Double Door
ISO 400 ----- 42mm ----- f7.1 ----- 1/30
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Northwood Playground Project
A few months ago, in the rural New Hampshire town of Northwood, a small group of concerned local citizens got together and decided that the town needed a public playground. There is a playground at the school, but it's not available to the town's young children and their parents when school is in session. This is when the Northwood Playground Project was formed.
If you live in Northwood or the surrounding area, the calendar should be a fixture in your home. If you don't live in Northwood, it's still a great calendar and you get to help out a fantastic cause. The price for this calendar is only $20 (plus $3 First Class shipping anywhere in the continental United States. For international shipping, please email for rates), with 45% of the gross sales going to the Northwood Playground Project.
Also, if you live in the area and would like to advertise in the calendar there are still some spots available, ranging from $25 for a business card ad in the "Year at a Glance" section, $25 to sponsor the day of your choice, $50 for a half banner on one of the months, and $100 for a full banner on a month. ALL of the advertising proceeds go to the Northwood Playground Project. Advertising spots are limited, so email me for more info regarding advertising.
Many of these photographs have been featured in previous postings on my blog, so if you want to see a larger image, check back and see if you can find it. They might also be found on my website. All calendars ordered by December 13th will ship on December 15th so you have them prior to Christmas. They make great gifts! Orders after December 13th can not be guaranteed for Christmas delivery, but they will ship the next business day after order.
If you live in Northwood or the surrounding area, the calendar should be a fixture in your home. If you don't live in Northwood, it's still a great calendar and you get to help out a fantastic cause. The price for this calendar is only $20 (plus $3 First Class shipping anywhere in the continental United States. For international shipping, please email for rates), with 45% of the gross sales going to the Northwood Playground Project.
Also, if you live in the area and would like to advertise in the calendar there are still some spots available, ranging from $25 for a business card ad in the "Year at a Glance" section, $25 to sponsor the day of your choice, $50 for a half banner on one of the months, and $100 for a full banner on a month. ALL of the advertising proceeds go to the Northwood Playground Project. Advertising spots are limited, so email me for more info regarding advertising.
Many of these photographs have been featured in previous postings on my blog, so if you want to see a larger image, check back and see if you can find it. They might also be found on my website. All calendars ordered by December 13th will ship on December 15th so you have them prior to Christmas. They make great gifts! Orders after December 13th can not be guaranteed for Christmas delivery, but they will ship the next business day after order.
If you live in Northwood or the surrounding area, or anywhere else for that matter, and you'd like to help the cause, please share this post via Facebook or Twitter via the button at the top right hand side of the post. Thank you, and Happy Holidays.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
As Requested
Following a post last Saturday from a sunrise trip to Nubble Light in Maine, I received a couple of requests to see the original color image that I had made my conversion from. Color is the typical medium chosen for sunrises and lighthouses, so my black and white interpretation of the scene left people with questions about why I chose to render it the way I did. I promised a comparison and an explanation, and here it is.
First of all, the decision to use black and white as my medium of expression was not taken lightly. It's not something that I do to try to be "artsy" or "stylish". I use black and white because that is the way that I see things. It's not a random act of conversion, but all of my personal work that is done in shades of gray. I've been shooting in black and white for over 25 years, and continue to add to my understanding of why.
Photography is an art of contradictions. It’s Reality vs. Illusion, except it’s really only the perception of reality and all illusion. While photographs are based in reality, they are illusions. They are two dimensional representations of three dimensional subjects. When photographers shoot in color, it is always a struggle to attempt to accurately render the colors as the photographer understood them. Different films represented different colors in different ways. If three different color films all look different, is it possible that they could all be “reality”? If those same three different color films all represented the reds or greens in a particular image differently, they are all manipulating their reality differently, therefore creating an illusion of reality. The simple act of using black and white film is the manipulation of reality. The world does not actually appear in shades of gray, or does it? I prefer to be up front about my manipulation of reality, and convey my thoughts and impressions in black, white, and gray. Black and white imagery forces both the photographer and the viewer to work harder to understand an image. The artist has to work harder because he’s not going to be able to distract or lead the viewer through the use of color, and the viewer has to work harder as well since they are going to have to be looking at subtleties such as texture, shapes, tonal range and contrast.
