Stumbled on this…
I care if my highlights are blown.
I think its a bit of a metaphor… For him, I think he is suggesting that there is a lot more to the end product than the technical details. If you get too caught up in the details then the content can be driven by technology when at times it should be driven by the artist and the artistic process.
There are a range of intents, subject matter and ability among photographers so there is no one magic bullet but I think in todays world it is often to easy to get lost in the tech and not give enough consideration of the process as a whole…
Indeed, there are plenty of people whoncan rattle off the specs but are still producing subpar work.
I find I am more content driven… I really don’t care if a photo or edit is amazing if the content is interesting or unique or has a really interesting composition then I like to look at it… A flawless edit of an image I find boring or uninteresting…again to me…not globally so as others might really find something I dismiss as amazing. I think this would be true for many people. We just have things we are really drawn to and so finding those things or that look to share with others is a really key component of the final product maybe above and beyond the technical excellence of the edit…well I guess and if you can have both well then … home run
Good craftsmanship should be a matter of fact for professionals. Photos certainly don’t have to be technically perfect, but overexposures, for example, shouldn’t get in the way of aesthetics.
Other than that, I’m happy not to be a pro. I don’t need a “style”, nor do I need to make money with photography or satisfy customers.
Sounds like sane advice if you’re looking to be a professional. The anti gear and anti tech advice is obviously true If your goal is to be a photographer, even an amateur one. If you’re in a hurry to become good at photography spend your time learning, thinking and discussing images, culture, art and your subjects. Gear and technical knowledge can be a bottomless time sink. If you want to be good at something it helps not wasting time. If you have the time and aren’t gunning for important jobs and serious development of talent you can do whatever you fancy.
It’s the content and aesthetics that matter.
I think I am just jealous because I could draw floorplans and stick figures but that is the extent of content aesthetic that I am capable of …
It’s been my experience (YMMV) that almost nothing can suck the fun and life out of anything like making money from it. Offhand, the only thing I can think of that comes close (on the ruination scale) is being put in charge of something. Both are fun-killers. Of course, the irony is that (some amount of) money can also help fuel the fun. For example in photography, being able to afford travel and so forth can add to the fun.
Ya I really had no interest in the business part of it …more the aesthetic and the mention of what someone called the tech rabbit hole…
I posted the same thing on FB but with some context… I should have added it here…
"Tongue in cheek as we all obsess about all the new technical gear available and then well there is darktable… another obsession with technical details… sometimes you need to pause look at the big picture… I really enjoyed this video… while its against the back drop of professional photograph there are still some good points and the video is entertaining… "
Speaking also to another thread I had posted earlier… about a gentleman that creates stunning photos as least IMO and he still sticks with DT 3.0.1 or something like that and has and “older” low megapixel camera… that was really the take home part of it that interested me the most…
Just think of all the discussions about the nuance of filmic and highlight recovery and scene-referred workflows etc etc and then go and look at some of his work not using any of it… The discussions are relevant and necessary but too much time wasted might be better spent actually taking some photos
Photographers make photographs, not cameras or software.
I agree with you 9 times out of 10. I do however believe he just means to say people when they start out are tempted to believe in the hardware so much as to neglect the technique. Better camera make better pictures, or at least make it easier, but I think he’s trying to deter people from spending an arm and a leg on expensive gear and then give up on photography thinking good shots are impossible since they neglect their technique.
I’m a street photographer — I think that just about says it all.