Tag: teach

Change is inevitable. Budda teaches that nothing is permanent. Change will happen and we can either grow and change with it or we will eventually fade away. Change is often frightening, especially if we view the change as threatening to our livelihood or way of life. Currently, the hot topic in the photography and art world is the use of artificial intelligence to create, modify, or change elements in a work of art. I am on the side of having this technology available others are passionately against it and foresee this as the “beginning of the end”. In the recent past, it was a hotly debated topic that digital cameras would be the death of photography. While it is true that digital photography resulted in many newspapers eliminating their photography departments the real cause was, in my opinion, more than just digital photography. Print newspaper circulation was down, and digital versions were popular because the public was looking for instant news rather than a printed paper that was, at very least hours old. I see the use of A.I. tools as just that, another tool. Many tasks that took hours or days can now be achieved in a matter of seconds.

It may not be a popular opinion but we have a few options, accept advancements in technology and use them in an ethical manner, begin to provide a better product to compete with the new technology, or fade away.

I am choosing to ride this train of technology and hopefully guide it.

Today’s latest buzz and controversy in photography appears to be using artificial intelligence to manipulate photographs. Adobe Photoshop seems to be at the top of the list now with the introduction of a feature called “generative fill”. This feature allows the user to designate an area and have the program generate content to put into or remove from a photograph.

The entire concept of manipulating photographs is nothing new. One of the first and most likely best-known examples is Oscar Gustav Rejlander’s “Two Ways of Life” photograph in 1857. Yes, you read that correctly, 1857. The first permanent photograph was developed in 1826. By 1851, the process for creating photographic negatives was introduced and a mere 6 years later Oscar Gustav Rejlander created a huge composite photograph.

I’m almost certain that with every advancement in photography, there were questions about what was becoming of photography, especially when the art of compositing and retouching photographs began.

My featured photograph of the urban street is heavily manipulated with the removal of no less than 13 cars and trucks along with the removal of some signs. My photo isn’t intended to be a slice of reality. It is intended to portray an urban environment in a manner we are unused to. We often fear things that are viewed as change. I realize that change can be frightening. After all, change causes us to question what we have always known.

For me, this is a fantastic time to be a photographer and an artist. We have so many tools available to us to create fantastic works of art, all while we still have the “old ways” to create art. It isn’t the end of photography unless we make it so. The most incredible thing about today is whether you can use technology or not. You can use bits and pieces of technology and not use other parts. Don’t let the fear of new tools and features control you or your idea of art and photography. In fact, I suggest embracing it. You don’t have to go all in but let’s not bash something until we see where it takes us. After all digital photography was predicted to be the death of film but all these years later film lives on.

I adopted the mindset that it isn’t art merely because I said so. I believe our audience determines if a piece of work rises to the level of art. To me, one of the best definitions of art is; “a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination” There certainly is a variety of methods and techniques even through photography to achieve this level of artistic expression. Even then, we can miss the mark.

A while back I visited a local botanical garden. At the time, the garden displayed fairy houses created by artists in the area. All the fairy houses were fantastic works of art. Meticulously created with each element consciously added to create a scene. The problem I had when I visited with my camera was to record them in such a way that they expressed their story. The lighting was harsh often creating vast contrasts of light and dark. On top of that, because they were small in size and their placement for visitors to see them the scene was easily determined to be unrealistic. In fact, I have had these images for two years and never found a use for them.

I always had the capability to create something that expressed the story of the houses as I envisioned. I continued to miss the vision to bring the stories out.

I haven’t always revisited older photographs to look at creating something from what I thought was a failure. That may be changing for me. Always look to create something rather than merely record something.

What have we become? I mean both photographers and photography clients. Today, we take hundreds of photographs in a single outing, or in the case of wedding photographers, thousands at a single wedding. I read an article recently that said the average number of photos taken at a wedding is between 2,000 and 3,000. I use a 32 GB memory card on one of my cameras and an 8 GB on another. Shooting raw files means I can get 586 on the 32 GB card and 296 on the 8 GB card based on the estimated file sizes of each camera. I also read in another article a wedding photographer says they shoot an average of 4,000 photos per wedding. Let’s just think about those numbers for a moment.

If I spent 10 seconds reviewing photographs it would take just over 8 hours to glean 3,000 photographs. That isn’t doing anything with them except reviewing them to ensure they are acceptable. If I kept 2,000 photographs out of 3,000 and spent 5 minutes per photo editing it would take over 166 hours to complete the task! I’ve seen photographers charging $1,000 for a “full day”. Just doing basic math, I’m making less than minimum wage without calculating my expenses!

I’ll have to admit, I’m just about as bad. Last week I went on a photo shoot just for fun. I spent about 4 hours taking photographs and walked away with 296 photos of which I believe 74 were acceptable. Out of the 74 I used 18. Have we become photography machine gunners or are we just in a world where more is better?

