Thoughts on Photography

Evolution of a Photograph

I earned a day off of work today, so I decided to reconnect with my love of photography and photo processing.  I spent the morning browsing through unprocessed images from a trip I took to South Africa last November.  One of them caught my eye as having potential to be a nice image.  But as with most RAW images, it's kind of hard to really see the whole potential of an image until the post processing begins. 

The image below shows the evolution of the post processing.  On the left is the RAW capture.  The middle image is what I first envisioned.  The image on the right is what evolved as I will discuss below. 

I decided I wanted to make this image a simple, colorful landscape. But when I was finished, I had the image in the middle and was pretty unsatisfied with the result.  I mean, who needs another colorful landscape shot.  How predictable and uninteresting.  It doesn't have a mood, it doesn't feel like art.  It feels like a nice vacation snapshot.

My thought process then turned to what I disliked most about the image...the predictable color.  It's just too pretty.  I liked the tonal range of the image and the composition, but the color was just too much.  Plus it was just to crisp and clean.  I decided it would be more interesting if it had the appearance of being an old photograph.  More importantly, I wanted it to look like an old photograph from a cheap camera.  This means manipulating the color to appear faded, and the sharpness to appear made from a cheap lens.  Finally, I found it irresistible to add some other elements of aging.  What I ended up with is something I feel is a complete blending of art and photography.  This is really where I want to be with my work. 

It wasn't immediately apparent to me as I began processing this image what I would end up with.  Experimentation yielded something I am very happy with.  Let me not forget, that most of my favorite images came from fairly uninspiring RAW files like this one.  It just takes a little vision and a little time, and most of all, a disgust for the predictable. 

Photo Snobs?...I think not

The comments from my last post about Photographic Angst were so darn good that I've decided to pull some of my favorite quotes.  Hard to believe someone actually considers Lost In Focus photographers and visitors to be snobs.  The comments I received were exactly what I would expect from people who are passionate about photography, yet completely clear about our place in the craft.  Here's what you had to say:

Jeff

I do strive to create significant work - I don't think there's anything wrong with that. By "significant" I mean good, interesting, high-quality. What's wrong with that?

Jude

...if one was complacent they would never progress and become even better. I also don't think it's wrong to expect "significant" work from yourself. The key, my friend, is finding work that is significant in your own eyes.

Craig

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that the internet has caused new photographers to think that they need to always produce significant work...Any pressure one feels is, I think, self-imposed and not an intrinsic quality of the digital/internet photography community.

Kal (himself and quoting others)

...much of that self-imposed pressure may create angst, it is driven less by our need to create significant work as measured by our own standards, but by those of others..."photographs are the dead leaves of life"...after I am gone, they will tell my story.

David

You should be driven by the need to produce original work because you have a unique vision...Great photographs don’t come by that often you’ve just got to be ready when they do.

I consider myself lucky to have found a group of photographers so diverse, yet so passionate about photography.  Better yet...everyone has opinions!   Let me finish with what was my favorite comment from the post.  It is something that I think captures the spirit of the photographers and visitors to Lost In Focus:

Do I think I need more by way of experimentation, etc? hell yeah!

Do I think I need to improve in 100's of ways? um, duh .. of course!

Do I think I own the visual world? are you kidding? it's got my name all over it ;)

- Jude

 

Photographic Angst

angst:

Pronunciation:

      \ˈäŋ(k)st, ˈaŋ(k)st\

Function: noun

a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity

I had an interesting exchange with a fellow Pbaser a couple weeks back.  She is a PAD'er as well as a sometime visitor to another community I'm involved with over at lost in focus.  I won't go into the details, but she made an interesting insight about this "lost in focus" group I am a part of.  The group was born out of a desire to have a more legitimate community of photographers willing to provide honest feedback to each other versus the shallow (my words) community predominant on the Pbase website.  This is well trodden ground, so I won't go over it again here. 

Anyway, she made a comment to me about that gave me pause.  Here is what she said:

"... I get the feeling that you and the others in your group think that you need to be "on" all the time; producing exceptional work at every press of the shutter. Conversely, I think that the age we live in and the internet in particular has made it possible for new photographers to think that every work they make should be significant. This is a visual culture and we photographers feel like we own it... or, should own it...."

Anyway, I don't want to go off on a philosophical discussion about whether or not she is right (I happen to think she is).  But it does cause me to consider my own motivations and the lack of joy I seem to have been getting from my photography over the last couple of years.  Could it be that my self-imposed need to create "significant" work has had the effect of sucking the last bit of enjoyment (and maybe even the  creativity) out of my photography?  Should my hobby cause me angst? 

