Make the Most of Your New Camera Part 2

In Part 1 I wrote about some basic concepts regarding composition. Remember that photography, like any skill, takes practice to perfect. Keep reminding yourself to use things like Rule of Thirds or Leading Lines whenever you take photos, and eventually they will become habits that you do without thinking.

In Part 2, I want to go over some specific techniques to make for better portraits. About 75% of all photos are portraits, so most people find themselves using their cameras for them more than any other subject. They also make mistake that keep a lot of portraits from really shining.

There's a lot I want to go over concerning portraits. First, let's go over a few mistakes and how to correct them.

• Watch the background. If you are using a DSLR what you see in the finder is how the image will look at the largest aperture (lens opening) the lens has. The larger the aperture, the blurrier the background becomes. But the smaller the aperture, the more the background sharpens. So what looks like a nice blurry background in the viewfinder can turn into a mess in the actual photo. Things like distracting clutter or a tree or pole appearing to stick out of the top of the subject's head ruin otherwise good portraits. Solutions: move to someplace with a simpler background or change your angle of taking the photo; make sure the lens is at a larger aperture.
• Get close. A lot of portraits are spoiled by the failure to have the subject fill the frame. Unless you're taking tourist photos at places like the Grand Canyon or the Eiffel Tower, it's almost always a good idea to get in tight (but not too tight.)
• Watch what is cut off by the frame. This one is subtle, but it's what pros look out for that often sets their portrait photos apart from what the average person produces. Cropping so that the edges of the frame cut off the ears, the torso at the waist, arms at the elbows, hands at the wrists or cutting off fingers, legs at the knees and feet at the ankles or cutting off toes all result in some discomfort when viewing the photo. It's just a psychological thing. Cropping is best done at certain lines between the joints and above the waist. The guide below shows good and bad cropping/framing points.

Now let's go over a few basic concepts to help make your portraits shine.

There are two main "types" of portrait: candid and formal.

Candid is when you just decide to take a photo of someone on the spot. Even though they are spontaneous, the elements of good portraiture can still come into play. Often, using solid skills in candid portraits can make for really exciting images, ones your friends and family will notice and appreciate.


Formal is when you plan the shoot and have things set up to make for the best portrait. Time is usually taken to have the subject strike a variety of poses. You don't have to be in a studio, or have the person dress up for it to be a formal portrait: it's simply a matter of pre-planning and posing.


It's called "Portrait Orientation" for a reason.

Most cameras are not made for good people photos. They are meant to naturally be held in what is called "Landscape Orientation" or horizontal, where the width is wider than the height of the frame. This is, obviously, good for landscapes. It's not always good for portraits of a single person. Yet that is what a lot of people do, simply because it's more comfortable and natural to hold a camera in landscape orientation. (Smartphones tend to be just the opposite, with people taking a lot of photos in portrait orientation that they shouldn't.)

When taking photos of one person, get used to turning the camera on its side. That way it's easier to fill the frame with the subject. This is called "Portrait Orientation" or vertical. This avoids dead space or distractions on the sides of the main subject. Also, it simply looks more pleasing most of the time.

This formal senior portrait I did for my son also involves the concept that getting close is better than staying too far away. While it has the look of a candid portrait, it's actually a formal portrait because planning and discussion went into where we would shoot, his choice of clothes, and the poses.

However, there are times when shooting in landscape or horizontal and a wider framing can make for a solid portrait. You want to make sure that most of the time, you follow the rule of thirds (there are always exceptions). Often, having something of interest filling up part of the frame, but not distracting from the main subject, is a good reason to shoot a portrait in landscape. Here's a shot of a model taken in the main gallery at CSPS Hall. She had just finished a fashion show rehearsal, and we were doing portraits for possibly adding them to her portfolio. Note the Rule of Thirds placement, combined with the swirl of colors, keep the eye moving throughout the photo.

FYI: "Environmental Portraiture" is a genre of portrait photography that makes use of wider framing to show the subject within an environment that provokes visual interest and in many cases says something about the person.

Any Photography Is About Light.

Good lighting is the key to a good portrait. The above examples benefit from being taken on an overcast day, with just enough light to cast pleasing shadows. Often people take portraits in bright sunlight, which can not only result in people squinting because of the brightness, but creates harsh shadows. There are a couple of ways to avoid some of the typical problems that arise from shooting in full sun.

First and sometimes easiest is to find some shade, whether a tree or building. Pros shooting in direct sun will also use reflector panels to put the model into some shade, or diffusion panels to soften the light. Shade has the same basic effect as overcast light as seen in the above photos. It softens the light to avoid harsh shadows, as well as avoiding any squinting by the subject. Just be careful with exposure: if the person is in shade, but the background is in full sun, the camera will underexpose the subject if you don't dial in a stop or two of exposure compensation or use spot metering to set exposure only for the subject.

Another option is to use fill flash. If you can't find or make shade, the fill flash does just what the name says: fill in shadows by using the light from the flash. Most cameras made within the past 5 years have a fill flash mode, which makes it easy to do. Direct fill flash can take some practice with the settings to keep from looking too artificial, but it's a common technique for outdoor portraiture. 

Finally, you can also use reflectors to fill in shadows. Pros and experienced photographers will use some pretty elaborate set ups combining reflectors and diffusion panels to provide shade, soften direct sunlight and fill in shadows. You don't have to spend a lot of money on the panels made especially for photography. Foam core or art board work great. I use pizza pans from take and bake pizzas as makeshift reflectors.

