Tag: learn

I have written about being true to yourself as an artist and not allowing others to change your course, style, vision, or adhere to their concepts. With that being said, there are times when others like work you have done that you may have thought to be mundane. There may also be times when someone will ask or suggest a subject or scene. The featured image was one of those times.

My wife made a request for a photograph of a tree line. I thought about it and, at first, thought eh. I tried a variety of tree lines. Nothing really grabbed me. I didn’t stop looking but I still wasn’t “sold” on the idea.

In the winter of 2013, we had a big snowstorm and, at the time, I drove a 4-wheel drive truck. Since I was retired at the time I decided I would venture out and take some photographs. One of the places I visited was a conservation area and as such, it had lots of trees. I shot a whole wide variety of trees and treelines.

Then I saw the treeline below. Normally, it was a mundane open grassy field in the foreground. Fortunately for me, there had been enough snow few others had ventured out. There were no footprints or other distractions in the snow.

The photograph above was edited to convert to black and white as well as to remove some of the sticks and tall grass from the snow in the foreground. I would love to list exactly what I had done at the time, but I didn’t save the Photoshop working file and it has been long enough ago that I don’t recall my steps.

I showed the final photograph to my wife, who had requested the work. She immediately wanted a print made to hang. I ordered a 16×24 and got it professionally framed and matted. The photograph still hangs on the wall today.

This isn’t the only time I have had such a request. In 2011, I was contacted by a person who had seen a photograph of mine on my website. She wanted to buy a print to use as wall art. I was amazed that someone I didn’t know wanted to pay me for a photograph of mine.

The image above is the one that was requested and as you can see it is a piece of artwork that was on the lawn of the Nelson Atkins Art Museum. Since this was the work of another artist, I contacted the art museum and asked if I could sell my photograph of the piece. I was given permission from the museum to sell my photograph.

The lesson I have learned and continually remind myself of is that you can remain true to your vision as an artist while listening to your audience or others who are potentially your audience. I have also learned that sometimes the photographs and artwork I like may not always be what others like.

Do quality work. Display your work and you may find an audience or buyers of your art that you didn’t know existed. Following this mindset, I have sold a few works and most were pieces I wasn’t personally wowed by.

There is truth, justice, and then the artist’s way. While they can all coexist but often they don’t. These things aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive but they oftentimes don’t play well together. Let’s take a look at the original version of the featured image.

The version above is the way the camera saw the scene. It’s not nearly as compelling. Ah, if we adjust the exposure it will all be better you say. Maybe. I’ll get a bit more technical for a moment.

For those who may be a bit unfamiliar, the image above is a screenshot of the original image’s histogram in Photoshop CC. My camera would show this as a good exposure, neither under or over exposed.

When I was at this location taking this photograph my eyes perceived it to be much more dramatic than what was captured by my camera. Due to recent rains the colors were much more saturated looking. The sky and clouds much more ominous looking.

This is often the conflict I have with the truth in photography. I view much of the world, especially when out taking photographs, with the eyes of an artist. In viewing the world like this, my final image fulfills the truth, justice, and the artist’s way. To me, this is the truth. To me, fulfilled giving the scene its justice. To others, I may have changed the truth and did an injustice to the reality by fulfilling the artist’s way.

I live by the code of what I believe is true to an artist. Have I achieved the level to call myself an artist? Maybe or maybe not, that I’ll leave for you to decide. To me, I believe I succeed sometimes and fail sometimes.

Establish your truth, justice, and artist’s way. Set yourself free from the expectations of others.

Many times I work to create a fantasy world. When I do this type of photography what does reality have to do with it? Nothing. Many photographers would call this digital art and not photography. So be it. I work to create art with my camera, sometimes things just don’t work out.

When we were doing this session the pink smoke bomb didn’t give the results I was looking for in the image. So a little Photoshop magic and viola!

It wasn’t a matter of not attempting to, as the purists say, “get it right in the camera. It just didn’t work. so changing something in the final development of an image through software or darkroom techniques may be required.

We’ve all seen these photographs of women in long flowing dresses where they are “floating”. Many of these have Photoshop magic, but we rarely question them.

When creating fine art photographs does reality really matter or is it the results? Why is it that often photographers can’t accept a piece as art rather than work to discredit it because doesn’t fit their definition of a photograph?

If you are like me, fuhgeddaboudit. Do your thing.

Yesterday, I was on the road back home from a short overnight trip to southwestern Missouri. I decided to take a different route back home since I wasn’t in a hurry to get back. I discovered almost instantly on the way back, that the GPS navigation apps on my phone were somewhat lacking in helping me find a “scenic” route. Even after I changed some settings, the routes chosen were not the country backroads I was hoping to drive. After some choice words to the navigations system. The route adjusted somewhat.

We ended up taking the old U.S. Highway 66. The road still exists but it is no longer considered U.S. Highway 66. While driving along, we happened upon a small town, Avilla Missouri. The first thing that caught my attention was the small red brick post office. Apparently, at one time it had been a bank. Across the street was another gem.

