man & nature # 59 ~ photographers suck

Weeds, golf course, mountains, and moon • click to embiggenHere's a hint of things to come tomorrow -

The more I think about it, the more I realize that talking to photographers bores me to death. Watching photographers look at my pictures makes we want to whack them upside the head. I have arrived at a point where I want nothing to do with photographers.

To be precise, I am much more interested in artists who use photography.

And, apropos of nothing germane, there's this from the comedian Stephen Wright:

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

Update on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 10:55AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote: "... I think there's a problem of language here: photographers as a group seem to have an ambivalent relationship with the term artist. Perhaps to many of them it sounds too pretentious or soft or vague or unserious ....

my response: The opposite of what you mention is also quite true - many of the pictures makers I know are very uncomfortable with the tag "photographer" for themselves. Their reluctance to be so labeled is the fear that they might be thought of in the manner of those gear/ techno / technique photographers who tend to grind out an endless stream of pretty and primarily meaningless pictures.

man & nature # 58 ~ hope springs eternal

A sign of things to come # 2 • click to embiggenWeekends on The Landscapist are normally quite quiet. I have learned that making weekend entries that call for a response of any kind is pretty much a lost cause.

Consequently, I have decided that on weekends I will post pictures that I have been meaning to post but, for one reason or another having nothing to do with their "artistic" merits, they have ended up un-posted. These pictures will be posted without any kind of involved commentary from me on the medium of photography.

What I hope might happen is that these "leftovers" might generate some comments on the pictures themselves.

man & nature # 57 ~ a ghost of meaning

Soft, muted, and thick air • click to embiggenI mentioned yesterday that today's picture, the 4th in series of on or around a golf course pictures, was most likely my favorite of the bunch. And, after looking at it longer, I definitely have come to that conclusion.

Admittedly, a significant part of the reason for why I feel this way is very personal - the picture was taken at the end of a round of golf with 3 generations of Hobsons - The Cinemascapist, my grandson, Hugo, and myself - a fact that in and of itself attaches much personal meaning to this picture.

That said, though, the afternoon was very overcast, not with dense cloud cover, but rather with a "thick", moist, and semi-opaque air. It was a very still air, a fact that contributed to an almost eerie calmness to the landscape. Everything - the light, color, sound - took on an uncommon subtle and muted quality. A kind of gentle stillness permeated everything and reached into the core of my awareness.

I don't know if this sense of stillness and "thick" air comes across to the average observer of this picture but, for me this picture will forever hold memories of a delightful afternoon with family (or, more accurately, part thereof) played out against a sublime backdrop of the serenity of the world of nature.

Isn't it interesting that I chose a landscape picture, totally devoid of family members, by which to remember this day?

man & nature # 56 ~ the whole picture

A visual treat on the golf course • click to embiggenI must admit to spending a little more time on the golf course recently, due in part to the fact that, by Nov. 1 and with only 1 exception, there will be no more golf to be had in these here parts.

Unlike most years past, the late season golf this year has been invitingly warm and pleasant, weather-wise, which makes getting out and walking the courses a very tempting proposition. That said, and because of the weather, there have been picturing opportunities aplenty every time I hit the links. It's been rather amazing. Counting today's picture, the last 3 entries feature on or around a golf course pictures. Tomorrow's picture, quite possibly my favorite of the bunch, will be one as well.

In each of these pictures, unlike most of my pictures, the light is an integral part of the scene. I don't think that it can be said that the light is what these pictures are all about by any means but the light is "featured" in a manner that I don't normally pursue. Nevertheless, even for someone like myself who is definitely not a light stalker, it is impossible to be out and about with a camera as a permanent appendage and not encounter "golden light".

Once again, to be honest, I do try to make pictures that have golden light as a "featured" element in a manner that is different from the normative manner which, IMO, is all about the light.

It would have been very easy in the case of today's picture to have slapped on a long lens and isolated a part (one of several possibilities) of the scene that was all aglow with golden light, flaming reds, and a hint of the purple mountain majesty. Throw in a little "Velvia"-like post-picturing processing and the result would have undoubtedly been a hit for those who salivate at the photographic sight of nature so caricatured.

However, I much prefer to see the golden light, flaming reds, and purple mountain majesty in the context of the greater scene. IMO, by utilizing that method of "isolating" those elements, their uniqueness is both highlighted and combined within the greater scope of the scene to create an infinitely better and more complex sense of place.

And it is that better and more complex sense of place that my eye and sensibilities crave and seek.

man & nature # 55 ~ working with and improving the hand you are dealt

End of the season plants • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, Mauro commented: "About the picture. I like this one a lot. What always strikes me is your dark tones management. If it does not offend you can I ask for some elaborations on that?"

To be honest, I am at a loss as to how to answer that question but, if you bear with me, I'll give it a shot.