In this example, the sun was low but still very bright out in the open. This lovely powwow dancer was standing in the shade, with just enough direct sun coming from behind her to provide some rim light. The main light was the nice open sky on a nearly cloudless day. Notice how I made sure her elbows were in the frame, and that I cropped just below the waste. Also, I moved my position a bit so the people standing behind her, who would have created a distracting background, were no longer in the frame. She didn't pose: she was just standing there talking to a friend, then when she saw me pointing my camera at her, she broke out in this lovely smile. I took one photo, smile back, we both nodded and she want back to talking to her friend. It's a candid portrait, but the various elements combine to produce an image that could also have been made under the controlled conditions of a formal potrait.

Think Outside the Box

Anyone can take a photo of someone standing there, smiling at the camera (or not) often looking a little bit uncomfortable as they try not to look uncomfortable. There are billions of portraits out there in which people smile (or not) at the camera. Ho hum.

The best portraits-those that really capture the personality or mood of the subject-don't involve having them stand there and say "cheese". Portraits which really stand out are ones that step away from the typical shot and grab the viewer's attention by being out of the ordinary in some way. Sometimes, that out of the ordinary quality comes when something is revealed about the subject that a smile wouldn't reveal.

When I do a portrait session, I talk with the subject. This helps to relax him or her and gets them thinking about something other than the camera. Then, rather than just having the subject strike a pose, I will take some photos when he or she is thinking about the answer to a question I ask, or listening to what I am saying. These "between the pose" images are often the best portraits.

In this example, I had asked my beautiful daughter Emily to sit for some formal portraits. Lighting was a combination of a standard overhead lighting fixture and "North Light" coming from a window to her left. I wasn't worried about color balance because I planned on all the images being Black and White. 

Emily can be quite the ham when she is taking photos with her friends, especially selfies. When I asked her to pose, however, she became very self-conscious. She either overdid it with hamming it up, or just sat there. Finally I grabbed "Griff", a teddy bear I'd used as a prop, and she brightened up and started playing with him. Her pose and expression in this photo came when I asked her why she'd written "Love" on her fingers.

This photo engages me more than any I have of Emily simply smiling at the camera.

Avoid being straight.

When it comes to group portraits, the number one mistake people make is having everyone line up in a row, parallel to the plane of focus. This is OK for class or team photos where you have a lot of people to fit in the frame (though even then a good portraitist will avoid the "rank and file" approach if at all possible). However, for groups of less than a dozen people, such as a family, there's a much better way to produce eye catching portraits that will brighten up a wall or make for better than average Christmas cards.

That technique is to place people so that ideally triangles are formed between their faces. Even placing the faces at different heights within the frame creates a more pleasing image. That's the main thing: you want to avoid the route the eye travels to view each face to run parallel to the long sides of the image. Similar to the concept of the S Curve and Leading Lines, triangular or uneven height placement of faces adds a dynamic to a group portrait that leads the eye from face to face in a pleasing manner. 

The effect is even better if you place people at different distances from the camera, or line them up angling away from it. This second technique is also helpful if you do have a straight line between faces because by having one end of the line closer to the camera, it causes the line to be at an angle to the frame.  There are exceptions, of course: these are guidelines more than rules.

Here's a favorite from a semi-formal session with my kids Ethan, Jacob and Emily. By "semi-formal" I mean I grabbed my camera when the light from a patio door was bathing them in a soft, diffuse light and said "I'm going to take a few photos". I had wanted them to just keep doing what they were doing (watching TV) and I've take candids. Instead, they immediately all sat down in a row on the sofa. Bo-ring. So I told Ethan to move from sitting on the sofa to kneeling on the end, I moved close to the end of the sofa, and the result is a photo much more effective than if I'd just taken the shot of them sitting next to each other on the sofa.

Selfies as they ought to be.

I read recently that of the 1.8 billion photos uploaded to the internet every day, over 2 million are selfies. Selfies/self portraits have become such a hot item that the latest top of the line smart phones include front facing cameras and features to make taking selfies easier. However, that nice new DSLR or MILC you have can let you do far more than take possibly embarrassing photos of your reflection in the bathroom mirror, or doing duck lips with pals at the bar. The option to put the camera on a tripod or other steady surface, together with a self timer (which usually have a choice of delays from 2 to 12 seconds) or wireless remote, will let you produce what is traditionally called a self portrait.

All the same guidelines and suggestions from above apply. The difference is you are both the subject and photographer. While with some cameras it can take a few tries to get the framing right, with cameras that have an articulating LCD that can be turned toward the subject, self portraits can be easily done. Even better are the very latest cameras which let you view things through your smart phone via wifi and even do things such as adjust exposure, activate the shutter and zoom in and out if the camera has a power zoom.

Properly done, this sort of "selfie" rises above the average smart phone grab and can impress people with the idea that you had the photo done professionally. This self portrait was taken with a combination of window and bounced strobe light. The window was about 15 feet away, so the strobe was used to augment the light. I used a wireless remote and 2 second delay.

"Rules" are meant to be broken, nudged or outright mangled.

