On Photography

My original plan had me starting out on Sept 1. Since I didn't get moving until the 9th, I'm finding I have a lot less flexibility in my schedule up to the 25th when I need to be in North Carolina for a friends wedding. Working backward, I found that I really only have one day of slop, and after thinking about it for a while, I decided I'd take advantage of that day when I reach Milwaukee on the 20th.

I did figure out a way to route myself though part of Michigan, which is where my parents grew up. I'm spending a few more day's in motels than I'd like for this leg of the trip, and my expenses are going to be higher for the month by a significant amount, that means I'll have to work a bit harder at keeping expenses under control for the remainder.

Finding time to process images is harder than I thought it would be. Part of the issue is not having any real slack in the schedule until after the wedding, another part is that I'm still learning how to best pack the bike, set up and break down camp, set the camera up from the bike, etc.

Day 2: From Anacortes to Spokane, via Hyw 20.
327 Miles

Hwy 20 is a beautiful ride and the color of the river and Diablo & Ross lakes were an amazing shade of green. The day started out a big foggy, but cleared quickly as I moved away from the coast. It remained a cool 62-68 degrees until I dropped into the Methow valley, where the temperature climbed rapidly to a slightly warm 82 degrees. I made a few images but I haven't had time to edit them yet, maybe later today, perhaps tomorrow. THe Methow valley is very picturesque but the mid afternoon sun was less photogenic than I'd hoped. If my final schedule had held up to the realities of life, I'd have started the day in Winthrop which I believe would have be very nice.

By the time I got to the Grand Coulee Dam, it was hidden in the shadows of the surrounding hills, and as I suspected, there was no water coming over the flood gates and I failed to find anything worth photographing. This is of course one of the down sides to trying to photograph while in the process of trying to cover specific distances, where you see potential, it's often the wrong time of day and unless you can interrupt your schedule, your best bet is to enjoy the experience and not worry about missed photo opportunities.

Day 3,4 Spent a few days with my brother Greg

Day 5. From Spokane to West Glacier KOA
300 Miles

Heading north on Hwy 2, it's a beautiful sunny day, very little traffic. Stopped for lunch in Sandpoint, ID. Seems like a pretty nice town, lots of activity. Somehow I missed my entrance into Montana, I suspect it was when I was trying to keep away from the SUV driver who was more interested in texting than driving.

Day 6. From West Glacier to Great Falls Montana
222 miles
Total miles so far: 908

Met a nice couple from Seattle at the camp site. Unfortunately I stayed up too late, and didn't sleep well - I'm still adjusting to the tent/bag/pad. Most bags and pads are really designed for people who sleep on their backs, unfortunately for me, I'm a side sleeper. I spent a good portion of the night trying to get the air mat to the right firmness, and going from being too hot to too cold. I figure a few more nights and I should have it figured out.

A very large section of the forest north of 'Going to the Sun' (the main route though the park) has been destroyed by fire. A few miles of the road are being re-done and is new a dirt one track, well mud actually as they're watering it, I suspect to keep the dust down. More burn area on the east side of the park. I really enjoyed the ride from Logan Pass down to the turnoff onto Starr School road. South of Browning, the road flattens out, but still has some nice curves, the scenery is pretty amazing, off to the left is a huge grass plains that seems to run all the way to the Rocky Mountains. No wonder they call Montana "The Big Sky State". Some times having the sun high in the sky is the only way to get light into canyons, I think I got a few good images, but it will be a while before I really have time to edit them.

I'd planned to make it to Winthrop, WA on day one, alas there was still too much to get done before I could saddle up and head out.


The Bike:




I finally got on the road at 1:30 and stopped promptly for lunch at one of my favorite Port Townsend area restaurants, The Spruce Goose at the Jefferson County Airport. I skipped breakfast and was pretty hungry and the ferry from Port Townsend to Keystone wasn't leaving until 3:45.

I decided while I was on the Ferry to stop in Anacortes, WA rather than trying to head up hwy 20. I spent almost another 2 hours repacking and organizing. So the new plan is to make it to Spokane on day two.

Day 1: Sept 9, 2009
Milage: 53.9

Choosing camera gear for a long motorcycle ride as proved to be more challenging than I'd ever anticipated. There are a number of constraints that you don't have to deal with, when working from a car. The obvious considerations are volume and weight, what makes it harder is that I also needed to find a waterproof locking case that could survive serious rain, hail, road spray (all of the things that we bikers really love). The case also needed to provide vibration protection (foam insert) and hardest of all - it needed to fit on a fairly narrow space behind the saddle, where I have a maximum of 16 inches in width so I can still get the side bags open.

