When I look in the mirror, I see a man with secrets.
You see, I have broken the rules.
Not only do I consider Alister Benn a good friend, I also consider him a mentor; if I have learned anything from Alister, it is to take control of the image-making process, from visualization to capture to processing in the digital darkroom. The more I work to embrace this philosophy, the more I realize it involves breaking the rules. But it also requires a strong understanding of my own vision, as well as the technical capabilities of my equipment.
I have heard the argument several times that photographers should “get the composition right in the camera,” or “get the exposure right in one frame.” To some extent, I completely agree with the opinion that one should not make a frame with the intent of cropping out an annoying foreground element, or bracket haphazardly, without much thought–these behaviors are often regarded as laziness or a display of lack of knowledge. As an analogy, this is similar to a student choosing every possible answer on an exam because, “one of them has to be correct.”
However, the other side of the coin dictates that a strict adherence to these “rules” (and others) severely limits the artist’s creative process. For instance, the image I visualize in the field may not fit perfectly into a 3:4 or 4:5 aspect ratio, and exposing multiple frames for stitching later may not always be practical. Similarly, if one understands the technical limitations of their camera in exposing for a scene with a high dynamic range, it should be perfectly acceptable to bracket exposures.
In other words, when breaking the rules is in line with vision and an understanding of what the scene demands, it should be encouraged. Be rebellious.
So, how does an image evolve? When I was recently in Zion National Park, I was driving along the road and saw a scene that jumped out at me. Sometimes scenes really present themselves to you.
Navajo Sandstone & Clouds, March 2012
It was mid-morning, and I loved the way the clouds contrasted against the cliffs, and the way the buttresses in the rock created layers. I wanted to emphasize this in the final image, but was presented with a few choices as to how to do it.
In my next post, I will go through my thoughts in the field and a few of the processing steps that led me to the final product.
Warms my little old heart to hear you talk about breaking rules…
Love the photo — your B/W work is getting stronger and bolder all the time. Good stuff Greg. Great time of day too, by the looks of it…
You have me laughing PJ…yes, rules were definitely made to be broken!
Thanks so much for your comment. I’m glad you like the image.
I agree with you Greg, you don’t want to limit yourself. Things have changed in the last decade and we can be a lot more creative and connect better with our ideas. There doesn’t seem to be any rules anymore, just ethics.
I watched a tutorial video by a large camera accessory company and the photographer said since there were no clouds and he may never come back to the scene it was a great reason to add clouds from another scene. I would consider this to be breaking the rules or at least my own rules or ethics.
There are no rules for sharing photos on the internet.
Really well stated, Steve. I think ultimately it comes down to your own individual ethics, and personal taste. Judging by your style of photography, and comparing it to mine, I would guess you and I are roughly on the same page regarding our photographic ethics. I definitely would not consider adding clouds to a cloudless sky!
Greg
The way I look at it is that all these handy digital tools should ideally be used deliberately and with reflection, as opposed to covering for sloppiness in the field. I say “ideally” because everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and I wouldn’t grudge anyone the opportunity to rescue a almost-there shot if possible. But if one is frequently cropping to mitigate bad framing or cloning out distractions that could have been dealt with otherwise, it’s probably a sign to cultivate more care when shooting.
I must admit that I have a certain personal unease with “throw it out and see what sticks” processing. That’s why I’ve never yet experimented seriously with B&W in my own work; I feel that if I’m going to go there, I want to make a consistent and deliberate attempt to conceive images in B&W, instead of using it to rescue color shots that aren’t working. But such things are every photographer’s own choice to make, and play and experimentation are not to be discouraged in any artist.
Nice shot, by the way! No one’s ever going to accuse this of being a cliche and stereotypical Zion image.
Thanks, Jackson!
I think you said it really well…all of these tools should be used deliberately and with reflection.
As far as monochrome conversion goes, I will admit that I’ve turned to it late in the process, on images that I did not originally see as B&W. However, most–like this–are images I visualized in B&W and did my best to convert as I perceived them. Its definitely a tough line to walk, but I think as long as you stay in line with your own ethics (as Steve pointed out), then all is good.
I don’t feel there are any rules of what can or cannot be done to a photograph, as long as you are honest and transparent when you alter an image. There are certainly some unwritten boundaries delineated by various organizations as to what defines photography and what goes beyond photography. However, today the sky is the limit for creative manipulation, and rightly so, as long as the photographer is transparent and not out to deceive the viewer.
I think you’ve touched upon another important issue here, David, which is transparency. Many of the landscape photographers I respect a the most don’t say a whole lot about image processing, or even what they do in the field. Much of it doesn’t matter, really…aperture, shutter speed, etc, are just details…they don’t really help the student become “better.”
However, in not revealing every detail, they also are not acting in a way that results in non-transparency. It doesn’t really matter to me how they arrived at their final product. It is the photographers who claim one thing but did another that really get under my skin.
I remember one particular photographer, who lit fires to light his images, but claimed, “God’s light.” That’s deception, and should violate any set of values or morals, IMHO.