my current printer is an Epson 3800 but the issued discussed here also applied to my Canon 5000 I used until recently.
My normal gloss paper is Harman FBAL which produces wonderful images in 8.5X11. I have an order for two 17X22 prints and thought that paper this glossy behind ordinary glass might create a nightmare of reflections and wanted something with a bit more tooth. I thought I remembered Ilford Gold Silk as being like that and bravely purchased two 10 sheet boxes of 17X22 paper.
The texture isn't as much as I remembered and the gloss of the paper itself is quite low - net result is that prints show a large amount of gloss differential. Perhaps I'm unreasonable in wanting to not see this as I walk towards a wall mounted print but frankly I find the gloss differential a deal killer for me - back to the drawing boards. I went back to the store and got a refund on the unopened box and went to a second store to get some Moab Entrada Bright White, my previous standard display paper. Problem is, compared to the Gold Silk print, the image seems rather flat - the sense of the third dimension with the semi gloss Ilford paper is gone. It's odd - whatever tones I look at seem to have been reproduced similarly, yet when I look at large areas, the print just lacks that snap that has been described over the years, the parts of the image don't seem separate somehow.
Where do I go from here? I suspect the customer won't care or notice and would probably find the matte print easier to deal with but I notice and it bothers me. Prints made on Epson Semi Gloss Premium paper seem to have just the right amount of tooth for large prints, but the paper is so darn thin - if only they made a heavyweight equivalent.
I guess the paper battles continue, with no definitive answer in sight.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wind
After three intense months working on the book, I finally have a break as the layout editor is doing her thing. I have actually found it hard to get back photographing but today decided to take advantage of some windy weather to photograph in the back yard.
I strapped on my 10 stop ND filter only to find it so opaque I couldn't even see the image - so I took it off to focus, then tried to replace it - but guess what - that changed the focal length of the lens - so I scrapped that idea. I'd already been thinking of getting one of those Singh Ray Vari stop ND filters so this has settled the question, I will go ahead and order one in the largest size common to my lenses, and adaptors for any others. As it happened, in cloudy weather, I was able to shoot at 1/8 second and in the gusts get significant movement. It took a lot of images to get just the right amount and direction of movement and it was important to make sure the background didn't include any bright highlights from the sky.
I think this could be the start of an interesting project - recording movement - hardly original but that doesn't matter. Remember to click on the image to see it much larger.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
I'm Still Here...
In response to Billie's query of where have I been - the last three months have been an intense series of rounds editing the second book Camera To Computer. Finally it is off to the layout editor. There's lots more work to come but a short breather is very nice thank you.
I have two requests of anyone who is still hanging around reading my blog.
1) I need some ideas for topics.
2) I have an idea for a third book "Why Phhotographs Work", which would be a series of wonderful images by other photographers along with 1 - 3 pages of description on why these images succeed. it would be a modern "Looking At Photographs" without all the talk of technique and media - and while I have a number of great black and white images, I need more great colour photography. Photographers have to be alive. Send info on how to access the particular image you are recommending.
Oh, and after not photographing for three months, I shot this spatula on the weekend.
George
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Fastest Way To Better
My entire first book was about becoming a better photographer so I'm not about to condense that into a single short essay. On the other hand, there must be some things which will improve our photography faster than others. "Study the masters" he said - well that could take a life time so, valuable as the advice is, it ain't quick. "Buy a better camera" says a small voice at the back of your head - nice try but that isn't going to do it either - though it is fast. Doubling your pixel count will simply allow you to make bigger prints, not better!
Surely photographers of different levels, interests, skills and experience will need custom advice - well maybe, but consider the following:
Try the following experiment. For the next month, for each and every image you take (or at least series of images), stop for a moment and ask yourself what it is you want the image to do, and then ask yourself if you have done everything you could to help it do that.
That's it, that's the secret to eternal bliss, just that one sentence.
Naw, it can't be that easy you're thinking, besides I already do that. DO you really, do you do it for each and every composition?
Here's a fictitious conversation that someone might have with themselves when out photographing to illustrate what I mean.
Let's say that the subject is a small meandering stream, with overhanging trees draping moss. The reason you are there int the first place is to make some nice landscape pictures - you could come up with some hokey reason that looks impressive and relates to communing with nature and forces of the earth and stuff, but that's to tell other people like curators, for yourself you cut the bull and admit it's all about taking nice pictures of a pretty scene.
