The Proper Attitude Toward Tech (Frank's Lesson)

Michael Kenna, Stone Pine Tunnel, Pento, Abruzzo, Italy, 2016,
silver gelatin print, 8 × 7 inches

I learned this from Frank DiPerna, one of my teachers at the Corcoran. I must have been having difficulty with something one day, and with a wave of his hand and in a dismissive tone of voice he said, "Just master it. Just learn whatever you need to know to do your work. Don't worry about anything else. Just master what you need."

Or maybe he said, "...don't worry about the rest of that crap." (I'm paraphrasing here.)

I still think it's a good attitude to have. Pros need to master a whole lot, because the essence of professionalism is problem-solving—you have to confront the client's problem and solve it (under the gun, too), and that requires having a lot of arrows in your quiver. But it makes you a jack of all trades and it doesn't let you go very deep. On the other hand, look at an art photographer—someone like, I don't know, Michael Kenna, or the late Henry Wessel Jr. Michael Kenna basically shoots B&W film in a Hasselblad on a tripod and has been working that way for decades. He has a very stable signature look. He's no doubt a deep master of his camera, materials, and techniques. But I'll bet he doesn't think much about how to test chroma noise or corner resolution. Henry Wessel worked as hard as any photographer out there, but he shot with the same Leica and lens for much of his life, made the same size prints. Ask him to explain the layer mask in Photoshop and I'll bet he would have looked at you blankly. He wasn't an explorer of techniques. He was an explorer of the found visual world. His mastery was profound. It just had little to do with technique, is all.

Henry Wessel Jr., Nevada, 1986,
gelatin silver print, 12 1/16 x 17 7/8 inches

And even pros just master what they need. I've told this story before, but I once worked for an old studio pro who was asked by a friend to explain a little amateur hot-shoe on-camera flash. The old pro replied he had no idea how it worked, and added that he didn't even own one. His friend was incredulous that he could be a top pro and be so ignorant of such a basic piece of equipment. My then-boss didn't bother to explain that he had a hundred thousand dollars' worth of studio lighting and light-shaping equipment back at his studio, and that he could light a swimming pool from a scaffold. Bare-bones lighting to him was one pack and three heads!

Find your way of working; figure out what you need to know; and work as hard as you must to master it. Unless you want to, you don't need to take it any further.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(Not) everything must fade away

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

hugh crawford: "A professional is measured by their worst work and an artist is measured by their best work."

Mike replies: Thanks for that Hugh. I knew we could depend on you to add something trenchant here.  :-)

Paul: "Good outstanding photography is all about finding a 'voice,' authorship. In theory once you discover it, everything else becomes surplus."

Mike replies: I always liked the story about Nick Nixon. Evidently he started out his career determined to continually switch techniques and working methods, changing every year. He did that for a few years and then alighted on shooting very loose and close-in with an 8x10 camera and wide-angle lenses, in black and white. He's now been shooting that way for decades, and he's a master at it—I've shot with an 8x10 just enough to be totally amazed as to how he does it. As far as I can see, some of his pictures should be technically impossible.

Rob De Loe: "My favourite example of this way of thinking is Jane Bown, who from what I've read was not at all interested in the 'tech.' She kept it very simple equipment-wise, left film processing to the technicians at the paper, and focused on making fantastic portraits."

GH: "I used to be an assistant for a somewhat well known art photographer who used big, complicated sets, and I was both surprised and impressed by how relatively limited her tech knowledge was. Having spent so many years getting into the tech minutiae of photography myself, that was an eye opening experience for the better, and I've tried to keep that in mind for all of my artistic pursuits. It's the vision that's important. You can always hire someone to do the technical stuff."

marko: "Bare bones lighting! That's hilarious. Back in the day I used to strobe light sports arenas for Sports Illustrated. Four to six Speedotron 2400's and our totally mobile set was a Norman 200b with mini soft box. I also had little idea how on camera flash worked. That made me laugh, thanks."

