Tag Archives: photographic

Photographs: Architecture, Photographs: Southern California, Photographs: Structures and Objects

Interior Study

Image 2 Comments
Interior Study
The interior of a San Diego, California building.

Interior Study. © Copyright 2013 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

The interior of a San Diego, California building.

Photographs like this one are, for me, something like visual “palate cleansers.” It is really only about composition, shapes, densities, lines, and, of course, light. Whether you feel that understanding these things is central to photographs or, alternatively, simply underlies the other things that photographs are about, the fact remains that these basic visual qualities are a big part of what attracts many of us to the medium.

I’m not 100% sure where I made this photograph. I know it was in San Diego, and I’m pretty certain that it was at Balboa Park, and I strongly suspect that it was inside the Museum of Photographic Arts. To me, the photograph is a bit deceptive and is a bit more complex than it might initially appear. I’ll leave it to viewers to explore that notion.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books, Amazon, and directly from G Dan Mitchell.

Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email

Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.

Scroll down to leave a comment or question.

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Ethics, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes: No Post-Processing!

6 Comments

(The following is another (more or less stream of consciousness) post that I wrote in reply to a comment I read somewhere else, in this case suggesting that photographic history implies that post-processing or manipulating photographs after the shutter has been clicked is ethically questionable and should be avoided. I’ll start with a modified version of the message I saw.)

…it is invalid to claim that Adams was a modern photoshoppe[r]… 

I… recommend to every beginner to do film… to develop a better feeling for composition… The most difficult in digital is to restrict yourself to [taking] a limited number of photos… in the beginning…

…I want to leave my photos as natural looking as possible…

This is an important conversation, for the beginner and for people who have been making photographs for a long time.

When people make pronouncements about how photography is supposed to be done or has been done based on notions about what great photographers do or have done, it is important to check those notions against reality. In photography there is a frequent mantra about “no post processing” and “get it right in camera” that has been, in my view, perverted to suggest that photographs are created in certain ways that do not correspond to reality – and worse, that other photographers should adhere to these false “rules.” It obviously is important to develop an eye for composition and an ability to operate a camera, but that is most certainly not the end of it, nor is there much of any evidence to indicate that great photographers have felt that photography is limited to what happens in the camera.

Did Adams ever make a “bad” negative look good in post? That depends on what you think of as bad. I’m can’t think of photographs that were poorly composed and where post-processing compensated for this. (However, there are some negatives that were damaged in the fire at the Yosemite studio very early on, and in which the composition is affected by this. I’m pretty certain that “Monolith” was burned along its top edge, which is partly responsible for the crop with which we are familiar today.)

Adams did, by the reports that I have heard first hand from people who knew him, make a good number of banal and boring exposures. In fact, like photographers today, he made far, far more uninteresting and forgettable photographs than great ones. His famous statement about a dozen successful photographs in a year being a good crop is a partial acknowledgment of this truth about photography.

Some of Adams’ most famous, most successful, and most universally admired photographs would have been forgettable without extensive work in post. It still surprises me how many photographers don’t know this and, in fact, believe that the opposite is the case. A number of other photographers who knew and worked with him regularly point this out in their presentation on Adams. One of their favorite and most compelling examples is the iconic “Clearing Winter Storm” photograph of Yosemite Valley. There are three powerful pieces of evidence in this case: the straight prints of the negative (which has been printed by others), Adams’ own shorthand instructions for his extensive dodging and burning of the image when producing prints, and the profoundly different appearance of the print we all know, in which clouds that were almost uniformly near white become a dramatic mixture of very contrasting tones. Further, Adams made a number of exposures of this exact composition – most of which are not as spectacular – but he selected one from which to create the brilliant print in post that became so famous. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes: No Post-Processing! →

Commentary, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – Primes Make You a Better Photographer

13 Comments

(This is another in my series of occasional posts based on my replies to questions about photography that come up from time to time. This question was under discussion in an online photography forum, where the discussion began with a new photographer asking whether the acquisition of certain equipment would make him a better photographer. Those with experience in photography know the answer to this question, but it comes up, explicitly or implicitly, all the time, so I think it is worth another look here. The following text is a slightly edited and expanded version of my original answer. This is also part of my “Photographic Myths and Platitudes” series of posts. )

For the moment I’ll leave the full-frame question aside * – not that there isn’t a lot to say about it in the context of your desire to become a better photographer – and just respond to the following:

“My goal here is to become a better photographer. I feel zooms make me lazy, and that primes would make me think more about my photography.”