Right, but that's why you are there, not why you are taking this particular photograph so the conversation should now continue:
So, I'm hanging out over the water, trying to capture that lovely S bend in the river, the overhanging trees.
Why take this image? Well, I like the reflections on the water, the shapes, but perhaps most of all, I somehow want to capture the remoteness of this spot (even though it's a city park), the coolness of the forest shade on a hot sunny day, the tranquility.
OK, I never said it couldn't be a tall order.
So, that's what I wanted in the image. Is it any surprise that the odds of achieving all these goals isn't great. Still, let's see how I do at answering the question of what am I doing to achieve these goals.
I envision a fairly dark print to reinforce the isolation and tranquility. Definitely not contrasty and harsh - does that have any bearing on the image I am about to capture.
Well, the sun is shining through the trees in spots so whether I like it or not, harsh may be exactly what I get. But, there are some clouds and every so often the sun is partially hidden. I call this "dial - a light" conditions since I can control exactly the amount of contrast I want based on my timing of the image.
I want those reflections on the water, but a check with a test exposure shows that they are off the chart and going to record in pure white - sure I MIGHT be able to rescue them with the recovery slider in Camera Raw, but I don't know - do I want to gamble - NO, I do not. I am going to have to adjust the exposure or possibly even use more than one exposure and exposure blend the result, whether HDR or not. I want softness and empty shadows do not factor into that so simply reducing the exposure to handle the reflections is not going to work - so two exposures it is. I wanted this to be as close to wilderness as possible but I see that in the distance there is a streetlamp showing - barely visible in the viewfinder but there none the less. Sure, I could Photoshop it out but what if I moved one inch to the left - Ah Hah, problem solved and I didn't even need to cheat.
So this is an example of the kind of conversation you might have. First determine why you want this particular image, then ask yourself what you are doing to make it achieve those goals and more to the point, is there anything further I can do to achieve those goals.
It took a while to write it and even some time for you to read it, but my suggestion is that you have this conversation with yourself with every shot for a month, and see if it has an impact on your images.
Let me know how it goes.
Surely photographers of different levels, interests, skills and experience will need custom advice - well maybe, but consider the following:
Try the following experiment. For the next month, for each and every image you take (or at least series of images), stop for a moment and ask yourself what it is you want the image to do, and then ask yourself if you have done everything you could to help it do that.
That's it, that's the secret to eternal bliss, just that one sentence.
Naw, it can't be that easy you're thinking, besides I already do that. DO you really, do you do it for each and every composition?
Here's a fictitious conversation that someone might have with themselves when out photographing to illustrate what I mean.
Let's say that the subject is a small meandering stream, with overhanging trees draping moss. The reason you are there int the first place is to make some nice landscape pictures - you could come up with some hokey reason that looks impressive and relates to communing with nature and forces of the earth and stuff, but that's to tell other people like curators, for yourself you cut the bull and admit it's all about taking nice pictures of a pretty scene.
Right, but that's why you are there, not why you are taking this particular photograph so the conversation should now continue:
So, I'm hanging out over the water, trying to capture that lovely S bend in the river, the overhanging trees.
Why take this image? Well, I like the reflections on the water, the shapes, but perhaps most of all, I somehow want to capture the remoteness of this spot (even though it's a city park), the coolness of the forest shade on a hot sunny day, the tranquility.
OK, I never said it couldn't be a tall order.
So, that's what I wanted in the image. Is it any surprise that the odds of achieving all these goals isn't great. Still, let's see how I do at answering the question of what am I doing to achieve these goals.
I envision a fairly dark print to reinforce the isolation and tranquility. Definitely not contrasty and harsh - does that have any bearing on the image I am about to capture.
Well, the sun is shining through the trees in spots so whether I like it or not, harsh may be exactly what I get. But, there are some clouds and every so often the sun is partially hidden. I call this "dial - a light" conditions since I can control exactly the amount of contrast I want based on my timing of the image.
