Art In Photography

A great deal of fun can be had, if you are inclined that way; in debating art and photography, art in photography, art vs. photography, art isn't photography (or more properly photography ain't art) and so on. The problem with such discussions (which often generate heated and passionate debate) is that they really don't serve any useful purpose than to entertain, said entertainment mostly supplied to those doing the debating, not the poor reader.

So the question today is - is there any role at all for discussing photography as art that can actually make a meaningful difference to the individual photographer? I think it can - I think that contemplating art in photography can make our images stronger and can increase the chance that images thereafter are more likely to have meaning for those viewing.

Although in my blog I have tended to write about the creative or artistic side of photography, seeing and composing and such, it could well be argued that these topics remain the purview of craft rather than art. That being the case, what can or should be said about the art in photography?

Without getting into a (meaningless) debate about what is art, it might be possible to discuss how one experiences art in general and then apply that to photography and usefully discuss ideas for making images with better artistic elements.

Let's take an imaginary trip to a painting gallery. There are some two dozen landscape paintings displayed, by a number of local artists. Prices are actually affordable so it's not inconceivable that if something really caught your attention, you could actually consider purchasing it for that spot over the sofa. There is no consistency in style (after all it's a group show of "landscapes", technique and interpretation up to the painter.

We make a quick tour around, suspecting as we do that local talent may be lacking and our expectations aren't terribly high. Still, you never know, and the greats were once unknown and so with at least the hope of seeing something interesting, we survey the works.

There are several pretty scenes which would not disgrace our living room, some that are just plain odd and a few which don't seem to display much skill, in colour or composition or whatever.

A couple of the images are just plain disturbing, and one image reminds you of some of your best hikes - odd because what it reminds you of is the smell of rotting leaves in the fall - almost like tea, and the sharpness of the cool yet sunny fall air. You can almost hear the rustle of leaves in the trees. Odd, because the image is semi abstract and clearly doesn't show a hell of a lot - so how could the artist possibly have put all that into his painting. Perhaps he didn't even know he'd done so. Maybe someone else seeing the painting gets an entirely different feeling from it.

It so happens that this is opening night and while most people are gathered round the wine and munchies, talking to each other, the artists are standing round the walls, just waiting for some interested person to talk to them. You find the painter of this semi abstract image apparently representing fall and start a conversation.

Rather than offer a leading question like "how did you get the rustle of the leaves into the painting", you ask the more open ended question of "what did you want me to see in this painting?".

Unlike some artists who have been "got to" by gallery owners and been taught to to talk "artspeak", this fellow is rather naive and gives quite straight forward answers. Turns out he didn't have an agenda. He feels interpretation is entirely up to the viewer and he can tell you that this evening he has already had several interpretations offered, each incompatible with all the others, and none having the least to do with the thoughts of the painter at the time.

You want more than this so and you press the artist to explain why he made this particular painting. He hesitantly explains that he was sitting on the toilet, looking out through the frosted bathroom window at leaves of a maple actually brushing up against the window, shifting somewhat in an apparent breeze. Obviously he has sat here on many occasions, but something makes him pay attention. It might be the light or the particular variation of fall colours (though they hadn't changed much in the last few days and only on that particular day had the urge struck to make a painting.

He suggests it might just be his mood on the day, a little wistful, a few days after his girl friend has gone on a trip to Europe. He was feeling restless and empty. Did he consciously plan to paint that - hell no, he'd only just thought of it when you asked the question, and the explanation wasn't likely any more accurate than the suggested interpretations offered by the other gallery goers.

You still aren't satisfied - there must have been a reason to not only pick up a brush but to select those colours, paint them in that particular way, with the composition chosen and painted in the style selected.

The artist stumbles on this, and finally, recognizing the failure of his answer, admits that "it just seemed right".

It's clear that there is no great existential "truth" in this image for the painter, and even learning of his frame of mind at the time doesn't really explain how you came to interpret the image the way you did, and it occurs to you that perhaps had your mood been different, you might have interpreted the image in an entirely different way.

You leave the gallery with some idea of the creative process and wonder how you can apply what you have learned in your own photography.

Lessons learned:

1) It isn't essential for a work of art to have a message, only that it be capable of interpretations, the latter being entirely personal to the viewer.

2) There needs to be a reason to take the picture, and thoughts of "it will sell well" aren't good enough. It has to be a reason that relates to the artist. In the case of the photographer, it probably isn't necessary to understand why, just enough that you thought something needed photographing, that it intrigued you in some way you aren't even aware of, or perhaps even the feeling of "gee, I can do something with that".

3) We have no trouble ascribing the term "artist" to a painter, but similar thoughts and drives and needs seem to happen to photographers, so why shouldn't we apply the term to photographers?

If we are willing to ascribe the term artist to at least some photographers, then to whom do we apply the term? Who clearly does or doesn't qualify and now does one decide? Does it matter if the photographer was on contract and being paid to produce the work? Well, most certainly almost all of the famous artists from Michelangelo to Rembrandt were most certainly on commission. Many modern artists have commissions from government agencies to work on a project, just as Edward Weston and Ansel Adams had Guggenheim Fellowships to explore projects. It's beginning to look as if there isn't a lot of difference between painters and photographers after all. Maybe photographers are artists after all, and perhaps even hobbyist photographers who see something interesting and photograph it and edit it are artists too, even if not terribly experienced, or talented ones. Just maybe there's a little bit of artist in all of us and we should stop worrying about whether we are being artful or not.

A lot can be learned from listening to great photographers speak about the motivations for their work. Sure a few, like Caponigro, couch their work in "artspeak" but the vast majority do not and their motivations and pathways seem not a lot different from ours.

I can highly recommend Edward Weston's Daybooks as useful reading to understand the mind of a great photographer. Attending workshops and conferences where you can be exposed to several great photographers can be helpful.

If nothing else, you are likely to learn that great photographers are human too, that their thought processes are typically similar to ours when out photographing - it's just that they have a better eye for the interesting, have more skill in composing and editing an image and perhaps most of all, are better at not bullshitting themselves into believing an image is "good enough" when your heart says no.

It is fascinating to look at proof sheets of the greats - that their proofs really don't look all that different from ours, except we didn't make that one image on the proof that really stands out compared to the rest. They knew they "hadn't got it yet" and kept striving till they did "get it" where we quit without perhaps even knowing that we could have gone further. They had the tools (mentally that is) and we didn't - therein lies the difference between the great and the good.

The difference between good and great isn't one of kind, but of degree, of effort, experience, skill, determination, and perhaps a recognition of a journey completed - "ahah, that's what I wanted".