 

Great Photography and Common Critiques

For about a year now, I've been part of a community of artistic-minded photographers who share a common desire of receiving honest feedback and critiques of our images.  Recently, two images were posted that caused me to recognize something I've always known but never really put into words.  Here are the two images:

Image by Adam Banister

Image by Lawrence Ripsher

Suddenly it struck me...when viewing a truly great photograph, common critiques about composition, lighting, processing and such are completely irrelevant.   The lesson for me here is that the very best images transcend "technical flaws" in such a powerful way as to no longer be seen as something that needs improved or perfected. 

What is my Ideal F-Stop?

Last year I decided to use the URL "idealfstop.com" to set up my website.  So I guess its time to start talking about "what is an ideal f-stop?"  There are at least two answers to this question.  From the creative perspective, the ideal f-stop is whatever you think is best.  But I'm not interested in that discussion.  Rather, I think its useful to understand the technical answer to the question.

Every lens we have in our bag has a "sweet spot" - the point at which the lens is the sharpest.  It almost never occurs with the lens aperture wide open, but rather when it is stopped down a bit.  For each lens, this will be a different setting.  Some lenses are incredibly sharp at f2.8, while others need to go to f8.0 to reach their peak.  Wouldn't it be useful to know this information about each of your lenses?

As a fairly lazy photographer, I just don't feel like doing the complex lens tests to figure all of this out.  Maybe someday and when I'm old, fat and unemployed I will do this; but right now.  I just want some quick answers.  So I visited one of the better websites for lens reviews, took their data and made a short list of my lenses and their ideal f-stops.  If you are interested in doing the same, I highly encourage a visit to www.photozone.de. 

Here are the results for the lenses in my bag:

                       

Lens	Ideal f-stop
Sigma 20mm/f 1.8	8
Canon 24-105mm IS / f4.0	5.6
Canon 50mm / f1.4	2.8 - 4.0
Canon 85mm / f1.2	2.8 - 5.6
Canon   200mm / f2.8	5.6

Two cool & affordable things to add to your camera bag

I've purchased a couple of items recently that I've been happy with and thought I would share.  Both are under $40 and worth the money. 

First is the UPstrap camera strap.  I'm late to the party here, but if you haven't heard of this yet, just go out and get one.  There isn't a better no-slip, sling it over your shoulder camera strap on the market.  I love this thing.  You will find them at www.upstrap-pro.com.  I bought the "SLR-Classic" for $32 + shipping.  For a more in-depth third party review, check out this Luminous-Landscape Article.  This thing doesn't even come close to slipping off your shoulder.  I've walked the dogs while using it and not once did I feel like I had to reset the strap back on my shoulder to avoid having the camera fall...it just won't. 

Second is a cool new item that is necessary in today's digital age:  A depth of field calculator.  In the old film days, there used to be no need for these things because the scales were available right on the lens. All you had to do was look at the marks on the scale that corresponded to your f-stop and immediately, you knew how much of the scene would be in focus. 

But with digital, each sensor crop factor (1.3x, 1.6x, etc.) requires a different scale.  That's why we no longer have scales on our lenses (a sacrifice for us full-frame 5D users who could have used the old scales).   Well the makers of the Expodisc have provided a flexible and pocket sized solution.  You definitely need to check this out.  It's called the ExpoAperture2 Depth-of-Field Guide.  I picked up one at my local camera shop (listed as a dealer on the Expodisc website) for $29.99.  I can see where a portrait photograph would find this tool to be indispensable.  After just two days with this little tool, I find I'm thinking much harder about my choice of aperture and the impact of distance-to-subject & lens focal length will have on my finished image.  I could go on, but you just have to sit and play with this thing awhile to see how it starts the creative juices flowing. 

Flipping Photos

I had an "AHA!" moment this weekend.  I have been watching instructional videos on using Photoshop CS3 and reworking some old images that I liked, but never loved...just to see if I could make some magic happen.  Well, I didn't make any magic, but I did learn something simple and effective for improving an image.  The FLIP. 

In my prior post (Feedback from a Pro), I shared the pro's idea about how we read left to right and how this also impacts how we view images.  His instruction to me was to have something interesting on the left side of the frame and avoid dead space there.  I further interpreted this to mean that the image should flow from left to right if it is to feel natural or more soothing.  Not all images flow, but those with pattern, repetition and strong line tend to.  "Feeling natural or more soothing" may not be the objective of the image, but if it is, this left to right idea makes some sense. 

