It has been already discussed a bit in the comments-section of Marc adamus' new posting (Lord of the Valley), and I 've been wondering about that issue quite some time:
The "look" and appearance of a photograph. Whenever I look at the work of you experienced photographers that post here, I am always amazed how I can immediatly tell (even from the thumbnail sometimes), "now thats a marc adamus, a bill chambers, a Dan Baumbach, a Lon Overacker etc (those not mentioned please don't take offense, you name it and get the idea...)
I wonder If you can share some tips on how to improve the charactersitic look of my images - Is it some certain kind of digital workflow (colourbalance, colourtemperature, some sharpening techniques, whatever)?
Or is it because your photographic eye is already so highly developed that your portfolio gets so "logic" (everything seems to be somewhat connected and looks just good next to each other)?
Is in the way you compose, or the use of very similar light all the time? Or is it just because of the subject matter that is very "similar" (not meant in the sense of lack of variety)?
Is it a style that just emerges slowly over the years?
I think I am more referring to the appearance itself, just the looks, the texture. Not so much the subject-matter and light (But that might be influencing as well). Or maybe I am still underestimating the importance of just tiny variations of lightning.
I can understand that in the sense of analog film - the use of velvia, provia, etc (we had that discussion) - can influence the look, but still there's some name of the photographer always written all over the image.
I am sure that given same subject matter, time of day, location and vantage point and exact same framing, two photographers would still get away with a different result and the end of their workflow.
Or is it all a mixture of the above reasons. (I am afraid that would be the answer, because that would mean a very hard task for me to improve in all aspects...)
Is it something that you work on as well or do you think that this characteristic look is just a byproduct of your overall workflow (including everything from an image on your minds eye until the final print or a web-display)
I dont want to fish for some secret postprocessing-tricks or that I want to imply some postprocessing where there's none - it's just that i think some of you know more than me....
I would love to hear some opinions&tips on this topic
Yes, they know more than we do. That's why we're here. I am quite sure that in many cases these guys are "unconsciously competent." They are so good at what they do that it is done without really thinking. A photograph you see presented on the web is the product of a lot of translations: Reality is selectively framed and cast through a lens onto a planar recording medium then converted to a digital file used to make a visible display which is adjusted at the whim of an artist and shown to you in a condensed form on a computer.
There is choice made in every translation and skill in how it is done. I'm most interested in the reality we chose to frame up, but the other steps have to happen or I can't get any feedback to help me improve.
Pete D. what was the question?
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 18, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Thanks Dietrich for the inclusion of my name in that esteemed crowd - I'm flattered. I think one of the things that perhaps make an image easily "fingerprinted" to a particular photographer is that person's "style". Everyone develops their own style after a period of time. This can be both a good and bad thing. After a while everything can start looking "alike" and can lead to complacency if you're not careful. I think one of the main things is to sit down and actually look carefully at your image before you start processing and figure out what you want the finished image to look like. It's kind of like anything else, it helps to have a plan.
As far as workflow is concerned, I doubt there are any real "secrets" out there. Most photographers are very willing to share any techniques the have (ie, Marc's web sharpening, TK's luminosity masks, etc.). Also, there are a number of free tutorial sites on the web to learn additional techniques (The Radiant Vista is a particularly good site IMO). I do think it's important to develop a consistent workflow however, and a really good book on the subject is Tim Grey's Photoshop CS2 Digital Workflow (or something like that). Excellent advice, and easy to read.
Using Marc Adamus as an example, I believe the main thing that makes him so successful is his incredible attention to detail (not to mention his great sense of composition). No detail is overlooked in his processing, and it shows.
I'm sure some of the more experienced photogs, Marc, Guy, et al, can give give much better advice than I, but I hope this helps.
Thanks Pete and Bill!
@Pete: Yes, I think that's the point: The whole process is complex and a lot of variables can influence the final outcome. They all propably know how to control all of these variables to their liking and how to contol them in a manner that is beneficial for the look of their images.
"unconsciously competent" is a nice description. It is probably impossible for them to explain all the details because that's what makes their work an art, and if it would be so easy, I would not have posted the question.