I've been working on keywords for a several weeks now. I still have a long way to go but I'm making progress. Part of that task included searching the web for articles on keyword searches. This may turn out to be more effort than it's worth, the primary reason to keyword is to help find images, which implies a reason for searching for them. Those reasons are, at the moment, somewhat (if not entirely) secondary for me. I currently don't have any stock relationships which would be the primary function of keywords - but then I don't want to rule that out. I suppose someone looking for art work in terms of photographic prints might be tempted to do keyword search - say if they wanted to find a print that was local to where they live, but I expect more browsing than searching at this point. The reason I'm willing to put the effort into it now is that I have relatively few images that need keywording. Now that I've gone digital and I'm spending more time shooting I expect that quantity to increase fairly quickly. Putting it off until I decide I need it would make it significantly more costly in terms of time.

I've been contemplating a name/identity change. I like Frozen Light Photography as a name but it's not really descriptive of me. I have a new name that I've been toying with for a number of reasons:

1. I like the new one better.
2. The new one is more descriptive of me, my life style, the way I work, the way I think.
3. There are any number of photographers that use similar names - Quite Light, Morning Light, Mountain Light, etc. It's an obvious choice, I don't remember who said it - John Sexton I think

Photography is all about the light.

I don't happen to agree - at least it's not for me. We use the light but photography is really more about us, and how we react and feel about things that we see. Sure the quality of light is very important - perhaps even critical. I have images that would be drab and with out meaning if the light were less of a character in the photograph. But it was how I felt that made me make the image. I suppose it's open to interpenetration - photography is "writing with light" after all.
4. I've already thought up 2 or 3 logo ideas (one below) and I haven't even consulted a Professional yet (which I'm inclined to do, depending on the cost). What I know about font's, and layout wouldn't fill a thimble.
5. I registered to domain name - well www.vagabondphotoarts.com anyway no-one wants to type in the whole thing

Given all that, Here's the idea.


Why? Well it's closer to my current life style, and hopefully will be more so over the next few years. I tend to take trips for photography when the mood hits me, sometimes I have no destination in mind, sometimes I do. Sometimes I'll go to the destination first then wander my way back home - either exploring a new route, or visting some favorite spots on an old one. I never know until I actually get in the Jeep (or on the Bike). This is more or less the essence of the modern vagabond - to travel with out itinerary. If a destination has been identified, it's not critical to the journey - it's more of an excuse for the journey. People can be critical to the journey - if I'm off to visit friends I try to keep those plans - but the route home is fair game.

This is a far cry from my previous workaholic life in software. Actually many of my images where taken during that workaholic period, but I really don't approach things the same way any more. I also rather enjoy not having to keep a rigid schedule to my travels - it's one of the few reasons I'd rather drive than fly (actually flying is fine, it's the airports that bother me).

No definite decision yet but it could happen.

One of the problems with photography is that it requires gear - cameras, lenses, tripods, etc. I've recently made a rather significant change in gear. I'm selling my Ebony SV45Ti 4x5, and getting a different model the SW45 which doesn't fold up and has fewer movements and won't take some of my longer lenses. I'm also selling several of my lenses for 4x5. I also just purchased several new "used" lenses for the Contax 645 System. Why - because I finally broke down and bought a Phase One P45+ medium format digital back. This is a 40 mega pixel back (that's a lot by the way) that will work on both the Contax 645 and the Ebony SW45. The change in 4x5 is because wide angle on a 4x5 is actually telephoto on a digital back. My two most used lenses for 4x5 film where 90mm, 120 and 210mm. To get the same field of view with a digital back I need a 36, 48 and a 85. I prefer Schneider lenses so I'll end up with a 35mm, 47mm and 90mm, and maybe a 180. The SV doesn't like lenses like the 35 & 47 - the SW work fine with them - so a Different 4x5 Ebony Cameras

Why did I want to do this - I think mostly because I'm nuts but at least partly because of the amazing image quality these two cameras will provide as digital cameras. I'm giving up film - probably not all at once but mostly and soon. The work flow for film goes something like this:

