|
Some personal views concerning what makes photography an
important and interesting pursuit and how to exploit your equipment and talent.
All to be taken
with a grain of salt.
The most popular photographic objective is probably the collection of visual
memorabilia documenting family events and vacation experiences. The product is
a nice album of 4 x 6 photos or, perhaps, a web/TV slideshow presentation. This can be a
highly expressive art in its own right if you have ever
seen a well-prepared photo scrapbook or on-line slideshow.
Some also aspire to the production of images that more broadly encourage an
emotional reaction, express a personal interpretation of what comprises the
essence of a visual subject or which convey a unique and memorable combination
of themes, forms and colors. These are the sorts of photographs that might end
up as large prints hanging on a wall, entered in a competition or presented in
some other type of formal setting.
A prerequisite to success in any art is the mastery of some mechanical
process or technology. For the musician it includes the unerring ability to
strike the right notes and keep time. For the painter it is the ability to
create forms and colors with brush and oils. The writer must know how to spell
(or, at least, how to use a spelling checker),
construct sentences that make sense and (these days) operate a word
processor. After learning all this comes the expression of what's special - the
artist's unique vision, interpretation, opinion and application of values but - without
a foundation of technical skills progress and achievement are limited.
And so it is with photography. There is a widespread notion the photographer does not need to know much about the process and that
the camera does all the work. For snapshooting and casual
photography this is true, just as almost anyone can learn to play chopsticks on
a piano. Those aspiring to make compelling photographs should read Ansel
Adams's "Camera and Lens - The Creative Approach" to appreciate the
significance of
craft in controlling the photographic expression of visual experience.
Tour the Internet photographic Forums and you will discover how few are
ready to undertake the effort and acquire the experience needed to
obtain an understanding of the importance and effects of depth of field,
exposure, color balance, saturation, accurate focus, position, time of day,
composition, form and color on what they hope to produce. The automatic
settings of modern cameras are extremely helpful but for best results you
must recognize when to intervene. To produce predictable results you will have
to do some work - become intimately familiar with equipment capabilities and
shortcomings, learn how to control all the photographic parameters and predict
the outcome, experiment and cultivate the humility to learn from
those who are better.
"Anything worth looking at is probably worth photographing". This
statement by a truly gifted photographer whose work I admire perfectly expresses the essence of the photographic "eye". The
creative photographer has acquired or been blessed with the ability almost
automatically to view the world in terms of memorable images. Ordinary objects
and scenes constantly reveal to the analytical eye and curious mind interesting
themes, shapes, combinations of color and tones which, if properly selected,
framed and captured by the camera will result in striking visual impressions. A
visit to the Grand Canyon will provide an abundance of great views but the
observant artist will find as much to share in the backyard, a local park or the
kitchen. There is no shortage of interesting subjects if you learn how to look.
In a sense, the subject itself is often unimportant.
Learn to pick the right time for making great photographs. There are many who
think high-noon is best because the light is so good. This is
actually the worst time of day for most photography. Shadows are
filled with a ghastly blue haze from the sky. There is way too much contrast.
Human portrait subjects are squinting irritably in the glare and their skin
tones are cadaverous. The noon hours are best for lunch and a nap. The really
interesting light develops in the early morning hours, late afternoon and
evening. Noel Coward observed that "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday
sun". He could have added "too many photographers" to that list. For some reason, digital is
very good at making the best of dismal lighting and color which, in film days,
would have ruled out attempting anything. Overcast, rain and other seemingly
poor conditions often yield exquisite results. Furthermore, such conditions
are especially congenial to snapshooter type cameras and super-zooms with their limited
dynamic range (more on this elsewhere).
When it comes to wildlife photography, review your personal habits and put
yourself in the place of creatures having every reason to doubt your
intentions. The
photographer who thrashes about the woods like an enraged wildebeest (often in
the chattering company of others) will never see any birds unless it is for the
brazen magpie or domestic pigeon. Settle down quietly somewhere and curiosity will
soon draw out even the most timid denizens of tree or pond. Consider a visit to
the zoo. It's surprising what variety of wildlife you can find there and I don't
mean what's in the cages. The captives (birds especially) act as
decoys and many wild species difficult to approach in their natural habitat will
forage comfortably along the pathways.
The composition of a photographic image is the essence of its appeal.
Good composition provides an image with structure as opposed to a random
collection of objects, thereby drawing
attention and inviting repeated viewing. By selection of viewpoint, framing and
scale (among other things) the photographer
chooses and positions the principal elements of his subject material in such a
way that they will
naturally attract and guide the viewer toward an appreciation of the key visual
theme he has perceived.
We all know about the "rule of thirds" wherein an image is divided into
thirds both vertically and horizontally. The photographer then endeavors to
locate the principle elements of the subject near the intersection points or
coincident with the third-way lines. This is probably better than leaving things
to chance but lazy observance yields
predictability and a sense of contrived order. The rule of thirds has become so
entrenched and over-used that some of the most effective photographs
succeed by deliberately breaking it. Experiment. Fortunately, our digital
cameras invite experimentation at no cost in materials and without the obstacle
to creativity of having to wait two weeks to see the results. We can explore new territory with ease
and with the supportive stimulus of instant feedback.