But this leads me to the advice Bill gave, and thanks, this is already helpful because I think it is an important keyword: The plan: I think I somewhat lack the plan. I lack the consistency in processing and the knowledge. Also my seeing abilities have to be refined. My whole process of creating an image is maybe still a bit too much influenced by random events (be it light, subject matter, postprocessing). I need to get a plan then, or an "artistic mission statement". So, what's your plan guys?
Thanks for the feedback so far!
Dietrich
Posted by Randy Beacham on March 18, 2007 at 2:28 PM
In the case of Mark, while he obviously uses his digital skills to maximize the beautiful elements of a landscape image, far and away the reason for his "look and appearance" is that he consistently gets himself in position to take images in the best light possible. This probably means going out by himself so he's not distracted, backpacking into areas where needed so he's at the right spot at sunrise or sunset, and scouting locations--or going back to the same location if the light isn't right--so that he gets the best lighting possible.
Most people just don't go that extra mile to get the best possible image. Those factors have much more to do with the look and appearance than any digital skills--first and foremost you have to be in the right place at the right time. Thanks, Randy
Agreed. The right place at the right time for the best light; attention to compositional details, extraneous details (to omit!), processing details, technical details, camera operation details; and practice, practice, practice.
I'm still working on it-- ALL of it! (BTW, you don't need to hike a million miles or be an intrepid adventurer, as are Marc and some of the others. For me traveling in my neighborhood doing flowers, I look for the best way to use the light to best advantage for that flower, as an example.)
This is not an easy question to answer. First I would suggest that it is first and foremost about the light and how it plays with the composition. An outstanding sense of composition and how to determine the important elements of a scene or subject. As was mentioned, becoming intimately familiar with the subject is how the photographers you mentioned learn to understand the best type of light for the image. Lastly, the understanding of how the equipment works. I do believe this is the last element in the process. The most important elements are the more cognitive things mentioned above.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 18, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I checked out your web images, and you already have a great collection, and a strong personal style. I think part of what you mention is based on a "decision to render". After years of looking at hundreds of thousands of slides all shot on velvia, kodachrome, ektachrome, and provia, I learned that each film has a palette; a distinctive look and feel as to how each emulsion renderd light. Some films worked better in some light / subject combinations, and some preferences are entirely personal. Add to that equation seeing thousands of printed reproductions, both fine art and offset, where a geat looking slide was either beautifully worked, or horribly slaughtered. All this studying of light, subject, and media eventually made it easier to do post production that will render a digital image to match a similar type of palette. That's the 'end vision' I see in my mind, before I've converted the Raw File settings.
I've just always enjoyed using velvia for 10+ years, and you can see an example where Marc mentioned the look and feel matching velvia. I don't have too much personal experience w/ B&W or toned prints. I'd like to have more time to play with some of my own images in those alternate processing, and greatly respect the artistic talents seen here at NPN & elsewhere. On the other hand, Flickr runs amok with people totally infatuated with heavy handed use of HDR processing, and frankly, it does nothing for me. Again, it's subjective and personal preference. Your personal style will develop more as you continue to play with your images. See what feels right to you; add, subtract, decide, repeat.
All the things you mentioned, Dietrich, play a role - and experience, skill, technique, and knowledge of the medium. But most of all, I think, it is vision and style. Each see things differently - that's vision, and the expression of that vision is personal style. A talented artist will develop his own style. With some it's quite distinctive and with others more subtle.
The 'look or appearance' of photographs that you;ve seen, that give them that recognizable signature, is the personal style of the talented artists that frequent this website.
Thanks for all the feedback. I am about to understand and see the importance of personal style. Also the hint "end-vision" that Gary mentioned is very important I think. With out that, the results will go everywhere, maybe even great looking but they will not match that personal style.
One personal experience of mine is that if I do a shooting in a rather limited place, with more or less constant light, and then process all of them at home on the same day - the resulting images all seem to be connected. But images from different shootings are not. What I yet lack is that uniting touch for my images, but as far as I understand this now, this is just a matter of practice in all aspects mentioned.
Thanks and Regards,
Dietrich
Posted by Lon Overacker on March 20, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Dietrich,
I've dwelled over this for a couple of days now and have been wanting to comment. Like most other writings that I start, I usually don't finish... but here's my take.
First of all, like Bill, I'm flattered you mentioned my name. Buyer beware... you'll now have to deal with my rambling at the keyboard. I do like to write. :-)
There are so many avenues this could take.... but your very first question, which one can assume is what is really at the core of what you're asking, "how to improve the charactersitic look of my images." And my following comments are in general, and not directed at any of your images in particular.