B&W Film
1. Mix chemicals (1-3 hours)
2. Wait for chemicals to reach correct temp - overnight
3. Lay out development trays, fill with chemicals, bring developer to exactly 72 degrees and correct dilution from stock.
4. Load development tubes for 4x5 or drums for roll film. 5-10 min
5. Develop film 2 rolls or 6 sheets - about 30 minutes until they're hanging to dry - that's 6 sheets of film or 2 rolls of film
6. Repeat steps 4&5 for additional sheets. if more than 12 sheets total - clean and dry tubes about 1 hour
7. Dry film over night (cost about $3 per sheet)

Color Film
1. Go to darkroom and remove 4x5 film from ready loads or film holders and box for shipment
2. Package boxes and or rolls for shipment
3. Mail to processing lab
4. Wait for return - 2-5 days (cost about $6 per sheet total)

Any Film
1. Scan film - average 15 minutes per image
2. Clean scan in PhotoShop average 10 minutes - max 4 hours (pretty rare - only on a few older color transparencies)


Work flow for Digital
1. Insert FlashCard into reader - run Image Ingester

At this point the film and digital workflows merge. As you can see - I save a huge amount of time and money with digital - ok save money might not be accurate. The cost of the digital back is enormous - the current used market for these is about $16,000. I could have done a LOT of film with that money but the more I do the more time I lose in the workflow. Time I could spend in the field shooting more images, or marketing and selling images. So ultimately, the break even point for the digital back will be somewhere around 2000-2500 images. Then there is the psychological issue in the field - when working with the 4x5 - every time I press the shutter I'm thinking - there goes $6. Which as the effect of limiting experimentation, shooting multiple compositions, etc.

I'm almost out of the gear phase - if Phase One would just return my back with the adapter to fit the Contax 645AF I could start shooting again - it's been a month and I'm not happy about it. This back came with a fairly expensive "Value Added" warranty that was supposed to provide fast service and low down time - doesn't seem like I'm getting my money's worth on it.

I've been doing photography related stuff for weeks, and it's really getting me in a creative frame of mind.

1. Listening to Lenswork Podcasts while driving
2. Listening to Camera Position Podcasts while working with photoshop or driving
3. Reading about photography
4. Listening to my favorite music
5. Looking at other peoples work
6. Thinking about what a photograph is - or isn't.

My current definition:

A photograph is not about the thing your taking a picture of - it's about the emotion you feel when you experience that thing. If you don't have an emotional reaction to what your seeing, there's no value in pointing a camera at it, you'll just end up with a photograph that has no meaning.

Photography is predatory; we want to capture something that moves us in some way and make it ours, to keep it. Photography is altruistic; we see something that moves us and we want to share that feeling. Photography is arrogant; we point our camera at something, we make a photograph, we are saying THIS is important, THIS is special, the viewer should pay attention to THIS.

In photography, we can take something away with us, with out taking anything away. Our goal is to elicit an emotional response, it is not make it possible to experience life later. For a time, I thought it was to get the view to experience the same emotion I had when I decided to make the image. Later, I realized that not everyone would have the same response even if they stood where I stood, and saw what I saw. Now I'm satisfied when I get any response. I photographed a scene of ice forming on a creek, I experienced joy in the motion of the water, and wonder in the transitory sculpture, created by nature, who didn't care one whit if it was ever seen by single soul. Sharing the image with someone, they felt the cold and were curious about how the ice had formed, not the same thing but maybe close enough.

As much as I think about camera gear, you'd think I actually enjoy experimenting/playing with gear. The truth is - I don't. It gives me a headache.

I wouldn't be thinking about it now except I've decided that I need to do more digital and less film. I love film, I love the 4x5 format - what I don't love is the cost / image - when I shoot color it's about $5.00 for each and every shot. B&W is cheaper for sure but still around $2.00 per shot. Then there's the idea of carrying a 4x5 and film holders on a motorcycle - doable but not that much fun. Plus I'd want a DSLR along anyway - which means 2 cameras which means even more space and weight. ARRRRRG. Then there's the airport travel thing - they say putting your film though the scanners won't hurt it but it will - I know - I had a lot of images from Scotland fogged because of airport security.

I'd planned on waiting until I could get a Medium format Digital back - say about 40-60 mega-pixels. Sadly, used a used P45+ (PhaseOne 39mega-pixel) back goes on ebay once every couple of months for between 15,000 and 20,000. I'm having a very hard time justifying that.

