Behind The Lens

Tarps As Subject?

2008-08-28T09:31:00.001-06:00

I Missed It

2008-08-27T21:15:00.003-06:00

I didn't notice till now that I'm at 1006 entries to my blog - my sympathies to any of you who have had to read all 1006 of them. I know when I took some blog entries to make the first book, I was horrified at some of the things I had written - of course what you may not realize is that many of them are written between patients - somebody's a few minutes late and I add another paragraph. So my apologies, and hopefully the meaning comes through even if correct grammar and spelling don't.

Racks In Black And White

2008-08-27T21:11:00.002-06:00

There's nothing wrong with the originally posted colour image - the blue and rust go well together, but when converted to black and white one can concentrate on the lines better and I think this might just be the image that is the keeper.

This black and white image still needs some work - there is a band of low contrast across the image about 3/4 of the way from the bottom which needs a bit of strengthening. The bottom right corner might need a little help too - time to make a print and live with it for a couple of days.

And In Black And White

2008-08-24T23:20:00.001-06:00

Back At The Field

2008-08-24T21:58:00.002-06:00

Yesterday I looked out the front of the house - good cloud cover, I grabbed the camera and went out the back - the sun was shining - it stayed shining through the shoot and definitely cramped my style.

Fortunately today the clouds were significantly more substantial and I was fairly productive. Here you have the first couple of images. I used helicon focus in both - with the steel racks it took about 9 images to get from near to far and is fairly typical of really wide angle blends - it was less than perfect with some "double exposure" in the background gravel. I think I can do some image resizing and try blending fewer images to get a better result. It seems Helicon Focus can tollerate minor changes in image size as you focus with longer lenses (say 50 mm. and longer) but with really wide lenses (17-24 mm.) there is enough change in image size as you focus for Helicon to struggle especially at the edges.

The second image required Helicon Focus because although only two images, I needed to select the sharp from each and Helicon could do this automatically for me, one focussed on the flowers, the other on the machinery in the background.

If You Think Photographing Rust Is Weird...

2008-08-20T16:06:00.001-06:00

More Rust, So There!

2008-08-19T22:35:00.003-06:00

I went back to the field of machines tonight with my big camera and found a few more interesting things, not the least of which was this abstract in rust.

Reviews, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

2008-08-19T21:59:00.003-06:00

Can't remember which one of you warned me on completing my book to stand prepared to be shot down in flames in criticisms. For sure that has come to pass. Fortunately there are more comments that are positive and I'm coping just fine thank you - nothing like selling out the first run of 5000 to immure you from those who would put you down.

Still, it's interesting to consider the negative comments:

I did not see a single image that I thought "I wish I had taken that". I think this book is a waste of money.

One wonders what kind of photographs this person does like. Perhaps he only does sports or people or street photography but it's hard to believe that such a person wouldn't find something of interest, even if only to say, I could have done better with that subject.

The following two comemnts make an intersting pair:

The author provides no insight into his thought process in either composition or technique.

However -- that's all the book is about, HIS images. He does talk about inspiration -- HIS inspirations.

Some criticised the photographs while approving the text while others liked the text but didn't think the pictures were up to snuff.

Some thought my writing pretentious while others praised the relaxed casual and comfortable style.

The good news is that I also had comments like the following:

At first glance, I had a hard time learning to see the beauty in the art that is industrial photography. When I first got this book in the mail, I looked through its pages and was disappointed, thinking "how can I make myself read this if I don't even like the pictures?" Coming from someone that loves impressionism, this shouldn't be hard to understand.
But knowing George's writing already from the Luminous landscape site, I thought there must be something more to this book, and started reading. I'm so glad I did! The clear writing style kept me interested--and as a result a whole new way of making photographs has been revealed to me. He gives excellent advice and already my creative process has benefited from reading his book. This will forever be in my photographic library. I can't wait to re-read it when in need of inspiration and ideas.

