Whats wrong with digital photography?

 

If you are familiar with my blog you might have noticed that I enjoy film photography; I love the unexpected results I get when I shoot classic cameras. I love the moment when I pull my negative out of the hypo clear solution and see the images on it.

I love the smell of the darkroom (I agree maybe I do need some intervention). I love waking up in the morning and finding myself surrounded with last night’s fiber prints drying on my bedroom floor (true, this is a primitive solution!).

And you, if you love your digital camera and enjoy creating beautiful pixels with it, I have nothing but respect to you. Really!
So no, nothing is wrong with being a digital user, if this is what you Love.
You know, I have much gratitude to one wonderful photography teacher in SMC, Steve Moulton, who told us on our first meeting this oh so profound message:
“Guys, you need to do what you love!”.
And for me, it was the moment when everything falls into place. Its not that I didn’t hear it before, heck many times I said it myself to my kids, but for some reason when Steve said it, it was the moment when I realized what I want to do.
So hopefully by now you have already recognized, I’m not here to say, film photography is better than digital. Because its not.
So please go on, do what you love!, even if it means turning on your computer, logging into Photoshop or Lightroom and working on pixels.
Ok, so what is my point?
My point is that the term “Digital” and the term “Photography” should be forever separated and possibly even get divorced from each other.
I mean, just because you are starting the process with a camera that captures light doesn’t mean you are making photographs.
The correct term for this medium of creating images with a digital camera and putting them through computer processing, should be “digital Imaging” and for sure not “digital Photography”. (By the way, same goes for an image that began its life as a Photograph, i.e. on film, once you scan it to your computer and manipulate it there you are turning a photograph into a digital image.)

But I leave this decision to future generations and I trust the good historians of the future to have the capacity to distinguish between the two mediums and therefore break away the term Photography from Digital and recognize that digital is actually a form of Imaging or Computer arts.

Dear photographer, get out of your comfort zone

I think it’s an important practice, as a photographer, to expand your horizon and get out of your comfort zone , you know, try photographing new subjects, and be bold (and beautiful).
My comfort zone is within the boundaries of Street Photography. This is where I have some idea of what I’m doing.
But during my recent travels, which took place mostly in Virginia, North Carolina and West Virginia, the opportunities for street photography turned out to be quite scarce.
On the other hand, there were lots of trees and mountains, old houses, country roads, clear rivers and plenty of remarkable skies. Oh, and by the way, I had no idea how to photograph these beautiful places.
But this little fact could not discourage me from doing my thing, and instead of worrying about it, I simply adapted the “just go for it” and “do what feels right” attitude.
Now, looking back and evaluating these pictures, I can’t say if they are good by any standard, but I DO like them a lot and could not imagine doing anything differently. Best of all, most of these pictures, being as simple as they are, make great candidates for different processes such as mixed media collages, image transfers or texture layers.

How to handle criticism

Yesterday I read an interesting article in a photo magazine talking about criticism and how to handle it. It was a nicely written article and as I was reading it I realized that, maybe unlike most photographers, I really didn’t have to deal with criticism.
Its not to say that I didn’t get any negative criticism but it was not my work that was ever criticized it was my ideas about non.photography that irritated a few people and even sparked some anger in a couple of beautiful souls.
True, some people don’t feel comfortable straying away from the herd, but I think they dislike it even more when someone else does. However, I often find that this type of criticism actually fuels me, helps me stick to my ideas and it even drives some of my ideas further into the extreme.
Come to think of it, I do have one short criticism-of-my-work story to share with you.
It happened in 1997 when after a few years of living in Los Angeles I decided to put together a website (www.streetsoflosangeles.com) to share my view of this city through pictures I took while bike riding. It was a website about the city, not the photography, and the photos where just there to help me share my view.
It was all nice and mostly fun until I received an email message from a photography professor. He absolutely hated my pictures and claimed I had no idea what I was doing. This was absolutely true. But as it always happens in my life, disapproval pushes me in the exact opposite direction, into the realm of “I’ll show them!”
Obviously I knew he was right, and that I was not a photographer, but that doesn’t mean I cannot take great pictures, right?
So instead of having a normal and sane reaction to his criticism, you know, just telling him I’m not trying to be a photographer and then moving on with my life, I essentially began developing my non.photography approach and never quite looked back.
Imagine what a great loss to the world of photography it would have been
had I indeed listened to him

I know, most articles, books and “professionals” will tell you, you should listen to criticism and try to learn from it. They will also tell you that constructive criticism improves your photography.
I’ll tell you what, the only thing that will improve your photography is YOU and YOU doing your thing just the way it feels right to YOU .
That’s it.
Negative analysis of your work, or what is sometimes politely referred to as “constructive criticism”, should be avoided if not ignored.
Yes, there are types of advice that might do you good, but this kind of advice you will only get from your friends and perhaps a couple of strangers who really appreciate and care about your work.
These are the people who will give you true constructive criticism and you can definitely listen to them.
But other than that, criticism should be ignored as it will only divert you from the true nature of your artistic SELF expression.
(Btw, the above mentioned professor who criticized my photos; After a period of great debates he said that in fact he only wrote to me because he thought I showed “a remarkable potential” to grow and become a great photographer. )
You go girl!

