There is no such thing as a photograph that is real. Every image is just that… an image, not the reality. It is a representation, a likeness, a reflection on reality. Why do I harp on something that is so obvious? Because, apparently, it isn’t so obvious.
Time and again we hear photographers say how they did not “manipulate” their photograph, as if somehow that makes it more real. Aside from the obvious — light emitting from a computer or reflecting off a print is not the real tree or person or building you took a photograph of — the choices you make before you press the shutter have already altered reality. It doesn’t matter if you choose a lens that has the precise field of view your eyes have or shoot only RAW images, it isn’t a faithful record of what’s in front of you. The image you see on your camera screen is a JPEG interpretation of the ones and zeros that make up the RAW file so you can have an idea of what your final result may be. If you shoot JPEG instead of RAW, the camera processes the image depending on the software in the camera, giving you even less control than with a RAW file. And what of your camera choice in the first place? If you choose a camera that has an ISO range of 200 to 12500, that has already limited your choices. And which ISO setting most faithfully records the scene? What lens doesn’t alter the view by its very design, its glass coatings, its number of elements? What about white balance settings or choice of f/stop and shutter speed? All of these choices have changed reality in some way — there is no “true” rendition of reality to find. Don’t think that it was somehow “better” before digital photography either. Our choice of film brand and film speed, the chemistry we chose to process the film, the paper we chose to print on, all of these choices had effects on the final interpretation of the image. The only difference is digital imaging gives us more ways to interpret and remove ourselves so much more from what we perceive as reality. Ultimately, we make these choices because of the way we see the world. The issue is not that we alter and manipulate our images. Every choice we make does that. The question is how much manipulation we find acceptable to create the final image. The digital file is only a starting point, one that is interpreted by the photographer and colored by their view of the world. Those choices create the final image, long before a scene is even considered photographic.
0 Comments
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately... always a dangerous proposition! Since discovering the digital camera of my dreams (see my previous post Equipment: Camera Body), I have been exploring the use of digital imaging and realizing it is in many ways different from film processes. Well, that sounded sort of obvious, didn't it! What I mean, it is different in hidden ways that you don't even realize can be different.
Aside from obvious differences — no film — no chemistry — no darkroom, there are ways of using digital capture that were too difficult or not even possible with film processes. For instance, the way we use exposure variables such as f/stop, shutter speed, and light sensitivity, or ISO (for extra points... what does ISO stand for?). And by the way, you pronounce it EYE--ESS--OH, not EYE--SO! In a complete aside from this post, I thought I better explain why I always say f/stop instead of aperture. If you have no interest, jump to the next paragraph! The f/stop is a ratio between the focal length of a lens and the size of the aperture (the hole) that lets the light through. So at f/2 on a 50mm lens, we have a 25mm aperture. But for the same f/2 on a 100mm lens, I would need an aperture of 50mm. So I tend to say f/stop when I'm talking about ratios, and aperture when I'm talking about the actual size of the hole. There really isn't any problem in using these terms interchangeably in photography. Photographers tend to know what you're talking about. But non-photographers may get confused with all the different terminology so I tend to get a little more specific when I can. Like I said, this whole paragraph is a complete aside and not that relevant. Got it? Good. But I'm still not putting up with EYE--SO! :-) With film, the ISO is set when you buy it, so this variable remains constant for that roll. So we work with the amount of light reaching the film, which can vary by how large a hole we choose to use (set by the lenses f/stop) and how long that hole remains open to expose the film (set with the cameras shutter speed). Exposure decisions are based on the light source illuminating our subject and we set f/stop and shutter speed accordingly. This is not the case with digital imaging. The sensor in the camera has some amount of light that exposes it, so you could think of it as having a sensitivity to light equivalent to a specific ISO (if you want more technical detail on ISO in the digital age, I liked the answer by Dave Haynie on QUORA). My Fuji X-T1 has 200 as its lowest ISO, while other cameras may be set at 100 or possibly lower. Cameras can have the ISO set at some maximum number (ISO 51,200 for the X-T1), but that introduces unthinkable amounts of noise in the image. The point is, I can change my ISO on my digital camera for each and every shot and use it as a variable when exposing an image, as long as I don't mind a little noise, something not possible with film. There are also techniques available in digital that were difficult if not impossible to do with film. For instance, focus stacking. This technique allows me to take multiple shots of the same scene at different focusing distances to have an incredible amount of sharpness near to far in an image. This is especially interesting with macro photography and was just not a consideration when shooting film. By using a High Dynamic Range (HDR) technique, I can take multiple shots of the same scene at different exposures, combine them in the computer, and have perfectly exposed skies and landscapes all in one image, something that would have taken filters and long hours of work in a darkroom when using film. And unlike the darkroom, software makes it easier to correct issues... to help blown highlights show detail, bring out unseen features in the shadows, selectively saturate or desaturate colors, all the while doing this with the simple movement of a slider (assuming I am shooting RAW images). RAW images are like having a negative that I can manipulate in the darkroom, but the