The various "rules" offered in both parts 1 and 2 are not meant to be hard and fast ways of making photos. As with any artistic skill, honing them is meant to provide the ability to bend, break or mangle them effectively. The important thing is to understand the rules well enough to know when and how breaking them will make for a better photo.

I broke a couple of "rules" with this photo. I place the subject's face directly in the center of the photo. I chose a busy background that is in sharp focus and competes with the main subject. It works because of several things: the square format actually reinforces the center placement by helping use the circular  pattern of the artwork as a framing device in itself. The pattern and color of the artwork combine with the pattern and color of her dress to constantly redirect attention to her face. This photo would not work as well if it were in another format.

Final note.

I use Olympus DSLRs. They have sensors with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Most DSLRs and MILCs have a 3:2 aspect ratio. Cameras with electronic eye level viewfinders usually allow the selection of the aspect ratio or format in camera Choices are usually 3:2, 4:3, 1:1 (square) and 16:9, which has historically been a movie mode, but is being used more and more for still images. though it's only really effective for large groups or environmental portraits. Play around with the different aspect ratios to see how they can change the impact of a portrait. If you don't have a camera that allows you to make changes in camera, an image can be cropped to a desired format.

I find 4:3 to be more aesthetically pleasing in Portrait mode, but as you can see I also like 1:1. 8x10 is a print format that also is a traditional favorite for portraits. About the only time I use 2:3 format is group shots or a vertical shot of a standing person where I want to include the whole body. Same goes for 16:9.

I hope these ideas help you make the most of your camera, whether new or old, DSLR, MILC, compact or smart phone. If you have any questions, feel free to post them in the comments and I'll answer within 48 hours.

Make the Most of that New Camera, Part 1.

Photo courtesy of phlearn.com

So, you just received a new camera for Christmas, maybe even that DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) or MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) you've been wanting. Such cool features as interchangeable lenses, lots of settings and a nice, big sensor that you are sure will take your photos to the next level. You're ready to step up and start taking those "professional looking photos" that the salesperson said that new camera is capable of producing (and it is.)

While such a camera is an upgrade over a compact point and shoot or a smartphone, a sophisticated camera with larger sensor and nicer lens doesn't guarantee better photos. They may look nicer, especially when taken under conditions where other cameras or a phone are lacking, but there are some things to remember to really make your photos shine.

I'm going to touch on a few basic points, especially that have to do with portraits, that will make the difference between "nice shot" and "Whoa, you ought to become a professional!" (OK, maybe not the latter.)

Eyes in Motion.

The main thing that makes a difference between a photo someone likes to keep looking at and one they simply glance at for a few seconds is how much his attention moves throughout the photo in a comfortable way. A good photo has a main subject, but also other "points of interest" that lead the eye around the image. This creates visual interest that draws the viewer into the photo and keeps her there longer. The points of interest can be secondary subjects, highlight or shadow areas or areas of differing colors. The following are some ways to get the viewer's eye to skip merrily through a photo, making it stand out in the mind of the viewer.


Rule of Thirds.

This is the most basic "rule" of composition (more like a guideline, really) that frequently sets good photos apart from mediocre ones. There is a tendency for people to place the subject of a photo dead center in the frame. Sometimes this can work, especially if it's a closely framed portrait. Much of the time, however, it results in a very static composition that quickly loses interest.

Rule of thirds is simple: the frame is divided into thirds (many cameras with electronic viewfinders and phones even allow for this grid to be shown.) By placing the main subject and ideally, secondary subjects either on the intersection of the grid lines or along one of the lines, the eye is more apt to move across the photo, thus increasing visual interest.

Example:

See how the goose falls almost exactly on the intersection of two of the grid lines?  (It doesn't have to be perfect to work.) This helps lead the eye around the frame of the photo: the brain likes that visual motion and finds the photo more interesting. What adds to the effect is the gradation of the light and color as well, due to the reflection of the trees along the top. Now here's a version with the goose just positioned in the center:

Pretty boring, eh? Even with the interest provided by the reflection, the eye just sort of sits there. This might be OK for a guidebook on birds or a science article, but it's not going to get anyone thinking how great a photographer you are if you took it, at least not compared to the other image.

Take the Lead.

Leading lines is another way of keeping the eye moving through a photo and providing interest. It's a pretty simple concept: use lines in the photo to draw attention to the main subject. They can be actual lines, or simply lines created by light and shadow. In either case, it's a great way to get a photo to say "Hey, look at THIS!"

Example:

Notice how the various lines created by the folds in the sheet, as well as lines of highlights and shadows, all point toward the partially hidden face and eye? Your eye travels around the photo, but never rests in one spot, always being redirected to the main subject which is the eye. What other guideline does this image incorporate? That's right, the Rule of Thirds. The eye is placed along the line dividing the upper third of the photo, though it's not at the intersection of two grid lines. It doesn't have to be for the Rule of Thirds to work.

Remember: most of the time you want to create this sense of visual restlessness because that's what makes the photo interesting.

Curvessssssss.

Another guideline that helps promote visual interest is the "S Curve". It's exactly what the term describes: an invisible (or sometimes visible) "S" snaking through the photo, leading the eye around the image, providing the restlessness and visual interest to keep the viewer interested.

Example:

I bet you're thinking "Hey, that's cheating!" because the curve is right there in front, and looks like the main subject. But does your eye return there, or to the lady bending over to look at the other sculpture? Ahhhh. That's because there are other curves involved that lead your eye around the image.