On Photographing The Beautiful

Luminous Landscape has an article I wrote on the problems of photographing things that are already spectacular, and how one might deal with this problem. In the forum discussion there is an interesting thread in the site section at the top following up on the article that once you get past the nice things said starts to get interesting.

Truck

To make the image above, I started with the image below. I knew at the time that I'd be cropping either end. Perhaps I should have stitched a more tightly cropped image so nothing would be thrown away but fortunately with 16 mp, I can afford to do some cropping.



In the end, the headlight was problematic so I took a little off the bottom, and I ended up with too much sky reflected in the upper right hand corner so cropped the top a little too. I consider this fine tuning and was glad to have the option to crop just exactly so. Had I framed it "perfectly" in the original file(s), then perhaps I might have regretted it later (see previous blog entry for mistakes I make).

I worked on the colour image for a while, balancing the tonalities (too dark on the left bottom. I added some contrast and then added local contrast with Akvis Enhancer. I immediately backed up a step though and used the history brush on the enhanced step to apply the enhancement at a reduced degree (around 30%) as and where needed, including in a few areas stroking more than once so going beyond 30% as needed. Most of the image had no enhancement in the end, but other parts varied from 30-100% of the effect.

In the end I had a nice image, but the green and rust and pale blue of the sky clashed and I thought that the image might work better in black and white.

I darkened the blue slider to work on the sky reflected in the windshield, while using yellow and red sliders to increase tonality in the rust and green (in real life most green is far more yellow than green).

I liked what I saw but as often happens, needed even more contrast now that colour was not part of the information in the image. I added this selectively (not on the windshield) and used a couple more layers to lighten and darken as needed.

I didn't like the texture in the windshield on our left and so duplicated the flattened image and used gaussian blur of around 7 pixels to de-emphasize what was coming through the glass. A lot of blurring tends to look unnatural but this much carefully applied only to the windshield worked perfectly.

I decided that I still had a little bit too much almost white in that upper left corner so cropped even tighter than originally planned and feel the result is stronger.

That the end result is close to a square is just coincidence - it just worked out that way, but as you perhaps know from previous blogs, I am very fond of square images, so it certainly doesn't hurt.

Success And Failure

After being out photographing yesterday and making a few prints today that I showed my wife and getting little enthusiasm for the results and realizing myself that though they worked out and were decent images, they certainly weren't great images, it occurred to me that it might be worth discussing the differences between a day in which really great images are produced, and one in which the images are ok but no more.

Regretfully, the most noticeable observation is that there isn't a lot of difference in the two days. I start out with equal enthusiasm and energy, my eye seems no more tuned on the great days than the others, my technique doesn't differ and the amount of effort I put in to working the locations doesn't vary.

Often but not always, I recognize a really great subject when I find it and know for the rest of the day that whatever else I find, it doesn't really matter because the day is a success already.

I felt that way when I photographed the rusty side of a boiler a couple of weeks ago and even though I have continued to refine my editing of the image since then, nothing has made me change my mind about the image.

For better or worse, I suspect that all one can do to make more of these kinds of images is to at least be prepared for them, to capture them properly and not screw up and offer ourselves the best possible negative or digital file we can.

Yesteday I was photographing with my friend Robin and he'd borrowed my 400 Tele-Fujinon for his 4X5. He found an image he was quite excited about, one of the old trucks, and was trying to capture the image with his 135 mm. lens (wide normal for a 4X5). I suggested trying the 400 on the grounds that he'd include a lot less background (ridged metal siding) if he could shoot from further away. Robin set up and determined his expusure which was for f22. Perhaps you don't use 4X5 but let me tell you that at f22 with a 400 mm. long lens on 4X5 you "ain't got no damn depth of field".

Robin has done this before, with his medium format equipment, finding out after the fact that his depth of field wasn't nearly enough to cover what he needed - I suspect that in the past he photographed things at infinity and I have been corrupting him with my work close up, but anyway, I suggested he stop all the way down to f64. Diffraction will limit the size of prints he can make, but I suspect that he will get a really good 8X10, which he wouldn't have at the wider aperture.

The other, harder and probably more important part of being ready for the great images is to not screw up the composition. There is nothing worse than getting home and looking at the proofs and realizing that you should have been a 1/4 inch to the left, that something sticks up from the background which in hind sight glares out saying careless. In a digital world, one can often shoot several attempts to ensure that "I got it", subject to wind and weather of course, but Robin had 10 sheets of film yesterday for a day's shooting - something he spent much of the day regretting, yet represents typical previous practice for him. Even with his limited amount of film, Robin tended to see something he liked and would then set up at that spot. I noted that in every case, Robin had his tripod (a rather short one) at full extension and that he didn't spend a lot of time working the scene, bending his knees or stretching to see if he really was in the best spot. If you do shoot large format film, even less can you afford to not work the scene.

If you truly fear that you might lose the shot - to changing weather or rotation of the sun, or the wind picking up - then go ahead and use a single sheet of film on that first setup, but rather than duplicating the image with a second piece of film as backup insurance, start working the area to be sure that you get the best possible image and use that second sheet for the "new and improved" setup. Perhaps the original will be the best, maybe you won't even get the chance for a second shot as the situation changes, but most of the time you will and some of the time, the second shot will be substantially better than the first.

Below is a list of screwups that even in the last few years have bitten me in the ass and prevented the recording of a great image. In days past it used to be exposure, but in a digital world there really is no excuse, and of course you can't have any darkroom accidents - every so often two sheets of film would stick together in the tank probably during aggitation - but that's history for me, for now, unless I succumb to the temptation to try out ultra large format with a 7X17. Anyway, on with the list:

1) depth of field - before I started shooting multiple images for blending in Helicon Focus, this was by far the most common problem. Depth of field scales on modern lenses are either useless or often just plain missing (no great loss). As I don't use the multiple image technique for the majority of my images, I still sometimes screw up.

2) cropping too tightly - I can blame the joys of looking through a relatively small viewfinder - and perhaps if my next camera has a 3 inch or bigger LCD I can be more exact, but even yesterday I shot an image in which I ended up cropping out the corner where two important lines met - not by much, but missing is missing. Sure it's important to use every pixel, but better you can't make quite as big an image but at least you captured all you intended. This issue depends somewhat on your viewfinder. As a lot of lower and medium level cameras have viewfinders which show less than 100% of the image, you may not even be aware of this problem. My camera viewfinder shows all, but can you really be sure it captured the last 1/4 inch in a scene that was perhaps 20 inches across - that's 1/80th of the image width in the viewfinder.