As a side-note, I'm now hooked on the beauty and challenges of industrial photography. A whole new genre of photography has been opened up to me. I highly reccommend this book--its a gem!

And I received this email from Mark:

Hi George,

I was so impressed with the lines and corners part of your book 'Take your Photography to the Next Level' I went out and gave my self a project. Here is the result, if you are interested:
Exercise Images

I also showed an AV version to the folk at my camera club to illustrate the point.

It only lasted a few minutes and I asked them to see if they could detect what all the images had in common. They couldn't see it straight away but eventually it clicked. Some were so impressed they asked me for details of your book, which I gladly passed on. Look out for more book orders from Northern Ireland!

So thank you for your book, you have taken me to the next level and also introduced me to the Radiant Vista and so much more.

Best regards

Mark

Now I have learned some things from writing the book. It would have been better had we been able to include the classic images I refer to in the text however the publisher wasn't prepared to put in the time to sort that out, possibly delaying the book for months and I entirely understood. Given all the images are readily avaiilable on the net, this is not the problem it once was.

I should perhaps have put more effort into indicating that my suggestions were illutrated with my own photography, limited to rocks and rust - though anyone could have checked out my website before spending the money, so...

In my second book, I have included people pictures but the book will remain devoid of sports, nudes, advertizing, and product photography simply because I have neither experience or skills in those areas.

All in all, an eye opening experience.

Ah, This Is Better

2008-08-17T22:46:00.002-06:00

Seems like a very odd thing to take a photograph of, even for me, but there's something about the shapes and the colour scheme and the background of gravel that works for me. I could of course be completely deluding myself - I have been known to come back to an image a few days later and wonder "what the hell made me think that is a good image?" but we'll see.

Industrial Wasteland

2008-08-17T22:37:00.001-06:00

I was cruising around Calgary's industrial areas looking for something interesting - all too tidy, but eventually I found a field full of old stamping mills and various other equipment, not fenced off with barbed wire and chain link - an opportunity not to be missed. Some lovely colours of rust.

Photographing The Landscape, Part II

2008-08-13T11:18:00.002-06:00

Having discussed the WHY of landscape photography last time, in this chapter, I want to address the question of what to photograph. That may seem self evident "whatever I can damn well find!" or words to that effect but bear with me.

A lot of photographers save up to photograph at famous and photogenic locations - Yosemite, the Rockies or the Alps, or famous sea shores. They do so in the thought that the scenery around their own home town is too flat, too ordinary, or too boring. Of course what actually happens is that lacking practice and working under the assumption that if the place is famous, the shots should be easy, they struggle to find images and come home disappointed with those they do capture. Given the investment in time and money, this is not a viable proposition.

The other problem with photographing the famous is that so have everyone else, which is fine if you want to see how you stand up, but it makes it really hard to come up with something new and different. If you like that kind of challenge, that's wonderful, but otherwise... Most famous photographers built their reputation photographing near by, what makes you think you should do differently.

Does the world really need any more Arizona slot canyon pictures?

It is virtually inconceivable that there is nothing to photograph near where you live and if you haven't found anything, the implication is that your seeing abilities need improvement. Sure there are no half domes in Kansas but there are small prairie towns, gorgeous prairie skies and there must be a hill somewhere. Instead of majestic mountains there are grain silos and windmills. It wouldn't be difficult to do an entire art photography book on corn alone. You might not think of a plowed field as being landscape, but it is your available land so be flexible in how you define landscape.

There are a number of professional fine art photographers who happily show work from city parks. This includes Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, Michael Kenna and Roman Loranc. Joel Myerowitz did an entire book on the the St. Louis Gateway Arch. If city parks are good enough for them, how come you turn your nose up at the thought. So what if there's a winding pathway through the picture or even a street lamp, it's the light and the tones and the shapes and composition, it's the story told and the ignored illuminated that makes a photograph. Oddly enough, more people have seen pictures of the famous locations than quality images of your own town parks so one can't even make the argument that you need to get away to find fresh fodder.

