Photo Equipment, puppies, Elvis and how much money should you spend on equipment

[diverdoug1]

The art of U/W photography vs the craft of U/W photography? U/W photography, more than any other type, requires proper technique (craft) as a prerequisite to producing meaningful pictures (art). I liken this to one of my other avocations, aerobatic flying. I could try to put together the most beautiful, moving aerobatic performance, but if I have not mastered the technical nuances of aerobatic flight, I will not succeed. I can try to take a wonderful U/W photograph, but if I have not mastered the technical nuances of my camera rig, I will not succeed. This analogy works for the equipment issue as well. If I want to perform a Lomcevak, I can do it in a Pitts Special, not a Cessna 152. If I want to shoot super macro, I can do it with powerful dual strobes and a fast lens, not a single weak strobe and slow glass. Sure, you can get some great images with a point & shoot, but you are severely limited in what you can do to express yourself. The examples of Mark's work show that he has the prerequisite skill and equipment to produce his artfull images. That is not the case with the images Puffer has shared with us so far.
Puffer's original post seemed to come off very "preachy". Even if the photos he shared with us were of high quality, I think the post would have come off as "uppity". When you start threads like this, you are opening yourself up to people taking a critical look at your "art", and I personally find Puffer's lacking in the U/W examples he has shrared with us. If Puffer had posted the pictures in a thread saying he wanted to share his vacation pics, I would find something nice to say , or say nothing at all. He is denegrating other photographers, while at the same time posting mediocre (at best) examples of his work.
(Also Mark, you are spot on about not posting commercial images. I have had images stolen from flickr, and other online sites for use in comercial promotions. be carefull about posting your good images, and guard your stunners with your life!)

 

[AussieByron]

MJH's Quote For me part of the "art" is having the tech knowledge and diving skills to capture photos that maybe less fit, less experienced diver/photogs cannot.

I agree with you there MJH. I would even extend it further to add being at the right place at the right time as honestly most of our underwater photography is wildlife based with a few exceptions. I feel that Luck is always that little extra which which I find can make an image from being just average to outstanding.

Regards Mark

 

[AussieByron]

Thank you very much Diverdoug for your comments. I am glad that you think some of my images are artfull and that I have some skill.

I will take note of what you said regarding image theft. I thought that if I resized to a smaller image might deter this.

Regards Mark

 

[diverdoug1]

I will take note of what you said regarding image theft. I thought that if I resized to a smaller image might deter this.

Regards Mark

If you or anyone else wants, I can PM you why reduction of image size or quality is not the best safegaurd of your work. I Just don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[mjh]

Mark you are so right about "right place right time". But that also falls into an artist putting time into their craft. First having a concept of what the want to capture in pixels. Then researching where and when they can best give themselves the opportunity to realize the idea.

I love the physical aspect of underwater photography. It is the combination of doing something artistic in a sometimes challenging environment. While I aspire to produce more artistic pcs if that makes me a Craftsman, amen brother.

 

[Warren_L]

Despite Puffer's attempt to explain the art vs craft issue, I'm afraid that I still don't fully grasp what it is he's trying to delineate between art and craft. The most that I can glean from his conversation at this point is that one man's art may very well be just another man's craft:

To quote "So the instant one sees an image and thinks "nice lighting" or "nice composition", it is now a craft image."

Seeing as the only person that can control what that person thinks is himself, each person must then see an image and whether it is art or a craft image is purely up to the individual. Or am I completely off base here?

Anyway, all this art vs craft stuff is making my head spin, and quite frankly to me, the issue really is unimportant, which I guess makes me just a hack when it comes to appreciating fine art.

The more valued points I am getting out of this, and fully agree with come from Mark and MJH. First that luck plays a big role, being in the right place at the right time. For me, having to travel to see creatures both large and small, I don't have the same frequency of opportunity that others might have in seeing these creatures, so I really have to make each dive count. Secondly, the dive skills required to enable me to take the photos that I am trying for. Puffer mentions the low vis conditions he has in Florida - I can sympathize with that as often conditions here at home are just that, but add to that low temperatures, sometimes in the high 30s and low 40s, then welcome to my world. But rightly so, MJH's comment about dive skill is spot on. I always stress to my UW photo students that you are always on a dive first (focusing on executing the dive safely and properly) and photography is second.

 

[Puffer Fish]

The art of U/W photography vs the craft of U/W photography? U/W photography, more than any other type, requires proper technique (craft) as a prerequisite to producing meaningful pictures (art). I liken this to one of my other avocations, aerobatic flying. I could try to put together the most beautiful, moving aerobatic performance, but if I have not mastered the technical nuances of aerobatic flight, I will not succeed. I can try to take a wonderful U/W photograph, but if I have not mastered the technical nuances of my camera rig, I will not succeed. This analogy works for the equipment issue as well. If I want to perform a Lomcevak, I can do it in a Pitts Special, not a Cessna 152. If I want to shoot super macro, I can do it with powerful dual strobes and a fast lens, not a single weak strobe and slow glass. Sure, you can get some great images with a point & shoot, but you are severely limited in what you can do to express yourself. The examples of Mark's work show that he has the prerequisite skill and equipment to produce his artfull images. That is not the case with the images Puffer has shared with us so far.
Puffer's original post seemed to come off very "preachy". Even if the photos he shared with us were of high quality, I think the post would have come off as "uppity". When you start threads like this, you are opening yourself up to people taking a critical look at your "art", and I personally find Puffer's lacking in the U/W examples he has shrared with us. If Puffer had posted the pictures in a thread saying he wanted to share his vacation pics, I would find something nice to say , or say nothing at all. He is denegrating other photographers, while at the same time posting mediocre (at best) examples of his work.
(Also Mark, you are spot on about not posting commercial images. I have had images stolen from flickr, and other online sites for use in comercial promotions. be carefull about posting your good images, and guard your stunners with your life!)

