|
|
Archive for the ‘Photo Philosophy’ Category
Tuesday, February 19th, 2013
In 1927, during one of his regular trips to Yosemite, Ansel Adams trekked up to the “diving board” on the west shoulder of Half Dome. There, he made a dramatic image of the monolith using a mild yellow filter to darken the sky a bit—a generally recommended and accepted practice in those days.
But what Ansel felt about the scene before him was more dramatic than what he knew the yellow filter would give him. With one plate left unexposed, he daringly made another exposure, this time using a red filter that he hoped would result in an image that was more in tune with what he imagined, or visualized, the final image should be, instead of what was actually in front of him.
The image that resulted from this experiment proved to be a turning point for Ansel in his photographic explorations. For the first time, he was conscious of the difference between what his camera lens saw (the literal) and what he saw in his mind’s eye (the expressive) as the final print.
Ansel ultimately came to refer to this freedom from recording only that the camera and lens could capture in a technical sense to visualization, and he wrote about it extensively during his lifetime.
By itself, visualization doesn’t assure a successful final image, but it does set the stage for the ensuing choreography of photographic steps. To my way of thinking, it is the single most important element in creating an expressive image.
So…just what is visualization and how do you visualize?
Simply put, visualization is a confluence of imagination and technique. It is the ability to picture the final print in your mind before releasing the shutter and possessing the technical know-how to create the image that’s in your mind, even if it differs from the reality of the scene in front of you.
One of Ansel’s favorite sayings was, “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” At the same time, a concept can be sorely limited in clarity by a fuzzy knowledge of technique. The two go hand-in-hand.
In Ansel’s case, his knowledge of technique—knowing what a strong red filter ought to do—enabled him to imagine, or visualize, a final print with a much darker sky than the yellow filter would have afforded. He visualized how he wanted the print to look and used the techniques to execute his vision.
Visualization does not, however, require that you see a finished print that is markedly different from the real qualities of the actual scene. It could be as simple as “seeing” a final color image in delicate pastels rather than in bold, vibrant colors and contrasts. It might mean choosing a particular vantage point to emphasize the qualities of a foreground object. But in all cases, visualization dictates the techniques required to achieve the vision.
The next time you’re out photographing, try taking a moment to disconnect from the reality of the scene in front of your lens, and try to see it as a print. Is the sky in that print going to be darker than your meter says it ought to be? If it’s in black-and-white, will skewing color relationships with a filter strengthen your statement? Will a longer or shorter exposure enhance motion in a scene? These are all things I consider – usually even before I set the camera up. With practice you won’t even know you’re doing it – you will have already done it! That’s visualization.
A cut-out card is a great way tighten up your composition!
And here are some thoughts by Georgia O’Keeffe on the concept of rendering something seen:
“The Ranchos de Taos Church is one of the most beautiful buildings left in the United States by the early Spaniards. Most artists who spend any time in Taos have to paint it, I suppose, just as they have to paint a self-portrait. I had to paint it – the back of it several times, the front once. . . . And I long ago came to the conclusion that even if I could put down accurately the thing I saw and enjoyed, it would not give the observer the kind of feeling it gave me. I had to create an Equivalent for what I felt about what I was looking at——not copy it.”
Georgia O’Keeffe, 1976
Coming up….executing your vision.
- Choosing an appropriate vantage point so elements in a scene don’t compete with your vision
- Choosing the right lens to properly frame the subject
- Knowing enough about filters and exposure to record subject tones in the most useful way
- Following through in the darkroom or computer lab (“light” room).
Posted in Ansel Adams, Photo Philosophy | No Comments »
Thursday, October 4th, 2012
I got a request a few days ago about my thoughts re small/large format and digital vs film. It seems to be an active topic so I hope the following can shed some more “light” on the subject!
******
Dear Mr. Ross,
… was wondering if you would be kind enough to answer a couple of questions regarding your use of large format cameras. In particular, I was wondering two things:
1. Why do you continue to use large-format cameras for your art? Do you find some benefit in them that you cannot obtain from a 35mm camera?
2. It is my belief from what I have read that you prefer film over digital photography. For example, I noticed your comment in response to the Popular Photography article, Photoshop and Photography – What is Photography? “I have never seen an inkjet print that could match the depth of image in a traditional silver-print.” Is my assumption that you primarily use film correct? Is there ever a time (from a fine art standpoint) where digital would be more beneficial in your mind?
I am sure you are frequently inundated with questions from fans and fellow photographers, so I thank you in advance for taking the time to read these questions, and hopefully responding to them.
