Every picture tells a story, and every story must be told in its rightful context.

The other day I heard again the oft-repeated quotation by sir Winston Churchill  “…democracy is the worst form of government…”   and for a moment I wondered, did he really say that? How could a leader of the democratic alliance that fought fascism not think much of Democracy? Well, reviewing his complete sentence helps clarify the message… “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Aha! Context communicates the intended message.

The same is true with the ‘message’ of every photograph.

The thought first occurred to me when I was exploring moon photography.  It seems every nature photographer goes through a moon phase. We see the full moon in its soft, warm glow and it brings back the unique memories and feelings we forever associate with it; the moments when the moon’s magical light rolled back the darkness and gave us a little more time to play. And we later try to recapture such feelings and memories with our cameras and post-processing tools. So… how are we doing in that regard? This is what usually happens:

Because modern technology makes it easy to “zoom in” to the moon with state-of-the-art optics, we often do just that, thinking that the closer and more accurate our picture, the more effective our story will be and the more of a connection we will make with the viewer. To our dismay we soon discover that after adjusting for exposure our best closeup shots produce images of the familiar, usually monochrome disk, pockmarked and cratered, complete with the semblance of “the man on the moon” and… nothing more.  “Our” moon, it tuns out, set in the darkness of outer space, looks… exactly like every other photographer’s moon. Literally… you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all, and after two or three iterations, it all becomes a humdrum encounter; another closeup of the  moon.

What’s wrong with that picture? In a word, context. To make a moon image stand out from the rest we don’t need a lot of detail, super magnification, or a scientifically accurate reproduction of hue, saturation and brightness  (can we compete with NASA in such things? ) rather we must pay special attention to context. The moon of art photography, unlike the moon of science, is about context; earth context that is, not the cold alien world of outer space but a frame made up of familiar elements from our home planet.

The darkness of space feels alien and uncomfortable to us. We all grew up in some part of this unique planet and usually see the moon framed by clouds, or trees, or mountains, as a backdrop illustration for mysterious wildlife silhouettes, or reflected upon still waters. Such are the right elements of context for the moon of art — the moon with which to communicate emotional realities with our viewers.

So let us not use technology to strip a subject from its appropriate context. Otherwise, as with the incomplete Churchill quotation, above, our audience could easily get the wrong message.

All languages use symbols to convey meaning, and the language of Photography is no exception.

In our exchanges we typically use acoustic arrangements (spoken words), or visual representations, lines and shapes carved in stone, drawn on paper, or arranged in pixels on computer screens (what you are looking at, right now).  Our symbols may look like this, or   這 or   هذا or they may be far more complex and powerful photographic images.

The primary or literal meaning of symbols enables communication at the most basic level. But, depending on context, symbols understood “metaphorically,” can also convey far more complex and powerful ideas. Lines that spell C-A-T    (卡特彼勒, قط) could simply refer to the four-legged pet we are all familiar with. But if the context is… ancient Egypt, a pictograph of a cat could also (metaphorically) refer to grace and poise, or perhaps a goddess and the intangible concepts she might represent,  such as fertility and motherhood.

Metaphors are far more powerful and interesting than literal/factual accounts of reality. Metaphor is what makes fairy tales so captivating to all age groups. As G.K. Chesterton put it: “Fairy tales are more than true – not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.”

An image of a seagull isn’t necessarily always about the familiar sea bird. Seeing one that appears to be flying “for the fun of it,” could  raise metaphysical questions and suggest answers that resonate deep within our soul. “Jonathan Livingstone Seagull” a classic tale of my generation, wasn’t just about a bird that enjoyed flying for its own sake, it was a metaphor for non-conformism, self-actualization, and finding meaning in life.

So before attempting to develop an image I must first decide whether it is to communicate literal or metaphorical meaning.  Do I intend it to be like a newspaper report or more like a fairy tale?  This helps guide me on how to proceed –what elements to add or remove,  if any, and how to use light, composition, contrast, color and detail to tell my story.

E.g. here is an image and the thinking that went into making it…

What was I thinking…

“God rays” are always inspiring (why?),  and fog makes them more visible, so when I saw this forest scene I instantly recognized it as something special.  I also knew that the fog wouldn’t last long; I had to move fast.  So I shot a few frames bracketing for exposure and depth of field.

