I am fascinated with all of the deeply technical discussions on some of the photography chat sites. Seems there are those that want to dissect every minute detail of the process. They want to over-analyze everything from camera focus, to lens sharpness, to even how a shutter works. We have those that argue about filter factors, meter calibration, and one instance of bellows extension being calculated to one eighth of a stop. All fine and dandy if you are into engineering. But my question is, what does this have to do with the finished print? That photo mounted and hanging on the wall either does it, or it fails. If it fails, is it some technical problem? If so, do you need to do some more math? If it is successful, does it matter what the technical details really entail?
I come from an engineering background. I love photography because it is an escape from all of the numbers and rigid thinking involved in engineering. Creating art is strictly a right brain experience. . . if you try to inject engineering, you kill the process. Sort of like having to explain a joke. It does not work!
It is true that I do engineer certain aspects of my photography. But I do it for the purpose of eliminating the engineering from the creative process. I want the act of making a photograph to be completely transparent with respect to all distractions of the mechanical process. In other words, I do the engineering in the shop and when I go out to make images, I leave all that technical chatter behind.
As I said, I find all of the extreme dissection of the mechanics somewhat fascinating, but I believe it is totally unnecessary. In fact I find it extremely detrimental to the process of creative art. Yet, there are those times I just have to read the deeply technical discussions, mainly for my entertainment.
This is where I think of Edward Weston. If you have studied the man and his life work, you know of his dedication to the medium of the photographic art form. You also know that he was extremely limited in his comprehension of anything mechanical. He only drove a car once in his lifetime. If his camera broke, he had no idea of how to repair it. His darkroom was a place of extreme simplicity. He was all about making photographs. I really believe that for him, the mechanics was more of a hindrance than even a curiosity. He did not understand it, and he was not interested.
When it comes to the way I work and think about photography I have devised a test that helps me sort out what is really necessary and what is just a lot of distraction. I use what I call “The EW Test.” In keeping with the Weston simplicity in thinking, when I encounter some deeply technical aspect of photography, I simply ask myself; “Would this matter to Edward?” If I can answer YES, then maybe I should explore it in more detail. If the answer is NO, then I file it away as BS and not relevant. I believe that our lives are complicated enough as it is today. I have to borrow a quote that an old friend uses on his e-mail footer;
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” -Leonardo da Vinci-
Think about it. . . you may find that more concentration on your art and less time studying the engineering just may be the ticket to more creativity and less time wasted engineering.
JB