We often don't notice "S" curves at work in photos because they can be subtle, (or in this case both obvious and subtle). No, "S" curves don't always have to be a complete "S" to help the image maintain visual interest. A curve in a photo can "hand off" the path of motion created for the eye without being a complete "S" itself.

While a photo of a meandering river or curving path with someone walking along it are obvious ways to use the "S" curve to help a photo shine, practice in observation and analyzing photos teaches you to notice "S" curves in otherwise mundane scenes. In this example, you probably see now just how many curves are involved in provoking visual interest that I didn't mark off. Sometimes the subject calls for "S" curves to be subtle, but other times the curves themselves can become the subject. As is the case here. If the woman had been standing upright as her companion was, this would have been a much less interesting photo.

That brings up the last point I want to cover in Part One of "Make the Most of That New Camera": timing. With this shot, I'd watched as the woman had already bent over to read the small tags on other sculptures, so I anticipated she would do the same thing with the one she is looking at here. I positioned myself where I wanted all the elements to fall into place, and hoped she would bend just right...and I got a single frame before she stood up again and walked on with her companion.

Master photographer Ansel Adams said that good photographs are not taken, they are made. These basic elements of composition, combined with some patience, timing and determination to make the best photographs you can, will help you get the most of your new camera, or even that trusty cell phone you take with you everywhere except into the shower.

Part Two will concentrate on portrait techniques, since people pictures make up 90% of photos taken and shared.

"The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies". Movie review and life lesson.

Naomi took me to see the latest Hobbit movie:"The Hobbit: The  Battle of Five Armies". I think it's the best of "The Hobbit" trilogy, recapturing some of the qualities that made "Return of the King" an Oscar winner. Some of the qualities. The epic storytelling was there, as well as some outstanding action sequences. But the characterizations tended to come up just short of making me really believe the actions of the characters. I think this is because Peter Jackson may have lost touch with what "The Hobbit" is really about.

It's those characterizations which convey an important message of "The Hobbit" as well as "The Lord of the Rings", which is that what we fight to save is often never as big or important as the fights themselves. Unlike "Lord of the Rings", Tolkien intended "The Hobbit" to be a simple children's story, so the layers of events and scale of "The Lord of the Ring" is absent, and with good reason. He didn't want us to read the book with the idea that it was all just a part of a much bigger chain of events. To Bilbo, the events of "The Hobbit" are daunting and life changing enough as they are, without being placed within the backdrop of saving the entire world. That would have been too burdensome for Bilbo as well as the intended audience for the story.

In my opinion, the first two "Hobbit" movies lost track of this, as they attempted to infuse the much simpler story of "The Hobbit" with the same sort of epic grandeur and narrative that "Lord of the Rings" required to be effective. The fact is, the book itself requires the simpler approach, but Peter Jackson probably felt the pressure, both personally and professionally, to at least match the cinematic and financial success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

"The Lord of the Rings" is actually such a huge tale that to make the movies workable, Jackson had to remove a lot of source material (much to the chagrin of devout Tolkien fans). With "The Hobbit", the decision to turn what was originally meant to be two movies into a trilogy required the addition of considerable extra material.

This wouldn't necessarily have been a problem in itself. However, I think the issues stem from the way and the degree to which Peter Jackson diverged from the book. Because "The Hobbit" was never intended to be the epic that "The Lord of the Rings" was, stretching the story out into three movies by drawing on "The Silmarillion"  and adding characters and new plot elements obfuscated the appeal of the book.

"The Silmarillion" is even more epic than "The Lord of the Rings" and is the most obviously "mythological" of Tolkien's stories. The characters are meant to be larger than life: that's the whole purpose of the book. Injecting into "The Hobbit" story elements such as the White Council and the power of characters like Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel shifts some of the attention from Bilbo and Thorin's company. It can leave people thinking that if such powerful, mythic entities are involved in the events, why are we bothering with the stories of mere mortals? The answer is that the story is about the mere mortals, and so inserting scenes involving immortal, mythic characters detracts from the real plot of "The Hobbit".

One thing about "The Hobbit", which was written after "The Lord of the Rings" is that it  took Middle Earth, and some of the characters and events relative to the one ring, and made them more accessible. Instead of drawing readers into a tale in which dozens of characters are involved in interconnected events upon which an entire world depend, The Hobbit tells a story of simple, unassuming Bilbo Baggins, who gets caught up in epochal events without ever really grasping the scale of them, nor his own importance in them.

That's one reason why I think "The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies" is the best of the three. Not because it returns to the original feel of the book, but the opposite: it finally admits that Jackson is telling an epic story that just happens to be using "The Hobbit" as a source (similar to how "Troy" used "The Iliad" as a source). Bilbo becomes a supporting player to the epic events and acts of heroism by the mythic, larger than life characters such as Thorin, Gandalf and Legolas. This actually makes Bilbo's presence as mainly a witness to the epic heroism of others that much more telling, because in the end, all the heroism is meant to preserve the ordinary existence of those such as Bilbo. The reason for the heroism is so that just plain folks can survive and go back to being just plain folks.

