Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

inquiring minds and all… not trying to be provocative, just legitimately curious.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

P.S. I know none of *my* readers are “that guy”, just venting a bit. 

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

This generated such a slew of comments he had to write two followups, clarifying his position.

Now, without starting my own debate, I agree with what he is saying – and it got me thinking.   Essentially this exercise boils down to the value of limitations as a teaching and creative tool. 

Nowadays taking a photograph is easy.  Point and Shoot, nothing too it.   But we don’t want to just take photographs.  We want to take *good*, nay *great* photographs.   And *that* is very, very hard!  And often,  the very things that make it easier to take a picture, make it harder for the beginner to take a Great picture.  They become crutches, and the learner goes along relying on said crutches which is fine for a while, but hamstrings him when it is time to “move to the next level” as it were. 

And I think that much as Mike is saying – a great way to move past these hurdles, is to actually impose limitations on ones own work.  Limitations force us to figure things out.   They don’t allow us to rely on crutches.  The make us use skill to compensate for limits.  And of course, no one is saying you have to limit yourself forever, but it can be a valuable teaching tool.  On this very blog, I’ve espoused taping up your zoom to a single focal length to improve your compositional skills and learning to “see” in a particular length. 

I’ve espoused shooting a whole roll of film in a single enclosed space to force yourself to look beyond the obvious and find images outside your comfort zone. 

And yes, I’d even say it’s not a bad idea to spend an entire year shooting with nothing but a leica and a single lens. 

These things are all limitations – self imposed limitations – but they all serve the same purpose: to push us beyond our reliance on the camera as a tool, to force us to use our eyes and our brain to compensate for the shortcomings of our gear rather than our gear compensating for the shortcomings of our eyes!

So before you knock it, try it.  Stick on a prime lens and shoot with it instead of a zoom.  Turn off your autofocus and auto exposure.   Heck, put on an old manual lens that won’t do ttl metering and use the sunny-16 rule to train yourself to estimate exposure.  And shoot with a leica for a year. 

It’s the limitations that we impose on ourself that train us to overcome the limits that our gear imposes on us. 

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

/facepalm

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

“I wonder if it is becoming too silly. Silly forums and silly pretentious people with no real experience preaching silliness to silly people“

(I would tend to agree, but that’s a whole ‘nother rant)

course the first thing it brought to mind is: (specifically 1:37 in)

also that old New Yorker cartoon with the 2 dogs in front of a computer, with one saying “on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog“

Silly, sure -but it raises a good point.  Always remember when asking questions on an internet forum – anyone can be an “expert” on anything, so be careful who you take your answers from.  A little common sense goes a long way.  I’ve seen far too much blatantly *wrong* information being distributed as fact, and pour souls who didn’t know any better eating it up. 

Ah, well such is the price we pay for the incredible information-disseminating capabilities of teH interwebZ.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

A good laugh.   Course it’s highly applicable to photography as well. Think about it – we photographers complain so much… (yeah I’m guilty of it too). We complain about our gear – this lens isn’t sharp enough, this body doesn’t have good enough “per pixel” sharpness, etc… We complain about the industry, we complain about being undercut, we complain about our clients demands.   But maybe we should just stop and consider:

Take the lowest-end DSLR on the market today. You know, the camera that you subtly look down your nose at – the one you upgrade out of the second you have the cash.  Now consider that a photographer from just 50 years ago or so would probably have given his entire life savings for a camera like that.   From his perspective, can you image a camera that

• automatically focuses at the tough of a button – even tracking moving targets
• can change focal lengths at the twist of a ring
• can automatically meter a scene, based on any number of parameters
• can take (effectively) *unlimited* number of photos without even needing to be reloaded
• can display the photos instantly, and even transmit them across the entire globe for anyone to see
• can take photos in color, or black and white (or both) and even video in practically candle-lit conditions

Can you image how amazing that would seem?  For all my recent posts on film etc… I get the feeling some folks think I am some kind of Luddite who thinks the those durn digital cameras are killin the art of photography.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I think digital technology is amazing!  I think it’s incredible how every day practically there is some new technology that gives us more (photographically) than ever before.   Just think:

100 years ago, “taking a picture” involved a cartload full of fragile equipment an in-depth knowledge of chemistry, and exposure to dangerous and toxic materials.

Now I can have a camera that takes a thousand pictures at the touch of a button and fits in my pocket.

Incredible isn’t it?

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

One of the non-photography-related blogs I like is Seth Godin’s blog (for those who don’t know Seth is a *legitimate* marketing guru, (unlike the “OMG use Twitter to make millions types), and posts various thought provoking comments/thoughts on his blog  every day)

Yesterday I read the following on his blog:

Email is dying because it’s free. If you can send an email for free to 100 of your closest friends, instantly, you probably won’t abuse the privilege. But someone else will because they might define ‘friend’ differently than you or I.

100 times 100 is ten thousand. Spam.

So now, people don’t reply when you send them a resume, because it costs too much to do that ten thousand times.

Twitter is next. The paradox is obvious: to grow, you need to remove friction from the medium. If it’s not easy and free to use, people won’t. But then it gets big and it becomes profitable, so people use it too much.

The churn rate at twitter is reported as more than 50%. That’s because of lack of friction as well. Easy to get in, easy to get out.

