Tough Decision

I was never fully satisfied with the first image. I felt that the left end was a bit weak, I didn't like the front edge of the shelf showing, in fact I didn't like the rubber mat showing at all. That gear on the right was nice but in doing a linear perspective stitch it became distorted from round (the same happens at the edge of extreme wide angle lenses so it isn't a stitching issue). Besides, the gear doesn't balance anything on the left - a matter of:

Just because an object is interesting isn't enough to justify including it in a composition.

I sure didn't like all that background showing in the upper left corner.

In the second version I tried to solve as many of these problems as possible, choosing to crop tightly to simplify and hopefully strengthen the composition. The image still isn't perfect. The far right edge should probably be cropped to the
edge of the lower diagonal ring and that dark mark on the bottom right corner shape needs either cloned out or minimized with appropritate dodging and burning.

I can't help feeling too that:

I threw out the baby with the bathwater.

In the first version of this blog entry I wrote the following:

I might do a bit more work on the light coloured rings in the bottom left corner, darken much of it but keep some highlights - it would fit better with the rest of the image. Just because it's different material doesn't mean I have to accept that it doesn't look similar.

You will note that I cloned in more of the arch so the background wouldn't show in the upper left corner - I'm not sure whether that was necessary or worth while - not from an ethical point of view, I'm quite happy to use cloning to improve my work, rather I'm not sure that it improves the image. Also, in hind sight, having cropped more and more off the top, it occurs to me that in doing so, I could have gone all the way to the right, ended the composition with the darker shape which would balance the darker shape upper left and solve the problem of the bright edge of the right hand shape in the cropped version above from being the very edge of the image. Of course if I went far to the right, I'd end up including the end of the arch, but that might be ok - guess that could be version 3.

I couldn't stand it and with the hour getting late I had to work on version three now. Back I went to the original image above. I made a radical decision to clone the left hand shape a bit higher to fill that left upper corner. Many of you won't be comfortable with such a radical "cheat" and I'm not totally sure I am too, but it sure as hell makes for a better image and had I not shown you the process, no one would be the wiser.

Still:

It isn't about getting caught, it's about whether it's right

and each of us has to make our own decisions. As some have said, cloning is a slippery slope.

Thus we have version 3. Will I place it in my portfolio - probably. I don't see it as any worse a "cheat" than using a red filter to create dramatic skies which never were. Even Ansel did that.. but perhaps I'm trying to justify myself here...

Am I finished? I don't think so, as I edit this blog, I think the contrast in that left hand shape is a bit weak in comparison to the shapes on the far right - i think there's room for improvement, but now it's getting really late and I have to work in the morning so goodnight to you all.

Another In The Series

Didn't notice this for a while having shot it horizontally and including distracting elements both left and right, but cropping it this way and simplifying things by cropping out the floor...

Although it includes the rack which has been photographed before, the inclusion of the window and the uprightness of the sheet steel gives it a different look and I think I would be justified in including this in the portfolio.

Independent Machinery Black And White

Once again I have used Ligtroom to creat a web gallery, this time of black and white images from the Independent Machinery series, and it can be found Here, again using the Matthew Campagna Lighroom web addon TTG Slimbox.

Wall in Colour

While the majority of my images from Independent Machinery look good or best in black and white, some do appeal to me in colour - I quite like the subtle colours of this image.

That Bugs Me

Went to download a profile for the new Harman FB glossy paper - guess what - no profile for the Canon 5000, and even more irritating, you have to register to get the profiles - I don't see why I should give them my name address and email just so they can send me ads so that I can get the profile that is essential to use their paper.

I've written to them. We'll see how this plays out.

Hopefully booksmart will come out with a profile soon, failing that I might have to get a custom one and pay for it - hardly the end of the world, but Harman should be on this.

Still liking the paper though, perhaps a bit glossier than typical glossy dried matte.

