Posts
Thought I'd start a list of photography magazines which accept and show fine art photography, along with brief comments, as needed.
If you have any magazines to add to this list, as long as they accept general fine art submissions (eg. not Ducks Unlimited), and especially if they do a fairly decent job showing portfolios or single images, then add your comment to this entry. I will republish the list with additions and corrections as needed in the next week or so.
Lenswork - the magazine is black and white only, is known for it's beautiful printing, only does typically three photographers per issue and for many of us, is the ultimate goal of being published in a magazine. Lenswork Extended is the DVD version of the magazine. It accepts colour submissions. The images are pdf's and display large and detailed and look much nicer than the usual small web presentations.
Camera Arts - I'm afraid I don't 'get' this magazine. The images are often kitchy, heavily dependent on technique over image or use trickery as an end in itself. Black and white reproduction is very poor, there being nothing resembling black anywhere. Colour reproduction is significantly better.
Outdoor Photography - is a mass market magazine more interested in articles and products than in images, but they do show some work.
Popular Photography - not normally thought of as a showcase for fine art.
Phot'Art - great reproduction but quite biased to fashion. Fair number of other portfolios too though so could be worth while.
Photo Life - this issue has a very nice portfolio of David Burdeny's seashore images.
Silvershotz - coming along nicely, decent black and white reproduction and I believe they have opened their publication to digital these days.
Black And White - hard to get in as they no longer accept unsolicited submissions - you either win a place based on one of their contests or you get invited.
Focus - you have to be famous to get in free, the rest pay a significant fee for the privilege of being published, which taints the whole idea of being accepted (are you accepted for your skill, or your money). The publisher is very pushy. Perhaps he has the right idea, and I confess I went for it a couple of years ago, but have had second thoughts ever since, and as for his claims of it going out to collectors and generating business for you - I have heard from several people that this is not the case - you are very unlikely to make back the cost of entry (which is > $1000).
Black and White Photography (U.K.) - under new editorship with Elizabeth Roberts after declining a bit in quality over the last year or two but still a very nice magazine, decent reproduction, the ads at the bottom of the readers page are truly horrible so hopefully they will clean up those soon, they even accept small portfolios for the readers pages, showing a single photographer over a few pages.
Outdoor Photography (U.K.) - good colour reproduction, nice looking magazine, a lot of content, unlike the average American magazine, largely about landscapes and wildlife. It's the same publisher as Black and White Photography and they don't seem to do any monochrome, leaving it for the sister magazine.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query focus magazine. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query focus magazine. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2008
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Magazine Published
I'm going to be in the following magazines over the next few months:
1) B&W Magazine Annual Portfolio Issue - due out in June - a variety of images
2) Focus Magazine - June - colour industrial
3) Parkhurst Exchange - ? date - a medical magazine for family physicians in Canada
Previous publishing includes:
Lenswork Magazine March/April 2005 - 17 images - black and white industrial
Black and White Photography - Sept. 2004 - 6 images - black and white Badlands
Outdoor Photography - single colour image
1) B&W Magazine Annual Portfolio Issue - due out in June - a variety of images
2) Focus Magazine - June - colour industrial
3) Parkhurst Exchange - ? date - a medical magazine for family physicians in Canada
Previous publishing includes:
Lenswork Magazine March/April 2005 - 17 images - black and white industrial
Black and White Photography - Sept. 2004 - 6 images - black and white Badlands
Outdoor Photography - single colour image
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Getting Published
I'm uncomfortable tooting my own horn but it's not possible to talk about getting published without saying that I've been in Lenswork, Black and white Photography, Black and White, Focus, and Outdoor Photographer (the British one).
The following suggestions may be of help in upping the odds of success.
My first publishing forray was in Black and White Photographer from Britain and I deliberately chose my images from the badlands. Badlands photograph very well in black and white, they are completely unavailable in Britain and you don't see a lot of good published images. I provided a consistent theme for the images even though they were shot on 4X5 and digital.
I don't think presentation of the prints is a big issue - they should be clean, flat, corners not bashed, consistent in tone and surface but an expensive portfolio box is not needed.
My next success was with the industrial images to Lenswork - again a consitent theme and not your typical waterfall pictures (trust me, they see thousands of them and the odds of you coming up with a new and better way of looking at a waterfall that will interest them is close to zero.
For Black and White's portfolio constest I actually sent two entries, one industrial and the other landcape. The landscape had the theme of weather - showing clouds, ice, and snow. Focus magazine was again industrial but this time in colour (different images).
For the most part my images don't look like those from any well known photographer - fortunately I have admired so many good photographers that I now have my own style. You have to ask yourself if in fact you have a style and is it any different from hundreds of other photographers also submitting their pictures. Clearly you want to submit the ones with 'your' style, not the ones that are so typical of the genre (no matter how well done).
Catchy titles and detailed explanations of how hard you worked to get the image are totally irrelevent.
Brooks Jensen of Lenswork has had some excellent editorials about submitting work for publication and I suggest you check his website and pick up some of the back issues that address the subject.
Of course, it's a given that you have a good idea of the kind of work a magazine is likely to publish. That said, if lots of people think them good, send them anyway, maybe this is the different that is exactly what the editor is looking for.
in general, I have not sent any bio until asked - if they like the images, the'll ask, if they don't save your breath (fingers).
I had a fair idea that my work was decent going in - after attending a workshop and seeing what other people produced and comparing my work to the instructors and factoring in the comments from both instructors and attendees, I figured I was ready. I would encourage you to seek similar feedback before considering submitting. It's all very well asking friends and family but you really need an independent appraisal before sending off your work.
Good luck in your submissions, It may seem hopeless but remember that without our submissions these magazines couldn't function.
The following suggestions may be of help in upping the odds of success.
My first publishing forray was in Black and White Photographer from Britain and I deliberately chose my images from the badlands. Badlands photograph very well in black and white, they are completely unavailable in Britain and you don't see a lot of good published images. I provided a consistent theme for the images even though they were shot on 4X5 and digital.
I don't think presentation of the prints is a big issue - they should be clean, flat, corners not bashed, consistent in tone and surface but an expensive portfolio box is not needed.
My next success was with the industrial images to Lenswork - again a consitent theme and not your typical waterfall pictures (trust me, they see thousands of them and the odds of you coming up with a new and better way of looking at a waterfall that will interest them is close to zero.
For Black and White's portfolio constest I actually sent two entries, one industrial and the other landcape. The landscape had the theme of weather - showing clouds, ice, and snow. Focus magazine was again industrial but this time in colour (different images).
For the most part my images don't look like those from any well known photographer - fortunately I have admired so many good photographers that I now have my own style. You have to ask yourself if in fact you have a style and is it any different from hundreds of other photographers also submitting their pictures. Clearly you want to submit the ones with 'your' style, not the ones that are so typical of the genre (no matter how well done).
Catchy titles and detailed explanations of how hard you worked to get the image are totally irrelevent.
Brooks Jensen of Lenswork has had some excellent editorials about submitting work for publication and I suggest you check his website and pick up some of the back issues that address the subject.
Of course, it's a given that you have a good idea of the kind of work a magazine is likely to publish. That said, if lots of people think them good, send them anyway, maybe this is the different that is exactly what the editor is looking for.
in general, I have not sent any bio until asked - if they like the images, the'll ask, if they don't save your breath (fingers).
I had a fair idea that my work was decent going in - after attending a workshop and seeing what other people produced and comparing my work to the instructors and factoring in the comments from both instructors and attendees, I figured I was ready. I would encourage you to seek similar feedback before considering submitting. It's all very well asking friends and family but you really need an independent appraisal before sending off your work.
Good luck in your submissions, It may seem hopeless but remember that without our submissions these magazines couldn't function.
Monday, November 06, 2006
How I Go About Improving An Image
I'm writing this at the office between patients and hope to add some illustrations later, but here's some general concepts about improving the image and I believe they apply regardless of the editing programme that you use.
Let's assume that in the raw software (Camera Raw in my case) I have optimized the image parameters. I should point out that this does not mean making the image look as nice as possible. On the contrary, my main function in setting the raw parameters is to make sure that all the information I need is in the output file. Quite often this means a muddy dark print in order to save highlights.