Stamps are underrated. Friction rewards intent and creates scarcity.

I like that quote “Friction rewards intent”

It also made me think about Alec Soth – Recently I also had the opportunity to see Alec speak, and he opened his piece by talking about a recent “crisis in photography” that he was going through.  Albert over at dragonballyee.com has a nice summary/analysis of this, which I will summarize/quote instead of trying to write out my own long winded piece

In short – photography is suffering from “information overload” much like email or twitter.  There are 4 *million* pictures uploaded to flickr every day, the vast majority of them snapshots – fragments.  Digital cameras give us this capability, they remove the “friction” from the medium.  Cameras are ubiquotous, there is no “investment” involved in taking a picture.  *anyone* can literally take a picture of *anything* without even having to think about it.

William Eggleston made an art form of elevating photos of the mundane to the extrordinary.  but what happens now when you can take a random selection of snapshots from flickr, mix them in with Egglestons’ work and unless you were an art historian probably couldn’t tell the difference. Alec pointed out Flickr’s 2 *billionth* (with a B) photo, and how it looks remarkably similar to an Eggleston.

We have accepted that Photography as an art form can make the mundane extraordinary, but what about when the mundane is just mundane?   And if so, is this particular aesthetic losing meaning in the realm of photography – largely discredited because of the medium itself?

How are these “random snapshots” different than the work of the “masters”?  or are they even different at all?

does the sheer volume dilute the meaning of the medium?

Of course the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room is *digital*.  Film provides “friction” to use Seth’s term.  There is a *physical* limitation to shooting film that provides constraints, both physical and otherwise.  I’ve hear of digital wedding shooters coming home with 8,000-10,000 images from a single wedding!  try doing that with a Hasselblad!  It makes me wonder if they are even *looking* at what they are shooting or just pointing their camera at everything in sight and holding down the shutter in burst mode until the card fills up.  But in essence, why shouldn’t they?  there is no penalty for doing so – no film to pay for, develop, make contact prints (or scan), print etc…

No friction.

The best photographers will tell you that they are always shooting.  always carry a camera, always be making photos.   But that presumes that we are *thinking* about the photos we make – that there is intent, purpose.  When every click of our shutter costs a nickle, or a quarter, or 5 dollars we think alot more about what we point it at when we click that button.

What happens when the friction is removed from that as well?  On one hand it’s a great thing – now we can Always Be Shooting without hesitation or worrying about film, but what happens if and when we stop *thinking* about what we are shooting? does it change the meaning of the activity?

Have you ever gone to a tourist spot, and seen hordes of amateur photographers standing in the same spot, taking photo after photo of the same subject?  It puzzles me – why take 27 photos of the exact same thing?

No Friction.

Medium and meaning, meaning and medium.

Where I think this is going is that while there is no question that digital has changed the way we “do” photography, the question is: has it actually changed the *meaning* of photography in and of itself?

I don’t know the answer to that question, or even if there is one.  But it’s definitely something to think about, particularly when thinking about purpose and meaning in one’s own art.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

I started writing this article the other day, and saved it as a draft… sketching out the ideas I wanted to touch on etc… Then today I see THIS ARTICLE by Chase Jarvis, and I am glad I waited to publish my own, as his touches on some similar/complimentary themes that I would talk about as well!

I’ve been reading a book called Selling the Invisible: A Field Guide to Modern Marketing by harry Beckwith (great book btw), and the main point it makes is how marketing/selling a *service* is very different than marketing/selling a *product*.

And that’s what we are doing.  As photographers, we are selling a service, not a product. The “photograph” itself is not what we offer – anyone can make a photograph.  We are selling our *creativity*, our *skill* and our *vision* in creating that photograph.  I think it’s an important distinction to make, as it seems that the market becomes more and more “commoditized”

Look at it this way – when you hire an architect to design your office or house, you are not “buying a house” – you are paying for the creative vision of the architect.  You are paying for the service that his experience, creativity and expertise brings to the table, and how it facilitates your own end product (the house).  And that *service* is what makes all the difference in the final product (Think “generic housing subdevelopment” vs Falling Water or The NYC Apple store – they are distinct because of the vision and services of the Creatives involved.)

So what does this have to do with Chase’s article?

chase makes the point:

For the first three quarters of my somewhat short career in the business of professional pictures, I was the worst offender. Client said “that looks great!” I called it a wrap, tossed my camera to my assistant with a point of flair just like you’d find on a button on the suspenders of a waiter at TGI Fridays. Ugh. For years, I thought my job was done when the client was happy. But now…
…now it’s when the client says she’s happy that I really start to work hard. That’s the starting point.

Bingo! I agree 100%

In essence that shot (the one the client is happy with) is the “product”.   Don’t be satisfied with that – you aren’t selling a product.  You are selling a service, you are selling your vision, your expertise, your creativity.  As Chase says, go beyond – give them what they didn’t even *know* they wanted.   The more our industry becomes about selling a product (photograph), the more mundane it becomes and the less we are worth as photographers.