Wall Ver. 2

Unhappy with cutting off the circles on left and right, I restored the three image stitch and recropped. I decided to remove some of the lower part of the image to the point that the vertical bars form V's along the bottom of the print, far left because there are bright things in the background that are distracting and it didn't add anything to the image and crop just a little of the right hand circles so that diagonal on one circle works nicely. I toned down the shapes in the bottom right a bit but the diagonal here matches the pipe next to it, and the diagonal of the washer material?

Interestingly, seen large in Photoshop I really like it, seen small as in the blog, it feels a bit tight on the bottom. Do click on the image to see it larger before deciding for yourself whether this was a good idea.

More On The Importance Of Print Quality

Good, someone disagrees with me, even better, it's Chuck who's a good photographer so he's speaking from experience. Of course, in some ways I'm with Chuck. I happen to think that print quality is extremely important, but the points I made about how the vast majority of people who admire famous photographers have never seen an original print still stand. Truth is their reputations are largely made through reproductions in magazines and books, and to a lesser degree (so far) from the web.

Here's two really important questions:

1) Can you think of a situation in which you really admired a person's work in reproduction, only to later see original prints and decide you didn't like his work after all?

2) Can you think of any situation in which you didn't like a person's work then saw the original prints and changed your mind?

I can't think of any examples of either situation for myself and I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has had either of the above happen and how it came about. I'm sure it does happen, but probably not all that often.

If Chuck can't think of any examples of either of the above scenarios, does it simply mean that he like me, feels the whole process is important to him, from conception to finished print and that less than stellar quality in any aspect of the image is unacceptable to ourselves in our own work. I don't think that's the same at all. I'm sure that a great musician fusses over every single detail, often details the rest of us aren't even aware of, yet could walk down the street, hear an organ grinder and go, wow, what a great tune!

Back to you, Chuck.

How People Access Our Images

As photographers we agonize over print quality, we try dozens of papers, change printers, strive to achieve the goal of the perfect paper and print. Look at all the fuss over finding the equivalent of glossy dried matte. Think of all the furor over silver prints vs. digital and whether digital should even be taken seriously (I think silver is steadily losing that battle, people like Bruce Barnbaum not withstanding).

Here's a though though. The more successful the photographer, the greater the chance that 99.99% of the people who admire their work have never ever seen an original print, never mind owned one.

What does it mean, what does it say, when only .01%, one person in 10,000 who like your work have ever actually seen it in the original?

I happen to think it says a lot. Below are some things I think it tells us:

1) It's not print quality that causes people to decide whether they like your work.

2) Good images show through poor book printing, small online jpegs and bulk magazines with iffy reproduction.

3) If it's our goal to be known, more than to make sales, surely this says a lot about where we should be putting our efforts.

4) This kind of viewing ratio says a lot about what kind and quality of equipment we need to make good images - ie. we don't need to spend a fortune on the highest quality equipment. Unless you are already selling a substantial number of 24X36 inch prints, you don't need the top of the line cameras and forget medium format digital.

5) It says a lot about the qualities we should be emphasizing in our prints - composition over tonality, interesting subject matter over shadow detail, a unique way of seeing over blown highlights. This is almost the exact opposite of what the average hobby photographer emphasizes, agonizes over and puts most of his effort, practice and studying into. It's a lot easier to improve shadow detail than to see better.

I have been fortunate enough to see original prints by Bruce Barnbaum, Michael Kenna, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and I highly recommend the experience to you. That said though, I had a strong liking for each of those photographers images long before seeing the originals. It's almost as if print quality and photographic quality are two almost entirely separate issues, superb print quality being an extra bonus, like getting a free coffeemaker when you purchase a new microwave.

Perhaps the message here is to stop agonizing over sharpness and resolution and print quality in general, at least for a while, and work harder on the less concrete issues of making meaningful and powerful photographs that are first and foremost interesting.

Subject Matter Vs. Technique Vs. Style

I wrote this week about versatility in what we photograph. Mike Johnson wrote about having a consistent technical style while pointing out that this can be harder in the days of digital since the equipment you use (cameras, film, developers) don't dictate a certain style.

