Shoot and edit and the Quiz to end all quizzes. So what’s the link, other than they follow each other on the Club Programme?
Well, they are both tests, but only the quiz has one right answer. They are both challenges, both stimulations that get the brain working (or failing in my case, but hey, fail is just the Foundation Act In Learning). They are both social in that people with a common interest exercise that interest together, both help to keep us motivated as photographers – probably the best gift that a club can give any of us.
Essentially we added to our own knowledge bases information of varying use and the thing that varies, the thing that makes any of it relevant, is context. That was either through actively participating, discussing and/or helping out. The answer was what worked in that context.
The next step, like building up a question bank in a regular quiz setting, is to see what the context is that makes our subject interesting to us and apply the other two fundamentals of photography, light and composition.
The actual truth of that is it was something about the subject, the light and or the possibility of a composition that attracted our attention in the first place. The more we use our cameras purposefully the more we are likely to be stimulated by those questions.
Then, as we discovered in the last post, the camera becomes “A tool for seeing without a camera” (Dorothea Lange), because we use one to make that statement (our answer). That answer is refined by our use of camera technique.
But what about the editing? We started the editing process when we composed the picture and turned it into a data file (and I am including film negatives in this, because that is, exactly, what they are). Nature is all about mess and inclusion. Art is about detail and exclusion. (I am going to attribute that to Robert Louis Stevenson but I can’t find the original quote).
The data file, especially in these digital days, is a step in the editing process. How much editing and what point a photograph becomes a piece of computer art is a broad, contentious argument that rarely ends up being the same argument it started out as.
But here is a thing. Our editing programme is just another tool in our defining and or discovering that thing which drew our attention in the first place so we can make a record of it and (maybe) share it with others. We don’t even have to pay for it if we want to keep it basic.
And, in doing so, we add to our knowledge bank of photographic and photo editing techniques. The next step is a small one, but a crucial one, if we are serious about developing as photographers. There will, almost certainly and especially when things are new to us, a couple of things we do to each photo we edit.
The trick is to stop and ask ourselves whether this is something that we can rectify in camera, in which case it doesn’t need to be time wasted in editing, and a step beyond that is looking at turning that into something we consciously rectify as part of our camera technique. At that stage, it doesn’t matter whether you have a JPEG or a RAW image.
At the very least that becomes one less layer we have to flatten and combine in the final edit.
Now, it is true that the disease known as “I’ll fix that in post” exercises some people more than others and that with a certain dexterity in the use of an editing programme the joins become invisible (unless they are the point) but in the development sense it does pose a question of what else is deficient in our technique and how that is becoming a drag on our development.
Also, without some idea of the finished product at the outset, that can easily become “I’ll fix that until it’s broke”, assuming it wasn’t broke enough straight out of camera. It becomes a drag on any idea of our continuously learning as photographers because we are wondering around in the dark bumping into the furniture.
This isn’t a “Two legs good, four legs bad” sort of thing. Same as most processes in life, editing, or shooting to edit, is better when it is limited to something with a purpose and something used with a critical eye. That helps to make us better photographers.
That and taking photographs.
And that is the point, really. We buy cameras and lenses and SD cards and computers and software to make photographs. They are tools. More accurately we make computer files, but for the sake of this argument, we make photographs. All photographs are artifices, that is they are made, are artificial. We make art. We make art from light, a subject and the tools of composition.
And if we want to be taken for photographers, not just people with cameras, then it is going to take a plan, some effort and above all, a lot of fun. And if we want to make better pictures …. (Go to top of page) ….