Don’t sell your products.  Sell your services.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

Look, by any technical measure, the Holga is a crappy camera.  It is flimsy, plastic, full of light leaks, blurry,  Basically the *exact opposite* of everything we look for in  a camera.  We will spend thousands of dollars for a little extra bump in that MTF curve,  or a fraction of a stop in increased lens speed – So why is my fancy-shmancy-SLR and High-end glass sitting on the shelf while I gleefully run around with a $25 toy camera with plastic lens?

Allow me to make an analogy (which I have used before, but applicable in this case as well!)  Consider the bicycle – Nowadays your average bike has 27-some odd gears, carbon fiber doohickeys, hydraulic disk brakes, and suspensions which will absorb a city curb or tree root with nary a complaint.  Pretty cool, huh? Gotta love technology (road bike tech is equally, if not more impressive).

Of course with all that, I can still walk into a bike shop and buy a “fixie” or “fixed-gear” bicycle.  Some shops even specialize in ‘em!  To explain:  a fixed gear bicycle is a bike with 1 speed/1 gear.  No shifters, no suspension, no brakes (!) – just 2 pedals and 2 wheels.  Not only that, the bike cannot even “coast” as ther gear is “fixed” (hence “fixie”) – the pedals turn the wheel directly, with no freewheeling so you *must* pedal as fast as the bike is going.  To slow down/stop you simply slow your pedaling, or lock your legs and “skid” the bike to a stop.

Now at this point one may ask, why on earth someone would want to ride a bike like that (ahem -Holga) when they could get a 27 speed, freewheeling, brake-having, trigger-shifting racing bike instead? (DSLR)  And ultimately, everyone who rides a fixie has their own reason – but for many, it is *discipline*.

The Fixie keeps you honest.  It *forces* you to work on your riding technique.  It *forces* you to pedal properly, “spinning” as the pros call it.  It doesn’t allow you to slack off – if you don’t pedal, you don’t go – simple as that.

It eliminates everything non-essential, strips the act of riding down to it’s most basic fundamentals and beats you over the head with them until they are mastered.

Similarly, the holga doesn’t have any of the fancy bells and whistles of high end cameras.  It strips the camera down to it’s bare essentials – a box with film and a shutter (ok, so maybe a pinhole is more “bare essentials, but you can get holgas in “pinhole” version too!)  It forces you to work within it’s constraints, and thus compensate by using your other skills – composition, previsualization, etc…  Digital shooting makes you lazy – the Holga makes you *work* for your shot!

Furthermore, most fixed-gear cyclists will tell you that there is a certain “Zen” to riding a fixie.  No clicking freewheel, no worrying about shifting, just you and the bike -directly connected.  Just like the holga, its very primitiveness strips away distractions and complications, leaving us to concentrate on the act in it’s purest form – either riding or shooting.

So if you are feeling in a rut with your shooting, or are dreading over sorting through those 4,000 almost-identical shots you took on your last shoot, try it – grab a holga and a couple of rolls of ASA400 b/w film.   it’s only a few bucks, and can give you a whole new outlook on your photography!

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

In the rapidly shifting world of camera technology, maybe consumer sentiment is coming around – when a blog as big as gizmondo explains why “more megapixels aren’t better” you gotta figure that people are noticing.  This combined with a number of recent compact camera launches trimming back their pixel count in favor of better low light performance… and then Olympus declares their complete withdrawl from the megapixel race altogether, setting the max for their SLRs at 12mp!

Could this be a renniasance in camera design?  With innovative camera designs like the G1, and sensors like the new Fuji EXR sensor (eschewing pixel count for improved dynamic range using pixel binning) it may just be that a whole new world is opening up in the digital camera arena.  Personally I’m looking forward to every bit of it!

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

(That being said, the upcoming Fuji F200EXR looks very cool.  let’s see if it’s DR and ISO performance is as good as the hype…)

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

This series of images

and it got me thinking about one of the endless debates that rages eternally in the photo world – right up there with Canon v. Nikon, film v. digital, etc…

The ethics of Photoshop.

The question of photoshop is really the old philosophical question of “truth in photography”.   Must an image be “true” to be a photograph?   If so, how much can it be manipulated/changed/edited before it ceases to become a “photograph” an becomes something else altogether.   This is a debate that has raged from the first time a enterprising photographer dodged/burned/cropped a photograph in the darkroom to bring it more in line with his (or her) artistic vision.   On the one hand if we trust a photograph to be a direct representation of reality, then manipulating that image to any degree violates that truth by distorting the portrayal of reality.  On the other hand, we can argue that a photograph is never a “true” representation of reality by it’s very essence – it is inherently subjective and thus up to the photographer to use whatever tools are available to bring the image as close to their “vision” of reality as possible.   Quite the conundrum!

In short here’s how I see it - It depends on what the purpose of your photography is. For something like photojournalism, which is generally trusted as a direct, non-editorialized portrayal of reality, the “Truth” of the image is paramount, Hence the stringent regulations against *any* level of image manipulation in the journalistic world, and the severe penalties issues to those who violate said regulations.    Of course the counter argument to that is the fact that any photograph is inherently subjective – simply by choosing what to include or not include in the photo, the photographer editorialized and “manipulates” the truth to some degree.   In the end we must simply come to a point where we say “close enough”.

