Realism revisited

The subject of realism in a photographer's work, their images, seems to vary with the photographer, but it always seems to come back to a general single philosophy. I've already written one post about my view that I keep hearing in workshops or reading in articles. And it's more and more beginning to bug the film out of my camera.

And? It's the idea that in wildlife photography and even some types of macro photography images should represent realism, meaning the images should present the subject in all facets as realistically as possible. I don't disagree with that, and it's somewhat followed in other types of photography such as street photography and photojournalism. And we know all the rules disappear in other types of photography, commericial, studio, portrait, fashion, architecture, etc.

So why is it that it's ok to throw the rules away for nature and landscape photography? I know why, because hyper-color or saturated images sell prints and display in magazines. But they're unreal. And the photographers who do focus their work on realism in nature and landscape images take the heat for those that overwork their images into surreal ones. And this is my rant against those who not only suggest it but almost demand it.

Why the revisit? Well, while waiting to go to a routine appointment I stop by a local chain bookstore that has a large magazine selection, inlcuding 2-3 dozen photo magazines. And while purusing one I came across an article about Moose Peterson, the outstanding wildlife photographer. And he reiterated his philosophy just as I wrote, realism with wildlife and surrealism in nature and landscape.

He even said he barely uses Photoshop with his wildlife images but he'll use every tool with nature and landscape images. And this just bothers me to no end. I put a fair amount of work trying to present my nature and landscape images as I saw them then and there. I focus on the capture of the best original photo and the minimalist editing for the image, mostly to fix my own errors than the scene or subject, such as dust, over/under exposure, etc.

The article went on to say he (Moose) wouldn't move a branch if it was a wildlife shot, it takes away from the reality he saw and wants to capture. But he said he wouldn't hesitate to do that and more if it was a nature or landscape image. What happened to realism? We want to see an animal different than a forest or mountain scene?

Not long ago a wildlife photographer caught a lot of criticism when he altered the stripes on a photos of zebras to cover a deformity, but we wouldn't criticize him if he altered the colors, leaves, bark, underbrush, etc. of a forest. Why is that? And they recommend shooting raw so you can take advantage of all the tools to alter images?

I once listened to a wildlife photographer who said the same, even suggested taking 2-4 shots of the same scene to composite them into one, even borrowing from other images to enchance elements missing or not correct in your nature or landscape image. So seeing his and Moose's nature and landscape images will you really believe their images are what he saw at the time? And something you could see if you were there?

And I've written that I shoot mostly jpeg for the very reason or realism, it teaches me to do your best in the field than relying on Photoshop to fix my own stupidity in the field. I don't rely on raw format to overcome my own shortcomings. It's a carry over from film, where you learned to think in the field. It challenges me to do my best then and there, pure and simple. And yes, I do shoot raw occasionally, but less than 5% of my photos.

And while I know it's not a full use of my camera's features, it's not what I'm in photography for. I enjoy the process of seeing and capturing and I'm learning the production side, the photo to image process. And shooting jpeg in any of type of photography forces me to think all the time in my photography, the same as I did with film.

And I know many photographers do present their nature and landscape work for realism, or just only a shade away. This is especially true in large format which is still predominantly film where the knowledge is very important and critical, and most of those photographers produce images within the realm of realism whether it's fine art, studio, portrait, nature or landscape.

Anyway, that's my perspective on the issue. I'll still shoot for realism.

Having fun II

Ok, the weather is being winter, what else can anyone say about winter weather in the Pacific Northwest. And while it was snowing this morning, accumulating 1-3 inches, by early afternoon it was rain and the snow was melting fast. And by early evening it was rain and snow and the temperatures fell but the ground had warmed up. All the while the temperatures were bouncing between the low to mid 30's depending on where you lived.

So, I continued with my small studio work. I expanded the flash setup to be one flash in a large softbox and two each in two smaller softboxes. Huh, sounds backwards? To some it may and would be, but each flash has full range settings from 1/8 to full power in one-third or one-half stops. The one in the large softbox is newer and more powerful with a faster recycle time. The others are 10-12 years old so I can run them at 1/4 to 1/2 setting for faster recycling time.

And so I decided to see if I could create some Valetine ideas, or at least some quirky thoughts expressed in images using the manikin and the penguin. I have to learn to see differently, as I tend to follow the same poses and scenes, all the while learning to play with the light, exposure and all the rest. It's the old matter of spending 50% of the timt to get 90% of the way to something and realizing the last 10% will take the other 50%.

It's the old adage, the devil is in the details, which is not my strong suit. If I focus or work on something so long I get tired of seeing it. I simply want to quit, so I leave it to take breaks. I don't have the dedication to persist with one image to the point I get it as near to complete and perfect as I want, something I have to learn in increments. Which is raises the question.

When do you quit with one image, take the raw and work the rest in Photoshop or continue to get the best image in the camera to minimize the Photoshop work? I prefer the latter, which I think teaches the basics and real side of photography, learning to capture the image you want. To do that I shoot jpeg, lots and lots of jpegs, all with small differences in lighting, light position, scenery, subject position, and on and on. So the learning is experimentation and play.