Landscape can be anything from inches to infinity from your camera, can include stormy skies or no skies at all. Landscape can be completely natural or totally urban, with no plants in sight. Landscape can be night time or any time.

It's true that finding something beautiful in the ordinary is challenging, just as it is to make something more than trite out of the famous, but frankly, photography is already too easy and the competition is pretty tough out there.

Some people are still reeling from the awareness that in the days of film, being a technical expert was enough to gain you credit, or at least to feel you accomplished something, these days the emphasis is very much more on your creativity and compositional skill, your eye and how you treat your subject matter.

You might think that without knowing what you plan to photograph - desert, forest, stream or urban, there would be nothing I could offer to help, but fortunately that isn't the case. In fact, wherever you photograph, the same issues seem to come up.

1) Separation - the important elements of the image need to be seen against other objects in the image - this can be by tone or colour (filtering can help in black and white). Texture is not normally enough to separate the main subject or to define shapes in the composition. Separation can be created through lighting, camera position and depth of field. It is possible that separation can be created in the editing process as you burn or dodge or the equivalent.

2) edges - in general stronger images have definite edges - some reason to end the image where you do - it's not essential, but if you don't have an end it can create problems of the eye wandering off or simply that you have to make up for this deficiency through some other strength of the image. Of course the classic strategy in landscapes is the overhanging branches but I know none of you would resort to that. Whatever you use to define the edges of the image needs to relate to the subject matter, whether it be harmonizing or contrasting.

3) backgrounds - the cleaner and simpler the better - nothing is worse than a bunch of small trees or bushes not far behind the main subject and with sky showing through. It really helps if you can get even a little bit higher than your subject so that the trees appear solid instead of speckled.

4) tonalities - much of what makes an image, especially in black and white, is the way that surfaces of your subject handle light. In general hazy bright or just after sunset when the lighting is soft but one part of the sky is substantially brighter than the others works best to define shapes and add roundness and a sense of the third dimension.

5) foregrounds - they function as a lead in to the main subject (a favourite strategy of Joe Cornish from the U.K., often combined with wide angle lenses, or as framing or even as contrast to the main subject. Depth of field is an concern because for the most part, blurry foregrounds don't work. Like all rules I can think of exceptions but that's the way it usually works.

6) connections - by this I mean that if an image contains a series of main subjects (even if they happen to be shadows), in good images they tend to connect with each other. They can do this by overlapping, or pointing to each other (via a shadow for example) or connect through an intermediary - say two rocks connected via a path or perhaps a log. It may be that the only connection is one of balance - ie. they balance each other in the composition and are sufficiently similar for there to be a relationship that is implied even though not drawn.

Too often people show me images of pretty scenes that simply don't make sense, they are missing the connections, the clarity, the framing or perhaps all of them and thus the image does not represent what the photographer saw. One of the nice things about a Holga image is that with it's vignetting your eye is automatically centred and the drop in sharpness to the edge does the same thing, you don't have to put so much effort into composing your edges.

And that's it for now on what to photograph. Next time I'm going to discuss the How in photographing the landscape.

Till next time

Photographing The Landscape, Part 1

2008-08-12T14:55:00.002-06:00

I thought I might tackle the whole concept of photographing the landscape from a creative, artistic and compositional viewpoint, in a series of articles, starting with:

Landscape As Subject

Why

Landscape has been a subject for painting long before photography came along - though even in painting it has been a development of the last couple of hundred years. Prior to that, most paintings were of people or religious themes or at least people in their surroundings. The idea of pure landscape is in fact relatively modern. That said, landscape was in full swing by the time photography came along around 1830 so it was no surprise that landscape became subject matter for cameras too. Of course there were technical reasons - like it tends to hold still and lighting is provided (often lots of it).