For the most part, my picturing has always been biased towards dark tones. Over the years I have probably developed a dark-tone strategy when it comes to making and processing (analog and digital) my pictures but that process has been developed so gradually and incrementally that I can't really articulate it very succinctly.

In the digital domain, I usually look at my in-camera LEVELS dialog feature after making an exposure to be certain that I am not clipping the lower end of the tonal range, just as I do for the top end as well. On occasion I make a second exposure to protect the highlight end of things, which I later blend into my finished file.

It's worth noting that I primarily use Olympus cameras. Their sensors reach a bit deeper into the low end of the tonal range (which may be why they tend to clip at the upper end of the tonal range) than most other manufacturer's sensors. This tends to give me a little more information to work with in the dark tones.

Re: working with dark tones (in Photoshop) - I do all of my tonal adjustments in LAB color space using the LIGHTNESS channel. LAB color space separates the luminosity (lightness) values of the image from the color values of the image. The result is that tonal adjustments effect only the luminosity of the image and not the color. My tonal adjustments to the dark tones are almost always aimed at creating a slight increase in contrast.

FYI, I do all of my "heavy duty" sharpening on the LIGHTNESS channel in LAB color space as well - doing so virtually eliminates the color fringing artifacts that occur when sharpening in RGB color space. Consequently, if desired or needed, you can apply higher levels of sharpening (without ill effects) in LAB than you can in RGB.

I often isolate the dark tones of an image to work on them separately from mid and high values. Depending upon the image, I may simply use the lasso tool to create a feathered selection around the dark tones or, if the dark tones are not all in one area, I use the SELECT > COLOR RANGE > SHADOWS method of selecting the dark tones (I then feather the selection).

On more "difficult" images and working in RGB color space, I select the dark tones (using one of the aforementioned methods) and the make a new layer from the selected areas. I then set the blending of that layer to SCREEN. This always results in making the dark tones way too bright. So, using CURVES, I drag the lower end of the curve down until the dark tones start to look "correct". Even then they tend still be a bit too bright, so I use the layer OPACITY slider to adjust the amount of blending until I have the desired result.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT - Tonal adjustments on dark tones must be made with a very subtle touch - dependent upon many factors, there is the risk / probability of emphasizing any noise that may be inherent in the file.

A little bit of noise reduction in the dark tone areas may be needed after making tonal adjustments. Even though this may soften the dark tone details every so subtly. That, in fact, is how I like my dark tones to look because the human eye does not see the same level of detail in the dark as it does in the light.

It helps a lot to have reasonably accurate monitor calibration.

It should also be noted that none of this is an exact science. Every image is different, and therefore every image requires a different approach to making dark tone adjustments. Trail and error is the only way to work this out for yourself and your images.

So, there you have it. Without having you sit next to me while I work on an image, that's the best I can do.

Now if each of you will send me $125 for the workshop, we'll be all square.

man & nature # 55 ~ work with the hand that you are dealt, pt. 2

A no-memory card memory • click to embiggenWe have been enjoying one of several Indian Summers that have come our way this Fall and this past weekend was part of one of them. So, with the wife away raising hell with some Georgetown U. roommates / friends, I thought that I'd get out for a quick wilderness overnight hike.

Upon hearing of the idea, Aaron (The Cinemascapist) said that he and the family would like to go along as well. And so it was. The weather was grand with sunny skies, 60 degree daytime (mid-30s nighttime) temps, an almost full moon with a clear sky, and, together with a setting on a large wilderness pond surrounded by glorious Autumn color, it made for a very swell time.

Indeed, it was nearly perfect except for the fact that I carried the "pack light" rule of backpacking a little bit too far. Not intentionally though - I just flat out forgot to put a memory card in my camera. That's the modern version of snapping away like crazy in the good 'ole days of film until you realize that the film just keeps on advancing, and advancing, and advancing, and ....... until eventually it dawns on your that you did not load a 2000 exposure roll of film into your camera.

S**t!

FYI, it's also worth noting that The Cinemascapist never carries a camera unless he's out cinemascaping.

So, in any event, and in keeping with Bertrand Russell's statement ...

Memory demands an image.

... I present you with today's picture.

Update on Monday, October 13, 2008 at 11:43AM by gravitas et nugalis

Hugo's first wilderness experience • click to embiggenMauro wrote: "... Compliments to the kid ... how old is he?

my response: Hugo just turned 4. He's been wilderness trekking with Grandpa since our first boy's-only (just he and me) solo canoe adventure when he was 11 months old.

He certainly doesn't remember that trip but at least he has "real" pictures to remember it by.

Update on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 10:58AM by gravitas et nugalis

Frank Armstrong (amongst others) noted: "HA! You, too."

my response: I am certain we are not alone. It's worth noting that, had I decided to take my Pentax K20D instead of my Olympus E-3, I would not have been caught in this situation. The Pentax, which uses SD cards, has a slot for an extra card in the battery grip. That's a great idea and, yes, I do keep an extra card in there, And, yes, I have had to rely on its availability - once, and only once.

man & nature # 54 ~ work with the hand that you are dealt

10/10/08 - on the ferry to Vermont • click to embiggen The wife and I took the ferry to Vermont late yesterday to have diner with my brother and his wife. The weather couldn't have been better - clear, warm, and breezy. And, as you can see in the pictures, the light was nice as well.