Looking at the camera screen I saw that I had captured a ‘nice’ image, technically flawless, but one that for some reason looked empty to me. I needed something more to move my story beyond the literal. I needed another symbol.

Thankfully that area is frequented by Herons, graceful large flyers gliding over water and tree, and often alighting on high branches from which to survey their domain. And as it happens, birds have long been considered symbols of spiritual realities; specifically “departed souls”.  Surely a Heron could carry my image to higher levels of consciousness…

…And that was the genesis of “Ascent to Light”

Not all that special as a simple Heron picture, but inspiring enough as a metaphor for Psyche rising to the Heavens, and to explain why this was one of my ten most popular images of 2011.

For more powerful images then, think metaphor; don’t be too quick to settle for the literal interpretations that come with the first capture of a scene.

Art Photography, like all forms of art, is a means of communication; a kind of “language.” As such, it is subject to interpretation, based on individual life experiences (the ‘filters’ through which we perceive the world).

Cultural wisdom, e,g.  the old Indian tale of “the blind men and the elephant” reminds us that each of us may only perceive a small part of reality from which we attempt to develop an interpretation of the whole.  And, when we put our individual interpretations together, we can all gain a better understanding of the world.  Our most important task as artist-photographers, then, is to ensure that the interpretations we share are as much our own as we can possibly make them.

To create art photography that is uniquely ours we must first see with the eyes of our own imagination, colored by the ‘filter’ of our own unique life experiences. Then we must capture and process the image in a way that most effectively communicates what we see; our unique interpretation of reality.

As a case study, I am posting five images, below,  all of which came from the same “digital negative,” then developed by different processing choices.  I.e  five different interpretations  of the same scene.

I have arranged them in order of increasing photographer input.  The first one was produced with ‘default’ settings,  “straight out of the camera”  –i.e. only with actions that were pre-programmed in the camera and/or software; the last, mostly with post-processing input by the photographer. (It is important  to understand that whether we consider an image to be “post-processed” or not, in reality every digital image involves processing choices, whether these were default camera settings, or our own input . )

Is one of these interpretations more “right” than the rest, or are they simply different ways to look at the same subject?

1 “Straight out of the camera”

==
2 “Minor Adjustments”

==
3 “Turn Down the lights”

==
4 “Intimate Portrait”

==
5 “Essence of a Wolf”

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

Sixth and final part in this series. (On the theory behind my practice of digital image-making) (Earlier posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

D

Detail is an important part of every work of the visual arts. In digital photography, detail relates to “micro-contrast” (or “sharpness”). Enhancing micro-contrast/sharpness will create the illusion of more detail, too, but, “technically” and for what it’s worth, detail is not the same thing as sharpness, and relates to the resolution of the sensor inside the camera (infamous “megapixels”), and to the quality of the lens we use.

The important thing about detail, in the present context, is that it helps to both communicate the emotional content of the image and attracts the viewer’s attention. The same short article that I already mentioned in two previous sections (on Contrast and Color) also describes how sharp, detailed focus against a blurry background mimics the way our eyes work. So, keeping sharp detail in only a limited area of the image is a good way to connect with the viewer.

And yes, detail, just like all five elements (L-C-C-C-D), can be applied selectively to different parts of the image by using a simple layer+mask technique in Photoshop. In doing such selective application, I have found it incredibly liberating to use an electronic pen and tablet instead of a mouse. I use this pen as a “brush” with which to “paint” each of these five elements onto specific areas of the image. (Continued below.)

To summarize the key points of this series, and add one:

* Digital photography helps me practice what I call a “21st century version of “Pictorialism”” - the making of photo images (=works of image-ination) beyond the taking of photographs.

* I use five elements L-C-C-C-D (Light, Composition, Contrast, Color and Detail) as a checklist in deciding how to capture, develop and critique an image.

* To adjust these five elements, I try to think like a painter. How might I have rendered this scene if I was using a physical brush, paint and canvas? I can probably duplicate the effect with camera field work plus digital darkroom adjustments.

* In the digital darkroom I work mainly with Adobe products such as Camera Raw converter and Photoshop CS5 but adjustments can also be made with any number of other image processing tools.

* I work on a screen calibrated to international standards.

* I use an electronic pen and tablet to selectively “paint” each element in parts of my image.

Beyond these, the other most important step in my workflow is time. I try not to publish an image the same day that I develop it, so that I can take time to see it, if at all possible, like someone who wasn’t there with me, during the capture of the original scene.

