Thoughts on difference

The photographer's way of seeing is special. Photographers see things that mere mortals never notice. The photographer is always on duty, seeing subjects that are waiting to be captured and rendered artistically. László Moholy-Nagy said seeing as a photographer meant “the training of the eye”. It is a learned skill. It reflects the photographer’s life experience, professional life, and the study of famous photographers.

There’s a danger that looking at others’ photographs for inspiration can lead to derivative images, a problem that is difficult to escape, for me at least. Originality in any artistic pursuit implies the taking of risks by moving you away from popularly accepted styles. This leads to the idea of a kind of trademark, “personal style”, that is evident in the work of most accomplished photographers. The question is, just how far should you push this idea of originality in the quest for a truly distinctive style? One answer is–all the way!

New Zealand photographer Tony Bridge meditates on the risks and rewards of escaping the “mansion” of image makers who create the same style of image over and over.

… what do you do, when making an accurate likeness of what is before you is simply … not enough? When your equipment makes it so infernally easy? When you begin to realise that you are saying the same thing as everybody else? When you finally come to trust your own voice and heart and journey and, well, nothing else really matters?  You really don’t give a shit, because you are deep into a conversation that only you seem to be aware of. You realise there isn’t a room in the mansion for you, that there is no one to talk to. As a result, you will have to talk to yourself. Or build your own mansion.

So, you set sail and eventually end up walking the gangplank you were always seeking.

Then it dawns on you, some way out, that in fact, the gangplank has no end, and that although you can’t see the end, it doesn’t really matter.

Over the years, I realised that a worthy goal is to develop a personal style, voice or expression. Exploring that path means that many of the conventional ideas and rules of “good” photography are only limitations. That thought inevitably leads to the realisation that all the “good” photos look the same.

Look the same? How can that be? Clearly, they are all different!

OK, so you have made a technically perfect photo of a mountain in great golden light with a wonderful foreground and fantastic composition, and you’re ecstatic about it. But really, it’s just another beautiful picture of a mountain. It’s not fundamentally different to thousands of other beautiful pictures of mountains. You might have enjoyed the experience of being out in nature, advanced your skills and felt a thrill of success, that’s important. It’s part of the reason we take photographs. But the fact is, most of the work was done by Mother Nature and a hi-tech camera. Sure, you turned up at the right time and composed the shot, but there is nothing original about that. Every day, more than 100 million people do a similar thing and post the results on Instagram. The competition is fierce. The only way to be noticed is by being different. Once one’s ego lets one accept that reality, a troubling malaise sets in, the only escape from which is to venture out alone, down Tony’s scary gangplank leading to … who knows where?

At that point, we’ve changed gears mentally and have become artists.

How to do that? Everyone will have a different answer - a unique answer. And that’s the point. For me, the answer is contained in the way I see and frame the subject matter, how I post-process it and how I present the image. Even that statement can be dismissed as prosaic, but it’s the thinking behind it, the process and the outcome that counts.

Tony Bridge has updated a famous Ansel Adams quote for the digital era. He says, “The capture is the score, and the post-production is the performance.”

If you would like to read Tony Bridge’s full article, it’s here.

personal style in photography

My last two posts mulled over the idea that photography can be (needs to be?) more than what I would call subject, composition, and technical excellence. While that combination yields excellent images, the fact is, the world is awash with excellent images.

Some years ago I was viewing an exhibition of prints. The images were all excellent in accordance with the criteria of arresting subject matter, faultless composition, and technical excellence. I enjoyed sporadic conversation with another person as we viewed the images when suddenly I said, “you know, the problem with these is, they are all the same.” That ended our brief encounter with neither able to figure out how to continue the conversation.

I didn’t know why my subconscious had generated that poorly expressed thought, so I looked at the photos again. Of course, they weren’t all the same. The subject matter and treatment was diverse. For a long time, I pondered what had prompted my comment and finally decided that it had nothing to do with the subject matter but with the uniformly “correct” compositional arrangement together with technical perfection all styled to suit a judge. The irony is, I value those qualities in my work. So what was my subconscious problem with uniformity of technical and compositional perfection?

Since then, having viewed hundreds of photos created by accomplished photographers, it dawned on me that each had a personal style. Whether it’s subtle or jarring, it is there be seen by the keen observer. Of course, the same applies in the art world where, for multiple reasons, individual styles are more obvious.

A highly developed personal style will focus on a particular genre. An example is Melbourne street photographer and photojournalist, Jesse Marlow. He said that for years while doing his street photography, he used the same film, the same lens and the same camera with the shutter speed set at 1/500 second. Extreme perhaps, but the best way to develop consistency and polish your craft.

A personal style is worth striving towards but should never reach finality. If it does, then learning and growth have stopped. Some won’t accept that your work doesn’t conform with their view of normal but take that as a sign that you have achieved a point of difference - a personal style.

Going full cycle

There’s nothing like looking at the best images in a competition for inspiration and to get an understanding of current judging fashions.

The results of the 2018 Focus awards have been published, and in looking at the Photographer of the Year section, it seems that many images have been manipulated in a creative way, that moves them into the fine art genre. The photographic basics of great light and colour and a clearly articulated subject presented with simplicity still apply, but there are two more factors; technical excellence and creative interpretation.

Perhaps the latter is controversial for those who claim a traditional approach to photography. ‘Interpretation’ harks back to Pictorialism which was the dominant photographic style in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in which images were often softened and manipulated to make them appear more painterly and more readily acceptable to the arts community of the time. But then around 1930 the f/64 Group, lead by Ansel Adams, put an emphatic end to that approach with their Modernist tradition that accepts the photographic image for what it is – a sharp, detailed and contrasty black and white rendition of a subject caught in a moment in time. Manipulation was confined to ensuring that those qualities were shown to best advantage. Most of the images we see today are in colour but are still in that mould. But with the help of powerful editing software, photographers are exploring the possibility of "making" an image, not with the motivation of the Pictorialists, but in a contemporary, interpretive way.

