how I see; what I see

The key to photography is to see everything. I look up, I look down. I see big, I see small. I'm always looking, always observing. I use my eyes.

A good photographer will look at light, shadow, pattern, texture, shape, colour, symmetry. This is how good photographs are made. Oh sure, there's always that lucky, once-in-a-lifetime shot. It can happen. I've done it. But the key is, can that photograph be repeated? Usually not. A knowledgeable photographer will know what film speed, f/stop and focal length was used.

There's an old adage in photography: always take notes!

Why the name?

Someone asked me about the name: "artiste photographique".

• Well, it's really simple, I am more than just a photographer. I am a photographic artist - artiste photographique. I don't point and click. I look, think, and create the image before I even bring the camera to my eye. I understand the art of photography.
  
• I have an eye for the unique, the odd, the unusual. I am always looking, always observing. My motto is: "if you could see the world through my eyes".
  

I have some general questions then

• why do you photograph? is it just for fun? or are you serious & passionate (like me :) about photography?

• do you shoot film or digital?

• if you shoot film, do you prefer slides or prints?

• do you like black & white or colour?

• do you have a favourite subject or topic or just anything?

• do you shoot just for fun and pleasure? or is it a passion (like me :)

• do you shoot hoping the photo will turn out? or do you shoot knowing the photo will turn out?

• what film speeds have you used? what is your favourite?
  

• what is your skill level of photography?

• beginner - don't know a thing about photography, but want to learn more
  
• amateur - I have some basic knowledge, and want to learn more
  
• intermediate - I have some formal training, or equivalent
• semi-pro - I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing, but I'm still learning
  
• pro - I know exactly what I'm doing, but I still learn a few things
  
• excellent - I have my own studio and live off my work

• what is "reciprocity failure"?

What Makes a Photographic Image Controversial?

There are many issues around that topic. Actually, the question should be: "why does the photographer choose to make a photo which he/she knows will be controversial?" Why do they choose to make an image which will "push buttons"; an image which will evoke a reaction (whether "good" or "bad"); an image which pushes the envelope. Was the photo deliberate? Did the photographer want a reaction? Well, of course. Isn't that what photographs are for?

However, the photo is just an image. The image is just a moment. How the photo, the moment, is interpreted is the real issue.

Photographs are art, and all art is subjective to the filters each of us have. Filters can be based on: environmental, social, religious, moral and personal beliefs or values.

A photo may be controversial in one culture; while on the other hand, the same image will have no effect whatsoever in another culture. (As we know from the daily news.)

This applies on a personal, individual level as well. Two people can look at the same photo and you will get two different reactions. (The reactions may be similar on some points, but not 100% the same.)

I can look at a photo and choose to think, "hey, it's just a photo". Someone else will look at the same photo and be outraged by what they see.

So why is that? Am I missing something? Or is the other person putting more into the image than it represents. Why do we get all up in arms over just a photo?

We all like photographs of beautiful flowers. They evoke pleasant images, right? Well, what if I was to photograph dead, decaying flowers. Then what, or how, would you feel?

Remember: the image is just an image. It doesn't know what to be. The image doesn't know to be "good" or "bad".

It is us who reacts to the image.
It is us who makes the image controversial.
And it is controversy which sells.

More thoughts on digital vs film

What really cracks me up about digital is how desperately digital cameras are trying to make the images they produce look "real". The companies say: "you can install this software and play around with these filters". But on matter what is done, the images are still of lesser quality. They are a digital "mis"-representation. But we are conned into believing the digital images are superior. Sorry folks, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are being hood-winked.

My first blog

I want to share my thoughts on digital vs film.
These days everyone and his dog has a digital camera, and they think they can take good pictures. Well, everyone has a car, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a good friggin' driver! Right?
Well, owners of digital cameras would say: "well, if I don't like the picture I can always delete it."
My response to that is: "well, I don't take bad pictures." That usually shuts them up.
To take good pictures, one needs to know some basic techniques; as well as their equipment. I can take good pictures with a piece of crap throw away camera; I just know what it can't do!

I love the quote by Frank Capra, the photographer who photographed the storming of Normandy Beach: "if it wasn't good enough, you weren't close enough." There he was, the first on the beach, dodging bullets and stuff, running around and taking pictures of soldiers up close. He had to, because zoom lenses didn't exist.

1) if you have a particular subject of interest, then get in close.
I don't know how many times other people have shown me their photos. "Isn't that a great picture of me?" Well, all I see is a grass field with a black dot. (A little exaggerated, but you get my point.) I used to critique them. I don't any more. If the person thinks it's good, well, I let them believe their fantasy.

2) cd's don't last forever, because they degrade over time. They may last 100 years. However, a photo printed on archival paper will last a helluva longer than a cd.

3) here's a little bit of technical stuff: film is analog, a sine wave, which is how we see; digital is a square wave. So if you were to superimpose the resultant waves, you would see that some information is missing.
This is the analogy I use: convert a phrase from English to another language, say French, you're not going to get the same phrase. Now convert it back to English. Do you get the same phrase? No. Something gets lost in translation.
So with digital that is what you have. The information is lost in translation, not once, but twice. Analog, the original view -> converted to Digital, another language, information is lost -> converted back to Analog, more information is lost.
Or to put it another way, in these days of digital music (i.e. mp3's and such) why is vinyl still around? Can you guess? Because, as any audiophile will tell you, it's real sound. There's a certain depth to the music that digital cannot reproduce.
Ever heard this before? :
"hey, I've got some great shots on cd." "well, can I see them?" "wait, let me put it in the computer." Hmmm..... see the problem?
Instead, this is how I do it:
"hey, I've got some great shots!" "can I see them?" "sure." as I hand them prints. See? no fancy equipment required. The photos have been taken they way are, and viewed the way they should be. Analog equipment: the camera; analog format: prints; being viewed by analog equipment: the eye. Notice there's no digital middleman screwing things up?

4) the ccd sensors on digital cameras are small. As consumer level digital cameras go the highest level of resolution is around 14 megapixels. Well, let me tell you, the human eye can see much, much more than that!
The human eye sees at least 324 megapixels
(reference: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html)
One of my cameras is a medium format camera. To translate that to the equivalent of digital would be in the neighbourhood of 40 megapixels!! So as you can see, most digital cameras would be just toys for me. "Well, digital cameras are getting up there in megapixels." yeah right.... sorry, ain't going to happen. Why? Simply due to the laws of physics. You can only cram so much information on it. However, the Megapixel camera has made a valiant effort. http://www.gigapxl.org/
However, you may want to check this article to understand more of how the human eye sees: http://www.swift.ac.uk/vision.pdf
This is the conclusion of the article:

"A model of the perception limits of the human visual system was given, resulting in a maximum estimate of approximately 15 million variable-resolution pixels per eye. Assuming 60 Hz stereo display with a depth complexity of 6, it was estimated a rendering rate of approximately ten billion triangles per second is sufficient to saturate the human visual system."

Yes folks, that's 10,000,000,000 pixels!

5) you can only enlarge digital prints to a certain size before they start to pixelate; usually 11x14 (read the fine print in the digital camera ads). Well, I can shoot some 50 or 25ISO film and make a friggin' poster out of it and it'll be tack sharp through and through. If you see a digital camera advertisement that says "poster size" they're friggin' lying. Unless they consider 11x14 a poster!

6) digital cameras fail in certain lighting situation. It's how they operate; how they translate light and shadows. I've done shots, where the lighting was tricky (i.e. hard light, heavy shadows) and digital would've failed in capturing the image.

So there you have it, for now, my two-bits on digital vs film.