Loading ...
Thoughts On Photography
(This essay was also published on Solo Passion.)
As you may or may not know, I am interested in photography and have been so for the last couple of years. In spite of this, I bought my first camera only a couple of months ago, in late September 2009. An entry-level DSLR isn’t impressive, but I am pleased with my Canon EOS 1000D (known as EOS Kiss F in Japan, or EOS Rebel XS in the United States). Being perhaps the most low-priced digital system camera on the market today, one obviously has to take it for what it is: a beginner camera for the beginner photographer. Hence, it suits me perfectly at this point, even though I will likely have to make an upgrade in the future, to suit my greater skills and needs (of course provided I obtain those skills, and keep my passion for photography alive). While being an amateur in this field, I would still like to share some of my thoughts on the subject. All things above considered, it’s up to you to judge the merits (or lack of merits) thereof. Keep in mind that English is not my first language, so grammatical errors or bad choices of words, if there are any, is due to that fact.
Rudiments: Mind, Equipment, Scenery and Software
As in most things, the photographer is bound by certain limitations and possibilities, often being the same things seen from different perspectives. He is limited to and made possible by, for example, his own creativity. More precisely: he is made possible by the creativity he actually possesses, and limited to the creativity he does not possess. Given practice and proper motivation, he can improve his skills and thus achieve a broader and better outlet for his artistic talents. (This is obviously true for any creative endeavor – not just for photography.) However, the photographer is also limited to (and made possible by) external means. Most notably: his equipment, his scenery and the software he uses (if any) for post-processing.
For the ambitious photographer, equipment does matter. You can choose from a wide variety of brands, models, lenses, accessories and so on. Certain products are better than certain other products, and some are made for general use while others are made for a specific use. Simply put, you should know what you need and what you are willing to pay for it. Most people are unable or unwilling to spend thousands of dollars on equipment, and this can obviously be a great limitation for the amateur who wants to “go pro”. But I don’t want to overstate the importance of expensive equipment either. A skilled photographer can accomplish beautiful photos with any camera sold today. It’s all about details crucial to a devoted craftsman, yet often imperceptible to the inexperienced eye.
Scenery is of course a requirement for any photographer, since you can’t take a photo without taking a photo of something. Scenery varies drastically with different seasons, light levels and so on (if you’re shooting outside), so the possibilities are legio. Still, depending on your wants, it can be a great limitation. I’ll take myself as an example. I am interested in architecture and engineering – basically things man-made – but I live in a small Swedish city where such ambitions are highly constrained. Had I lived in, say, New York or Tokyo, my photos could obviously be much more diverse and in terms of motif impressive. (I could travel of course, but I can’t afford to do so at the moment.) The point is that if you don’t live in one of the world’s largest cities and is unable to travel around, you will need to know how to make the most out of every scenery. In order to make the mundane into something beautiful, the photographer has to see what is usually overlooked. There’s nothing mystical about it; rather, it’s an acquired skill like most other things in photography.
Regarding software, I believe most photographers employ some kind of post-processing, such as adjusting the white balance or removing a red eye reflection. This requires one to have a decent image editing program as well as, at least to some extent, knowledge on how to use it. Personally, I’m all about HDR (“high dynamic range”), so I typically take three different exposures for every final photo, ranging from exposure values -2 to +2, and combine them in Photomatix. From there, I take my tone mapped TIFF into Photoshop CS4 for the final touch. How extensive this final touch has to be is determined by the quality of the photo; sometimes I barely have to do anything, and other times I have to do a lot, such as mask in an original sky and so on. My point is that almost any photo could be improved using post-processing, and this requires both having the software and knowing how to use it. I am by no means an expert on editing, and it’s not always simple to attain the projected result. Still, it is essential to learn the basics of editing, if you want to realize the full potential of your photos.
Realism or Improved Reality
Many photographers insist upon realism, claiming that post-processing is “cheating”. They say that your final product should be exactly what the camera saw, and that no alterations of any kind should be made. Some people literally seem to think that editing is the Devil’s Work. I find this a bit strange, since realism has been largely abandoned in most other creative fields. I imagine that the realists view photography more as a handicraft while the non realists view it more as an artistic undertaking. However, I could be wrong about that, although it sounds plausible to me.
If you ask me, photography is both a handicraft and an artistic undertaking (if by “artistic” we mean creative and imaginative). It’s about technical skill and experience for sure, but it’s also about being inspired and projecting a slice of perceptible reality onto a flat surface, i.e. a photo. Consequently, I believe that different photos have to be approached in different ways. Some are suited well for realism while others are suited better for improved reality. Of course, it depends on the context as well. A wedding photographer has every right to shun editing, at least editing in a non realistic way, since he is in the business of documenting an event as it actually appeared. The same can be said for the journalist, the portraiteer, etc. On the other hand, the opposite is usually true for the artistic photographer or the commercial photographer (not to mention the scabrous pornographer).
To sum it up, I think it is ridiculous to denounce post-processing on sheer principle. If you dislike it, don’t use it – but it’s hardly “cheating” if you do. Editing can be used in a lot of different ways. You may just want to correct a small imperfection, or you may want to apply your personal style to the photo. Whatever your intention, if editing will help you realize your vision or visual preferences, it’s a good thing to do. I regard it as adding another creative element into the process, and I use it liberally. However, my goal is to create photos that are beautiful, or looks beautiful to me, and I find that I usually regard edited photography as more visually appealing than unedited. My goal is not to simply record or document sceneries. Of course, it’s fine to have different goals and purposes, and that is my point. Photography can be utilized in many ways, and certain purposes require certain methods. However, to oppose editing per se is best described as absurd.
