A "Slice" of Time

When I used to compete in archery tournaments I had a teacher who once told me…”Better make sure before you release the arrow, because once you do release it that moment in time is gone forever…” I think photography is a lot like ‘releasing the arrow’. We can capture (strange word to use for taking a photograph isn’t it!) two dimensions on a piece of film or a digital sensor with ease…but did you ever stop to think you were also capturing time? Not many other art forms allow us to take 1/3000 of a second (or less!) and slice it out of reality to save forever. Even ‘moving pictures’ don’t allow such a precise ‘pruning’ of time. Try to recapture the same image exactly and even in the studio you can't...because that moment in time is gone forever.
So with the advent of photography came the ability to ‘preserve a slice of time’. I don’t know about you but I think that’s pretty cool! Of all the things in our lives that we can’t control, time is the one unrelenting, never-ceasing force that drives us onward. Time is no respecter of persons and has been the subject of philosophical discussions since it began. No one can stop it (or even slow it down!) and no one escapes its march forward.
Think about all the photojournalists who have made such powerful statements by the use of photographs to capture a specific moment in time. In my era some of the most powerful statements were about the Viet Nam war. What about the photographs of 9/11? On a more personal note, what about the photographs of a loved one no longer with us? How unique that those moments in time can be preserved forever...and how easily many of them can bring us back to a specific time and place! Pretty powerful stuff!
So the next time I press a shutter button I hope at least a part of me can remember how lucky I am to have the ability to slice out that one precious moment forever. Who knows, maybe I’ll pay just a bit more attention before I ‘left the arrow fly’….

Fill Those Pixels With Light!

(This is a reprint of an article written for the North American Nature Photography Association)

It’s no secret that the digital age of photography has arrived. More and more articles are being written about the pros and cons of digital equipment, digital processing, and so on…often ad nauseam. Inevitably there will continue to be the comparisons made between using film and digital media to capture and process our images.
One such comparison often referred to seems to be with regard to film ISO and digital sensor ‘speed’ ratings. As a part of these discussions many times there appears to be a direct comparison being made between film ISO and digital sensor ISO settings. In reality there are subtle differences between the two.
While film emulsions are prepared with the ability to capture light at different speed ratings digital sensors have one inherent 'speed' of capture ...and increasing the ISO on a digital camera can only increase the gain in the amplifier circuitry in the camera (just as turning up the knob on your radio will increase the volume you hear from the speakers). It does not make the digital sensor "faster", it just amplifies more the information the sensor has captured. Doing so (if the increase is high enough) also increases certain types of digital noise (just crank up the volume on that distant radio station and listen to how the static is brought up as well). When the ISO of a digital sensor is increased both the noise inherent in the circuitry and the image data captured by the sensor are amplified. Unfortunately the higher the ISO the more certain types of noise information will be increased with respect to image data. Every digital camera has a certain amount of ‘floor noise’ present all the time. Longer exposures (no matter what the ISO) are noted for increasing this ‘floor noise’ due in part to heat build-up in the sensor and associated circuitry. In a perfect world a digital image taken at high ISO and/or longer exposure would be perfectly exposed and without any noise artifact at all. The problem is that in the real world when ISO and/or exposure are increased so is the inherent noise which is present in every digital system. The end result is a lowered Signal To Noise Ratio (SNR)…more noise information compared to image data. In other words the image data is there but it is 'covered up' by noise. We see it as those pesky little specks of goofy looking pixels especially apparent in the darker portions of a digital photo. Noise in these darker areas is more obvious because in the white areas of the image the sensor received more input and the resultant SNR in these areas is higher (in effect letting the image data cover up the noise).
Fortunately there are things we can do to help keep noise levels down. As 'digitists' we are being taught to 'expose for the highlights’... in other words move the Histogram of a particular image as far to the right as possible without losing image information. Sensor pixels measure light quantity and the more light filling them the more valid image information available to the camera circuitry. This in turn means a higher SNR. Most of the higher end cameras have significant ability to record amounts of light… commonly 5-6 f/stops…some even higher! Not using that capacity to measure light levels fully will always result in an image with lower SNR…sometimes to the point of making an image useless. For several technical reasons it would appear the general consensus is that less noise is produced by increasing exposure within a particular ISO than by increasing the ISO itself. Some feel that certain types of noise inherent in all digital cameras are apparently more affected by changes in ISO than they are affected by longer exposures at a lower ISO. Either way the object remains…. ‘fill the sensor pixels with light’.
Many of today’s cameras have noise reduction software built into them. In some cases it may be possible to use specific programs to try to reduce image noise, but usually with varying degrees of success. Often these programs are better at removing certain types of image noise than others. Most people would agree I believe that having to try to remove noise in any way will result in a photograph of lesser quality than the same image would appear without the noise.
My own personal experience has me now looking at the Histogram (RGB histograms in my camera) as much as I look at the jpeg image on the camera LCD. I shoot in RAW format so if any exposure changes are necessary as a result of moving the Histogram to the right I can make them in my RAW converter. And on an image with lower noise at that! I want to make sure those sensor pixels are working to the full extent of their ability to record light!
So...if we were shooting film and found ourselves in a low light situation we could just use a faster film and adjust exposure accordingly... but ‘cranking up’ the ISO on a digital camera may not be the same thing when it comes to the resultant image and the amount of noise it contains. I realize there are many ‘digitists’ who only want to take photographs and not be bothered with the ‘techie’ side of photography. I’m sort of that way myself. But…show me a good photographer and I’ll show you someone who at least understands the basic tools of his or her craft (and probably someone who understands a great deal more of the technical side of things than he or she admits).
In a particular situation ‘exposing to the right’ may not be a big deal, but what if it turned out to be so? I believe the best rule of thumb would be to try and ‘fill those pixels’ to the max.