In the first two "Hobbit" movies, Jackson seemed to struggle with the thing he did so well with Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings", which is to explore how an unremarkable Hobbit rises to a remarkable status in order to be able to go back to his unremarkable life. It seemed as though the fact that Bilbo would be involved in remarkable events was underlying all the action and the dialogue, and that Jackson implied Mr. Baggins would become a mythic hero as a result. As a result, the first two installments set Bilbo up to become a mythic character himself (perhaps unwittingly), which didn't happen in the book and ultimately didn't happen in the final movie either.

Perhaps this struggle of how to present Bilbo, and the simple tale "The Hobbit" tells was unavoidable, given the enormous success of the "Lord of the Rings" Epic. Most moviegoers already knew that Bilbo was going to come into possession of the one ring and become a hero in spite of himself. Therein lies the problem: Bilbo is never really a hero in "The Hobbit" in the same way Frodo is a hero in "The Lord of the Rings".

Bilbo truly has no idea what lies before him and so his heroic efforts catch him unaware as much as anyone else. He is just trying to survive, aid his friends and still be true to himself. Saving Middle Earth not even hinted at in the story, and to introduce that element to the movies is one reason why Jackson drew material from "The Silmarillion" and other of Tolkien's writings.

By contrast, in "The Lord of the Rings" Frodo quickly realizes that in order to save the Shire, he must reluctantly step forward and become a hero central to the salvation of the entire world, challenging the might of entire armies and beings of godlike power. There is nothing more mythic  and epic than that.

I think that's where Peter Jackson and company erred. They treated Bilbo a bit too much like Frodo, until the final installment when he basically becomes a backdrop to events far greater than himself. In the first two installments, it seemed to me that we weren't sure whether the story was really about Bilbo, or rather about the epic events and Bilbo just happened to be involved.

It's disappointing that Jackson and company would allow this uncertainty, because it's not present in any of Tolkien's writings. In "The Lord of the Rings", Tolkien made it clear that Frodo, and to a lesser extent the other Hobbits, were all destined to reach far beyond themselves in order to protect their friends and save the Shire. Even bits of dialogue make it clear that Tolkien's message was that it's the ordinary, the average folk who hold evil at bay, not because they are heroes but in spite of it: all they really want is to protect the average lives they have and those they love, and if saving the world is what it takes to do that, then that is what they will do.

That's what I feel was missing from the first two Hobbit movies, the sense that true heroes are simply those who step up to protect what they love without being or becoming larger than life. That is how true heroes are made in real life: they perform heroic acts in order to survive or protect what and who they love, rather than being knowing participants in epic events, fully aware of the scale and scope of what they are doing. I think the true message of the Hobbit isn't found in the epic battles and events, or even in Bilbo's transformation from a simple and slightly self-absorbed Hobbit into a reluctant hero. I think the message Tolkien has for all of us through the story of Bilbo, Frodo, the ring and Middle Earth is summed up by an exchange between Sam and Frodo in Return of the King:

Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something. 

Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam? 

Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for. 

That is the real message of both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". That is also all it really takes to be a hero.

The Myth of Originality

Digital Mona Lisa by Robert Silver

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Let's face it: when King Solomon wrote these words  nearly three thousand years ago, they were true as true could be, and still are. Technology may come along that changes how we do certain things, but what we actually do artistically is pretty much just a repeat of what people have been doing since we first found out how to smear pigments on cave walls or use a bird's hollow bone as a whistle.

This is certainly obvious in photography. In fact, redoing what has already been done with new technology was the basis of an entire movement of photography called Pictorialism. A movement that thrived from 1885 until around 1915, it was dominated by efforts of photographers to manipulate photos in order to emulate the look of paintings. It was also intended to adopt the concept of a painter creating an image into photography, which was primarily viewed as a medium for recording an image.

Anyone who currently visits the many photography websites, reads photography magazines, or any other sites or magazines for that matter, will certainly see that the lighting, poses and styles presented now are little different from those of the past. The technology has changed, allowing for effects to be added to a given base image to create fantastic images that were virtually unheard of in photography in years past (or at least extremely difficult to create). However, what we photograph is no different now than it was 100 years ago.

How often has a pretty woman posed with her hands behind her head? How often has the Brooklyn Bridge or Sydney Opera House been photographed at night? How many angles are there at which El Capitan or the Half Dome in Yosemite can be photographed?

There is no such thing as an original photograph anymore.  (Some might consider the photos of Comet 67P to be original by virtue of being photos taken from the surface of a comet, but they are really just an advancement in technology over photos taken from the surface of the moon or Mars.) Every subject, every pose, every bit of action, every landscape, every visual concept we see has been done in some form or another already. Some done to excess.

So what is a photographer to do in the quest for creating original photographs?

Give up the idea of thinking originality is exclusive, for starters. Then also put the idea of copying or emulating someone else's work in its place: a learning experience, not an expression of one's own artistic achievement. I visit one website where, on a weekly basis, virtually identical types of photos by different people are posted. Yes, often it's a matter of seeking feedback on whether the photographer has successfully duplicated the effect, but personally I think that some efforts need to be kept private. Or not pursued at all.

Someone might argue that their photos of baby Allison are original because no one else has taken photos of her. My view is that Allison is a baby, and billions of baby photos are produced every year. Photos of her may be unique because she, as Allison, is unique, but they are not original inasmuch as no one has ever taken photos of a baby before in all of history.