Best regards,
*******
Hello…..,
Camera size: First, consider that you can only cram a certain amount of information in a given amount of space. At 24x36mm (1×1.5 sq. in) a 35mm camera has a negative with 1.5 square inches of area. A 4×5″ negative has 20 square inches and 8×10 has 80! So, given an equivalent film in both cameras, a 4×5 negative has over 13 times the information (detail) as a 35mm. Also, most 4×5 cameras have all sorts of adjustments allowing controls of focus and image geometry not available with “solid-body” cameras. Further, there is only one exposure on each piece of 4×5 film, so each image can be developed according to its own merits. Lastly, I personally kind of like the slower, contemplative approach often associated with working with a bigger camera.
Film vs digital: They both have their merits. I got a Canon 5D MkII several months ago and think it is a wonderful tool. Digital can certainly do things film cannot do – capture color and BW at the same time, have different ISO speeds with the twist of a dial, record a staggering number of images on a single memory card and offer instant replay immediately after exposure among other things. Downside- there is nothing permanent about a digital image. If an image has not been printed and its storage drive fails without backup, the image is gone forever. Currently, digital recording has nowhere near the tonal scale of a BW negative, and to some degree, a color negative. With Digital, many common scenes would require multiple exposures and subsequent HDR processing to record the brightness range easily captured in a single exposure on bw film. That said, there is just something I intrinsically like about working with film. I have an Epson 3880 printer and think it produces quite lovely prints – but they still don’t have the tonal depth of a silver-gelatin print. And it’s more fun to see the image emerge in the developer than watch it get spit out of a printer.
I hope this helps – I’ve only scratched the surface of the topic! Bottom line, any camera is only a tool. Each style has its own merits and drawbacks – they are just different, not better or worse! One can drive a screw with a hammer – but it may not produce the most satisfying results!
Would Ansel Adams Shoot Digital?
Best,
Alan
Posted in Photo Philosophy | 5 Comments »
Sunday, May 6th, 2012
A previous post discussed the basics of how and why colored filters can change the relationships of different subject colors in black-and-white photography. This writing will give some visual examples of the effects of filters in BW work.
The example above shows a still-life scene containing a wide range of neutrals and colors, rendered in color, black and white with no filter and then with four strongly colored filters. The effects are commensurate with the color-wheel in the previous post:
#12 Yellow. The lemon and banana are lightened significantly. The near-yellows – red, orange, green are lightened somewhat. The cyan bowl is darkened. Neutrals unchanged.
#25 Red. The lemon and banana are not quite as light as with the yellow filter, but the tomato, radishes and apple have become quite light. The cyan bowl is now quite dark. Neutrals unchanged.
#58 Green. It has turned its opposite and near opposites, radishes, tomato, apples near black. The lettuce is lightened somewhat. Neutrals unchanged.
#47B Blue. Wowzer! But consider – yellow is opposite blue, and red and green are adjacent to yellow. It darkened everything – except the cyan bowl, which it lightened because that color is its neighbor!
A note: Red or Green with foliage. Green plants and trees don’t always behave the way one might think! Living plants also reflect a great deal of infrared. Broad-leaf plants usually lighten with a green filter, Junipers and piney growths usually do not.
As I mentioned in the previous post, digital images are best “filtered” post-capture. The examples shown here should suggest the post-process effects.
Next time – polarizing filters! You can’t mimic these in Photoshop!
Posted in Photo Philosophy, Tech | No Comments »
Sunday, January 22nd, 2012
One of the most challenging things in creating a strong image in photography is the need to find order in chaos. In the urban jungle there are wires, poles, signs, traffic and the like. In the natural world there are rocks, bushes, branches and landforms all contributing to visual mayhem.
In an earlier writing I discussed the fact that it is point of view that creates structure in a photograph, and that one’s choice of lens is after the fact and serves only to effect the most agreeable cropping. But making that choice of lens is often a lot easier said than done. Looking through a viewfinder or at the upside-down image on a groundglass, it is easy to become somewhat fixated on the subject itself, rather than the elements of the composition.
Regular use of a cut-out viewing card can do wonders for tightening up your seeing and compositional strengths. Ansel Adams was a great proponent of using a viewing card and routinely included them in workshop student packets. Completely low-tech, the “tool” is simply a card with a hole cut out in the same shape as your film / image format.
When you are standing on the spot where you plan to make your photograph, instead of looking through your camera to explore the structure of the image, hold the card up to your scene, moving it subtly left, right, up down – AND nearer to and farther away from your eye. You have what amounts to a zoom lens with infinite focal lengths from at-your-nose to full-arm’s-length away! If the card is white, the scene before you can even look like it is already mounted ready for display! Neat?
Wait! There’s more! If the hole in the card is the same size as the format you are using, you can even tell pretty nearly just what focal length to use. If you are using a 4×5 camera and the card’s hole is about 4×5 inches, the distance away from your eye is the same as the appropriate focal length! If the card is about eight inches from your eye for the right framing, that would indicate a 210mm lens (eight inches is 203mm). If you are using a 6×7 camera and have a 6x7cm hole in your card, when the card is about six inches from your eye, that would suggest a 150mm lens!