I didn’t wander around much more but there were a couple of things that may have played out. This town was very small, with a population of 103. One of the reasons I didn’t wander around more was I had my little dog with me and he was a bit stressed out that I was out of the car even though my wife was with him. Yeah, he is spoiled. Maybe that is lesson two, go without my dog but he is my buddy.

Not long after we left the small town the navigation app had me turn onto a county highway. County Highway 80. County Highway 80, was a two-lane paved road with no shoulder to give you a mental visual. As I was driving along, I saw a wheatfield at an intersection. I stopped quickly and since it was fairly early on Sunday morning there was no other traffic. I was able to park on the side road and took the photo of the field you see above. What caught my attention was the golden color of the wheat, lined by the green trees and the cloud formation just above the triangle created by the trees lining the wheatfield.

I’m not in search of a better way to navigate using the back roads to arrive at a predesignated location.

I’ve seen people ask the question, “did you Photoshop that?”, not only of some of my work but also the work of others. In the past, I have answered that question with the statement, “I use a variety of techniques both when taking a photograph and in its development to achieve the look I envision”. As time goes on, I am beginning to think the question is an attempt to discredit the work. I am rarely a documentary-style photographer. My goal is to create works that I like and hopefully, others may find interesting or compelling. So does it really matter if I “Photoshopped” an image?

If the photograph was taken using film we don’t often see the question asked about the process used to develop the film or the final print.

Digital processing techniques often had beginnings in the chemical darkroom. Dodging, burning, retouching, Few questioned those techniques but somehow many feel compelled to question current digital processes.

Just like I’ve said about photography gear. The results matter, not the tools used to get there. There are a select few photography genres that require a documentary style with little to no development beyond the initial exposure but the rest, it is open to the vision of the artist. I’m not sure how I will answer the question, “did you use Photoshop” or “did you Photoshop that” in the future except that it depends on the context in which the question is asked.

As many of you may know, I look at lots of photographs. I study them and enjoy looking at photographs. I also read a lot about photography and photographic composition. An almost universal common guideline of composition in landscape photography is a foreground element. But, what if there is nothing for us to use as a foreground element? While visiting the prairie last fall, there were many places where the view was fantastic. Wide-open spaces, and dramatic skies but the only thing in the foreground may be a tall plant with white flowers. Maybe this is why it is difficult to find many photographs of these types of areas.

There were some areas where I could find a larger element to use, such as this one with a colorful sunflower. This trip, now nearly a year in the past has inspired a challenge for me. My challenge to myself is to revisit these areas and create a project on the vastness of the open prairie. Not always with the typical abandoned structure in the frame or the ranchers riding through on horses. I can find those images all day.

Find a challenge for yourself. Experiment with it. No photographic experiment is a failure as long as you learn from it. Take the lessons learned from the challenge and apply them to the next attempt. I will cause photographic growth.

Your choice of gear doesn’t matter. Results matter. If you can create an image with the simplest camera in the world that wows us, it doesn’t matter. People often comment in debates about gear and say, “You can’t take a super close-up of an insect without a macro lens”. Maybe, certain types of photography do require specialized equipment. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about creating engaging, captivating, and beautiful photographs.

A few years ago I would have argued that taking photographs with a cellphone camera wasn’t real photography. I was wrong! The best camera is the one you have at the time. It doesn’t matter. Results matter.

Likewise, I don’t care if a photograph was developed using software or straight from the camera. Results matter. If I am captivated or engaged by a photograph it is a success. Gear doesn’t matter. I’ve seen photographs from photographers with all the best equipment money could buy and I wasn’t impressed with the results. At the same time, I have seen photographs taken with the simplest equipment that left me in awe. Results matter.

Want better photographs? Become a better photographer. Gear doesn’t make you better. Skills and knowledge make you better. Sometimes, to get better you have to get out of your comfort zone. Push your knowledge and develop your skills using whatever equipment you have don’t be swayed by others with the so-called gear acquisition syndrome. Learn how to push the limits of your gear and grow your skills. When the limit can’t be breached then go for the gear. In the meantime, focus on results. Results matter, not gear.

I frequently search for podcasts to listen to while I work. Yesterday, I found a podcast, Outdoor Photography hosted by Brenda Petrella. Unlike many of the other podcasts, I listen to on occasion this one wasn’t riddled with advertisements or wander completely off the topic of photography. During the first episode, I listened to Brenda interviewed a photographer named Sean Bagshaw. During the interview the discussion turned to working on photographs in Photoshop. Sean was quick to point out he doesn’t like the term process or post process because it sounds like something you do in a factory. He said he preferred the term, develop. I like that. After listening to that podcast, I have decided I am going to start to refer to working on photographs in software as developing.

Developing a digital image is not that different than developing film, the only difference is film is done with chemicals, light, and other physical tools whereas digital is done electronically with a computer and software. While it is true that post-processing and developing can mean the same thing it is a matter of words. The term developing an image sounds more traditional and maybe better accepted. After all, the toughest group to view our photographs are other photographers.