man & nature # 162 ~ even more dancing and singing, singing and dancing
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 11:43AM 
Rainy day evening ~ in the gloaming • click to embiggenThe 2 most favored (by me) compliments I receive about my pictures are:
1. Why'd you take a picture of that?
2. You should spend some time with Photoshop and .... (pick one - add contrast, add saturation, punch up the color ...)
And it's a good thing that they are my favorites because I hear / read both of them quite frequently.
My like of comment # 1 stems from the fact that I rarely answer that question immediately which most often leads the inquisitor to start to try and answer it him/her-self. It's fun and oft times amusing - in a very good way - to hear the mental / emotional process involved in trying to figure it out. In short, the picture in question causes them to think and to question and, above all other responses / reactions to my pictures, that's the one I value most.
As you might deduce, comment # 2 comes from other photographers. Most often from those of the "interpretation" school of picture making which places a high degree of emphasis upon a very "perfect" presentation of an idealized world. My delight in answering this question - immediately and on the spot - stems from the fact that I in fact do spend a lot of time with my pictures in RAW Developer and Photoshop with that time spent towards obtaining results that are biased towards the real as opposed to the ideal. FYI, by "ideal" I mean both the photographic (read as "technical") ideal and the idealized view of the natural world.
Today's picture is a case in point. It was made at the end of a rainy day - there was still a light drizzle in the air - at a time when the light was beginning to fade - the gloaming. I was attracted to the dense and "murky wood" feeling created by the lush foliage and the fading light.
My camera produced a RAW file that, when viewed in RAW Delveloper, had too much contrast and somewhat vivid yellows in the greens. So, the emphasis in my processing (in RD and PS) was devoted to reducing contrast - compressing, not expanding the tonal range - and cleaning up the yellow end of things in order to reveal a wealth of different greens.
I mention this in light of yesterday's entry regarding the interpretive crowd and the nearly universal manner in which they "interpret" the gloaming.
When picturing their most favored referent - the glorious grand landscape at dusk / sunset / sunrise - their love of GNDs (graduated neutral density filters) or its HDR / multi exposure blending equivalent is everywhere and readily apparent. The trademark look is one of dramatic skies, color and saturation amped up to 11 on scale of 1-10, and foregrounds that have the appearance of being lit by a gigantic overhead light box of unimaginable proportions - the net effect of which is to brighten and "open up" the foreground to such an extent that it simply looks and feels totally out of character / relationship to the real thing.
Once again, let me state, more power to them. Do what you have to do to keep your boat afloat.
But here's the thing that I know from 30 years experience of using a handheld 1˚ spot light meter for all of my metering needs, 35mm cameras included. The tonal range found in the gloaming is incredibly short. So short in fact that Saint Ansel ushered in a shooting/processing/printing system for BW picturing that, in part, was directed at "correcting" this natural deficiency for BW picturing.
That's because BW picturing relies on the separation of tonal values, obviously not color, to make things "pop". The "murky wood" found in the gloaming would indeed be very murky in a BW picture if some corrective measure were not employed in the BW picture making process.
But we're not talking BW here, we're talking color. And that's where we have an advantage over our BW brethren. The gloaming is most often filled with a wealth of different colors, subtle color to be sure, but nevertheless color which "naturally" makes things "pop".
But, here's one of my big gripes with the interpretive crowd - the word, "subtle", much less a picturing making practice employing such a concept, is just not part of their program. And, as I mentioned yesterday, this could just fall under the heading of "different strokes for different folks", but, once again, I see it quite differently.
Pictures, as even the interpreters state, are indeed an extension / expression of one's mind, heart, and soul. And, therein is where my real gripe is found - we are culture that is now living with the ravages of the avoidance and sublimation of the reality of the real world. The I-see-myself-in-the-big-car-the-big-house-with-the-big-bucks-and-all-the-big-stuff, living large with the life of an American Idol/Idle (and hopefully living large with The Next Supermodel). Ahhh, yes. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
As a culture / society, we have been living a life based on the-next-big-thing as reflected in the stuff we want, the entertainment we pursue, and the idealized version the lifestyles of the rich and famous we chase - I call it a delusional interpretation of the good life. Enough is never enough. Nothing exceeds like excess.
Here's my point - call it entertainment, call it art, call it just fooling around, but the pictures one makes are a reflection of one's self and are made within and reflect the parameters of the cultural /societal paradigm of the moment. IMO, the pictures that come from the interpretive crowd are both a reflection of and an encouragement for the continuation of a cultural / societal paradigm gone bad.
That is why, aside from my preternatural disposition to do so, I choose to picture "a piles of twigs" - like Robert Adams, I believe "that beauty is commonplace" and that it can be found in the mostly unlikely of places - in the so-called mundane, in the so-called commonplace, in the simplest of places and things that make up everyday life. In fact, beauty can be found in what is, for the overwhelming majority, the very fabric of their everyday life on this planet.
IMO, there is something profoundly wrong with a cultural / societal paradigm that preaches the mantra that the very fabric of our daily life is boring / mundane and must be avoided at all costs. And, because I have been taught that everything you do matters because everything is connected, I don't have much respect for pictures that advance that concept of what is essentially an advanced course in extreme self-loathing.
FYI, my problem with the interpretive school is with it as it is most commonly practiced. Obviously there are some from that school who practice good selection and interpretation without resorting to the wretched visual and pictorial excesses employed by the visually illiterate.
Reader Comments (3)
Mark
Another fine rant. I am with you all the way.
Actually, the first question is "Why did you take a picture of that? Couldn't you [clean it up][throw it away][straighten it] instead?"
Life with a photographer is not always easy.
PS. Have you cut the grass yet?
I appreciate it that you took the time to flesh out your original ideas.In this context I could not agree with you more.