When I’m working with my 8×10 camera, because of its weight and bulk, I don’t usually haul it around with me while I am exploring a subject. I often leave it in the truck, or parked peacefully under a tree, and instead go for a walk with my cut-out card. Once I have found my “spot” I’ll mark it with a rock or something and hop back to get the camera, already knowing pretty well what lens I am going to start with. Now, you can imagine that a card with an 8×10 hole in it would be a bit awkward – and it would be – but instead I just use my 4×5 card and double the indicated focal length. Thus, if the card is nine inches from my eye, that would indicate the 450mm lens.
In truth, I don’t always have a card with me, but my hands are large enough to form an approximately 4×5 frame, and that works just fine.
Tags: Alan Ross, Ansel Adams, Photo Composition, Photograph, Photography, Viewing Card
Posted in Photo Philosophy | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, December 6th, 2011
Removing Artists’ Block
 Golden Gate Bridge, North Tower and Rocks, 1989 On Assignment for The Bank of America When I first moved to Carmel to work with Ansel Adams in 1974, I made several significant images within the first month or two. Then for the next five years pretty close to nothing.
After I moved to San Francisco in 1979 to open my own studio, I got an assignment to photograph in the Big Sur-Carmel area, and I made two significant photos in one day. One was only a mile south of Ansel’s house!
In 1989 I accepted a contract with a large advertising agency in San Francisco for Bank of America. Project? Shoot the Golden Gate Bridge. Well, I grew up in Sausalito, California, and it is the first town on the north side of the bridge. I NEVER had ANY desire to make an image of something so familiar (and so over-photographed) but I took the job and the incentive kicked me into making a few of my very best images.
Now, having lived in Santa Fe for over 18 years, I find I hardly ever get a camera out at home. The reality? Over-familiarity and the distractions of daily life. I still am amazed by the boggling thunderclouds that build up in the summer and fall – but I haven’t DONE anything about them in years. Errands to run, darkroom work to do, etc.
In the early 1960’s, Ansel Adams, who was born, grew up in, and was still living in San Francisco, took on an assignment that essentially was going to be Ansel Adams’ San Francisco. Always a hard worker, he took to the task with enthusiasm – but after a few months, and a few fair images, he conceded that he was too close to the subject and regretfully bowed out. Conversely, even though he maintained a house in Yosemite, and his wife and children lived there pretty much full time, Yosemite wasn’t his daily environment, and it remained easy for him to maintain his visual enthusiasm about the place.
I think the most difficult thing for any of us, whose work is in the recording and expressive interpretation of our surroundings, is to work “close to home”. I am in Dallas as I write this, and I am promising myself that I will get a camera out when I get home to Santa Fe.
Some times you just have to prime the pump.
Tags: Alan Ross, Ansel Adams, Golden Gate Bridge Photo, Photography
Posted in Ansel Adams, Photo Philosophy | 4 Comments »
Monday, February 21st, 2011
While I was doing the research for a recent talk on Polaroid and Ansel Adams (in conjunction with a 900+ print exhibit of SX-70 images), I learned that SX-70 film is now being made by The Impossible Project in Holland. They are also making black-and white SX-70 film and have plans to bring back 8×10! You may also know that Fuji has an SX-70 type instant camera and Polaroid has reintroduced one! Fuji is also offering color and BW films in both 4×5 and 3×4 packs (not individual sheets).
Posted in Photo Philosophy | No Comments »
Friday, March 26th, 2010
On February 25th, 2010, technology writer David Pogue posted a thought provoking commentary for the New York Times on the subject of Photoshop and Photography – What is a Photograph. I replied with some thoughts of my own, and David graciously gave me his permission to quote him in my news letter and on my site. (I added the photos, they weren’t in the original article).
By DAVID POGUE
In the March issue of Popular Photography magazine, the editor’s note, by Miriam Leuchter, is called “What Is a Photograph?”
You’d think that, after 73 years, a magazine called Popular Photography would have figured that out. (Ba-da-bump!)
Actually, though, the editorial is about the magazine’s annual Reader’s Photos Contest. This year, in two of the categories, the winners were what the magazine calls composites, and what I call Photoshop jobs.
One photo shows a motorcyclist being chased by a tornado; another shows a flock of seagulls wheeling around a lighthouse in amazingly photogenic formation. Neither scene ever actually existed as photographed.
Now, in my experience, photographers can be a vocal lot. And a lot of them weren’t crazy about the idea of Photoshop jobs winning the contest.
(more…)
Tags: David Pogue, New York Times, Personal Tech Blog, Photography, Photoshop, PopPhoto.com, Popular Photography
Posted in Photo Philosophy | No Comments »
|