I'll try and be honest here. We're dealing with images on the web, max 720pix. Most, if not all originals are 4 times that in original digital form (scanned or in camera.) Having said that, post-processing and digital workflow will only take the image so far. Assuming normal processing (curves,levels,hue/sat,masking adj layers and sharpening for the web) in my opinion, you can really only improve one level:
Bad > ok
ok > nice
nice > very nice
very nice > great
great > outstanding
outstanding > masterpiece
In other words, you're not going to go from nice to masterpiece simply because of workflow or digital processing. Just considering straight landscape photography (excluding photo art, composites, etc.) the standard best practice we here so often is that the goal is to capture the best possible image in-camera to minimize the amount of post-processing. My good friend recently returned from a week with Darwin in the Canadian Rockies. It's clear to me from a discussion with my friend that photographers like Darwin and Marc have, or are attempting to reduce the complexity of the technical aspects from capture to final processing to be able to enjoy more of the experience of "being there," and letting their creativity flourish. Of course I can't speak for either Darwin or Marc, but I'll bet anyone a buck they would agree.
There is a lot that can be said, and has been said and written, about personal "style" and "vision." I'm not sure that this is something that can really be taught, but "found" over a period of time. I couldn't even tell you what my style or vision is - but over time, I have come to characterize much of my favorite work as "portraits of nature." It's not that I originally decided that was my vision, yet over time it shows up more and more in not only images that I've made, but also from seeing others work, like here on NPN. For those of you familiar with William Neill (or even if you're not) I would highly recommend and encourage you to read his recent columns in Outdoor Photographer. His most recent columns are very applicable to this discussion.
On the fly, here are some thoughts to consider. I've thought about these many times and told myself I would one day put them in an article. So maybe this is a start.
1. Absorb as much visual imagery as you can stand. Before the explosion of images on the web, we all subscribed to magazines; we browsed art galleries, went to slide shows, etc. If nothing else, other people's work provides inspiration and motivation. You may get a head start on discovering your own vision by learning what kinds of images appeal to your own eye and mind. this is my opinion, but I don't believe you can create a "vision" or a "style" from a blank slate. In other words, we all have a lifetime of images and experiences stored in our own super-computer, our brain. All of our life's influences will impact the direction our photography takes.
2. K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid. Of course a life lesson, but relating to photography, keep your compositions simple whenever possible. Simple doesn't necessarily mean it can't be complex (ie. many of the natural "chaotic" images we see here), but simple in what you're trying to capture. What is it that draws you to the scene before you? Is it the light, the forms, shapes, lines or even a message you would like to convey? Know what you like about the scene and try and simplify it.
3. Learn the technical so it becomes second-nature. Don't let technology ruin "being there" for you. All you really need to understand is the relationships between aperture and shutter speeds, DOF and selective focus, for example. Some are even at the point where metering isn't even needed. for example, I've been trying to recognize situations where I don't meter.... let's see it's an hour before sunset, the scene is heavily side lit, I'll open up 3 stops from sunny16.... etc.
I'm now free to really concentrate on the composition and what it is that I'm really trying to capture.
4. Know and understand everything you can about your subject. Personally, I think it's a myth that only the photographers who get to travel all over get all the great images. Great photographers who travel, will likely get great images, but there's no guarentee. I think the odds increase dramatically in capturing great photos when you have the opportunity to return to the same location, year in, year out, through the seasons and times of day. And from the work we see here on NPN, it DOESN'T have to be Yosemite, Zion, the slots, Tetons, etc. The more you're familiar with what is local to you, the odds are better you can get some great images. I've always wanted to go to Zion NP; never been and I hope to some day. Let's say I schedule a trip for 3 days in early November. Great, I'm excited and can't wait. Time comes, plans are made motel reservations, vacation, the works. I go, it rains for 3 days. I don't know the park, and unless I've paid someone to take me to all the tripod holes at the right time of day for that beam of light... I'm not likely to be <as> successful as if I had been there many times previously.
I think I'll stop for now. Dietrich, you have a fine and diverse body of work. Don't cut yourself short and for sure, there are no secrets (at least no one's told me about them yet!)
