Epiphany

Natures Graveyard

Sierra Foothills

Epiphany (feeling) - An epiphany (from the ancient Greek "ἐπιφάνεια", epiphaneia, “manifestation, striking appearance”) is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something...   ...for example, Albert Einstein was struck as a young child by being given a compass, and realising that some unseen force in space was making it move.               Wikipedia

As I've written in previous posts, I attended the Society for Photographic Educators conference last year in Oakhurst, California.  My mentor, coach, friend, and former instructor, Beth,  drove me along the the three hour drive home.  We stopped a few times to photograph the beautiful California foothills of the Sierras.

During these stops we would get out and spend some time taking photos of something, each going our own way.   Each stop was a moment to be with the area and find something special to capture.  After a sensed appropriate amount of time, we would return to the car by some artistic homing beacon that told us it was time to move on.

 Sierra Foothills

After the last stop we started to discuss where we wanted our art to go.  I was thinking of the big project I want to start in grad school exploring masculine roles and stereotypes.  A few minutes into the discussion I told her, "When I get some time, I want to do an art project for me.  I want to take a few weeks to photograph the area of Montana where the plains meet the Rocky Mountain front.  That area is very personal to me."

Beth was quiet for a second and then said, "Karl, all your art should be for you."

Most artists will think that is an elementary/cliche bit of artistic wisdom that is pretty obvious, but it was something I had never thought of before and needed to learn.  She gave me a gift of an artistic epiphany.  Thanks Beth.

 Sierra Foothills - Real Colors

Gluttony of Visuals - Conference Presentations

Vintage Berkeley

On the Friday night of the conference, I listened to Robbert Flick talk about Looking at Then and Now. He talked about two themes of current photography and his art, the difference between photography in the 70's and now, and how he uses the ideas of time/temporal themes as well as geographical distance in his photo compilations. For today's post, I will expand on the first point.

There are over 10 billion (10,000,000,000!) images on the internet. The population of the world is around 6.8 billion. That is 1.4 photos for every person. I am probably responsible for a few hundred of them.

Flick mentioned this number to make a point. With the over saturation of images by anybody with a camera, the meaning of each image is diminished. It is like how Christmas carols lose their specialness since every year another performer has to give their special rendition to the songs. I sometimes think this is also true about pornography. The first time I saw it, I felt shocked, aroused, squeamish, and many other emotions. Now I don't really notice it because of the flood of it around me. Sometimes seeing images of people clothed feels like the rarity.

Prior to the internet, our only opportunities to view photos (other than the photos we took) was in magazines, books, and galleries. The only photos we touched were our own taken by us or a family member. Almost no one had a dark room so it was very rare to actually create, manipulate and edit the print into the desired final product. Those days are gone.

I can get a good digital camera for under $500 and be able to manage the images on a multi-use tool (the computer). I can use Photoshop Elements (about $100) to greatly manipulate and edit the image. After I get it to where I want it, I can publish it in my own book, prints, blog, Flickr, and multiple other venues instantly. It is very easy to be prolific with imagery. (The notable exception though is the art gallery. It is still a pain in the butt to get into those.)

It has always been stated that everyone has a great photo in them, but great photographers are able to create a body of excellence. With that said, some of these images in a master's body of work become iconic while others fade away. If I mention Pepper Number 30 by Edward Weston or Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, we can probably visualize them. Has this ability to create important single images been taken away by the gluttony of photos?

Sprout

With this gluttony of the visual stills (and home videos), our individual photos lose their individual power. Robert Frank took over 28,000 images for his series, The Americans. He chose 88 of those images for his final cut. In our current world, we would be tempted to post most or all of these images online and flood the market even more.

Maybe it is time to look at the single image as just a part of the grander single portfolio. With this view, we can have each image transfer a bit of conceptual richness to a greater whole of the series. Maybe we have been struggling too hard making each photo contain deep conceptual context to avoid didactic messages. If I create fifty didactic images of various aspects of a theme, together they can be taken and discussed as a whole, refined product. The message of the sum of the images is greater than the whole.

Maybe we are getting to a point where a single image is not enough. We need to incorporate subtlety in communication throughout the span of many works. This though could increase the gluttony of images around us instead of creating the rare gems.

Seeing the True Light (and Color) - Conference Presentation

Katie 110809 - 1
A fine print or an out-of-date style

On the first morning of the conference, Stephen Johnson, a bay area digital landscape photographer gave a presentation called, The New Photograph. As a pioneer of the digital medium, he has been in the front seat of the digital-over-film revolution. One of his core beliefs on digital photography centers on the new definitions of color, saturation, and tonality. Many of these views will challenge how we define the fine print. Through this new "silicon" view(his term for digital), we will create photos that truly represent what we see, not the limitations of "silver" (his term for film).