That being said, here are the two images to compare. Now, it's important to remember that in order to end up with a properly converted black and white image, you need to start with a properly adjusted color image. Never shoot in "black and white" mode in your camera or you'll lose much of the flexibility and creativity that you'll have when starting with a color image.
First of all, the decision to use black and white as my medium of expression was not taken lightly. It's not something that I do to try to be "artsy" or "stylish". I use black and white because that is the way that I see things. It's not a random act of conversion, but all of my personal work that is done in shades of gray. I've been shooting in black and white for over 25 years, and continue to add to my understanding of why.
Photography is an art of contradictions. It’s Reality vs. Illusion, except it’s really only the perception of reality and all illusion. While photographs are based in reality, they are illusions. They are two dimensional representations of three dimensional subjects. When photographers shoot in color, it is always a struggle to attempt to accurately render the colors as the photographer understood them. Different films represented different colors in different ways. If three different color films all look different, is it possible that they could all be “reality”? If those same three different color films all represented the reds or greens in a particular image differently, they are all manipulating their reality differently, therefore creating an illusion of reality. The simple act of using black and white film is the manipulation of reality. The world does not actually appear in shades of gray, or does it? I prefer to be up front about my manipulation of reality, and convey my thoughts and impressions in black, white, and gray. Black and white imagery forces both the photographer and the viewer to work harder to understand an image. The artist has to work harder because he’s not going to be able to distract or lead the viewer through the use of color, and the viewer has to work harder as well since they are going to have to be looking at subtleties such as texture, shapes, tonal range and contrast.
That being said, here are the two images to compare. Now, it's important to remember that in order to end up with a properly converted black and white image, you need to start with a properly adjusted color image. Never shoot in "black and white" mode in your camera or you'll lose much of the flexibility and creativity that you'll have when starting with a color image.
It was dark, cold, and very windy that morning, and I wanted to convey those feelings. How many times do you come across an eye popping scene? I mean something that you really stop to look at and just stand there awestruck? You get out your camera, bring it up to your eye, and depress the shutter...Hey! that image is really lacking the impact of the scene here that I am staring at....
Your eyes see differently than a camera. They have a different field of view, and they react to the light differently, so you need to be more than just a shutter snapper. You need to be an ARTIST. One of the skills you need to exercise is being a translator. You need to translate the scene for the photograph. There are many other senses involved in what you see than just your eyes.
What you hear, what you feel, what you taste, and what you smell all go into the overall presentation of what you are seeing. "How is that possible?" you might be thinking. Bear with me here. I'm going to exaggerate for effect.
You are at the seaside, and witness a beautiful scene of some flowers on a dune. It's incredibly beautiful to you at the moment and worth capturing to your CCD or film. Wait. Think for a second. What else is making the scene so darn "scenic" to you? You smell the salt air.You feel the ocean breeze on your face. You feel the sand compressing under your feet. You hear some gulls squawking as they ride the breezes overhead.You taste the salt in the air. All of these things are contributing to how you feel about what you are seeing.
Now what you need to do is translate this feeling to your image. Have you ever wondered why some images that appear to have such great potential look so "sterile"? No feeling. No passion. No vision. No heart. They just don't stir anything inside of you. Lousy translation.
Your next question is "OK Mr. Smarty Pants, how do I do this "translation" thingy you are talking about?"
I'm not telling you. I'm not telling you because I can't tell you. I don't know what you are feeling and seeing and hearing at these moments of epiphany. Only you know that. It's your job to tell me.
You're the artist, so art.
You need to be more than just a mechanic.
Your eyes see differently than a camera. They have a different field of view, and they react to the light differently, so you need to be more than just a shutter snapper. You need to be an ARTIST. One of the skills you need to exercise is being a translator. You need to translate the scene for the photograph. There are many other senses involved in what you see than just your eyes.
What you hear, what you feel, what you taste, and what you smell all go into the overall presentation of what you are seeing. "How is that possible?" you might be thinking. Bear with me here. I'm going to exaggerate for effect.
You are at the seaside, and witness a beautiful scene of some flowers on a dune. It's incredibly beautiful to you at the moment and worth capturing to your CCD or film. Wait. Think for a second. What else is making the scene so darn "scenic" to you? You smell the salt air.You feel the ocean breeze on your face. You feel the sand compressing under your feet. You hear some gulls squawking as they ride the breezes overhead.You taste the salt in the air. All of these things are contributing to how you feel about what you are seeing.
