man & nature # 109/10 ~ the way it is
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 09:13AM 
Late day Spring light on birch • click to embiggenSo, it's on with the get real-comments-have-generated - at-least-in-my-mind - enough-fodder-for-a-week's-worth-of-topics show.
In this case, it's Paul the-resident-contrarian Maxim's comment:
Before you get upset, I'm not in any way denigrating you work. Much of it, in my opinion, is very, very good. But your style tends to keep contrast and color saturation very flat. If that's reality for you, then that's the way it should be ... If you think you have something to say photographically, it might not be a bad idea to include a little punch in your images just to get that initial attention ... just a little "zap" can't hurt, can it?
First things first regarding the contrast and color saturation in my pictures - without sounding like I am trying to make excuses, it's very accurate to state that, I can not begin to vouch for the contrast and color saturation in my pictures that Paul (or anyone else) is seeing on their computer screens. There are so many variables that go into seeing accurate contrast/color/saturation in a web browser on a computer screen that the phrase "technical tower of babble" springs to mind.
Assuming that one has made at least a passing attempt to calibrate his/her monitor and that a photog has posted a picture that conforms to web contrast/color/saturation (so-called) standards, the best a viewer of online pictures can hope for is a reasonable approximation of an original print. I use the phrase, "original print", because, with my pictures, that's where the rubber (paper?) meets the road as far as contrast/color/saturation is concerned.
Consequently, I take any/all comments re: the contrast/color/saturation of my pictures made from viewing my pictures online with a rather large lump of salt.
That said, I am not surprised that Paul judges my pictures to be lacking in the "punch" department and that's not just because he is The Landscapist's Resident Contrarian. Rather, his perception would mostly likely stem from 2 conditions:
1) He, like most amateur photogs, has been feed a steady diet - online photo sites, in photo periodicals, mass-market picture books, and how-to-master _______ (pick a genre) photo books, in printed and broadcast media of all kinds - of, to be kind, "punchy" pictures. Pictures regarding which it has been stated that they are from:
...a school of slick, sensationalized "creative" photography that has saturated the public consciouness of the medium for the past quarter century .... many photographers ... consider visual and/or sentimental excesses as keys to expressivity ... their lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations...they burden it (photographs) with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seeks out the "spirit of fact", they assume the role of God's art director making his immannence unequivical and protrusive. ~ Sally Eauclaire, from her book, The New Color
Now, I'll leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether to "assume the role of God's art director" is a good, bad, or "neutral" thing, but, no matter how you chew it, the basic tenet of the preceding notion is reasonably accurate - "sensationalized "creative" photography ... has saturated the public consciouness of the medium for the past quarter century". The only correction that I would add is to change "past quarter century" to "past half century" since the book was produced in the early 80s.
And, 2) - In my digital darkroom, I strive to mimic the look of traditional color negative film. What that means is that, unlike transparency film (or prints made from it), the contrast/tonal characteristics are "soft" or "gentle" in nature and color/saturation is quite "natural". Color negative films - specifically those that do not sport a "UC" (Ultra Color) or some such nomenclature, are a paragon of subtlety and restraint when it comes to contrast/color/saturation.
The resultant look is one that is most prized in the Art World, Photography Division and much shunned in the camera-club / photography-as-decoration world. If Paul where interested in seeing examples of such Art World pictures, he has only to venture down the street of his hometown to the George Eastman House to see some spectacular prints.
Now, all of that said, I would also have to state that I spend a great deal of time and expend a great deal of effort in my digital darkroom adjusting my pictures for contrast, color, and saturation. Curves, Adjustment Layers, Luminescence Masks, multiple-exposure merging, and localized contrast/color/saturation techniques are all used on nearly every image I process. The fact that very little of this "manipulation" is readily apparent to anyone other than those with a lot of experience with such techniques is exactly my objective.
But here's the heart of the matter - the contrast/color/saturation look of my pictures is dictated by both my subject and the conditions in which I picture. I strive mightily to picture and present things as faithfully / accurately to the "original" as possible.
What that means is that if it was a grey overcast (low contrast) day, I want my pictures to reflect exactly that because I am trying to portray a sense of place as it exists in my environment - not a sense of place as dictated by camera-club / photography-as-decoration "standards" of "punch", maximum contrast / tonal range, or idealized color / saturation - a "standard" which reduces every environment to a ubiquitous photographic "sameness".
It also means that if my subject has a truncated tonal range limited to the darker end of the tonal spectrum, then that's what I want it to look like in my pictures. The forest in my neck of the woods has it own unique color palette that derives not only from the variety of the local flora and fauna but also from the quality of light found here at different times of the year.