There are practical reasons for photographing the landscape - typically you don't need permission, you don't have to have people skills, it gets you out in the fresh air and usually involves getting some exercise, besides, it's pretty, and clean, and smells good. Of course, it can also be -40 or raining, muddy or stormy. It often involves travel which can be a mixed blessing - you get to go nice places, but can make doing landscape work near home frustrating if home doesn't look anything like the mountains or the seashore.

For the serious photographer, landscape offers many attractions. The mere challenge of taking beautiful scenery and somehow translating into a piece of paper inches across is significant. Typically you don't have the option of moving things around to arrange them so the challenge is to work with what you find to make an interesting composition which is both simpler and harder - simpler because complete freedom to put things anywhere you want means the huge responsibility of designing the composition instead of discovering it, yet the frustration when things don't quite work out and you wish that rock were three feet to the left.

Landscape being one of the classic themes and very popular, it is quite possible to compare your results to those of others, to gauge your progress and to know where you stand. You can easily visit galleries and see what really good prints look like, and there are many books of landscape photographs to study from.

Landscape is relatively generic - you can hardly give a picture of your girlfriend to your boss as a Christmas present (well, maybe you could if it's racy enough - but would she want you to?). Landscape works well as decoration and for the intelligent but uninformed, it is easy to relate to. The sales market is certainly larger and your spouse is more likely to give up wall space to your work when it's landscape.

Landscape photographs can be truly beautiful. I am particularly partial to black and white landscape but there are some really talented colour landscape photographers out there.

I find the challenge of deciding on the right position from which to photograph, the choice for the edges of the image (ie. the framing) and the process of translating the landscape into a fine art image very satisfying, if at times frustrating too. If it was too easy, it wouldn't be as much fun.

Next time I'm going to write about what to photograph. there are many inexperienced photographers who bemoan not being able to visit Yosemite or Big Sur as a huge limit to their photography or who feel that only travel can produce satisfactory work, discounting their own surroundings as being too mundane, or too flat for satisfactory landcscape images. I have some thoughts on those problems - and they don't involve a bigger travel budget.

On A Personal Note

2008-08-11T13:40:00.003-06:00

Don't think I said, the publisher (Rockynook) is sending me to Photokina next month. I'll be giving a workshop Friday afternoon and doing a video taping for foto TV as well as bringing along my wife for a bit of holiday for a few days before and after. We're quite excited. We are catching an overnight train from Cologne to Prague and staying there two nights before doing the same back again.

I purchased a Canon 40D before doing the San Francisco workshop and it has been performing very well for me - providing excellent images at ei. 400 and entirely useable images at ei. 1600. With some reservations I purchased it with the 18-55 IS lens and it has been performing well for me - it's tiny and quite sharp once stopped down at the longer focal lengths and even without stopping down at the wider lengths.

On the basis of that experience, I picked up the new 55-250 lens. I have not formally tested it but so far it seems to be doing the job and is ideal for traveling - it's black, small, light, won't break the bank if stolen and is quite unobtrusive for what amounts to the equivalent of an 88-400 mm. lens. I'm carrying the kit in a tramrac across the shoulder bag which if a bit slow getting the camera in and out, at least will make it harder for someone to help themselves as happened to a friend on a bus in Prague.

I have debated about the value of a tripod on a trip like this but I have found shooting without a tripod frustrating when I can't stop down for depth of field or can't use a slow shutter speed. I have a sneaking suspicion my best shots are likely to be at sunrise and sunset and possibly even at night so a lightweight tripod looks to be the answer. I have a Manfrotto 925B which is quite light - despite being aluminium it's about the same weight as a 190 fibre tripod and ball head so that's likely what I'll take. The idea of dropping $750 for an even lighter Gitzo seems a bit much.

I am working on a second book, whose format is more or less locked down - it will be a modern day Examples, the making of 40 images - stealing from the very popular and useful book of Ansel Adams. it was a book I found useful and hope that a modern day equivalent will also serve, though I'm no Ansel Adams. Segments vary from 4 to 8 pages and include either interim steps in the editing of the images or in some cases other images entirely that illustrate a point.