Now what you need to do is translate this feeling to your image. Have you ever wondered why some images that appear to have such great potential look so "sterile"? No feeling. No passion. No vision. No heart. They just don't stir anything inside of you. Lousy translation.
Your next question is "OK Mr. Smarty Pants, how do I do this "translation" thingy you are talking about?"
I'm not telling you. I'm not telling you because I can't tell you. I don't know what you are feeling and seeing and hearing at these moments of epiphany. Only you know that. It's your job to tell me.
You're the artist, so art.
You need to be more than just a mechanic.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Photoshop is a Noun, not a Verb
Buckle up boys and girls, this is going to be one of my infamous deranged ramblings.
I was just reading another blog, when I came upon a decent photograph, and underneath it there was a caption that read: I used Photoshop to tweak the shadows, but other than that, I didn't manipulate it at all. (I'm not quoting, because I don't want it to be Googled and found. I'm paraphrasing to use it as an example. I have no desire to point a finger directly at someone.)
One problem, the image was black and white. So, unless you stepped through some magic door into "The Purple Rose of Cairo", the image was most certainly manipulated more than just tweaking the shadows.
The whole "Photoshop" debate has been going on since well before the popular inception of digital capture. Prior to digital capture, printed images were scanned into computers and edited with Photoshop, whose first version was released in 1990.
Photoshop is a noun. It is a thing. It is a software program. "IT" doesn't "DO" anything. It is a tool. A person with this tool can "edit" images on his/her computer. The person edits (verb), using Photoshop (the tool, a noun). A person can also edit their images with a plethora of other computer programs that are also all nouns. Gimp, Picassa, etc.....all nouns.
"I don't use Photoshop" I have heard exclaimed proudly to anyone that was interested in viewing their very mediocre images. "That's why my photographs don't look as good as those over there. He/She uses Photoshop."
Oh really? Raise your hand if you have heard this before. More than likely, your image is sub-par, because your skills are sub-par. Maybe you didn't use Photoshop specifically, but if you are displaying digital images anywhere, you certainly used some sort of editing program somewhere along the line. In the hands of a craftsman, a $10 hammer will work just as well as a $100 hammer. Instead of complaining about the other guy having a $100 hammer, just learn how to use your $10 hammer. The $100 hammer will not make you a better carpenter.
"I don't like photographers that manipulate their pictures." I've heard this before too.
Explain to me "manipulate".
Let's check the 2006 American Heritage Dictionary:
ma·nip·u·late (mə-nĭp'yə-lāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. ma·nip·u·lat·ed, ma·nip·u·lat·ing, ma·nip·u·lates
1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner: She manipulated the lights to get just the effect she wanted.
2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously: He manipulated public opinion in his favor.
3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain: tried to manipulate stock prices.
4. Medicine To handle and move in an examination or for therapeutic purposes: manipulate a joint; manipulate the position of a fetus during delivery.
You see, there are a few different definitions for "manipulate" and some of them aren't so nice, but the primary one is the key: To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner.
Sounds OK to me.
Everyone has a different "comfort level" with what they consider acceptable manipulation. Most photographers consider black and white film photography to be "pure", but black and white images are a far cry from reality, don't you think?
I had a "long" discussion in one of my classes when a student started to question me about Ansel Adams and his "manipulation" of his images. Well, sure, Mr. Adams manipulated his images by dodging and burning and using some filtration to alter contrast. The student felt "mislead" because he thought he was looking at reality. He neglected to mention that all of the images discussed were black and white. Also not reality, but somehow, this didn't bother him/her.
No amount of editing, with Photoshop or any other software program, is going to take a junk photograph and make it into a masterpiece. You can roll elephant dung in powdered sugar, but that doesn't make it a chocolate donut. (Thanks for the visual, Will)
My own personal line with photo editing (yes, I own and use Photoshop, as does 99% of all other professional photographer out there) is that I won't do anything that I couldn't do in the 30 years that I have been working in a darkroom. This means that I use my editing software to crop, dodge, burn, adjust contrast (by using curves) and levels, adjust color (just like I would by using different films), clean up dust spots (just like I would with Spotone), overlap negatives, and otherwise prepare an image for digital or print display.