Ah, yes - the light.

I have frequently quoted Brooks Jensen's (of LensWork magazine) opinion about light:

There is no such thing as "good" light or "bad" photographic light. There is just light.

I tend, for the most part, to agree with this sentiment. However, in the realm of landscape photography, it would seem that there are plenty who beg to differ, as is evidenced by both their words and their pictures. As Charlie Waite has opined (caveat - I am not picking on Waite, I just happen to have recently come across some of quotes that, for me, are fodder for critical discussion):

... The light is going, it's beauty is there for no more than a few seconds, it is fading before your eyes, and you cannot ignore it.

He, of course, is not alone in this dogmatic ideology - the notion of "perfect" photographic light. A quick look around the web will reveal such labels as "Light Stalkers" and "Light Chasers" to name just a few of the bands of those for whom "perfect" light is a near fetish. For them, the term "perfect light" means primarily just one thing - sensational, dramatic, and color-drenched light. And, most often, light that can be "pumped up" to levels of color, saturation, and contrast that quite frankly stretch the idea of photography as cohort with the real to the breaking point.

These light stalkers believe that "light" is what photography is all about. On the most elemental level of the medium's mechanics that is true - we are all recording light on a light-sensitive surface. Without light of some kind, there are no photographs. IMO, however, quite a few of them are recording only one narrow spectrum of the light that is available to record.

Does this mean that I believe that any quality of light is suitable for any kind of subject? No, not at all.

Light - both natural and artificial - can be used by the picture maker to great advantage. For portraiture, as an example, soft light is most often the "kindest" light to use. For picture making where fine detail and texture is the point, a hard or more contrasty light is most often more revealing. However, there are exceptions to every lighting "rule" no matter what the subject at hand.

For me and to my eye and sensibilities, when it comes to picturing the landscape - either "pure" or with elements of humankind - I am neither addicted to the light nor am I a drama queen. I venture forth into the real world that is all around me in all kinds of light and weather and, as I have explained many times, just look at and picture whatever speaks to me at the time and the place in which I find myself.

Why do I take this approach? It's simple really - I believe that the landscape is so much more than just a pretty background to life. Our relationship to and with it, in all of its many guises, moods, and manifestations, defines what we will "make" of it and, ultimately, what we are able to make of our lives on this planet. Consequently, I believe that "getting real" is the best way to see it.

So, for me, when it comes to picturing the landscape, the light just is.

man & nature # 53 ~ "that rare fulfilling joy" nonsense

Another roadside attraction • click to embiggenEvery once in awhile, you run across some "words of wisdom" from a photographer that are really quite good. But, upon further investigation of his/her pictures, the ideas expressed in words do not match those ideas expressed in their pictures.

More than anything, this points up the differences in interpretation individuals can arrive at from reading (and pondering) the same set of words. Not to mention the differences in interpretation individuals can arrive at from the viewing (and pondering) the same picture.

Case in point - IMO, this quote from Charlie Waite perfectly describes some my feelings about the picture which accompanies this entry:

I often think of that rare fulfilling joy when you are in the presence of some wonderful alignment of events. Where the light, the colour, the shapes, and the balance all interlock so perfectly that I feel truly overwhelmed by the wonder of it.

Apparently though, Waite and I have differing event-horizons of being "truly overwhelmed by the wonder of it". He states that ...

Sometimes - and it is of course a rarity, something to be treasured and remembered - a landscape becomes in front of your eyes everything you ever hoped a landscape could be.

...whereas, IMO, I think that that confluence of events - [W]here the light, the colour, the shapes, and the balance all interlock so perfectly - is far less a rarity than a common occurrence and that there are many daily so-called commonplace somethings "to be treasured and remembered". Or, if not "treasured", at the very least, something to which attention can be directed.

If you take the time to look at some Waite's work, it becomes very obvious where we part ways especially on the idea of "rarity". His pictures deal almost exclusively with the "grand" and the romantically picturesque landscape, all of which are pictured and presented - exceedingly well, I might add - with all of the traditional (and ubiquitous) camera club motifs of form, subject, light, composition, etc.

IMO, if achieving such results are your goal, then the circumstances that trigger your picturing impulses will indeed be a "rarity". More's the pity.

Consider this from Weegee:

Many photographers live in a dream world of beautiful backgrounds. It wouldn’t hurt them to get a taste of reality to wake them up. Anyone who looks for life can find it… and they don’t need to photograph ashcans. The average camera fan reminds me of Pollyanna, with a lollypop in one hand and a camera in the other.