OK, the image is in Photoshop and I'm looking at it. the first thing to do is an overall correction. I want to pin the two ends of the image, black and white points without exceding them. At this point I'd rather miss reaching white and black by a little rather than risk losing data. I adjust the curve to produce the best possible overall image. I do this by deciding on overall brightness of the image, brightness of highlights and depth of the shadows.
A particularly flat image will need an S bend curve to increase contrast and shift pixels away from the middle thus increasing contrast. An image with overly bright highlights will need a sharp drop in the curve from pure white but will then need to straighten out quite quickly or else risk being overall too dark. An image that is overall too contrasty will need near vertical lines near the black point and white point with a fairly flat midsection. Of course I actually adjust the curve to suit the image, not to any preconceived ideas of what it might need. Curves can be quite complex with several dips or bumps to tame the overall image.
As you probably know from previous articles, I do most of the rest of the adjustments with curves and black masks, painting light into the masks to apply the curves to specific areas of the image and in amounts to suit. That's fine but what I would like to try to discuss is what I'm trying to achieve by doing so - it's all very well saying that the areas that are too dark need lightening and visa versa but how do I know they are too dark. What if they really should be darker. As the late Fred Picker used to day - 'let the tones go the direction they want to go' - instead of dodging shadows, burn them in so they are nice and deep - of course that presumed a perfectly exposed and developed negative in the first place, not a rescue job on a negative you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy - funny how many of those we seem to have in our files.
OK, so how can I discuss general rules of tonality? Let's take one of my badlands images shot after sunset (and therefore in fairly flat light). Contrast containment is not a problem. I try increasing the overall contrast to give the image some snap but note that it now looks harsh. I'm going to have to be more selective. As the image is rather flat looking I do increase contrast a little but it still looks two dimensional even though contrast is now better. What I'd like to do is make it look more three D. I do this by lightening the edges of the bluffs, bringing them forward and darkening the mid part of the bluff, making it move backward. With practice the difference to the image is dramatic yet not harsh, the image looks three dimensional and comes alive. Note that this adjustment of brightness had nothing to do with improving the technical aspects of the image and everything do do with the aesthetic qualities.
Sometimes you don't want things to 'stand out'. This is your opportunity to make them recede into the image and become less important, less obvious and specifically less distracting.
You could simply burn them in by whatever method but in doing so the whites remain white, the darks go to black and all you have done is increase the overall contrast and make the feature more obvious. I find that if I drop the white point down so that in the area selected there is no white, this is more effective - while this would result in a very muddy print were it applied to large areas, when selectively applied, it can be very effective. Occasionally I will even move the black point up so there are no dramatic and pure blacks. Since I have done this as a layer and mask, I can use the opacity slider for that layer to 'tone down' the effect I have just created - this is a lot better than 'undo'ing or 'fading' the effect.
On the whole, I prefer the edges of the print to be a little darker than the centre - note the word LITTLE - if you can see it, it's too much, it should only be noticable in comparision with the undarkened edges by clicking the layer on and off. I have a particular aversion to skies so darkened in the corners it looks absolutely fake.
You will note that I have said nothing about colour, saturation, temperature etc. That's a topic for another time.
The only way to learn the technique of tone adjustment is to do it lots, to overdo it so much you have to start over, to make prints and see the effect, to hang a print for some days to see if you can live with it - what works at 1:00 in the morning often looks hidious after a good sleep. Nice bright contrast that gave the image snap at the time looks vastly over cooked afer a week on the wall.
Unfortunately, by and large I simply keep adjusting parts of the print until the image works (whatever 'works' means). Knowing what is right is based on experience, not only experience of working on your own images but looking at that of others. I've said it before but anyone working in black and white should have a subscription to Lenswork Magazine. For colour work consider "Outdoor Photography" from Britain (available at Chapters and Indigo here in Canada), and possibly Focus Magazine which seems to add more colour with each passing issue. "Black and White" magazine shows a lot of good photography, it's printing quality is improving.
Get to every show you can reach. Check out archives of local galleries, museums and universities to see if they have any collections worth looking at - this often requires permission but can be very rewarding. I was at a local group show on the weekend. Workshops are a terrific source of images. Not only do you get to look at the work of the instructor(s) but almost always there is a print critique at which you can see work of the other students. In any mixed group you see images that are techincally excellent and completely boring to images that look like they were taken with something out of a cerial box yet the camera was pointed at something wonderful. In every group though there are some gems which are both technically good and aesthetically rewarding.
To my mind the most interesting photographs are taken by people with an art background who move into photography and immediately start shooting interesting pictures, even if technically it takes them some time to come up to speed (usually a hell of a lot faster than the usual hobbyist who gets side tracked by equipment issues and experimenation with films, developers, papers, printers, computer programmes, and plug-ins.
As I too came through the hobbyist route and am most certainly guilty of experimenting in my youth (before age 50) with all of these time wasting paths, I am certainly raising doubts about my own competency. I can only say that any skill I do have has been acquired the hard way and explains why I'm where I'm at at 57 instead of 25.
There's no time to waste, select some reputable tools, stop worrying about whether they are the ideal ones (they aren't - there are no ideal tools - every tool is a compromise) and really learn to use them.
Well, I did ramble on a bit and got off topic, hope it sparked something for you.
Good shooting,
Let's assume that in the raw software (Camera Raw in my case) I have optimized the image parameters. I should point out that this does not mean making the image look as nice as possible. On the contrary, my main function in setting the raw parameters is to make sure that all the information I need is in the output file. Quite often this means a muddy dark print in order to save highlights.
OK, the image is in Photoshop and I'm looking at it. the first thing to do is an overall correction. I want to pin the two ends of the image, black and white points without exceding them. At this point I'd rather miss reaching white and black by a little rather than risk losing data. I adjust the curve to produce the best possible overall image. I do this by deciding on overall brightness of the image, brightness of highlights and depth of the shadows.
A particularly flat image will need an S bend curve to increase contrast and shift pixels away from the middle thus increasing contrast. An image with overly bright highlights will need a sharp drop in the curve from pure white but will then need to straighten out quite quickly or else risk being overall too dark. An image that is overall too contrasty will need near vertical lines near the black point and white point with a fairly flat midsection. Of course I actually adjust the curve to suit the image, not to any preconceived ideas of what it might need. Curves can be quite complex with several dips or bumps to tame the overall image.
As you probably know from previous articles, I do most of the rest of the adjustments with curves and black masks, painting light into the masks to apply the curves to specific areas of the image and in amounts to suit. That's fine but what I would like to try to discuss is what I'm trying to achieve by doing so - it's all very well saying that the areas that are too dark need lightening and visa versa but how do I know they are too dark. What if they really should be darker. As the late Fred Picker used to day - 'let the tones go the direction they want to go' - instead of dodging shadows, burn them in so they are nice and deep - of course that presumed a perfectly exposed and developed negative in the first place, not a rescue job on a negative you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy - funny how many of those we seem to have in our files.
OK, so how can I discuss general rules of tonality? Let's take one of my badlands images shot after sunset (and therefore in fairly flat light). Contrast containment is not a problem. I try increasing the overall contrast to give the image some snap but note that it now looks harsh. I'm going to have to be more selective. As the image is rather flat looking I do increase contrast a little but it still looks two dimensional even though contrast is now better. What I'd like to do is make it look more three D. I do this by lightening the edges of the bluffs, bringing them forward and darkening the mid part of the bluff, making it move backward. With practice the difference to the image is dramatic yet not harsh, the image looks three dimensional and comes alive. Note that this adjustment of brightness had nothing to do with improving the technical aspects of the image and everything do do with the aesthetic qualities.
Sometimes you don't want things to 'stand out'. This is your opportunity to make them recede into the image and become less important, less obvious and specifically less distracting.
You could simply burn them in by whatever method but in doing so the whites remain white, the darks go to black and all you have done is increase the overall contrast and make the feature more obvious. I find that if I drop the white point down so that in the area selected there is no white, this is more effective - while this would result in a very muddy print were it applied to large areas, when selectively applied, it can be very effective. Occasionally I will even move the black point up so there are no dramatic and pure blacks. Since I have done this as a layer and mask, I can use the opacity slider for that layer to 'tone down' the effect I have just created - this is a lot better than 'undo'ing or 'fading' the effect.
On the whole, I prefer the edges of the print to be a little darker than the centre - note the word LITTLE - if you can see it, it's too much, it should only be noticable in comparision with the undarkened edges by clicking the layer on and off. I have a particular aversion to skies so darkened in the corners it looks absolutely fake.