The first book is available in German and soon Italian.

I'm trying to move from old industries to modern and have checked at a couple of places to see I can get access - fingers crossed. It could be very challenging.

More From The Back Alley

2008-08-09T18:40:00.003-06:00

This is the inside of a metal garbage can - strange where you can find interesting subjects.

Snowplow

2008-08-03T17:18:00.002-06:00

On call and unable to leave town, I popped over to Heritage Park for the afternoon, capturing this image of the blade of a snow plow. Similar units are still in use on Canadian track to clear the line.

Cabbage II

2008-08-01T22:25:00.002-06:00

One advantage of still lifes is you can go back and do it again. I liked the first image but thought I could improve on it - thus version 2 you see above. I'm not convinced that I have it 100% yet, but I'm liking the direction I'm going.

Perhaps I'll have another go at it tomorrow, wind and weather permitting.

Gardening Problem Pays Off

2008-08-01T17:44:00.003-06:00

This Spring, I planted ornamental cabbage (kale) in half barrels on our back deck. I had successfully grown them in the garden before and anticipated lovely cabbages well into October as they are quite frost hardy.

Well, something went wrong - too much water, doesn't like tubs - don't know. All I know is that they went through a terrific stage, then went to flower and the rosettes of leaves rotted off.

I gathered up the rotted leaves, leaving a pathetic centre stump still alive. Out of my usual laziness, I didn't drop the dead leaves into the compost, and two days later, I noted some interesting patterns in the piled leaves. Well, why not take advantage...

Hoodoos

2008-07-30T20:15:00.003-06:00

I remember visiting this spot as a kid - it seemed both impressive and extensive. I visited it again last year and couldn't believe how small this particular feature in the badlands was and how few of the standing stones there were.

This year, I decided to check around the area to see if there was anything else to photograph but took one more walk through the display, and when I got above the display, looking back to the road, found some lovely lines worth exploring. I had to wait till well after sundown before the tourists thinned out and there are so many scuff marks on the rocks that they actually blend now and don't show as much as when there were only a few.

By isolating the features from the background road (even at the cost of losing a couple of features, and by doing extensive burning to darken shadows and increase the three dimensionality of the surfaces, I'm quite pleased with the result.

On the whole, I find it easier to add dimension in flat lighting than it is to try opening up shadows in harsh lighting.

Thoughts On Creating/Cheating/Modifying Images

2008-07-29T19:43:00.002-06:00

I have the attitude that if you do a little cloning in Photoshop to clean up an image, that's just fine, and I have often removed an errant twig this way. I don't mind stretching an image to distort perspective and get the composition right. In my film days I even showed an image which stole a sky from another image - involving a little darkroom trickery.

For some reason I object to wholesale alteration of an image - moving a major object in the image to a different location, adding elements other than sky from another image.

I don't think my attitude makes any sense at all - why should one manipulation be any more acceptable than another.

I guess that I have a built-in meter for manipulation which says something along the lines of "if the image is fundamentally the same, then it's ok, if it is radically changed but still looks real it's not ok, and if it's radically changed to look unreal, well that's just fine again.

Not very logical, and I'd hate to have to defend my instinct in court. I have absolutely no feeling that your attitude should be the same or that I should somehow persuade you to mine, no desire to become evangelical = it's simply what I notice about myself.

Take the flower photographs/paintings of Huntington Witherill, which are clearly manipulated.

So, if I am not trying to force my opinions on you, what's the point of even raising the subject? Well, I suppose as a reminder that each of us has our own ideas of what is right, and it works for us, but we DON'T have the right to dictate to others what they should do, other than to not purchase prints if we don't like their attitudes. Just as there are people who only appreciate and purchase images made with film and printed on silver or platinum or whatever, you and I can vote with our wallets, but I don't think we have any business criticizing them.

I might think that it's silly to not remove a small pop can from a digital image being used for the cover of a book, but Stephen Johnson did it and I don't think he's silly and in fact one could argue that it says much about his character that he is a stickler for honesty and realism.