Lee added the commment below to my entry:

i think this entry is especially interesting in light of the recent Online Photographer post where Mike Johnston essentially supports the position that one of the best ways to succeed is to have a distinct visual style, as opposed to presenting yourself as "versitile". i'm guessing that you may have already read this post since you sometimes reference The Online Photographer in this blog. do you think Mike is wrong? are you more likely to succeed by being versitile? i suppose this depends on how you define success, but i am still interested in your thoughts regarding Mike's position.

He's right, I do read The Online Photographer, though I hadn't thought we were talking about the same thing in our two entries. I think it comes down to a discussion of style vs. subject matter, and technical enters the discussion only peripherally. It's possible to use the same style across a variety of subjects. Sometimes the subject will dictate the equipment and therefore the look. For example if someone who normally shoots wide angle landscapes switches to photographing football, they are almost forced into going to telephotos lenses and that will have a strong influence on the look of the photographs.

If I started photographing football, I don't know that the look would be all that different - sure the background would be out of focus, but the concept of moving in close and eliminating surround that I often use in both my industrial and landscape work is not very different from the technique I used in university photographing sports.

Technical style is almost a non issue these days in that unless it is artifically induced into the processing, there isn't a dSLR around that can't make an 8X10 print that looks as good as something shot on medium format film or even 4X5 in the old days. That falls apart when we talk larger prints of course.

An example of deliberately introducing a technical style is the (in my opinion) all to common use of diffusing the highlights to give an image that special glow). It's an easy technique to do, is quite distinctive and has even graced the pages of Lenswork on more than one occasion. Michael Reichmann wrote about it in Luminous Landscape several years ago. I have mixed feelings about it - it was nice when it was new, and it still suits the occasional subject, but as it gets more common, I can't help feel that it distracts from the quality of the prints - that is, when I see that technique, it's hard to evaluate the rest of the qualities of the image.

I suppose the same could be said of using a Holga, even though in this case the equipment definitely determines the look. Having recommended the work of a photographer who uses a Holga exclusively earlier this week, I could be accused of being inconsistent - yet I think that the one is a quicky effect that could be applied with a single keystroke macro, the other is a whole new way of seeing due to the lmmitations and qualities of the equipment.

I have seen a lot of bad Holga photography and considerably less really good work, and the same is true of the appropriate use of the highlight diffusion technique. Perhaps I just appreciate the results that much more knowing the limitations of the Holga so that when I see a selection of really good images it sticks out all that much more.

Style is so much more though than a camera or digital technique or even the focal length of the lenses chosen. It has to do with the darkness and contrast of the print, how shadows and highlights are handled, the tonality of midtones. It has to do with the way that subjects are framed and the viewpoints chosen to photograph those subjects. It involves the ways in which compositions are made, the use of curves and lines, shapes and relationships, how various parts of the image are placed next to or in front of each other. Style relates to the mood that images portray. It's possible to photograph golf as moody and opressing or bright and sunny and upbeat.

Machine Shop

Originally part of a three image stitch, I ended up with a crop from the middle image. The outer parts past this wall of storage had too many distracting elements. I didn't think at first that cropping off the circles would work, but I quite like the result.

To get a good black and white image, I had to increase contrast sustantially from the colour version as usually is needed, with local adjustments as well as overall. I did use Akvis Enhancer before converting to black and white which tamed the contrast for the colour image, so perhaps I didn't need it for the black and white version.

Noise And Grain

Don't know if this is of any use to anyone but this morning was printing a picture and noted that in darkening the sky, the noise in the digital image increased (it was a shot on a 10D). I experimented with ways to reduce the noise and settled on gaussian blur 8 pixels wide (which is a huge amount of blur), applied to a duplicate layer, black masked then painted into in varying amounts considerably less than 100% - at 100% screen size there was noticeable blurring of cloud edges but in the print the grain nicely disappeared.

The advantage over using something like noise ninja was I was able to apply it to the exact degree and precise place I wanted it. Using a smaller radius for the blur just made the noise uglier without hiding it.

Here's examples of before and after. Click on the images for true 100% inspection.