You will note that I have said nothing about colour, saturation, temperature etc. That's a topic for another time.
The only way to learn the technique of tone adjustment is to do it lots, to overdo it so much you have to start over, to make prints and see the effect, to hang a print for some days to see if you can live with it - what works at 1:00 in the morning often looks hidious after a good sleep. Nice bright contrast that gave the image snap at the time looks vastly over cooked afer a week on the wall.
Unfortunately, by and large I simply keep adjusting parts of the print until the image works (whatever 'works' means). Knowing what is right is based on experience, not only experience of working on your own images but looking at that of others. I've said it before but anyone working in black and white should have a subscription to Lenswork Magazine. For colour work consider "Outdoor Photography" from Britain (available at Chapters and Indigo here in Canada), and possibly Focus Magazine which seems to add more colour with each passing issue. "Black and White" magazine shows a lot of good photography, it's printing quality is improving.
Get to every show you can reach. Check out archives of local galleries, museums and universities to see if they have any collections worth looking at - this often requires permission but can be very rewarding. I was at a local group show on the weekend. Workshops are a terrific source of images. Not only do you get to look at the work of the instructor(s) but almost always there is a print critique at which you can see work of the other students. In any mixed group you see images that are techincally excellent and completely boring to images that look like they were taken with something out of a cerial box yet the camera was pointed at something wonderful. In every group though there are some gems which are both technically good and aesthetically rewarding.
To my mind the most interesting photographs are taken by people with an art background who move into photography and immediately start shooting interesting pictures, even if technically it takes them some time to come up to speed (usually a hell of a lot faster than the usual hobbyist who gets side tracked by equipment issues and experimenation with films, developers, papers, printers, computer programmes, and plug-ins.
As I too came through the hobbyist route and am most certainly guilty of experimenting in my youth (before age 50) with all of these time wasting paths, I am certainly raising doubts about my own competency. I can only say that any skill I do have has been acquired the hard way and explains why I'm where I'm at at 57 instead of 25.
There's no time to waste, select some reputable tools, stop worrying about whether they are the ideal ones (they aren't - there are no ideal tools - every tool is a compromise) and really learn to use them.
Well, I did ramble on a bit and got off topic, hope it sparked something for you.
Good shooting,
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Selecting Images For Presentation
I know some of you have been choosing images to submit to 'Black And White' magazine. This process of selecting and weeding out images happens often - whether for a contest, a publication, a portfolio or to show to a gallery. It happens when you decide what images to hang on your wall or show to a friend or even to post to your blog or website.
In the case of 'B&W' they were looking for 8 - 12 images and we know from last year that they prefer images that have a theme to them - random 10 best ever collections were typically not selected for publication. It's quite common to be looking for a theme or style of photographs. It's much easier to produce a random selection but whether a publication or a gallery, they like to know the photographer has depth and nothing shows this better than the ability to produce a collection of work on a single subject.
OK, so how do you select images to present?
Is it true that you are defined by your weakest image?
First I start by selecting every image which could reasonably fit the theme I am presenting. I make copies of the images into a special folder for the porfolio and then I use Adobe Bridge to make a slideshow of the selected images.
First time through I elminate any images with technical flaws. Keep in mind that even if you sneak a small copy past the selectors, sooner or later you are going to be asked to make a print of the image - do all the images hold up in print? If you haven't printed every image by now, then print those you haven't to confirm quality and check for any printing difficulties.
Look for flaws like:oversharpening, lack of resolution, less than subtle image manipulation, bleached out highlights and blocked up shadows. Is focus spot on? Any hesitation and it's out of there.
Next run through pick the obvious winners - the images by which you define your photography. They don't have to be crowd pleasers - you may only be trying to impress a single person whose taste you are not priviledged to prejudge. Remove these from the possibles pile so you don't have to keep going through them.
Probably by now you are down to 50% of the original images - having passed through the top 25% and rejected the bottom 25%. Now it gets harder.
The middle of the pack images are there for several possible reasons - an idea that almost came off and you hate to give up, a sort of nice image, an image that others like but you don't, an image that is terrific in every way except that one little flaw that keeps bugging you, and doubtless other types - hopefully each of your images don't all fit into every one of these categories.
The images that you really like except for that 'one flaw' are probably best bounced off of someone else. Lastnight I had an image I showed my wife (non photogrpaher) and she said she liked it, then I asked her about the out of focus areas (which if truth be known weren't out of focus enough) and she said yes, they were distracting - so out with that image. Other times though something that bugs you about an image may not be seen by others as distracting from an otherwise wonderful image. If you look through the published images of the greats, there are lots of minor imperfections which had they obcessed about it, we would not have had the opportunity to view the work - we expect perfection from ourselves but are more forgiving of someone with a proven reputation. That said, subtle imperfections this year may turn out with a couple more years experience behind you to be glaring errors - I have been in that situation looking at prints I made a few years ago and thinking, 'my god, I've come a long way'. At least, that's what I think on a good day. On a bad day, it's god, I was awful, how did I ever have the nerve to show that in public.
Regarding images that are good but not great - when I submitted my work to Lenswork, I sent them about 25 images. Having accepted me, they then asked for everything along the same theme (black and white industrial). I sent them everything I had that I though anway reasonable and even processed a few more images that hadn't excited me previously. Know what, they didn't consistently print the images I would have picked as my strongest and several images published were from the extra images I sent. Interesting as they printed 17 images and I originally sent them 25 so they chose not to publish about 11 of my original images and replace use four of the extras. Of course, I'd already been accepted, there was nothing to lose, but do consider the possibilty that you are not necessarily the best judge of your own work. Some of your 'goods' are 'greats' to other people.
At this point you might well want to show the work to someone else for their feedback. This is especially helpful if they are pretty honest about their reactions. I am blessed with a wife who while not making derogatory comments about a picture, will let me know how interested she is in it and if it doesn't work isn't afraid to say so. This is a great assset and though she doesn't have a visual arts background, I find that if she isn't excited by an image, I'd better have a pretty darn good reason to over rule her. You too might want to find someone who could play that role. I would suggest it might be better if it weren't a photographer. Uusally our work is being judged by people who aren't themselves photographers, but they are skilled lookers.
Right, we needed 8 - 12 images and we are down to 15. Lets do a double check for consistency of theme - sure all the images are from the badlands, but 11 are close and middle ground images with no skies, one has a dramatic thunderstorm over the badlands, and the last is an old truck dumped into a gully in the badlands. It would make sense to eliminate the last two images no matter how strong they are since they are jarringly different from all the other images.
Here's another check - are any of the images too much like each other - enough so that it's repetitive?
And now for the last check - lets say you are down to 13 images of the 8-12 we need. it's time to stop thinking about the images and just react to them. By now you have looked at them dozens of times - flip through them and rank them according to emotional response. If you haven't had a chance to 'sleep on your selections', come back the next day and see if you still feel the same way.
Now you have to ask is it better to provide 8 really strong images, or show your depth by providing the full 12. It depends a bit on the situation. In the case of 'B&W' we know they are only going to print four images so having 8 to select from is pretty good and if they are strong images, there is nothing to appologize for beause you don't have 12. This would be a much bigger issue if you had simply included your all time greatest hits, in which case running out at 8 has some pretty significant implications, but you can tell a lot about a subject in 8 photographs, so my inclination would be to see if I can determine where the breakpoint is in quality and if it falls between the 8th and 12th image, that would become my cutoff, no matter what.
Of course, after doing all this, you may come to the point where you decide your work is not good enough for publication and lose your never and never submit it. Since it is very unlikely that you are magically within a few months going to produce dramatically better work, why not go ahead and stand behind your work and say 'this is as good as I can do'. The worst that could happen is some derogatory comments from a gallery owner about bird cage liners, but even here there may be something in the feedback that you can take and work with. In other cases, it's a matter of 'no news is bad news', but hey, you can only guarantee results when you don't submit and guarantee you won't be published, displayed, sold or whatever.
Good luck in selecting a portfolio of your own work. Show the world the best you can do, then move on.
In the case of 'B&W' they were looking for 8 - 12 images and we know from last year that they prefer images that have a theme to them - random 10 best ever collections were typically not selected for publication. It's quite common to be looking for a theme or style of photographs. It's much easier to produce a random selection but whether a publication or a gallery, they like to know the photographer has depth and nothing shows this better than the ability to produce a collection of work on a single subject.