Lastly, keep shooting... and shooting... and shooting
Lon, thanks a lot for spending so much time on answering! Thanks for all these suggestions. It's not that this is totally new to me - i ve already read a lot of "how-to" guides. But it's great to get it again, custom made by an experienced photographer just for me Also some hint's here presented by you and the encouragement interwoven with it is of great value.
This is something I have to focus on more when I am out to take pictures: always keeping in mind these rules you posted here. Sometimes I stumble around, see something that excites me, take pictures but don't challenge my self enough to make that unique shot.
I am getting more and more the "idea". Its also good to know, that a characteristic look just does not come from technical aspects and postprocessing alone. It is the style, that individual stamping a photographer graces the recording media with, that makes an image a work of art instead of a reproducable record.
Thanks again for your time, much appreciated!
Regards Dietrich
Posted by Dan Baumbach on March 21, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Dietrich,
I am very flattered to be included in your list. I have trouble just writing an "artists statement" for a gallery application so please don't expect me to be particularly articulate here.
First, I would say you have to be comfortable in your own skin as an artist. It's great and necessary to be influenced by other artists and to try to incorporate their style, but at some point you have to go it alone and bring our your own uniqueness. What form that takes, I don't know, but as you become more clear of your vision, you naturally develop the techniques to realize it.
For many people it's enough that they can take a photo that looks like it could have been done by Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams. I used to want to do that. At some point I found that as an empty accomplishment. No I just want the artist to express itself through me rather than trying to be a particular artist.
As far as how to develop your technique: Keep looking, shooting, printing and be your worst critic. But don't forget that you got into photography for the love of it and the love of producing a beautiful image. If that leaves you, it's time to take a break.
Hello Dan, thanks as well for your feedback! Reading all the comments I am quite confident now that I am on the right path, it just takes more time. What I am looking for in my own work just has to evolve more and take more concise forms. I am one of my worst critics That's why I am not pleased yet with the "state of my art". I can relate a lot to your opinion not to emulate a style of a well known artist - this just does not satisfy me, but it is a way of learning. But one has to stay critical and careful not to get stuck in a pattern.
Thanks and regards,
Dietrich
Now that I have a little time let me expound on that. In the world of photography I have tended to group photographers in one of two camps - they either use a tripod or they don't and this greatly influences the style of photos they produce. A tripod is a piece of equipment that really slows down the whole process. Many times the mere thougth of pulling out the tirpod and having to go through all the work of just setting it up will drive whether or not the photo is worth making. When some image is worth making, the placement of the tripod is paramount. Its use requires contemplation and patience especially after it is set up and you are just witing for either the wind to stop or waiting for the light to look just right. On the other hand, the person who does not use a tripod, is usually rapidly capturing frame after frame in rapid succession moving with the light and the other elements, sometimes producing whimsical and lively photos.
For me, the tripod was key in the images I made. It forced me to be meticulous about every detail from composition to exposure. Nothing was over looked. The tripod is now mandatory using the large format camera, and I have seen a big shift in the images I make using 35mm film or digital gear without a tripod.
So if you are looking at defining your style think about your own personality - is it spontaneous or more measured and calculated. I think if you match your personality to how you photograph you will start producing images that reflect who you are, and the tripod (or lack of it) is that piece in the equation that will help you solidify who you are and what you produce- and then your style will show.
Thanks Youssef! - I am a tripod-guy. And i like to think of my 5D as a large format camera. I mostly focus manually, I have the cam tripod mounted, and I use a cable release. However, when looking for compositions I stroll around with the cam looking through the viewfinder, seeking for compositions -This is a more flexible way because I can easily adjust height angle etc. When I have found a compo I mount the cam on the tripod to make the image.
However - I am maybe still a bit too fast in all the processes. Maybe I should still think a bit more carefully about a composition - get more in tune with the area. I was never the patient guy, I am always a bit hectic and excited. I probably should slow down, because the images I want to create should be "measured and calculated" as you put it. It's for me the only way to get away from snapshot-level.
Thank your for your input. I appreciate a lot the thoughts and encouragements posted here, I certainly learn a lot.
Regards Dietrich
Discussion
17 repliesThe "look" and appearance of a photograph. Whenever I look at the work of you experienced photographers that post here, I am always amazed how I can immediatly tell (even from the thumbnail sometimes), "now thats a marc adamus, a bill chambers, a Dan Baumbach, a Lon Overacker etc (those not mentioned please don't take offense, you name it and get the idea...)