Subject Matter

There are landscape photographers, people photographers, those who shoot sports or glamour, street photography or stil life, nature and so on. There are photographers who shoot whatever happens to be available because it's the process of photographing they like, the challenge of working out a good picture whatever the subject. This would seem to fly in the face of advice to photograph what interests you.

I would say though that the majority of great photographers have been fairly versatile, photographing people and places, things and even critters. Ansel certainly did a fair amount of portrait work and in the early days made his income from his industrial work. His books include back yards, water towers, porches and people. He may be known to the general public for his mountains, but that certainly doesn't define him or his work.

Edward Weston was very versatile, photographing nudes and portraits, landscapes and industries, still lifes and vegetables, toilets and taps. Michael Kenna is known for his moody misty square simple landscapes, but one of his most striking series was on the cooling towers of a British power plant. John Sexton may be about as pure landscape as you can find, yet one of his three books is industrial. David Plowden is known for his recording of small town America, yet has done landscapes, industries, railways and ships. His railway pictures usually include workers while his town pictures generally don't.

Certainly my own experience is that light is light and composition is composition, whatever the subject matter, and that while there may well be some technical issues to switching subjects and even a learning curve, it makes sense that good photographers would apply their talents to more than one subject.

I've written in the past about switching subjects to get out of a rut but maybe you should be doing so anyway. I can't prove that it's good for you, but it makes sense not go go against what better known photographers than you or me have done.

I see no difficulty with photographing two or more types of subject simultaneously - well, in the same week at least. Some projects can take many years and a photographer could very easily have ongoing projects in landscape (my badlands series) and industrial (my independent machinery series).

I would predict that had someone like Arnold Newman or Robert Mapplethorpe applied themselves to landscapes, it wouldn't take them long to become very good at it. They had the eye, knew what surfaces photograph well and knew how to compose. Robert would want to know how to adjust the light and Arnold would ask for the subject to move over a bit, but I don't think they'd have that much trouble catching on.

What about you?

Cerys Connor

Reading The Online Photographer this morning and in a comment by Ade is this reference to Cerys Connor - well worth looking at the images, there's lots of them, some interesting lessons in composition and making use of very ordinary subject matter.

Harman Gloss FB Al

My pack of the new Harman glossy dried matte paper arrived today and I have had a chance to make several prints. This is by way of a first impressions report, realizing that with further experience I might run into troubles, but so far, wow!

Remember too that this is a test performed on the Canon 5000 and Uwe Steinmuller who is far ahead of me in the testing, says that the new 6100 does blacks a lot better and he also has Epson and HP printers for comparison, as well as samples of the other new papers from Epson and Hahnemuhle.

Anyway, do check out Outbackphoto for his comments on paper but in the mean time and for what it's worth, on the 5000, here's what I'm seeing:


The paper comes in a substantial traditional paper box. There is an inner polythene open ended bag containing the paper. In this box the paper had no dings in the corner and the surface on all sheets so far is flawless - a big improvement over my tests with the first generation papers.

There is a very slight texture to the surface. The paper looks like real darkroom paper. it has a reasonable heft to it. The paper is slightly curved from one end to the other but not across the width (which was a problem with crane museo because it made lining up the paper perfectly in the 5000 problematic and every third sheet had to be reloaded (and this was after the firmware upgrade for the printer). No false loads so far.

The surface is shinier than previous papers exc. the latest innova (which I found gray in colour). The white of the Harman paper is neutral but not the blue white of Entrada which can make matting a problem (few mattes are that blue white). I don't think the Harman will be a problem.

OK, enough talk about what it looks like before it goes through the printer, how well does it perform?

On the 5000 here's what I notice. By far this has the least gloss differential of any of the papers I have used (Innova, Hahnemuhle pearl, Crane Silver Rag). Because the paper is smoother and shinier, the uninked areas of the print aren't as noticeably different - you can see it if you hold the print at an angle, but it isn't obvious or objectionable like it was with the previous papers. The rest of the image has the same reflectivity except for absolute black which is just a hair less shiny than the rest of the image. This really is minimal and quite hard to see and frankly isn't an issue. I think I would be quite comfortable selling prints on this surface (first time I can say that about anything other than matte paper).

