Says It All

A picture is worth a 1000 words.  Or sometimes it emphasizes one word. A little panning motion shot at 1/13 of a second with the subject - Triumph - in focus. All the elements came together on this one - motion, both of bodies and of the drum stick, background totally blurred and a good depth of field in terms of the drum corps. Taken at the Pacific Northwest Highland Games, August 2013. The Triumph Street Pipe Band of Vancouver BC, one of the world's best pipe bands.

To Crop or Not to Crop

...that is the question.  When in doubt, probably best to stick with the original since that, at least in theory, was meant to be the photograph. Now, there will be times that even in our pre-visualization, we knew that we would need to crop the image due to the limitations of our camera/lens. But usually not. Still, when we get home and see the image on the screen, we realize that there are several potential "final" images (see my August 1, 2013 post for examples).

Sometimes its just not clear what is the "best" image size.  Here's my example from the 2010 NW Folklife Festival. The first is the uncropped version (I did change the original from full color to a "toned" photo to emphasize the mood that I felt). This one has a lot of white space, though with the rays of color emanating from the woman, it does add a overall degree of mystery and further emphasizes the woman.

 

The second is the cropped version, focusing in on the two figures, which emphasizes the coming and going of the two dancers. While the woman is still the main subject, due to her facing the camera and the modest color tone of her dress, there is a more equal weight between the two individuals.

 I like both images for very different reasons, for they really become two different concepts, with different emphasis, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just know WHY there are different ways of viewing the original image.

Yes, Photography is Art!

 

When I completed the book "Another Way of Telling," I immediately picked up the Aperture Masters of Photography book, "Alfred Stieglitz" and read the essay by Dorothy Norman. For Stieglitz, a photograph reflects what "one truly and most sacredly experiences oneself." He fought beginning in the 1880's for the stature of photography as an art form, a means of "expression to be respected in its own right, on the same basis as any other art form."


And speaking in the 1930's yet even more poignant for today's photographer, Alfred said that "Personally, I like my photographs straight, unmanipulated, devoid of all tricks ... But should any one want to go to his own particular photographic hell in his own particular way - manipulated, hybrid or whatever - I say, "Got to it. But go to it for all you are worth, the harder the better, insisting on your right of way without necessarily disregarding all traffic lights. And if you must disregard even those, I say: 'Go ahead full speed!'

Journey On!

Is Photography Art?

I just finished reading a provocative book by John Berger and Jean Mohr entitled "Another Way of Telling." Through several essays and several hundred photographs (mostly by Jean, augments by other photographers including Andre Kertesz), the author (John) and photographer (Jean) discuss photography as "fact" and limitations and ambiguities of photos. A very philosophical read so say the least. The section that caught my eye the most deals with photography as art.  Paul Strand thought of himself as an artist. Bruce Davidson thought his photos do no "pose as art." John Berger himself states that he does not consider photography as art, but rather "quote from appearances."

Personally, I do view photography as an art form and that I am an artist.  Now, does that mean that all 100 million photos taken in the average day are all art?  Well, no.  But when taken purposely, using one's vision, coupled with technical skills learned over time, a photograph becomes more than a snapshot, but becomes a creation of the photographer, the artist. The most powerful photographs, be it of a landscape or a person, convey emotion. This can be the f64 stillness of Yosemite or the blur of a peasant girl running beside a train in Indonesia hoping for something to change in her life (see Jean's photograph of pages 73-74 of the book this photo that will stick in my mind for a long time). The photographer conveys the emotion - conservation, concern for others, happiness, solitude, joy, sadness, love, hate, peace.  And if that's not art, well ...

Three For One

I've been examining photographs that I originally shot in 2007 for a potential new photo book.  One of the many photographs that caught my eye years ago was, nonetheless, not quite "right" to my eye. I loved the motion of the Asian dancers but the considerable blank space in the middle was a bit discomforting. Still, I liked it but never did anything with it, like print or share.

Then came this evening. I reexamined the photo some seven years after its initial creation (that IS what photographers do, by the way - create!) to see what I could do.  And, not fearing to crop, I saw that the original actually contained within it two singular photos - the dancers on the right and the dance on the left. I love the cacaphany of colors in the right hand figures, and the barely visible yet recognizable face of the main dancer. Did a little bit of exposure compensation to bring out the colors a bit more, but otherwise as shot.
 

 

 

I then focused on the figure on the left and while an equally colorful subject, I did some experimentation and ended up with another point of view - that of emphasizing the motion, deemphasizing the color, and making it more ethereal. 

So, with one click of the shutter, three photographs emerged.  Would it have been better to have taken three separate photos - one of the groups (as shot), one of the dancers on the right, one of the dancer on the left? Oh, ideally, especially if one wants to do large scale enlargements.  But during a performance, there's not always time (actually, rarely the time) to set up images in advance. Work with what you have.