Hot Day on the Trail_IMG_0432-HDR

Hot Day on the Trail_IMG_0432-HDR, a photo by yukonchris on Flickr.

Sometimes, dragging a very heavy tripod over five kilometres of hillside trails is absolutely necessary. I've done this more times than I can say, sometimes never to use it. Today, however, it proved a good decision as I was able to produce at least two very nice HDR images, the first of which is shared above. To see the other one, please visit my Flickr pages here.

HDRs require that you merge multiple exposures covering several f-stops in order to get the dynamic range that a single shot just can't record. This photo is an example of how that process can result in an image that really feels as if it is approaching the reality you saw when you set up for the shots.

While I always recommend hiking as lightly as possible, especially on a very hot day, adding a few pounds of photographic gear isn't always a bad idea. Besides, it all serves to help keep one fit.

The Processed Image

I have long held the opinion that photography, like any other kind of creative art, tends to take its lead from nature and the world around us. If you ask a thoughtful or formally educated artist about the purpose of art, you might get an answer along the lines that art allows us to interpret our experience and make sense of our place in the world. Many years ago, I remember reading a book that described art as a way of taking possession of the world - in that sense, art allows us to understand our world and thus give the artist and those who view the art, some ownership in a word that can otherwise seem quite overwhelming at times.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in that long ago read, and that is probably why it has stuck with me. Having said that, I think the creative process is also much more complex than any single thought can express. I think we also create art because we are esthetic creatures who have been given concepts such as beauty and ugliness. I think we create art because we are natural engineers who like to modify our environment. I think we create art because we are created in the image of God and are therefore creative ourselves.

The thing about art that one needs to understand right off, though, is that it is the result, or in some cases the process, of being creative. Art in whatever form it takes is as much a new thing as it is a facsimile of something that already exists. I think this is an understanding that painters and sculptors, and those who appreciate those forms, would understand almost intuitively - it can't be exclusively new or accurately representational. Strangely, when we move from such traditional forms to photography, we find that many practitioners and viewers hold to a different understanding. While no one would say that a painting is reality, it is remarkable how many people feel that a photograph is. Of course, no matter how an image is made, it can never be more than an interpretation of what it seeks to represent.

I wanted to talk about this today, because one of the potential problems I see with photography are people who insist on "reality".

"You shouldn't change that colour, or process that image, because it isn't real," is something many photographers have heard at one time or another. Of course, when one sits down and takes the time to understand that a photograph of a valley isn't a valley, then the senselessness of that statement becomes somewhat more clear.

An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with an Olympus E-30 and 9-18mm Zuiko Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.

"But, a photograph is supposed to represent the real world," may be the subsequent comment. Well, yes, a photograph is representational art, but so is a book that describes the lives of its characters. I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that much of what we create in art and science is in fact representational even if that relationship is not immediately obvious. Religions seek to uncover the mysteries of the universe through a search for God, and science despite its supposed logical detachment is in fact doing much the same.

Religious art seeks to represent something of the divine without blundering into the area of idolatry, while science, through math and an understanding of the laws that govern the universe, finds its own way of expressing the same. For a scientist or mathematician, an elegant and concise algorithm or formula may conjure a remarkable picture of the universe or represent a physical manifestation of the natural world more concisely and accurately than any image. Likewise an inspired piece of biblical text may evoke in the reader a profound image of life encompassing far more than any momentary experience.

Producing an image when the goal is realism cannot be accomplished simply by what the camera records. The camera is a product of science and engineering. It is a cold hard tool that responds only to light. The light passes through glass elements that redirect it and focus it onto a sensor. The sensor has more microscopic lenses that focus the photons into silicon wells where they create an electrical charge. The electrical charge is then quantified through the magic of electronics and reinterpreted on a small screen as a recorded visual image that emits light. This light then enters our eyes where it strikes nerves that send signals to the brain which then reinterprets the image. It is quite a process and one that emphasized how far removed the recorded image is from the scene it represents.

When one explores the world, what we see is not just informed by the photons that enter the eye, as the cameras image is by the light that contacts the sensor. Our prior experiences, our state of mind, and our other senses, to name a few contributory elements, all impact on how our minds interpret the scene. I for one, often find that no matter how good the camera, its results seldom describe with any real impact, the profound beauty of the view that propelled me to take the photo in the first place. The colours are hardly ever as saturated, the vista never feels as immense, the range never as dramatic, and the detail is never revealed to the same extent. If I were to leave such a photo as the camera "saw" it, then I would have a poor representation of reality to share with others.

An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with a Canon 7D and 15-85mm Canon Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.

Post processing is one way that the modern photographer seeks to recreate something of the mystery and magic of their own vision in the final work. You start with a RAW file from the camera and then you tweak it in a effort to reveal the beauty that was there. Then there are photographers who push photos beyond the threshold of mere visual reproduction. They want to evoke the emotion of their experience, which is no less real for them than a cold image uninformed by human experience or feeling.

The truth is that we all see the same scene quite differently. There is no one reality! If you don't believe this, ask a crime investigator. He will tell you that three honest witnesses, all of whom saw the same crime take place, will each tell a different story. None is lying, but all saw something that was interpreted differently by their minds because each was, in fact, a different person.

Photography, as an arm of art, records the visual world. Sometimes this is the visual world that we are familiar with as in street, landscape, or portrait photography, and sometimes it records the less familiar as in macro-photography or astrophotography. Whatever the subject matter, what one sees is unique to that person, and how one represents it, to be honest and accurate, must also be unique.

So, in conclusion, my message today is don't get hung up on whether or not the photograph looks "real enough" to you but consider it as a representation of the artist's vision, as something unique and special in its own right. If then you can say, "I love this!" So much the better. If not, well, that's honesty and there's no fault in that.

Conformation or Creativity?

