I've been enjoying the Gargoyle show over at Phipps. The last image I showed from the show was rather grotesque. Here is one that is just a bit more peaceful.
I am continuing to experiment with black and white conversion and sepia toning in this series. The initial gargoyle image was toned in Lightroom. This one is toned in Photoshop using the gradient map technique:
People frequently ask about post-processing. When shooting in RAW format, there are really two ways in which post processing is used. The first is to convert the RAW image into what was there, or at least the way we remember it to be. This has to be done in order to convert the sensor data into an image. If you shoot in JPEG, the same thing must happen, only the camera does it for you. The second is to then potentially convert the image into something a bit beyond reality. To give it your own interpretation. This is art, not news documentary.
Often, I use post-processing to make an image appear the way I imagine it to be or to portray it with a certain feeling behind it. As an example, I thought I would use the Gargoyle image I posted a few days ago now that I have done some more work on it.
I wanted to make the viewer focus more fully on the gargoyle, so I darkened the background. In addition, I wanted the gargoyle to look 'scarier' so I brought out more of the detail in the statue and added a bit of toning as well. Subtle changes that I think make the image more effective, though not everyone may agree.
As I was leisurely taking some photos the other day, I began thinking about the fact that the images were about to go into my personal collection. I was just having fun, so the pictures weren't serious photographs, but it made me start to think about the images I have that are good (or at least I like them). Those are also in my personal collection. But how do they get to see the light of day? How does one get these photographs to be seen by others who might appreciate them and their message? It doesn't do anyone any good to have them sitting on a hard drive 'living in the dark'.
It seems to me there is only one answer, and that is to get your work 'out there'. The problem is, of course, that getting it 'out there' is hard work! I had always thought that the 'work' (if you can call it that) was in the taking, processing, and printing of photographs. Turns out that is just the preparation involved with getting the artwork ready to 'go out into the world'.
So one of my goals is to try a bit harder to get my images 'out there'. In an effort to do this, I am going to be submitting more of my work to juried shows and magazine submissions. I think many folks don't realize how time consuming and difficult that aspect of 'being an artist' really is!
I frequently photograph at Phipps Conservatory, a small but interesting Botanical Garden in Pittsburgh. One every nice thing about it is that they have several different shows throughout the year. The current showing involves not so much flowers as it does statues. The show, called "Gargoyles" features over a hundred gargoyle statues and statuettes among the flowers. It really was different and enjoyable to photograph them.
I was taking some pictures in Pittsburgh's Homewood Cemetery a few days ago. It was the first time I had gone there to photograph, as the idea of shooting in a cemetery has always made me feel, well, a little intrusive.
I was saddened by the recognition that even in a cemetery you can still be forgotten.
OK....here is what a scene, any scene, would more or less look like to us as observers in 'infrared' if we eliminated the visible light wavelengths.
It's always enjoyable to make photos of reflections. For one thing, many people who don't photograph never really see these types of details, and when people do take note of them it tends to be fleeting. It's only when such details are 'frozen' in time that they can be really appreciated. Most folks end up being amazed that a patch of water could really look as intensely colored as this.
There were several aspects of this particular image that made it enjoyable to capture:
First of all, to get these types of images one often has to bend and contort themselves in order to find the angle that best portrays the reflections. However, in this particular case, it was easy. The conditions were just perfect to get reflections in the water and I could just stand on the wooden deck overlooking Ohiopyle Falls with my 400mm f5.6 lens (long, but quite light) and pick out small patches of water that showed intense reflections from the trees. No bending over or twisting into painful positions at the water's edge.....nice!
Odd as it may sound, I have always thought that stairwells would make interesting photos. Depending on where they are and how they are lit they can appear a bit creepy or menacing. Anything that conveys a feeling is always a good candidate for a photo.
Despite the above, there were several factors that kept me from taking photos in a stairwell before. For one thing, depending on the lighting, the contrast range can be quite high. Thus, I thought the image would best be made using several exposures with an HDR technique, which I was not using until recently. In addition, someone with a tripod and camera blocking a stairwell is sure to attract attention....I could just hear the security guards running, particularly after my prior run-ins with guards.
Recently, however, I decided it was time to give it a try. And the perfect place seemed to be at work. That way, if the guards came a-running at least I had an ID and they would know that I worked there and who I was. So I picked a time, very early on a weekend morning when I had to be at work anyway, and set up the tripod in the stairwell and took some shot sequences for HDR processing. Here is what I came up with:
I have been 'playing around' a bit more with black and white conversions and experimenting with the types of moods that black and white images can convey.
A few years ago I went on an amazing workshop with Nancy Rotenberg, which took place on the Oregon Coast. One of the most surreal places I have ever seen was Bandon Beach, Oregon. In fact, it was so other-worldly that I took one of my images and made the colors somewhat surreal in order to try to convey the 'feeling' of being in that location, rather than just using the image to show what the location looked like. While I liked the image, I always had my doubts as to whether the viewer would understand what I was trying to say and feared they would just see the image as 'hypersaturated'. Of course, if the image doesn't convey what it is that you, as the artist, want it to, it has failed, at least on some level.