Work like Huntington's obviously blurs the line between photography and painting but so what. Rap music has more to do with poetry than music in my opinion - that doesn't create problems for me. It might for a cataloger or historian but too bad.

The Right Weather

2008-07-29T12:06:00.003-06:00

Not a very original photograph but it does illustrate a point. When I left Calgary about 90 minutes before, there wasn't a cloud in the sky and I doubted I'd get much photography in before sundown, but weather often changes and staying home because the weather isn't right can be a mistake.

The second image is of a thunderstorm that blew in only 30 minutes after leaving Calgary.

What's The Point?

2008-07-28T09:08:00.003-06:00

In these days of internet fame and exposure, we forget that in previous generations, people typically worked in isolation, rarely if ever sharing their work with anyone, yet they seemed to enjoy the hobby. Certainly they went to great efforts, building darkrooms, developing prints in less than ideal circumstances and living with the limitations of the wet darkroom, all apparently for nothing.

Let's look at that nothing, because I think it can teach us some things about our photography which might have become lost in the age of sharing our work.

So what could possibly entice someone to put all that effort into images which no one will ever see?

For some it is the satisfaction of solving a problem - whether it's to make clean negatives or large prints or a richly toned image. For others it's the need to create - the value lies in the prints made, even if in the end they sit in paper boxes, rarely if ever to see the light of day. Others did share their work with family, occasionally with friends and more often within camera clubs but with meetings once a month and limited exposure of your work, it typically could not be thought of as fame.

It's more than possible to be proud of the work you do without needing to receive affirmation from others. Many the serious amateur photographer worked away in isolation, producing bodies of work of significance and depth, knowing only that it was worth doing for itself.

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves now and again that while fame is nice, it's quite possible to feel good about your work without involving anyone else.

Landscapes In Photography Vs. Art

2008-07-24T19:31:00.002-06:00

John had severals suggestions for topics and I thought this might be worth consideration.

In painting, the artist can place objects wherever he wants. The only option for a photographer is to use his position, left, right, to, fro, up and down to control placement of multiple objects in an image.

The painter adds only those details to the landscape necessary to the painting. The photographer struggles to simplify the composition so the viewer can concentrate on the important elements. This is a major cause of walking away from otherwise good images - just too much stuff, especially bushes and branches and so on.

The painter can (and usually does) soften the lighting, open the shadows hugely and choses the warmth of light to match the mood he wants to create. The photographer can do some of this in Photoshop but it often requires photographing in the early morning or evening light for best effect. Even HDR techniques can't turn mid day lighting into interesting landscape images.

The painter can add clouds as needed while the photographer must either wait or cheat - funny that it isn't cheating in painting.

Canvases come in all manner of sizes and length ratios though it's interesting that typically a painter will chose a canvas first, then paint to suit the canvas. You don't see cropped canvases. Of course, heights of trees and rocks and the width of rivers can be adjusted to suit, so perhaps it's more sensible for photographers to vary the ratios of their images to suit the particular subject, rather than to fit the paper they happen to print on or the sensor size of their camera.

Painters have complete control of the colour of objects - no yellow rocks next to pink ones, unless they want it. Of course, it's possible to do this in Photoshop and I have made subtle changes to fit in better, but in general photographers live with what nature provided. It does mean though, that we have to work extra hard to be selective in our compositions.

Painters have the choice of infinite or limited depth of field. Often backgrounds are hinted at with fairly large brush strokes which are themselves sharp where the photographer has a choice of blurred or not, and limitations within those. Helicon Focus has allowed us in some landscapes to increase depth of field - but it doesn't work in wind or with water that's moving.

Painters can control the sense of depth and distance through fading colours where photographers have to live with the light and atmosphere present. No wonder that photographic landscapes on a bright sunny day with little haze don't portray the sense of distance seen in paintings. We need weather and the right atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, cameras do great fog.

