I started thinking about this photograph, Green Leaves and Dew Drops last night. I was drawn to this composition by the diagonal lines and the water drops on the leaves. Looking at the RAW image I found that the greens were rather dull and not very attractive. Although the greens in the image are now unrealistic, I believe that that saturating the colors this way, makes for a more interesting and colorful image. It would be of interest to here from others, who sometimes find that the photograph does not meet their vision, and what is done to create the vision that you wanted.
Photography is art, and is the way you see the world, or the way you want to see it, or the way you want others to see it. It is not reality. No part of the world ever looked like an Ansel Adams print - he manipulated the heck out of them (I think the world was in color back then too). So whatever artistic talents you choose to use and illustrate with your photography is fine with me...
Tim,
I completely agree with you. There was a time though that to me a photograph had to be kept as close to reality as possible no manipulation at all. I find that I have become a student of photography, not so much the technical part of photography, but what motivates someone to create an image. The more I study other photographers, the more my perspective has changed and the way I see my own photography. The first time that I read of Ansel Adams manipulating his prints I was surprised, and had to question why. Took me a while to understand that photography is art and has nothing to do with reality. That is something I have started to discover for myself as I grow as a photographer. It's no longer about taking a picture, it's more creating art. In fact Rod Kissinger's photograph is a good example, changing the background of the laurel created a symmetry of floating flowers. It isn't reality but art.
Well said, Tim. I have a conversation like this with friends every few months. I am seeing photography more and more as an interpretation rather than a representation, though I used to feel quite differently. When I shot Velvia slide film (remember, everyone), the images had a richness to them that I seldom see come "straight out of my digital camera." But I feel that the final prints of many of my digital images are influenced by what I have seen in those beautiful slides. Sometimes, when the light is just Perfect, and the contrast of the scene is really low, the digital cameras capture the same magic. But that's what we're all chasing anyway, isn't it. That perfect light. It's why I keep going out to shoot. For those rare times when the light is truly perfect. And the rest is the art of photography. Trying to convey that to the viewer, even when the "capture" doesn't. So I say go for it. Heck, a lot of people are creating pictures from scratch in the computer. No camera, no paintbrush, just a computer.
Coming from you via Kentucky
Dominic (We like it here. No photos...yet.)
I'm just about to finish a group of 25 prints tonight for a federal judge that I have been working on all day. All of them but one look very realistic in every way - just like a real photo - but only after a good bit of tweaking and processing (after all, a RAW capture is only black and white with no color at all so we have to work to get it right!). The only print that looks overly processed is the one that I've not done anything to at all - it was a brilliant sunset that simply does not look real in print, yet those colors were there, and in fact it was probably even more brilliant than what the sensor and print were able to convey. It is the most real of the bunch yet looks photoshopped. I find that often people who don't get out all that much have trouble believing we have such great beauty around us, but as Dominic noted, you really have to be there when that magic light happens.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on June 18, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Ahhh, the magic light ... just what I talk about chasing in my Nature Photographer article.
I have a shot of a sunset overlooking Green Bay from a place called Egg Harbor. The colors of the sky are deep reds and rich oranges of all tones, all reflected in the water.
My wife doesn't like the image because it doesn't look real to her but I can pull the chrome and show her that the colors were actually that vibrant. She has a preconceived notion of reality based on past experiences and she has never seen anything quite like that moment ... but I have!
I have been quite slow to warm to the idea that I am an "artist" but lately I have been allowing myself a little more latitude in that thinking. I feel more comfortable with that label because I feel I have accumulated enough experience to bring the best out of a natural scene, whether that's during capture or in processing "optimization".
Every time I change focus, dof, lens, add a filter, whatever ... I am altering reality to suit my own purpose (reality being the three dimensional image processed by my brain). And by that act I am controlling what I hope to convey to the people who view my images.
The ultimate compliment is when they think it's art!
I have to agree with what everyone has said, but there are times when no amount of photoshop magic can reproduce that perfect light in a scene that comes and goes all too quickly, as Tim, Wayne and Dominic have pointed out. But I would hesitate to say that it is no longer about taking a picture. I still think that timing is a big factor, and it can be calculated to some degree, but a little luck never hurts. In fact, I find that much of the excitement about photography is the planning, anticipation and waiting for the right conditions to photograph a scene the way I've envisioned it in my mind, and then creating it in a print. Of course, it rarely works that way...I think some of my favorite shots are ones that appear when I least expect them.
