machine programmed with all the technical aspects of photography. Composition is in essence how one 'sees' the scene, it is where photography stops being technical and starts becoming art.

As far as I understand, this basic theme is what has run as an undercurrent in the previous series of essays and is hinted at in this essay. Who cares how you define science?

If I've missed the point of this entire thread, I refer you to the first line of my post

"As far as I understand, this basic theme is what has run as an undercurrent in the previous series of essays and is hinted at in this essay. Who cares how you define science?"

That is absolutely correct. The underlying theme is the same, but in the new series I address subjects that do not fit neatly in categories such as the ones I use for the Photography & Aesthetics series, namely composition, exposure, lenses, seeing, film choice, keepers, portfolios, personal style, being an artist and the upcoming being an artist in business which is currently 2/3rds done. In this new series I address subjects that are more problematic, subjects that are rarely, if ever addressed.

In regards to the definition of science, my take was that everyone agrees on the dictionary definition of science. However, somehow the discussion took a different turn. In my regard, that changes nothing. As you say, there are two aspects to photography, and a world class photograph demonstrates mastery of both.

Now most people find themselves, at first, stronger in one of those two aspects and that is the basis for my essay. The goal is to excel at both, and to do that we have to bypass our natural tendency to lean towards the side we are naturally better at. To do this we have to make changes, and to make changes requires a willingness to learn. Change is good, but change is also difficult. My next essay focuses on the concept of change, so we will be able to clarify what changes we are talking about.

Do keep in mind that this is the first essay in this series.

Finally, I do believe you know what you are talking about :- )

Alain

Right! I suspect that everybody reading the essay would agree that there are two complementary "aspects" of photography (or at least of those types of photography that have anything to do with aesthetics), even if they might quibble about the names being used.

I want to thank Pom for bringing the discussion back to the main point of the essay, and I certainly look forward eagerly to the rest of the series.

Eric

Eric,

Thank you. What is very interesting is that this discussion has given me a unique idea for the next essay. So there is good coming from exchanging views, and I want to thank everybody, whether they agree or disagree with me.

Alain

Would that be a classic case of self-reflection?

If the majority of the readers understand the two aspects in photography to be "Art & Technology", then you might consider *changing* your choice of words...

For further reflections I propose the following sentences:
1. The Science behind Art.
2. The Technology behind Art.

I would think sentence 1 poses the same ambiguity as your example of "Art & Technique".

On the other hand: isn't it interesting that an essay about Art & Whatever raises a discussion primarily about "Whatever"? Is that a result of anal overfixation on the "Whatever" aspect of Photography? Word A fits better than word B. No, no, word B is better.

It is clear that one can "learn" the science behind technology, and one can learn to use the technology to ones advantage. Can one learn Art? Or Creativity? And if so, can one learn to balance Art and Technology? Is this what the essays will be addressing? I personally would like to see one of those essays titled "Art & Innovation". And I'll leave it open what aspect "Innovation" is referring at.

ps. for the colorgeeks: don't be too dogmatic about color. Shoot some golden jewelry. How do you know you reproduce the right color? Note that in painting you at least have the choice of using a gold paint...

Any of you ever seeing Normall Rockwell, Painting? He was a science ,or he was a GENIUS? I really beleave he was I GENIUS.


BlasR

"can one learn to balance Art and Technology? Is this what the essays will be addressing? I personally would like to see one of those essays titled "Art & Innovation"

These are certainly right along my line of thinking and at the core of the first essay. To innovate one first has to free himself and be open to change.

Alain

Speaking for myself, I find that photography is a lot like writing poetry. There are some people who can produce decent poetry without understanding the intricacies of the language they're using, but the better poets usually try to understand both the artistic side of their craft and the technical underpinnings of the language they're using.

Of course, it's possible to know a language very well and to never write or appreciate poetry. Such is life.

Yes, and I find it especially interesting that the notion of art as a form of self-expression hasn't been challenged. The popularity of this notion comes from the 19th century.

Yet we still allow that e.g. Michaelangelo's on-demand decorations are not only art, but great art.

In Norwegian, the corresponding word's dictionary meaning stresses that it's an imaginative, creative achievement of an aesthetic expression of inner or outer experience.

Even this somewhat broader definition is rather recent in Europe, and in India art had strict and very specific rules on how things should be crafted until the 17th century. Yet we persist in calling it art and not a craft, don't we?

I'd say that seeing what makes a photograph is an art, but the technicality of delivering the vision with bytes, film or paint is a craft.

I'd agree with that. The visualization of the final product/image is artistic, doing what's necessary to achieve the desired result is technique/craft. This applies equally to painting and photography.