However, outside of the realm of journalism, I believe that photography is art and, like any other form of art, is an expression of the artist’s unique vision.  To that end, I believe that manipulation is not only acceptable, it is desirable – the more tools available to the artist, the more fully his or her vision can be realized.    Fundamentally I consider myself an artist, and as such I love the freedom of expression that digital manipulation brings to my work.   I am able to conceptualize an image, create the groundwork for it with a camera and then manipulate it to fully realize my vision.   It is merely another step in the process of  concept->product.

Now on the other hand, when dealing with the type of glamor and fashion images portrayed in the above ads, there is a whole ‘nother ethical issue to consider, namely the image that said advertisements are portraying to their clientele.   Of course answering this begins to delve into the realm of personal politics, which is strictly off limits for this blog

In the end, as with many philisophical questions there is really no “right” answer – so what do y’all think of said ads and their critique on image editing/manipulation?

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

DH talks about the “first frame” contest he and other sports shooter would play – in short each shooter would take the first frame on their roll (whatever it was) and whoever had the best action shot (this is sport shooting after all) would “win”.

Now this resonated with me because it touches on a skill that I think is very much related to my whole “taking fewer pictures” rant – and that is anticipating the shot.

The whole “first frame” contest is intriguing because it is a balancing act – snap too early and you might wind up with a boring shot, when there are more interesting ones down the pipe.   Snap too late, and you may miss the shot of the day.   The skill lies in being able to *predict*  when the action will happen, and where it will be – and nail it with your first shot.

Even if you aren’t a sport’s shooter (and I certainly am not), unless you are shooting food or still-lifes, your subjects are most likely dynamic – constantly in motion.  People certainly are, from street to fashion photography – they are constantly moving, walking, jumping, expressions changing etc… Even landscapes have a dynamic component – clouds shift, sunlight changes, trees blow, waves crash.   Pretty  much anything you can think of to photograph is in s constant state of flux.

Part of the art of great photography is learning how to track this ever changing motion and pace your shots accordingly.  Just seeing a great photo is not enough – by the time your brain has registered “oh that is a great shot”, sent the message to your hands which then have to aim the camera, focus and release the shutter, – chances are you’ve already missed “the decisive moment”.    The trick is to *know* when that moment *is about to happen*, so you are prepared – when “the shot” occurs you are already squeezing the shutter – without even having to think about it.  This applies from everything from anticipating when the sun will peek out from behind a cloud to when a model will turn her (or his) head to *just* the right spot – then *bam* you nail it.

Now I don’t claim to be an expert at this by any means, but I feel that it is a fundamental skill in the Art of photography that is in danger of falling by the wayside as more and more photographers fall back on the 10fps machine gun approach.  For me it is yet another thing that I try and practice every time I shoot, to make myself a better photographer.

Just more random musings…

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

But to the point…

I was perusing the strobist flickr group, as is my wont – and I came across this post wondering how Chase managed to balance his strobe/ambient in creating some of the “frozen action” shots in his latest video.  After a couple of replies, who replies but the man himself, explaining exactly how the effects were achieved!

Honestly, how cool is that?  Sure, it may seem like a little thing, but the fact that you can basically have an open ended conversation, ask a question, and have it answered directly by the likes of CJ is just super cool.  Just went I start to get disillusioned by the endless flamewars and disinformation spread on internet forums, something like that comes along and reminds me of how the web can really bring people together to socialize and share knowledge in a way that would have been impossible less than 20 years ago…

Of course it also just points to how cool Chase is to hang out on forums and answer folks questions   I decided to make sure that when I am that high-profile I will never become haughty or aloof and always be available to help folks out.  That’s what makes our industry great.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

To opine on the topic in a more general fashion, I would like to propose the following answer to most any “what should I buy” question.

Buy Knowledge.

when I look back at the evolution of my own skills as a photographer I cannot think of *any* instance were a particular piece of gear made a quantifiable difference in the quality of my photos. I can, however, directly attribute each and every improvement in my photography to *learning* or *understanding* something new.

To that end, the money I have spent on photo classes/seminars or even just having out watching more experienced photographers work has been exponentially more beneficial to me than any piece of gear. Sure the whole “it’s not the camera it’s the photographer” is cliched, but just look through flickr at the amount of absolute crap coming out of cameras like the d3 or 1ds… Folks are dropping 10k on gear who would make exponentially better images with an xti and spending the other 9k on a semester of photography classes at uni.

The bottom line is if you have a camera, you can make a picture. if you have a light you can light it (whether it’s a 20 year old vivitar or a profoto 7b). But you have to *know what* you want to make and *know how* to light it first. Once you do that, you will *know* what gear you need. Believe me, spending a weekend at a seminar with a serious photographer will improve you images so far beyond buying a 1D or set of profotos, it’s amazing.  It may not be as sexy as the latest toy, but when it comes down to it you just have to ask yourself – is it the gadgets, or is it the images? (and don’t get me wrong, I’m as much of a gadget-head as the next guy!)

If you *think* you need more gear to make better images, you don’t – you need more knowledge.  If you *know* you need a specific piece of gear for a specific application, well then by all means go crazy

end rant.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

I, on the other hand prefer a slow zoom (high quality and still constant aperture, such as Canon’s F/4L lenses) and a fast prime.