Peter Wright: "This reminds me of a conversation I had not so long ago with Freeman Paterson, who has built a career as a distinguished art photographer that spanned many decades shooting only 35mm slide film. (I was already an avid reader of his books forty years ago.) When the subject somehow turned to flash, Freeman said he couldn't offer anything as he didn't own a flash gun, (or any other lighting equipment). His entire kit seemed to consist of some cheap zoom lenses, some primes, and a couple of old SLRs—you could probably pick up the lot for about $500. He has someone else do minor Photoshop tweaking and final printing, so I'm pretty sure he could not tell you what a layer mask was either. This seems almost a truism; all the really great photographers I admire (and even the ones I don't especially admire) seem to severely restrict themselves in terms of equipment, subject matter, and media, either for a lifetime or at least many years at a time. Obviously, they have found the tools that allow them expression, and don't need to go any further technically. So if we want to move beyond 'GAS addicted tinkerer,' then it seems we need to decide what moves us (or pays the bills, of course) and the things we need to master will become much reduced, as well as obvious."

Paul Richardson: "A great point, and a relevant reminder for me. I tend to go off on tangents in terms of picking up editing techniques, and it occurred to me just earlier today that I simply don’t need to know a lot of that stuff. This after wasting two hours on trying to pick up a masking method I was unfamiliar with. It suddenly occurred to me that I know enough to deal with simple masks, and really, what more do I need? A kick in the pants, maybe."

Steve Renwick: "Sage advice, but it's important to remember that it's best applied to art photography. Even if you're not a professional, there will be topics you need to know even if they don't serve your art. For instance, at a family event, one almost has a responsibility as the 'photographer in the family' to bring along a digital camera and record the event. Even if operating said camera is much more annoying than operating a Hasselblad (he wrote bitterly whilst in the midst of a family vacation)."

Comments

[Matt OBrien]

There is a lot of wisdom wrapped up in this post. Great to have the skill to put the words together in such a neat package.

[Lukasz Kruk]

Speaking of Michael Kenna - can anyone recommend any of his currently available books? Wondering what "images of the seventh day" exactly is?

[Sharon]

People ask me about what camera to get - I tell them I have no idea. I don't know what's out there. I only know what I need. Thanks for posting this. Sometimes I feel inadequate because I'm not up on everything. :-)

Sharon

[SteveW]

"Find your way of working; figure out what you need to know; and work as hard as you must to master it. Unless you want to, you don't need to take it any further."

Amen!

[Rob Campbell]

Absolutely right. The most lighting I ever owned at any one time in my career was two monoblocs and one Metz shoulder unit. Oh, I owned - still do! - a large, circular gold/white reflector that most of the time stayed unused and asleep, coiled within its holder. It defeated me every time I took it out and couldn't remember the trick of how to fold it back into three circles again in order to stow it away until the next time.

It's up to the photographer, his style and the work for which he looks. I couldn't imagine an architect's go-to guy living long with that little group of friendly elves!

[Michael Perini]

This is a gem.
Every day there is more to debate about cameras, lenses techniques , ways of working, methods of seeing.
Most folks come to photography and are overwhelmed by all the possibilities. They search for inspiration.
The real artists put the work first, then vastly simplify the rest by learning only what they need to know to deliver the picture in their mind.

chuck Close said “Inspiration is for Amateurs, the rest of us just show up and work”
What you want to say, comes first, then you go out and find it.

[Mike Ferron]

If one were a guitar teacher they would need to know a bit about blues, jazz, rock etc. and be able to demonstrate to the student the basic chord and rhythm structure of each style. Does not mean they themselves have mastered any of it.

Someone could be quite impressive playing a few different styles yet not as impressive playing say blues as someone who decides they will be a blues guitar master and that's all they practice and think about.

PS I forgot how nice Michael Kenna's often simple but effective compositions are.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

This sometimes gets interesting when one tries to get excellent photographers to teach; depending on exactly how narrow a class.

[c.d.embrey]

Layer masks in PhotoShop is scut work. Scut work is routine and often menial labor. Menial, non-Pt care-related activities is passed to medical students–externs or interns, although they may be the duties of other health-care workers.

Many, if not most, professional don't master scut work—they hire assistants to do it. Some pros don't flit around from brand to brand, so no need to master and re-master constantly.

I've never used an off-camera speedlite. But I have lit the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles using 250 incandescent fixtures. Flash was always Profoto packs—as many as needed.

For a feature I lit an amusement zone. We were shooting Super35 Eastman Color film using an Arri. As the couple talk, the lights go off on the rides. The last minuet of dialog was filmed using the light of a full moon. You can't learn to do this by taking guru-camp 101 on-line. I didn't learn it in film school either—I learned advanced lighting from two Hollywood experts who took an interest in me.

[George Andros]

And there is the rub. What constitutes mastery?