The craft of Art.
Julie

I dunno. Perfectly realized visualization, combined with great technique, might also make a photograph a postcard. On the other hand, "bad postcards" have recently been compiled by a famous photographer into an "art" book. That is, what a few decades ago was just tourist junk, is now art; and it's commonplace that what was art a few decades ago is now considered junk. I think nailing down what makes an "art" photograph is pretty slippery. I think Ansel Adams "Moonrise" is a serious work of art, as is "Clearing Winter Storm," but I'm not so sure that all of his photographs would qualify (and when I say 'I'm not so sure,' that's exactly what I mean: my mind could be changed one way or another.) Ultimately I have a feeling that what defines an object as "art" is the acceptance by a wide range of knowledgable people that a certain work IS "art," and that it would be difficult to come up with a more specific definition. It may be the plight of many technically competent photographers that what they believe is art is actually nothing more than postcards, and they'll never know differently, because the final verdict may not be rendered for 50 or 100 years...

In sculpture and painting, I have a very difficult idea accepting the work of many "minimalists" as art. The producers of this stuff wrote aesthetic treatises, worked like artists, acted like artists, were interested in art, sold their work in art galleries, and have had it installed in major museums...and yet, I think the final verdict may be that what they produced is junk.

JC

I stand by the "It's art because I say it is art" definition.

In the essay, Alain describes how the technical (scientific) aspects of photography can be a barrier to the aesthetic aspects of photography. He asserts (correctly I think) that there are far more photos that are technically proficient but lacking in art than the converse.

Coincidentally, last night I watched a DVD that describes the converse situation--photos that have significant artistic strengths, but lack technical proficiency. The movie is Born Into Brothels. For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. It is a documentary describing a project to give cameras to children living in an impoverished red light district in India and to encourage them to explore their world through the cameras.

The children appear to be using simple point and shoot type cameras with color negative film. All the scientific aspects of their photos have been thoughtfully provided by the engineering and research staffs of Canon and Kodak. The children are of course totally unconcerned with the science of photography; instead, they evidence the simple joy of exploring the visual world around them. While they do not have an adult's ability to describe art in terms of composition, line, form, contrast, etc., many of them have a fantastic intuitive ability to capture not only the emotions around them, but also to capture the colors and shapes artistically. Some of the photos from the project can be seen on-line at http://www.kids-with-cameras.org/kidsgallery/.

In my own photography, I know that technical proficiency can certainly be a barrier to seeing the world artistically. When I look at a scene and have my mind preoccupied with metering, dynamic range, focal lengths, filtration, etc., then I am not giving my full energy to seeing the real possibilities in the scene. Certainly, I have produced my share of photos that are technically competent but lacking in spirit. Perhaps for that reason, I find that some of my favorite shots are ones I took 25 years ago with an OM-1 that I scarcely knew how to use; the photos may lack a little on the technical side but sometimes I succeeded in capturing something that still seems significant today. Perhaps that is also the reason why so many photographers seem to ask the question: what camera can I buy as decent digital point and shoot camera--a camera that produces decent results without interposing a barrier between the photographer and his or her vision of the world?

Anyway, I you haven't seen it, the movie is worth watching.

Pesonally I would prefer Alain to use the term 'Arts et Metier', but the downside it would confuse all the non French speakers - though perhaps that would save all the discussion about which dictionary we are working to.

Well, they use software produced by engineers, and apply their experience and skill to get it to work for them. The engineers themselves may have referred ro colour science, or optics, or other areas, and may even have conducted research. But the photographers are most certainly not "doing" science. They are, at best, using the fruits of science.

I don't think it is pedantic to insist on the correct use of terminology. Photographers are pretty damn pedantic when it comes to their area of expertise, and should extend the same courtesy to others. Sure, there is technique in art. And there is art in photography. And there is technique in photography. But, unless you are involved in the sort of work such as the guy who has come up with a way to focus images after the event, then science doesn't come into it.

Oh, and Jonathan, weighing into an interesting, and developing thread starting off with "This is ridiculous"... is this an example of the diplomatic tact and sensitivity that the US military is so renowned for ? Or are you just trying to bring us down to the usual level ? Just wondered.

Skipping all the discussion inbetween, the above pretty well sums up my feelings about this writing too...

If Briot wants to enter the mainstream of journalism, he'll need to learn to keep his articles focused on the point(s) he's trying to make instead of the arcane ramble exhibited in his recent articles on LL...

Cheers,

Sigh....

Hi Group,

My Name is Ray Maxwell. I am an electronics engineer, a silver gelatin print maker, chromogenic print maker, and digital printmaker and photographer. I am also a storyteller.

Once upon a time there was a young person who came to a Japanese Master Potter and asked if he could become his apprentice. The old Master agreed. He took the young apprentice down to a river and taught him to dig a clay body and then how to wedge clay (this is mixing with the hands to remove all air pockets and make the clay homogeneous).

The next day the apprentice arrived and asked what he could do. The old master sent the apprentice to the river to wedge clay.

The next day the apprentice arrived and asked what he could do. The old master sent the apprentice to the river to wedge clay.

This went on for months.

One day the apprentice asked when he could make a pot.

The old Master said, "Before you can be creative, you have to learn your medium."

The old Jazz master also said, " First you have to "pay your dues"."

All creative art has technical aspects that have to be mastered before you can express yourself in a deterministic way and become a "Master" of your art.

You can use trial and error and come up with art that is serendipitous. This is also valid art created via accident. But pre-visualized deterministic art requires that you master the medium before you can accurately express yourself.