3) near to far alignment - again at the size of the view finder, can you be sure you aligned the two objects perfectly - perhaps you should use the playback zoom to check on the lcd that you did in fact get the alignment perfect.

4) the uncluttered background - it's not enough for you to think that telephone pole is hidden, you need to be sure, and did you remember to avoid the wires? It sounds silly, but in the excitement of a really good image, it's all too easy to screw up details like this.

5) Clipped highlights - if the light parts of the image are really important, it's not enough to assume that the recovery slider in Camera Raw is going to save your ass - make sure they are within range and if need be shoot a second exposure for the shadows.

6) flare. While I generally use lens hoods, the problem with zooms is that the hoods are of course designed for the widest focal length the zoom goes to, on a full frame camera (assuming it isn't a reduced frame only lens). If you go longer or you use an APS-C sensor sized camera, then assume the hood isn't going to be adequate. With really wide lenses, every speck of dust on the front surface is going to produce a diaphragm shaped flare in your image if there are bright spots either within your image or nearby - no matter how careful you are to use your hand or hat to block the sun from the front of the lens. Even sun on the side of the hoot creates problems if the shot you are recording is of something really in deep shade. A final brushing of that front element can reduce or eliminate hours of attempting to edit those flares in Photoshop - I speak from experience.

7) Vibration - in the excitement - did I really wait long enough after touching the camera for all vibration to settle, to then trigger the mirror release and wait again for a couple of seconds for vibration to settle. Some camera setups are more vibration prone - obviously long lenses for a start. But how about long exposures with IS turned on - IS isn't designed for 1 second exposures so turn it off. I found that even though my 70-200 f 4 zoom was small enough that it didn't have to use the lens bracket and I could mount the camera to the tripod, lens to the camera, in fact it stuck out enough that it really did magnify vibrations and using a lens mounting bracket has made a big difference. Besides, that's usually all I need for stitching with longer lenses as now I can rotate the camera around the lens. Sometimes a lens hood catched a cross wind and creates vibration. In windy conditions I sometimes hang onto the camera during exposure even though it's tripod mounted and I'm using a $1000 tripod. Yesterday, I noted that though Robin was using an older metal goodly sized Gitzo tripod, the ball head he was using was much too light for the purpose and considerable play and therefore vibration was set up between the top of the tripod and the camera base. Thou shalt not ever use rubber mats on tripod heads to protect your camera - either you want to save your camera as a collectors item, or you want to use it - you decide.

I dare say I make a hell of a lot more mistakes than that, but the above list consists of real problems I have and continue to face on a regular basis.

Do you even know what the problems are that you face - if you haven't done the detective work to figure out where your problems lie, then thinking about that might be your fist step to success.

More From Pioneer Acres

Pioneer Acres Colour

Into The Country

The church was on the way, the other two images photographed at Pioneer Acres, a local club who collect, work on and play with tractors and trucks going back many years. We'd been shown the shiny like new indoor collection but soon found ourselves having a lot more fun and success with the as yet not restored vehicles outside.

Rockfall

Another Fan

I was curious to see what happens to an image when you move the clarity slider to the negative numbers. Suddenly detail is suppressed and the image takes on a smootheness and simpleness which is quite appealing - almost a posterized effect but not quite as there are still subtle shadings and tonal variations. just not big jumps that would emphasize fine detail.

Click on the image to see it larger to get a better sense of the look.

Fan

Back at the field of machines again this afternoon and darned if there aren't a collection of poles inserted, ready to fence the thing off from nice people like me - looks like this will be my last weekend to play there.

I had noticed a collection of industrial fans on my first trip and hadn't yet found a satisfactory way to photograph them. Oddly, today the sun came out just as I lugged my camera to the car and to my surprise, the sun worked better for photographing this fan.

I like the high key look of this image though it certainly doesn't look real - it emphasizes the patterns over the technology.

Tarps As Subject?

I Missed It

I didn't notice till now that I'm at 1006 entries to my blog - my sympathies to any of you who have had to read all 1006 of them. I know when I took some blog entries to make the first book, I was horrified at some of the things I had written - of course what you may not realize is that many of them are written between patients - somebody's a few minutes late and I add another paragraph. So my apologies, and hopefully the meaning comes through even if correct grammar and spelling don't.

Racks In Black And White

There's nothing wrong with the originally posted colour image - the blue and rust go well together, but when converted to black and white one can concentrate on the lines better and I think this might just be the image that is the keeper.

This black and white image still needs some work - there is a band of low contrast across the image about 3/4 of the way from the bottom which needs a bit of strengthening. The bottom right corner might need a little help too - time to make a print and live with it for a couple of days.

And In Black And White

Back At The Field

Yesterday I looked out the front of the house - good cloud cover, I grabbed the camera and went out the back - the sun was shining - it stayed shining through the shoot and definitely cramped my style.

Fortunately today the clouds were significantly more substantial and I was fairly productive. Here you have the first couple of images. I used helicon focus in both - with the steel racks it took about 9 images to get from near to far and is fairly typical of really wide angle blends - it was less than perfect with some "double exposure" in the background gravel. I think I can do some image resizing and try blending fewer images to get a better result. It seems Helicon Focus can tollerate minor changes in image size as you focus with longer lenses (say 50 mm. and longer) but with really wide lenses (17-24 mm.) there is enough change in image size as you focus for Helicon to struggle especially at the edges.

The second image required Helicon Focus because although only two images, I needed to select the sharp from each and Helicon could do this automatically for me, one focussed on the flowers, the other on the machinery in the background.

If You Think Photographing Rust Is Weird...

More Rust, So There!

I went back to the field of machines tonight with my big camera and found a few more interesting things, not the least of which was this abstract in rust.

Reviews, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Can't remember which one of you warned me on completing my book to stand prepared to be shot down in flames in criticisms. For sure that has come to pass. Fortunately there are more comments that are positive and I'm coping just fine thank you - nothing like selling out the first run of 5000 to immure you from those who would put you down.

Still, it's interesting to consider the negative comments:

I did not see a single image that I thought "I wish I had taken that". I think this book is a waste of money.

One wonders what kind of photographs this person does like. Perhaps he only does sports or people or street photography but it's hard to believe that such a person wouldn't find something of interest, even if only to say, I could have done better with that subject.

The following two comemnts make an intersting pair:

The author provides no insight into his thought process in either composition or technique.

However -- that's all the book is about, HIS images. He does talk about inspiration -- HIS inspirations.