OK, so how do you select images to present?
Is it true that you are defined by your weakest image?
First I start by selecting every image which could reasonably fit the theme I am presenting. I make copies of the images into a special folder for the porfolio and then I use Adobe Bridge to make a slideshow of the selected images.
First time through I elminate any images with technical flaws. Keep in mind that even if you sneak a small copy past the selectors, sooner or later you are going to be asked to make a print of the image - do all the images hold up in print? If you haven't printed every image by now, then print those you haven't to confirm quality and check for any printing difficulties.
Look for flaws like:oversharpening, lack of resolution, less than subtle image manipulation, bleached out highlights and blocked up shadows. Is focus spot on? Any hesitation and it's out of there.
Next run through pick the obvious winners - the images by which you define your photography. They don't have to be crowd pleasers - you may only be trying to impress a single person whose taste you are not priviledged to prejudge. Remove these from the possibles pile so you don't have to keep going through them.
Probably by now you are down to 50% of the original images - having passed through the top 25% and rejected the bottom 25%. Now it gets harder.
The middle of the pack images are there for several possible reasons - an idea that almost came off and you hate to give up, a sort of nice image, an image that others like but you don't, an image that is terrific in every way except that one little flaw that keeps bugging you, and doubtless other types - hopefully each of your images don't all fit into every one of these categories.
The images that you really like except for that 'one flaw' are probably best bounced off of someone else. Lastnight I had an image I showed my wife (non photogrpaher) and she said she liked it, then I asked her about the out of focus areas (which if truth be known weren't out of focus enough) and she said yes, they were distracting - so out with that image. Other times though something that bugs you about an image may not be seen by others as distracting from an otherwise wonderful image. If you look through the published images of the greats, there are lots of minor imperfections which had they obcessed about it, we would not have had the opportunity to view the work - we expect perfection from ourselves but are more forgiving of someone with a proven reputation. That said, subtle imperfections this year may turn out with a couple more years experience behind you to be glaring errors - I have been in that situation looking at prints I made a few years ago and thinking, 'my god, I've come a long way'. At least, that's what I think on a good day. On a bad day, it's god, I was awful, how did I ever have the nerve to show that in public.
Regarding images that are good but not great - when I submitted my work to Lenswork, I sent them about 25 images. Having accepted me, they then asked for everything along the same theme (black and white industrial). I sent them everything I had that I though anway reasonable and even processed a few more images that hadn't excited me previously. Know what, they didn't consistently print the images I would have picked as my strongest and several images published were from the extra images I sent. Interesting as they printed 17 images and I originally sent them 25 so they chose not to publish about 11 of my original images and replace use four of the extras. Of course, I'd already been accepted, there was nothing to lose, but do consider the possibilty that you are not necessarily the best judge of your own work. Some of your 'goods' are 'greats' to other people.
At this point you might well want to show the work to someone else for their feedback. This is especially helpful if they are pretty honest about their reactions. I am blessed with a wife who while not making derogatory comments about a picture, will let me know how interested she is in it and if it doesn't work isn't afraid to say so. This is a great assset and though she doesn't have a visual arts background, I find that if she isn't excited by an image, I'd better have a pretty darn good reason to over rule her. You too might want to find someone who could play that role. I would suggest it might be better if it weren't a photographer. Uusally our work is being judged by people who aren't themselves photographers, but they are skilled lookers.
Right, we needed 8 - 12 images and we are down to 15. Lets do a double check for consistency of theme - sure all the images are from the badlands, but 11 are close and middle ground images with no skies, one has a dramatic thunderstorm over the badlands, and the last is an old truck dumped into a gully in the badlands. It would make sense to eliminate the last two images no matter how strong they are since they are jarringly different from all the other images.
Here's another check - are any of the images too much like each other - enough so that it's repetitive?
And now for the last check - lets say you are down to 13 images of the 8-12 we need. it's time to stop thinking about the images and just react to them. By now you have looked at them dozens of times - flip through them and rank them according to emotional response. If you haven't had a chance to 'sleep on your selections', come back the next day and see if you still feel the same way.
Now you have to ask is it better to provide 8 really strong images, or show your depth by providing the full 12. It depends a bit on the situation. In the case of 'B&W' we know they are only going to print four images so having 8 to select from is pretty good and if they are strong images, there is nothing to appologize for beause you don't have 12. This would be a much bigger issue if you had simply included your all time greatest hits, in which case running out at 8 has some pretty significant implications, but you can tell a lot about a subject in 8 photographs, so my inclination would be to see if I can determine where the breakpoint is in quality and if it falls between the 8th and 12th image, that would become my cutoff, no matter what.
Of course, after doing all this, you may come to the point where you decide your work is not good enough for publication and lose your never and never submit it. Since it is very unlikely that you are magically within a few months going to produce dramatically better work, why not go ahead and stand behind your work and say 'this is as good as I can do'. The worst that could happen is some derogatory comments from a gallery owner about bird cage liners, but even here there may be something in the feedback that you can take and work with. In other cases, it's a matter of 'no news is bad news', but hey, you can only guarantee results when you don't submit and guarantee you won't be published, displayed, sold or whatever.
Good luck in selecting a portfolio of your own work. Show the world the best you can do, then move on.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
On Selling Your Work
I suspect many of us dream of selling our work. It means we can buy better and more equipment, it's the ultimate sign of worth - people actually willing to pay for your photographs. I'm going to tell you about my experience first then discuss some thoughts about the whole 'business' of business.
My first experience selling photographs was as a university student. We would borrow the Crown Graphic 4X5 and shoot residence floor groups and sport teams and sell the prints - I got to learn the ins and outs of making 60 prints in a hurry - and the problems of a dryer with fixer impregnated cloths. Quite lucrative, hardly creative.
It wasn't until 2003 that it occured to me again to sell my work and at first it was more about getting my work up on the wall than it was about making money from it - just as well as it turned out.
A local coop photography gallery would rent wallspace to photographers and they had themed shows throughout the year. They juried the work so there was at least some sense of approval in getting in - though you never knew how much competition for wall space (if any) there was. I did several of these shows and sold enough images to recoup the cost of thd shows but not the cost of the framing - so yes, I earned some money but yes I actually lost money overall. Still, nice to see your work on the wall of a gallery instead of inside a print box at the bottom of a drawer - I'd encourage anyone to do it.
My next effort at sales was to set up a booth at the local Farmers Market on Sundays. I'd read bad things about working with galleries and it seemed like this might work better. The market was a busy one. I got mylar bags from Crystal Clear Bags and picked up acid free foam core locally. I printed on 13X19 and 17X22 with a generous white border (which looked a lot nicer). I used wicker baskets to hold the prints. The start was painfully slow, selling 1 - 2 images a day but gradually things got busier. In the mean time I was continuing to photograph so I kept adding prints to the selection available (eventually about 200) but as I became more successful, it took more time to make the prints and to run around town picking up supplies and ordering from the internet when local sources didn't have what I needed. I was commonly printing till 3 in the morning before going to the market so it was taking me a full day to print the images, half a day to pick up supplies every second week and a day at the market, all this while maintaining a full time occupation. I liked chatting with customers and talking photography (though in general photographers are a cheap bunch and don't buy).
After two years of doing this I probably grossed $40,000 but I know my expenses were well over $30,000 and I'm not actually sure that I made any money at all, I was tired and my wife was frustrated with never seeing me, being on errands, at the market or in the basement on the computer.
In the mean time I submitted a series of badlands pictures to "Black and White Photography" which were published and I was paid a small amount. I then submitted a series of my back and white industrial images to "Lenswork". I had hopes that this would result in print requests but the net sales from that publication was two prints. I did get to swap prints with Howard Schatz of New York which was pretty cool.
I was one of the winning porfolios in "Black And White" but that hasn't resulted in any sales. I was persuaded after submitting images to "Focus" magazine to pay for a combination publication of prints along with ads with encouraging noises about quickly paying for the publication with sales - sales = 0.