No Rules photography

Whenever I visit the bookstore, I find every photography book out there talks about rules, guidelines and recommendations for better photography. There’s really no motivation behind these books other than teaching you how to make better photos, and they suggest doing so by shooting “correctly” or using Photoshop, or more often a combination of the two. Follow their teachings and in no time, you will command photography like a real pro.
Really?
So what do we have? We have books about the “basic rules for better photography”, “tips for sharp photos”, “composition for better digital photos” and “understanding exposure”. These books will even teach you how “to see creatively”.
Just buy the book and you will see things you haven’t seen before.

But don’t be surprised, there are in fact many people who insist art doesn’t have any rules (I guess I must have just imagined all these books, articles, websites and lectures about “good photography”), however, after claiming there are no rules in photography, they will immediately say something like “anyway, great photographers make their own rules” and if they are really confused they will state that “good photographers just break the rules”.
When people talk about “no rules” in photography they often talk about breaking the rules. If you search Google for “no rules photography” other than getting links to my sites and books, the only other result you see is “no rules= breaking the rules”.
Breaking the rules of course demands that you actually learn the rules, and you’d better learn them well. Or else you might not break them correctly.
Give me a break! (pun intended)

By the way, just so we are clear, Rules are not always called Rules, in fact very often they are hiding behind lovely and less provoking words such as: guidelines, tips, instructions, fundamentals, principles, recommendations and so on.
So keep that in mind.
OK, rules or not, the question still stands: why shouldn’t you follow the rules? We all want to make better photos, right?
So why not learn the conventions to good composition?
In fact it seems the common theory is that beginners need a set of rules or at least some kind of uniformity and structure in order to learn the basics of photography and help them achieve that greatness in photography.
And just then, once they rank Master Photographers they can set out to the wonderful road of breaking the rules…
I tell you; sometimes I think I live in the twilight zone.

And I promise you I heard it so many times “good photographers make their own rules” that I will surely cry if I hear it once again.
Good photographers don’t make any rules, they just make good photos.

And let me say this: if one is going to learn photography from a book or from a teacher with an objective to follow someone else’s idea of what is good photography, they are less likely to take chances, dare or
come up with their own style and approach.

So yes, we all want to make great photos but we are more likely to find them if we trust
our own drive and creative intuition.

Photographing people in street photography

Photographing strangers is one of the most challenging aspects of street photography.
Most frequently street photographers aim for candid shots; pictures taken without the subject’s knowledge, and quite often they are presented with a difficult decision whether to ask for permission, to secretly photograph people or maybe find some compromise between the two.
Most photographers will develop some method or another to deal with this challenge in a way that works best for them.
1) Some photographers choose to secretly photograph people; Walker Evans employed this method while photographing people in New York City in the 1930’s and 40’s hiding his camera under his coat and capturing his subjects through a buttonhole. After talking to many street photographers through emails and blogs, I find that many of them often choose to photograph people using this approach and though I’m not a fan of this method, I recognize why many photographers will choose to be unseen as it gives them a truly candid and authentic looking photos.
They will typically take pictures using automatic compact cameras or even telephoto lenses so they can photograph their subjects from a “safe distance”.
2) Other street photographers believe that sneaking on people is morally wrong and therefore should be avoided. They rather ask for permission before taking pictures of strangers, arguing that even if not candid, engaging with the subject will always yield better results. And sure enough this method works just fine sometimes and I agree it can actually be rather fun, not to say interesting, to meet and learn something about the people you are photographing. However this technique is certainly not always practical and speaking for myself, I’m not always in such a frame of mind to stop and chat with everybody I photograph.
3) Finally there are those street photographers who simply opt for the “fast shooter” method which consists of making quick snaps without attempting to hide or be unseen. This method can produce candid photos however eliminate the creepy factor. I know it because this is how I shoot for many years now. People simply don’t get offended or annoyed just because you picked up your camera and took a picture.
You are in public and taking pictures in public is legitimate and most people get it. But people get awfully suspicious and even angry if they notice you sneaking up on them like you’re doing something wrong. As a “rule” I avoid photographing people who don’t want to be photographed. It’s their right and I respect it. Now, if I was secretly photographing them I would have taken that right away from them. Though I have to mention that at times I take pictures of someone, who, for various reasons, just doesn’t notice me, but as I don’t take compromising, offensive or questionable pictures to begin with, the risk of ever upsetting anybody is quite minimal.
If you really think about it you will recognize this method of capturing street photos makes a lot of sense because it demands that you adjust to the energy of the streets; quickly recognize your potential scene and grab it.
With some practice you’ll be able to make your picture just as you imagined it and before the scene changes forever. You’d be surprised how positive people’s reaction can be in the face of your confidence and candor.
And it won’t hurt employing your cute smile as well

            

Traveling with film or digital?