Are You A Creative Person?

Have you ever wondered if you are a creative person? I have...maybe because I'm getting older and don't like the idea of running out of options. Or maybe I'm just at that place in my life where such questions come up. Foreigner did a song called “I Want To Know Where Love Is”…with these words…

I gotta take a little time
A little time to think things over
I better read between the lines
In case I need it when I'm older

Maybe I’m just now getting around to ‘reading between the lines’…
I've never considered myself a creative person when it comes to the arts. My interest in music was always to play the guitar, but never having any training made me a 'copier'...I tried to copy the things I heard other people play. Working and raising a family made practice a sometimes thing for me, and playing was more of a personal escape than any real movement forward.
I've never been very good at writing...always too quick and to the point. I always wanted to write songs, but never really got good at doing so.
And my photography, which started out as a way to work my way through college, has been an off and on thing for over forty-five years. My biggest drawback was the lack of a decent place to develop and print. So with my discovery of the 'new' digital workflow I suddenly began to rekindle old interests in taking photographs. The internet has now made the craft of photography a place where I might have a chance to explore my 'creative side'. Only problem is...I still have doubts that the creative part of me can produce the kind of work I want to leave behind.
My wife Janice and I have discussed on several occasions the 'right brain-left brain' theories...and I've always considered myself a left-brained person. I'm good at learning new things and find technical things easy for the most part. But I've always felt that I just didn't have 'what it takes' to be an artist. I'm sure even the best artists have doubts, but my doubts went to the heart of my ability to produce something new and different for me.
A few years ago I attended a series of conferences, one of which was by the author of the book Thinking Outside the Box. He spoke at length about working with Walt Disney, and about how Disney's unorthodox methods brought out the creative side of the people working for him. After a very stimulating lecture I approached him and expressed my doubts about my ability to be creative in an artful way because of my left-brained thinking. To his credit he didn't laugh at me, but rather took several minutes to explain his views on the subject.
Basically I was told everyone has it within his or her self to be creative, and that labeling someone right or left brained was not the whole story. Further, it is just a matter of practice to realize the artful, creative side of oneself and let those strengths grow (probably something most people already knew!). What an encouraging word from a stranger!
I think being in law enforcement for so long has convinced me that most things are black and white...guilty or innocent...good or bad, and that the gray areas are pretty slim. I’m trying to get away from that kind of thinking. I think we all have the ability to be as creative as we want to be. Some people seem to find that side of themselves easier than others of us, but it is within reach for all of us if we choose to step out...unafraid...and practice letting that part of ourselves grow.
I once wrote Alain Briot (www.beautiful-landscape.com) about my concerns with not being able to see 'photographically'. I told him a bit about my past, and said I didn't know why I was successful in other areas of my life...but not this one. His answer was simple...he told me he wouldn't know how to be a cop either...because he had never been trained to do so. He said seeing photographically is just a matter of training, and that anyone could learn to do so. What a refreshing thing to hear!
Sometimes it seems we're taught that being a successful artist is something certain people are born to do...and others not. I truly want to believe that each of us can explore and grow the creative and artful side of ourselves by being who and what we are...unique individuals…and that the experiences of our lives leave us all with a never ending source of creative power. If we can use that source of power honestly, earnestly, and without fear we should be able to reach goals far and away past any limits we set on ourselves.
Who knows...maybe I will write that song one day!

