One could argue that at the most basic level there are only two types of photographers. The first falls into the category of people believe that concept outweighs technical perfection. The second would be the opposite, those who scrutinize over every small detail at a 100% zoom, searching for technical errors and flaws. The difference between the two marks a divide in photographers. Is it possible to be a 50-50 split of both? Can one be a conceptual photographer and pixel peeper? I think that the balance is what makes a photographer successful.
Pixel Peeper
I couldn’t help but check out the urban dictionary for the definition of pixel peeper, and of course the connotation is very negative and even describes the term as being derogatory. It certainly can be used that way, and often people who litter the photography forums preaching about camera quality and megapixels only want to prove that their camera is better than yours. I think we all know someone like this (apologies if that is you), and whenever I talk to one of those people I want to tell them that they are completely missing the point of photography. Is it not about concept and relaying a message? Is it not about capturing that one moment in time and telling a story with it?
No! That is part of my definition of photography, not the universal definition. To say that pixel peepers are missing the point of photography is to say that people who only create conceptual photographs fully understand the point of photography. But who are we to judge why someone enjoys photography? Going to film school, I met countless people who seemed to only care about how to technically operate cameras. I used to get very annoyed with people like this because I have never had a true fascination with how cameras worked. I just wanted the end result. For some people though, the fun lies in the camera specs and not in the final product.
I have been fortunate enough to meet both extremes at my gallery exhibitions. I catch people constantly going straight up to my prints and getting less than an inch away from them, leaning into them, turning their heads and squinting their eyes. Everyone wants to know a) how I did it, or b) where the mistakes are. When I approach these people at my shows most of them will say directly, “how did you do this?”. I don’t usually find the question rude, though I know some people do. These pixel peepers are simply confused by the construction and would like an explanation. Granted I do not always give one, but I try my best to explain what they want to know. Others, when approached, will simply walk away from me without saying anything, and I can’t help but wonder if they were looking for mistakes and had no real interest in the art at all.
So, does there exist a successful artist who is solely a pixel peeper or solely a conceptual artist? I don’t believe anyone could find an example. In order to be a success one must have striking images with thought behind them as well as precise technical execution. I try my hardest to be a blending of these two types of people. I go into a photoshoot heavy with concept and laden with props and ideas. However, before that image gets published, I lay my eyes over every bit of that frame to make sure that I have not made a mistake. When I upload my photos to flickr, that for me is the equivalent of publishing. When people comment and tell me that I did something wrong or missed something, I will usually disagree because I check these things very carefully (but critiques are always welcome).
I think that anyone who doesn’t peep at a few pixels is doing themselves a disservice when it comes to printing their images and growing as an artist. I think that those who want to show their work or be published or put their art out there needs to be ready for critique and also must be able to defend their work when the time comes, and the time will come eventually. I feel confident that because I have put a lot of thought into the concept and technique of my images, I can always talk about them comfortably, whether it be about technique or concept. This whole debate is something to really think about and put into practice. It can help define you as a photographer, whichever side you may be on, and it can also help people grow in the way they create images.
–
*Special thank you to AlgenonQ for suggesting I write on this topic*
{ 8 } Comments
Well said. My son Daniel has another slant on this. Some photographers refuse to post-produce their images, even to the point of refusing to crop or tweak colors. Daniel maintains that this amounts to letting the camera make your decisions for you. Needless to say, Daniel shoots raw whenever possible, and Photoshops until he gets it like he wants it…
Well said Michael – those who refuse to post process are so obsessed with getting the image right in camera, and that is fine because that is what they like to do, but those people tend to be the ones who love to post SOOC!!!! and then preach about how that is more of an art form than what editors do. But we could all argue that even shooting SOOC has its editing points, like how to compose and what colors to capture and things like that, and really those are the same decisions we are making while editing as well, just with different tools. I do the same thing, I shoot in RAW for a bigger correction latitude and a larger image, and then I don’t stop editing until it is exactly as I envisioned.
I am of a naturally technical nature, and pixel peeping is second nature to me. Or I should say “was”. I used to test lenses and compare my two cameras and discuss it at length with a friend with a similar tendency.
I think you either come into photography from one field or the other, either technical or artistic, and the journey is towards the middle. I know lighting ratios and gizmos attached to my camera are an easy thing for me, so I learned to strive for more content, concept and aesthetics. Just like artsy photographers who work on instinct only should strive to get a better grasp of the process to advance their work to a higher level.
I absolutely agree that they are not mutually exclusive. They just happen to be very well protected opinions by those who lack the other. It somehow reminds me of the “natural light vs strobe”. Once again, one technical, the other instinctual, with both faction swearing by their creed.
Great post. :)
Not to go off topic..but the refusal to not post process is a bit absurd. Back in the day you process film with digital you still need to process. Film played a big role in what photos looked like. To think you leave the look of your photos to a digital sensor (lets face it a fairly new technology) is a bit silly. 80% of the time even with auto WB images will come out wrong SOOC. SOOC purist in the digital age are just people who refuse to learn. I’m not saying one has to go overboard, but certainly every image needs curves and white balance adjustments (at least!).
Couldn’t agree with you more Ed. You said that better than I’ve ever heard it before – it really is a refusal to learn. It is one thing to try to better yourself in-camera and learn everything there is about that side of things, but to outright refuse to ever digitally alter your images (*especially* when they are already taken with a digital camera) is absurd to me.
I noticed that your photo \pixel peeping\ featured someone holding specs. As someone who’s very short sighted, but can read better with the specs off, this is what I do at galleries featuring paintings :-
1.get a general idea of the whole of the painting from half way across the room
2.slowly walk in to the painting to appreciate subtleties of colour, light and form
3.take the specs off and stand very close , in wonderment of the technicalities of brushstroke and wishing to gain knowledge of how the painting was created.
4. walk slowly backwards,hoping not to fall over anyone ,to capture the impression of the whole image again.
I sometimes put \straight from the camera \ on the tags in my photostream ,just to let people know that it was truly the colours of a wonderful sunset as I experienced it -as I haven’t got photoshop/editing software !!:-))
If /when I do get photoshop, it would be silly not to use it to edit the camera image to more closely resemble what I’d had in mind/what my eye perceived at the time-although I can tell you now, I’ll never be in the same league as you, Brooke !
Thank you for creating such a lovely and informative space : )
I’d like to invite you to win a piece of my fine art through a giveaway on my blog.
http://walterhelenaphotography.blogspot.com/2010/05/whp-giveaway-two-of-twelve-clouds.html
I wish you all my best.
WHP
Interesting topic! I think I would probably count as a pixel peeper, not necessarily to find a mistake but to understand the technicalities. Especially if it’s something I’d like to explore myself. It’s more a curiosity. I would react to the image as a whole first though, then lean in… I do the same thing with paintings too. I love to move in and see the strokes of construction. I find it fascinating. And personally I think anyone who doesn’t do post on a digital image is doing a disservice to their image, even with film there is a post process. Many decisions are made in printing (and the developing of film too). Ansel Adams didn’t get those images by not doing any post processing, he made specific decisions about development and printing, of course in addition to framing and initial exposure. I would think he would be considered a purist. Digital is a different beast though and from my experience post is where I have the opportunity to make more decisions about the image and make it even better than it is (hopefully it is good to begin with) and maybe into something fantastical (although my skills don’t lend themselves to accomplish much of this… yet!)
I love your work Brooke and I hope I have the pleasure of pixel peeping your art someday!
Post a Comment