It’s not going to happen until fall but I’m already agonizing which camera to take when I’m going to Virginia. I mean, even with some obvious inconvenience I was ready to travel with film cameras in the past, but after coming back home from San Francisco once and finding out 4 rolls were blank, I decided, that’s it! I’m not going to travel with film anymore!
But now, at this point, I really don’t want to photograph VA with a digital camera! Bljhaa. Yeah well, it’s probably just me but nowadays I just don’t have the capacity to visualize great photos that are made of bits and pixels.
What to do? There must be a middle ground! Lucky me, I have a few more moths to fret about it.

Both of the above pictures were taken along the Mount Vernon Trail in Virginia during a biking trip from Alexandria to Mount Vernon (the home of George Washington). The majority of the trail stretches alongside the Potomac River.

Don’t buy expensive cheap cameras!

 

In the last few years toy cameras gained popularity among many photographers who enjoy their little imperfections and remarkable effects.
A few years back when I got interested in toy cameras, the Holga was definitely a cheap (i.e. inexpensive) plastic camera.
But shortly after, the Lomographic Society got involved and took over the concept and marketing of toy cameras and the prices went up, way up. Their prized possession is a plastic soviet camera called the Lomo LC-A which they have a monopoly over and currently sell at outrageous prices starting at $250 ($600 for the same camera gilded in 24-carat gold. Seriously!)
But don’t worry; they didn’t forget to price gouge the Holga as well. On their website you can get your Holga wrapped in some sort of a starter kit for a $100 and more.
And a word of caution here: For some unknown reason (called Profit) the Lomographic Society found it necessary to upgrade the original Lubitel 166 to something they call Lubitel 166+ and they sell for a low price of just $350. What a bargain!
Remember? We are still talking about PLASTIC cameras.
Smart people; no doubt, their profit margin calculator is working overtime.
But hey, why not? I mean, it’s a free market and if there are people who are willing to pay high prices for cheap cameras…then go for it.

Myself, I strongly believe photography should not be such an expensive trade/hobby and I constantly look for the most inexpensive solutions. I often buy my cameras at garage sales or second hand stores, I search for good deals on ebay or craigslist, I opt to modify the cameras myself, I look for expired or close-dated film (half priced!) etc.
And if I may, let me quickly recommend Freestyle Photographic Supplies where you can find toy cameras at great prices.

You can too, shop around, find out what’s out there and remember;
you don’t have to buy your cameras overstated and packaged with all sorts of unnecessary accessories.

Just something to think about before you decide to delve into the world of toy cameras.

PS. Feel free to share your suggestions for solutions and places to get toy cameras for bargain prices. (I’m going to include as many of them in my next book.)

You can find this article and many creative photo processes in my new book: So Much More than Photography.
The eBook edition is now on sale for $10. Get it here

Something about color photography

I’m not at all a big expert on color photography but one thing I learned from my experience is that it’s difficult to predict the colors captured by the color film ( or even the digital camera) because sometimes these colors are not seen by the human eye.

As you probably know, the human eye can only sense the three primary colors (blue, green and red), and we only see other colors through a mixture of these 3 colors.
Sometimes color photographs have unexpected results. This happens mainly because the eye tends to ignore the small differences in colors but the film records them “as is”.

A few weeks ago I was photographing in Hollywood at night and I have to say I was quite surprised to see the rich colors in some of these photos.
I mean, obviously there was some color shift due to long exposure, but still, how come I’ve never noticed these colors there before?
ha. I always thought these cement slabs of hand prints and footprints of the stars were gray!
Obviously I am very observant!

Read this or else!

First posted: April 2, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The following is a commentary I wrote in the last part of my book I am not an artist.
I think everybody should read it, not because I wrote it, but because there are a lot of people who just don’t know how good they are and/or they let fear and criticism stop them from doing things they really enjoy and wish to do.

And finally some final thoughts

So if you actually read through this book page by page, it ought to be apparent to you by now that all methods, practices, and suggestions presented here are simple and can be easily done, even by someone who considers themselves artistically challenged, maybe someone just like you.
It’s true that often people who see my work claim “you are a true artist!” but I know they are wrong; I am not an artist. What I am is an imaginative (Ok a dreamer) (but always resourceful) person whose brain does not stop coming up with ideas, sometimes just weird or impractical, but always pure fun.
And this is what it’s all about: F-U-N
In the first few years I just took pictures, for my pleasure no doubt, but also mainly because I felt like I HAD to. I tried photographing simultaneously to the energetic pace of the streets. It meant photographing while on the move without paying too much attention to the common rules of photography (you can read all about it in my previous book: No Rules Street Photography).
This has not changed much.

However, as I entered my fifth year of taking streets and city pictures, I became weary and even, yes, well, bored.
Not all the time though; when I traveled to new places it was great and exciting and I took pictures like there is no tomorrow. But around home things just did not feel so thrilling anymore. And even though I was slowly loosing interest, quitting photography was never an option. Instead I began looking for new (and possibly more stimulating) ways of taking pictures. I went to bookstores looking for the right book (didn’t find any). I visited many photography sites in search for new ideas. At my lowest I even read through a few discussions on a couple of photography forums (yes, those places where people sign up to complain about various obstacles in their fascinating life.)
But the solution, as so often happens, hit me in an entirely unexpected place.
It happened while standing in line at our local drugstore.
While standing in line, I noticed they were selling Polaroid cameras over there.
“That is it!” I said to myself, “New and fun cameras! This is exactly what I was looking for.”
Obviously, I bought the Polaroid, and it did not take long before I began shooting medium format film in toy cameras and hunt second hand stores and garage sales for classic cameras.
While shooting toy and classic cameras I realized the final photo does not have to be at all perfect, and I began looking for new ways to present my photos in non-traditional ways.