So it's important to understand that unique and original are not synonymous. A given photographer can produce work that is unique because he/she's the only one doing it, but the images still involve elements that have already been done before. Annie Liebovitz was unique when her style of portraiture and advertising photos hit the scene, but they were not truly original. Everything from the lighting to the poses to the juxtaposition of elements could be found in classical paintings. What made her work unique was that she used a camera and lights to produce those images for advertising purposes at a time when most ad shots were fairly straightforward and uncomplicated.

Of course, the down side of Annie's unique style becoming so successful is that a plethora of photographers followed who copied her style directly or emulated it closely enough that it lost its uniqueness. Which is part of the reason why there is nothing new. Unique doesn't stay that way very long if it proves popular.

Some say I have a unique style of concert photography. It's only unique when compared to what most people see as concert photos. It's not original by any means, and owes a great deal of any perceived uniqueness to the fact that I consciously seek to emulate the appearance of studio portraits in many of my shots that are actually captured during live performances. So the degree to which my photos are set apart from others is really only a measure of how most concert photographers want to make sure their photos look like concert photos.

Therein lies why I have pursued what I hope is a unique style while conceding there is nothing original about it. Lots and lots of photographers out there take concert photos that conform to current tastes. Seeking  artistic and/or commercial success in such a milieu is difficult. There are already music togs out there creating great images in a variety of styles, so why should anyone give much regard to someone producing pretty much the same images?

The answer is they don't.

At the top of any list of great/popular photographers who have a few people whose style is, or at least was at one time, unique and appealing. They have the fame and, if doing things right, the income to match the fame. Then at the bottom of the list you will find photographers who basically copy what the people at the top of the list do, sometimes as directly as they can manage. They are at the bottom of the list not because they lack talent or ability. They certainly must have some business acumen to even get on the list. Their low placement comes simply from the fact that they're style is not unique. It's not unique because it depends too heavily upon the original.

Since there is nothing new, meaning nothing original to photograph, then developing and offering a unique style is a bit like doing a school term paper without completely plagiarizing the resources. A bit of quotation here, some slightly rearranged verbiage there, and enough personalized filler and Brittany's review of "To Kill a Mockingbird" is different enough from the Cliff Notes and reviews she read to qualify as being uniquely hers.

That's the key to uniqueness in photography. It's not attempting to find and capture an "original" subject. Nor is it attempting to capture a subject in an "original" way.  But non-original material can be used to create truly unique works. Take the above version of the Mona Lisa created by Robert Silver. It's made up of thousands of details from other classical paintings by scores of painters. Technically, there is not a single original element in the image. But there is no arguing its uniqueness. In many ways, it's more fascinating to view and explore than the original Mona Lisa or any of the hundreds of source paintings.

Every year, thousands of art students and artists paint copies of the Mona Lisa, either as an exercise to develop technique or for pleasure. Robert Baron did something special, because in recognizing that there was nothing he could do in regards to art that was original, he instead sought to do something unique. A painting of the Mona Lisa would simply be "Ho, Hum, there's another one". But Robert Silver's rendering demands attention.

That's what uniqueness does: demand attention. So, as a photographer, I seek not to find something original to photograph, or even an supposedly original way to photograph something. Instead I try to create photos that demand attention, which can't be done if I am simply copying what is already out there or spinning my wheels trying to be original without being unique. I suggest anyone serious about photography explore the idea of commanding attention through unique style.

A Tribute to Folk Musicians

Folk legend Tom Paxton in concert (with Billy Heller). Photo ©2013 Charles "Rain" Black

As I see it, one big difference between pop music and folk music is this: Pop music is about the singer, while folk music is about the songs.

In pop music you can have a terrific singer and mediocre, formulaic songs and the result is an Idol or Diva. In folk music, that dog won't hunt.

In folk circles, great singers simply add to the appeal of great songs. However, some pretty mediocre singers achieve great fame as folk artists because of the power of their songs. If you doubt this, just think about Bob Dylan for a moment.

Folk musicians are a peculiar lot, in a positive way. There are folk artists out there who are exemplary singers/musicians. They are as talented as any Grammy winning pop artist, but most of the general public hasn't heard of them. Part of this is because of the nature of the business. Most labels tend to shy away from folk musicians, in part because they aren't as marketable as a pop performer. The driving force behind pop music is to make money for the record label, with the artist managing to benefit as a result.

Doing this requires appealing to the lowest common denominator among the target audience, with a great deal of effort put into getting people to part with their money in exchange for music, without allowing them much of a chance to decide whether the music is actually worth it. This is done mostly by marketing departments convincing the listener that they are not cool if they don't buy the songs. This, in turn, entails appealing to the most unthinking, visceral aspects of human experience such as sex, wealth, having a good time or the pain others have caused in love affairs, all in a way which declares that being self-absorbed is a good thing.

In pop music, the real subject is usually self as the observed, whereas folk music is often about self as the observer. That's why you don't hear many folk songs about sex, booty, bling, how much of an asshole someone's ex is or how broken-hearted the singer is over losing a non-asshole lover in the melodramatic, self-absorbed way pop music does. (Ok, you do hear songs about the last two, but often they explore the subject in a different way).

Folk songs tend to take these same topics to psychological and lyrical depths that pop songs rarely broach. For instance, while a pop song may go into why the ex is an asshole, or the singer is broken-hearted, a folk song will explore the fact that the real reason the singer is broken-hearted is because he, not the ex, is the asshole.