It is the image alone (as I develop it) that must carry my message. I have no other way but the image itself, with which to communicate, across space and time, the feelings and memories I associate with the scene.

For me, personally, 24 hrs after first development is nowhere near long enough to see an image with “fresh eyes,” either. A week is better. And I do re-visit my images every few months and/or years, to see if I want to re-process them with newer tools or techniques. As it turns out, more often than not, I do.

When I first noticed that, I thought …perhaps there was something wrong with me… why can’t I “get it right” the first time, every time? Then I realized that developing an image meant as art, isn’t about “right” or “wrong” but about reconciling the image we see with our eyes to the one we see with our hearts and minds; our imagination, our ‘vision;’ the mood and emotion that the scene elicits in us. And that vision matures with time and experience.

Not surprisingly, re-working their own photo images was also common practice among the giants of this art. Ansel Adams re-processed and altered his most famous image Moonrise Hernandez many times, to adjust some of these same five elements we reviewed in this series. So let us also not fear to keep developing our own art as we explore new ways to express our imagination.
====================================================
“Above all, an artist must never be too easily satisfied with what he has done.” (Henri Matisse)

“I wished to copy nature. I could not. But I was satisfied when I discovered the sun, for instance, could not be reproduced, but only represented by something else.” (Paul Cezanne)

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

Fifth in a series of short articles on how I approach digital photography. (Links to previous parts: 1, 2, 3, and 4)

C(3)

Do you sometimes “feel blue”? Or do you see the world through “rose-colored glasses”, and want to “paint the town red?” Or… perhaps you feel “green with envy” when others do? Yup… the third C is for Color and everyone knows that color relates to mood, emotion and feeling.

Reddish-yellow hues, as from a campfire, elicit warm feelings of closeness, but we associate blue, the color of a clear sky, with a cold, lonely experience. Perhaps we should call that feeling… the “morning after” (that warm campfire) …
…Or maybe not

In creating an image I must make decisions about the dominant color, or color-cast that I may want, if any. Does color even add anything to the image or would a black & white or monochrome treatment better communicate what I see with my “mind’s eye”?

Such questions help me pick the best time of day and atmospheric conditions for optimal color. Then, in the digital darkroom I can further fine tune the final hue, saturation and brightness of the overall scene or perhaps work with selected colors to get the effect I want.

As mentioned in part 2 (on Light) adjusting either brightness, contrast or color impacts the whole image; these are key elements of the visual ‘context’ of the image. And depending on context, the same color may look different — a point well illustrated in the short article that I mentioned last time. So I must keep context in mind when attempting to adjust any one color.

On a technical note, to help me in making color decisions I also keep my computer screen calibrated to the international Pantone standards. This way I know that others who see my work on similarly calibrated screens, or those who purchase a print made on properly “profiled” printers, will see the exact same colors I see on my screen.

Finally (and this may be of more interest to graphic designers or computer graphics people) FYI…for fun & inspiration with color I sometimes visit sites like “COLRd.com”)

Coming up… last but not least: Detail

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

Part four of six (for friends interested in my work)
(Access previous parts: one, two, and three)

C(2)

Does my image speak in a manner consistent with its theme and mission? Should it whisper in subdued, intimate tones or declare its message in a clear and loud voice?  Contrast (the second C) helps determine such things. In its simplest sense contrast is the difference in brightness between light and dark areas of an image, and is what determines its “impact” or “presence.”

To be a little more specific than “light and dark” (a.k.a. “Tone contrast“) I usually look for, and may adjust several different types of contrast in an image.

* Macro contrast is about differences between large areas (dark sky over snow-covered field).

* Micro contrast, also known as sharpness, has a lot to do with defining the areas at or near the edges of bright and dark regions.

* Color contrast. Complementary colors set each other off more than colors which are of a slightly different hue from each other. Or I may exploit differences in saturation levels by selectively boosting one color while de-saturating another.

Depending on the image, I may also have many other types of contrast to work with, such as…

* Subject contrast –think jagged mountain peaks next to a calm water surface

* Texture, as in soft furry animal laying on a smooth hard rock

* Focus; sharp vs. blurry

* Size differences, which can be either real or illusory (as in “Forced Perspective” photography)

* Direction — My image may have strong lines leading to the main subject.   These may have more of an impact if they come from different directions than if they are parallel to each other

* Motion or perceived motion differences, as in the ‘motion blur’ that I could get by “panning” my camera, or by introducing motion blur in post-processing

No… I don’t go through a mental checklist on all these things in a sort of… paint-by-the-numbers mechanistic way to develop an image. What I do is to simply look for differences to exploit. Contrast development is about working with inherent differences to optimize the impact of my image, whether my objective is to make it louder, or softer, or selectively both.