There is a major problem with the internet images...it is a medium that not all techic's translate well to.

The excuse that one does not want to post large images works only if the images would be substantially the same when large or small.

If you have done your research on photographers, then you would know that Minor and Ansel were students of managing light. Each took very different types of images, and processed them very differently but they had the idential point of view.

Here is an example that I would have been proud to send to him if he was alive, with the the note: "See, I actually did learn something in your class". I have this framed in my office...

Minor would have been happy with just the gravel and sand, as the subtle colors and lighting are what he taught. But I like the addition of the fish and the three dimensional aspect that brings to the image. I've seen people just stand and stare at it for minutes on end.

http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/data/500/flounder4_small.JPG

Judge away.

By the way, the best way to avoid the issue of people stealing your images is to never post them.

Even if I had posted a large image, it would never be the same as the print.

What one finds from people demanding to see examples is that they want to see images that look like their idea of what an image should be. Black velvet elvis painters don't like watercolor paintings (or they would be making watercolor paintings). I am suggesting that there are lots of different styles of images, and one should learn to appreciate them all. Craft people though, tend to be loud, and extremely forcefull in telling everyone that their method is the only one.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Warren, I think you have it pretty well.

There is, with every image, a blend, depending on the point of view of the photographer and the person viewing it.

For the most part it does not matter, except for the nasty tendency of some to decide that only one craft is the right one.

Art is not about a style or a craft, so there is a huge difference when ones starts deciding what is good or bad.

Are the only good photographs those taken in clear water with a wide angle lens and lots of strobe light? Are the only good ones taken with a subtle balance of natural and fill flash?

Put another way.. is Minor's famous frost on a window image better or worse than Ansel's Half dome image? A craft person would like one or the other (or neither), someone that likes photography would like both.

Just to be clear, Minor never used the word "Art", he refered to it as photography. And photography where the style is the main theme is craft. Usually it is not that hard to tell...if the photographer only knows a few styles and/or always uses them to take the image, we are talking craft... perhaps spectacular craft. That in it self is not bad, but then to judge other images by it is.

Art allows a huge variety of style and image types and was the only reason I raised the issue. Craft on the other hand, deals with an inflexable, ridgid set of expectations.

Sports photography is a craft, if you want to take images for SI, you have to learn that craft. Don't and you don't have a job.

Sadly, one can expect at least 10 craft people for 1 that understand that.

I really don't mind people say "well, I would have shot that image this way", and then state why they believe that would communicate better.

Despite Puffer's attempt to explain the art vs craft issue, I'm afraid that I still don't fully grasp what it is he's trying to delineate between art and craft. The most that I can glean from his conversation at this point is that one man's art may very well be just another man's craft:

To quote "So the instant one sees an image and thinks "nice lighting" or "nice composition", it is now a craft image."

Seeing as the only person that can control what that person thinks is himself, each person must then see an image and whether it is art or a craft image is purely up to the individual. Or am I completely off base here?

Anyway, all this art vs craft stuff is making my head spin, and quite frankly to me, the issue really is unimportant, which I guess makes me just a hack when it comes to appreciating fine art.

The more valued points I am getting out of this, and fully agree with come from Mark and MJH. First that luck plays a big role, being in the right place at the right time. For me, having to travel to see creatures both large and small, I don't have the same frequency of opportunity that others might have in seeing these creatures, so I really have to make each dive count. Secondly, the dive skills required to enable me to take the photos that I am trying for. Puffer mentions the low vis conditions he has in Florida - I can sympathize with that as often conditions here at home are just that, but add to that low temperatures, sometimes in the high 30s and low 40s, then welcome to my world. But rightly so, MJH's comment about dive skill is spot on. I always stress to my UW photo students that you are always on a dive first (focusing on executing the dive safely and properly) and photography is second.

 

[diverdoug1]

What one finds from people demanding to see examples is that they want to see images that look like their idea of what an image should be. Black velvet elvis painters don't like watercolor paintings (or they would be making watercolor paintings). I am suggesting that there are lots of different styles of images, and one should learn to appreciate them all. Craft people though, tend to be loud, and extremely forcefull in telling everyone that their method is the only one.

I must be one of your "craft people" because i think in focus, properly exposed, well composed images are almost unanimously preferable to out of focus, poorly composed, poorly exposed images. It seems to me, artistic license is frequently used as a camouflage for poor skill. In photography, you must know the "craft" before you can produce "art". BTW, Elvis is the King!

 

[danvolker]

I must be one of your "craft people" because i think in focus, properly exposed, well composed images are almost unanimously preferable to out of focus, poorly composed, poorly exposed images. It seems to me, artistic license is frequently used as a camouflage for poor skill. In photography, you must know the "craft" before you can produce "art". BTW, Elvis is the King!

I don't necessarily think that anyone has to take offense by a piece like this. It is a thought provoking "opportunity"...a way for a photographer to step back a little bit, and decide if there is something in it for them.

I poked around the Gallery of Pufferfish, and I have to say, one striking difference between a lot of his shots, and the typical "just..good" shots posted on SB a lot, would be the number of his shots that would look good hung on a wall in a nice LIVING ROOM... a place where you don't see many underwater shots being purchased and placed in

I think what it is, is part composition, and part choice of subject matter, for the target goal of being "wall art" in a nice home.

Anyway, it did not come off as preachy to me... I liked it.