Philosophical meditations
I haven’t thought this through quite yet, so I’m labeling these ponderings as “meditations” in the literal sense: writings addressed to myself. While I don’t usually “think aloud” on my blog, exceptions can (evidently) be made. Perhaps I am correct and perhaps I am wrong; either way, these meditations might be of interest to the reader. I’m thinking as follows: in choosing a general subject, you reveal primarily your values; in choosing a general way of composition, you reveal primarily your psycho-epistemology (or “method of awareness”); in choosing your style of post-processing, you reveal primarily your sense of life. Thus, the photographer exposes much more of himself than he may actually want or be aware of. Needless to say, these things can be conscious or subconscious, and are probably the latter more often than not.
Let me expound on these issues a bit. As I have already said above, I’m particularly interested in architecture and engineering, “basically things man-made”. This reveals something about me, does it not? It reveals that I am more attracted to man-made things than the metaphysically given nature, i.e. nature untouched by man. Of course, this does not prevent me from photographing a landscape or a flower every now and then. I’m talking about a general inclination. Being mainly attracted to the man-made does not exclude all other possible attractions. It simply means I have a broad (and perhaps even subconscious) inclination towards urban photography. Why is that? Well, most fundamentally, I regard mankind and the man-made as a huge value to me, and as a vast source of inspiration.
By composition, we mean “the placement or arrangement of visual elements or ingredients in a work of art…” (quoted from Wikipedia). Here, the photographer has to focus and use his full awareness. He has to scrutinize the scenery, figure out what is important and what is negligible, what to include and what to omit, from which angle to shoot and so on. If his composition doesn’t seem to have been consciously evaluated, it probably wasn’t. This leaves the photo disintegrated, and the viewer won’t really know what to make of it. Therefore, composition primarily reveals the photographer’s psycho-epistemology. However, it also reveals his values further. A general inclination towards man and man-made things, for example, doesn’t necessarily project man as a value (although it is true in my case). Through careful use of composition, you may instead project man as worthless, malevolent or even evil, particularly if you arrange the scenery yourself. A person who holds life promoting values is unlikely to enjoy such photos, while he may still observe the qualities they have, if they have them.
Post-processing allows for numerous and diverse possibilities. I say this is where the photographer primarily reveals his sense of life (or lack of sense of life), because this is where his personal style gets the most room for maneuver. This is where he can become something other than a skilled recorder or copier. Basically, and provided he knows how to do it, he can improve or alter a photo in any way imaginable. If you are on a benevolent universe premise, your choice of post-processing will reveal this even more noticeably, I believe, than your choice of subject or composition (of course, those aspects reveal your sense of life too; none of them are an isolated island but an integrated part of a whole). If you are instead on a malevolent universe premise, this will be revealed just as noticeably, and perhaps even more so. (I find that it’s easier to identify the malevolent universe premise from a single photo, and be proven correct upon browsing the rest of his/her portfolio, than to identify the benevolent one.)
Is Photography Art?
I know – I know! Whether photography can be considered art or not has been debated among Objectivists since forever. Ayn Rand, of course, said no. So let me just say this. I believe Rand was wrong to say that photography “is a technical, not a creative, skill”. However and as far as I know, she only commented on photography once, in her essay “Art and Cognition” written in 1971 and published in The Romantic Manifesto. Back then, there were no such things as digital cameras and post-processing software. Today, a photographer can exert his own style, “style” of course being defined as “a particular, distinctive or characteristic mode of execution”. Nevertheless, I don’t think I have studied Objectivist esthetics enough to give a definitive answer here. These are merely my initial thoughts on the matter.
What Photography Does For Me
A lot of my creative work over the last three years has gone into this blog. (I am “an important crusader for Ayn Rand’s philosophy in Sweden” according to Filip Björner). I typically write in Swedish, so my readers has to know the language, and most people are not interested in longer essays on philosophy or laissez-faire-capitalism. If I can indeed be considered an important crusader for Ayn Rand’s philosophy in Sweden, I am considered important only by a minor group of people. Photography, on the other hand, is universal. It transcends language barriers and is to some extent appreciated by most people. Of course, this mainly answers what my photography can potentially do for others, not what it does for me. What it does for me is simple enough. I enjoy visual beauty, and I think I’m a decent photographer capable of improving. I take great pleasure and pride in my work; it is a source of happiness. If there is a better reason for being a photographer, or for doing anything at all, I have yet to hear it.
Visual Ideas: My Flickr Photostream
I have as a policy to upload one new photo every day to my Flickr photostream, and I have done so since October 1st 2009, under the name Visual Ideas. To view it, just click here.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:26
Fotografi som konstform har funnits långt innan digitalkameran. Alla som jobbat med analog kamera och framkallat sina bilder själv vet att man kan lägga på effekter både vi exponeringstillfället och under framkallningsprocessen. Att det är enklare med hjälp av den digitala tekniken är en annan sak.
All fotografi är förstås inte konst, men det är inte allt måleri heller.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:52
Bra skrivet.
Angående bildbehandling: Fotar man digitalt så behandlas alla bilder vare sig man vill det eller inte. Råbilden kan man inte se, utan den behandlas så den blir synlig. Ändrar man t ex kontrast i kameran, så är det ingen skillnad mot för om man gör det efteråt i t ex Photoshop.
March 5th, 2010 at 19:28
Nice essay. Couldn’t agree more on the subject. We have almost identical views in photography.