I want those reflections on the water, but a check with a test exposure shows that they are off the chart and going to record in pure white - sure I MIGHT be able to rescue them with the recovery slider in Camera Raw, but I don't know - do I want to gamble - NO, I do not. I am going to have to adjust the exposure or possibly even use more than one exposure and exposure blend the result, whether HDR or not. I want softness and empty shadows do not factor into that so simply reducing the exposure to handle the reflections is not going to work - so two exposures it is. I wanted this to be as close to wilderness as possible but I see that in the distance there is a streetlamp showing - barely visible in the viewfinder but there none the less. Sure, I could Photoshop it out but what if I moved one inch to the left - Ah Hah, problem solved and I didn't even need to cheat.
So this is an example of the kind of conversation you might have. First determine why you want this particular image, then ask yourself what you are doing to make it achieve those goals and more to the point, is there anything further I can do to achieve those goals.
It took a while to write it and even some time for you to read it, but my suggestion is that you have this conversation with yourself with every shot for a month, and see if it has an impact on your images.
Let me know how it goes.
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Viewer Doesn't Care
As photographers we constantly have to evaluate how good our images are. We do so when we decide which ones are worth printing, which to put in a portfolio, or to post to the web. We do so when submitting for contests or publications. Even if we didn't have to, we do it anyway - having favourite images that we think is our best work, even if we don't show it to friends and family. We evaluate our work when deciding which images are worth a $150 frame or are worth pinning to the notice board at the office.
But,
The viewer doesn't use the same criteria t judge images.
The viewer doesn't care how far we had to hike, or how early we had to get up in the morning, or how bad the rain storm - for all they know, we stepped off the air conditioned bus, aimed our camera and fired off a "snap" which produced the print in front of them without any effort at all.
The viewer doesn't care how hard you had to work the scene or how clever you were in finding the one viewpoint which caused everything to line up properly - most of them assume we found it that way and are willing only to grant that we at least knew a good "snap" when we saw one.
The viewer doesn't care how many hours, how many attempts or to what trouble we went to edit and then make this one print.
The viewer doesn't care about subtleties of paper surface and ink type and depths of the blacks. They don't care that we went through a dozen different papers looking for the one that most perfectly presents our images.
Most of the viewers are looking at the print behind glass and can't even tell whether you printed it on matte or glossy paper.
Only a small fraction of viewers can even tell about careful highlight and shadow control.
All the viewers care about whether the picture works for them, or it doesn't - everything else ranks way down there, if at all.
Perhaps it would be better if prints were presented unmatted and thumb tacked on the wall, complete with blood stains and tear marks so the viewer could appreciate our suffering, but that won't be happening any time soon.
O.K., so the viewers don't appreciate my efforts, so what?
Well, the problem is, we as photographers do appreciate all of the above qualities, especially in our own work.
If we had to get up at 3 am and drive through the dark, hike for miles before sunrise to be in place, on 27 occasions before getting that perfect shot - our appreciation is way out of proportion to how good the image actually is. It is really hard for us not to ascribe to the print a lot more value than is seen by the viewer.
So, the next time we are evaluating our images, we need to try to remove from the equation how hard it was to make the image and concentrate only on the image itself. We may not even be capable of seeeing past our biases and here assistance can be sought from others - wives, friends, other viewers.
Next time your favourite image doesn't get any appreciation from an editor or gallery owner or even your brother in law, remember that the medals are being handed out for the strength of the image, not the sweat equity that went into it.
Perhaps we do need prizes for the best "it's a shitty image but damn it I worked hard to get it". We'd never tell the public but fellow photographers could commiserate with the winners - " you worked so long, you deserved better..." but I suspect that none of use would want to step forth to claim the prize.
Some images come easily, others with great difficulty. Fortunately we can probably honestly say that those who are prepared for luck are the ones most likely to be able to take advantage of it when it comes along. The hard work may not be appreciated by the viewer of a single image, but more than likely our efforts will be rewarded by having more good images to present to the public.
But,
The viewer doesn't use the same criteria t judge images.
The viewer doesn't care how far we had to hike, or how early we had to get up in the morning, or how bad the rain storm - for all they know, we stepped off the air conditioned bus, aimed our camera and fired off a "snap" which produced the print in front of them without any effort at all.
The viewer doesn't care how hard you had to work the scene or how clever you were in finding the one viewpoint which caused everything to line up properly - most of them assume we found it that way and are willing only to grant that we at least knew a good "snap" when we saw one.
The viewer doesn't care how many hours, how many attempts or to what trouble we went to edit and then make this one print.