One mistake people often do is they think that just because they have no known artistic ability they cannot approach their work in an artistic manner.
In fact, I believe the fact I have no artistic education whatsoever, along with the sad reality I cannot draw, paint, sculpt, or even make a straight line, provided me with the freedom to experiment with non-standard and unusual (not to say bizarre) approaches to my photo presentation.

So, that’s all I have to say. Don’t be afraid to explore, experiment, fail, and discover, no matter what others (or even you), might say about your limited abilities.
It’s about time to toss away and forget about the memory of your sixth grade art teacher and her opinions about what is good art.
Find your own style. In fact, you don’t even have to precisely follow any of the methods presented in this book but you can use them to inspire and jumpstart your creative thought to develop your own unique direction.
Sometimes people show me images they processed that were inspired by one of my techniques; however, if I can be blunt here, what they come up with has little similarity to what I do, and that’s the beauty of it. Whatever you make will be a one–of-a-kind creation based on your own unique experiences and viewpoint.

What’s the difference between street and urban photography?

A few days ago I’ve receive an email asking me to answer a simple question: What’s the difference between street and urban photography?
I would suggest they are two terms which pretty much describe the same thing; for the most part street photography is about photographing urban life or people in urban situations.
However, some photographers insist to make a distinction between the two genres;
Street photography often features people or some other human element, frequently to reveal a social comment, while urban photography tends to portray the urban landscape; buildings, structures, bridges and does not necessarily include the human component.
I’ve seen a few passionate arguments amongst street photographers about the definition of the genre and which pictures can be accepted into the street photography category.
Maybe there is a difference but maybe its just semantics, it doesn’t really matter because when you’re out there armed with a camera you probably photograph both people and the urban landscape and whatever else unfolds in front of you.

Nitsa breaks the rules! or does she?

As I’m planning my next book (it’s going to be the best one yet!) I’m going over my photos and earlier writings. This blog is one of the sources for the book and as I was reading my posts from last year I came across one I thought deserves another look. Not so much because of the post itself but mainly because of the conversation that followed it.

---

Posted September 2008 by Nitsa
Nitsa breaks the rules.

Someone asked me a few days ago a simple question about breaking the rules of photography, which reminded me I haven’t talked about the rules for quite some time now. I guess I moved on, or at least tried to, after I finished my book:
No rules street photography. I thought everything had been said already and now it was understood and clear and I can rest on my laurels. But obviously there’s no rest for the wicked.
So this simple question about breaking the rules of photography irritated me a bit. In fact, I get a little annoyed when people talk about breaking the rules. Mainly because of the obvious fact that in order to break the rules you must first learn them dull rules. duh!.
While my great theory is pretty much based on the idea that we don’t need any trivial rule (or a guideline or a suggestion, or a tip ) to make lovely photos.
So why bother even learning these rules? Isn’t it all just a remarkable waste of time? Time that could be spent taking lovely photos.
The truth is that most people believe they need the rules, or at least some kind of uniformity and structure in order to learn the basics of photography and to become a good photographer who can then break the rules and/or make their own rules.
I promise you I heard it so many time “good photographers make their own rules” that I will surely cry if I hear it again.
Good photographers don’t make any rules they just make good photos.
And let me say this: if one is going to learn photography from a book or from a teacher with an objective to follow someone else’s idea of good photography, they are less likely to take chances, dare or come up with their own style and approach.

So don’t break’em just ignore them.
Rules? What rules? What are you talking about?

---

Pepper Beaumont

http://pepperbeaumont.blogspot.com/

I agree 100%!

****************************************

Stephen BRAY

http://pebblesfromparadise.com

This is very funny coming on the day that I downloaded a piece of software from the Royal Photographic Society that ‘trains’ you in the ‘rules’ necessary to become a licentiate.

The software includes a series of examples in which you’re invited to click boxes to determine if the ‘faults’ you find are the same ones as their ‘august’ examiners.

Whilst it seems relatively easy to go out and take a series of shots that meet the RPS criteria I doubt that anything ‘original’ would be achieved by doing so?

Stephen

****************************************

matt haines
http://matthainesphotography.com |

If you’re just starting out in photography, you haven’t yet learned how to think about photography. One benefit to following ‘the rules’ (a slippery bunch, those rules) is that it gets you thinking about images, and how to make them. How flexible someone becomes later on in bending or breaking the rules is another thing entirely. But rules, for a lot of people, are helpful guidance when the options are too varied and too meaningless.

Because let’s face it, when a person first dives into photography, they take pictures of everything. My son, who’s five, shoots with a film camera (natch) and takes pictures of everything. The cat. His feet. A bug that’s across the street. He hasn’t learned how to think about good images yet. He sees something that interests him as a physical object, and attempts to record it. Period.