At this point in the game Mega-Pixels doesn't mean anything except print size - so at 180dpi.
PhaseOne: 7216x5412 pixels = 40x30 print
Nikon/Sony: 6048x4032 pixels = 33.5 x 22.4

With genuine fractals, depending on the image - this might go to 60x45 and 45x34 Yep big prints, and yes my printer will go that large. To go bigger will require stitching multiple images together. This will be the norm for panoramics.

Basically the options are:

Mamiya Medium Format with PhaseOne P45+ figure about 24k after I sell the Nikon gear
Nikon D3x 24 mega-pixel 8K + swapping 3 lenses so about 10K
Sony Alpha 900 + lenses & flash - about 4K after selling the Nikon Gear

Besides price there are a few reasons to pick the Sony over the Nikon - and a few to pick the Nikon over the Sony.
Sony Advantage
View Finder - best on any DSLR
Image Stabilization in Camera Body - works with ALL lenses.
Dust reduction on sensor
Weight & Size
Price.

Nikon Advantage
Can use Mirror Lockup and Auto Bracket at the same time. (very slightly sharper images but not well implemented on this camera )
Available Tilt/Shift lenses
Lower Digital Noise above 800 ISO


I think if I didn't have to sell 3 lenses and find replacements I might be more tempted to stick with the Nikon. As it is I can't see spending 6K more for the Nikon or 20K more for the medium format so I guess I've sort of decided - (guess I shouldn't have sold off my Minolta / Konica Minolta gear.

I attended a "slide show" given by a friend of mine after his trip to Iceland and really enjoyed the event. There were a number of factors that contributed to the success of this event.

Socializing: I met a number of very interesting people that I would probably have not met otherwise.

Photography: About one third of us where "serious" photographers, a few were beginners.

Sharing: It was interesting from a travel point of view, but just as illuminating from a feedback point of view. This relates to one of my big concerns with how I work - I think I over edit. I weed out too many images before seeing what other people find interesting and why. This is a very artist centric way of working, never show anyone your work until your completely happy with it. There are a number of arguments as to why this is a good thing - but the best argument I've found is against it - by showing people images that I had edited out those people found images that they liked better than the ones I kept in. If I'm doing my art for ME then editing tightly is a good thing, no point is being reminded of our failures. But what I'm finding is that I'm doing my art because I have to, and the fact is: I took the image so the scene must have had an emotional impact on me at the time, just because it didn't come though as strongly as I had hoped doesn't make it bad. Sure, there are lots of images that really are bad - sometimes what I saw just doesn't translate at all, those images will still get edited out. I really don't need 27 almost identical images of the same flower. A different view, or a different composition of the same flower would be fine.

Learning: Hearing about a place I've never seen is always a good thing.

I plan to do a bit less editing and a bit more sharing, and provide a bit more story behind the images

As I work away on the images I took with the Nikon on my 4600 mile road trip I've been asking my usual question: Is this good enough to publish?

The usual answer is no. I have to really like an image to get to the point where I'll decide to try and print it - and if I don't get a print that I like the image may go into the bin marked try again, or if it's not really a technical problem it might end up in the circular file and it's place in the image library is degraded from 5 stars to something like 1 or 2. A 3 or 4 is what I use for images that I think might be usable but I haven't finished printing them yet.

The up side to this approach is that mediocre or just plain bad images don't make it into the portfolio.

The downside is - well some images that other people really liked don't make it into the portfolio except by the accident of someone seeing a test print that I'm pretty sure I don't like enough and telling me they really like it. At which point I might solicit a few more opinions and if I get enough positive response I'll add it. There are at least 10 images in the current portfolios that got there because enough other people liked it even though I was less than sure.

So, am I over editing?

I’m looking at papers again, I’m not sure I started looking at papers because I was thinking about printers or I started thinking about printers because I was looking at paper – they’re sort of tied to each other – at least my current printer is (more than you really wanted to know, later). So why paper? Photographers are funny about paper – it ultimately IS the photograph – well that and the ink or emulsion – what’s funny is that most photographers that have spent time in a dark room doing B&W will only use Fiber based paper. RC (resin coated) papers feel like plastic – sort of waxy, slimy in the soup (developer). I really don’t like working with them. This is an emotional response to the tactile quality of the paper, and has no effect on the image quality. Interestingly this same emotional response has carried over into Digital with printer papers – most fine art printers use matte – why? Well it feels better for one – does it look better? Hmmm, well one of the things as printers we strive for in B&W printing is to maximize DMax – or more simply how black is black. Glossy papers always have a higher DMax than Matte papers so in theory we should be going for glossy. Well up until recently printers had some problems with glossy paper – a couple actually – first there was Bronzing – this is an effect that is really only visible when looking at the print from a sharp angle. At this angle various tones in the print seem to disappear and the result is sort of a bronze reflection. This is not something that happens to a print in a frame hanging on the wall, yet we avoid Glossy because until recently the bronzing was very noticeable – but not a problem with Matte papers. Then we have gloss differential, this occurs when the amount of ink that makes up the image is not consistent, areas that have little nor no ink (bright clouds, white detail in color prints, etc) have a different level of gloss from other areas, which makes the print look blotchy – almost like it has a fungus – yuck.