Consider:
Point 1: f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4.   In other words, the difference between bumpring your iso from 200->400 (or 400-800 etc…)  Us digital photographers sometimes forget how spoiled we are… back in the day we needed every bit of speed we could get out of our glass, as film speed was often the limiting factor.  Anyone remember shooting film past ASA400?  got grainy pretty fast didn’t it    These days I will shoot my 5d at 3200 without even blinking.  And it’s only getting better from there!   Considering that an f/4 zoom is a)smaller/lighter b)greater range (24-105mm vs 24-70), I would much rather bump my iso one stop than carry the extra bulk/weight of a 2.8 zoom around all day.   Not to mention that when using strobes/lights, I’m generally working at f/4-5.6 maximum, it’s only available (low) light that demands fast glass which leads me to my second point.

point 2: in my experience, when I need low light capability *i need low light capability*, and in those cases even f/2.8 won’t cut it.   A f/1.4 lens gives you a *3 stop* advantage over an f/4 zoom (and 2 stops even over a 2.8!) – that’s the same as going from 200-1600ISO, not insignificant! or consider the low light potential of a 1.4 lens on one of the new bodies capable of doing ISO12,800 or even 25,600 – now we’re getting into the “EV -crazydark” territory.  Not to mention that at f/2.8 the prime is already stopped down two stops, while the zoom is still wide open, which will generally give you better edge to edge quality.

Ok, so maybe I’m a bit biased, as I am a “prime guy”, but I think a lot of folks underestimate the potential of the humble fixed focal length lens.  The classic 50/1.4 is a surprisingly flexible lens that can yield a huge variety of perspectives simply by taking a few steps forward or back.

Some will respond that it’s the combination of flexibility and speed that makes the 2.8 appealing, but to me it seems like you sort of get shorted on both ends – it’s not fast enough to be *really fast* and not flexible enough to preclude frequent lens switching.

(and before the hate mail starts, yes I’ve used the fast zooms plenty. Yes they are great lenses, and yes, maybe if I were a dedicated wedding shooter I’d change my mind.  All I’m saying is that there are other alternatives!)

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

I dunno, maybe it’s the economy or maybe I’m just becoming one of those crotchety old photographers who is more concerned with light and composition than with gear   I think as is common with many photographers as our skills and experience improve, our interest in gear for the sake of gear decreases.  I’ve been doing this long enough that I know what I want out of a camera (high quality, light weight, fast wide glass- particularly primes) and I’m happy with what I’ve got.

I’ll probably take a hard look at the olympus “pseudo rangefinder” micro four thirds camera when it comes out (probably not for another year is my guess) but for now I just want to go out and take pictures

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

one of the downsides
to me of digital imaging is that it lends itself to *not* printing your
work. Back in the “olden days” of film negatives, you *had* to print -
there was no image other than the print (I’m not counting slides) This
of course had downsides of it’s own – prints take up space, and are
harder to catalogue

but with the advent of digital, I feel like
more and more people are simply chosing not to print their images,
sharing them electronically via the internet and photosharing sites
etc…

And in some ways this is great. it is convenient, it
is quick, it is easy and it doesn’t cost anything. Prints are somewhat
more time consuming (if you do them yourself), require physical storage
space, and cost money.

but there is something wonderful about
the experience of looking at a rich 16″x20″ print, nicely matted and
framed that simply cannot be replicated by staring at a computer
monitor.

Another advantage to printing is that digital noise and grain is not
*nearly* as offensive in prints as it is viewed 100% on a computer
screen. I hate it when someone will rant on and on about minute
differences in noise performance between x camera and y camera and iso
settings etc… and when I ask them how it looks in prints they admit
that they never actually *print* these images. Arrrrgh.

So do it! make some prints! there is no reason not too, it’s as easy
as uploading a file to mpix or such and ordering. Photobooks are good
too. it is simply amazing to me that I can get a nicely printed and
bound book of my photograhs for < $20. (I’ve been pretty impressed
with blurb) I feel like it’s pretty much made the old-school 4×6 print
album obsolete.

With so many options available, making printing easier than ever it is really a shame not to print your work!

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

At some point in our evolutions as photographers, I’m sure we have all said to ourselves “Why am I doing this?” What drives us to grab our cameras in the morning along with our jacket and shoes and make photographs?

What drives us to attempt to transcend the realm of the “snapshot” and to create “art” with our cameras?

The answer to this is as individual and unique as all of us – we each have our own answer(s), so allow me to share one of mine.

Whenever I ask myself that question (or someone else asks me!) the first thing that pops into my head is “The Phantom Tollbooth”

To explain: “The Phantom Tollbooth” is a book by Norton Juster, one of my favorite books when I was a child. It is ostensibly about a discontent young boy who one day discovers a mysterious tollbooth in his room, driving through which takes him into a strange “Alice-in-Wonderland” style alternate reality. All of his adventures however are rich with allegory, social commentary, satire and even philosophical and mathematical discussions on the nature of life and the universe. It is one of those childrens books that can still be appreciated by adults for it’s depth of meaning and richness of language and concept.

In particular when I think about why I photograph, I recall a particular chapter in the book that made a profound impact on me when I was young.

