"Are You A 'Pro'?

As a continuation of my previous comments on aging and artistic growth I have come to ask myself a few questions about the current state of photography and what appears to be a somewhat widely held theory that anyone can almost instantly become a successful ‘pro’ photographer. I’m reminded of the question posted on one of the forums I frequent where it was asked “if anyone could explain what a zoom lens was?”…. and the answer was needed quickly as the person asking was about to undertake a second ‘wedding job’ and might want to purchase such a lens. At first it seemed ludicrous that someone with such woefully lacking knowledge of basic photography would undertake selling such a service….but then I began to think about the context in which the question was asked.
I started my avocation of photography with a Brownie Hawkeye at 9 years of age, and have been taking photographs for over 50 years. And in no sense of the word do I consider myself a professional. I have often put off growing in this area because I simply did not have the space to set up a darkroom. (I have just recently thrown away an Omega 4x5 and a Besseler 35mm enlarger….having moved them with me numerous times for the last 20 years and seldom using them!) Now I find that anyone can undertake the most advanced forms of photography by applying the newer digital equipment. A laptop computer has become a darkroom! No more waiting for the film to be developed …sending back for enlargements and special crops…we get all that instantly! And it isn’t much of a leap from ‘instant photos’ to ‘instant professional photographer’….especially in our society where yesterday is almost a day too late.
We drink instant coffee, have instant rebates, instant messaging, speed dialing, voice dialing, redialing, high speed internet, high speed highways, high speed search engines, and on and on ad nauseam. I’ve come to expect in my medical practice that most people in this country just plain refuse to believe I can’t make them well in short order no matter what the problem. If my medicine hasn’t achieved some modicum of success in just a short while it’s often considered a failure. We have become a people expecting everything to be instantly available in almost every area of our lives. Why not success? If one can have a photo instantly on the back of a relatively cheap camera, why not photograph weddings and tout oneself as a ‘pro’?
Sorry….but I personally don’t think this is a plausible expectation. Unfortunately I believe it has become too easy to lead ourselves into just such warped thinking. Go to some of the photographic websites where critiques abound….look at the ‘instant experts’ as they give paragraph after paragraph of advice (often praising work well below what any professional would consider adequate!) as though they have the ability to qualify something as good or bad. Based on what? How quickly they reply? Most times politics and human nature seem to have more to do with such critiques than any actual qualifications on the part of the reviewer. Nevertheless, one can be convinced his or her work is ‘superb’ or ‘stunning’…when it may be woefully lacking in any of several areas.
Maybe the first order of business is to define exactly what a ‘pro’ is! Webster has one good definition…a professional is someone ”characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession”. I guess a professional could also be defined as one who gains financially from a particular vocation…but from the question mentioned earlier it appears these two definitions would then be at odds. The only way both definitions could apply is if the ‘technical and ethical standards’ were lowered enough to provide the uninformed easier access to the rank of ‘pro’. Personally I’m not ready to do that just yet. There are far too many folks out there working their tails off trying to master a craft that takes years to fully understand. Besides, if I’m going to have surgery I want the doc who’s been doing it for 30 years! My car deserves a mechanic who has enough experience to repair it completely and safely. If someone is going to photograph my daughter’s wedding I want to know I’m dealing with a person who has the miles behind him or her to handle the job.
So what do we do? Let it slide? Lower the bar? I suggest being honest when someone asks for a critique. That can be done in a kind and supportive way, and is actually much more helpful in the long run. If someone critiques your work look at theirs…make a judgment about the position from which his or her wisdom flows. Choose a long-standing and well-respected professional organization and educate yourself about what they expect of their ‘professional’ members. I would also suggest we each ask ourselves if we measure up to the definition of such a ‘professional’ in every sense of the word. And we should ask that question over and over again throughout our photographic endeavors. Sometimes that introspection is tough, but the rewards are great! So are you a ‘pro’? Do you measure up? I’m not and I don’t….but I’ll keep plugging away at it…because it’s worth it! It can still mean something to be called a ‘pro’….and I believe it should!

"Not Older...Just Better!"