I wonder If you can share some tips on how to improve the charactersitic look of my images - Is it some certain kind of digital workflow (colourbalance, colourtemperature, some sharpening techniques, whatever)?
Or is it because your photographic eye is already so highly developed that your portfolio gets so "logic" (everything seems to be somewhat connected and looks just good next to each other)?
Is in the way you compose, or the use of very similar light all the time? Or is it just because of the subject matter that is very "similar" (not meant in the sense of lack of variety)?
Is it a style that just emerges slowly over the years?
I think I am more referring to the appearance itself, just the looks, the texture. Not so much the subject-matter and light (But that might be influencing as well). Or maybe I am still underestimating the importance of just tiny variations of lightning.
I can understand that in the sense of analog film - the use of velvia, provia, etc (we had that discussion) - can influence the look, but still there's some name of the photographer always written all over the image.
I am sure that given same subject matter, time of day, location and vantage point and exact same framing, two photographers would still get away with a different result and the end of their workflow.
Or is it all a mixture of the above reasons. (I am afraid that would be the answer, because that would mean a very hard task for me to improve in all aspects...)
Is it something that you work on as well or do you think that this characteristic look is just a byproduct of your overall workflow (including everything from an image on your minds eye until the final print or a web-display)
I dont want to fish for some secret postprocessing-tricks or that I want to imply some postprocessing where there's none - it's just that i think some of you know more than me....
I would love to hear some opinions&tips on this topic
Thank you very much,
Regards Dietrich
Yes, they know more than we do. That's why we're here. I am quite sure that in many cases these guys are "unconsciously competent." They are so good at what they do that it is done without really thinking. A photograph you see presented on the web is the product of a lot of translations: Reality is selectively framed and cast through a lens onto a planar recording medium then converted to a digital file used to make a visible display which is adjusted at the whim of an artist and shown to you in a condensed form on a computer.
There is choice made in every translation and skill in how it is done. I'm most interested in the reality we chose to frame up, but the other steps have to happen or I can't get any feedback to help me improve.
Pete D. what was the question?
As far as workflow is concerned, I doubt there are any real "secrets" out there. Most photographers are very willing to share any techniques the have (ie, Marc's web sharpening, TK's luminosity masks, etc.). Also, there are a number of free tutorial sites on the web to learn additional techniques (The Radiant Vista is a particularly good site IMO). I do think it's important to develop a consistent workflow however, and a really good book on the subject is Tim Grey's Photoshop CS2 Digital Workflow (or something like that). Excellent advice, and easy to read.
Using Marc Adamus as an example, I believe the main thing that makes him so successful is his incredible attention to detail (not to mention his great sense of composition). No detail is overlooked in his processing, and it shows.
I'm sure some of the more experienced photogs, Marc, Guy, et al, can give give much better advice than I, but I hope this helps.
@Pete: Yes, I think that's the point: The whole process is complex and a lot of variables can influence the final outcome. They all propably know how to control all of these variables to their liking and how to contol them in a manner that is beneficial for the look of their images.
"unconsciously competent" is a nice description. It is probably impossible for them to explain all the details because that's what makes their work an art, and if it would be so easy, I would not have posted the question.
But this leads me to the advice Bill gave, and thanks, this is already helpful because I think it is an important keyword: The plan: I think I somewhat lack the plan. I lack the consistency in processing and the knowledge. Also my seeing abilities have to be refined. My whole process of creating an image is maybe still a bit too much influenced by random events (be it light, subject matter, postprocessing). I need to get a plan then, or an "artistic mission statement". So, what's your plan guys?
Thanks for the feedback so far!
Dietrich
Most people just don't go that extra mile to get the best possible image. Those factors have much more to do with the look and appearance than any digital skills--first and foremost you have to be in the right place at the right time. Thanks, Randy
I'm still working on it-- ALL of it! (BTW, you don't need to hike a million miles or be an intrepid adventurer, as are Marc and some of the others. For me traveling in my neighborhood doing flowers, I look for the best way to use the light to best advantage for that flower, as an example.)
