Studying the Masters

Over the years the most common question I have heard in photography workshops is "How do I become a better photographer?"

Depending on the individual this can be a loaded question but taking the question at face value there is one real good starting point. Study the work and words of master photographers. Many photographers are what I call "cowboys," no matter their sex. They think that there is some sort of value in proclaiming that they are self taught. For the most part it just shows their ignorance.

Just recently a nice video clip of one master of photography, Ralph Gibson, came to my attention and it is definitely worth your time to listen and learn.

Too often when trying to have a conversation about photography with a self-proclaimed "serious photographer" I am presented with a blank stare when referencing one of the many master photographers available for the truly serious student of photography to study.

Analogies Help Put Things in Perspective

Listening to computer based image makers that know little about the history of photography always sends me away thinking about ways to help them understand where this new medium will eventually fit in the history annals.There has always been a "pop" side and an "art" side to most art forms. Eastman Kodak insured that the pop side of photography flourished starting with the box camera in the late 1800's. No muss, no fuss, and no thinking about pesky things like the artistic process---just snap, snap, snap.

With the onslaught of computer based (marketing hype says digital) image making devices such as cell phones, iPads, helmet cams, pen cams, and I'm sure somewhere watches comes the completion of Eastman Kodak's original vision of popularizing picture making.

But what of the "art" side. So far computer based images are still a mere echo of true photographic processes. The most recent analogy to come to me is that of comparing a grand piano to an electronic keyboard. After about 40 years of heavy investment in advancing electronic keyboards they can produce sound that is truly unique, yet they do not come close to reproducing the timeless sound of the piano.

So embrace the new medium of computer based imaging for what it is and work towards producing art using this new tool. Don't be caught looking back and trying to mimic a photograph. That is a fools errand!

What's your motivation?

Artists often talk about process, as it is an essential part of everything they do. They sometimes talk about motivation although most of the time only under pressure from outside sources  such as media or publicists. For those embracing an art form on a less formal basis (aka not full time) it is an interesting exercise to ask yourself what drives you to do this work.

On the surface for some this may seem a silly question. "I do it because I like it." "I do it because my friends think it is cool." "It's fun!" These are just a few of the kinds of things you hear from people who engage in photography as a hobby. This is not directed towards that audience but rather towards those for whom photography is closer to their heart. For me photography is an essential part of who I am as a being.

Although the title of this piece includes the word motivation it was meant to incorporate the idea of intent as well. Many life philosophies focus on intention as a necessary precursor to manifestation or in simpler terms your intent or motive will definitely influence your results. Time for a quote:

"My motivation is simple.

To be additive. I wish in some small way to bend the collective human narrative towards the positive.

To inspire untold (even to me) small leaps of faith that germinate and grow in people I will never know.

To make music that makes people feel connected & less alone. That inspires people to face life and even if they fail to do so with dignity. --- Brian Transeau from btmusic.com"

Photography can do all of this as well. I encourage you to embrace an intent to inspire and connect to those that view your work. It is not a small thing.

Two Paths Diverge...

As the "new car smell" wears off of so-called digital photography, some early questions are being answered.  First and foremost is that it has not ended the use of film. Indeed, in some academic circles it has only elevated film-based photography to the art department.
But the most recent shift that is of interest is the shift away from the traditional use of a photographic image to produce prints towards reproduction on purely digital platforms. That is, HDTV and LCD displays. When you step back from the hype and think about it, it just plain makes sense. Photographs have always looked best when used within the "system" that they were designed for. Print film always produced the best prints. Slides always looked best projected. Now digital is growing up and finding its natural home on digital devices.
Some early adopters of this new medium got that right away, it has just taken the rest of the world some time to get past the marketing slogans and settle into the medium. With HDTV sets and related audio-visual devices all having moved into the digital world it is very easy to just pop the memory card out of the camera and show your friends your latest adventures. The best news is that since these devices were designed to work together, your photos look their very best.
Want to share with friends? There is the now old fashioned email and photo web-site or just pop open your latest masterpiece on your high resolution cell phone. Who needs those pesky wallet photos that grandpa used to carry around?
Want to display on the mantel or wall? High resolution LCD display panels now come complete with a choice of frames.
But to truly showcase your work, plug that memory card into that big HDTV in the living room and sit back with the remote to put on a proper show. Most of these sets have a far greater dynamic range and richer color than any printer can produce. So those of you stuck in the stone age making prints, come on into the twenty first century! After all, paper prints are so very analog!
(PS: Don't forget to calibrate!)

Digital Paradox?

A recent event pushed me back into thinking (again!) about the entire discussion surrounding the use of computer based tools in photography. Some like to refer to this change in medium to the "digital revolution" while those somewhat less inclined to hyperbole politely describe it as an extension to the tool set. In fact it is neither, computers have been invading our lives continually since their first serious use in the 1940's. Photography is just the latest aspect of common human endeavor to become computerized.

First let's get rid of the notion that digital is something new. Mammals have had digits since their inception hundreds of millions of years ago. The word digital is purely marketing hype as those Wall Street geniuses were sure that trying to sell computerized cameras or e-cameras would not fly. They knew that the average consumer was a little computer phobic and they had to avoid "selling it like it is." That is, a camera that is a peripheral to a computer, just like a printer or a scanner.

Which brings me back to the event that triggered this discussion. I scanned a tube of glue and e-mailed the picture to my daughter. Her response was that she liked the photograph. Being the traditionalist that I am, my first response was that I needed to e-mail her back and clarify that this was not a photograph but a scan. Then it struck me. A computer scanner has a lens, a light sensor, and records a photographic image in binary (aka 0's and 1's) exactly like the so-called digital camera. It also has some chips that interpret and massage the incoming signals (light) before sending them on to my computer for storage. In fact the only fundamental difference between a scanner and a digital camera is portability.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that digital photography is nothing more than the next evolutionary step from film to a electronic sensor point out to them that a digital camera is nothing more than a computer peripheral. Computers have always been about inputs and outputs, zeros and ones, and none of that has changed from the day they first were created. Embrace the machine!