darkroom in this case is a sunlit room and a computer, a nice comfy chair, my chai tea at my side, and no funky chemistry smell. Heaven! With more flexible exposure variables available and with the advent of lossless software manipulation, I can concentrate on what photography is really about... creating images that communicate. So this brings me to the whole point of this post... rethinking how we teach photography to new users (Really? Eight paragraphs just to get to this? I warned you my thinking was a dangerous proposition!). In the past, we taught in black and white darkrooms and spent inordinate amounts of time dealing with mixing chemistry properly, worrying about underexposing negatives (which were next to impossible to save) and basically being inundated with technical issues. These were important because any mistake in the field was compounded in the darkroom. When I taught photography, I belabored the point with my students by explaining photography was like no other art. 'Just think...', I would say, '...what it would be like if a painter was out painting a scene in opposite colors from what they saw, then came into the studio and had to paint the scene all over again with the proper colors.' That is what happens with film photography. We expose our film at some location, then have to process it properly, then have to go into the darkroom and expose again when printing. No wonder we were obsessed with every technical aspect and every decision we made. Any misstep and we had to start all over again! Digital imaging has freed us from a lot of that obsession. I'm not implying we can ignore exposure or properly working with our tools, but we don't have to be so preoccupied that we lose site of image creation. With digital imaging, I can really let go and think about why I am taking a photograph, what I'm trying to communicate, consider composition and form and texture and color combinations and just create create create! It's like a load of worry has lifted from my psyche and the pure pleasure of just being there has returned. Believe me when I say I truly love understanding all about inverse square law and basic daylight exposure and dealing with scene contrast issues. But if these things get in the way of creating images instead of enhancing the experience, they become a barrier, not a support. And for too long this barrier has been blocking our view. It's time to tear down this wall! In all my years of teaching, I laid foundations for the photographic process by burning technical aspects into the minds of my students. Composition and creation was something that came later in the semester, after rolls of film had been exposed and processed in an attempt to get the exposure down pat. It was frustrating for me when I was learning photography and it was frustrating for my students. They spent all their time exposing image after image of technically correct but lifeless work. The pleasure they had for creating images got lost in all the technique. I realize now it is a new day, with new processes and new equipment and new ways of creating images. Let me be clear... Digital photography is NOT film photography with a sensor instead of film, with software replacing the darkroom and chemistry. It is a different animal altogether, and should be approached as such. If someone came to me and asked me to develop a way to teach photography, I would propose the following: 1. Talk about why we want to photograph in the first place What makes you want to take pictures, as opposed to paint or write, or dance or just look at stuff? The reasons why we photograph are just as important as the photography itself. If we don't know why we are doing something, it isn't necessarily bad, but it does show there is a weakness, and we can improve upon this in time. If we know exactly why we want to photograph, we need to realize that sets up a limit to what we are willing to do. There's a great Buddhist quote I believe applies to any learning... In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's there are few. In the beginning there are so many avenues we can take, it can sometimes be confusing, but it we go too far, we close down those possibilities and end up nowhere. 2. Looking versus Seeing It is important to understand what it is to look at something but not really see it. We need to be able to distinguish what makes something a thing to photograph, and why we choose not to photograph other things. We need to think about what the real subject of an image is, and why it has meaning. You don't want me to count the times I go and photograph a place, come back home, and find someone else's photograph and exclaim "why the hell didn't I see that?!?". The real reason is I was looking and not seeing; I was not in the moment, I was somewhere else; I wasn't focused on image creation, I was unfocused on everything else. 3. Explain how YOUR specific camera works My camera makes an image just like yours. A cell phone does that, and so does the most expensive camera on the market. But each has its own design that influences how it makes images. To make sense of camera operation, we cannot be generic, demonstrating by handout or by using our own personal equipment. It is important to work with the camera being used by each student so they understand the limitations and advantages of their own equipment. I would cover how to set f/stop, shutter speed and ISO and, in the simplest of terms, what they are for; how to set priority modes and program settings; and how to autofocus the lens. That's it. The rest of the technical stuff can come later. Now I know there are people out there cringing... what about the proper lens, how and when to use flash, the difference between JPEG and RAW, and so on and so on and so on. None of these things is vital to producing your first images. So what if mistakes are made? Mistakes are natures way of telling you in no uncertain terms (and very quickly I might add) to not do that again! By swamping a beginner with vast amounts of technical detail, we run the very high risk of losing the very motivations and inspirations they have to create photographic images in the first place. 