Critiques and Creativity

One of the most valuable things I have found since my interest in photography was renewed has been the availability of the internet as an opportunity to display photographic work. And not only display it but to have that work reviewed by my peers. I believe the internet will be the single most important factor in making more photographers better photographers in the future. Never have we had the opportunity to have such a wide and diverse audience view our work. And of course with that wide and diverse audience comes a whole host of wide and diverse opinions about that work. Most of these opinions are usually received in some sort of ‘critique’ forum or atmosphere. The purpose of this discourse is to comment on this phenomenon. These forums can be used for a wide range of purposes and certainly can have a wide range of effects on both those doing the critiques and those receiving them.
Most critique forums are very diverse in both the photos posted and the individuals reviewing them. That can be both an advantage and a disadvantage depending upon the motivation of those doing the critiques and those posting images. In order to determine how that affects the photographer and his or her work I believe several things have to be taken into account.
First, the photographer who is trying to move his artistic work forward must have a very clear idea of what he or she is trying to accomplish. Certainly there is a danger if the photographer desires simply to please the masses as a whole because the diversity of the viewing audience will make that impossible. If the photographer is trying to reach a certain segment of his viewing public then the problem becomes how to reach those individuals, carve them out of the masses, and identify them as the viewers he intends to reach. Without a definite direction or purpose to the work the artist’s chances of success are slim to none. He or she will constantly be trying to please others, and anyone with that artistic goal in mind is doomed in his or her attempts to move the work forward. Don’t misunderstand me…there is a certain amount of good old-fashioned ego involved when an image is greeted with praise. But what about when the opposite is true? If the purpose of the work is to please everyone then not only can the image be brought into doubt but so can the ability of the photographer. If our purpose is to grow into a more creative person by improving the craft of what we do (for our own purposes) then negative feedback is simply a learning tool to help us move forward. We become disconnected from the failure of our work …no longer does that mean our failure as a person or artist. This in effect allows us the freedom to move forward by continuing the work we have chosen.
Second, the reviewer must be willing to step forward and be honest in his or her critique. The reviewer must also try to maintain some basic understanding of where the work is going (or attempting to go)…certainly not always an easy task. Some critiques are wholly technical in nature, often referring to ‘rules’ that are supposed to guide exposure, manipulation of images, composition, and so on. Some reviewers cling to these rules as if they were the ‘Ten Commandments of Photography’. Others seem to take a more personal approach, often describing the more personal feelings a photograph evokes. But in both cases many times there seems to be a fear of being totally honest. Certainly as a learning photographer I can understand not wanting to have my ego crushed. At the same time without a certain frankness growth is not going to take place. When a photograph is out of focus it IS out of focus. When a tree is growing out of a subject’s head it is usually not an opportunity for the photographer to impress the viewer. My experience is that often low-level or beginning work is not commented on at all, probably out of fear of hurting someone’s feelings (someone who perhaps will be critiquing our own work later!). I think this is a mistake. The reviewer is not being honest and the artist is being punished unfairly as a result.
How many times have you had to listen to someone sing who thought they could (when they obviously couldn’t!)…and thought to yourself “someone should be kind enough to tell them”! How can a person grow in their work without honest feedback? I think it’s impossible to do so. But I do think that honest feedback can be given (and must be given) in a supportive way. Most of us are afraid by our very nature to ‘stick our necks out’…but sometimes that can be the best way to help another person move forward. Not doing so is unfair and hurtful in a totally unnecessary way.
So….I would say our task as artists is to define our own purpose and work toward that goal using the critiques of others…when they are relevant…as a tool for doing so. Our task as reviewers of another’s work is to try to ascertain where the work is going and to review it both technically and personally in an honest and supportive way. Not doing the first will slow our growth. Not doing the second will slow another’s growth. In both cases fear robs us all of the ability to move forward and the advantage of the internet as a learning situation will be lessened.

"Shootabout List"

I've been talking with my friend Bea about a list of photographers who live in different parts of the country who might be willing to share info on their neck of the woods if another photographer wanted to vist that location. Seems like there are a ton of great places, but without some basic knowledge of an area one could spend forever just trying to get into the right place at the right time. Something like this might save a lot of time and effort, especially if someone has already done the leg work. Not sure about this idea...I'll have to think about it a bit more and visit with my buds about it.
I made a very interesting discovery about myself over the last few days. I really don't want to do photography for a living. Seems like all the 'newbies' think that's the way to go, but I'm not so sure that's right for me.I don't want to do weddings, and I sure as heck don't want to be like some of the 'experts' ansd sell myself to the highest bidder. I've noticed a lot of these folks seem to have to work their tails off selling their workshops, CD's, etc. I mean come on!! $800.00 for a CD on how to make fine art prints? Nobody's that good! I want to take photographs, and I can do that now much better than I could under those circumstances. Sure...I'd love to work for National Geographic and travel the world, but that isn't going to happen.
I also know the grass always looks greener 'over there'...but when something becomes a job instead of an avocation it takes on a whole different personality. I don't want to be driven to photograph to survive. I want to be driven to photograph because I have something to say.
So...I'm going to concentrate on improving my skills and setting goals for shoots that let me do just that.
We'll see what happens... :-)

Goals

I wanted to set a few goals for myself with regard to the blog.
First off….I would like for it to be interesting and fun. I have enough of the other stimuli in my life.
Second… I would like to stay active in it…maybe even use it as a journal of my photographic experiences. I think that would help me stay focused and involved in moving my photography forward.
Third… I would like to use the blog as a way to expand my understanding of me and the parts of me that I have never really had the time or intent to indulge. I believe as we get older everyone starts to think about ‘what he/she is leaving behind’. I’m leaving behind a wonderful family of youngsters, but I would like to also leave something more individual…something more creative…that comes from the part of me that I want to explore. I would like to try to use my photography to do just that.
So here goes…now I have a stated purpose…better stay with it huh!