Some criticised the photographs while approving the text while others liked the text but didn't think the pictures were up to snuff.

Some thought my writing pretentious while others praised the relaxed casual and comfortable style.

The good news is that I also had comments like the following:

At first glance, I had a hard time learning to see the beauty in the art that is industrial photography. When I first got this book in the mail, I looked through its pages and was disappointed, thinking "how can I make myself read this if I don't even like the pictures?" Coming from someone that loves impressionism, this shouldn't be hard to understand.
But knowing George's writing already from the Luminous landscape site, I thought there must be something more to this book, and started reading. I'm so glad I did! The clear writing style kept me interested--and as a result a whole new way of making photographs has been revealed to me. He gives excellent advice and already my creative process has benefited from reading his book. This will forever be in my photographic library. I can't wait to re-read it when in need of inspiration and ideas.

As a side-note, I'm now hooked on the beauty and challenges of industrial photography. A whole new genre of photography has been opened up to me. I highly reccommend this book--its a gem!

And I received this email from Mark:

Hi George,

I was so impressed with the lines and corners part of your book 'Take your Photography to the Next Level' I went out and gave my self a project. Here is the result, if you are interested:
Exercise Images

I also showed an AV version to the folk at my camera club to illustrate the point.

It only lasted a few minutes and I asked them to see if they could detect what all the images had in common. They couldn't see it straight away but eventually it clicked. Some were so impressed they asked me for details of your book, which I gladly passed on. Look out for more book orders from Northern Ireland!

So thank you for your book, you have taken me to the next level and also introduced me to the Radiant Vista and so much more.

Best regards

Mark



Now I have learned some things from writing the book. It would have been better had we been able to include the classic images I refer to in the text however the publisher wasn't prepared to put in the time to sort that out, possibly delaying the book for months and I entirely understood. Given all the images are readily avaiilable on the net, this is not the problem it once was.

I should perhaps have put more effort into indicating that my suggestions were illutrated with my own photography, limited to rocks and rust - though anyone could have checked out my website before spending the money, so...

In my second book, I have included people pictures but the book will remain devoid of sports, nudes, advertizing, and product photography simply because I have neither experience or skills in those areas.

All in all, an eye opening experience.

Ah, This Is Better

Seems like a very odd thing to take a photograph of, even for me, but there's something about the shapes and the colour scheme and the background of gravel that works for me. I could of course be completely deluding myself - I have been known to come back to an image a few days later and wonder "what the hell made me think that is a good image?" but we'll see.

Industrial Wasteland

I was cruising around Calgary's industrial areas looking for something interesting - all too tidy, but eventually I found a field full of old stamping mills and various other equipment, not fenced off with barbed wire and chain link - an opportunity not to be missed. Some lovely colours of rust.

Photographing The Landscape, Part II

Having discussed the WHY of landscape photography last time, in this chapter, I want to address the question of what to photograph. That may seem self evident "whatever I can damn well find!" or words to that effect but bear with me.

A lot of photographers save up to photograph at famous and photogenic locations - Yosemite, the Rockies or the Alps, or famous sea shores. They do so in the thought that the scenery around their own home town is too flat, too ordinary, or too boring. Of course what actually happens is that lacking practice and working under the assumption that if the place is famous, the shots should be easy, they struggle to find images and come home disappointed with those they do capture. Given the investment in time and money, this is not a viable proposition.

The other problem with photographing the famous is that so have everyone else, which is fine if you want to see how you stand up, but it makes it really hard to come up with something new and different. If you like that kind of challenge, that's wonderful, but otherwise... Most famous photographers built their reputation photographing near by, what makes you think you should do differently.

Does the world really need any more Arizona slot canyon pictures?

It is virtually inconceivable that there is nothing to photograph near where you live and if you haven't found anything, the implication is that your seeing abilities need improvement. Sure there are no half domes in Kansas but there are small prairie towns, gorgeous prairie skies and there must be a hill somewhere. Instead of majestic mountains there are grain silos and windmills. It wouldn't be difficult to do an entire art photography book on corn alone. You might not think of a plowed field as being landscape, but it is your available land so be flexible in how you define landscape.

There are a number of professional fine art photographers who happily show work from city parks. This includes Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, Michael Kenna and Roman Loranc. Joel Myerowitz did an entire book on the the St. Louis Gateway Arch. If city parks are good enough for them, how come you turn your nose up at the thought. So what if there's a winding pathway through the picture or even a street lamp, it's the light and the tones and the shapes and composition, it's the story told and the ignored illuminated that makes a photograph. Oddly enough, more people have seen pictures of the famous locations than quality images of your own town parks so one can't even make the argument that you need to get away to find fresh fodder.

Landscape can be anything from inches to infinity from your camera, can include stormy skies or no skies at all. Landscape can be completely natural or totally urban, with no plants in sight. Landscape can be night time or any time.

It's true that finding something beautiful in the ordinary is challenging, just as it is to make something more than trite out of the famous, but frankly, photography is already too easy and the competition is pretty tough out there.

Some people are still reeling from the awareness that in the days of film, being a technical expert was enough to gain you credit, or at least to feel you accomplished something, these days the emphasis is very much more on your creativity and compositional skill, your eye and how you treat your subject matter.


You might think that without knowing what you plan to photograph - desert, forest, stream or urban, there would be nothing I could offer to help, but fortunately that isn't the case. In fact, wherever you photograph, the same issues seem to come up.

1) Separation - the important elements of the image need to be seen against other objects in the image - this can be by tone or colour (filtering can help in black and white). Texture is not normally enough to separate the main subject or to define shapes in the composition. Separation can be created through lighting, camera position and depth of field. It is possible that separation can be created in the editing process as you burn or dodge or the equivalent.

2) edges - in general stronger images have definite edges - some reason to end the image where you do - it's not essential, but if you don't have an end it can create problems of the eye wandering off or simply that you have to make up for this deficiency through some other strength of the image. Of course the classic strategy in landscapes is the overhanging branches but I know none of you would resort to that. Whatever you use to define the edges of the image needs to relate to the subject matter, whether it be harmonizing or contrasting.

3) backgrounds - the cleaner and simpler the better - nothing is worse than a bunch of small trees or bushes not far behind the main subject and with sky showing through. It really helps if you can get even a little bit higher than your subject so that the trees appear solid instead of speckled.

4) tonalities - much of what makes an image, especially in black and white, is the way that surfaces of your subject handle light. In general hazy bright or just after sunset when the lighting is soft but one part of the sky is substantially brighter than the others works best to define shapes and add roundness and a sense of the third dimension.