Perhaps most importantly, painters can paint the landscape as any degree of abstract they care to make it. Photographers rarely have that option with grand landscapes, though with close up details we can often approach abstract.

Photography And Painting

2008-07-22T14:13:00.002-06:00

While I have no desire to carry on a philosophical discussion which doesn't lead to better photographing, I do think that taking some time to consider the world of painting can be useful.

The world of painting goes through phases, styles and techniques. Typically the first few who introduce a style become famous while those who follow don't. At the same time there are literally millions of hobbyist painters, some of them extremely talented, who pain in the styles of those who went before, typically the more conservative styles, usually literal or at most semi abstract paintings of an identifiable subject.

It is these painting which are affordable enough for the general public to be able to buy and attractive enough to use as decoration in a home.

Andy Warhol may be famous for his Campbell's Soup Can painting, but the number of people who want to display that artwork on their walls for months or years is pretty minimal.

Often there are huge public outcries when a local museum spends (sometimes millions) on a painting which looks like it could have been done by a six year old or just about anyone for that matter.

This is analogous to the rude comments I have repeatedly made about Camera Arts magazine. Truth is, it's the role of pioneers to shock us, to rock our foundations, change our understandings, redefine what is art or photography. Nowhere does it say that their role is to be appreciated by the masses, even the semi educated masses like myself, and certainly no one suggested it should be pretty or suitable for hanging over your newly recovered sofa.

On the other hand, every time I go to Swiss Chalet for chicken soup, I admire the Group Of Seven paintings they have throughout the restaurant. These paintings have meaning for me - firstly they are Canadian painters, second, they painted the Canadian Landscape that I can relate to. that they are very skillfully done and have a very definite style to them throughout is part of what I like about them. They aren't your simple Sunday afternoon dauber kind of paintings. These paintings are not the equivalent of calendar photographs - pretty scenes captured in standard ways and presented realistically. Instead they equate to photographs which interpret rather than illustrate the landscape.

Reproductions of these famous paintings are found decorating many the office and home across the land. Some are no doubt attracted more by the reputation of the painters than the actual quality of the painting but that's o.k. How many photographers have an Ansel Adams poster hanging somewhere, or a print purchased while at a workshop? These are usually pretty normal photographs, ones that the spouse would approve of for decoration.

So what does this mean for our photography? Well, if it is your goal to be cutting edge, leader of the pack, an instigator rather than a follower then either you are incredibly talented and you will pull it off, or you aren't, and you will fall flat on your face, to be forgotten in the dusts of time, remembered, if at all, as odd, weird, gimicky or quirky. They risk their motives being challenged - is it about money or artistic expression. Time will sort it all out. The number of people who will be successful in this arena are probably only a few in every generation so don't count on being one of them.

Picasso may have been the first cubist painter, actually I don't know. Certainly he was the most famous and if he built cubism on the shoulders of those who went before, well that's only natural. Should we discount all other cubist painters because they weren't first?

If we go back to impressionism, do we reject all but the first to use this style? What does that say about someone who paints in the impressionist style these days?

Georgia O'Keefe was famous for her exotic and erotic paintings of flowers. Many have since painted in the same style. Would I purchase a really gorgeous painting done in her style - darn right - I know I can't afford any of hers and if I found one I liked as much by a modern painter, for a fraction of the price, I'd hang it happily and wouldn't feel hard done by that I couldn't get the 'real' painting by O'Keefe.

If you could purchase a gorgeous black and white grand landscape image, with tones deep enough to dive into and highlight subtlety to make you weep, but it isn't an Ansel, would you refuse to hang it - I think not.

If you purchase a large and fairly comprehensive book on the history of art, you will find that for any period in painting, there are dozens if not hundreds of painters remembered for the quality of their work, and only a handful who are know for their innovation. It is interesting to look back from more than 100 years and to realize that fame for innovation is largely fleeting, that what people are remembered for is the quality of their work, not the uniqueness or the 'I was here first' status of their work.