Here are a couple of photos I worked on yesterday where I like the overall composition, but found that by FLIPPING the image horizontally, I had a much more natural flow and balance.  I'll discuss why I think so under each photo.

Before:

After:

Why I like the Flipped Image better:

In this case, this image is slowly paced and flowing. The original version, with the women walking to our left (opposite of how we read) creates a sort of tension among them.  Not sure why, but it does.  With the women walking to the right, they seem to flow thru the image more naturally.  In addition the lamp on the wall to the left provides a key element in drawing us into and then across the image.  On the original version, the lamp just seems to be in conflict with the women's pace.  Finally, and this may be just me, the Flipped version seems brighter and just a tad more vibrant to me, even though I know it is not.

Before & After:

 

Why I like the Flipped Image (the one on the right) better:

It actually hard for me to say why I like this one better, but I do.  For some magical reason, the red umbrella becomes the subject of the flipped version, where as the original version seems to be struggling for a subject.  I would even argue that, in the original version (left image) the blue umbrella is competing (and failing) to be the prominent subject.  Its interesting to me that the red umbrella looks brighter and more saturated in the flipped version, even though I know it is not. 

Something else at play here is the direction of the glance of the woman in the light colored jacket. Her glance to the left in the original version causes a subtle tension, while in the flipped version it seems more natural.  Again, this is that "reading right to left" thing coming into play.

All of a sudden, I'm feeling compelled to revisit all of my favorite images to see if flipping them will have me seeing them in a new way.

 

Feeback From A Pro

Two weeks ago, I attended the Betterphoto.com Summit in Chicago.  Part of the two day event (which I highly recommend) included an opportunity to have 10-15 of my photographs critiqued by a professional.  I decided to get feedback on what I consider to be my weakest photographic skill - people shots. 

I sat down with photographer John Siskin for about 20 minutes as he walked through the images I created from my one and only photo shoot of a live person (see 40 Minutes in an Alley).  His feedback and my reworked images are below.

Original Image:

His feedback on this image: 

• crop in from the left border; too much space on the left is almost always a bad thing; western culture reads left to right, so try to avoid any dead space on the left side of an image; even better, place the subject there; like the gradation of light on the face, has nice form, especially easy to see this in ear area,but nice overall (this was a fortuitous result of reflected light coming up from the alleyway pavement)

Revised Version:

Original Image:

His feedback on this image:

• again too much dead space on left; crop in and then separate him from the background by darkening it and possibly desaturating it

Revised Version:

Original Image:

His feedback on this image:

• Graffiti which was distracting in some of the other shots from this day is OK here because the interest is on the left first; crop off the fence on the right - distracting; lighten up shadow on left wall

Revised Version:

Original Image:

His feedback on this image:

• like what you are doing with creative posing/thought process; this one might be stronger with a creative crop losing part of the face and tighter from the bottom

Revised Version:

Original Image:

His feedback on this image:

• would like to have seen more separation between him and the background - giving us 3 levels (hands/face/wall); also symmetrical shots are stronger when you crop them tighter; dead eyes (no catch-light) work here when they normally wouldn't; a grab might have been a better hand gesture than framing like this; graffiti is distracting in this image even though it echoes the tattoos, it's not helping here

Revised Version:

I'm not sure I did a great job revising the images per his advice, but it is helpful to understand how someone who does this for a living looks at these types of images.  John teaches a few classes over at betterphoto.com that might be worth my while when I get some time.  I also just came across a youtube video of him doing a studio lighting demo for anyone who might be interested in that sort of thing. 

I'm alive!!!

Wow, it has been so long since I've seen a post here, I was beginning to think I had died.  Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning and saw a photo posted in my Pbase PAD gallery.  I must not be dead, just on hiatus.  Oh well, back to blogging about photography.  Next up...feedback from a pro. 

Diamond in the Rough - Joe Rosenthal

Last year, Meg and I took a weekend trip to our state capital, Raleigh, North Carolina.  Here we visited the NC Museum of Art.  It's not a bad museum, but I don't remember too much of it.  I do, however, remember finding this great little book of photography called "Regarding Manhattan" by a photographer I'd never heard of before. 

Turns out, this guy is somewhat of a local, living and working in North Carolina and the surrounding states.  Well I bought that book for $12.  A steal really.  I almost felt guilty as it seemed to be the cheapest thing for sale in the gift shop. 

Well, today I randomly stumbled upon a photography site and quickly realized it was this photographer Joe Rosenthal, whose book I had purchased.  This guy really is a great photographer.

Check out his site:  www.johnrosenthal.com

Be sure also to spend some time reading his writings on photography.  I've not come across better writing about photography than this.