I've just always enjoyed using velvia for 10+ years, and you can see an example where Marc mentioned the look and feel matching velvia. I don't have too much personal experience w/ B&W or toned prints. I'd like to have more time to play with some of my own images in those alternate processing, and greatly respect the artistic talents seen here at NPN & elsewhere. On the other hand, Flickr runs amok with people totally infatuated with heavy handed use of HDR processing, and frankly, it does nothing for me. Again, it's subjective and personal preference. Your personal style will develop more as you continue to play with your images. See what feels right to you; add, subtract, decide, repeat.
The 'look or appearance' of photographs that you;ve seen, that give them that recognizable signature, is the personal style of the talented artists that frequent this website.
One personal experience of mine is that if I do a shooting in a rather limited place, with more or less constant light, and then process all of them at home on the same day - the resulting images all seem to be connected. But images from different shootings are not. What I yet lack is that uniting touch for my images, but as far as I understand this now, this is just a matter of practice in all aspects mentioned.
Thanks and Regards,
Dietrich
I've dwelled over this for a couple of days now and have been wanting to comment. Like most other writings that I start, I usually don't finish... but here's my take.
First of all, like Bill, I'm flattered you mentioned my name. Buyer beware... you'll now have to deal with my rambling at the keyboard. I do like to write. :-)
There are so many avenues this could take.... but your very first question, which one can assume is what is really at the core of what you're asking, "how to improve the charactersitic look of my images." And my following comments are in general, and not directed at any of your images in particular.
I'll try and be honest here. We're dealing with images on the web, max 720pix. Most, if not all originals are 4 times that in original digital form (scanned or in camera.) Having said that, post-processing and digital workflow will only take the image so far. Assuming normal processing (curves,levels,hue/sat,masking adj layers and sharpening for the web) in my opinion, you can really only improve one level:
Bad > ok
ok > nice
nice > very nice
very nice > great
great > outstanding
outstanding > masterpiece
In other words, you're not going to go from nice to masterpiece simply because of workflow or digital processing. Just considering straight landscape photography (excluding photo art, composites, etc.) the standard best practice we here so often is that the goal is to capture the best possible image in-camera to minimize the amount of post-processing. My good friend recently returned from a week with Darwin in the Canadian Rockies. It's clear to me from a discussion with my friend that photographers like Darwin and Marc have, or are attempting to reduce the complexity of the technical aspects from capture to final processing to be able to enjoy more of the experience of "being there," and letting their creativity flourish. Of course I can't speak for either Darwin or Marc, but I'll bet anyone a buck they would agree.
There is a lot that can be said, and has been said and written, about personal "style" and "vision." I'm not sure that this is something that can really be taught, but "found" over a period of time. I couldn't even tell you what my style or vision is - but over time, I have come to characterize much of my favorite work as "portraits of nature." It's not that I originally decided that was my vision, yet over time it shows up more and more in not only images that I've made, but also from seeing others work, like here on NPN. For those of you familiar with William Neill (or even if you're not) I would highly recommend and encourage you to read his recent columns in Outdoor Photographer. His most recent columns are very applicable to this discussion.
On the fly, here are some thoughts to consider. I've thought about these many times and told myself I would one day put them in an article. So maybe this is a start.
1. Absorb as much visual imagery as you can stand. Before the explosion of images on the web, we all subscribed to magazines; we browsed art galleries, went to slide shows, etc. If nothing else, other people's work provides inspiration and motivation. You may get a head start on discovering your own vision by learning what kinds of images appeal to your own eye and mind. this is my opinion, but I don't believe you can create a "vision" or a "style" from a blank slate. In other words, we all have a lifetime of images and experiences stored in our own super-computer, our brain. All of our life's influences will impact the direction our photography takes.
2. K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid. Of course a life lesson, but relating to photography, keep your compositions simple whenever possible. Simple doesn't necessarily mean it can't be complex (ie. many of the natural "chaotic" images we see here), but simple in what you're trying to capture. What is it that draws you to the scene before you? Is it the light, the forms, shapes, lines or even a message you would like to convey? Know what you like about the scene and try and simplify it.
3. Learn the technical so it becomes second-nature. Don't let technology ruin "being there" for you. All you really need to understand is the relationships between aperture and shutter speeds, DOF and selective focus, for example. Some are even at the point where metering isn't even needed. for example, I've been trying to recognize situations where I don't meter.... let's see it's an hour before sunset, the scene is heavily side lit, I'll open up 3 stops from sunny16.... etc.