This is where I think one improves their skills in seeing, simply having fun, keeping a smile, finding the humor, and letting the penguin wander around the stage getting his face in the shots.

Having fun

It's been either clear and cold or cloudy, windy and raining here. Hey, it's January, what's not to expect? Anyway, I still have my studio set up in my dining room and while I was out running errands I stopped by an art supply store and bought one of those wooden man figures artist use. For $10, what's not to like about having some fun?

And so it's been part of the day to have a little fun with the figure and with a small stuffed penguin I bought when I was a child in Germany around 1960. I nicknamed him Cocktail because he looked like he was going to a cocktail party instead of the normal tuxedo black and white penguins you normally see as stuffed animals or in photos. The toy has sat on my desk overlooking the bills and things to do holder for decades and now sits on my computer table just behind the keyboard.

And so I scrounge through the kitchen looking for interesting things to photograph, or I wander through the grocery store for interesting food stuff to buy and photograph. You never know what might strike the visual synpases to say, "Hmmm..., I wonder..." And so I spend the time just exploring. I have the two soft boxes and two halogen lights to work with the three types of cameras, 35mm film and digital and 4x5 film.

And Cocktail looks on with a sense of something, which I'll leave to the viewer.



My point to this? Not much. It's a visual thinking out loud exercise while learning to work with light, backgrounds, and composition. And it's a whole lot of fun.

JMO - Dear George and Congress

Dear Mr. President and Congress,

I've been reading about and listening to the discussion about a tax rebate, and how each of you, and especially the Candidates, want to infuse some cash into the economy to spur growth and avoid a recession. And I've listened to the economist, who seem to have a almost totally different view of the situation than you folks. So my question is, why aren't you listening to the economist than your own polticial rhetoric?

Do you really know we're heading into a recession, or is this really a political ploy or toy to us voters? Ok, that's a rhetorical question. I know the answer. I want you to admit the answer. It is pure and simple political bullshit. But you're willing to increase the national debt for a short term gain of votes and approval. Gee, somehow your words don't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

So, if you want to give me money from the taxes I've already paid or from some future debt we'll have to pay, or the younger generation pay, so be it. And to answer your question, will I spend it to spur the economy? No. Pure and simple no. I will park it in the bank and save it. In part because I could use it better there than some thing I buy that is short-lived, like my future.

Remember you're bankrupting this country with your enormous war and national debt. I'm like the real people of this country who has to pay our bills, not like you who can simply keep writing free checks like a rich kid in college with no thoughts of the future. All on the backs of the young. I'm sorry, you are the worst example of wise spending and investment.

And so you have my answer. I realize it's not what you want me to do with the money, but I'm not you, and happy not to be you. But I sure wish you'd start listening to the experts and real people instead of reacting in some stupid, kneejerk way. So, send me the check or refund me in my taxes, I don't care, I'll gladly deposit in the bank where it earns interest.

Sincerely.

Translating

I've been working on studio shots in my small, makeshift studio, which means a temporary converted dining room. I love seeing the work of studio photographers, both portrait and still-life. I'm always amazed at their ability to get the light just right. I know they play with the light in many iterations, they take hundreds of shots, and review the result frequently, or at least they do now days with the ease of digital cameras.

But that wasn't always the case. I watched a documentary on the 1930's Hollywood portrait photographers who used 8x10 cameras. They would set up for days before the person, mostly movie stars or other celebrities would show up. Then they would play with the light for another day with the person, and then take 2-4 shots. They were done. Just two to four exposed sheets and off to the lab.

They not only knew their craft - the light, the person, and the exposure - they knew how to translate what they saw in the scene to what they wanted for an image and the print. It's the thing Ansel Adams wrote about in his books about the technique they used, to see the scene from the photograph to the print. It's what made them great.

And me, I'm barely seeing the scene. I would have been a terrible photographer then, or at least one who made numerous mistakes. My difficulty is seeing the end image. I'm a visual person but a here and now one, I have to see what it looks like to visualize anything I can capture. Producing the image has always been my problem, and that means I can't translate the scene to final image.

Reading a paper recently the author noted that most photographers are of two types, those who focus on the capture and leave the production to others, and those who can see both the capture and the final image, the end product as they say. And some photographers are great production specialists, and rarely step out of a lab or digital office. That's what's important, learn and do what you do best and if you want, give the rest a try.

I'm clearly a see it and capture it photographer, and I like to produce images I see, almost a straight translation from photo to image. So studio work challenges me to learn to see beyond, to extend my visualization through the capture to the production. I'll never be much more than ordinary, but it's the road we travel that matters, and it's a whole lot of fun learning and seeing.

And so you want to see what I have to produce this image? Or not. But if you do, I use sets of Minolta 360PX flashes in soft boxes linked with Pocket Wizards to any of the cameras, the two Canon digital and film bodies, the Minolta X-700's I used before (seen here), and my Horseman 4x5. Yup, if it's got the PC sync connector the PW's works. I also use a pair of Lowell Tota lights (seen on) to help prepare or for black and white images since the light source doesn't have to be color corrected.



It's not the best setup, but affordable and enough to learn and occasionally get lucky with some images. Something to do on rainy winter days when you wondering what to do. And all is gray and wet. So visualize.