Now, he could spend the next ten years shooting his feet and the cat, and slowly developing a set of rules to follow through trial and error. Yes, they’re rules, even if he makes them up himself. Or he could get some pointers from dear old dad about how to take better pictures.

So far I’m letting him waste film on his own, and haven’t given too many pointers (except perhaps, not to shoot ten frames in a row of the sleeping cat, as he’s not getting another roll of film right away).

Nitsa, while you might no like the thought, you’ve got your own photographic rules you follow. I know this, because I know every photographer who’s been doing it long enough, has their own internal rules. They might not be something you’ve written down, but they’re there. Even if it’s something as non-rule-sounding as “use my Holga, then overlay the image with a texture.” You don’t do that all the time of course, but it’s a frequent road you take to a finished image. In my mind, that’s a rule.

The photo above appears to be following some more widespread ‘rules’ too. You’ve got a significant diagonal in there with the roof line, and you’ve framed the building with the tree. And you’ve broken one too, which is that you’ve put the tower dead center in the image. You might not be consciously aware of these rules when you’re shooting, but you’re subconsciously aware.

I recall a few years ago when I belonged to a local amateur camera club (before I decided to make a living at this). I got so annoyed when a judge critiqued a fellow photographer’s image, because it had the subject dead center. “Oh you should have used the rule of thirds here, for a more dynamic composition” said the judge. But in this case, the subject matter was the ceiling of a building, with an ornate, very symmetrical dome. It made total sense for the image to be perfectly centered. But the judge dinged the image based on an ‘official rule’, rather than taking a case-by-case approach to photography.

I think perhaps that good photographers – you included – internalize rules rather than simply ignore them. They become part of your subconscious, and they’re available if you need them, but you’re not beholden to them. You form new rules when you try an experiment that works. And you discount rules that yield nothing. But I think they’re there.

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

Matt, I think you’re confusing “rules” with “style.” Everyone does shoot according to their own style, and style definitely takes time to develop. Newcomers tend to have very little style, and that’s why they tend to take pictures of everything — but you can learn the “rules” in a day of study, without ever picking up a camera.

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

I don’t think i’m confusing “rules” and “style”. I think I’m saying that “style” is actually a set of rules one chooses to follow. I think most of elements of a photographer’s style, if expressed verbally in an adequate manner, can be considered rules. After all there’s nothing magical or innate about The Rule Of Thirds. But enough artists and photographers incorporate it into their work, that it’s considered a ‘rule’. If you incorporate it into the way you shoot, then that ‘rule’ is part of your ’style’.

Style is the set of artistic decisions you make on a regular basis. Those decisions are governed by internal rules, including rules on when to break other rules. The fact that some rules are widely considered rules and others are very personal and unique, is just a question of popularity. I still say they’re rules.

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

So to you, everything is basically a rule, because you must be shooting for SOME reason, and whatever it is about a scene that caught your eye can be described as a rule?

That sounds like a very strict way of living!

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

Strict only if you think about each ‘rule’ consciously. A good photographer sublimates all the rules he/she has formed, so that they guide on a subconscious level. I haven’t suggested that; quite the opposite.

I think that claiming there are no rules sounds good and rebellious. But you don’t escape rules. Which is fine, because rules aren’t bad, they’re good: we use them to help guide our decisions, so we don’t have to start from square one every time we pick up a camera. Even to say “I don’t follow the rules” is simply a rejection of a certain set of rules, in favor of others.

Perhaps the problem you’re having with this is that you’re interpreting rules too strictly. A rule is a pathway, an option. There are rules that govern the selection of other rules. We create rules for living constantly, and they get modified all the time.

For example, “as a rule” I like to shoot people. However I don’t always shoot people. Am I breaking my own rule? Well…yes, but so what? If I’m alone in the desert with my camera, I have a different set of rules I use to guide my photography. It’s either that or be stuck with self-portraits! So I’m in the desert, I’m looking for form and shadow, rather than sunlight on hair and and facial expressions. Do I think about this consciously? Sometimes, sometimes not. But it’s all rules.

Perhaps “No Rules” simply means: disregard the most popular rules you’ve read about, and go make your own rules. It does however help to know what the common rules are, so you can then decide from a position of awareness (as opposed to accident or ignorance) whether or not the rule is useful to you.

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

I’ll shut up now. I’m taking up too much comment space on someone else’s blog, which is a bit rude of me.

****************************************

Massimo

http://blog.ornitorinko.org

Well, it was an interesting discussion. I tend to agree that we unconsciously make our own “rules”, but in most cases they are so internalized that we are not aware of them. A good photo just “feels right”. Maybe there is a set of shortcuts our brain takes to achieve that feeling, which are built through experience (see what works and what doesn’t). Some people build these instincts reading standardized “rules” from some book (hence all these photos looking the same). Others are more free in spirit and intuition, and appears less constrained by their own style. I tend to prefer the last kind…

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

Nitsa doesn’t comment on her own blog much so don’t worry about taking up space. And at least we aren’t just saying “nice photo” which you know she loves.