The passage begins with Milo (the protagonist) coming upon what appears to be a bustling metropolis – people running here and there, going to work, going home – busy busy busy. The strange thing is that there doesn’t seem to be any “city” visible – no buildings, no parks, no cars, nothing – they people are just running around in seemingly empty space. And this is what Milo learns about the city (quoted):

The City of Reality

“…the most important reason for going from one place to another is to see what’s in between, and they took great pleasure in doing just that. Then one day someone discovered that if you walked as fast as possible and looked at nothing but your shoes you would arrive at your destination much more quickly. Soon everyone was doing it. They all rushed down the avenues and hurried along the boulevards seeing nothing of the wonders and beauties of their city as they went.

No one paid any attention to how things looked, and as they moved faster and faster everything grew uglier and dirtier, and as everything grew uglier and dirtier they moved faster and faster, and at last a very strange thing began to happen. Because nobody cared, the city slowly began to disappear. Day by day the buildings grew fainter and fainter, and the streets faded away, until at last it was entirely invisible. There was nothing to see at all.”

Now when I read the book as a child, I thought that was just about the most awfully tragic thing I had ever heard, and it still stuck with me as a I grew older. I think too often we find ourselves in the positions of “racing from place to place, looking at our shoes” The hackneyed old “stop and smell the roses” cliche rings more true than ever in our increasingly hectic, fast paced lives. You can open any paper and find articles on how we are overworked, over-stressed, over-stimulated, over-everything-ed.

For me, photography is a way of “reframing” that state – of forcing me to slow down and actually *look* at the world around – not just with the eyes, but with the mind – with the heart. Whether I am looking at a flower, a beautiful landscape a model or whatever I want to make sure I *see* it. I refuse to let the city around me disappear.

The act of creating a photograph becomes a meditation on our true perception of life.

And that is why I photograph.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

In case you hadn’t already read, apple just introduced editing plugins for aperture, including true photoshop-style brush based controls such as burn/dodge etc… Noiseninja and others coming soon!

In what seems to be a largely (as of yet) unpublicized announcement, Apple has just dropped a bomb!

It may just be a .1 release, but I think this is a bigger shakeup than aperture 2 itself.  Software like aperture and Lightroom have been great for DAM (Digital Asset Management) and great for doing quick adjustments to exposure/tone/etc… but true “editing” remained the province of Photoshop until now.  The addition of brush based tools (particularly burn and dodge) is *huge*.  Many photographers have lamented that they’d love to use Aperture/Lightroom exclusively, but can’t because of the need for Photoshop to do targeted adjustments.  Not anymore – do all that in aperture itself.  With plugins coming from NoiseNinja (the other main use of Photoshop for me) and many others sure to follow,  aperture 2.1 may just make Photoshop a “non-necessity” for a number of photographers.

Of course time will tell

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

There are already plenty of reports of the general camera-unfriendliness that is growing in our ever-expanding surveillance society, but this is essentially painting anyone with a camera as a terrorist (god help you if you have a big slr & tripod). Have we as a people really sunk that low? (not to mention the obvious disconnect in that the folks usually being harassed are SLR users, whereas wouldn’t you expect a “terrorist” to want to use something small and inconspicuous? – quick round up all the G9 users!)

This is really an ugly reflection of our changing society. Honestly I was shocked (although maybe I shouldn’t be) by that poster – without hyperbole, it is something that could have come straight out of Soviet Russisa (“Report any suspicious activity, comrade! It’s your patriotic duty!).

I am a fairly young guy, but I can’t seem to ever remember this level of general paranoia and fear mongering being foisted upon the public ’till recently. It really makes you wonder why.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

The critique. 

I agree with Paul – it seems like the whole idea of “critique” has turned into “leave me a comment to stroke my ego, and I’ll stroke yours”  – regardless of the actual work. 

Then there are the folks who fancy themselves “critiquers” and will simply lambaste any image they come across (“this is terrible, 0 stars, etc…”)

What ever happened to the art of the critique?  The simple art of giving *constructive* criticism.  Isn’t the whole point of a critique to give the artist feedback to he can improve his craft.  And moreover, do these “casual photographers” really *want* true critique? or just to have their ego stroked.

When I was in school I had a professor, who would absolutely *tear* apart our work, pointing out every flaw, every mistake, every “part that could be better”.  it was very interesting to see the class’ reaction.  Some absolutely hated the guy and dropped his class (too mean!), while others absolutely loved him.  I was in the latter camp – why?  Because I quickly realized that his critiques were incredibly specific and to the point!  he always pointed out exactly *why* something was wrong, and *how* you could do it better next time.  It was great – my skills grew exponentially in that semester, and I attribute all of it to receiving precise, informative, and yes harsh critiques. 

But it’s hard to actually find someone to give a good critique – someone with the knowledge of the craft to understand the technical aspects, someone with a good eye to understand the aesthetic aspects, and finally someone who can communicate precisely and accurately to covey the feedback on said artwork!