I was listening to a pod cast by Brooks Jensen the other day where he talked about turning fifty years old. He said he was depressed, feeling old, etc., and decided to review some information he had gathered as a young person about the age of certain famous photographers when they published their most famous works. What I found so amazing was the ages involved were all what we might consider ‘old’….in fact some of the best works of people like Ansel Adams and Alfred Stieglitz were done in their 60’s, 70’s, and beyond! Cool!
Then I asked myself why? What about being older seems to foster the ability to capture images that express so much in such a timeless way? And here’s what I think….maybe just a bunch of baloney, or maybe not….
There are basically two ways to photograph something. We can photograph for our own purpose (whatever that may be), or we can photograph something for what it is. Let me explain. When we photograph for ‘us’ we have a specific goal in mind. It might be to complete a contract…say a wedding job or sports event. It might be a subject we think could bring us to the forefront on the critique forums and heap the praise of our peers on our heads. It might be something we could hang on the wall and watch people swoon as they view our ‘work’, and so on. In any case we let the end result dictate what we do as we take the photograph because the end result is the reason for the photograph.
When we photograph something for what it is we photograph it for its own sake. The reason for the photograph has nothing to do with ‘us’ per se. Rather we are there to use what skills we have to capture ‘it’…and we do that if for no other reason than because ‘it’ deserves to be captured. One interesting thing about doing this sort of photography is that it can happen serendipitously….i.e. the war photojournalist who is snapping away and suddenly realizes he has a photo of Marines on Iwo Jima raising the American flag. But more often than not these photographs are the exception…not the rule. They may only account for one photograph out of thousands.
So how does a photographer see something for what it really is? I think to really see it I have to bring it into my consciousness…my psyche…let it roll around…and somehow let all that ‘I’ am tell me what ‘it’ really is! And that I think is the point…that what ‘I’ am determines what I see. I am what I am….which is all that makes me unique and individual. It is all the experiences of my life…lived each moment…the highs and lows…the hurts and pleasures…everything that has brought me to this particular place and time.
So…..(the pay off!)… how could a person with little or no life experience ‘see’ something with the same degree of discernment and clarity as one who has lived longer (and thus experienced more)? Is it possible that as we age we use the depth of our selves to discern things more deeply…more completely? (Yes yes…I know….there are young people who do amazing work….but really those who do so repeatedly seem to be exceptions…and once again not the rule). So I guess my theory is that if the objective of one’s work is to take a photograph of a particular ‘something’ for it’s intrinsic value…then that intrinsic value is best seen and appreciated by one whose years allow the full depth of that ‘something’ to show through. One who can do so does a great service for the rest of us as viewers of photographic work.
There! I said it….and I can’t wait to get older because my photographs should just get better!

Finding Inspiration

One of the hardest things for me to accomplish as a photographer is to stay inspired to shoot photographs. The first question one might ask is “if it’s hard to stay inspired maybe I shouldn’t do it?” Unfortunately as human beings we seem to adapt to this attitude in almost anything we do. It doesn’t matter what the situation before us…eventually we become bored, or less than enthusiastic, and it gets harder and harder to remain inspired.
A recent article by Alain Briot has put forth a few ways to try to let inspiration enter our consciousness. One is by putting ourselves in a location where inspiration comes naturally…i.e. the Grand Canyon (come on now…haven’t you ever said to yourself “I could take photographs like that if I lived there!”) Places seem to me to have a ‘spirit’, and many times if we are open to that spirit we can let the location inspire us to a new level of vision and creativeness.
Certain people seem to be able to inspire, just by their very nature. Have you noticed how people behave when a young child (or better yet newborn baby!) is brought into the room? The whole room turns attention to the newcomer, and inspiration once again can flow from such a situation.
How about a new piece of gear? My photographer friend Bea recently got me interested in pinhole photography. Nothing like a new idea or new piece of equipment to make me get off my rear and become inspired! (See my first pinhole photo above...)
How about music? It’s really very difficult to listen to certain types of music without becoming inspired. If you doubt this, take a young child and turn on music with a good sound and beat….before long you’ll see a response in the form of movement or voice! The ‘Mozart Effect’ has been pretty well established by scientific studies…and can be put to good use in this situation.
Finally….how about just giving yourself the time and space to become inspired? How often in this day and age do we stop long enough to hear those kinds of voices? No telling what comes our way each day that could have been most inspiring…yet gets lost in the everyday splatter of our lives.
We are all capable of amazing things, and by putting ourselves in a position to let inspiration enter our consciousness we can much better reach toward our real potential. That's the 'gas' that keeps the motor running! It's not as much a luxury as a necessity if we want to remain involved and be creative to the point of moving forward. Happy shooting!

$2000.00 for a Workshop? Gimme a Break!

Is it just me, or have some of the photographers teaching workshops gone totally overboard on their prices?
I would dearly love to go to a workshop, but the cheapest I have found that appears to be worth going to is a thousand dollars!
How does that work? Is the photography market so bad that these folks make their money from workshops alone? I mean come on! It’s nothing nowadays to find workshops that cost two thousand dollars or more….some even higher! Plus the expense of travel and room and board! I find it really hard to believe that two or three days in a class of 20 or more would give me a decent return on that kind of investment.
Is this type of thing intended for the pro who makes a living doing photography? Maybe the price isn’t too high if you can take the cost of the workshop off your taxes…
I’ve commented before on the pro who wants to sell a fine art printing ‘how-to’ CD for eight hundred dollars! I’d have to sell a lot of fine art prints to make that worthwhile!
I dunno…maybe if I was famous as a photographer and thought I could make a living teaching what I knew I would feel the same way…..but I would hope not…and who decides who’s ‘really good’ and who isn’t?
Even if the photographer is great at taking photos he or she might be lousy at teaching! You can darn sure bet the testimonials they use aren’t going to be about how lousy the course was!
Whew! Thanks…I needed to get that off my mind…now back to the computer to look for a workshop I can afford!

When Are "Snapshots" OK??

When they make you feel good inside!

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.