{"id":451,"date":"2007-05-11T20:19:20","date_gmt":"2007-05-11T11:19:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regex.info\/blog\/2007-05-11\/451"},"modified":"2007-05-11T20:19:20","modified_gmt":"2007-05-11T11:19:20","slug":"good-photographers-bad-writers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regex.info\/blog\/2007-05-11\/451","title":{"rendered":"Good Photographers, Bad Writers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
<\/div>\n\n

I've come to the conclusion that as a general<\/span> rule, photographers are\nhorrible writers. I haven't<\/span> surveyed an overwhelming number of books on\nphotography, but most I've seen range from “pretty bad” to,\nwell, the most poorly-written book I've ever seen, on any subject (Bryan\nPeterson's “Understanding Exposure”). The only well<\/span>-written\nbook I've seen on photography is Stephen Johnson's On\nDigital Photography<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

The reason for this, almost certainly, is that these photographers are\nmissing one of the two wholly unrelated skills that non-fiction writing\ndemands. They know what to present because they have knowledge of the\nsubject matter, but they lack the other skill — good writing —\nso they don't know how to present it. People perhaps often think that\nknowledge of the subject matter is the more important skill, but except for\nhighly advanced texts, knowing how to present what you do know is much more\nimportant.<\/p>\n\n

My high-school German teacher, Doug Mori (“Mr. Mori” to me,\nof course), didn't speak German with native-speaker fluency, and being the\nfootball coach had a certain<\/span> obnoxiousness to his presence, but he was an\nexcellent<\/i> teacher and after one year of his class I could<\/span> actually\nconverse in German far Far Far<\/i> more than I could<\/span> after two years of\nSpanish from the more linguistically advanced Mr. Speece.<\/p>\n\n

Anyway, back to writing, in one sense it's not the\nphotographer-turned-author's fault, because one normally wouldn't expect an\nexcellent photographer to necessarily be an excellent writer, and it's\nsurprisingly difficult for a bad<\/span> writers to recognize their own work as\nsuch. However, I do<\/i> expect publishers to realize when the\nphotographer is not a good<\/span> writer and either fix it, or cancel the project.\nSadly, that doesn't seem to be happening.<\/p>\n\n

Here's an example from Alain Briot's Mastering\nLandscape Photography<\/a> that I've been perusing lately. There are some\nnice sections, and the composition exercises he suggests look to be\nhelpful, but to find these gems one has to wade through linear inch after\nlinear inch of abject drivel. Consider his Chapter 4,<\/span> titled “How to\nFind the Best Light for a Specific<\/span> Photograph.” This is an\ninteresting and important subject that one could write a whole<\/span> book about,\nbut one's expectations for the chapter take a huge<\/span> hit after seeing the\nfirst sentence:<\/p>\n\n

Light, from the earliest time recorded in history, has played a role<\/span> of\ngreat importance in human culture and existence.<\/p>\n\n

Ugh.<\/p>\n\n\n

He then goes on to talk about light with respect to the bible, Incas,\nKing Louis XIV of France, blah blah blah. “Time and again, light has been\npart of the most important aspects of our lives,...” Drivel!<\/p>\n\n

It only gets worse. Later, after a full<\/span> page of this blather, we are treated to this:<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

Scott McLeay, my first photography teacher, often said that if we were\nto walk into a closet,<\/span> close the door behind us, set up our camera on a\ntripod<\/span> and proceed to take a time<\/span> exposure, we would not get a photograph<\/span>\nregardless of how long the exposure time is. We can expose<\/span> for hours, days\nor months and get nothing on film or on our digital file.<\/p>\n\n

The fact is that light is required to create a photographic<\/span> image. We may not<\/span> need much light, but we need some light. In a dark<\/span> closet, even\nwith a multi<\/span>-hour exposure, we will not get a photograph<\/span> because there is\nno light whatsoever. The first<\/span> thing a photographer<\/span> needs, besides a\ncamera,<\/span> film, and a lens,<\/span> is light. Photographers are images made with\nlight. Without light there can be no photographs.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n

Wow..... you mean light is actually required to take a photograph<\/span>?<\/p>\n\n

Sigh.... how can a book teach anything if the reader has to wade through\ncrap like this?<\/p>\n\n

I've only just started looking at this book, but it seems clear that the\nauthor knows photography from experience, which is perhaps the best way to\nknow photography; his photographs are excellent. But one must<\/span> understand\nmore deeply the whys<\/i> if they hope to pass along that experience in a\nbook.<\/span> For example, in talking about reflected light, he says “If the\nlight is reflected, the light will take on the color of the reflective\nsurface on which it bounces.”<\/p>\n\n

Uh, no, it doesn't “take on the color” — it is<\/b>\nthat color. Light reflected from a purple<\/span> flower doesn't take on a purplish<\/span>\ncast, it is<\/i> purple. I mean,<\/span> geez, how else would our eyes see it as\npurple?<\/p>\n\n

(Pedantically, I shouldn't say that light is<\/i> a color,<\/span> because\nelectromagnetic energy doesn't become a color<\/span> until sensed by something\nsuch as our eyes, but that's perhaps too pedantic to be useful here.)<\/p>\n\n

His whole section on “types of light” just smacks of this\nkind of wishy-washiness throughout. I hold hope<\/span> for the rest of the book\nbecause personally, I'm reading<\/span> it for its artistic side, so I can<\/span> forgive\nits technical failings. I just wish<\/span> I didn't<\/span> have to.<\/p>\n\n

What publishers should do is pair up a great<\/span> photographer with a great<\/span>\nwriter. When you see a book<\/span> that's by<\/b> such and such a person,<\/span>\nwith<\/b> someone else, that's what's happening, and the result is\nusually excellent, combining the subject knowledge of the “by”\nperson with the writing skills of the “with” person. A great<\/span> example of this from my own bookshelf, although on a different<\/span> subject, is\nthe 1989 bestseller One\nup on Wall Street<\/a>, which is by<\/b> Peter Lynch (famous and smart\nmutual-fund manager) with<\/b> John Rothchild (apparently, an excellent\nwriter).<\/p>\n\n

I'd love to write a book on Photography some day (once I get<\/span> enough\nskill in the photographic department), and my dream is that the cover would\nlook something like the image above. The most important<\/span> part of it (besides\nthe “by” with my name, of course) is the subsequent “with\nBill Bryson<\/a>”.\nThat would just rock.<\/p>\n\n