I stayed out of the fracas between Mike Johnston and Moose a few days ago. Moose had taken one of MJ's photos, manipulated it and then displayed both the original and the "enhanced" version side by side and proceeded to make an argument that MJ was processing images too flat. MJ pushed back and said he liked em that way. And that they were not "too flat" from his point of view. And that was the way he intended them. All of which started me thinking about the way I process my own images and display them on the web. My knee jerk reaction was that my own work looked "better" if it was snappier and more saturated. My black and whites better with more "clarity." But as I mulled this over and over in my head I remembered something my father used to say to me when I was so, so sure I was right and whoever I was arguing with was dead wrong. "Consider this..." he would say, "What if the other guy is right?"
Which got me thinking even harder. I grabbed a few favorite files and started looking at them made softer, harder, sharper, more diffuse, brighter, darker and, of course, snappier. By the end I was more confused than when I started.
Then I remembered B's ever-present mantra about.....everything: "All Things In Moderation."
And I remembered that all through her career as an award-winning art director and graphic designer for some of the USA's biggest businesses she always steered toward the middle ground. Not "boring" middle but "accessible" middle. It was nearly always work that pleased her design sensibilities, spoke to consumers and delivered for clients.
Maybe that is a target I should be aiming for in my own post production. Timeless versus cutting edge. Comfortable instead of trendy. Happy instead of strident. It's a thought anyway.
Really though, what if the other guy is right? Can you change your mind?
8 comments:
I have a t-shirt with a picture of astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson on it that reads "What if I told you that it's okay to change your mind in the presence of new information?" You can ALWAYS change your mind Kirk - about image processing and everything else.
When I was in HS I had an art teacher who suggested that I respond to criticism of my work by saying "that's the way I intended it to look". On one hand that can be a cop-out to avoid considering other options but if you are a reasonably mature artist it can also be the truth. For that reason, I don't volunteer technical critiques unless the photographer expresses some dissatisfaction with how an image turned out or asks for a critique. That's not to say I don't comment inside my own head or even 'save as' a web image, play with it to see if I could do better (IMO), and then delete the whole exercise.
For my own images, I am constantly rethinking how I want them to look, after all even Ansel Adams changed the way he printed "Moon over Hernandez" over the years. I had a (very) brief period when I tried to have a white point and a black point in almost every image but I quickly realized that doesn't always work for the mood of the subject matter. Images made in fog, for example, will never have either a black or a white point, and adding clarity can utterly destroy the effect. I edit my images to feel right. To paraphrase Duke Ellington, If it looks good, it is good. FWIW Kirk, I have never been tempted to re-edit any of the images you have posted.
"FWIW Kirk, I have never been tempted to re-edit any of the images you have posted."
Thanks Jim, That's high praise!
It's a given that once you put anything out into the world, your children included, it will come under attack/criticism from some if not many directions. I speak from personal experience .. I sometimes get not too gentle criticism from my photo colleagues about my style and presentation of my work. And yes, the other guy might be right, but you may also be right, you could both be right or you could both be wrong. Ultimately it's MY(YOUR) view of the world and you get to decide how you want to present it ... and you can change your mind if YOU want to, including taking another path which the "critics" may equally disagree with.
As to your Art Director ... she has clients to please and if you want her to use your work, you must please her. Neither of those has anything to do with what you may like ... it's what the client is willing to pay you for. So please the client to pay the bills and feed you passion when you get to do "personal work".
It's OK to change your mind and present your images differently if you feel so inclined.
I recall that great American Landscape photographer, Ansel Adams, struggled printing his prized Moonrise over Hernandez New Mexico. He got the exposure for the Moon right but the foreground of the negative was thin and it required a lot of darkroom work (dodging and burning) to make a print that expressed his vision.
Over the years he printed this image darker and darker and to make the darkroom printing process easier, he Selenium toned the foreground of his original negative to achieve slight boost in contrast.
As a 1960's youngster growing up in Toronto Canada, my only source of Photography were news-stand magazines like Popular and Modern Photography (my Mom confiscated my copy of Playboy) that printed some fine art photography. These magazines could not capture the subtle details in the images they printed, so when I looked at these image I didn't know what all the fuss was about.
It wasn't until 20 later, when I started travelling extensively, that I got to see some these original images in New York City, Chicago, Rochester, and San Francisco.
Wow what a difference!
A lot has changed since Ansel's days, and since the '80s with the advent of the Personal Computer, the majority of images that we see today are on video devices that mostly show "compressed" images.
I think that there is an "overload" fatigue that sets-in with the barrage of crappy Internet images, and it is a good idea to give your eyes and brain a rest away from the digital technology and make time to savour some real art in-person once in a while.
There is a Mary Ellen Mark Ward 81 exhibition on the University Campus here and I'm looking forward to spending some time there.
I got to talk to John Paul Caponigro about this issue at a PhotoExpo back in the "dark ages" (pun intended). He had just finished a great seminar on printing through Photoshop from somewhere around Version 3. There was a lot of talk about matching screen and print and producing "accurate colors" and tonality that "matched" the scene as you saw it. Referencing back to Ansel Adams he asked, "how do you want your audience to perceive the final image? That is how you should print it.".
I personally have been reducing the 'pop" that is so easily available in current software and going back to my roots of darkroom work with smooth tonality and a range of focus within the image that reflects more how we naturally see the world. Unless of course I am looking for the big wow :-).
PS for whatever it is worth, I really like the representation of the skyline shot that illustrates the article.
Hi Kirk, thanks for this pearl of parental wisdom. Definitely agree - helps to make us more tolerant of different perspectives.
It doesn’t help that with photography there are so many aspects that are subjective.
How an image ‘should’ look is open to endless debate.
For my paltry $0.02, Mike is right for Mike. Moose is right for Moose. Even that may be overvalued :~)
When it comes to post-processing I always believe in balance. Not too much, not to little, just enough. I acknowledge this is much like cooking, very personal, we all like different level of spice in the curry.
On my earlier days I did base my own editing style on yours Kirk! I think some friends here in Malaysia did too. I did not follow closely (though I am aware of) the drama at TOP but hey, Ming Thein's editing style is so different from mine and I thoroughly enjoy his work!
Post a Comment