My latest effort at selling is a show in Toronto at Leonardo Gallery. They contacted me about a show. They wanted large images which meant I couldn't print them myself (having only a 7600 and they wanted 3 foot images). As is typical of galleries they split sales with the photographer 50% - ok so far. But framing is my cost so I'm currently out $5100 for the framing of 21 images. Their prices were not unreasonable but they sure add up and the net effect is that before the show opens they are $5000 up and I am $7000 down (framing, invitations, ad, shipping, print costs). This makes it extremely difficult to make money as to break even I need to sell 18 of 21 prints in the show - almost unheard of. As this is standard gallery practice, I had expected and accepted it, but none the less, it makes working with galleries a less than lucrative prospect.
I looked at self publication of a book but the breakeven point was 375 books and I couldn't be sure I could do that even while I was still at the Farmers Market.
Thoughout all this time I have had a website but it has generated only a few print sales - not enough to pay for itself. It has however acted as an inexpensive catalog for my sales locally. People could see my work at the Farmers Market and then show their spouse on the net or decide for themselves which particular image they wanted. To that end it has been invaluable - but forget internet sales - a non starter.
And that brings you up to date. Next time I'm going to reflect on some possible ways to earn money. As I haven't found the ideal answer yet - it's going to be more a matter of thinking in print.
My first experience selling photographs was as a university student. We would borrow the Crown Graphic 4X5 and shoot residence floor groups and sport teams and sell the prints - I got to learn the ins and outs of making 60 prints in a hurry - and the problems of a dryer with fixer impregnated cloths. Quite lucrative, hardly creative.
It wasn't until 2003 that it occured to me again to sell my work and at first it was more about getting my work up on the wall than it was about making money from it - just as well as it turned out.
A local coop photography gallery would rent wallspace to photographers and they had themed shows throughout the year. They juried the work so there was at least some sense of approval in getting in - though you never knew how much competition for wall space (if any) there was. I did several of these shows and sold enough images to recoup the cost of thd shows but not the cost of the framing - so yes, I earned some money but yes I actually lost money overall. Still, nice to see your work on the wall of a gallery instead of inside a print box at the bottom of a drawer - I'd encourage anyone to do it.
My next effort at sales was to set up a booth at the local Farmers Market on Sundays. I'd read bad things about working with galleries and it seemed like this might work better. The market was a busy one. I got mylar bags from Crystal Clear Bags and picked up acid free foam core locally. I printed on 13X19 and 17X22 with a generous white border (which looked a lot nicer). I used wicker baskets to hold the prints. The start was painfully slow, selling 1 - 2 images a day but gradually things got busier. In the mean time I was continuing to photograph so I kept adding prints to the selection available (eventually about 200) but as I became more successful, it took more time to make the prints and to run around town picking up supplies and ordering from the internet when local sources didn't have what I needed. I was commonly printing till 3 in the morning before going to the market so it was taking me a full day to print the images, half a day to pick up supplies every second week and a day at the market, all this while maintaining a full time occupation. I liked chatting with customers and talking photography (though in general photographers are a cheap bunch and don't buy).
After two years of doing this I probably grossed $40,000 but I know my expenses were well over $30,000 and I'm not actually sure that I made any money at all, I was tired and my wife was frustrated with never seeing me, being on errands, at the market or in the basement on the computer.
In the mean time I submitted a series of badlands pictures to "Black and White Photography" which were published and I was paid a small amount. I then submitted a series of my back and white industrial images to "Lenswork". I had hopes that this would result in print requests but the net sales from that publication was two prints. I did get to swap prints with Howard Schatz of New York which was pretty cool.
I was one of the winning porfolios in "Black And White" but that hasn't resulted in any sales. I was persuaded after submitting images to "Focus" magazine to pay for a combination publication of prints along with ads with encouraging noises about quickly paying for the publication with sales - sales = 0.
My latest effort at selling is a show in Toronto at Leonardo Gallery. They contacted me about a show. They wanted large images which meant I couldn't print them myself (having only a 7600 and they wanted 3 foot images). As is typical of galleries they split sales with the photographer 50% - ok so far. But framing is my cost so I'm currently out $5100 for the framing of 21 images. Their prices were not unreasonable but they sure add up and the net effect is that before the show opens they are $5000 up and I am $7000 down (framing, invitations, ad, shipping, print costs). This makes it extremely difficult to make money as to break even I need to sell 18 of 21 prints in the show - almost unheard of. As this is standard gallery practice, I had expected and accepted it, but none the less, it makes working with galleries a less than lucrative prospect.
I looked at self publication of a book but the breakeven point was 375 books and I couldn't be sure I could do that even while I was still at the Farmers Market.
Thoughout all this time I have had a website but it has generated only a few print sales - not enough to pay for itself. It has however acted as an inexpensive catalog for my sales locally. People could see my work at the Farmers Market and then show their spouse on the net or decide for themselves which particular image they wanted. To that end it has been invaluable - but forget internet sales - a non starter.
And that brings you up to date. Next time I'm going to reflect on some possible ways to earn money. As I haven't found the ideal answer yet - it's going to be more a matter of thinking in print.
Monday, July 28, 2014
How Far Apart Are Mediocre and Superb Lenses?
There are two ways to look at lens quality - what can you measure and test, and what can you see in prints. They 'ain't' the same thing at all.
For example, I made good use of my Sony A6000 on holiday, and the most used lens was the 55-210 - which according to all the usual test sites (photozone.de, slrgear.com) is mediocre. Yet, I have made some lovely images with this lens, and sharpness to me, in the print was perfectly fine. I even tried it on the A7r before selling that camera, and it wasn't bad, but tried removing the baffle to get even wider coverage on the big sensor camera and definitely the edges are poor, but it was never intended for full frame sensors so can hardly be blamed for that.
It's so small and light that it's a perfect match for the A6000, and one of the things that put me off the A7r in the end was that with my 70-200 Canon (that was noticeably sharper than the new Sony 70-200 even in prints) the camera ends up huge.
Issues of quality apply to all formats. Theonlinephotographer recently published an article on lens quality - how to use a lens to it's best, and how to stress it and it makes good reading.
An example of stressing a lens is stopping down well beyond the start of diffraction. Peruse any photo magazine that features landscape and you will find plenty of examples of f22 on a 35 mm. format wide angle - well within diffraction, and when viewed on screen at 100%, clearly showing that the benefit of increased depth of field did not outweigh the fuzziness introduced by the small aperture - but the magazine print, some of them two page spreads, look fantastic. Likewise 13x19 prints show the same thing - what is seen on screen isn't shown in print.
I started to notice this when I went to 20+ megapixels - what was clearly out of focus on screen looked fine in normal sized prints. It's all very well making test crop sections from really enlarged prints, but if you never actually make the uncropped huge print, what you are testing isn't reality.
This is a common phenomenon - just think of cars that handle beautifully at 150 mph, but fortunately are never driven at that speed, cars that cost a lot so they can do wheelies and burn rubber, but you don't because the tires are expensive, and besides, you grew out of that when you turned 21 (ok, maybe 40 for some).
Consider too, the subject matter. A lens that is sharp in the centre but has weak corners and even edges will be fine in portraits, sports, news, streetshooting, and just about anything other than distant landscapes and architecture.
We also need to consider that a superb lens on a small format will not look as good in a large print as a medium quality lens on a larger format, everything else being equal.
Lenses like the Zeiss Otis are mostly about being extremely sharp, corner to corner, wide open, and at this the lens has no peer. But how many of us need corner to corner sharpness at f1.4, or for that matter, the high contrast this lens has wide open. Often 1.4 is for people pictures and a bit of reduced contrast isn't a bad thing, and how often are the corners in the same millimeter deep area of focus anyway?
Bottom line: modest price primes and top quality zooms do a pretty decent job.
For example, I made good use of my Sony A6000 on holiday, and the most used lens was the 55-210 - which according to all the usual test sites (photozone.de, slrgear.com) is mediocre. Yet, I have made some lovely images with this lens, and sharpness to me, in the print was perfectly fine. I even tried it on the A7r before selling that camera, and it wasn't bad, but tried removing the baffle to get even wider coverage on the big sensor camera and definitely the edges are poor, but it was never intended for full frame sensors so can hardly be blamed for that.
It's so small and light that it's a perfect match for the A6000, and one of the things that put me off the A7r in the end was that with my 70-200 Canon (that was noticeably sharper than the new Sony 70-200 even in prints) the camera ends up huge.
Issues of quality apply to all formats. Theonlinephotographer recently published an article on lens quality - how to use a lens to it's best, and how to stress it and it makes good reading.