4. Talk about Composition This is all the stuff that makes the image more than just a record. I mean, my drivers license has a photo of me on it, but I sure don't want it on my wall! Instead of talking about specific technical rules and regulations, we need to focus on broader categories — the relationship between the foreground and background; guiding viewers eyes within the image; working with shape, texture and color; creating form from light and shadow; and changing emphasis with shallow or deep focus. "Wait!", you say... Where's the rule of thirds, the "don't cut off limbs" rule, using an odd number of subjects, changing your viewpoint, and a host of other rules that I can't remember and don't care about listing anyway? The reality is, at least in the beginning, there are a lot of things to remember just to get out there and shoot. Adding a host of rules just makes it all the more complicated and we again lose site of why we are out there in the first place — say it with me — creating images that communicate. 5. Finding Your Photography Start looking at everything you photograph. What is a common theme? Are they vacation shots? Are they full of people or mainly landscapes? Do you shoot at low or high angles? Do you tend to orient your images vertically or horizontally? Do you convert everything to black and white or do you manipulate colors to create a mood? In other words... how do you communicate? Knowing how you communicate tells you what you are communicating and if that communication is getting through to others. That one lesson makes all those rules make sense, and once they do, it's easy to apply them and strengthen your communication skills through your images. 6. Tech Talk Now that we have a direction our photography is taking, we can get into more specifics about other technical issues. Note these details are AFTER we are taking photographs regularly and have a feel for what photography means to us. This is the time I find students getting interested in upping their game and wanting to go beyond the basics. We can discuss lens types, filters, white balance, histograms, dynamic range, and a host of other topics that really need some background in photography to understand. 7. Relax — Let go — Communicate Time to show our images and discuss successes and misses. Let's look at other work and see how it compares to what we do. That might mean other student photography or going to a museum and looking at paintings or walking around town and seeing how architectural forms affect the world that surrounds them. Anything that gives inspiration can be related to our photography — and should be! Did you notice something missing? I never spoke of image manipulation or software or editing. To me, that is post-processing, and although that is really important, I find too many people obsess over it to the point where they aren't thinking about their photograph in the moment. They are somewhere else, mainly thinking about software, and — at least in the beginning — this is a distraction. Let it go. Yes, I get it... thinking about how we can manipulate a scene later can be very important in our image making, but at first I believe it gets too technical and clouds our vision. We think in terms of "fixing" an image instead of capturing the moment. I would rather have a few more failures at first if it means I am really thinking about communication and why I use photography to do so. That's where the magic is, not in post-processing (although that really seems magical at times!). If we are not present in the moment, I don't care how much we post-process... we have lost something in the translation. At the very least, we weren't there when we were there! If we are going to be somewhere, why not be THERE? I was never in the darkroom when I was out shooting. Yes, it was in the back of my mind, but that is where it belonged, not in the forefront. The secret to good photography is be there, not somewhere else. So there you go. Think I'm crazy? Let me know. I was just reading an interesting post by Valérie Jardin (What's the Deal With Mindfulness) and wrote a response, which I have copied below...
I think one of the mistakes people often make about mindfulness or "being mindful" is they think it is being aloof or set apart from the world, which is really the exact opposite of what it is all about. Mindfulness is about accepting the moment for what it is instead of trying to apply what you want the moment to be. It isn't "living" in the moment, it is "accepting" the moment, allowing it to be whatever it is. We all tend to try to make things our way, and that is the part that is unrealistic. We either try to avoid moments we don't like, sometimes trying to forcibly change it, or try to grasp at moments we really love, demanding we never have to let them go. Both ways just lead to unsatisfactory results. In photography, we should always be looking (or better yet SEEING), but allow for the possibility that we won't necessarily find what we are looking for. In that way, maybe we will find that which we were not looking for... and who knows... it might be that much more magical. Yes, there is always meditation and focusing your mind and not being a monkey mind and blah blah blah, but I find wandering to be a lot of fun... and if that is what is in the moment, why not run with it? :-D If we were constantly wandering, we may very well get lost. I mean, I sure don't want my mind wandering when I'm concentrating on driving... that could be dangerous, but wandering in and of itself isn't an issue or a problem. It just has its place as does concentrating. So how does mindfulness relate to photography? I did mention we should always be seeing rather than looking, but I always say that. So what? How does photography have anything to do with mindfulness? Is it a part of it, an integral connection, or just something we should think about? When we speak of mindfulness, we are purposefully tuning ourselves to our environment in such a way as to realize we are a part of that environment, not a separate entity disassociated and disconnected like we usually think of things being. We are "in the moment" when we accept the way things are and are not trying to force our perceptions on it. When we do this, we allow ourselves to see the world as it is and create a connection. Once this connection is made, we are able to, as photographers, create images that reflect that connection. A connection is what makes the photographic image successful, and by successful I don't mean more "likes" or more money or more fame. I mean the image is more than just a record of an event or scene or studio setup. It holds within itself the connection we have made and communicates something that is more meaningful than what is contained on the surface of the