I think it’s a semantic debate because I don’t agree with your definition of rules. I think you’re too loose with that word, because a rule by definition is something that you are SUPPOSED to do — hence, if you don’t, you are doing something wrong. Sure you can say there are all these different rules for different situations, but if there are so many different rules because everyone has their own, then the word doesn’t mean a whole lot anymore.

I believe that there is something to be said for understanding why you enjoy a particular piece of art. That’s what makes the difference between something great and just a pretty picture. The pretty picture might follow rules of the external or internal sort, but that’s not enough — inspiration is not about rules, and without inspiration, you just get pretty pictures. With inspiration, the rules aren’t going to make a lick of difference, although they may help critics analyze the work afterwards. That’s where they’re the most helpful, I think. For the critics.

****************************************

An interview with Nitsa by Nitsa

And just in case you thought it can’t get any worse, here is a weekend bonus for you:
(it is from my book No rules. street photography.)

An interview with Nitsa by Nitsa
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitsa: Ok, enough about open minds, inner drives and dreams. puhleeeease! Let’s get serious now. What kind of a camera do you use?
Nitsa: Ha ha, this is always the first question I’m asked.
Nitsa: What’s wrong with this question?
Nitsa: Nothing, except it really doesn’t matter what camera I use. It’s never about the camera anyway.
Nitsa: None the less, the readers would really love to know.
Nitsa: I have a few cameras; Polaroid, Nikon N-75, Holga (medium format plastic toy camera), Kodak Reflex TLR (1940′s), my beloved Kodak Brownie (1952) and a few others classic cameras.
Nitsa: Now, what’s with all this non-photography stuff? You don’t actually expect people to give up their camera gear, do you?
Nitsa: certainly not. But they could. In street photography all you need is a camera.
Nitsa: yeah, whatever. And what about all this drivel about the rules? Everybody knows that a good photographer masters the rules and then breaks them.
Nitsa: is that so? So why even bother learning them?
Nitsa: Excuse moi; I thought I’m asking the questions here. So you don’t think photographers should learn the principles for good photography?
Nitsa: It’s wasted time which could be used for something more creative… like taking pictures!
Nitsa: I see, finally you’re making a little sense. Ok then, next question, what techniques do you use in non-p?
Nitsa: anything that comes to mind; I especially like to experiment with new ideas; things that go beyond the step of pressing the shutter button.
Nitsa: . . .
Nitsa: I will share many of these ideas and experiments in my next book which is titled “I’m not an artist”
Nitsa: why am I not surprised…. O.K. one last question: do you really think non-p is for everybody?
Nitsa: it is!
Nitsa: … But don’t they need to have a special skill?
Nitsa: yes, a mind of their own.
Nitsa: ahhhh! This is probably the worst interview I’ve ever done! This whole non-photography thing is just ridiculous and obnoxious! Besides, I don’t even think there are really any rules in photography and you are just blowing it all up so you have something to write about!
I’m outta here!
(I hope next time I get to interview someone more interesting… like Paris Hilton… )

Non.photography in one sentence

You know how everybody can appreciate a good and to the point summary?
It’s true, nobody really likes it when you go on and on in order to make your point (I wonder if Buzz Aldrin knows he has a tendency to do just that).
So if I had to sum up non.photography (no rules photography) in one sentence it would have to be: “It doesn’t matter how good you are but how far you take it.”

About color photography and color frustration

One beautiful, sunny morning I woke up with a crazy thought; it might be an interesting challenge coloring outside the city lines.
The problem is that color always drives me to a great frustration; I can never get the hang of it.
Maybe it has to do with the old days when I printed color photos in the lab at school.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about correct, proper or even real-life colors, it is a scientific drivel anyway, and I don’t claim to be color blind either. But poor me, I just never know what I really want (obviously this is not the only area in my life where frustration is present..) and what did I visualize?
So it seems I often have the impulse to go bold with colors, maybe to a point when it is absurd. Poor me. clearly I need help.

How to handle criticism

Yesterday I read an interesting article in a photo magazine talking about criticism and how to handle it. It was a nicely written article and as I was reading it I realized that, maybe unlike most photographers, I really didn’t have to deal with criticism.
I believe it has a lot to do with my approach to photography (non-photography) when a perfectly exposed picture is not necessarily a good picture and when the practice of taking pictures follows an inner drive instead of a set of instructions created by someone else.
I mean, how can people criticize my pictures without appearing a bit foolish? How can you tell someone their picture is, for example, not composed correctly when this person doesn’t care and maybe even promotes off balance composition?

Its not to say that I didn’t get any negative criticism but it was not my work that was ever criticized it was my ideas about non-photography that irritated a few people and even sparked some anger in a few other beautiful souls. True, some people don’t feel comfortable straying away from the herd, but they even dislike it more when someone else does.
But anyway, I find that this type of criticism actually fuels me, helps me stick to my ideas and it even drives some of my ideas further into the extreme.