A few days ago I noticed that Darren Rowse’s Digital Photography School (DPS) was running its fifth annual Which Camera Do You Use reader survey. He called it a census, but I think survey is probably more accurate.

In any event, as someone who receives the DPS e-newsletter and occasionally visits their site, I was intrigued to note how quickly the the responses piled up – close to 3,000 after only two or three days. Scrolling down through the posts, it seemed pretty obvious that most of his readers were proud owners of Canon or Nikon cameras with the odd Pentax, Olympus, or Leica thrown in to keep things interesting.

I suppose this survey does little more than confirm what the marketing types have been telling us all along; Nikon and Canon pretty much run the dSLR show. Something else it suggests to me is just how much stock people put in their equipment, and this raises a few important questions.

My family’s collection of photographic equipment has grown over the years.
Photo copyright Chris Wheeler, 2011

First of all, isn’t photography, primarily, a creative pursuit? By that, I mean isn’t the point to explore visual possibilities? I may be the naive product of the Art School I attended as a young man, but I thought the point with most art forms, including visual arts such as photography, was to explore. Let’s not diverge into a debate on post-modernist versus modernist, or classical motivations. Exploration can favour the process or the product, and in both cases, should result in growth.

While exploring possibilities or results may not be the primary objective for photojournalists, or forensic photographers, even news photographers I’ve met will hunt for photos that offer more than a photocopier interpretation of the scene. In fact, truly good photojournalists regularly produce newsworthy photographs that not only record events, or tell a story, but also offer a compelling visual composition.

A creative photographer is someone who invests something of themselves in every image they take. These people are informed by their own aesthetic, their knowledge of composition and their experience. Whether the thought they put into their photographs is muscular and hard won, or essentially automatic and seemingly easy, the image is intentional and reflects the content of their artistic toolbox, or visual vocabulary. We are talking about art and craft, not mere reproduction. Each image is not only an interpretation of reality, if one can even say that, it is something special and unique. Certainly not a snapshot or a photocopy.

Some fun on the road results in a unique interpretation of the experience.
Photo Copyright Chris Wheeler 2011

If we can agree that photography, like any other art form, is a creative endeavour at its core, we must learn to dispense with useless concepts like “professional” or “amateur” when our intent is to consider the art rather than its disbursement.

So what is the real value of the photograph? There can be many answers here. If you are a professional, or one who earns his or her living through their photography (which is all that term means), then the art’s ability to inspire a purchase may be front and centre. If you are an amateur, then you can enjoy the luxury of many more possibilities, any one of which can be paramount: Personal growth, process, technique, simply seeing the world in a new way…

Whatever reason, or reasons, you have for pursuing photography, one thing is almost guaranteed: the creative journey is ultimately a personal trip about you, and your unique relationship with the world around you.

Now, having briefly considered the art of photography, we find ourselves back at the beginning considering the camera survey at the DPS website; how is it that a question about a tool can be so much more popular than posts about technique, setting, or subject matter, and why will a creative endeavour like photography spawn so many passionate arguments about who is using the best camera? Yes, that will almost certainly happen at some point.

While artists should explore new tools to facilitate new craft, perhaps the emphasis should be placed on what each tool does differently rather than on which most closely matches a standard check list. A sculptor will use a broken chisel if it produces a more interesting line than its pristine companion sitting on the other side of the tool chest. When he or she picks up that chipped steel the reasoning isn’t based on technical advantage, but on creative possibility.

A photographer who is willing to use an old Brownie box camera because it gives voice to his inner vision is far more interesting, in the long run, than the guy who uses the 5DMKII because it won the review at ISO 6400.

Endless debates about the “best equipment” ignore the fact that depending on a photographer’s unique vision, the “worst camera” in the bunch, from a reviewer’s point of view, may produce the “best picture” in terms of the user’s photographic style.

Like people, every camera model will be different, each one offering its own unique qualities. In this way, considering the differences may be more valuable from a creative standpoint than looking at standards. What is it that you are trying to achieve visually?

One of the promising products to arise out of this debate is the camera phone. Take a look at Flickr’s camera finder to see just how they are growing in popularity. You may notice that the iPhone has even passed the best of breed from the biggest traditional camera manufacturers in terms of popularity on that site. Yet camera phones with their miniscule lenses and equally small sensors are unlikely to win a detail or noise test against a more traditional camera. So what’s the deal? The knee jerk reaction might be, it’s just convenience and hype, and there will almost certainly be some truth to both. Still, there are other possibilities...

While it is true that camera phones are almost always available and convenient, look at how many camera phone images utilize creative filters to achieve a retro look, unique colour cast, or grainy texture. Consider how the diminutive size of these units suggests, almost begs, for a more intimate composition - bringing the lens that much closer to the subject.

A unique point of view suggested by the small size of my Android phone resulted in this image processed with the Vignette camera app.
Photo copyright Chris Wheeler 2011

What we are seeing with camera phones are both traditional and non-traditional photographers picking up that strangely bent chisel because it offers an alternative that facilitates their creative side. We are seeing people think beyond the limits of the pixel-peepers and reviewers to achieve something they like.

Finally, out of a few phones comes the sense (the possibility) that photography is regaining its purpose; the joy of interpreting our own worlds. But for those who want to focus on the tool rather than the process, or the result, consider this: it might be more sensible to simply use a reliable photocopier and dispense with the camera altogether. The quality would certainly be predictable!

If my thoughts about the creative importance of photography are even close to the mark, then we might do well to celebrate our differences. Instead of finding satisfaction in the knowledge that some impressive percentage of us chose a particular model or brand, we should be heartened that there is still choice. Possibilities expand with choice, and variety stimulates creativity. In my estimation, creativity is the prize accorded free thinkers while conformity may just be a little less interesting.