The blacks are plenty deep, the shadows show lovely depth, the tonality is excellent either printed as neutral black or as warm tone with the canon driver driver for photoshop. I have not been doing output sharpening and it doesn't seem to be an issue so I suspect dot gain (the spread of ink as it hits the paper) is sig. less than with matte papers.

The images do look quite close to wet darkroom glossy dried matte - a bit shinier than the darkroom prints, overall very nice.

I will continue to experiment but it's looking good.

Do You Know What Your Goals Are?

It occurs to me that there are probably a lot of photographers out there who really haven't spent a lot of time thinking about what their goals are, and more specifically what their priorities are for those goals, since it may not be possible to achieve all of them and either stay married or employed or at least have enough money to put food on the table.

O.K., you want to be famous, rich, in galleries, sell lots, hob nob with the famous, be remembered after you are dead, have groupies, make a meaningful difference and in general, have it all. But really, not everything is equally important and you probably already figured out that few of us are ever going to achieve everything on the list above. So some things are more important than others. Do you know already which is the most important for you?

Let's take them one at a time, let's also assume that I'm addressing people who have both personal lives (ie. family and friends and other commitments) and also a regular occupation, whether it be raising your kids or going to work. Below I describe some types of photographer. Don't be surprised to find yourself in more than one category.

There's the techy kind of person, usually a guy, who reads Popular Science in the doctors office, they like playing with gadgets, play with their cell phones and pda's, watches and other devices. That they don't really need these toys is irrelevant - it's just fun to play with them. Fine machinery that operates with precision really gets them excited.

How about the photographer who simply likes the challenge of making the prettiest pictures they can of whatever they turn their mind to - whether flowers, football or landscapes, grand children or pets. They may be happy to share the images but they don't "exist to exhibit" like some people do. The image provides it's own satisfaction - a job well done. There are millions of amateur photographers who fall into this category and it's respectable, rewarding and challenging.

Then there's the photographer who measures success by how much he can make from photography. It's important to sell his or her work because this is the feedback that tells them they are good. It feeds the ego to make sales, and besides it justifies buying even more expensive equipment.

And there's the artist, who needs to create, who left on a deserted island would continue to create in the absence of an audience, who often would create in other ways if photography were not possible - music, woodworking, painting and so on (even model railways?).

What about the person who's whole enjoyment in photography is centred on getting positive strokes from other people - from family, friends, customers, strangers, critics, publishers, curators and so on. They live to exhibit and publish. They attend workshops as much to be admired as to learn.

There are people who feel a strong need to leave something behind, to be remembered by, a way of still existing in some way beyond the grave. It's not enough to be clever or creative or arty, it has to be MEANINGFUL. Usually this translates in to not only different but often odd, outrageous, ugly, sordid, or strange.

I have to say that it was a good feeling when at the Farmers Market one day an attractive young woman offered to be my assistant, or when the curvy young hotel receptionist offered to model for me - why did I say no - might have brought a whole new twist to my badlands images, nudes amongst the cactus, nah!

I can see at least a little bit of all of the above in myself and perhaps you can too, but I'd be surprised if each was equally important to you. If you can identify the categories that are most important to you, you can then reflect on the kind of photography you do, how you are spending your resources, both time and money, and what steps it might be appropriate to take next to achieve some of these goals.

More On Looking For Images

I've written in the past about the process of looking for good photographs, suggesting that you have to star with something interesting then look for the image. I think I can fine tune that a bit, discussing "interesting" in more detail.

It's pretty self evident that your idea of interesting is likely to be different from mine, yet the best images often appeal to many people, of differing interests and backgrounds, educations and temperaments.

Interesting in the more generally appealing sense can come from:

- a group of objects that go together in an interesting way

- a pair of objects can be so different they are interesting and unexpected when seen together

- interesting could refer to the surface reflective properties of the subject, or to it's shape (think Pepper # 30), or colour.

- interesting can be unusual - eg. up close and personal with animals not normally seen that close (or at all). this could be anything from an insect to an elephant.