The only time I did get any negative criticism to my photographs was actually before non-photography was born, when I took pictures but didn’t think I was in any way doing photography.
It happened when after a few years of living in Los Angeles I put together a website to share my view of this city through pictures I took while bike riding along the streets. It was a website about the city, not the photography, and the photos where just there to help me share my view.
It was all nice and mostly fun until I received an email message from a professional photographer, who was also a professor of photography in a university somewhere. He absolutely hated my pictures and claimed I have no idea what I was doing. This was absolutely true. But as it always happens in my life, criticism pushes me to the exact opposite direction, into the realm of “I’ll show them!”
Obviously I knew he was right, and that I was not a photographer, but that doesn’t mean I cannot take great pictures, right? So instead of having a normal and sane reaction to his criticism, you know, just telling him I’m not trying to be a photographer, or maybe quitting taking offensive pictures like this I essentially began developing my non-photography attitude and never quite looked back.

Imagine what a great loss it would have been had I indeed listened to him!

I know, most articles, books and “professionals” will tell you, you should listen to criticism and try to learn from it. They will tell you that criticism improves your photography.
I’ll tell you what, the only thing that will improve your photography is you, and you doing it, you doing your thing just the way it feels right to YOU. This is it. Negative criticism should be avoided if not ignored.
Yes, there are types of advice that might do you good, but this kind of advice you will only get from your friends, people who know you and strangers who really appreciate and care about your work. These are the people who will give you true constructive criticism and you can definitely listen to them.
But other than that, criticism should be ignored. It will only divert you from the true nature of your artistic SELF expression.

(btw, the above mentioned professional photographer who criticized me; we exchanged emails for awhile, me always arguing how one will be better off not to follow the rules, and him defending the existence and necessity of these guidelines for “good photography”. After awhile I created the non-photography site, sent him a last farewell email and was then surprised to learn that he only wrote to me to start with because he thought I showed “a remarkable potential” to grow and become a great photographer. )
right!

Now, criticize this.

These are the times

Yesterday I received an email message from my friend Garry Mark Smith at streetphoto.com
He ended his email with these lines:
“We’ve been hearing some interesting economic news from your parts. And now Michael Jackson’s memorial service there. Those could be some interesting (flamboyant, culturally historic) streetphotos that would have long-lasting play in that part of the world. If I were you, I’d shoot that circus all day (even if just as an excuse to be out there, if not for the art).”
(did you notice how he refers to street photos as streetphotos? How charming!)

My first reaction was, OK, no way! I’m not going to participate in the circus.
I mean, it is quite obvious the media lost its mind with their over-coverage of the life and death of Michael Jackson to the point where they just come across ridiculous. But it’s not just the media. It is also the fans, the millions of them, rushing to eBay to buy MJ memorabilia, crying on TV and crowding the streets near UCLA hospital where he died. Ok fine. I’m not a big fan of pop music so maybe thats why I think its silly when the so-called experts claim MJ was the greatest entertainer ever lived. Give me a break.
But really the worst part about it all is that I notice it is all beginning to look like people are actually actively worshiping the guy. No, really. I know, it sounds crazy. Well, yes, it is all pretty crazy around here.

Ok, so this was the clear voice of sanity. But then the photographer in me began arguing against judging and questioning reality. It is what it is. This is where we’re at in 2009. and the photographer is there to make honest record of our days.
Or is she?
I don’t really have an answer to this one, it’s a long debate I have with myself, but anyway, this morning I decided to take my camera and go downtown and see what’s going on.

And I’m just a spectator, trying not to judge.

            
      

My dear fellow brilliant photographers

One of the nice things about having a blog is not only that I get to babble about stuff nobody around me wants to hear, but in fact I have a direct access to the most brilliant photographers around, oh yes, I am talking about you!
Take a look at the negative here; you might notice that the 3 lower right images and also the top second one from the left have a strange dark round vignetting around the images.
I have no idea how it happened.
Someone asked me if I used a filter but I don’t even own any filters and don’t know how to use them.
I was shooting a Nikon N75 camera.
So can you tell me what happened here?

twitter is killing the blogs

I read an article in one web design magazine declaring twitter is going to kill the blogs. In fact, the article argued, many bloggers already shut down their operations and twitted over to a better place such as facebook and twitter.
The article pointed out, with some satisfaction, the new rising culture of “140 characters or less”.
So, I had no idea, but it turns out the people of the net, I mean you, my dear readers, are apparently awfully shallow, cannot sit through a few paragraphs of text and allegedly suffer from the familiar 21st century symptom of short attention span.
Well, OK, nice observation, but I don’t buy it for a moment.
As I see it, there are 3 types of blogs: personal (I decided to die my hair pink today after I found out my boyfriend was cheating on me… etc.), professional and the good ones.
The daily-routine personal blogs did move to twitter heaven and better so. It is just the perfect place for them.