Here's what the news story link I posted earlier had to say: Michael Adams and one of his father's friends were there when Adams shot "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," a photo featuring crosses from the town's church and graveyard illuminated by the setting sun as the moon rises over a band of clouds and the Sangre de Cristo mountain range.
"He saw this image and swerved across the road," Michael Adams said. "I remember the rush, rush, rush." They jumped out of the car and Adams couldn't find his light meter, but gauged the luminance of the moon, and adjusted accordingly.
He captured just one shot with the light the way he wanted it. "It truly is one-of-a-kind," Michael Adams said.
As long as you like what you've created David - that's all that matters.
I am always amused at Ansel's story about that exposure. Any first-year photo student would know the exposure (and with negative film you even have a bit of wiggle room, unlike a slide), and I'm sure Ansel did too without even thinking about it (probably would not have used a light meter if he had one in his hand). He always had a flair for the dramatic, and I think that story - and the way he used to tell it with such excitement in his voice - added to the mystic of this image. It is not only his most famous photo, but also the most valuable, and prints of it have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is one example of how he changed his printing style over the years - the early prints of this image show a normal grey sky, but in later years he printed the sky as coal black, which makes that moon stand out all the more, and intensifies the drama of the scene (to go along with his story!). If you want to learn the "art" of being a great photographer, study Ansel's life, not just his photos. Wasn't it another great photographer who said "Image is Everything!"? Oops, he was just a tennis player and not a photographer, but he was a great one...(those too young to remember I'm talking about those Canon commercials)
So now I know "the rest of the story". Now that I think about it, he could have probably shot that picture blindfolded...while thinking "I don't need no stinking meter"! It must have been quite an experience to hear the master himself tell those stories. Now, I'm just SURE none of that ever rubbed off on you, did it Tim?
The one point that seems to be mentioned by everyone is the light, I completely agree. The one thing I have noticed more when looking at a subject to photograph is the light. I have often thought that any subject taken in the right lighting conditions can be a great image. Seeing the light (to use the catch phrase) has become one the the most important elements in my photography. I am always looking for that great light even when I don't carry a camera.
Discussion
10 repliesDavid
I completely agree with you. There was a time though that to me a photograph had to be kept as close to reality as possible no manipulation at all. I find that I have become a student of photography, not so much the technical part of photography, but what motivates someone to create an image. The more I study other photographers, the more my perspective has changed and the way I see my own photography. The first time that I read of Ansel Adams manipulating his prints I was surprised, and had to question why. Took me a while to understand that photography is art and has nothing to do with reality. That is something I have started to discover for myself as I grow as a photographer. It's no longer about taking a picture, it's more creating art. In fact Rod Kissinger's photograph is a good example, changing the background of the laurel created a symmetry of floating flowers. It isn't reality but art.
David
Coming from you via Kentucky
Dominic (We like it here. No photos...yet.)
Well said yourself, an interpretation rather than a representiation, I like that.
David
PS - look forward to seeing some of your Kentucky work.
I have a shot of a sunset overlooking Green Bay from a place called Egg Harbor. The colors of the sky are deep reds and rich oranges of all tones, all reflected in the water.
My wife doesn't like the image because it doesn't look real to her but I can pull the chrome and show her that the colors were actually that vibrant. She has a preconceived notion of reality based on past experiences and she has never seen anything quite like that moment ... but I have!
I have been quite slow to warm to the idea that I am an "artist" but lately I have been allowing myself a little more latitude in that thinking. I feel more comfortable with that label because I feel I have accumulated enough experience to bring the best out of a natural scene, whether that's during capture or in processing "optimization".
Every time I change focus, dof, lens, add a filter, whatever ... I am altering reality to suit my own purpose (reality being the three dimensional image processed by my brain). And by that act I am controlling what I hope to convey to the people who view my images.
The ultimate compliment is when they think it's art!
Here's what the news story link I posted earlier had to say: Michael Adams and one of his father's friends were there when Adams shot "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," a photo featuring crosses from the town's church and graveyard illuminated by the setting sun as the moon rises over a band of clouds and the Sangre de Cristo mountain range.
"He saw this image and swerved across the road," Michael Adams said. "I remember the rush, rush, rush." They jumped out of the car and Adams couldn't find his light meter, but gauged the luminance of the moon, and adjusted accordingly.
He captured just one shot with the light the way he wanted it. "It truly is one-of-a-kind," Michael Adams said.
As long as you like what you've created David - that's all that matters.