I’m considering a change of printers. The new Epson 3800/7800/9800 have for the most part solved the bronzing issue but not the gloss differential issue. The 7800 (24”) and 9800 (44”) printers also suffer from poor design – actually I’m not sure if the design is poor or it was designed to keep us poor but when you want to switch papers – wastes a lot of ink (more below).

The new Canon and HP printers – the first real competition for Epson (Hoorah!) have 12 inks (ok why is that a good thing – ink is expensive???). I wish I could say – everyone seems really excited by this but the fact is – the color gamut (range of possible colors) is really not significantly better – you’ll see a difference but its mostly in how saturated various colors are – each printer seems to have it’s strong points and it’s week points. The new HP has a built in Photo Spectrometer – used for creating color profiles for various papers – these are what allow us to get a print that looks like what’s on the screen as far as color and tone – well as close as you can get given that screens are projected light (additive – more and more of each color approaches white) and prints are reflected (subtractive more and more color gets closer to black) Yeah they’re opposites so it’s a real trick to make them look the same, but the mind is an amazing tool. It also has a gloss enhancer – who’s sole purpose is eliminate gloss differential on glossy papers (ok so that means it’s really an 11 Ink system, vs Canon’s 12 Inks vs Epson’s 8 inks)

At this time I think the HP is probably THE printer, I expect that should last about 2 years max, maybe a bit less – until Epson responds – then Canon will make a comeback and Ahh Geez this is going to be just like the MegaPixle wars isn’t it? I can just see it – 16 ink printers – Actually if someone would make a printer that used something like the Cone K7 inks for B&W and the Cone Piezotone Inks for Sepia, and had 5-7 color inks and a gloss enhancer – well that would do EVERYTHING (yeah I’ll hold my breath) Actually Rolland makes a printer that’s not too far from that, you can get 4 cone inks and a set of color inks in the printer and it will only cost 25K OUCH.

Anyway, there are a few things that I’m trying to achieve.

1. Since most of my work is B&W I want the best B&W I can get, to that end I’m about to spend a few hundred dollars on test prints from Cone Editions in order to determine if I want to convert my existing printer into a B&W only Carbon Pigment Ink printer. What’s the difference? Currently all photo printers that use the manufacturers inks print B&W with some black (usually 2 or 3 shades) and color (a lot more magenta than you’d guess). The end result is that the image changes color slightly as the light changes (from day light, to tungsten, to – heaven forbid - fluorescent. This issue has become smaller and smaller as time goes on but – the fact remains that printers universally use magenta (and other colors) in the process of printing B&W I mention magenta specifically be cuase it has the greatest tendency to fade and shift eventually become more and more green. Is it a big problem? Not really – not enough to warrant a new printer, but it’s still a problem.

2. The second issue is one of long term costs and flexibility. My current printer, Epson 9600 gives me the ability to print either matte or glossy, but to switch between the two requires switching one of the ink cartridges – not too bad until you learn that when you do that they proceed to flush all of the ink cartridges resulting in a whopping $80.00 of ink that goes into the waste bin. Then you get to drop another $80.00 when you switch back – consequently I tried some glossy when I first got the printer then switched to Matte paper and never went back. Well now there’s some glossy paper on the market that looks pretty promising – no guarantee that I’ll use it but I wont know until I try it. Also I’ve been holding off on making digital negatives which are printed on a transparent or translucent sheet – definitely a “glossy” paper. I would then take these negatives into the darkroom and contact print them on regular photo paper. Resulting in a silver gelatin print – or perhaps a platinum/palladium darkroom print. The look is different than what you get off a printer – not better (well to some people it’s better).