The pop music industry isn't apt to entertain such introspection, simply because its entire raison d'etre is the celebration of narcissism, including the idea that it's almost always the other person's fault if things don't work out.  Deep contemplation of one's own imperfections isn't a province of pop music.

Unless the song has a really, really good "hook". (The "hook" is that part of a song that everyone keeps singing, even if they can't remember the rest of the words to the song.)

The narcissism of pop  also leads to a tendency to create a musical version of the world that is more hip, more sophisticated, more extravagant, more dramatic, more indulgent than real life. That's where it's truly at odds with folk music, because the heart of folk music is in fact folks. People, and their simple, everyday experiences.

An entire folk song can be built off of the experience of waking up to the scent of Wisteria, and the thoughts, emotions and memories that scent evokes. No clever hook or tagline is needed for such a song to be considered successful and appreciated. It's successful because the listener thinks "Yeah, that's the same way I feel".

Alternately, the listener may appreciate how the song facilitates visiting a part of the singer/songwriter's world, a world filled with different experiences. A good folk song can either bring forth a rush of memories or create new memories for the listener, depending on what the listener has experienced in his or her own life. Such as song can, in fact, be a catharsis for the listener, leading to thoughts and emotions that can be life-changing.

Yeah, that's a lot of thinking going on, which is something pop music doesn't really want people to do too much. Not that pop songs can't do the same thing: it's just not the main reason a pop song is written or recorded. Pop music tends to want to divert people's attention away from anything to serious and concentrate on how good the pop song makes them feel.

This brings up an area in which pop and folk probably have their biggest divergence: social awareness. Folk is frequently identified with protest songs, and rightly so. Being a music of the People and for the People, folk is driven by the need to express the experience, and therefore the needs, of the People. While a pop song saying "Now's the time to PARTY!", a folk song asks "How can you party when this sort of thing is going on?"

Not all folk artists get into protest songs, but the genre itself would not be folk music if not for the numerous protest songs folk artists have produced. Folk music has always been identified as being an aspect of the moral conscience of society, at times reminding us of injustice when we really don't want to be reminded. This is probably the biggest reason why folk isn't more popular, because the message of many such songs is the antithesis of the self-indulgence pop music tends to celebrate.

If the music industry could be likened to a cruise ship, pop music would be what all the passengers see on the upper decks: the entertainment, the food, the facilities and the service all intended to make them feel like royalty. Folk music would be the crew that labors below decks, preparing the meals, keeping the ship running efficiently, making sure the ship stays on course and doesn't run aground.

One thing all of this means is that on the same night Beyonce sells out a 10,000 seat arena, an equally talented folk singer is playing to a few dozen people in a club or smaller venue in another part of town. The folk singer knows that Beyonce is making more off this one night's performance than he is likely to make all year, but that doesn't matter (too much). That's because even to the performers, pop music is about the singer, while folk music is about the song. So that under-appreciated (compared to Beyonce) folk singer is often happy simply that his songs are being heard by people who will appreciate them.

The Beauty of Imperfection

Many Native American cultures have a practice of intentionally introducing mistakes or errors into man made objects. From Navajo rugs to Huron pottery to Tlingit carvings, these small, sometimes almost unnoticeable flaws, are a way of honoring Creator by declaring that only He is able to make something perfect. Yet, His greatest work, creation itself, is filled with imperfection.


Human Beings strive for perfection in so many things. This is especially apparent in how we tend to our own appearance.  We will subject ourselves to such things as smearing our faces and imbuing our hair with chemicals intended to cover imperfections and control the natural unruliness of our bodies. We now have software which can quickly eliminate imperfections and even make us look thinner and/or change our eye color and skin tone to make us appear more perfect. We seek out surgeons to cut away or alter parts of our bodies we find imperfect.

We are the only species on earth so dissatisfied with the way things are about ourselves that we do physical harm to ourselves to correct imperfections.

Nature is not perfect. Even those elements of nature which are the closest to being perfectly formed-mineral crystals and snow flakes-still display minute imperfections. Natural fractals (things such as a young fern or a nautilus shell) are  as close to "perfect" as living organisms can be, but still have imperfections.

Why do we want to surround ourselves with perfection, even to the point of altering our bodies? We could say it's pride, and that would be part of the answer. However I think it goes beyond pride into seeking a sense of safety. Here is what I think.

 Perfection symbolizes an absence of disease or destructive forces. It subconsciously places a barrier up against death and decay. It leads the viewer of the perfection into a place of safe perception, that tells the inner child that nothing bad is going to happen. It indicates the ultimate in growth and security, the unassailable state in which the perfect thing is superior to anything lacking perfection, and is therefore immune to the ravages of aging, death and decay.

It's all terribly unnatural.  The demand or expectation of Perfection implies that both growth and aging are unwanted aspects of living. Perfection is static, unchanging. Ergo it is also dead, it's lifelessness indicated by the lack of any signs of growth or decay, both of which are necessary for life. Fixation on perfection is actually a fixation on death, the death of stasis. That which does not change is dead, no matter how beautiful and alive it may appear.

We dismiss imperfect objects such as flowers from our lives because they are not beautiful enough. That lack, however, is not within the flower, but within our own capacity to appreciate that the imperfect flower is honest. Nature simply does not produce perfection, owing to the fact that there is such an infinite number of variations in life that natural perfection is impossible.