5) foregrounds - they function as a lead in to the main subject (a favourite strategy of Joe Cornish from the U.K., often combined with wide angle lenses, or as framing or even as contrast to the main subject. Depth of field is an concern because for the most part, blurry foregrounds don't work. Like all rules I can think of exceptions but that's the way it usually works.

6) connections - by this I mean that if an image contains a series of main subjects (even if they happen to be shadows), in good images they tend to connect with each other. They can do this by overlapping, or pointing to each other (via a shadow for example) or connect through an intermediary - say two rocks connected via a path or perhaps a log. It may be that the only connection is one of balance - ie. they balance each other in the composition and are sufficiently similar for there to be a relationship that is implied even though not drawn.

Too often people show me images of pretty scenes that simply don't make sense, they are missing the connections, the clarity, the framing or perhaps all of them and thus the image does not represent what the photographer saw. One of the nice things about a Holga image is that with it's vignetting your eye is automatically centred and the drop in sharpness to the edge does the same thing, you don't have to put so much effort into composing your edges.

And that's it for now on what to photograph. Next time I'm going to discuss the How in photographing the landscape.

Till next time

Photographing The Landscape, Part 1

I thought I might tackle the whole concept of photographing the landscape from a creative, artistic and compositional viewpoint, in a series of articles, starting with:

Landscape As Subject

Why

Landscape has been a subject for painting long before photography came along - though even in painting it has been a development of the last couple of hundred years. Prior to that, most paintings were of people or religious themes or at least people in their surroundings. The idea of pure landscape is in fact relatively modern. That said, landscape was in full swing by the time photography came along around 1830 so it was no surprise that landscape became subject matter for cameras too. Of course there were technical reasons - like it tends to hold still and lighting is provided (often lots of it).

There are practical reasons for photographing the landscape - typically you don't need permission, you don't have to have people skills, it gets you out in the fresh air and usually involves getting some exercise, besides, it's pretty, and clean, and smells good. Of course, it can also be -40 or raining, muddy or stormy. It often involves travel which can be a mixed blessing - you get to go nice places, but can make doing landscape work near home frustrating if home doesn't look anything like the mountains or the seashore.

For the serious photographer, landscape offers many attractions. The mere challenge of taking beautiful scenery and somehow translating into a piece of paper inches across is significant. Typically you don't have the option of moving things around to arrange them so the challenge is to work with what you find to make an interesting composition which is both simpler and harder - simpler because complete freedom to put things anywhere you want means the huge responsibility of designing the composition instead of discovering it, yet the frustration when things don't quite work out and you wish that rock were three feet to the left.

Landscape being one of the classic themes and very popular, it is quite possible to compare your results to those of others, to gauge your progress and to know where you stand. You can easily visit galleries and see what really good prints look like, and there are many books of landscape photographs to study from.

Landscape is relatively generic - you can hardly give a picture of your girlfriend to your boss as a Christmas present (well, maybe you could if it's racy enough - but would she want you to?). Landscape works well as decoration and for the intelligent but uninformed, it is easy to relate to. The sales market is certainly larger and your spouse is more likely to give up wall space to your work when it's landscape.

Landscape photographs can be truly beautiful. I am particularly partial to black and white landscape but there are some really talented colour landscape photographers out there.

I find the challenge of deciding on the right position from which to photograph, the choice for the edges of the image (ie. the framing) and the process of translating the landscape into a fine art image very satisfying, if at times frustrating too. If it was too easy, it wouldn't be as much fun.

Next time I'm going to write about what to photograph. there are many inexperienced photographers who bemoan not being able to visit Yosemite or Big Sur as a huge limit to their photography or who feel that only travel can produce satisfactory work, discounting their own surroundings as being too mundane, or too flat for satisfactory landcscape images. I have some thoughts on those problems - and they don't involve a bigger travel budget.

On A Personal Note

Don't think I said, the publisher (Rockynook) is sending me to Photokina next month. I'll be giving a workshop Friday afternoon and doing a video taping for foto TV as well as bringing along my wife for a bit of holiday for a few days before and after. We're quite excited. We are catching an overnight train from Cologne to Prague and staying there two nights before doing the same back again.

I purchased a Canon 40D before doing the San Francisco workshop and it has been performing very well for me - providing excellent images at ei. 400 and entirely useable images at ei. 1600. With some reservations I purchased it with the 18-55 IS lens and it has been performing well for me - it's tiny and quite sharp once stopped down at the longer focal lengths and even without stopping down at the wider lengths.

On the basis of that experience, I picked up the new 55-250 lens. I have not formally tested it but so far it seems to be doing the job and is ideal for traveling - it's black, small, light, won't break the bank if stolen and is quite unobtrusive for what amounts to the equivalent of an 88-400 mm. lens. I'm carrying the kit in a tramrac across the shoulder bag which if a bit slow getting the camera in and out, at least will make it harder for someone to help themselves as happened to a friend on a bus in Prague.

I have debated about the value of a tripod on a trip like this but I have found shooting without a tripod frustrating when I can't stop down for depth of field or can't use a slow shutter speed. I have a sneaking suspicion my best shots are likely to be at sunrise and sunset and possibly even at night so a lightweight tripod looks to be the answer. I have a Manfrotto 925B which is quite light - despite being aluminium it's about the same weight as a 190 fibre tripod and ball head so that's likely what I'll take. The idea of dropping $750 for an even lighter Gitzo seems a bit much.

I am working on a second book, whose format is more or less locked down - it will be a modern day Examples, the making of 40 images - stealing from the very popular and useful book of Ansel Adams. it was a book I found useful and hope that a modern day equivalent will also serve, though I'm no Ansel Adams. Segments vary from 4 to 8 pages and include either interim steps in the editing of the images or in some cases other images entirely that illustrate a point.

The first book is available in German and soon Italian.

I'm trying to move from old industries to modern and have checked at a couple of places to see I can get access - fingers crossed. It could be very challenging.

More From The Back Alley

This is the inside of a metal garbage can - strange where you can find interesting subjects.

Snowplow

On call and unable to leave town, I popped over to Heritage Park for the afternoon, capturing this image of the blade of a snow plow. Similar units are still in use on Canadian track to clear the line.

Cabbage II

One advantage of still lifes is you can go back and do it again. I liked the first image but thought I could improve on it - thus version 2 you see above. I'm not convinced that I have it 100% yet, but I'm liking the direction I'm going.

Perhaps I'll have another go at it tomorrow, wind and weather permitting.