So, as a public service, and without further ado, here is my humble opinion on how to give a good critique: 

1. (General) Study the masters of the craft.  Learn how they did what they did, and *why*.  Learn the techniques, understand the foundations and technical aspects.
2. Look at the work as a whole – what was the artist trying to say, what feeling were they trying to convey.
3. Look at the specifics – color, composition, light (note this applies equally to all media, not just photography).
4. Does the work succeed in it’s intended outcome – ie does it convey what it was meant to convey emotionally and intellectually.
5. If no, why not?  is there a technical flaw that detracts from it?  does the composition not work?  do the colors not evoke the proper mood? is the subject not presented well?
6. If it *does* succeed is there anything that could have been done better – technically, compositionally, etc…?
7. Communicate points 2-6 as precisely as possible – exactly what works and what doesn’t, and *why*.  What did you “get” from the piece, and how successful was each aspect in attaining it.  For most folks you may want to start with the good points, as they may not be prepared for the apparent harshness of a real critique!

And finally – if you find someone who can give a educated, honest, and constructive critique – hang on to them!  They will increase your skills far more than a whole bucket of ego stroking!

Tags: art, photography, critique, photo sharing sites,

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

Now I’m not saying this is a good or a bad thing, it’s just a fact.

The flipside to this is that now millions of people sitting on the internet looking at photosharing sites are now essentially “photo critics”

This is an extremely thought provoking thread on flickr.com which raises a lot of tough questions about the nature of Art and Photography.

first some background: There is a Flickr group called “deleteme” where members post photos, then *in theory* the rest of the group critiques them and then votes whether to “save” the photo in the group pool, or “delete” it and remove it from the pool.  The idea is that eventually, the only photos left will be the best of the best, worthy of saving.

Unfortunately in reality, this is not always the case – very often the comment threads simply become a popularity contest, or a bunch of camera-snob wannabees ragging on anthing that is not their idea of a “good photo”

Now, I suppose on a lark – one member of the group posted a Henry Cartier-Bresson photograph into the pool, without labeling or indicating what it was.  This photo was “Mario’s Bike”, considered by most to be a masterpiece, a true work of art.  (and if anyone doesn’t know who Cartier-Bresson was, he is generally considered one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century, his philosophy was “The Decisive Moment” which has influenced generations of street photographers, and revolutionized the genre).

Anyway, what resulted was a flamewar of epic proportions.  Many folks obviously didn’t recognize the piece (kind of surprising for anyone with even a passing knowledge of photo/art history, as it is such a seminal image) and basically wrote it off as junk, voting to delete it from the pool (blurry, not in focus, grainy etc…)

The photo and thread in question can be found here:

MARIO’S BIKE ON FLICKR

Of course, all the folks who knew it to be a HCB masterpiece, had a good chuckle but the thread raises some interesting questions:

is it still a great photo even if the majority of people think it is junk?  who decides what makes it great?  This question essentially is going back to the eternal question of “what is art” but this just shows how much more relevant this is becoming to photography.

As the barriers to entry in photography are lowered (Owning a dSLR is now pretty much within anyone’s reach) – what happens to the “art” of photography?  Is there still an absolute standard of what makes a photograph art?  or does photographic art now encompass the abundance of “oversaturated, oversharpened flower macro shots” that seem to dominate the photosharing sites as the most highly regarded.  Don’t even get me started on HDR!

the other effect of this ease of accessibility is that “everyone’s a critic”  from the most highty trained photo curator or artist to grandpa joe who just bought his first digicam last week, and now fancies himself and expert on digital photography.

With the “great unwashed masses” having easy access to photography, without any actual knowledge as to the *art* and *craft* of photo making, there seems to be a paradigm shift in appreciation of photography from something that is art to something that is just “pretty pictures” without going beyond that.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with “pretty pictures” – I take plenty of ‘em, in fact I wouldn’t have the hubris to claim that 99% of my own photography is anything more than that.  But I am always striving to create “art”, and I would hope that I have an appreciation for the true artists and masters of the medium.

And this is essentially the crux of my question:

Is the “easy availablity” of digital photography & the internet destroying our collective appreciation for the true art in the medium?   Have we been so overexposed to supersaturated, supersharp, over-digitalized photos that we have lost the appreciation for other artistic aesthetics in photography? 

Further, how much of our appreciation of art (photographic or otherwise) is influenced by preconceived notions?  Is is possible that the only reason I consider “Mario’s Bike” a masterpiece, is that I know it is by HCB?   How would I have judged it had I not know who it was by?  I like to think that I would have appreciated it on it’s own merits, but since I can’t look at it without knowing the source, my speculation is tainted by my own knowledge.

Honestly, I don’t have the answers to these questions, and similar thoughts have most likely plagued artists and critics ever since the first scrawl on a cave wall.   However,  with the advent of technology that makes photography instantly available on demand to anyone, these questions become more relevant than ever!

P.S. – I hope this isn’t too much of an elitist rant!  I happen to love flickr and all the photosharing sites, and my personal opinion is that they are a good thing for photography if for no other reason that it makes it easier to find new talent!

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

(The photographic equivalent of black velvet Elvis posters, only without the kitsch appeal?)

Now
I partly understand the animosity to HDR, or at least where it comes
from.  Because it’s easy to do, and produces dramatic results (note I
did not say GOOD results), I feel it is often used as a crutch to try
and make a mediocre image more interesting.  Boring landscape?  run it
through an HDR program and “oooh and ahhh” at the supersaturated colors
and compressed range (not to mention the halos, glow, and probable loss
of sharpness).

