In the past two months, I have barely touched my camera. I shot a wedding in July, a few family shots last weekend, and did took a few quick shots while in Cannon Beach at the beginning of August. That’s it. Now wedding and family photos are fine, but they really don’t wet my creative juices like travel or landscape photography does. The time in Cannon Beach was fun, but it really wasn’t a photography trip. However, if I had known at the time that I wouldn’t have a chance to do any serious work later in the month, I would have taken many more images there. But I didn’t, and now I have huge pent-up desire to do some photography.
There are many reasons and obligations as to why I haven’t been out making images, but that is not really the point. The point is I have this craving, this deep-seated need to have the camera in my hand and spend a day creating. It is as if my soul has a hole in it right now.
And while this desire is very deep and is truly uncomfortable, I am actually glad I have it. Why? Because it confirms for me that I am an artist and not just a documentarian (I hold nothing against those who make documentaries as their artistic outlet, but I think you understand what I’m saying). I’m also glad for this need because while I consider myself a professional, it confirms for me that I’m not just in it for the money (not that there’s a lot of that). I am an artist. I have the need to create and the camera is just my paintbrush, the computer screen and photographic paper are my mediums.
These thoughts come not only because my lack of creative photography recently, but also due to a blog post by Dan Baumbach, a very talented photographer. In his blog, Dan questions whether he is an artist. I think many photographers have had these thoughts. I know I have had such doubts in the past.
Perhaps it is easier for others to see the art in a photographer’s work than the photographer themselves. Looking at Dan’s images, it is easy (at least for me) to see he is an artist. In comment I left to his post, I mentioned how I recently gave a short talk on using Lightroom to a group of photographers and someone asked how I was allowed to change the white balance to make the image look different (than what they thought it should look like in the real world). And the answer is that I’m an artist, I’m not trying to replicate the real world, I’m trying to create my own personal vision of it.
Sometimes my vision looks like how others see a scene. Sometimes it doesn’t. It is always amazing to me how several different photographers can photograph the same scene and come up with totally different photographs. That’s because we photographers are artists.
It is said that art is in the eye of the beholder. Excuse my language, but that is bullshit. Art is in the eye of the artist, the creator. When you put that camera to your eye and decide, consciously or not, what to put in the frame and what to leave out. You are making artistic and creative decisions. The same is true for every tweak you make in Lightroom or Photoshop. (See this earlier post on how we, as photographers, make creative decisions in processing images.) You are an artist. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Okay, enough with the ranting. Presently, I just need get out there and feed my craving to create. Now, where did I put that camera?
Many photographers have been seeing red when looking at the Adobe Corporation this week. There’s been a lot of words, mostly nasty, flying around the internet since Adobe’s announcement that they will no longer sell perpetual licenses for Photoshop and their other Creative Suite applications, instead going to a subscription model of licensing. So, being a Photoshop user, I thought I’d weigh in on the subject.
First, I am not surprised, the writing was on the wall after they changed the upgrade policy on Photoshop last year. I can’t say I’m too happy about it, the change will likely cost me more money in the long run. Currently I use Adobe Lightroom extensively, and Photoshop CS6 on a regular basis (but much less than Lightroom). I’d say I do 80 -90% of my post-capture work in Lightroom. In the past, I’ve upgraded Photoshop with every other version (going from CS4 to CS6 last year). I upgrade Lightroom more frequently (going from version 1 to 2 to 4, and I’ll upgrade to 5 when available outside the beta version).
So for now, I’m happy with what I have and will not sign up for a subscription, but I can imagine doing so in a year or two (or if they make Lightroom available only by subscription as well). Actually, the current offer to CS6 owners is quite tempting – the complete suite of applications for $20 per month. Every now and then, I wish I had one of the other CC programs, such as InDesign or Dreamweaver. If those were available to me at no more cost than Photoshop alone? Very tempting. The question is, is it worth it after the price goes up when the special price ends in a year. That, I’m not too sure.
I think that is most photographer’s biggest problem with this change. If the only CC program you use is Photoshop, the cost of the subscription is roughly the same as an annual upgrade (assuming the non-special price of $20/month for Photoshop alone, or even less than an annual upgrade cost with the special $10/month price for Photoshop alone). The problem is, the price is not guaranteed, the price will likely go up. And if you decide you don’t want to ride that train anymore, you are left with no Photoshop at all. Currently, if you don’t upgrade, you still have the old program.
Of course, the other problem is that the change is a change, and in my experience, people are afraid of change. But, this model of software licensing has been around for several years and more and more software companies are going to it. It was inevitable that Adobe would do this. Ultimately, it is the cost of doing business. If you want to use Photoshop, you’ll have to pay Adobe’s price. Is it fair? I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter. I can’t see Adobe going back to the old way.
