The Final Project

The final project was turned in yesterday. I received some generally positive feedback on the pictures I presented from both the rest of the class and the instructor. Of course, the instructor's opinion matters the most and she will apply the final grade based on a more in-depth analysis of the project.

Without further ado, here is my statement and photos for this semester:

It's easy to want the latest and greatest in everything. We all want the newest car, the bigger house, the ultimate computer, to name a few things. For some who are into photography, this includes the latest and greatest in camera equipment. With all of the sophisticated selling points that accompany the new products, being sucked into wanting the latest and greatest can sometimes be hard to avoid. I myself have been stricken with technolust on a few occasions, but the reality of the checking account balance proves to be an effective cure for that malady.

It's easy to forget that the camera is merely a tool. A photograph begins and ends in the mind. The camera itself is only the first tool used to provide a genesis to the photograph. It matters not whether the camera is a homemade black box with a pinhole aperture or the latest Hasselblad 48 megapixel medium format digital - without the inspiration, the image never gets created.

That's not to say that the camera is not important. Every camera has its capabilities and faults that the photographer can exploit to his or her advantage. Each camera in my personal collection has a purpose based on their capabilities. The Olympus, for example, is a waterproof camera that allows me to do things I can't do with my Canon 7D. The Pentax 645 uses medium format film, which gives me the ability to take shots that can be enlarged to a much greater degree than can 35mm. They all have something to offer.

Each pair in this series is a testament to the abilities of each camera and the fact that it doesn't take a Canon 1D Mark III to create a beautiful photograph. The black and white camera photographs attest to the fact that I feel no camera in my collection is more important than the next, and when taking shots each camera is considered based on what is in my mind.

Work Has Begun

My final exam project is due on Monday, 6 December 2010. The guidelines are as follows:

6 rolls of film shot (24 or 36 exposure or 120 film) or an equivalent number of digital
6 high quality prints which can be presented in any creative manner

The themes can be chosen from the following:
1. Joiners
2. Documentation of a story, either real or made up
3. Photographic illustration of a poem or song

It's a pretty loose set of requirements, but the themes do require some thought. I had originally decided to go with option 3, but the person I asked to assist recently joined the ranks of the employed and thus is unable to help at this time. It's ok, I'm just glad she was able to find a job. At this point I'm going with option 2 and going to tell a little bit of my own story.

Work began earlier this evening. So far I have 43 digital shots split between 2 subjects. The story can go 1 of 2 ways, and at this point I will let the photographs develop the story for me. Wish me luck as I begin this journey. Since the Texans are playing on Thursday this week I should have pretty much all day on Sunday to figure out how I'm going to present my final shots.

Photographer vs. Photoshopper

About a month or 2 ago someone posted the following question on Facebook - "Are you a photographer or a Photoshopper? That is the question." I asked him to define what he meant by each term and the response was that a Photoshopper was someone who used digital or analog tools to manipulate an picture to make it great, while a "professional" photographer always got the great images straight from the camera.

Of course, this started a back and forth about the definition of a "professional" - I contended that it meant one who does it for money, a point to which this person would not concede. I think he was trying to say "good" or "great" but he stuck with his original term. When I pointed out that many people use digital and/or analog tools to manipulate a picture (even such greats as Jerry Uelsmann and Ansel Adams), he still insisted that one should be able to get great images straight out of the camera.

I attempted to steer the discussion toward his shooting format, at which point he immediately cut off debate. I am of the impression that he shoots all his photos in the .jpg file format, which right there nullifies his entire argument. Jpeg photos always seem to look good when they come out of the camera because the camera itself performs processing on the image to enhance color, contrast, brightness, etc. The problem with this approach to photography is that once the camera has processed the image, that information is locked into place, which makes manipulation in the case of problems a much more difficult task.

Anyone who has worked in a dark room can attest to the fact that the entire process of printing from a negative is nearly all manipulation. You need to manipulate the exposure time on the enlarger, check the time in the developer to make sure it is not over or under developing, stop the chemical process, fix the paper, wash and then you can check to see if you need to make any adjustments to the contrast or do any burning or dodging. And this is all after you have printed test strips to narrow down the proper times needed. When it comes to color processing, a lot of time can be spent manipulating the filters on the enlarger to get the perfect color balance in a photograph. With automatic color processors you have to wait until each successive print is complete before it can be checked. Keep in mind, also, that no two shots on the same roll of film will have the same filter settings.

Even shooting the picture is mostly a process of manipulation. The shot needs to be composed above all. Even those who take nothing but snapshots perform rudimentary composition. Someone with a single lens reflex will have to think about depth of field as well. Only after the photographer has thought about the shot can the mechanics of photography (setting the aperture, shutter speed, focus, etc) be employed to capture the photograph.

Point-and-shoot digital cameras have image processors built into the camera. This gives us what it thinks is the best image (and often it's correct, but not always). Many people with DSLR cameras also shoot in jpeg format, which uses the built-in image processor. When you shoot in RAW format, however, there is no image processing done inside the camera. The only processing that goes on is the RAW data into a format that can be read by software. It's in RAW format that we find the ability to use software to manipulate the image's color balance, contrast, brightness, etc to create the great images that make everyone go 'ooooh'. And keep in mind, these programs are tools, the biggest difference is that the photographer is processing the image in front of a computer screen rather than a dimly light room while breathing in fumes from chemicals of varying levels of toxicity.

In summary, it would appear that this person sees photography as more a mechanical activity that requires some aptitude than a creative process. In the early days photography was considered by many a mechanical activity as well, an attitude that slowly changed over many decades. While knowledge of the the mechanical aspects is important (they are important in all the visual arts), photography requires imagination and creativity in the use of the mechanics (both before and after shooting) in order to create a compelling photograph. Of course, it's also up to the photographer to be as engaged as he or she wants to be in the process. To this I say creating a great image requires engagement from inspiration to the mounting of the final print.

What are your thoughts?