Gardening Problem Pays Off

This Spring, I planted ornamental cabbage (kale) in half barrels on our back deck. I had successfully grown them in the garden before and anticipated lovely cabbages well into October as they are quite frost hardy.

Well, something went wrong - too much water, doesn't like tubs - don't know. All I know is that they went through a terrific stage, then went to flower and the rosettes of leaves rotted off.

I gathered up the rotted leaves, leaving a pathetic centre stump still alive. Out of my usual laziness, I didn't drop the dead leaves into the compost, and two days later, I noted some interesting patterns in the piled leaves. Well, why not take advantage...

Hoodoos

I remember visiting this spot as a kid - it seemed both impressive and extensive. I visited it again last year and couldn't believe how small this particular feature in the badlands was and how few of the standing stones there were.

This year, I decided to check around the area to see if there was anything else to photograph but took one more walk through the display, and when I got above the display, looking back to the road, found some lovely lines worth exploring. I had to wait till well after sundown before the tourists thinned out and there are so many scuff marks on the rocks that they actually blend now and don't show as much as when there were only a few.

By isolating the features from the background road (even at the cost of losing a couple of features, and by doing extensive burning to darken shadows and increase the three dimensionality of the surfaces, I'm quite pleased with the result.

On the whole, I find it easier to add dimension in flat lighting than it is to try opening up shadows in harsh lighting.

Thoughts On Creating/Cheating/Modifying Images

I have the attitude that if you do a little cloning in Photoshop to clean up an image, that's just fine, and I have often removed an errant twig this way. I don't mind stretching an image to distort perspective and get the composition right. In my film days I even showed an image which stole a sky from another image - involving a little darkroom trickery.

For some reason I object to wholesale alteration of an image - moving a major object in the image to a different location, adding elements other than sky from another image.

I don't think my attitude makes any sense at all - why should one manipulation be any more acceptable than another.

I guess that I have a built-in meter for manipulation which says something along the lines of "if the image is fundamentally the same, then it's ok, if it is radically changed but still looks real it's not ok, and if it's radically changed to look unreal, well that's just fine again.

Not very logical, and I'd hate to have to defend my instinct in court. I have absolutely no feeling that your attitude should be the same or that I should somehow persuade you to mine, no desire to become evangelical = it's simply what I notice about myself.

Take the flower photographs/paintings of Huntington Witherill, which are clearly manipulated.

So, if I am not trying to force my opinions on you, what's the point of even raising the subject? Well, I suppose as a reminder that each of us has our own ideas of what is right, and it works for us, but we DON'T have the right to dictate to others what they should do, other than to not purchase prints if we don't like their attitudes. Just as there are people who only appreciate and purchase images made with film and printed on silver or platinum or whatever, you and I can vote with our wallets, but I don't think we have any business criticizing them.

I might think that it's silly to not remove a small pop can from a digital image being used for the cover of a book, but Stephen Johnson did it and I don't think he's silly and in fact one could argue that it says much about his character that he is a stickler for honesty and realism.

Work like Huntington's obviously blurs the line between photography and painting but so what. Rap music has more to do with poetry than music in my opinion - that doesn't create problems for me. It might for a cataloger or historian but too bad.

The Right Weather

Not a very original photograph but it does illustrate a point. When I left Calgary about 90 minutes before, there wasn't a cloud in the sky and I doubted I'd get much photography in before sundown, but weather often changes and staying home because the weather isn't right can be a mistake.



The second image is of a thunderstorm that blew in only 30 minutes after leaving Calgary.

What's The Point?

In these days of internet fame and exposure, we forget that in previous generations, people typically worked in isolation, rarely if ever sharing their work with anyone, yet they seemed to enjoy the hobby. Certainly they went to great efforts, building darkrooms, developing prints in less than ideal circumstances and living with the limitations of the wet darkroom, all apparently for nothing.

Let's look at that nothing, because I think it can teach us some things about our photography which might have become lost in the age of sharing our work.

So what could possibly entice someone to put all that effort into images which no one will ever see?

For some it is the satisfaction of solving a problem - whether it's to make clean negatives or large prints or a richly toned image. For others it's the need to create - the value lies in the prints made, even if in the end they sit in paper boxes, rarely if ever to see the light of day. Others did share their work with family, occasionally with friends and more often within camera clubs but with meetings once a month and limited exposure of your work, it typically could not be thought of as fame.

It's more than possible to be proud of the work you do without needing to receive affirmation from others. Many the serious amateur photographer worked away in isolation, producing bodies of work of significance and depth, knowing only that it was worth doing for itself.

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves now and again that while fame is nice, it's quite possible to feel good about your work without involving anyone else.

Landscapes In Photography Vs. Art

John had severals suggestions for topics and I thought this might be worth consideration.

In painting, the artist can place objects wherever he wants. The only option for a photographer is to use his position, left, right, to, fro, up and down to control placement of multiple objects in an image.

The painter adds only those details to the landscape necessary to the painting. The photographer struggles to simplify the composition so the viewer can concentrate on the important elements. This is a major cause of walking away from otherwise good images - just too much stuff, especially bushes and branches and so on.

The painter can (and usually does) soften the lighting, open the shadows hugely and choses the warmth of light to match the mood he wants to create. The photographer can do some of this in Photoshop but it often requires photographing in the early morning or evening light for best effect. Even HDR techniques can't turn mid day lighting into interesting landscape images.

The painter can add clouds as needed while the photographer must either wait or cheat - funny that it isn't cheating in painting.

Canvases come in all manner of sizes and length ratios though it's interesting that typically a painter will chose a canvas first, then paint to suit the canvas. You don't see cropped canvases. Of course, heights of trees and rocks and the width of rivers can be adjusted to suit, so perhaps it's more sensible for photographers to vary the ratios of their images to suit the particular subject, rather than to fit the paper they happen to print on or the sensor size of their camera.

Painters have complete control of the colour of objects - no yellow rocks next to pink ones, unless they want it. Of course, it's possible to do this in Photoshop and I have made subtle changes to fit in better, but in general photographers live with what nature provided. It does mean though, that we have to work extra hard to be selective in our compositions.

Painters have the choice of infinite or limited depth of field. Often backgrounds are hinted at with fairly large brush strokes which are themselves sharp where the photographer has a choice of blurred or not, and limitations within those. Helicon Focus has allowed us in some landscapes to increase depth of field - but it doesn't work in wind or with water that's moving.

Painters can control the sense of depth and distance through fading colours where photographers have to live with the light and atmosphere present. No wonder that photographic landscapes on a bright sunny day with little haze don't portray the sense of distance seen in paintings. We need weather and the right atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, cameras do great fog.