An example of stressing a lens is stopping down well beyond the start of diffraction. Peruse any photo magazine that features landscape and you will find plenty of examples of f22 on a 35 mm. format wide angle - well within diffraction, and when viewed on screen at 100%, clearly showing that the benefit of increased depth of field did not outweigh the fuzziness introduced by the small aperture - but the magazine print, some of them two page spreads, look fantastic. Likewise 13x19 prints show the same thing - what is seen on screen isn't shown in print.
I started to notice this when I went to 20+ megapixels - what was clearly out of focus on screen looked fine in normal sized prints. It's all very well making test crop sections from really enlarged prints, but if you never actually make the uncropped huge print, what you are testing isn't reality.
This is a common phenomenon - just think of cars that handle beautifully at 150 mph, but fortunately are never driven at that speed, cars that cost a lot so they can do wheelies and burn rubber, but you don't because the tires are expensive, and besides, you grew out of that when you turned 21 (ok, maybe 40 for some).
Consider too, the subject matter. A lens that is sharp in the centre but has weak corners and even edges will be fine in portraits, sports, news, streetshooting, and just about anything other than distant landscapes and architecture.
We also need to consider that a superb lens on a small format will not look as good in a large print as a medium quality lens on a larger format, everything else being equal.
Lenses like the Zeiss Otis are mostly about being extremely sharp, corner to corner, wide open, and at this the lens has no peer. But how many of us need corner to corner sharpness at f1.4, or for that matter, the high contrast this lens has wide open. Often 1.4 is for people pictures and a bit of reduced contrast isn't a bad thing, and how often are the corners in the same millimeter deep area of focus anyway?
Bottom line: modest price primes and top quality zooms do a pretty decent job.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
The Finer Points Of Seeing
There's a whole chapter in my book on "seeing" with tools and exercises, but after yesterday's shoot I thought I'd try to better describe what one is doing when seeing.
For many novice photographers, the definition of seeing is probably "looking for something pretty".
At its simplest level, a photograph consists of shapes and tones. Shapes are determined by the real world characteristics of the subject matter and by the position from which it is photographed. Unless you are going to use Photoshop to distort, that's it, there is no other way to change the shape.
Tonality is a bit more flexible in that exposure and focus can affect the tonality, as well as lighting (including bouncing a little light off a white sweatshirt to fill a deeply shadowed rock. it is even more dramatically affected by printing manipulation, whether in the wet darkroom or in Photoshop. If you have been following Bruce Barnbaum's series of articles on printing in Photo Techniques magazine, you will be aware of the degree to which even a traditional image can be manipulated. With more precise and greater control as well as things like local contrast adjustment the power of digital image editing is even greater.
So, we have shapes and we have tones and the former is fixed when we plant our feet, the latter can be substantially changed once we are home with the image.
Therefore:
The process of seeing is simply a matter of looking for shapes which have potential, and tonalities which with adjustment as needed can provide suitable tones. In the past I might have argued that photographing in bright sun might have been pushing it, but Uwe Steinmuller on Outback Photo has been merrily doing so, hand held no less, with his HDR techniques, so even there... Still, the closer the tonalities are to something which will print well the greater the chance of a good print, and the less work you will have to do to get there.
Correct Order
So, should one be on the lookout for interesting shapes, or surfaces which photograph well? From experience I can tell you that it works in either direction. I might see some great metal shapes sitting on a shelf, and though they tonalities are boring, I know that with work and can deal with that (see prev. blog entries on editing including one on adding roundness and depth with image editing). On the other hand, water provides great tonalities and usually the shape comes second.
Shapes
A month or so ago the Lee Valley Woodworking Catalogue came in the mail and I was very impressed with the cover photograph. Some photographer or designer had shown a lot of ingenuity in photographing tools on black rectangular blocks, stacked up in a staggered hill, both sideways and backwards, creating a series of small flat areas on which to sit the tools. The blocks were all painted a textured black which the photographer had managed to capture perfectly. The tools were metal and wood, many of them hinged rulers forming a series of L shapes on the ledges. The whole thing was photographed from above and to the right so that all the rectangular blocks formed parallelograms and the L shaped rulers all matched. A sign indicating 30th anniversary was in a colour which matched the aged wood of the tools s there were really only three colours in the entire image, aged steel, black and an orangish yellow wood. Obviously it impressed me, after all it was just a catalogue.
The image works because of the powerful shapes chosen in the first place, the placing of the camera which turned rectangles into vertical and a series of matching diagonal lines.
The above illustrates the selection or the finding of the shapes, combined with positioning to modify the shape to meet our needs.
It's possible that one is born interested in shapes, or one is not, but I strongly suspect that anyone can learn to improve their powers of observation. Certainly my own experience is that my own skills have improved hugely even in the last five years.
An Exercise To Try At Home
Go to your tool drawer or even the junk drawer and find some intersting shapes. Take them with you to a comfortable chair with decent but not too harsh lighting. Put on some suitable contemplative music of choice and sit down for an hour looking at each of the objects for at least five minutes each. Inspect it from every angle, from really close to arms length away. Pay attention to the way that light reflects from the surface and how lines change as the object is rotated in front of your eye. Look at shadows on the object and pay attention to how those shadows change the presentation of the object. Are there any positions from which it's hard to identify the object? Why?
The more you do this, the greater variety of objects you study, from vegetables to eggs, to a cloth duster to a pair of scissors, the sharper will be your powers of observation when out photographing and you spot a similar shape or surface.
Spend time with these objects cataloging which shapes are more interesting. It's likely not the whole object, rather one part that has an interesting line to it. Do you like sensuous curves or zig zags, tidy rectangles or triangles?
What An Object Is
The actual material or function of an object is really only of importance if you are doing advertising or photojournalism. For fine art, the object's function is completely irrelevant. This can be hard to get past but remember Edward Weston's use of toilets and dead bodies (animal and human) to provide fodder for his image making.
My image of round rubber gaskets hanging is a good example of the material and use being quite beside the point.
Order
Perhaps the one encompassing theme to looking for suitable shapes to photograph is order. The shapes have to be arranged in a cohesive way, whether by human hand or natures, whether the photographers or some metal worker from 50 years ago. There are times where even the randomness of objects can form a pattern - for example my image of a recycling plant below.
Order can be the way a garden hose is coiled, or the way cloth drapes from a breast or the repeated way that light reflects off of skin in a nude. Can you imagine the human body if each area reflected light differently, left from right, top from bottom, and so on - not nearly as effective in an image.
Shapes Bounded
Remember that whatever shapes we discover, we need to encompass it within the edges of a rectangular print (well usually and traditionally). Shapes which gradually peter out, like the end of a branch, exposing more and more of the background towards the edge of the object can be difficult to frame and the background becomes ever more important. Shapes transected by the edge of the image don't have that problem but now we have lost part of the shape and what is left has to work against the horizontal or vertical line of the image edge. Not all shapes are suitable.
For many novice photographers, the definition of seeing is probably "looking for something pretty".
At its simplest level, a photograph consists of shapes and tones. Shapes are determined by the real world characteristics of the subject matter and by the position from which it is photographed. Unless you are going to use Photoshop to distort, that's it, there is no other way to change the shape.
Tonality is a bit more flexible in that exposure and focus can affect the tonality, as well as lighting (including bouncing a little light off a white sweatshirt to fill a deeply shadowed rock. it is even more dramatically affected by printing manipulation, whether in the wet darkroom or in Photoshop. If you have been following Bruce Barnbaum's series of articles on printing in Photo Techniques magazine, you will be aware of the degree to which even a traditional image can be manipulated. With more precise and greater control as well as things like local contrast adjustment the power of digital image editing is even greater.
So, we have shapes and we have tones and the former is fixed when we plant our feet, the latter can be substantially changed once we are home with the image.
Therefore:
The process of seeing is simply a matter of looking for shapes which have potential, and tonalities which with adjustment as needed can provide suitable tones. In the past I might have argued that photographing in bright sun might have been pushing it, but Uwe Steinmuller on Outback Photo has been merrily doing so, hand held no less, with his HDR techniques, so even there... Still, the closer the tonalities are to something which will print well the greater the chance of a good print, and the less work you will have to do to get there.