Now just to complicate things Cone Editions is coming out with their K7 inks (7 shades (black thru very light grey) and John is working on a Selenium tone set that will for the first time be able to print on either matte or glossy paper. – Of course it’s not ready yet.

Then HP is offering a “trade in” – by supplying the serial number of my current printer I can get $1000 off the new printer – that’s a lot of money of course it means I’m buying a printer that may only get used for Color work (which is ok – I think….. but I don’t do that much color….. hmmm Yep nothing can be easy. There are all sorts of permutations on buying, keeping selling, etc none of them I can make a real decision on because the ink I think I want to use isn’t available yet, so where does that leave me? Confused mostly. Fortuanely HP has given me until the end of May to figure it out – except I don’t think the other inks will be ready ….

Just to put all this in perspective – you might be wondering why I don’t just buy the existing inks and give them a try … well to get a set to test with will cost about $600 for each set – so $600 for the Piesotone Carbon Selenium/ Carbon Sepia set. Another $600 for the K7 Selenium, plush flush cartridges – another couple hundred, probably a new drain tank – another hundred or so – yep adds up fast doesn’t it. Ahh the joys of having a really big printer – In hindsight I think maybe I should have limited myself to 24” – except the inks would still cost the same – I just wouldn’t waste as much switching them.

And people wonder why I spend weeks and months thinking about these things…. You know I’d much rather just go take some more pictures.

I've almost completed my conversion from Windows/PC to OS X/Mac. I really had two goals in mind when I did this change. First it was taking forever to open and save files in Photoshop CS2. I work with large files - they start out at about 460Mb and as I work on them in Photoshop they reach and sometimes exceed 3Gb. Adobe recommends that you have at least 5 times the image size in available memory for best performance. On a windows machine I maxed at 2GB and CS2 could only use part of that say 1.6G, which seems like a lot bit it's not. The second issue is with Windows is the way it does Disk I/O - when it's writing or reading from the Hard Disk - it seems to have a hard time doing anything else. So it would literally take 15-20 Minutes to read in a file I'd been working on - and 20-30 minutes to save it. I suspect that there was some other firmware problem associated with the SATA disk controllers on my ASUS motherboard but I'd updated all the firmware several times and the problem persisted, adding a separate SATA controller didn't help either. So the only way I was going to fix this was new hardware.

Configuring a system for backups.

I worked for a company that did Management Information Systems (fancy fraise for accounting, inventory and order entry software) one of our clients was a law firm and everyone there was required to keep track of everything they spent time on. The accountant got the time sheets and entered them into the system, when the started doing this we set up a routine where everyone would backup their work on a regular basis. The accountant got the first sheets as was looking at them mumbling - backing up, backing up - doesn't anyone around here go forward?

The trick to backups is to make them more or less painless. Decide how much work your willing to redo when you have a disk failure - not IF - WHEN! If you ok with having to redo 1 days worth then backup everyday - if you think you can afford to redo a week then backup weekly. When automated system - I recommend you let the machine do it every night.

I'm currently running a MacPro with 2x 3Ghz Dual-Core Intel processors, 8GB of ram which OS X will handle and XP / Vista wont (well except Vista 64 but that's a whole other can of worms) It has 2 on board 500GB drives the first has the OS, applications and Data. The second is a backup of the first. I'll eventually switch this around so that Users (my data and documents) is on the second drive and backed up to the first, and the OS+Apps are on the first backed up to the second - should give a small performance gain since this machine can write to all of the disks at the same time. I also installed (2) 70Gb Raptors - these are 10,000 RPM drives - very fast and they do nothing but provide scratch disk space for Photoshop. For image storage I added a Burly 5 Bay, external SATA II array that I've set up as two Raid 0 arrays - I then use backup software to sync the two so I have a full backup - They're not mirrored. The downside to mirroring is that if you break a file on one - you've broken it on both so you still need a backup. The 5th bay is used as a hot swap "external" drive for doing backups of the laptop, and of the images for Off Site storage. Yep, that's 3, well actually 4 copies of all of my images one of which is stored off site. In case you hadn't guessed - backups are that important. Especially if you work from a digital camera - because once you erase that CF card the only copy of your work is on a hard drive that is going to fail at some point – Guaranteed, it WILL FAIL. Is all this expensive - yep - but not as expensive as having to redo all the scanning and Photoshop work - or the permanent and complete loss of digital captures.