I chose this image (”Myrtle Falls” on Mount Rainer) to go with this part, because of its many different types of contrast. (See how many you can identify.)

Note that optimizing contrast does not mean forcing every part of the image to speak loudly and clearly, any more than optimizing “Light” means opening up all the shadows (as we all may have seen -or done- in bad HDR processing).

My first attempt to develop this image, a few years ago, produced an awful-looking …mess! I was eager to bring Mt. Rainier’s glaciers into sharp, clear relief; and… I succeeded, but in the end something looked terribly wrong and unnatural.

It was a mistake, I now understand, to try and increase contrast throughout every part of this image. As it happens the thin layer of fog that was there in the real scene, gave the glaciers a soft, ghost-like appearance, which contrasted nicely with the sharp, detailed waterfalls in the foreground. This created a nice sense of depth and mystery… which I promptly…wiped out, when trying to ‘optimize’ contrast (as I understood it then).

Eventually I realized that the only sensible way to develop this image was to *both* increase and decrease contrast, selectively applying different amounts in different parts of the image, enhancing what was already there.

[[Btw... speaking of increasing contrast, perhaps this is counter-intuitive, but contrast is usually highest under moderate light conditions; not too bright or too dark, not in the deepest part of the 'golden hour,' when the light is dominated by a strong color cast, and definitely not under intense mid-day sunlight which can produce confusing values of hue and luminosity (See also an excellent short article relevant to all this, in a recent issue of Scientific American magazine.)]]

Up next: Color

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

Third in a series of six parts on how I personally approach the art of digital image making. Sharing in appreciation of the many social media friends who are interested in my work.

(Access: part one and two)

C

Composition is the next most important element of an image, and it is best optimized in the field. Composition is the main story-telling superstructure of the image. It is about balance, design, and the arrangement of the various parts to best direct the viewer’s attention.

Again, when it comes to photography, composition is best optimized in the field, but the tools of the digital darkroom also offer a means to further enhancement after field capture. I can remove distracting elements, or add something to improve balance, or even extend the overall dimensions of my image.

To optimize composition, in either field or darkroom, it helps to think like a painter. I ask myself: “If I were painting, instead of photographing this scene, e.g. a low tide moment at the coast, would I paint that pebble in that prominent spot where it happened to be when I clicked the shutter? Would I paint it somewhere else? Would I want a pebble in my composition at all? If not, I can move it, or take it out altogether, either in the field or in post processing.

Likewise, an image of a beautiful flower might otherwise be ‘empty’ in all the wrong places, and out of balance. Would I like it better if my composition was populated with more flowers? If this was a painting would I paint more flowers in there?

Regardless of whether or not such adjustments could have been done in the field by physically moving or removing a pebble or even a small rock, or adding actual flowers or leaves, it is good to know that I also have the option to do these things in the digital darkroom, later.

To a large extent, the old saying that “painting is additive, photography is subtractive” is still true, but the distinction is fading.   True, a painter still starts with a blank surface and adds all the elements she needs, and only those that she needs, while a photographer starts by capturing what is there, but then may remove the unwanted “pebbles,” literal or figurative.

Subtracting elements was always easier than adding, in the traditional film darkroom, but that did not stop creative photo artists from developing “additive” collage compositions, too. The work of Jerry Uelsmann, is a case in point.

The good news is that the digital darkroom now makes it easier for all of us to both subtract and add elements to a photograph.  So, just like painting, digital photography can also be additive, too.   And this kind of flexibility allows us to develop better images (= works of “image-ination”).

To use this wonderful new capability to good effect, however, requires that we develop our sense for composition. Again, the works of others who have gone before (e.g. Ansel Adams) can be a source of ideas on what works in nature theme compositions.

Next: the second “C” –Contrast

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

In the first part I mentioned the five elements that have the most impact on mood & emotion in art photography: Light, Composition, Contrast, Color and Detail. I use their initials L-C-C-C-D as a mnemonic device; a working checklist.