If you don’t want to pay up? There are other programs to use. Frankly, I probably could get away with using Elements instead of Photoshop, and it will still be sold with perpetual licenses. And there are non-Adobe programs out there as well, such as Corel Paintshop Pro, Pixelmator, or even the Gimp.
So, yes I’m disappointed, but I’m not seeing red. After all, it isn’t the end of the world, it’s just the future of software.
I was in Spokane last weekend visiting my Dad. While there, I played golf with Dad and my brother. On the golf course, my brother mentioned he had never visited my website. So I gave him a business card to help him remember. My business card has a photo on the front (some surprise there), and my brother asked if the photo was “enhanced.”
Now, I must admit, this question really annoys me. Certainly he is not the first person to ask if one of my photos has been enhanced, or Photoshopped, or digitally manipulated, etc. But, being my brother and not a potential client, I’m afraid I answered a bit too sharply, asking him “What is enhanced?” I went on to give him a mini-lecture about how every digital photograph he’s ever seen – those taken by friends and family with cheap point-and-shoot cameras and those taken by big-time professionals with expensive DSLRs – are processed by a computer. The computer might be in the camera, or it might be on the photographer’s desktop, but all photos have been modified from how the camera records the data. I explained the difference between RAW format and JPEG. I told him I shoot in RAW format, and who is to say how I process an image is any different than how the camera would process it if I had shot in JPEG format. I think he is sorry he asked the question.
However, now to be totally honest, I know when I process a RAW image, it will certainly be different than how the camera would process it as a JPEG. So I guess, the question does actually have some merit (sorry Matt for coming on too thick!). In fact, in hindsight, I’ve been guilty of asking the same type question. I remember once when I was at a reception at Art Wolfe’s studio for winners of a photo contest. I met a relatively well-known landscape photographer there whose work I admired (not Art Wolfe, though I do admire his work and met him there as well). I asked this photographer what processing he typically does to this images. He told me he typically does very little processing. And I thought, “what a load of crap!”; it was obvious he did quite a lot of Photoshop work on his images. (This particular photographer, on his website, no longer makes this claim.)
But still, this question of enhancement comes up even where it should not. I’ve seen the question pop up in certain photo contest rules; rules stating no digital enhancement may be applied to an image, and if an image is chosen as a finalist and came from a RAW file, the original RAW image must be provided so the judges can see if was enhanced. So it’s okay for the camera to apply processing, but not the photographer? That doesn’t make any sense! Ansel Adams’ prints look nothing like the negatives they came from, and he’d be the first to tell you so (if he was still alive). Yet no one asks if Ansel Adams’ prints are enhanced.
I guess this blog officially rates as rant (and since this is my blog, I’m allowed). A photographer I much admire, David deChemin, has a Rants and Sermons category on his blog (which is well worth reading by the way). Perhaps I should start such a category as well! David deChemin, by the way, has written a whole book on how to process/enhance RAW images. This book, Vision & Voice: Refining Your Vision in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, shows how deChemin converts his RAW images to match his vision as expressed through a photograph. He makes no bones about it, his images are enhanced, but done so in a way to match his particular photographic voice. No questions there – his images are enhanced.
Some think that photography should only be a recreation of reality. Yet that is impossible. Reality is three-dimensional, photography is two-dimensional. Reality is every changing – time does not stop. Photography takes a portion of time and compresses it into one image (or multiple images in the case of video or movie photography). Reality is more than just light. Photography only captures light – and cannot show that light without processing, be it digital or traditional. Because of these limitations, photography cannot be a recreation of reality. Because of these limitations, photography is an art. Like any art form, the artist can attempt to make their creation as life-like as possible, or as abstract as possible.
Take the photo I’ve included to illustrate this blog entry. It’s an image of a skunk cabbage that I took back in May at the Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge Island. Would anyone ask if this photo is enhanced? I think probably not. Yet, it is obviously not life-like. This plant is green, not shades of black, white and gray. The original RAW capture is basically shows shades of faded green. I chose to turn it to a black and white image; and when converting it, I chose specific settings (for those of you technically minded, I used a Photoshop Black and White adjustment layer) to make it the shades of gray it ended up. Then I chose to change the contrast a bit, and do a little selective darkening around the edges of the photo. I also removed a few small pieces of dirt on some of the leaves. Do these “enhancements” make the image less of a photo? Not for me; those enhancements help make the photo closer to my vision of what I want the image to be. It’s art; it’s not reality.
What’s your opinion? Reality or art? Do “enhancements” matter?