Several times over the years that I have been writing this blog I have noted frustration about how hard it is to make a really good photograph in contrast to how easy, particularly in this era of digital photography, most non-photographers think it is. Sure, it can be easy to point a digital camera at a scene and get reasonable sharpness and exposure.....but it is extremely difficult to get a truly stirring image.
You all know the famous photography joke. The one where the photographer goes to a friend's (who happens to be a cook) home for dinner and, when looking at the photographers photos, the friend tells him that they are gorgeous and that he must have a really excellent camera. On the way out the door he tells the host that dinner was exquisite and that she must have really excellent cookware.
So I have felt that level of frustration when work is seen by non-photographers.
But I'm over that now. How so? It all stemmed from the realization that artists of all genres make their art appear easy. For example, a great musician makes the playing of their instrument appear effortless. They make it look easy. But no one ever sees the years of relentless practice and refinement that they went through. No one can tell how many revisions a song went through or how many times it was practiced before being recorded and performed.
So, I guess I should feel good about people thinking it is easy to make good photographs!
On another topic....a few days back I wrote a post entitled "Small Prints". I happen to run across a post by Brooks Jensen on one of his blogs that discussed essentially the same topic that I really enjoyed reading. You can read that here.
I have generally tended to make large prints of what I consider to be my best images. But, I have come to realize that there is a problem with this method of sharing one's work. For one thing, there is always going to be a limitation in the amount of available wall space in any one location. Secondly, any image that is printed large and framed needs to be a '5 star' image in order to merit that sort of treatment and stand on it's own. Finally, unless one is dealing with a rather large gallery space or display area where multiple large images are hanging, the image itself tends to 'live' in isolation.
I have come to realize that I have many photographs that do not merit this sort of large scale, isolated display but are still one's that I think deserve to be looked at, if not in isolation than as part of a series designed to give an overview of a location or topic. Somehow, an 8 x10 or 11 x 14 image that can be hand-held and appreciated without necessarily being matted, framed, and hung seems to fit the bill and allows one to appreciate this type of artwork, which is to say high quality images that fit together but may not necessarily be part of a 'best of' collection.
As an example, take this image from the workshop I attended in Provincetown, on Cape Cod. Provincetown is an interesting mix of beauty and serenity with a touch of eclectic wildness. Part of the Cape Cod and Provincetown experience is not just the ocean, but also the beauty and quirkiness of the towns themselves. One thing that I was drawn to in Provincetown, believe it or not, was the signs. So many of the signs seemed to be colorful pieces of art in and of themselves. Take this one from the Land's End Inn for example:
When it comes to most things, I tend to be a perfectionist. However, when it comes to photography, this can be a problem. I am not referring to seeking perfection in aspects of photography like composition or exposure, as I think it is wise advice not to show one's mistakes or the shots that were 'almost good if only I had done x, y, or z'. But there are times when an image does hold emotional value and yet is imperfect, but not in a way that could have been easily changed or remedied. It is this type of imperfection that I am trying to get myself to become more accepting of.
This photograph is a good example of what I am referring to. After seeing the image, I wanted to print it as a tinted monochrome with an 'antique' look. However, since the shot was at dusk (and perhaps slightly underexposed as I had planned to portray it as a low light photo) and because I wanted the sky to show a good deal of contrast, when I finished processing it a moderate amount of digital noise could be seen. In the past, this would have led me to abandon the image and it never would have seen 'the light of day'.
I recently discovered the Lensflare 35 podcast. On Lensflare, Dave Warner interviews renowned photographers within the various photographic 'sub-specialties'. In Episode 42, he interviews nature photographer Tony Sweet, whose work I have greatly admired for a long time.
During that interview, Tony made a statement which serves as an interesting follow up to my last post, which quoted photographer Esther Parada's statement about image manipulation and also mentioned my essay "Photography and Truth". Tony said "We're at a point in photography where getting the image is only 50% of the game and the other half is making it look the way you want it to look (with software)." He went on to say that "The craft now is largely computer skills."
Those statements gave me a lot to think about. At first blush, I felt that the statements were true, but also found myself wishing that they weren't. Then I found myself thinking that 50% was too much to attribute to computer skills, as software can't make a terrible photograph into a good one.
However, the idea of making an image 'look the way we want it to' is really nothing new. Yes, we make the image look the way we want using software, but back in the wet darkroom days one made (and some still do make) the image look the way 'they wanted it to' through the 'magic' of darkroom techniques. Photographers are well aware that the scenes portrayed in Ansel Adam's prints do not exist. Well, the places do, but they didn't look the way he portrayed them, as the photographs were heavily 'manipulated' in the darkroom. Of course, that didn't make them any less beautiful.
It still takes a lot of 'heart and soul' to make an image that is worthy of bringing into the digital darkroom in order to make it look 'the way you want'. So I don't believe it is fair to say that the craft is "largely computer skills"....that may be so for a graphic designer, but not for a photographer. A very important part, yes, but largely seems just a bit too much.
So perhaps not much has really changed at all. Perhaps it has just gotten easier to 'manipulate' images but, I believe, it is still incredibly difficult to get really good, intriguing, different, and meaningful images that 'speak' to an audience!