Painting requires that you understand pigments, canvas, light, perspective, brushes, thinners, and a whole list of technical things.

Digital photography requires that you understand CCD and CMOS arrays, A/D converters, digital file systems, light, optics, and the many more technical items.

I once worked with a painter who understood color science. He limited his oil palette to only the colors that could be reproduced on my inkjet printers so that we could approximate his work without going out of gamut. He understood the limits of the reproduction methods that were available. Don’t you wish there were more artists like that.

Ray

It is not clear to me why Alain chooses to make this response rather than responding to what the author actually meant. The companies who produce the software could quite correctly be described as doing engineering, which is the practical application of science. Maybe they occasionally stretch into doing science, but I doubt it. On the other hand, the users of these products are ordinarily doing neither engineering nor science.

I suggest that the proper term for use in Alain's article instead of "science" might be "craft" or "technique". In any art there is a need to make use of physical tools to create the end result. (Give me a break and allow that even Photoshop is a "physical tool"; it uses electrons, right?) One can come to grips with the tools in a variety of ways, ranging from a basic understanding of the physics to "it looks right when I wiggle it this way". If you fail to learn how to use your tools you will have inconsistent results, but no one needs a PhD in image processing to use Photoshop effectively, nor a Masters in chemistry to make a competent print in the darkroom.

Photography today makes use of a lot of tools that have required an amazing level of engineering, and basic science including optics, chemistry, computer and semiconductor. A large amount of the engineering effort by the camera, printer and software companies is devoted to making it possible to take photos with good technique without needing to understand the science and engineering that are fundamental to success, just as I can write this post with no clue about how the hundreds of thousands of lines of code work when I hit "Add Reply".

I am also mystified as to how Alain thought he would improve the point of his article by dismissing the craft or technique required by painters. I myself cannot guess if painting is technically easier or harder than photography, but I appreciate that painting well is hard. If I am writing about technique and/or art in photography, why does this point matter?

I hope that future articles will help me blend craft and art to make better photographs, rather than inspire me to blather on about the proper use of certain English words!

I know you're not soliciting a response here, but I'd like to point out that no, I don't wish that there were more artists like that on a general basis.

While such artists may be a pleasure to work with if their work is primarily intended for reproduction, and it indeed may spark off a new trend in painting techniques, I don't like the idea of artists limiting themselves in this manner.

It would also be convenient if image artists limited themselves to formats that were either 1:1 or 3:2, since those are easiest to find frames for, but ...

[quote=jani,Dec 19 2005, 11:25 PM]

While such artists may be a pleasure to work with if their work is primarily intended for reproduction, and it indeed may spark off a new trend in painting techniques, I don't like the idea of artists limiting themselves in this manner.

Ray replies:

Masters of an Art understand the physical limitations of the medium that they are working in. Being ignorant of these limitations does not mean you are free from them.

A serendipitous Artist sometimes produces happy accidents.

Both are valid modes of Art. However, they are not the same.

However, a Master understands his "project" end to end. He knows the market that he wishes to reach. He knows the price point he wishes to hit. He makes choices to produce his art within the constraints of his project.

Those who create in ignorance are not regularly successful. They do enjoy the occasional accidents of sucess. Some of these are beautiful.

I have been entertained by Art by accident, however, I prefer to work with Masters who can pre-conceive their work from beginning to end.

One is not right and the other wrong. I make a personal choice to prefer the Masters.

Ray

Interesting discussion, don't know how I managed to overlook it these past few days.

It struck me that those condeming the essay for its supposed lack of accuracy didn't bother to acknowledge the fact that the message it attempts to convey comes across clearly. At least it does for me, even if this was perhaps partially supported by this very discussion.

Even if the discussion surrounding the usage of "science" vs "technique" could reach a conclusion, would this really add value to an essay that already provides plenty?

As somebody else pointed out, isn't the focus on the technicallity of the article a great metaphore for the very point Alain was trying to make?

Cheers,
Bernard

"Isn't the focus on the technicallity of the article a great metaphor for the very point Alain was trying to make?"

Il est plus facile de voir la paille dans l'oeuil de son voisin que la poutre qu’on a dans le sien (It is easier to see a straw in your neighbor's eye than a two by four in your own eye) - French proverb.

Alain

Maginot Line - defensive French construction - functions as a metaphor for the erection of an elaborate and highly engineered position which, however, can be simply ignored and circumvented by others who adopt a different view of the world and go about their business - rendering the position irrelevant.

That's a great metaphor for this thread - a certain obtuseness which has been deployed to avoid discussing the true merits of the article written by Alain. Perhaps if people step back, take a breath and allow the series of articles to develop there may be more substance to the discussion.

Wrong again! Has nothing to do with the French. In fact the French weren't in existence when that quote was first spoken.

So who said it originally? Jesus, Mat 7:3.

Jack, totally off-topic - because I've already said what I wish to say about this topic for now, but just a short rejoinder that the "French" most likely were in existence at that time - but not in the political or social configuration familiar to us today!

Cheers, Mark