Perhaps most importantly, painters can paint the landscape as any degree of abstract they care to make it. Photographers rarely have that option with grand landscapes, though with close up details we can often approach abstract.

Photography And Painting

While I have no desire to carry on a philosophical discussion which doesn't lead to better photographing, I do think that taking some time to consider the world of painting can be useful.

The world of painting goes through phases, styles and techniques. Typically the first few who introduce a style become famous while those who follow don't. At the same time there are literally millions of hobbyist painters, some of them extremely talented, who pain in the styles of those who went before, typically the more conservative styles, usually literal or at most semi abstract paintings of an identifiable subject.

It is these painting which are affordable enough for the general public to be able to buy and attractive enough to use as decoration in a home.

Andy Warhol may be famous for his Campbell's Soup Can painting, but the number of people who want to display that artwork on their walls for months or years is pretty minimal.

Often there are huge public outcries when a local museum spends (sometimes millions) on a painting which looks like it could have been done by a six year old or just about anyone for that matter.

This is analogous to the rude comments I have repeatedly made about Camera Arts magazine. Truth is, it's the role of pioneers to shock us, to rock our foundations, change our understandings, redefine what is art or photography. Nowhere does it say that their role is to be appreciated by the masses, even the semi educated masses like myself, and certainly no one suggested it should be pretty or suitable for hanging over your newly recovered sofa.

On the other hand, every time I go to Swiss Chalet for chicken soup, I admire the Group Of Seven paintings they have throughout the restaurant. These paintings have meaning for me - firstly they are Canadian painters, second, they painted the Canadian Landscape that I can relate to. that they are very skillfully done and have a very definite style to them throughout is part of what I like about them. They aren't your simple Sunday afternoon dauber kind of paintings. These paintings are not the equivalent of calendar photographs - pretty scenes captured in standard ways and presented realistically. Instead they equate to photographs which interpret rather than illustrate the landscape.

Reproductions of these famous paintings are found decorating many the office and home across the land. Some are no doubt attracted more by the reputation of the painters than the actual quality of the painting but that's o.k. How many photographers have an Ansel Adams poster hanging somewhere, or a print purchased while at a workshop? These are usually pretty normal photographs, ones that the spouse would approve of for decoration.

So what does this mean for our photography? Well, if it is your goal to be cutting edge, leader of the pack, an instigator rather than a follower then either you are incredibly talented and you will pull it off, or you aren't, and you will fall flat on your face, to be forgotten in the dusts of time, remembered, if at all, as odd, weird, gimicky or quirky. They risk their motives being challenged - is it about money or artistic expression. Time will sort it all out. The number of people who will be successful in this arena are probably only a few in every generation so don't count on being one of them.

Picasso may have been the first cubist painter, actually I don't know. Certainly he was the most famous and if he built cubism on the shoulders of those who went before, well that's only natural. Should we discount all other cubist painters because they weren't first?

If we go back to impressionism, do we reject all but the first to use this style? What does that say about someone who paints in the impressionist style these days?

Georgia O'Keefe was famous for her exotic and erotic paintings of flowers. Many have since painted in the same style. Would I purchase a really gorgeous painting done in her style - darn right - I know I can't afford any of hers and if I found one I liked as much by a modern painter, for a fraction of the price, I'd hang it happily and wouldn't feel hard done by that I couldn't get the 'real' painting by O'Keefe.

If you could purchase a gorgeous black and white grand landscape image, with tones deep enough to dive into and highlight subtlety to make you weep, but it isn't an Ansel, would you refuse to hang it - I think not.

If you purchase a large and fairly comprehensive book on the history of art, you will find that for any period in painting, there are dozens if not hundreds of painters remembered for the quality of their work, and only a handful who are know for their innovation. It is interesting to look back from more than 100 years and to realize that fame for innovation is largely fleeting, that what people are remembered for is the quality of their work, not the uniqueness or the 'I was here first' status of their work.

Think of it this way, would you rather have the first painting of a particular style, or the best, Hmmm? So, should photography and photographers be any different?

More On Seeing Images

Probably the single biggest problem for photographers is seeing something interesting to photograph. I have written about this before. Much of my first book was dedicated to the problem, yet the problem persists and the following feedback to requests for ideas for topics is pretty common.

Frank E has left a new comment on your post "Suggestions for Future Topics?":

l have a suggestion, but just so you know "where it is coming from" let me talk about myself first:
-have been shooting seriously (as a hobbyist) for about three years now
-shoot with a Canon 20D with enough glass that takes me from 10mm to 400 but no fancy TSE equipment etc, but do have a macro
-use PS CS3 but am far from an expert
-am reasonably pleased with my progress (have won a number of camera club awards)
-but still get frustrated that I am not progressing more quickly
-try to look at other people's work, buy alot of books (including yours), and also take them out from the librarry

My question/suggestion for a topic is to talk more about how you "find" your images. I know that "text book" answer to the question. Look around for lines, texture, colours, shapes etc. Then simplify, simplify etc. But I still find that I walk around and the muse doesn't strike me. What are the techniques you use (mental conditioning, triggers you look for etc) for finding images. What helps your "seeing"

So what more can I say without repeating myself?

Perhaps telling the story of how I came to photograph the turbine might be helpful to some of you.

I was on the way to photograph Ghost Reservoir Dam (didn't see an image there). The turbine was sitting in a field, looking more like something you'd use to feed cattle than create electricity. The top part (the blades) was a uniform dark brown from the road and I passed it without much thought. After turning the car round to leave the dam site, I decided to at least take the trouble to look closely. I didn't even unpack the camera, but did walk over to find that it was a lot more interesting close up. Instead of an even brown rust, there were streaks and curves, varying tones and hues and those lovely curves of each blade. It mushroomed out at the top and had some spots that looked like welded repairs here and there.

Let's stop for a minute and think about what has happened.

I saw a subject and didn't see anything worth while.

I didn't find anything better to photograph so I looked at the subject again.

I decided that even though I couldn't see anything worth photographing from the car, it was at least worth the trouble to get out and investigate.

Upon investigation, it turned out to be a lot more interesting than anticipated.

What can we deduct from this experience?

Well, finding photographs is about possibilities, not probabilities. If you only ever explored the things you were fairly sure would make a good image, you'd be narrowing your choices severely.

"Check it out" could be your mantra.

O.K., so I have walked up to the old turbine and see better shapes and textures than expected and I'm thinking there's a good chance of an image here - in fact I'm quite excited by the possibilities. I go back to the camera and get my gear. I return to the same spot and it's time to work the scene.