Yet we want to maintain the illusion, the lie of perfection because in it we find the safety of denying our own imperfectness. This lack of perfection is inherent in everything from the fact that we age, change and die, to noses that are a bit too big, or ears that stick out from our heads, or the asymmetry found in every human being's face. These changes and imperfections can appear chaotic to us, disturbing the safety of order and predictability. We want things to be perfect because that allows us a sense that we are in control of things that we really can't control. We dislike imperfection because we fear the death and chaos which it symbolizes.

As an example consider how we use flowers for decoration, but insist on flowers that are "perfect".  Those "perfect" flowers in a vase are already dead, and will eventually wither away. In seeking to maintain the illusion of perfect beauty, as a subconscious effort to deny the reality of death, we have actually brought death into our presence.  We can try artificial flowers, but those are even more indicative of death because they were never alive. Pots of living flowers are no better, as the simply display their natural "imperfection" by going through the cycle of life as they always do.

The very fact that the beauty of flowers is so fleeting, so temporal, should tell us that beauty, as far as creation is concerned, is not a permanent state of life. Nor should it be, because if beauty existed without change, we would take it for granted and appreciate it far less. Imperfection is the provenance that life involves both growth and decay, the achievement of beauty and its loss, the promise that youth must progress into adulthood, and adulthood into death, because to be stuck at any one point in the cycle of life is actually a form of death in itself.

Another aspect of imperfection in nature is that it's often imposed by an outside force. A lovely flower is chewed by insects, marring it's assumed beauty. Yet those scars tell us that the flower has participated in the Circle of Life by providing sustenance for other creatures. We consider them pests, but nature considers them part of an entire cycle of life, one aspect of the unfathomably complex organism that is our Earth Mother. We are just one part of that living being, our earth, yet we presume to dictate what is beautiful and perfect and right based on our own self-centered perspective.

I've learned to not only appreciate, but in many ways prefer imperfection. It reminds me that my own imperfections, whether inherent or the result of growing older, are natural. They are as Creator intends things to be. Imperfections in nature are reassurances that having them in my own life is normal, nothing to be feared or avoided. Rather my own imperfections are to be put in proper place, accepted as part of who I am. Perhaps some of my imperfections are even a mark of beauty in their own right, indicating growth in an area of my life that would otherwise by static and lifeless.

In any regards, I know that since Creator allows imperfection in the rest of creation, yet still declares it all to be good, then my own imperfections don't give Him cause to reject me. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is perfectly beautiful.

Bear and Cricket

Young black men are 21 times more likely to be shot by a cop than young white men. One way colonists have of attempting to rebut those who protest a white cop shooting a black man is to bring up the extremely rare incident of a black cop shooting a white man, or similar black on white violence. 

In the mind of the colonist, such things balance out. Fourteen shootings of unarmed black men by white cops in a three month period after Michael Brown's death is offset by a single incident of an unarmed white man being shot by a black cop. Colonists don't recognize the latent prejudice in this, because to them and those who have succumbed to colonization, the life of a colonist is worth more than the lives of dozens, hundreds of even millions of colonized.

Here is a story given me in a dream years ago, meant to address this attitude of colonists toward Native Americans. Given the recent events following the shooting of Michael Brown, and how colonists are grasping at ways to say that it's really the fault of the victims, I think this story is appropriate for all victims of colonization.


Bear and Cricket.

One day, Bear was wandering through a field, gobbling up all the sweet blackberries he could find. He was so intent on eating his fill of berries that he paid no mind to where he was stepping. He took a step as he reached for yet another pawful of berries and heard a faint cracking, then a cry. He also felt something prick his toe.

Bear took a step back. He looked down to see what it was he had stepped upon, and saw Cricket, wounded and dazed, emerging from the ruins of his home. Cricket looked up at Bear and cried,

"Look what you have done! Why didn't you watch where you were stepping? Many of us live in this field, and there's no telling how many you have injured in this way. What are you about, anyway?"

Bear studied Cricket for a moment as he finished chewing a mouthful of berries. Then he took a deep beath, exhaled, and answered Cricket.

"I'm eating berries so I will be fat for my winter's sleep, of course. I have that right. It's not my fault you were foolish enough to build your house in front of the berry bushes, where you should have realized I would be walking. It's your own fault. Besides, when I stepped on your house, it pricked my toe, and it was quite painful."

Cricket as incredulous. "What? How is it my fault that you were so intent on stuffing your belly that you paid no attention to what you were doing?"

Bear puffed himself up. "Because I am Bear, and you are merely Cricket. I am great: you are small. I should not have to look out for you, but you certainly should pay attention to me. You should know such things. Now, you have disturbed my foraging and hurt my toe. What do you intend to do about it?"

Cricket was speechless. Finally, he calmed down enough to reply. "You have destroyed my home, injured me and killed some of my family. Yet you ask what I am going to do for you because you had to stop stuffing your belly and your toe hurts? What are YOU going to do about the disaster you have visited upon me?"

Bear narrowed his eyes at Cricket. "You should be grateful that you are still alive. I could crush you completely you know. Now, hush your complaining while I return to my berries." With that Bear stepped over Cricket and grabbed another mouthful of berries.

Cricket, still dazed and in tears, limped back into the ruin of his home to see what was left to save.