A minor Disappointment - CS3 Bata only allows you to use 3G of ram for Photoshop (why they picked that number is beyond me but they did). On the upside that leaves 5G for the OS, Lightroom, iView Media 3 Pro, FlexColor (scanner software), Bridge, Email, and Web browser. I’m still struggling with some printer driver issues and I’ve not yet installed ImagePrint – probably today, but so far everything is working pretty well. A few minor glitches here and there, but I’ll get them smoothed out soon. Moving email turned out to be a pain – I finally purchased a $10.00 application that did the trick.

So did it solve my issues? Yes! It now takes under a minute to read or save a large file, and the operations that used to take a long time in Photoshop I almost don't even notice anymore.

I haven’t given up windows all together there’s still some software that doesn’t run on OS X and there’s some software that I don’t want to pay for again just to move it to the Mac.

One of my favorite photographs was done in central California



I had a chance to go back to this spot last week in hopes of improving the shot, alas, the clouds were not cooperative. I did experiment with a number of other compositions and I'll be going back again, and again. Because, as much as I like this photograph, I think I might be able to make another just as good or maybe even better but different. What's the point? I have the shot, move on... But that is the point - I think the more we explore a subject, the better we know it. The better we know it, the better we can share what it is that we love about it.

You CAN go back - just don't expect it to be the same.

Last time I was talking about using Photoshop to make a photograph from a recorded image. This is a bit more of the same. Below is an image I recorded with a Nikon D2Xs and a 70-200 lens at 200 (or 300mm with cropping factor). What my eye saw was more than just a bit different but this was the best I could do with the equipment I had available.



When I recorded this image I was really after the moss. As you can see, there is nothing special about this image. It's chaotic with lots of distracting elements. When I see photographs like this my first thought is: WHY? Why record this? Why Print or Display this? In the words of Ansel Adams, it's a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. But when I took this - I had a clear concept there is a photograph in here somewhere we just need to find it and bring it out.



The photograph above was what I wanted from the start - the only way to get there with the tools I had available was to crop - and crop a lot. There are downsides to croping - this will probably never be useable as a 16x20 but as a small intimate photograph I think it works well.

Some times you end up cropping so much that what's left is really only useful for a postage stamp. I've had images that I though would work but when I sat with them for a while they were just fuzzy. They needed clarification - in the end the clarification was that it was a poor photograph and I ended up rejecting the image completely.

Don't be afraid to clarify, to simply, to get to the photograph in your image - it may not always work but it's always better than using something that doesn't work.

I was viewing an exhibit at the Benham Gallery in Seattle, and I commented to my companion that the photograph we were looking at would be cleaner if the artist (the photographer) had cropped it a bit tighter, and possibly removed a distracting element from the corner that added nothing (except a distraction). I went on to explain my current thinking on using Photoshop to enhance an image in order to make a photograph (there’s a difference and I’ll explain it in a moment).


When I first started using Photoshop, every once in a while I would think about the Ethics of Photoshop; whether it’s ok to remove some annoying non-feature from a photograph. Or, how much, can I adjust the color to fit what I want or what I remember rather than what the film recorded? Not long ago, a year or two at the most, I was looking at ART, real ART, the kind that nobody thinks might not be ART – Monet & Van Gogh. Oh sure there were skeptics at the time, but today pretty much everyone agrees, its art. There I was, looking at The Café Terrace when I noticed that there was no trash in the street, nothing fouling the gutters. It appears that Van Gogh failed to paint the scene exactly as it must have been. Well, if he can leave stuff out because he doesn’t want it there, why should a photographer have to leave something in that they don’t want there?

The conclusion to me – at least – was obvious; they shouldn’t.


There’s a funny relationship between society and photography – most people suffer from the illusion that a photograph is truth or it should be if those evil photographers and editors would stop cheating. Sadly, a photograph is really only a simulation of one person’s view of the truth at that particular time. When accompanied by a story from a skilled journalist it might represent a somewhat wider view of the truth, in the hands of a tabloid it could be an out right lie; the same photograph in both cases; one truth, one lie. Leaving photojournalism aside, art is an attempt to communicate an emotion, a feeling, or perhaps an idea. If truth comes into it, it’s shadowy at best, because it’s the truth perceived by someone else with all their experiences and baggage attached. So if we’re not delivering truth – and I doubt that anyone looking at Van Gogh’s Starry Night would call it an attempt to communicate a truth. Then why are some people so outraged when a photograph; presented as a “Fine Art Photograph” not as photo journalism; is modified in any noticeable way?