Correct Order
So, should one be on the lookout for interesting shapes, or surfaces which photograph well? From experience I can tell you that it works in either direction. I might see some great metal shapes sitting on a shelf, and though they tonalities are boring, I know that with work and can deal with that (see prev. blog entries on editing including one on adding roundness and depth with image editing). On the other hand, water provides great tonalities and usually the shape comes second.
Shapes
A month or so ago the Lee Valley Woodworking Catalogue came in the mail and I was very impressed with the cover photograph. Some photographer or designer had shown a lot of ingenuity in photographing tools on black rectangular blocks, stacked up in a staggered hill, both sideways and backwards, creating a series of small flat areas on which to sit the tools. The blocks were all painted a textured black which the photographer had managed to capture perfectly. The tools were metal and wood, many of them hinged rulers forming a series of L shapes on the ledges. The whole thing was photographed from above and to the right so that all the rectangular blocks formed parallelograms and the L shaped rulers all matched. A sign indicating 30th anniversary was in a colour which matched the aged wood of the tools s there were really only three colours in the entire image, aged steel, black and an orangish yellow wood. Obviously it impressed me, after all it was just a catalogue.
The image works because of the powerful shapes chosen in the first place, the placing of the camera which turned rectangles into vertical and a series of matching diagonal lines.
The above illustrates the selection or the finding of the shapes, combined with positioning to modify the shape to meet our needs.
It's possible that one is born interested in shapes, or one is not, but I strongly suspect that anyone can learn to improve their powers of observation. Certainly my own experience is that my own skills have improved hugely even in the last five years.
An Exercise To Try At Home
Go to your tool drawer or even the junk drawer and find some intersting shapes. Take them with you to a comfortable chair with decent but not too harsh lighting. Put on some suitable contemplative music of choice and sit down for an hour looking at each of the objects for at least five minutes each. Inspect it from every angle, from really close to arms length away. Pay attention to the way that light reflects from the surface and how lines change as the object is rotated in front of your eye. Look at shadows on the object and pay attention to how those shadows change the presentation of the object. Are there any positions from which it's hard to identify the object? Why?
The more you do this, the greater variety of objects you study, from vegetables to eggs, to a cloth duster to a pair of scissors, the sharper will be your powers of observation when out photographing and you spot a similar shape or surface.
Spend time with these objects cataloging which shapes are more interesting. It's likely not the whole object, rather one part that has an interesting line to it. Do you like sensuous curves or zig zags, tidy rectangles or triangles?
What An Object Is
The actual material or function of an object is really only of importance if you are doing advertising or photojournalism. For fine art, the object's function is completely irrelevant. This can be hard to get past but remember Edward Weston's use of toilets and dead bodies (animal and human) to provide fodder for his image making.
My image of round rubber gaskets hanging is a good example of the material and use being quite beside the point.
Order
Perhaps the one encompassing theme to looking for suitable shapes to photograph is order. The shapes have to be arranged in a cohesive way, whether by human hand or natures, whether the photographers or some metal worker from 50 years ago. There are times where even the randomness of objects can form a pattern - for example my image of a recycling plant below.
Order can be the way a garden hose is coiled, or the way cloth drapes from a breast or the repeated way that light reflects off of skin in a nude. Can you imagine the human body if each area reflected light differently, left from right, top from bottom, and so on - not nearly as effective in an image.
Shapes Bounded
Remember that whatever shapes we discover, we need to encompass it within the edges of a rectangular print (well usually and traditionally). Shapes which gradually peter out, like the end of a branch, exposing more and more of the background towards the edge of the object can be difficult to frame and the background becomes ever more important. Shapes transected by the edge of the image don't have that problem but now we have lost part of the shape and what is left has to work against the horizontal or vertical line of the image edge. Not all shapes are suitable.
Monday, November 27, 2006
In From The Cold
An unseasonable minus 27 c. is keeping me indoors (yes, I know, I'm being a wimp). Here's a few things you might do when you can't or won't go out shooting.
1) Back up your important images to DVD. Back up your raw files too, in case future raw processors improve (they did already compared to two years ago).
2) Throw out images you are sure you will never use - start with all the technically flawed images, the duplicates in which the grass hadn't stopped swinging, etc.
3) Scan some old and favourite images.
4) Try a still-life. The winner of this years's 'Black and White Photography' magazine award is a still-life of some tulips.
5) Submit a series of related images for publication.
6) Dust that sensor, clean your lenses.
7) Make a viewing frame to hang round your neck (cardboard or plastic with cutout window shape of your camera format)
8) Pad those cold metal tripod legs.
9) Pick up some photography magazines - no not the ones full of ads and with very little content - get ones with images in them - for example 'Camera Arts', 'B&W', 'Focus', 'Lenswork', 'Silvershots', 'Black and White Photography'
10) This is your chance to create, update, spiff up or generally improve your website.
1) Back up your important images to DVD. Back up your raw files too, in case future raw processors improve (they did already compared to two years ago).
2) Throw out images you are sure you will never use - start with all the technically flawed images, the duplicates in which the grass hadn't stopped swinging, etc.
3) Scan some old and favourite images.
4) Try a still-life. The winner of this years's 'Black and White Photography' magazine award is a still-life of some tulips.
5) Submit a series of related images for publication.
6) Dust that sensor, clean your lenses.
7) Make a viewing frame to hang round your neck (cardboard or plastic with cutout window shape of your camera format)
8) Pad those cold metal tripod legs.
9) Pick up some photography magazines - no not the ones full of ads and with very little content - get ones with images in them - for example 'Camera Arts', 'B&W', 'Focus', 'Lenswork', 'Silvershots', 'Black and White Photography'
10) This is your chance to create, update, spiff up or generally improve your website.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Seeing - Resources For Better Vision
I'm frequently told 'you have a good eye', whatever that means. That I hear if fairly often in almost exactly the same words does I think imply that I can spot interesting things when not expected, that I can compose fairly competently and that I present things in a way that is interesting.
So, if, after looking at my images; you agree (and there are lots of people who glance at my images and walk on so this is definitely not a given and is a critical question), then how did I get here and is there anything to be learned from the experience which you might find useful.
I didn't start attending workshops till I was already quite experienced so I don't think that was the answer for me. It wasn't having shows and getting feedback as most of my images have hidden in print boxes most of my life. I don't live in New York and have access to photo shows every weekend.
What I do have had though over the years is a number of bookstores which stocked the usual classic books. For a time I joined Aperture - till they got too weird, and Friends Of Photography. Through those two organizations I acquired a number of the important photographic books.
I started with the big names - Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Minor White, Paul Strand, Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Caponigro, and "Brett Weston. I poured over these images time and again. I picked my favourites. I consciously decided why I didn't like some (knowing others did).
By this time I had a pretty good appreciation for the classic landscape, but about almost nothing else.
I took a photographic appreciation course. We spent an hour looking at a single image by Stieglitz, a picture of a porch - nothing else, boring photograph - I left the weekend course frustrated and disappointed. It hadn't been anything like what I had expected.
But, within six months I was looking at photographs in a completely different way. Hubert Hohn had taught me to look at a lot more than whether it was a pretty picture. He had us look at the edges, he pointed out coincidences - not the random kind, the kind where the photographer very carefully put things next to each other, or in the corner or opposite each other. He had us look at the shadows and their interesting shapes. He pointed out that when something was in front of something else, there was generally an excellent reason for it - not just dumb luck.
This experience of being given new information and thinking it total crap has happened a few times in my life, only to find months later that it has soaked in and changed me forever. Don't you hate people like that, and don't you wish that could happen to you more often?
Along the road, I found 'Zone VI Workshop' a very small book with some radical ideas about shooting, processing and printing which not only simplified my life, it dramatically improved the qualities of my prints. Fred was an extremely opinionated bastard and not occasionally contradicted himself over time, denigrating both his former and future opinions without ever recognizing or admitting to either. That said, he had some very good ideas. He was a great proponent of the KISS system - 'keep it simple, stupid', and was a great advocate of not taking anyone's opinion as gospel, his included - you had to test and find out for yourself - how far can you stop down - don't look up tables, don't look at formulae, definitely don't ask anyone else - find out for yourself.
With my Canon 1Ds2, stopping down beyond f16 results in absolutely no more sharpness in the out of focus areas and blurs the sharp ones - I tested it and found out for myself. Your results might be different - don't believe me!