The viewer doesn't care about subtleties of paper surface and ink type and depths of the blacks. They don't care that we went through a dozen different papers looking for the one that most perfectly presents our images.
Most of the viewers are looking at the print behind glass and can't even tell whether you printed it on matte or glossy paper.
Only a small fraction of viewers can even tell about careful highlight and shadow control.
All the viewers care about whether the picture works for them, or it doesn't - everything else ranks way down there, if at all.
Perhaps it would be better if prints were presented unmatted and thumb tacked on the wall, complete with blood stains and tear marks so the viewer could appreciate our suffering, but that won't be happening any time soon.
O.K., so the viewers don't appreciate my efforts, so what?
Well, the problem is, we as photographers do appreciate all of the above qualities, especially in our own work.
If we had to get up at 3 am and drive through the dark, hike for miles before sunrise to be in place, on 27 occasions before getting that perfect shot - our appreciation is way out of proportion to how good the image actually is. It is really hard for us not to ascribe to the print a lot more value than is seen by the viewer.
So, the next time we are evaluating our images, we need to try to remove from the equation how hard it was to make the image and concentrate only on the image itself. We may not even be capable of seeeing past our biases and here assistance can be sought from others - wives, friends, other viewers.
Next time your favourite image doesn't get any appreciation from an editor or gallery owner or even your brother in law, remember that the medals are being handed out for the strength of the image, not the sweat equity that went into it.
Perhaps we do need prizes for the best "it's a shitty image but damn it I worked hard to get it". We'd never tell the public but fellow photographers could commiserate with the winners - " you worked so long, you deserved better..." but I suspect that none of use would want to step forth to claim the prize.
Some images come easily, others with great difficulty. Fortunately we can probably honestly say that those who are prepared for luck are the ones most likely to be able to take advantage of it when it comes along. The hard work may not be appreciated by the viewer of a single image, but more than likely our efforts will be rewarded by having more good images to present to the public.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Keld Helmer-Petersen
Sandy sent me a recommendation of a photographer who made the following comments:
Keld Helmer-Petersen has been overlooked in the history of photography book's, but he has recently been re-discovered by the English Magnum photographer Martin Parr. His contribution to colour abstract photography started in the 1940's but all the credit for colour photographs was given to the American photographer William Eggleston in the 1970's. In 2005 I went to see an exhibition of Keld Helmer-Petersen's work at the Rocket Gallery in London, I was flabbergasted by the subject matter displayed on the gallery walls both in colour and black and white. His modernistic style and perceptive vision for photographing the over looked mundane subject matter, and making it look ligh abstract paintings is nothing short of amazing. In the fifties he studied with the late great Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind at the Chicago School of Art Institute formerly the New Bauhaus. He was definitely ahead of his time and I felt humbled in the presence of his imaages.
I tried to get his book but at $317 it seemed a bit steep. Sandy also gave me a reference to a gallery site at which you could view a fair number of images, all be it pretty tiny.
Blogspot seems to be on strike but the web address is:
http://www.rocketgallery.com/ex_khp_ex.html
you will need to type this in your browser till blogspot gets working again.
and click on previous exhibitions, then 2005-2006 and then Keld Helmer-Petersen, you can then select "Danish Beauty", "Black and White" or "122 Images" to view his photographs.
Helmer-Petersen first published his colour work in 1948, clearly making him one of the pioneers of modern colour photography.
There are more of his images in 2007-2008. I have sent an email to the gallery to see if any of his books are still available.
Petersen has a wonderful sense of colour and design and I for one am going to have another go at finding his book.
Keld Helmer-Petersen has been overlooked in the history of photography book's, but he has recently been re-discovered by the English Magnum photographer Martin Parr. His contribution to colour abstract photography started in the 1940's but all the credit for colour photographs was given to the American photographer William Eggleston in the 1970's. In 2005 I went to see an exhibition of Keld Helmer-Petersen's work at the Rocket Gallery in London, I was flabbergasted by the subject matter displayed on the gallery walls both in colour and black and white. His modernistic style and perceptive vision for photographing the over looked mundane subject matter, and making it look ligh abstract paintings is nothing short of amazing. In the fifties he studied with the late great Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind at the Chicago School of Art Institute formerly the New Bauhaus. He was definitely ahead of his time and I felt humbled in the presence of his imaages.
I tried to get his book but at $317 it seemed a bit steep. Sandy also gave me a reference to a gallery site at which you could view a fair number of images, all be it pretty tiny.