Johnson's main premise was that we have deeply ingrained definitions of art and photography because of the characteristics, and flaws, of film. Film has been around for over 150 years. It defined how we created photography. Over the decades, a common vision known as the fine print has become the standard. We see the rich colors, the deep tonalities, and the true blacks as part of the recipe for a fine print (especially in black and white photography).

Back in the early 90's an engineer (sadly, I forgot his name) created a special digital scanning back for a 4X5 camera. Instead of being the photo sensors we are familiar with in our digital cameras, this device scanned the image focused on it from side to side, like a photocopier. These images could take minutes to create. In the end, the image was about 140+ megapixels in size. This engineer went to Johnson and wanted him to photograph different things with film and the digital back. They were both astounded by the experiment.

The first discovery was how sharp and detailed the images were. All grain was gone. Every possible detail was visible and only limited to the resolution of the monitor. This is much like how we see through our eyes. If our vision is good, we can see great detail and clarity. We don't see grain. On the other hand, many feel that film images are "truer" and "correct" when the images have grain and distortion. What we have seen as detail in "silver" photos is seen as real while the extra-fine "silicon" detail seems unreal. This is part of our historic photographic vision as defined by "silver."

They also discovered the greatly expanded range of hue and tonality. Film can only capture so many variations of hue. Digital can capture shades of hues so much subtler than film that when viewed, many feel they are not real. This disbelief, once again, goes against what our actual eyes see. Our eyes can tell shades, hues and tonality so much better than film. We can see the slow evolution of hues shifting in the scene. Even though we see that way, the ongoing definition of the fine print shapes our view.

I listened to all this and saw his images that were examples of his points. The point that resonated deeply in me though came to contrast and tonality. There are no true black tones as we view things with our eyes.

This point deals a blow to Ansel Adam's zone system. If you look at his work, there is always a deep black somewhere. Hell, if you look at my black and white prints, you will find that too. Now, look out your window during the day, or even night, do you see anything that is truly black? I mean a black that has no reflectivity and is truly the absence of light, do you see it? I don't. While this is true, we are conditioned to create a true black in our prints due to the definitions created from the limitations of film. Film will lose detail as the scene approaches black. If you try increasing exposure to increase details in the shadows, you will blow out your highlights. With the new digital technology, we can capture great detail in shadows that shows what we truly see with our own eyes.

Lines to Her Heart
(Morose??? Too much black???)

So, I have a great digital Nikon SLR, how is the definition of the fine print affecting my work. The first thing I do is increase saturation and contrast. I want strong colors, deep dark tones and rich highlights. I am trying to make the image match the old definition. If you take a moment to look at Stephen Johnson's photos. You will see true tonal range and hues that are so beautiful and subtle they feel like they were painted.

Kenai Glacier
Stephen Johnson
Note: look at all the different hues of blue in this photo.

Some of the photographic educators there mentioned after the lecture that the 2000-2010 photos will be defined by rich, saturated colors and contrast. They also think that in the next 10 years, we will have a saturation and contrast revolution that will rein in both. Johnson commented that if art, psychology, sociology, and other scholars in the distant future looked at the great photos of the 20th century, they would think we lived in a depressed and morose time due to all of the darkness in our images. We did not capture true visual reality, only the realities that film would let us photograph.

Moonrise
Photo by Ansel Adams
Way too morose and dark?

It has been a few weeks since I experienced Johnson's presentation. I am still trying to figure out what I believe in it and how it will affect my art, if at all. If you look at the before and after images of Candace below, you can tell I punched them up. In the first two, I am starting to feel that the original image is better, before I doctored it. The second set though, I feel the hyper-saturation adds to the narrative of surreal dreams. It is interesting that by making colors "unreal", I feel I am capturing a bit of my dream world.

Johnson believes photographers should use what makes their art best for them. His message though is that it is time to accept and use the true gifts that digital has to offer us and it is fine to have photos that are true to what we see, not what has been defined as art.


Please take a moment to look at his website and see his amazing images. Also look at his book about his new photographs of US National Parks using super high-resolution digital imaging.

Toward the Light - Original

Toward the Light - Heavy Saturation and Contrast

Dali and Nirvana 2 - Original

Dali and Nirvana - version B