[Ernest Zarate]

Agree. There are so many features, menus, settings, etc on dSLR cameras these days - one could argue too many. I operate in manual, use the spot meter, shoot in RAW, autofocus and image stabilization on... and that’s about it. That’s enough. ACR is used minimally to tweak the image, photoshop to finish it up. I started in film and used a simple, manageable process.

Process (the how something is made) is of primary interest to the maker. I remember watching a documentary about a famous movie writer/director. He did not use a computer, but used an old manual typewriter, literally cutting and taping changes and edits directly on the script. Would a viewer watching his movies know that’s how he wrote the script? Would they care? Would they be more impressed or give the movie higher regard because he used this time and labor intensive process? I’d guess the answer to always be “No.” But of course it made a difference to this director. It made sense to him.

Keeping my process simple allows me to devote time and energy to the (for me) much more interesting and challenging part of photography: doing my best to capture the raw material in front of me to make an interesting photograph!

[Dogman]

Frank sounds like a photographer after my own heart.

[Dave Jenkins]

As I commented yesterday on Kirk Tuck's blog, one of the things I especially like about commercial photography is that it's an endless process of solving interesting, often fascinating, problems -- but none is so important that the world will end if you fail to solve it. (Could be bad for business, though.)

[Mark Jennings]

Amen.

Actually, photo journalist or art photographer, it’s simple, like Weegee was purported to have said,

“f8” - know Your gear

“and be there” - know Your subject

[Ramón Acosta]

I like the expression “He has already forgotten more than you will ever learn about that subject”.

[Dave]

I'd have to agree - if there's a technique or a type of shot that you crave to have in your repertoire, then anything not necessary for that knowledge/mastery becomes a distraction... I don't need to know the "why", just the "how"....

[Michael T.]

I think in both your examples they mastered their tools early on so they became an extension of themselves. And since their tools were second nature it allowed them to concentrate on their aesthetic points of view. Perhaps a corollary to your one camera, one lens, one year practice. In their case a lifetime of practice.

Oh, btw, Kenna has also mastered the very basic Holga creating a great body of ongoing work (and book) that is both distinctive from and inclusive of his Hasselblad work.

[David Brown]

Hear, hear!

[Neil Swanson]

This is a tough one. I shot for my food for 22 years. I eventually shot from 35mm to 4x5 (some rare 8x10) because I'd use the largest format that made sense for every job. I felt I had to. I was very good with artificial light and had tons of gear. I love natural light but it isn't always lovely and you had to please a client. So in a nutshell I was a generalist getting calls for architecture, people/heads and product. I really had little identity.
The proposed "know what you need" works for some in the pro field but it was hard then 80's to 2k's to really be a specialist and I'd bet its harder now. I would have loved to just do work that was interesting to me both technically and visually. Truth is, most paid work isn't.
Fine Art shooter? Hell yes do what you know and that you love. Focus.

[John Davis]

Just so I learn what the photo community literati think... Is that shot of a bull on the edge of the road in NV by Henry Wessel Jr. considered high art photography?

[No, it's just considered a shot of shot of a bull on the edge of the road in NV. --Mike]

[Stephen S. Mack]

Dear Mike.

Thank you.

With best regards.

Stephen

[Franklin Berryman]

Sometimes you have to try (and learn) a lot of different things before you find what works best for you. I would be less accomplished (and certainly less satisfied) if I only did what I did 45 years ago.

[Rob Campbell]

It's one thing to use minimal gear, but quite another not to know how to take your photographic idea through concept, click and to its final iteration as print or whatever. If you can't do that, then at best you're some kind of art director. Period.

Having assistants doing everything for you is fine just as long as you know more about what they are doing than they do. Using them to make up for your own deficiencies is not fine. There's no way you can be competent unless you know your stuff inside out. I'd go further than that and say that in my opinion, those guys who delegate because they don't know how are shams, pro or "art".

[c.d.embrey]

Things you need to master to use a camera. Focus (if you don't have eye autofocus) and shutter pushing—that's all 8-) But, but, but ...don't you need to master the menu and assignable buttons? Set up C1, C2, etc using the camera's manual for guidance—easy-peasy. If you are feeling lazy, you can use P or A 8-)

Artistically some things can be learned, and some things can't. Don't waste your time trying to master the unlearnable. Me, I'm colorblind—so it would be a waste of my time to try to master color correction 8-)