Quotes

"We photographers are poets in the language of symbols." Jan Phillips, "God Is at Eye Level." Quest Books, 2000, p. 142.

"Trying to find a verbal equivalent to a visual experience seems to make one more sensitive to both seeing and language": Ralph Steiner, found in "Perception and Imaging: Photography - A Way of Seeing" by Richard D. Zakia. Elsevier, Focal Press, 2007, p. 315. (I hope he's right.)

Books

Books that have had a major impact on the way I take pictures

"Annie Leibovitz At Work." Amazing stories and insights.

Joe McNally, "The Moment It Clicks," starts as a series of rollicking adventure stories about taking pictures, and morphs into a breathtakingly honest reflection on his life as an assignment photographer. On top of all that, it's full of great information on photographic technique.

Michael Freeman "The Photographer's Mind." Among other things, a great organization of issues photographers should be aware of. I am currently (in late 2012) very much under the sway of this book.

"God Is at Eye Level," Jan Phillips: Stieglitz, Adams, Minor White, to name a few, mention the sub-textual content of the photograph without saying much about what they really mean or what their approach is. I like that Jan Phillips says a lot about the topic. She unpacks it without trivializing it. Her thought-provoking approach allows the topic the profundity I feel it deserves.

Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver and Paul Fuqua: This book is full of technical information on lighting and has great examples on every topic. I read this several years ago, and it still guides my lighting endeavours.

My Photography Bible

"Photography Speaks / 150 Photographers On Their Art." I used this collection as an overview of important photographers, and to develop my eye. If one of my pictures would look good in the company of the shots in this book, I figure it's a good picture. My only complaint is that what photographers say about their own work can be disappointingly uninformative.

Other books I would highly recommend

Errol Morris "Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography." I'd say this is about photography and Truth.

"Mondrian" by John Milner, is a great account of the interplay between Mondrian's philosophy (esp. Theosophy), life history, and his development as an artist. I loved the detailed and insightful discussions of individual pieces.

Sarah Thornton's "Seven Days in the Art World" provides an interesting picture of the contemporary art subculture, including insight into the people who love and buy art.

Some notes on my general approach

I generally approach photography with the goal of producing an image (not a record). Therefore, I usually edit my photos to improve the image in some way.

This approach can create a problem when viewers assume that my photos are unedited. For example, some have commented "Nice lighting" for images where the lighting effect was added by me in post processing. I really appreciate comments, especially supportive comments, and I want to honor those comments by being honest about my shots. On the other hand, it seems a balance is necessary. I don't want to ruin the enjoyment of the shot by talking too much about technique.

Therefore, I'm stating here that I edit brightness and color, remove distracting content (e.g., chairs in the background, passers-by, light switches), "straighten" parallel edges, select the best expressions from a set of group portrait shots. I will add or enhance clouds.

Naïve viewers are not my only concern. Editing is a controversial topic among photographers. For example, I have friends who take a photo-journalistic approach. They pride themselves on freezing just the right moment in fleeting time. They generally suspect that editing is cheating, because it compensates for not having taken the best shot in the first place. Also, some would not want to spend too much time editing pictures -- they'd rather be out shooting.

I respect this perspective, but I disagree with it. For these friends, the image is secondary to reality. The photo gets its value second hand, from the "real" thing it represents. For me, the priority is different.

For me the image can be as valuable as -- or even more valuable than -- the moment being photographed. The image succeeds or fails based on its value as real thing in itself.

A note on use of my pictures

Please do not use any of my pictures without permission.

My images are registered with the US copyright office.

Thanks.

Subject Matter:

Many seem to believe a good photograph requires a non-trivial subject. One friend recently said "Interesting shot, but I feel funny that it's only a cucumber."

My take on this: The question of subject matter is something all arts share. We photographers needn't limit our shots to obviously important (exotic, beautiful, or otherwise monumental) subjects any more than authors, painters or poets need to limit their books to those kinds of subjects. Nor should we necessarily reject these kinds of subjects.

One author suggested that interesting subjects simply make it easier to make a good photograph. Undoubtedly that's true sometimes, but among other arts counterexamples abound. Think of the thousands of now laughable 19th century paintings of mythological subjects - of gods and gory death. And think of all the great art that had mundane everyday life as its subject. Are we photographers barred from that path?

By themselves, pre-existing exoticism, beauty, monumentality, etc. are artistically trivial. There are as many good shots of street corners as there are of natural wonders such as Half Dome.

How the photograph interacts with the subject is key. Art, including photography, should elevate its subject to a higher level of appreciation, and not just reflect a glory that is already generally accepted.

Dimensions of photography

I've been thinking about dimensions of photography, especially measurable aspects of the image and goals. I realize I'm certainly not the first person to try this, but I find the task interesting. I'd like to list them here, adding more as they occur to me.

Measurable dimensions of the image: An attempt to list aspects upon which any image can be rated or scored. These dimensions are not necessarily related to whether the image is good or bad.

2D vs 3D impact

complexity vs. simplicity

resolution/ bit depth/ format

Importance of texture

Importance of tonality

Recognizably of content

Strength /type of narrative (this is a big topic)

Innovative look

Fit to a specific style (e.g., P.J. vs. still life) or purpose (wall hanging, book, magazine, stock photo, flickr)

Form driven (e.g., by line or shape) vs. content driven

Feeling intentional vs. feeling sponaneous

Importance of color

Goals creating / presenting an image (or possible impacts of an image). I suppose an image can be gauged against its success in meeting its goal(s). These goals are not mutually exclusive.

please your friends

show your skill as a photographer

create something beautiful

make money

tell a story

present a new way of looking at something - or -

present an image of a certain style or of a new style

show an object

express one's self

elicit an emotion

practice, enhance the photog's skills

push forward the art of photography

Other, perhaps unconscious functions of photography:

To express one's relationship to the culture, politics, relationships, etc, in one's life.

Driven by the reality of the subject of the photo vs. driven by an internal vision of the image that is desired

This is a work in progress. Let me know what you think.