What I won't do is take a photograph of a seagull and move it into a landscape of a beach on Hawaii and call it one of my vacation photos. First of all, I've never been to Hawaii, secondly there are no seagulls in Hawaii, and thirdly you are misrepresenting your image to the viewer. Do what you want with your editing software, just call it what it is. We have a responsibility to all who try to emulate our work by giving them the information necessary to do so. By displaying impossible to recreate images, and referring to them as actual, we do our students a disservice.
Where is your line? How do you feel about this?
I was just reading another blog, when I came upon a decent photograph, and underneath it there was a caption that read: I used Photoshop to tweak the shadows, but other than that, I didn't manipulate it at all. (I'm not quoting, because I don't want it to be Googled and found. I'm paraphrasing to use it as an example. I have no desire to point a finger directly at someone.)
One problem, the image was black and white. So, unless you stepped through some magic door into "The Purple Rose of Cairo", the image was most certainly manipulated more than just tweaking the shadows.
The whole "Photoshop" debate has been going on since well before the popular inception of digital capture. Prior to digital capture, printed images were scanned into computers and edited with Photoshop, whose first version was released in 1990.
Photoshop is a noun. It is a thing. It is a software program. "IT" doesn't "DO" anything. It is a tool. A person with this tool can "edit" images on his/her computer. The person edits (verb), using Photoshop (the tool, a noun). A person can also edit their images with a plethora of other computer programs that are also all nouns. Gimp, Picassa, etc.....all nouns.
"I don't use Photoshop" I have heard exclaimed proudly to anyone that was interested in viewing their very mediocre images. "That's why my photographs don't look as good as those over there. He/She uses Photoshop."
Oh really? Raise your hand if you have heard this before. More than likely, your image is sub-par, because your skills are sub-par. Maybe you didn't use Photoshop specifically, but if you are displaying digital images anywhere, you certainly used some sort of editing program somewhere along the line. In the hands of a craftsman, a $10 hammer will work just as well as a $100 hammer. Instead of complaining about the other guy having a $100 hammer, just learn how to use your $10 hammer. The $100 hammer will not make you a better carpenter.
"I don't like photographers that manipulate their pictures." I've heard this before too.
Explain to me "manipulate".
Let's check the 2006 American Heritage Dictionary:
ma·nip·u·late (mə-nĭp'yə-lāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. ma·nip·u·lat·ed, ma·nip·u·lat·ing, ma·nip·u·lates
1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner: She manipulated the lights to get just the effect she wanted.
2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously: He manipulated public opinion in his favor.
3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain: tried to manipulate stock prices.
4. Medicine To handle and move in an examination or for therapeutic purposes: manipulate a joint; manipulate the position of a fetus during delivery.
You see, there are a few different definitions for "manipulate" and some of them aren't so nice, but the primary one is the key: To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner.
Sounds OK to me.
Everyone has a different "comfort level" with what they consider acceptable manipulation. Most photographers consider black and white film photography to be "pure", but black and white images are a far cry from reality, don't you think?
I had a "long" discussion in one of my classes when a student started to question me about Ansel Adams and his "manipulation" of his images. Well, sure, Mr. Adams manipulated his images by dodging and burning and using some filtration to alter contrast. The student felt "mislead" because he thought he was looking at reality. He neglected to mention that all of the images discussed were black and white. Also not reality, but somehow, this didn't bother him/her.
No amount of editing, with Photoshop or any other software program, is going to take a junk photograph and make it into a masterpiece. You can roll elephant dung in powdered sugar, but that doesn't make it a chocolate donut. (Thanks for the visual, Will)
My own personal line with photo editing (yes, I own and use Photoshop, as does 99% of all other professional photographer out there) is that I won't do anything that I couldn't do in the 30 years that I have been working in a darkroom. This means that I use my editing software to crop, dodge, burn, adjust contrast (by using curves) and levels, adjust color (just like I would by using different films), clean up dust spots (just like I would with Spotone), overlap negatives, and otherwise prepare an image for digital or print display.
What I won't do is take a photograph of a seagull and move it into a landscape of a beach on Hawaii and call it one of my vacation photos. First of all, I've never been to Hawaii, secondly there are no seagulls in Hawaii, and thirdly you are misrepresenting your image to the viewer. Do what you want with your editing software, just call it what it is. We have a responsibility to all who try to emulate our work by giving them the information necessary to do so. By displaying impossible to recreate images, and referring to them as actual, we do our students a disservice.
Where is your line? How do you feel about this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