Sorry to say, but that is nonsense, plain and simple.

This notion that somehow primes are more “serious” than zooms comes up from time to time, and certain folks who post about photography (though not so often people who actually do a ton of photography) encourage this odd and unfounded line of thinking. I’ve speculated about where it comes from at times, and some of the following come to mind:

  • There is a certain mindset among some folks who desire to be viewed as artists that holds that being “different” is the most important characteristic of artists. (It isn’t, by the way.) And by doing something different, like using only primes, they may feel that they have established their different-ness from a world in which most others use zooms most often.
  • There is another notion that modern is not as good as “classic,” and therefore sticking to older equipment types is better. While there can be a risk of being too infatuated with new stuff just because it is new (perhaps the opposite form of gear obsession from the extreme of automatically dismissing the new) it just doesn’t make sense to automatically assume that, for example, because Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with primes that  you should, too. (HCB, by the way, did not choose the gear he used because it was “classic” – he chose the newly developed and quite modern small 35mm film cameras for a variety of reasons relating to his specific needs.)
  • There is also an odd notion that assigns an almost moral imperative to doing things the hard way, and that then presumes that those who do things in a more efficient or practical way must not be as serious as artists. Therefore, if shooting with zooms is “too easy,” shooting with primes must be better. This is often paired with the derisive advice to “zoom with your feet” or a claim that “zooms will make [you] lazy.” (Artists typically have no interest in making their work harder; they are generally far more concerned with making it better, and will use any tools or methods that accomplish the latter goal.)
  • Finally, there is the unfortunate notion, not unique to photography, that being “better” is largely the result of having the best or the “right” equipment – e.g., if I use this sort of camera or this sort of lens I will be more of an artist than if I use that camera/lens. The seed of truth in this – photography does require equipment – is too often built up into a false notion that photography is largely or even primarily about what gear you use.

The “zooms will make you lazy” business completely baffles me. Yes, folks doing point and shoot photography often may use a zoom that way, just zooming to get the shoot of their kids or the waterfall that most fills the frame, without bothering to move from their current position. But that fact that casual amateurs can use a zoom lens on their point and shoot cameras that way does not mean that the use of a zoom always means that this is the way one shoots. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – Primes Make You a Better Photographer →

Commentary, Ideas

A Difficult Question, and Thinking About Feedback

7 Comments

There is a lot to say about the subject of feedback – what constitutes useful feedback, when it is and is not appropriate to offer it, when to be “direct” and when to be diplomatic, how to offer it, and so forth. I’m thinking about this today – though I think about it often – after a thought-provoking experience I had yesterday.

Yesterday I visited Charles Cramer’s beautiful solo show at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel – for the third time! I made a point of dropping in one more time because a) this was the final day of the show, b) I’m a huge fan of Charlie’s work, c) I knew that he would be there in the afternoon, and d) it gave me a perfect excuse to photograph on the Monterey Peninsula yesterday before and after visiting the show!

Charlie asked several of us two questions – one merely difficult and the other very difficult. The former, merely difficult question was, more or less, “Which are your favorites?” This wasn’t too difficult, since there are some very specific photographs in this show that “speak” to me very powerfully. In fact, I basically responded to this question by pointing those out and trying (with varying levels of success) to say something about what makes those photographs “work” for me. But there are so many that work in so many different ways that I could really do the question justice. Some work “as photographs” alone, there are others that I probably see differently because of my affinity for the subjects, some require some time to understand, and so forth.

But the second question was the really tough one: “Which photograph(s) would you leave out of the exhibit?” Really? You are asking me, Charlie? :-)

But then I thought about this a bit more and decided to attempt an answer. I’m not going to write about which photographs I would leave out – frankly I would add more of his photographs rather than removing any – since my selections are not the point. But I do want to think out loud a bit more about the question and the value of asking it and trying to answer. Continue reading A Difficult Question, and Thinking About Feedback →