What does that Look like? In art, there are no limits, the possibilities are endless, but you don’t have to go beyond the six images of Photographer Of The Year, Timothy Moon, in the 2018 Focus Awards. (See link above). The images follow the values of the f/64 group, but subtle editing has imbued them with an emotive content that transcends technical excellence. This is what Les Walking was talking about in his article discussed in the Understanding Pictures post.

APSCON WORKSHOP 2018

APSCON is the annual convention of the Australian Photographic Society. In 2007 I attended my first APSCON in Albury. As a guileless beginner I was impressed by the images on display and enraptured by some of the speakers. Not for a moment did I think I would ever be on the stage as a speaker and workshop presenter.

It happened this year at the convention in Surfers Paradise, Queensland. I had been asked to give a talk on architectural photography and then lead the group in a practical workshop. Earlier I led a photo walk around Surfers Paradise where high rise buildings are literally lined up along the beach and the photographic opportunities are endless.

Thanks to Phillipa Frederiksen for making this possible and Judith Bear, a local resident, who showed me some of the hot photographic spots.

A briefing in the bus. Photo © Judith Bear.

Watch out for trams! © Judith Bear.

JPEG VS RAW

Is there still a debate about JPEG vs raw? For the serious enthusiast, using your camera’s raw setting should be a no-brainer. Here’s why.

JPEG files are 8 bit and raw files are 14 bit (or more likely these days 16 bit). To keep the numbers manageable I will stay with 14 bit. Bits translate to tonal values, so an 8 bit file has 256 tonal steps from black to white while a 14 bit file has 16,348 steps. 

This is important when manipulating images in Photoshop or Lightroom. For example if you are working on colour and luminance in a sky, or trying to bring out detail in the shadow areas of an image, you are working with a limited range of the total number of bits. With a JPEG you might be working with say one fifth of the total number, say 50 bits. So if you “push” those areas the sky will show unsightly bands or break up into blocks of colour. In the case of the raw file you will be working with more than 3,000 bits and the colour and tonal transitions will be seamless to the eye. Other compromises result from using JPEGs and these are shown in the table.

It is true that for some purposes there are advantages in using JPEG format but for anyone who wants to enhance an image in software with the aim of creating a large, quality print, those advantages are not relevant.

In the 4X enlarged example below the camera was set to shoot JPEG + raw at 1/1250, f4, ISO 100. Both images were processed the same in Lr by clicking on Auto in the Basic panel and using the White Balance colour picker on the white coffee sign.

The JPEG file did not have enough data (bits) to handle the “stretching” required and it broke up into ugly colour blotches. The raw file was able to handle the “stretch” and seamlessly revealed subtle tonal gradations in a very dark area of the image. (Not well reproduced here.)

Why is this? Well, as already explained, it has to do with the number of bits. More particularly, every digital imaging device makes a raw file, even cameras and old point and shoots that would only produce JPEGs. The camera has software built in that examines the raw file produced by the sensor, makes adjustments to brightness, contrast, colour, saturation, sharpness and goodness know what else, then spits out the JPEG. 

The JPEG image is created from a subset of the raw data collected by the sensor. It deletes what it didn’t use and then compresses the file down to 8 bits. The result is that if you edit a JPEG your image editing program goes looking for extra data, can’t find it and the blocky artefacts are the result.

So, given that most of us spend as much money as we deem reasonable on a camera, the heart of which is the digital sensor, why would you then shoot JPEGs which chuck away 60-95% of the data gathered by that expensive miracle of a sensor?

The un-cropped images above show the final comparison between the straight out of camera JPEG and the processed raw file. This scene was chosen, not for its aesthetics, but for the extreme lighting conditions - a back-lit black van.

Why I like Adobe CC products

A variety of post-processing software is available. Within any program (app), there is always more than one way of achieving a desired result. I am a Lightroom and Photoshop user. I also have the NIC Collection and a few others, but I don’t use them regularly. I figure I get the results I want by working directly with Adobe products. I subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud, and for $14.29 per month, I get the following:

• Lightroom Classic is my current preference.

• Lightroom. I don’t use it regularly, but I find it helpful to quickly edit an image without importing it into Lightroom Classic.

• Photoshop. I use it for functions not available in Lightroom, but with Lightroom becoming evermore sophisticated, there is less need.

• Behance network. Adobe claims Behance to be the world’s largest platform to showcase and discover creative work. It is an online portfolio site; think of 500px, Smugmug, etc. You can build your own “Project” or look at other people’s work. Behance Projects will automatically be imported to your Adobe Portfolio site as pages. There is also a tutorial section with helpful training videos.

• Adobe Portfolio. This template-based, multi-page, personal website has the look, feel and ease of use of similar platforms like Squarespace, Wix and GoDaddy. Portfolio can be synced with Behance. Portfolio and Behance are a great combination of website and gallery included in your CC subscription at no additional cost. Together, they enable you to present your work to the world without paying an annual subscription to a service like Squarespace or Wix.

• Adobe Spark. Spark is a single-page website with more limited application. It’s okay for one-page storytelling with images, text or video.  It's not the right tool for building an entire website.

The following mobile apps are included as well:

• Lightroom for Mobile

• Photoshop Mix

• Spark Post

• Spark Page

• Spark Video

All are regularly updated with new features, and I reckon that for a modest monthly sum, this is a good deal.