Fred was not the easiest person to get along with and as such I think his photography has been under appreciated - his images tend to be rather quiet and take some time to appreciate, but were well worth looking at. His newsletter published for several years had a lot of interesting ideas and some of them were even useful - and the ones that weren't were entertaining to read. He had learned composition from the likes of Paul Strand and had some good things to say about framing and composing.
Other photographers I lucked into - on the remaindered pile I found a paperback book of images by David Plowden - I found myself identifying with his images even more than those of many better known photographers.
Over the years the usual collection of photo mags would occasionally publish images by masters and that would lead to a search for books of images from that photographer. In the early days and on a very limited budget the library was of some use.
A local photo gallery brought in someone called Bruce Barnbaum for a workshop and at the same time had a show of his work - 'wow', this man could PRINT. He had some lovely images.
The advent of the internet has been a real boon - there are a huge number of images on the net worth checking out. I found the work of Michael Kenna, Kerik Kouklis, Roman Loranc, William Neill
Somewhere along the way I discovered 'Lenswork' magazine - good photography and superb printing, three photographers per issue - a great resource for black and white photography. 'Black and White Photography' from Britain is another excellent resource especially for wet darkroom printers and with good photography in every issue. 'B&W' has become an invaluable resource and their recent Portfolio Annual (which just happened to feature my photographs first (joys of being at the beginning of the alphabet) was particularly well printed. A new magazine is 'Focus' which has been similar to 'B&W' but now features some colour in each issue (and also has four of my colour images in it this month).
I have to say though that the first time I saw a real Ansel Adams image, I was blown away with the quality - reproductions didn't do justice to the superb prints. Mind you, book printing has come a long way since. Screens have gone from 150 up to 600 line, dots are sometimes stochastic (random, instead of in neat rows - which show in skies and other smooth areas). Multiple inks are used for really good blacks. Even paper quality has improved. The gap is narrowing and a lot can be learned from the printed image - but I'd still grab every chance you can to see real images. If you can get a chance to see the prints bare, not behind glass, even better.
Many years ago, Fred Picker offered a set of four 'fine images' to use as examples of good quality printing. They weren't great images but they were certainly printed well and were a good start. There are a lot of photographers offering images on the internet often at quite reasonable prices and should they have a good reputation for their prints, you might well find it worthwhile to purchase a few images just to have as a target at which to aim.
Brooks Jensen (Lenswork Editor and photographer in his own right) recently offered one of his images for $20, shipping included - how could you possibly go wrong? Brooks, by the way, has some interesting and thoughtful insights into photography. He photographs, publishes, talks to the greats, and knows a lot about the industry of fine art photography (not all of it very encouraging - but it doesn't hurt to have a reality check).
Brooks makes comments like, "How can photographers expect people to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for photographs when they themselves have never ever paid that kind of money for any art work?"
Well, hope these are some ideas for broadening your own perspective. If nothing else it should show you that not ALL landscape images have to be shot with a 17 mm. lens with an extreme near far composition and the horizon an inch from the top of the image - come on guys, you can do better than that.
So, if, after looking at my images; you agree (and there are lots of people who glance at my images and walk on so this is definitely not a given and is a critical question), then how did I get here and is there anything to be learned from the experience which you might find useful.
I didn't start attending workshops till I was already quite experienced so I don't think that was the answer for me. It wasn't having shows and getting feedback as most of my images have hidden in print boxes most of my life. I don't live in New York and have access to photo shows every weekend.
What I do have had though over the years is a number of bookstores which stocked the usual classic books. For a time I joined Aperture - till they got too weird, and Friends Of Photography. Through those two organizations I acquired a number of the important photographic books.
I started with the big names - Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Minor White, Paul Strand, Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Caponigro, and "Brett Weston. I poured over these images time and again. I picked my favourites. I consciously decided why I didn't like some (knowing others did).
By this time I had a pretty good appreciation for the classic landscape, but about almost nothing else.
I took a photographic appreciation course. We spent an hour looking at a single image by Stieglitz, a picture of a porch - nothing else, boring photograph - I left the weekend course frustrated and disappointed. It hadn't been anything like what I had expected.
But, within six months I was looking at photographs in a completely different way. Hubert Hohn had taught me to look at a lot more than whether it was a pretty picture. He had us look at the edges, he pointed out coincidences - not the random kind, the kind where the photographer very carefully put things next to each other, or in the corner or opposite each other. He had us look at the shadows and their interesting shapes. He pointed out that when something was in front of something else, there was generally an excellent reason for it - not just dumb luck.
This experience of being given new information and thinking it total crap has happened a few times in my life, only to find months later that it has soaked in and changed me forever. Don't you hate people like that, and don't you wish that could happen to you more often?
Along the road, I found 'Zone VI Workshop' a very small book with some radical ideas about shooting, processing and printing which not only simplified my life, it dramatically improved the qualities of my prints. Fred was an extremely opinionated bastard and not occasionally contradicted himself over time, denigrating both his former and future opinions without ever recognizing or admitting to either. That said, he had some very good ideas. He was a great proponent of the KISS system - 'keep it simple, stupid', and was a great advocate of not taking anyone's opinion as gospel, his included - you had to test and find out for yourself - how far can you stop down - don't look up tables, don't look at formulae, definitely don't ask anyone else - find out for yourself.
With my Canon 1Ds2, stopping down beyond f16 results in absolutely no more sharpness in the out of focus areas and blurs the sharp ones - I tested it and found out for myself. Your results might be different - don't believe me!
Fred was not the easiest person to get along with and as such I think his photography has been under appreciated - his images tend to be rather quiet and take some time to appreciate, but were well worth looking at. His newsletter published for several years had a lot of interesting ideas and some of them were even useful - and the ones that weren't were entertaining to read. He had learned composition from the likes of Paul Strand and had some good things to say about framing and composing.
Other photographers I lucked into - on the remaindered pile I found a paperback book of images by David Plowden - I found myself identifying with his images even more than those of many better known photographers.
Over the years the usual collection of photo mags would occasionally publish images by masters and that would lead to a search for books of images from that photographer. In the early days and on a very limited budget the library was of some use.
A local photo gallery brought in someone called Bruce Barnbaum for a workshop and at the same time had a show of his work - 'wow', this man could PRINT. He had some lovely images.
The advent of the internet has been a real boon - there are a huge number of images on the net worth checking out. I found the work of Michael Kenna, Kerik Kouklis, Roman Loranc, William Neill
Somewhere along the way I discovered 'Lenswork' magazine - good photography and superb printing, three photographers per issue - a great resource for black and white photography. 'Black and White Photography' from Britain is another excellent resource especially for wet darkroom printers and with good photography in every issue. 'B&W' has become an invaluable resource and their recent Portfolio Annual (which just happened to feature my photographs first (joys of being at the beginning of the alphabet) was particularly well printed. A new magazine is 'Focus' which has been similar to 'B&W' but now features some colour in each issue (and also has four of my colour images in it this month).
I have to say though that the first time I saw a real Ansel Adams image, I was blown away with the quality - reproductions didn't do justice to the superb prints. Mind you, book printing has come a long way since. Screens have gone from 150 up to 600 line, dots are sometimes stochastic (random, instead of in neat rows - which show in skies and other smooth areas). Multiple inks are used for really good blacks. Even paper quality has improved. The gap is narrowing and a lot can be learned from the printed image - but I'd still grab every chance you can to see real images. If you can get a chance to see the prints bare, not behind glass, even better.
Many years ago, Fred Picker offered a set of four 'fine images' to use as examples of good quality printing. They weren't great images but they were certainly printed well and were a good start. There are a lot of photographers offering images on the internet often at quite reasonable prices and should they have a good reputation for their prints, you might well find it worthwhile to purchase a few images just to have as a target at which to aim.
Brooks Jensen (Lenswork Editor and photographer in his own right) recently offered one of his images for $20, shipping included - how could you possibly go wrong? Brooks, by the way, has some interesting and thoughtful insights into photography. He photographs, publishes, talks to the greats, and knows a lot about the industry of fine art photography (not all of it very encouraging - but it doesn't hurt to have a reality check).
Brooks makes comments like, "How can photographers expect people to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for photographs when they themselves have never ever paid that kind of money for any art work?"
Well, hope these are some ideas for broadening your own perspective. If nothing else it should show you that not ALL landscape images have to be shot with a 17 mm. lens with an extreme near far composition and the horizon an inch from the top of the image - come on guys, you can do better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)