The professional blogs, which are traffic-driven and typically exist to enhance sales of ideas, services and products, they will adapt to where the traffic is.
And as they are the marketing savvy ones who know best where to find their crowd, I can only assume they are now twitting (or is it twittering?) fast-paced clever brief ideas, maybe some are still keeping the blog around but only to complement their 140 characters reality on twitter.
And then there are the good blogs. These self-driven blogs are the ones that present rich, educational and informative substance. They often focus on a topic or a theme and provide their visitors with a wealth of content that usually originates from personal learning experience. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t see these types of blogs dying any time soon, simply because twitter and facebook cannot replace the same type of web presence.
Bottom line, these fine blogs are safe, well, at least for now, until the next craze.
Now, let me know, in 140 characters or less, what is your take on this new wave of fast-paced short-burst twitting (or is it twittering?)

Why do you even photograph?

This was not planned or anticipated in any way when I began taking pictures, but now, I find the main benefit of photography for me is that every picture takes me flying back in time not only to the event or occasion, no, my going back in time is much deeper than the usual picture-memory association. My pictures take me into a dark forgotten locked channel of awareness that otherwise would have stayed locked forever. If you experienced it you know what I’m talking about.

But this is merely the value of photography; this is not why I photograph.
The main reason I take pictures, and will always take pictures, is that I love this place.
And because I love this place I want to illustrate and forever preserve its existence, the truth and the depth of it which I’m grateful I’ll never understand.
But don’t let big words fool you; it is a lot simpler than it sounds

And I have faith in you, my dear two readers; I have no doubt you can come up with a better explanation to an otherwise perplexing drive we have to photograph everything around us.

photography for the non-photographer

As I’m transitioning into a new stage in my life, and after losing my stupid underpaying job back in the beginning of April, I’m taking small steps toward freedom and making income in web design.
A key part of my new “career” is taking web development classes at the college.
I’m one of these freaks who like school anyway, so obviously this is not at all a chore I must endure to carry out my new direction in life, in fact I’m having fun and enjoying being in school once again.

As a part of the main class assignment we, the students, were divided into 5 groups and basically we compete over building a website for a real client.
It’s a hectic project, being dependent on the other team members and having constant deadlines, but I’m learning a lot, not only about web design, but mostly about team work and my hidden leadership and organizational abilities.

Our real-life client, unlike most real-life clients, is an unusually good client. He always supplies us with everything we ask him for, from his logo and published materials to text content and photos.
And as to the photos, this is where we discovered a problem. By we, I mean Julie and I. Julie is one of my team mates and she is a good photographer. We only had to take a quick look at the photos we got from our client to decide we have to go there and make a few decent photos ourselves.

I wasn’t at all excited about it. Our client, Larry, his brother Don and their brother-in-law Jerry operate an auto parts and machine shop in Santa Monica.
Obviously completely and utterly a foreign land to me. And besides, I don’t know anything about this type of photography. I mean, just because I have a camera and just because I run around town and take street photos, doesn’t mean I can make portraits or shoot auto parts and things I know nothing about.
Oh, why did I even agree to do it?

I met with Julie in front of the shop and we went in together armed with our digital cameras…
And guess what? This assignment turned out to be so much fun! I’m serious.
You know how the photographer’s job is to ease his subjects and make them feel comfortable in front of the camera?
Well, these awesome guys made sure to make the photographers feel at ease and comfortable behind the camera.
I can’t tell you if the pictures are great or amazing or any good by any standard, but I can tell you I had fun taking them, and I love them all.
So what did I learn? Hmmmm….. I guess I learned that as always, it is all about the manner.
It is something I need to remember.

The (ridiculous) price of a film camera

Someone I know told me he has an old film camera he doesn’t really need anymore (what a shocker!) and maybe I would like to come over and see it, and if I like it he will give me a good price even though he’s truly quite fond of it and would hate to part with this wonderful camera.
So I stopped by to check the little marvel and was a bit disappointed to find out it was not quite an “old camera” unless we count the mid-90s as ancient history.
It was a Canon EOS Rebel X SLR and I had a very little interest in it but I was rather polite and said oh what a nice camera. And to continue the charade I asked him how much he wants for it. He shifted the camera from one hand to another as if he was trying to weigh it and see how many dollars it will take for him to give it up.
Lucky for me I was sitting down when he finally said “$350!” I needed a few seconds to recover but I eventually gained my composure and said “ OK, let me check on eBay and see how much this camera is sold for online”. Sure, he said, but don’t forget this camera is in mint condition.
I was curious enough and I actually did check out this camera on eBay. The prices were ridiculously low from $5 to $54. I was looking around real good but unfortunately I couldn’t find one for $350.
As it is the market for classic cameras that are no doubt fun and intriguing, is limited to a few enthusiasts, so even these cool cameras have reasonably low prices. And even though I’m not an expert in the financial system, I have to suspect that SLRs from the 90’s have almost no market value. I mean if you have one at home you might get the urge to use it every once in a while, maybe. But if you’re going to buy a film camera I don’t believe you’ll be hunting and bargaining for something like this Canon SLR.

You can find this article and many other photo processes in my new book:
So Much More than Photography
eBook edition Price: $10
Kindle edition Price: $10
Print edition Price: $35 (Subscribe and receive $5 off)
Black & White print edition Price: $20

One of my favorite pictures was taken in the Embarcadero, San Francisco with another relatively new SLR (2003), Nikon N-75 and a Kodak 100 tungsten film.

Read More