image, something that is greater than the image itself. How we reach such a state of mindfulness is not really the point. I happen to sit and stare at something for a while and think about it abstractly, then think about composition, and only then think about the light and how I am going to interpret this something I see photographically. This tends to drive my spouse batty... there he goes again, she says... I'm off to get coffee. Let me know when your free again! Other photographers might be bouncing ideas up and down and all around their heads while shooting images of quickly changing scenes, and still other photographers may be working for hours just to get the right angle, set up the right shot, choose the studio lights that best reflect the subject and concept. I have no idea how their spouses feel. All of these methods are perfectly fine. What path you choose may be very different from the one I would choose, but it doesn't make it any less mindful. As long as our wanderings aren't leading us astray (either emotionally or physically down a deep pit!) we should be fine and be successful in our image making. Social media has made it possible for us to view hundreds of casual images (see my previous post What We Photograph). These posts try to communicate with images, images, and more images... yet many have little in them that has any real and lasting communication. This is not to say the casual image is meaningless... far from it. They can capture a world from the individual point of view, a view that only a limited few would see until the advent of social media. I firmly believe that a hundred years from now, people will see our society based primarily on the social media images we choose to post today. Yet, for the most part, these images do not capture the moment as intended, or at best, present it in such a way that the meaning is lost in translation. The emotion that was felt at the time doesn’t translate well, the images lose their meaning when posted for the world to see on a tiny screen, and in essence, they were made for the person taking them at the time.
Many posit this loss in translation is due to bad technique, so we get blogs and websites posting articles like "Two camera settings that will make your images pop!" or "The one piece of equipment landscape photographers can't do without". These aren't exact quotes, but you get the idea. I read these posts and, at least for me, they seem gimmicky, more interested in equipment that will save your images from... well... bad technique. Don't get me wrong, there are always things to learn to make you a better photographer, and these posts have some great information. And although technique does matter, by boiling our thinking down to the search for the perfect setting on a camera or having that special piece of equipment we just "can't do without", we forget the entire point of why we are creating images in the first place. You don't hear a painter passionately describe the exact brush they used or the brand of paint they bought; it would astound me to hear of someone who obsessed over the kind of chisel Michelangelo used to create the Statue of David, and then ignore the masterpiece itself. Although technique makes me wonder in amazement at the expertise of the artist, it isn't the equipment or technique that really matters — it's about the journey the artist took that created such a miracle of vision; the search for those little details that make a subject something more than what it first appears to be. It's about taking the time to look carefully at the world, thinking about what we see, and then finding a way to capture that in a way a viewer can experience it too. Let's change gears for a second and think about driving a car. If I want to drive to the store to buy groceries, I need to be able to actually drive! But, if I can't, I can get a ride, use the bus, or even walk — not always the best solutions, but doable. In the end, the purpose is to get the groceries, not to do the driving. Getting back to photography, it's best to understand your camera settings, see how filters change the look of a scene, use a tripod when necessary. But, if I can't, I can use program settings on the camera, try to steady myself when I take a shot, or fix images on the computer — not always the best solutions, but doable. The techniques may create an advantage, but are not the purpose of photography. Creating images is. When I am out with my camera, I try my best to keep seeing instead of just looking. Looking is accepting something as there -- it exists and so you move on. But to see, that is so much greater. To see is to realize something caught your eye, something stood out and it mattered, even if that was only for an instant. As photographers, we try to understand why this something is meaningful, and once we do, we find a way to create an image that communicates this meaning. So ultimately, communication is the transference of meaning, and that is exactly the purpose of creating photographic images. Now, you may love my work or you may hate it. All I have to say is... GREAT! Something in the images drove you crazy or made you weep (possibly both!). It communicated in some way, and that's a good thing. I do not fear loathing, I fear indifference. When I communicate through my photography, I want to be heard. It is perfectly fine if you don’t like what you hear... it provides an opportunity for discussion and maybe even enlightenment for both of us. Case in point — I have been reading a lot about new improvements in camera phone technology and discussed this with various friends of mine. This got me interested in what the camera in my phone could do, so I started exploring. There is a sense of letting go of the camera and just looking at the world when you use this little technological marvel. You let go of all that ego about having to make things perfect the first time, then start actually seeing the world in a different way. I think this adventure will bring more clarity to my other camera work as well, and maybe I might even really start seeing the world instead of just looking at it! What a great world it would be if we didn’t shy away from the things we don’t like and instead made a point of discussing them in a human and engaging way. A lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we did. So keep on communicating, creating images, and being heard. |
fotostufphotographic illuminations Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|