I start with a straight horizontal shot of the turbine blades, including some distracting background at either side that I will likely crop out. I then start to work with the parts, moving in, replacing my long lens with a wide angle so I can get really close to the blades and accentuate the curves and capture texture.

I'm having trouble getting an image in which both left and right sides are strong so I start circling the turbine, looking for a better angle.

I decide that the original position was best and now it's time to make small refinements - up and down, to and fro, left and right. I'm using a zoom so I can adjust the focal length too - is it better to be wide and close or far and long - I try both because I'm not sure.

And another pause to reflect on what's happening.

This "intermediate" stage is about finding the most interesting part(s) of the subject and the best position from which to view said same.

And back to the search. What I haven't done is to "compose" the image. I haven't defined the boundaries of the image. This isn't just a matter of framing, I also have to reconsider position to best strengthen the composition, without moving to a position which compromises presentation of the main subject matter. If I move six inches to the left, I can use that other blade to frame the edges, but how will that affect the streaks which are my main focus?

So stage three is about fine tuning and framing.

For further help with the art of seeing, I recommend the books of Freeman Patterson. He includes a number of exercises.

Turbine Abstract

Takkakaw Falls

Near Field, B.C. on the TransCanada Highway, I have never before visited Takkakaw Falls. A real treat and more spectacular than I had been expecting. There was a tricky switchback on the way up (how the heck a full sized bus made it up I'll never know).

I had doubts about the image since, veiled by mist, there isn't anything darker than about middle gray, nor much lighter than light gray. I could easily have restored the full range of tones, totally destroying the dreamy effect of the original. Portraying atmosphere effectively is not easy, whether it be fog, snow storms, heavy rain or as in this case, spray. I don't have any answers for you - I'm learning as I go.

It's a bit like sculpture - take a rock and remove anything that isn't David (or whatever you aimed at). Here you adjust to produce a good print, while not taking away from the atmosphere.

Turbine

I've just spent two days in the mountains and the best image I found was this old turbine sitting in a field near a dam.

Friend and Fellow Photographer

You might wonder what the point is of taking a snapshot of the fellow you are out photographing with - I can't sell it, except possibly to Robin's wife - and I would give her a print, I am not likely to include it in a portfolio or exhibition, normally I'd not even put it on my blog, but it does make a point.

Any photograph you take is worth doing well, and if the photograph serves no more purpose than to please the spouse of a friend, well that's more than many photographs do. So why not shoot the cat, the kid, the friend. Robin was changing film (yes, he's one of those dinosaurs - and happily so - he's even into pyro). I couldn't quite get his eye enough for a good image, so I simply asked him to look up. I don't usually shoot portraits with a 300 mm. lens, but it worked very nicely to blur the background, and damn, that 300 mm. f4 L lens is sharp!

Suggestions for Future Topics?

I'm looking for some ideas for future blog entries, to continue on the theme of the ART of photography rather than technical stuff. Suggestions?

Thanks,

George

Siding

Fences

Don't often get a chance to use my 300 mm. lens, but with a bit of image blending for depth of field, it worked well with this scene on a local farm this morning. We'd left our primary site of shooting and with the sun high in the sky and not a cloud anywhere we weren't optimistic about finding anything suitable to photograph.

Still, if you don't try, you don't get, so...

On Not Seeing

I have been thinking about my experience in San Francisco, not so much about teaching the workshop but about the walk abouts we scheduled as part of the workshop. While spending much of the time helping others see, I was on the prowl for images too.

In hind sight, two things have become apparent.

1) I saw all sorts of images in this foreign city (to me) that I don't see at home, and

2) In San Francisco, I had absolutely no hesitation in asking anyone if I could take their picture, where here I'd feel foolish and shy.

It's all very well saying that San Francisco was full of lovely 1890's houses well preserved and beautifully painted - but I saw images in ordinary houses, like the one above, and in routine details. At home, I am so used to seeing these and accepting them as background to my life, I don't in fact see them as subject matter.

As a tourist, I had no issue with asking to take a picture of someone. I suppose it's that if I made a fool of myself I wouldn't be around for long - but that certainly isn't what I was thinking - it just seemed like as someone visiting the city, I could play the tourist and happily snap away.

Calgary has a population of 1 million, so it isn't likely I'd meet someone I know while out shooting, but somehow it feels more intrusive at home, turning on one's own.

Does anyone else find that being elsewhere changes the way you see and photograph?

Well Worn Truck

Steps Explained

I was asked about how I took and processed this image, so here goes.

To start, we see a set of stairs. But we know that wide angle lenses aimed up cause converging verticals and can make for some interesting shapes. I could see that the brick had both texture and sufficient reflective properties to shine a little in some places (eg. the top of the banister).

If you followed the blog you know I first shot it hand held, ei. 400 with the 40D and 18-55, and after seeing the crop that Chuck recommended, came up with my own crop based on keeping the point on the right by cloning out the distracting light fitting.

Back the next day with my 1Ds2 and more importantly, with a tripod, I was able to shoot multiple exposures to contain the huge dynamic range from reflected sky in the glass to darkest recesses of the stair well.

I found that I could capture this in two images, one for the dark areas, using Recovery in Camera Raw to keep the banister from blowing out (the brightest bricks in the image. I used the second exposure for the windows and reflected clouds. I did some individual colour adjustment (page 3 of Camera Raw) to darken the blue sky and increase saturation of the blue a little.

Once in Photoshop, I copied the sky exposure on top of the bricks exposure and using a black mask, I painted into it so the windows and sky and clouds would show up. At this point they were rather anaemic despite the camera raw adjustments. Once I had the exposures suitably blended I flattened the image and sharpened.

I converted the result to black and white using Photoshop CS3's black and white adjustment layer, lightening the bricks via the yellow and red sliders and darkening the blue via that slider.

I now had a black and white image in which the clouds were quite easily seen. There was too much light on some of the banister, not enough on other parts and it was necessary to use a couple of curves adjustment layers black masked and painted into to even things out.
I used a couple more curves to darken the sky while leaving the clouds light. Some additional work was done on the ceilings via more curves adjustment layers.

Once I had the image more or less where I wanted, I used Akvis Enhancer on a copy layer but then faded the enhancement back to about 25% effect. The image was again flattened.

Some final touch up was done on a copy of the image in a second layer with the dodge highlights (set at 5% opacity brush) and I was able to pop the clouds out even better.

And More Badlands

Back In The Badlands