- interesting can come from the weather - the worse the better

- the way the image is made can provide the interest - have a look at these wonderful photographs by Pep Ventosa as found by Howard French For The Online Photographer in an article called How to use Flickr.

Pep has some absolutely gorgeous images, do go through the multiple exposure images on flickr but then go to his website to see some of his beautiful stitched images.

Do You Have A Routine?

Which pocket to you place the lens caps in? If you always use the same one, it sure cuts down on hunting. Do you have your viewing frame on a lanyard round your neck - so you can always use it - without taking off your gloves and reaching into a tight pocket? Do you always check the ISO setting on your camera at the start of a shoot? Do you remember to erase your memory card before recording the first image - darn nuisance if you forget and have to erage 90 images by hand so you can still use the card?

The more things that you can learn to do exactly the same way every time, the more likely these things won't desert you when in a hurry, or at the shoot of a lifetime. My friend left his tripod plate at home - the problem wasn't leaving it at home, the problem was that when he took it off, he should have put it in his camera bag, so he'd still have it.

It's my habit to zip my camera backpack after removing a lens, rather than waiting till I move on - once I forgot - I won't do that again! Can you tell your memory cards apart? Now, which was the one I wanted to erase...?

Do you have a place in your backpack that is dedicated to memory cards that have images, as opposed to those ready for use? keeping them in your pocket is just looking for trouble.

Do you routinely completely collapse your tripod when you get back to the car? Do you really need to or could you just collapse one section and have it fit - therefore ready for the next shoot that much faster?

Late Changes

With time, we can see things differently. Below is the first version of the image, above is a new way of seeing the image, a couple of years later. Both have their merits, neither is perfect, but for now I prefer the upper image. Don't forget you can click on the image to see it larger.

I'm not sure about having any of the wave in the top of the image - I already trimmed some off and might yet remove the rest, but I don't want to get too close to the top of the furthest rock with the edge of the image.

I should point out that I present these images in development in the hope that some find the progression illustrative of the process of working on images, trying to improve, not always getting it right, sometimes being uncertain which is better. Hopefully it will make you think about your own images and changes you might make.

Progress On The Book

With more than half the book through the copy editor, the first chapters have gone to the layout editor in Germany and I'm back working extremely hard on the book. In the last week I have uploaded more than a gigabyte of images while continuing to edit text, add text for each of the images, and try to keep track of which chapter I'm in at the moment.

Two editors are emailing me with issues on a daily basis, I'm working till 1:00 in the morning then getting up early to work some more on the book. I have seen the first chapter in it's finished form, with pictures and all and am really pleased with the work the editors have done.

It's been very difficult to keep track of more than 100 images for the book, where they go, where they came from (on my hard drives) and so on. I finally last night decided to create a database of all possible images for the book, with fields for file location, image title, whether monochrome or colour, a rating on the image, and what chapter or section of the book the image has been assigned to. I found 167 images I'd be willing to have in the book and having this database is going to make the rest of the organization a whole lot easier.

Converting To Black And White

Here's a little trick I have found useful.

First, if I have worked on an image for some considerable time, perhaps cropping and changing and long since lost the original image, you can flatten the image, select all, then copy the image to the clipboard, then go to the history palette and scroll up to the original loaded image and select that. Now past the edited copy as a new layer on top of the original. If you add a white mask to the top layer (the edited version), you can then paint into the mask to reveal some of the original image if you need it.

Today I was converting some of my colour Indpendent Machinery images to black and white and in the image above, noted that the right hand widget blended too closely to the background with the filtering I'd chosen with my black and white adjustment layer (I'd used blue for the best overall effect).

I used the technique above to restore the colour version, added a new black and white conversion between the original colour image on the bottom and the edited version in bw on top. I turned off the top layer to reveal the full colour image from below and played with the filters till I had the best separation of that right hand widget - it turned out to be yellow filtering.

I then painted black into the mask of the top layer, revealing the yellow filtering and cancelling the blue filtered version for the right hand widget only.