Consider the photograph on
this page. It
might not be a prize winner but it's interesting just the same. The
compositional rule there might be "All the same but no two alike" which
has nothing whatsoever to do with "thirds". On the contrary, the image
significantly relies for its appeal on the somewhat disconcerting fact
there isn't any obvious structure (nor any possible). The theme
stands out on its own. There are probably as many "rules of composition"
as there are combinations of factors that make something visually
interesting. The trick is to minimize distractions and enhance the
dominance of those eye-catching factors.
Effective composition may include elements that deliberately suggest
non-visual sensations. For example, a very sharp image revealing fine
detail can evoke an almost tactile impression of wood, stone and other
materials having an abundance of fine-scale structure. On his site Ken
Rockwell emphatically insists that sharpness is only a distraction and
has nothing to do with great photographs. Nevertheless, most of his
photographs are very sharp indeed, as are those of most photographers
with a reputation for fine work. Sharpness is by no means essential to
all compositions but in many instances it acts as a visual "magnet",
capturing the attention of the eye and drawing the viewer into the
image. If sharpness is a distraction then why not color, form or
contrast? We could get very silly with this, telling people to avoid
this, that or the other thing when, in fact, all attributes of
a photographic subject have the potential for contributing to the
creation of a great image. Decide for yourself on a case by case basis
what things are distractions and which are essential. You risk losing
what might be unique about your work if you take too much advice.
There's obsession these days with very wide-angle views and lenses.
Wide-angle is great for landscapes but one of the most
distressing compositional flaws is being too distant from the subject and/or
including too much distracting and irrelevant material. The legendary
photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson said: "If your pictures
aren't good enough, you're not close enough". Great advice. Even for scenery the
short telephoto lens is sometimes the best choice. Of course, you can crop a cluttered image later but this will cause loss of
detail. It's always better to compose properly within the viewfinder. "Less is
more" is a photographic rule deserving much more attention than it gets.
Examine images by acknowledged
artists (photographic and otherwise). Study the choice and placement of critical elements to determine why their
pictures are so appealing. No one wants to be a mimic but there is value in
concentrating on the methods of someone whose work you especially admire
and forming some of your initial approach on that style while developing your own.
Great cinematographers are what they are, in part, because of their knack for
composition so don't hesitate looking to well-filmed movies for insights into
what makes an image compelling and memorable.
It is said that what distinguishes the professional photographer from the
amateur (apart from the former making his living at photography) is a
recognizable body of work characterized by the photographer's unique personal
imprint. There is an analogy in music. Someone who has taken an informed
interest in the subject will almost instantly be able to identify the composer
of a work even if he has never heard it before. Much advice is impossible in
this area but it seems likely you will evolve a recognizable style by narrowing
your interest - specializing to some degree. Some will find action photography
more to their liking while for others it is landscape, wildlife or portraiture.
Clarity and precision might partially characterize one person's work whereas the
appeal of another's could derive, in part, from the subtle rendition of tones
and color. Some specialization makes for more efficient skills development while
avoiding certain subjects or techniques encourages discipline in making a
photographic statement without feeling you must do everything. A good
example is traditional black and white photography using large format film
equipment. Here the photographer eschews all the conveniences of auto-focus,
portability or even a viewfinder to concentrate on rendering the impression of
pure form, texture, light and shadow. To this photographer, color is a
distraction. You might not agree with that sort of bleak asceticism but there is
no denying the compelling drama and power of fine B&W images.
You will notice many variations on this theme. Some photographers
avoid all (or most) post-processing and others stick with film. There
are studio photographers who cannot understand the appeal of available
light photography. There are underwater enthusiasts and aviation
fanatics. Despite (or, perhaps, because of) these differing visions
concerning what makes a great photograph, you will find fine photographs
being made in the context of all these and many other specializations.
What we choose to photograph - and how - is ultimately an expression of
personality. In this we are each unique.
Despite the helpfulness of good equipment and the importance of technique it is a
sad mistake to fret over
technology. The "pixel-peeper", constantly looking for imaging defects or poring over his resolution charts
with a powerful German magnifier ends up wallowing in a
fetid swamp of doubts and misgivings because, of course, there is no such
thing as perfection. Go looking for trouble and you will surely find it. The
pixel-peeper spends his time reading reviews and debates, agonizing
over his purchases (or finding vindication if he is lucky) and may never
move on to taking some pictures others might want to look at. He may
even become a "brand hopper" (the delight of sales-people), buying the latest
and greatest, according to the advice of the pundit most recently managing to
inflame his insecurities.
By contrast there are snapshooters with
2 megapixel shirt-pocket boxes who, having come to understand the limitations
while exploiting the simple virtues these units have to offer, consistently capture
images I find fascinating even though they might not enlarge well. Mastery of craft is vital to creating the finest work and hi-tech tools
are very helpful but there is no substitute for real talent and for taking the time
and effort to see what is
beautiful, essential or otherwise important about a subject others might treat
with in a trivializing way or overlook entirely.
My own talent is unexceptional but striving always to do better is sometimes
the most enjoyable part of the photographic experience.
My wish in building this site is that visitors will find something, small
though it may be, that contributes to their enjoyment of photography as a
creative way of sharing their view of the world.
Back to top
of page
|