I recently noticed when you search for podcasts or photography-related articles a significant percentage of them talk about becoming a professional photographer or increasing your profits as a professional photographer. There are few that just talk about photography in general or focus on hobbyist photography. At one point in my photography journey, I too had the thought of doing photography to make money. It sounded like it would be fun and rewarding while making money doing something fun. My experience quickly taught me that attempting to run a photography business was work. Even if it were a part-time job. There are deadlines, scheduling, collecting payments, marketing and so much more to make it work.

For me, I find that doing photography as a hobby is much more rewarding. I can do what I want when I want, and how I want. The only person to please is me. I do like money and extra money is always good, but I also like to relax and enjoy the world around me. There are times when I take my camera, walk around, and may not take a single picture. I merely spend the time enjoying the world around me, taking in the sights and sounds. What I do take I can process or not based on how I feel today. I don’t have to keep a steady look and feel. I’m free to experiment and try different styles and techniques.

Of course, I may not be like many other people. I spent a number of years in a stress-filled job and I have a source of income based on my years of working. So, even if you are doing photography to make money or earn a living I would also like to suggest that you keep it as a hobby as well. Take time to take photographs just for yourself where you only have to worry about pleasing yourself and no one else.

There is no such thing as a weed. Even Webster defines a weed as a plant not valued where it grows and is usually of vigorous growth. By the same token, I believe there is no such thing as practice for a photographer. To paraphrase Yoda (from the movie “The Empire Strikes Back”), – Do or do not. If you do you are photographing not practicing as you are actually creating photographs. The quality of the resulting photographs may or may not meet your standards or the standards of others but they are photographs nonetheless.

I will say that there is experimentation in photography, where you may try new or different techniques. Similarly, there is no such thing as a weed, I don’t believe there are failed experiments in photography so long as we learn from the experiment. If something was learned the experiment was a success. Additionally, I don’t believe there is a bad day for photography or a bad session for photography. As long as we get out and do it, even if we don’t take a single photograph, the day or session was a success. Why? Because we were out doing our photography. Just because we only got a few or zero photographs we used our minds and our artistic vision to glean out or in what we thought to be worthwhile. It is true that we may have missed something but the mere act of getting out there and looking made the outing successful.

All these new-fangled contraptions are killing photography, back in my day we had to do it the hard way so everyone should have to do it that way or it ain’t real. People can just push a button and call themselves an artist. I often find these types of ideas interesting and I get it. All these new things have the potential to dramatically alter our passions.

Without going in-depth into the history of photography I will give you a brief summary. It is commonly accepted that the beginning of photography was in 1839. Digital photography was introduced in 1975 however the first consumer-available digital camera didn’t appear until 1990. Around that same time, the first version of Photoshop was released. The most recent trend to seemingly appear is artificial intelligence hereafter referred to as A.I. The concept of A.I. has existed since the 1950s but it has more recently come into play in creating works of art.

With the invention of photography, portrait artists believed that it was the end of painting and drawing portraits. With the invention of digital photography, film photographers believed that it was the end of film, and with the invention of programs like Photoshop, photographers believed that was the end of real photography. Then we get writers, more recently bloggers, to write about how these things are killing our beloved to get us angry and generate traffic for the book, magazine, or website to create more revenue for themselves.

This isn’t the end of photography. It’s the beginning of concepts and tools. It’s just different. Yes, there will be some growing pains and there will be those who try to take advantage but, in the end, art and photography will still be here and there will still be a need, just as there is a need for painters to paint portraits and landscapes. Continue to create however you wish, don’t let the talking heads get you angry.

I was recently asked in a survey if I aligned more with my photography work “always has to appear to come from a professional or if good enough was enough”. I’m not like this with everything I do, unfortunately. I always try to do my best, but in many tasks, good enough is good enough.

I can take the photos and do good work then when I get home and the photos are downloaded to the computer they aren’t good enough. I spend time working on the images in post-processing. If I revisit those images months or years later I think, “What the hell. Why did you do that?” Maybe I’m overly critical of my work, but I also hold the work of others to my standards. I have stopped giving unfiltered comments to others.

I understand that many believe that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” but I also believe that some essential traits are commonly recognized as “beauty”, especially in works of art and photography. I work to be better today than I was yesterday. I also work to constantly improve and love to see how others improve. I am not critical of the style of others. I understand that we each have our own styles and preferences.

Let me give you an example. I was reading a forum where several people commented on an overexposed series of photographs. The photographer responded in a rude and condescending manner stating things like, “Maybe, it was done on purpose” or “Just don’t look”. I have heard the old saying, “Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink except our own.” To me, this is a very narcissistic way of thinking. Oftentimes, opinions can be the result of knowledge of a topic. While I create art to fit my own needs I do realize that others may have an opinion on the work. If I’m consistently creating work that no one or few people understand and relate to then I have missed the mark and maybe I should pay attention to the feedback that I have received. Regardless, good enough is never good enough for me and I would encourage you to feel the same way about your own work.