All of those things are different from what I would expect to find and see in other parts of the world and that local visual identity is what I am attempting to picture, not some "idealized" me-assuming-the-role-of-God's-art-director version of things.
Case in point #1 - amongst other adjustments, today's pictures required a slight reduction in saturation and a slight warm-tones color adjustment (less warm). The pictures "required" these measures because; 1) I took specific notice of the quality of light as it existed (sure, that depends upon my color perception and memory but my entire professional life has revolved around getting color right so I have no hesitation in stating that my perception and memory in this area are well above average), and, 2) I know from doing direct comparison tests - picturing my decay stuff, leaving it in place, opening the files, and comparing the results as displayed on my well-calibrated monitor to the actual stuff - that my camera sensor and its attendant color engine tend to produce somewhat "hot" reds / yellows / oranges. So, I adjust accordingly. It's not a perfect process, but it is an informed one.
Case in point #2 - as I mentioned yesterday, I will visiting Tuscany later this year and I expect - actually, I know - that the quality of light and color of the natural world will be very different from that found in my home stomping grounds. The other thing I know is that I fully expect my pictures of Tuscany to be very different in their contrast/color/saturation qualities from my Adirondack pictures. And, I would not want it any other way.
Finally, let me address Paul's other statement, re: my pictures vs. those of "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers":
Given the choice ... I would say that most people will be pulled in by the other guy's stuff. Most of all, they want to see contrast in an image.
No doubt about it. But, at the risk of sounding like an Eastern-pointy-headed-intellectual-commie-pinko-socialist-faggot-art-snob-wine-swilling elitist, I really don't care about how "most people" view my pictures. I'm not making them for them.
I'm doing it for myself and for the many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen few who are interested in the "real" and hints and glimpses of the "true" - aka, the aforementioned "spirit of fact".
Reader Comments (4)
Amen, "doing it for myself" that says it all, you have to please no one but yourself.
I find the light in Australia the most radically different when I look at photographs from that region that haven't been 'pumped and dumped'
To the point that I'm fairly accurate at telling the region based on that light quality. I wish I was adept enough to actually articulate what it is about it. I suppose I should be happy to at least be at a point where I'm attuned enough to even notice it. When you are there it looks different and that comes across in the photos too.
Once again, hard to know where to start. Sometimes one has to wonder if your rambling comments are intentional; if you throw in enough crap, maybe everybody will give up and let you have your way.
Let's start with the easy stuff (we'll call it the "Smear Campaign" portion). First, like most self respecting "amateurs", I regularly calibrate my monitor, mostly because I do a fair amount of printing (on an Epson 2400). Assuming an image on my monitor looks the way it was intended to look, I'm reasonably confident that it would print close to what I'm seeing. If anything, the print will be even less "contrasty" than what the monitor indicates, even if I'm using a glossy type paper. A backlit screen is always going to appear to have more contrast than frontlit paper.
Second, you have absolutely no idea what my "steady diet" of photographic reading material (online or otherwise) consists of. Hell, I look at your site almost daily - what does that tell you about my "artistic sensibilities"? The implication, of course, is that somehow along the way I've been brainwashed into believing that the Fuji Velvia approach to photography is the one true religion. Nonsense. It's a smear tactic - nothing less. And believe it or not, I know the difference between color negative and transparency film. Quite frankly, many of your images look like neither. You are right about one thing, however. Aside from the vignetting, there's absolutely no clue that your images have seen the inside of Photoshop or any other editing software.
What I really take issue with, though, is the sanctimonious declaration that "I really don't care about how 'most people' view my pictures. I'm not making them for them". And then that "I'm doing it....for the chosen few who are interested in the 'real'".
Well, there you have it folks. Mark's stuff is not intended to reach most of us "regular amateurs". His is a higher calling. If you don't worship at the altar of the "real" and "true", then you can't possibly grasp the meaning of his images. But if you do, and if you're called by the sirens of "be true to yourself and please only yourself", then maybe you might be blessed with divine insight.
Talk about "Horse Pucky" with a capital H. Sadly, people actually buy this crap. Doing it only for yourself, or the "chosen few" who might appreciate you work, seems to be a prerequisite for conferring the title of ARTIST on yourself. Anyone who seeks a general audience (of amateurs and other unwashed souls) isn't worthy of the title. They're selling out for a few pieces of silver.
Well, as P. T. Barnum once said, "There's one born every minute....and they usually live".
Mark, define "real." Or are your images, like mine, an attempt to do just that? That is, not a photograph of the "real", but an effort to give your "reality" some substance for you (us) to reflect on?