HOWEVER:
I’ve also seen some incredibly beautiful images that incorporated HDR techniques

Bottom line, the way I see it is:

HDR is a post-processing
technique, just like b/w conversion or curve adjustments or split
toning.  If used judiciously and in moderation it can be very effective
and give added depth and impact to your photos.  If misused/overused it
simply becomes a generic “fotoshop filter” technique that mangles
images beyond recognition (mostly images that weren’t all that good to
begin with) moreso, it is often used as a crutch to mask sloppy
exposure/metering technique. 

The most effective uses of HDR that I have seen are subtle.  Used
as a tool to retain highlight/shadow detail in high-contrast scenes it
can be very effective (i.e. take 2 images, one metered for highlights and
one metered for shadows and combine with HDR processing when there is
simply too much dynamic range in a scene to capture in one exposure). 
Most of the time though, it is hard to tell that this is even “HDR”
since it often lacks the supersaturated “punch” of the 5,6 or even 9
image composites.  The danger comes with the “more is better mentality”
- same thing happens with image sharpening in Photoshop i.e. if 20 sharpening is good, 40 must be twice as good. 

so to all the aspiring HDR-ists out there remember: use a light hand
applying the technique, your images will thank you, and dont forget, it’s only
one technique out of many!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

I’m sure you’ve read the news by now, but if you haven’t here’s the article.
(LINK-opens in new window)

Now I’m not one to run down the “oh noes tehy are taking our RIGHTS” path but this bugs me, so I’m going to throw my .02 in.

There have been numerous court cases brought against “public photography” and *every time* the courts (up to the supreme court) have ruled that photography in a public place is protected speech under the first amendment.  Putting arbitrary restrictions on photography in public, is essentially just an excuse to get around that pesky “free speech” thing when it is inconvenient.  (i.e. – we can’t say that “taking the picture” is illegal, so we’ll say that “standing in one place with the camera for too long” is illegal)

Now you say this legislation is not intended to restrict or censor private photographers, it’s just intended to prevent congestion/disruption by large film crews?  Fine.  that’s how it’s *intended* (you know, road to hell and all…)  But I ask when a law that is so easily abusable *has not* been abused???

consider:  the proposed law seems to be worded so vaguely that if you and your buddy are standing there with a pair of cameras chatting for too long, bam, you are in violation.  Set up a tripod to take some night shots or architecture?  BAM – violation.

It essentially gives law enforcement (and by extension, politicians) carte blanche to disallow any kind of photography/videography *that they don’t like* – effectively silencing any kind of independent media that is “undesirable”.

Consider, hypothetically: the city of NY doesn’t want Michael Moore exposing some of their “not-so-above-the-table” dealings on… <something>.  Under the proposed regulations, they can simply confiscate his cameras, and arrest him and his crew.  Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with Moore’s views, and I think his films are blatant propaganda and intentional distortions of the truth *at best*.  HOWEVER – I ALSO believe that the government/city of NY has NO RIGHT to prevent him from filming them.  Pesky free speech and all… unfortunately applies even to opinions that you don’t like.

Another unforeseen ramification: this would prevent any independent media from covering any kind of political protest (too many people gathered with cameras for too long…)- ensuring the only coverage that reaches the masses is pre-sanitized, and approved by the “mainstream” outlets.

the potential for abuse is enormous, if the legislation is, in fact, as I understand it.

now this rant is straying dangerously close to a political diatribe so I’ll quit, but I think we can all agree:

If a law is vague enough to be abuseable it WILL BE ABUSED. no matter how noble the intentions are. 

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post

because now your *CAMERA* will take the weight off for you.

yup.

http://www.hp.com/united-states/consumer/digital_photography/tours/slimming/index_f.html

Ok folks. raise your hand if you are sick of the rediculous “features” being crammed into pocket cameras, while eschewing things like “image quality” “manual controls” and “good glass”.
I mean I understand the whole “user friendliness” thing to an extent. Plenty (if not most) folks buying a P&S probably couldnt care less about aperture priority, fast glass, manual focusing controls, etc… but I mean really – who is designing these things

(I know, I know – marketing focus groups)

can’t we get an actual photographer into the R&D dept of some of these companies?

I mean, I am constantly seeing the laments among pros and pro-am photographers wondering why it seems to be impossible to put a real sensor and decent glass into a small-format camera. I know the engineering is somewhat more difficult, but it’s not *that* hard.

There seems to be demand for it. Most folks I know would gladly pay between 500-1000 for something like this.

The Sigma DP1 has everyone salivating, but at this point it is still mostly vaporware.

So why? Why can’t we have a camera with a good sensor, decent fast lens, manual controls and NO STUPID SCENE MODES/FACE RECOGNITION/IN CAMERA SLIMMING?

To answer, it’s because the bean counters aren’t convinced it will be profitable. Somehow we must convince them.

unless we do, the silly “features will keep coming” and the quality of the cameras will keep declining.

I predict – the next generation of P&S will have a “vacation” feature, where you don’t even have to go anywhere – you just press the shutter and it superimposes your photo onto a pre-set “scenic” background.

soon there will be no need to actually take a picture.  you will just click the button on the camera and it will simply create an image of you out of thin air, based on what you would “want” to see.

ok maybe I exaggerate, but “in camera slimming” is still kind of silly.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tweet This Post Stumble This Post