DSLRUsers.com

Hi All

I hear many people on the forums state that certain shots show/demonstrate good/bad technique. What exactly is meant by this?

I believe that I understand common concepts like exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance and, to some extent, composition (my understanding being that this is all about what you do and do not include when framing your shot). Are these all part and parcel of technique?

I think it's using all of the things you mentioned above, plus "good technique" like composition, appreciation of lighting, shutter and hand-holding technique, and a 1000 other things to get an image the way you see it before you take it.

Start with sharp.

Understanding all the basic concepts and being able to use them all together (at the right time), are two different things.

It's fine to know what exposure, shutter speed, ISO, lighting etc do, but to be able to manipulate each one to capture the light in the way you want to is what makes the difference....and (IMO) is what builds one's "technique".

Well dictionary.com says:

the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.

which seems like as good an explanation as any. In fact it's pretty much what I was going to say only better! So basically it's how you employ the techniques available to achieve the image you are after.

The word is used a lot when referring to panning. Good technique (and settings) will get you a smooth, crisp shot, while crap technique will result in a not-so-sharp subject..

Dictionary definitions don't always tell the story, but they can be a good starting point...

technique:-
"the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor."

Photography is inherently technical, the equipment is complex and the principles are detailed. Of course, there can be simple cameras used with no
knowledge, but the principles are just dumbed down and built in to the camera.

Technique is about utilising your equipment to realise your artistic vision. Or to take a snapshot of the kids.

Defining technique with words is difficult. I look at it from a different angle.

When I go out with other photographers, we look at the same scene, with the same light. And yet one of our colleagues will trap an exceptional image and the rest of us will take pictures.

It is a combination of “seeing” the potential photo, and then using the equipment to capture it.

Philip

What a wonderful question.

And what a bloody difficult question to answer, within the framework offered.

Photography is a mix of a number of diverse elements.

It requires a good physical knowledge of your equipment: all of it. How does it work; and how do the different elements of your kit interact with one another. Consider for instance issues such as what angles of view does a particular lens present to the focal plane, what range of apertures are available with a given lens have, how do those apertures affect your shutter speed selections ....

It requires a good understanding of light ... consider the quantity, quality, and colour of the light. From where is it falling? How and where does it create shadows? How will those shadows affect my image? What's the time of day? How harsh is the light, and how harsh are the shadows? How can I mitigate against any unpleasantness being caused by this light?

It requires a good understanding of your subjects: are they people? Perhaps flowers? Someone has mentioned motor vehicles; are they moving or static? what are their surroundings? within what environment will I be shooting them? What elements of that environment should be included, and how should that be presented. Getting back to the first point I've mentioned, how would a particular lens selection present this subject, and its environment, when compared with a different lens? And from what distance?

I'm only scratching the surface here, but with a good understanding of all of these points, and so many more, it comes down to how one, at the point of making an exposure, is able to take into consideration all of the appropriate elements and make them work, in a manner that enables them to produce an image that matches their vision of what the image should be like.

Simple.

Thanks for all of your replies.

I love sport and have always known and affiliated technique along those lines.

In photography it seems that technique is used to define a person's ability to determine as many variables that will affect their picture, with a particular emphasis on light and subject matter, and be able to correctly adjust their tools given these variables to achieve the result they desire.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've loved photography for a long while and have recently taken the plunge into dslr. Dave i agree and have quickly realised that knowing what something means and utlilising that knowledge to get the right shot are 2 very different things!

Thanks again for clearing that up.

I'm not so sure that photographic knowledge really comes into it. I'm probably wrong - as usual - but I associate technique with the physical process of picture taking. Eg. the technique used to take photos of babies can be different from one photographer to another. one can act like a fool to make them smile, another one can use squeaky toys etc. They both have different techniques but not necessarily one better then the other.