L

Nothing influences the overall mood of a scene more than Light. So the first decision in field work is to pick the right time and weather conditions for the best possible light. Do I want a dark, “moody” and mysterious look for the particular scene, or a bright and airy, high key rendering? A back-lit silhouette? Soft light diffused by fog? Sweet, low angle illumination? An intense shower of photons from above?

Typically the ’sweetest’ light of the day comes in the  “golden hour” . But that does not mean every scene must be shot during that time. For each situation I must make a conscious choice on my light preference. What kind of light would best communicate the mood, the emotion, the atmosphere I visualize for this scene? Should I plan to return during the golden hour? Do I need to stay put and wait for a weather system to move in or out? Is this the best season, the best position of the sun (or moon), etc.  One thing I know: if the scene inspires,  it is worth returning to it when light conditions are optimal.

Developing the light content of an image is also my first priority in the digital darkroom. Whatever light I might have managed to capture in the field, I can usually enhance it further with image processing tools.  I prefer to work mainly with Adobe products such as Camera Raw converter and Photoshop CS5 but image adjustments can be made with any number of other products, too.

Note that enhancing the overall quality of light does not necessarily mean working with just the bright areas of an image. Often it only takes a  darkening of the shadows or perhaps a tweaking of the color saturation to make my subject ‘pop’ and look more vibrant, as if the light had been improved.

Adjustments in any one key element of an image, such as brightness, contrast or color, will impact the whole image. This leads to the realization that the digital art photographer must see him- or herself as an artist/painter in many respects.

Just like a painter I must take responsibility for how my image develops as a result of my processing choices. The words “this is how it came out” have no meaning in digital photo-art processing. How an image “comes out” of my digital darkroom should be no accident, nor the result of someone else’s choices. It should look exactly the way I want it to look, or …I keep working on it.

And I can choose to re-create the original scene as best I can recall it with my heart and mind, or, I may decide to take it beyond. To guide me, if I choose to follow this latter path, I rely on imagination, experimentation or inspiration from other visual artists, painters and photographers who may have produced similar images before. For example, I find the work of artists like Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Cole or the English Romantics highly inspiring when looking for ideas on dramatic use of light in nature scenes.   And it is so easy to review such work on the web, albeit in a very small scale.

Next:  Composition

[[Copyrighted Material ©JChristopherGalleries.com]]

The journey toward higher artistic accomplishment and ever improving levels of craftsmanship, requires that we migrate from a reliance on external feedback, toward a disciplined habit of self-critique. This is part 1, of a 6-part summary of how I personally approach this.

To begin with some key definitions, my main area of interest is “Fine art nature photography” and specifically the *digital* variety. Digital photography enables me to follow in the footsteps of “Pictorialism” as in the “making” of images, beyond the “taking” of photographs.

I consider digital photo art, like all art, to be a medium of communication; a special “language,” best suited for the sharing of emotional realities. Factual, precise descriptions of objects or accurate and detailed documentations of events are not as much of a concern to the photo-artist as they might be to a photo-journalist.

Art is about communicating mood, emotion, feeling, atmosphere. So, to know when I have adequately developed an image I must first travel back, in my heart and mind, to the very moment of inception, and to recollect the emotional content of the original scene. I must re-experience that mood, that feeling, that emotion which wowed and inspired me to try and create the image in the first place, and so decide if I am ‘there’ yet with my processing.

Over many years of image processing I have learned that five elements have the greatest impact on how effective a digital image will be, in communicating its mood & emotional content. I refer to these elements by their initials, L-C-C-C-D, (Light, Composition, Contrast, Color and Detail) and use them as a working checklist throughout my image-making steps, from original field capture to post processing.

In the parts that follow we will consider these elements one at a time…

Next: the big “L”

Never an easy task, having to pick just ten images from among the hundreds I worked on over the course of the last 12 months. But, doing just that is a good exercise in self-discipline and self-critique, so… after a long deliberation and if I must only allow myself ten… here they are… hoping they may bring some joy to your day… with my very best wishes for the new year…

“Ascent to Light”

==
“Pink Dahlia Echoes”

==
“Beautiful Dreamer”

==
“Pacific City Sunset”

==
“Colliding Galaxies”

==
“Pink-Yellow Dahlia (2)”

==
“Love-in-a-Mist”

==
“Highway to (Indian) Heaven”

==
“Wedding Gift”

==
“Midnight Communion”