The Myth of the Uncompromising Photographer

I compromised like hell on this shot, starting with the camera: a Nikon V1, which is a mass of compromises if ever there was one. The image itself is a cropped JPEG shot in sRGB color space. It might have looked better if I had shot it with a Hasselblad and Kodak TMax 100. Then again, you probably wouldn't notice the difference in a JPEG for the web. It looks pretty good just the same, if I do say so myself.

Read enough photo blogs, forums, and websites and you will find someone describing themselves or someone else as an “uncompromising photographer.” This is presumably someone whose standards are so high that they refuse to settle for anything less than the best—or at least nothing less than what they consider the best. They use the best cameras and lenses, the best films and papers, the best software, the best inkjet printer and paper. The list goes on.

I have a problem with this. First of all, if there is such a thing as an “uncompromising photographer” it implies that those who are not, almost by definition, are “compromising photographers”—you know, the unwashed masses; folks with lower standards; folks who settle for less. If you think it’s not such a big deal to be something other than uncompromising then left me ask you this: Who do you know who aspires to be a compromising photographer? Not many, I imagine.

And yet, in a world of finite time, resources, and abilities, we are all forced to make compromises. If you are an outdoors or travel photographer you’re forced to compromise maximum image quality against portability. If you have limited means you have to compromise what you might want against what you can afford. If you’re a sports photographer you might sacrifice absolute focusing accuracy over focusing speed. That doesn’t make you a lazy, feckless, compromiser with low standards. More likely than not, it just means you’re being practical.

I’m not saying there’s no such thing as sloppy work habits. There is. That’s why it’s pretty easy to tell the difference between a photographer who’s got skills and one who doesn’t. Investigate further and you’ll discover that even the most skilled photographers make compromises all the time. The difference between them and the less-skilled is that where the less-skilled make compromises often without intending to, the skilled make informed compromises. The results are still excellent and often better than they’d be without the compromise.

Another problem with this “uncompromising” idea is that suggests you can buy your way to excellence, as if owning an expensive camera, lens, monitor, printer, and such automatically makes you a more Serious photographer than those who don’t. This philosophy is particularly attractive among people who have a lot more money than time. They can slap a credit card down on the counter, tell their dealer “I want the best,” and be done with it.

As harsh as this may sound, I say it with no malice. None of these behaviors or attitudes are harmful in and of themselves. When internally focused they can even be beneficial. I wrote this mainly for the benefit of anyone who, from time to time, feels a bit intimidated by the uncompromising. Don’t be. If you can go through life without seriously compromising your self-respect, integrity, and values you are doing well, my friend, and don’t let anyone tell you any different.

 

 

Comments

[Tim]

A nice philosophy on the matter :)

I find it interesting spotting when obvious compromises make their way into hardware. Classic example: my Olympus Trip 35 has two shutter speeds, IIRC 1/250 and 1/40s; the latter "slow" option is the same as the lens's focal length coincident with the "handhold down to 1/focal-length speed" rule-of-thumb.

[Nikhil Ramkarran]

Wow! Jpeg on the web or not, that is a great photo. Striking light, beautifully captured. Keep up the compromising :)

[Gianni Galassi]

Gordon,
As far as I'm concerned I'm the most compromising photographer of all. Meaning that I often use compact cameras (the best way I know to catch as many photo opportunities as I can), I often shoot jpg (the best way I know to avoid losing time and money whenever I get a new camera and Photoshop just upgraded to the next generation), I often crop and stretch my images (the best way I know to get the photograph I had in mind and get past the inherent physical limitations of the raw shot), and so on... Shame to me!
Thanks heavens you are a compromising photographer as well, so that we all can enjoy your awesome bench photograph. Bravo.

[Frank]

Very nice photo. Compromise away. I would much rather have seen that photo with compromises then not seen the photo at all.

Thanks for sharing

[Eric Rose]

A nice bit of philosophy to begin the day. Even those that are uncompromising, compromise. They have to or they would never get anything created. I suppose there are different degrees of compromise and differing ideals over which someone might draw a line in the sand. Bruce Barnbaum, no shrinking violet, will only print an image at whatever size he deems fits that image. If it's 11x14 and a customer wants a 16x20 he will not do it. That's being uncompromising. However in creating the image in the first place I am sure Barnbaum had to make all type of technical/artistic compromises. Micheal A. Smith will not use filters for his B&W images. Both photographers mentioned are very opinionated and some would say uncompromising. An artists vision is theirs and theirs alone. To be uncompromising about your vision I can understand. To only use say Leica cameras is not uncompromising, it's just an affectation in my opinion.

[Florian Freimoser]

Thank you very much for the nice photograph and the insightful text! I completely agree. It is impossible not to compromise and an informed compromise is certainly beneficial (even an uninformed one is). In addition, by not compromising on one tiny aspect one automatically compromises on many other aspects.

[vince garofalo]

just try to wrap your brain around the billions of perfectly exposed, razor sharp, over-saturated banal photographs taken by the "uncompromising". look at my bokeh, 2 millimeter depth of field, all for only 10 grand for the lens! etc etc :) the other side of the coin is, shoot whatever the hell you want with whatever camera you have at hand. i've been shooting since 1974, using pretty much every camera brand and format, loving every minute of it. overheard at 47th street photo, nyc many years ago....'this lens takes great pictures right?'

[Gordon Lewis]

I appreciate the comments folks--especially the compliments on the photo. As much as the Nikon V1 annoys the hell out of me (slow startup and shutdown, lingering image preview after each shot, generally funky interface and fuctionality), I'm more likely to carry it than my larger, heavier cameras. The result is I get more lucky shots like this. Florian put it well: "by not compromising on one tiny aspect, one automatically compromises on many other aspects." Besides, when did compromise become a dirty word? The alternative is absolutism, which I consider incompatible with craetive endeavors.

[Steve Rosenbach]

Beautiful photo, Gordon!

I do get a kick out of photographers that insist on no cropping and/or no post-processing. I mean, even in the old days, we used to under/overdevelop our film/prints, tone down highlights be rubbing the print with our thumbs, correct perspective by tilting the enlarging easel, and so on.

I say, do whatever you want and need to do to come out with a final image that you're happy with.

Best regards,
SteveR

[Scott Speese]

Regarding the V1, something pretty interesting I read today. (by they way, first time visitor of this site and I have to say I'm enjoying it!)

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9806/nikon-v1-shooting-4k-60fps-raw-for-200