Think of it this way, would you rather have the first painting of a particular style, or the best, Hmmm? So, should photography and photographers be any different?

More On Seeing Images

2008-07-21T09:08:00.002-06:00

Probably the single biggest problem for photographers is seeing something interesting to photograph. I have written about this before. Much of my first book was dedicated to the problem, yet the problem persists and the following feedback to requests for ideas for topics is pretty common.

Frank E has left a new comment on your post "Suggestions for Future Topics?":

l have a suggestion, but just so you know "where it is coming from" let me talk about myself first:
-have been shooting seriously (as a hobbyist) for about three years now
-shoot with a Canon 20D with enough glass that takes me from 10mm to 400 but no fancy TSE equipment etc, but do have a macro
-use PS CS3 but am far from an expert
-am reasonably pleased with my progress (have won a number of camera club awards)
-but still get frustrated that I am not progressing more quickly
-try to look at other people's work, buy alot of books (including yours), and also take them out from the librarry

My question/suggestion for a topic is to talk more about how you "find" your images. I know that "text book" answer to the question. Look around for lines, texture, colours, shapes etc. Then simplify, simplify etc. But I still find that I walk around and the muse doesn't strike me. What are the techniques you use (mental conditioning, triggers you look for etc) for finding images. What helps your "seeing"

So what more can I say without repeating myself?

Perhaps telling the story of how I came to photograph the turbine might be helpful to some of you.

I was on the way to photograph Ghost Reservoir Dam (didn't see an image there). The turbine was sitting in a field, looking more like something you'd use to feed cattle than create electricity. The top part (the blades) was a uniform dark brown from the road and I passed it without much thought. After turning the car round to leave the dam site, I decided to at least take the trouble to look closely. I didn't even unpack the camera, but did walk over to find that it was a lot more interesting close up. Instead of an even brown rust, there were streaks and curves, varying tones and hues and those lovely curves of each blade. It mushroomed out at the top and had some spots that looked like welded repairs here and there.

Let's stop for a minute and think about what has happened.

I saw a subject and didn't see anything worth while.

I didn't find anything better to photograph so I looked at the subject again.

I decided that even though I couldn't see anything worth photographing from the car, it was at least worth the trouble to get out and investigate.

Upon investigation, it turned out to be a lot more interesting than anticipated.

What can we deduct from this experience?

Well, finding photographs is about possibilities, not probabilities. If you only ever explored the things you were fairly sure would make a good image, you'd be narrowing your choices severely.

"Check it out" could be your mantra.

O.K., so I have walked up to the old turbine and see better shapes and textures than expected and I'm thinking there's a good chance of an image here - in fact I'm quite excited by the possibilities. I go back to the camera and get my gear. I return to the same spot and it's time to work the scene.

I start with a straight horizontal shot of the turbine blades, including some distracting background at either side that I will likely crop out. I then start to work with the parts, moving in, replacing my long lens with a wide angle so I can get really close to the blades and accentuate the curves and capture texture.

I'm having trouble getting an image in which both left and right sides are strong so I start circling the turbine, looking for a better angle.

I decide that the original position was best and now it's time to make small refinements - up and down, to and fro, left and right. I'm using a zoom so I can adjust the focal length too - is it better to be wide and close or far and long - I try both because I'm not sure.

And another pause to reflect on what's happening.

This "intermediate" stage is about finding the most interesting part(s) of the subject and the best position from which to view said same.

And back to the search. What I haven't done is to "compose" the image. I haven't defined the boundaries of the image. This isn't just a matter of framing, I also have to reconsider position to best strengthen the composition, without moving to a position which compromises presentation of the main subject matter. If I move six inches to the left, I can use that other blade to frame the edges, but how will that affect the streaks which are my main focus?

So stage three is about fine tuning and framing.

For further help with the art of seeing, I recommend the books of Freeman Patterson. He includes a number of exercises.

Turbine Abstract

2008-07-20T23:09:00.000-06:00