I'm now free to really concentrate on the composition and what it is that I'm really trying to capture.
4. Know and understand everything you can about your subject. Personally, I think it's a myth that only the photographers who get to travel all over get all the great images. Great photographers who travel, will likely get great images, but there's no guarentee. I think the odds increase dramatically in capturing great photos when you have the opportunity to return to the same location, year in, year out, through the seasons and times of day. And from the work we see here on NPN, it DOESN'T have to be Yosemite, Zion, the slots, Tetons, etc. The more you're familiar with what is local to you, the odds are better you can get some great images. I've always wanted to go to Zion NP; never been and I hope to some day. Let's say I schedule a trip for 3 days in early November. Great, I'm excited and can't wait. Time comes, plans are made motel reservations, vacation, the works. I go, it rains for 3 days. I don't know the park, and unless I've paid someone to take me to all the tripod holes at the right time of day for that beam of light... I'm not likely to be <as> successful as if I had been there many times previously.
I think I'll stop for now. Dietrich, you have a fine and diverse body of work. Don't cut yourself short and for sure, there are no secrets (at least no one's told me about them yet!)
Lastly, keep shooting... and shooting... and shooting
Lon
This is something I have to focus on more when I am out to take pictures: always keeping in mind these rules you posted here. Sometimes I stumble around, see something that excites me, take pictures but don't challenge my self enough to make that unique shot.
I am getting more and more the "idea". Its also good to know, that a characteristic look just does not come from technical aspects and postprocessing alone. It is the style, that individual stamping a photographer graces the recording media with, that makes an image a work of art instead of a reproducable record.
Thanks again for your time, much appreciated!
Regards Dietrich
I am very flattered to be included in your list. I have trouble just writing an "artists statement" for a gallery application so please don't expect me to be particularly articulate here.
First, I would say you have to be comfortable in your own skin as an artist. It's great and necessary to be influenced by other artists and to try to incorporate their style, but at some point you have to go it alone and bring our your own uniqueness. What form that takes, I don't know, but as you become more clear of your vision, you naturally develop the techniques to realize it.
For many people it's enough that they can take a photo that looks like it could have been done by Galen Rowel or Ansel Adams. I used to want to do that. At some point I found that as an empty accomplishment. No I just want the artist to express itself through me rather than trying to be a particular artist.
As far as how to develop your technique: Keep looking, shooting, printing and be your worst critic. But don't forget that you got into photography for the love of it and the love of producing a beautiful image. If that leaves you, it's time to take a break.
- Dan.
Thanks and regards,
Dietrich
Its the tripod, ....its all about the tripod. I would like to elaborate, but I don't have time right now.
Regards Dietrich
Now that I have a little time let me expound on that. In the world of photography I have tended to group photographers in one of two camps - they either use a tripod or they don't and this greatly influences the style of photos they produce. A tripod is a piece of equipment that really slows down the whole process. Many times the mere thougth of pulling out the tirpod and having to go through all the work of just setting it up will drive whether or not the photo is worth making. When some image is worth making, the placement of the tripod is paramount. Its use requires contemplation and patience especially after it is set up and you are just witing for either the wind to stop or waiting for the light to look just right. On the other hand, the person who does not use a tripod, is usually rapidly capturing frame after frame in rapid succession moving with the light and the other elements, sometimes producing whimsical and lively photos.
For me, the tripod was key in the images I made. It forced me to be meticulous about every detail from composition to exposure. Nothing was over looked. The tripod is now mandatory using the large format camera, and I have seen a big shift in the images I make using 35mm film or digital gear without a tripod.
So if you are looking at defining your style think about your own personality - is it spontaneous or more measured and calculated. I think if you match your personality to how you photograph you will start producing images that reflect who you are, and the tripod (or lack of it) is that piece in the equation that will help you solidify who you are and what you produce- and then your style will show.
However - I am maybe still a bit too fast in all the processes. Maybe I should still think a bit more carefully about a composition - get more in tune with the area. I was never the patient guy, I am always a bit hectic and excited. I probably should slow down, because the images I want to create should be "measured and calculated" as you put it. It's for me the only way to get away from snapshot-level.
Thank your for your input. I appreciate a lot the thoughts and encouragements posted here, I certainly learn a lot.
Regards Dietrich