As an example Art Wolf a noted Seattle Nature Photographer used on a cover to one of his books an image of a heard of zebra. It also appeared in Outdoor Photography Magazine. Well, that image had been modified, one small area was filled in with clones of the zebra to create a photograph which was closer to the essence of what Mr. Wolf was attempting to portray. I thought it was really a great, a lot of people thought it was blasphemy. Get a life people.


For the critics who think that any manipulation of the photograph is unethical - let me pose a question. When you see a water color painter standing on the beach and they don't include the beer can, or the old tire, or they change the height and shape of the rock or add a boat that isn't there do you say - that's unethical? I've never heard anyone even consider the idea - so why if a photographer takes out a power pole or a power line is it considered by many to be manipulative and wrong? Are we still so tied to our concept that you can believe what you see? There have been fake photographs since the beginning of photography the only reason to trust that a photograph is accurate is because you trust the people that created it, all the way though to the people who printed it. Even if you trust the photographer, it's too late. The very act of composing an image modifies what everyone else will see. What then are we left with? We're left with a painting done with light - a photograph - an image conceived by an artist and executed with his or her chosen tools. If those tools happen to be a large format camera with film and a contact print frame or a digital camera and Photoshop and a printer its still art. It's still an attempt to communicate, to express the feelings or thoughts of the creator.


In terms of modifying images in Photoshop there are basically four camps. The ultra conservative camp cleans up dust spots and then thinks about whether it’s ethical to do anything else. Sometimes they are willing to do same things they'd have done in the dark room with out a second thought, sometimes they aren’t. It’s as if doing it with Photoshop is somehow cheating. Often they won’t even crop their image, assigning some sacred value to all the pixels in the image. Frankly, these people frustrate me. I look at their images and sometimes I see something of real value, it’s just buried in a sea of mediocrity, with distracting elements at the edges, flat tonal relationships, sometimes too much saturation sometimes not enough. I know it’s a personal thing with the artist but when you talk to them, they seem to take pride in the fact that they’ve done a completely un-manipulated print, which some how makes it intrinsically good. In my opinion this is not art – its snapshots. Not every picture lends itself to the framing of what ever camera you happen to be using – perhaps the image cries out to be a panorama, or square or maybe you just couldn’t get close enough and there’s junk at the edges that needs to be cropped away. The point is, in art, there is nothing sacred about “what the camera recorded” it’s the final photograph whether printed or displayed digitally that’s important.

The second camp is comfortable with the digital darkroom and happily does their normal darkroom work with great efficiency in Photoshop. They enjoy being able to explore changes in contrast, localized burning, dodging, even changes in color and saturation on color images. They love the fact that they can do in a few hours what took them several hours or a day to create in the darkroom. And, they don’t have to do it over and over for every copy of the print they make. Fix it one time and then get the same quality print every time there after - no fuss, no muss. I'm mostly in this camp but I have a foot - perhaps a whole leg, in the next camp.




The third camp looks at Photoshop as a tool for enhancing their photographs to create images - they've stopped thinking of them as traditional photographs they don't mind cloning out things or adding new. I’m not much for adding things – it’s just not my style. I also resist cloning out things unless they’re distracting the eye from following the flow within the image. But occasionally I’ll remove some little annoyance that I was either unable to crop out when I shot the picture or as still happens from time to time – I didn’t notice when I shot the image.

The last camp looks at it as a freedom they wished for but never had. They gladly cut pieces from one image and add them to another building from the ground up a whole new never seen in front of a camera - image. And they call it art. I have no reservations about going all the way - there is nothing unethical about making an image from pieces of another - it's been done for a long time. I don't do this because it's just not my cup of tea

In one sense it's probably closer to what a lot of people consider "art" than the first three camps - the first three are still pretty much photography.

Image vs. Photograph:

I suppose I could have decided to call the data recorded on film or in bits on a data card the “photograph” and the final product the image but then I’d be selling Fine Art Images and that doesn’t sound as nice to me as Fine Art Photographs. I only make the distinction because the recorded image is just the beginning of the process. Ansel Adams, who for a time considered becoming a concert pianist instead of a photographer, called the negative the score and the print the performance. Every step of the way it’s a subjective process what to include and what to leave out – how to position the camera, what lens to use. For some the process stops there but it shouldn’t a painting isn’t done until it does the best it can in expressing the emotion or ideas the artist hoped to express.