Blogspot seems to be on strike but the web address is:
http://www.rocketgallery.com/ex_khp_ex.html
you will need to type this in your browser till blogspot gets working again.
and click on previous exhibitions, then 2005-2006 and then Keld Helmer-Petersen, you can then select "Danish Beauty", "Black and White" or "122 Images" to view his photographs.
Helmer-Petersen first published his colour work in 1948, clearly making him one of the pioneers of modern colour photography.
There are more of his images in 2007-2008. I have sent an email to the gallery to see if any of his books are still available.
Petersen has a wonderful sense of colour and design and I for one am going to have another go at finding his book.
Monday, May 18, 2009
My Second Book
My absence from this blog for much of the last several months will have been pretty obvious. I have been working very hard on my second book, called "Camera To Print". The deadline for the text of the book is the end of this month and there will be a lot of further editing and image organization and more editing and index production and more editing but the last few weekends have really broken the back of the work, not to say mine from sitting in front of the computer 12 hours a day - time out to eat and walk the dog.
I think it's going to be a good book, a useful book. The book complements the first book which was all about the art of photography. This one is about the practical aspects of making fine images. Much of the book is dedicated to image editing and showing what is possible with editing while several chapters discuss working the scene. There are lots of bad images compared with good, discussions explaining the differences follow.
I wish someone had written this book for me when I was getting going. Discussions about f stops are minimal but it does discuss stitching, focus blending, HDR, Photoshop techniques and tricks, and has lots of suggestions to improve images.
I think it will be an interesting read for anyone, though I suppose that if you don't like my images, then don't buy the book.
Someone wrote about my first book that I'd made a mistake in the introduction telling people to not buy the book if they didn't like the photographs. He thought the writing terrific and hated the photographs. The ideas in the book may have sounded good to him but surely if the images don't work, then the advice has to be considered questionable.
An old axiom is that "those who can't, teach" but the truth is that people teach because they like teaching, they don't become or stay professional photographers because they hate sucking up to clients or don't have the personality to sell themselves or hate the fact that being a commercial photographer is 90% business and 10% photography.
Many photography teachers could and often do make some very fine images that few ever get to see. My point is that following the photographic advice of someone who "can't hang em' on the wall" is risky at best.
I had a lot less time to make the images for the second book, almost entirely images made in the last 18 months but they nicely illustrate points I want to make. I even found a few gems as I redid a number of images for the book and had to search my files for companion images.
Well, you'll have to take my word for all of this because the book won't be out until late in the year, hopefully well before Christmas unlike last time.
Once editing is complete, I think I'll sneak an example chapter onto my website and let everyone know through the blog that it's there.
I think it's going to be a good book, a useful book. The book complements the first book which was all about the art of photography. This one is about the practical aspects of making fine images. Much of the book is dedicated to image editing and showing what is possible with editing while several chapters discuss working the scene. There are lots of bad images compared with good, discussions explaining the differences follow.
I wish someone had written this book for me when I was getting going. Discussions about f stops are minimal but it does discuss stitching, focus blending, HDR, Photoshop techniques and tricks, and has lots of suggestions to improve images.
I think it will be an interesting read for anyone, though I suppose that if you don't like my images, then don't buy the book.
Someone wrote about my first book that I'd made a mistake in the introduction telling people to not buy the book if they didn't like the photographs. He thought the writing terrific and hated the photographs. The ideas in the book may have sounded good to him but surely if the images don't work, then the advice has to be considered questionable.
An old axiom is that "those who can't, teach" but the truth is that people teach because they like teaching, they don't become or stay professional photographers because they hate sucking up to clients or don't have the personality to sell themselves or hate the fact that being a commercial photographer is 90% business and 10% photography.
Many photography teachers could and often do make some very fine images that few ever get to see. My point is that following the photographic advice of someone who "can't hang em' on the wall" is risky at best.
I had a lot less time to make the images for the second book, almost entirely images made in the last 18 months but they nicely illustrate points I want to make. I even found a few gems as I redid a number of images for the book and had to search my files for companion images.
Well, you'll have to take my word for all of this because the book won't be out until late in the year, hopefully well before Christmas unlike last time.
Once editing is complete, I think I'll sneak an example chapter onto my website and let everyone know through the blog that it's there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)