Other people's images, expectations, and conditions

[sean_hester]

lisa. i think don hit the nail o nthe head with "the reality is that filters often are used to mask faults in film's ability to record a scene."

 

<p>

 

take a sunset. when you look at it your eyes/brain work together to gather all the data in the scene. if you look at the bright part of the sky, you can see it. if you look at the darker parts of the ground you can see them too. they are all in focus and all "available" to be looked at.

 

<p>

 

99% of films won't record that scene properly. you'll either get a washed-out-white sky or a dark-featureless-black ground. niether of those pictures would be a "real" representaion of what you saw threre. now if you used a graduated neutral density filter (to darken the sky for the film) you <i>could</i> record all the information in the scene on the film. in this case you <i>need</i> the filter to properly record the scene.

 

<p>

 

i suppose if you point your camera at low contrast scenes all the time, and you always shoot with the color temoerature of the light <i>exactly</i> the same as your film was designed for, and if you use a printing lab that it truly amazing in it's ability to develop and print your film the way you "saw" it (my lab usually won't print the same negative two times in teh same way) then you could get "real" pictures.

 

<p>

 

but for some of us, we need to use filters to compensate for the imperfections of film, and cameras, and processors.

[markci]

Lisa, your ideas about filters and photography generally are really pretty naive. As much as Kodak's commercials would have you believe otherwise, there is no such thing as an objectively accurate photographic reproduction of a scene. It isn't just the myriad technical problems: it isn't possible even in theory.<P>The best that can be hoped for is a photograph that reproduces the subjective sense of being there. If the scene seemed warm to you, do what's necessary to reproduce this feeling in the photograph. If it seemed intensely colorful, produce an intensely colorful photo. A lot of this is cultural. Kodachrome was considered almost unnaturally vivid 25 years ago. Now it's considered fairly restrained.<P>Can filters be used to produce an unnatural effect? Of course: they're just a tool. You slander a lot of people on this forum with your blanket condemnation of filters, however. That's particularly bad form when you really don't know what you're talking about.

[don_atzberger]

As if you didn't know already, "lisa" wrote:

 

<p>

 

>it kind of ticks me off to see these nature photogs. trying to

>represent nature with altered/fake/doctored samples.Poor ambassadors >to nature using trickery.I dont know about winter but when ive gone

>to s.utah in may,june,sept,oct the redrock,clouds,sky have been

>spectacular.To me use of filters for landscapes is forgery

 

<p>

 

HUH?? I suppose you'd rather be stuck with a shot of grey clouds reflecting off the water than use a polarizer and get the vegetation and such at the bottom of a shallow pond. Or maybe you'd rather see a nearly featureless sky than use a red filter and punch up the contrast on TMax 400 CN. I could go on, but suffice it to say that one of the reasons we use filters is that film is notorious for not rendering the scene the same way the eye does.

 

<p>

 

Another reason is that Nature doesn't always provide the ideal lighting for the shot we're after. If you've been saving your pennies for the last three years to finance a photo expedition to southern Utah and the light stinks when you get there, a polarizer's ability to punch up the drama of the photo a bit begins to look pretty appealing. If the location is more exotic and/or difficult to get to like the Tibetan mountains, that $30 polarizer or warming filter can spell the difference between a great memory and a big disappointment.

 

<p>

 

Some subtle and not-so-subtle variations can be seen just by varying the film. As Mark mentioned, Kodachrome renders color a lot differently than Velvia. There are quite a few variations in between and they're not linear. Provia, Ektachrome E films, Agfa RSX, and others all render the scenes differently. One of the most striking nature shots I've ever seen was taken on Provia 1600 shot at 3200 and push processed by hand(!!). The shot has a haunting, abstract quality to it because of the grain.

 

<p>

 

Besides, who said nature photography is supposed to be strictly documentary?? Even if film had some magical ability to render every scene exactly the way every individual remembered it, somebody's vision might yearn to render a mood that nature just ain't providing today. Photography is literally translated as "painting with light." If an artist wants to make the mountains look like they're on fire with color and uses a magenta filter to bring out the effect, who's to say it's forgery?? As long as s/he's not saying that the photo represents reality, what's the harm??

[don_atzberger]

Oops, Mark pointed out the perception of Kodachrome's color rendition today as opposed to 25 years ago, he didn't compare it to Velvia.

 

<p>

 

My mistake.

[mark_hespenheide1]

To put in a little bit more of my own opinion:

 

<p>

 

As I said in the original question, I have been to these places in spectacular conditions. For one particular shot of Delicate Arch that I'm rather overly proud of, I hiked the 2.5 miles in rain, cowered under a 18" high rock ledge while the lightning was going off, and then got up to the overlook and spent an hour and a half and three rolls of velvia to get a shot of the arch with red storm light and a rainbow behind it. I don't think I'd get that shot again if I spent the next twelve months in Moab.

 

<p>

 

All of that is sort of a long-winded explanation that I understand that it takes skill, luck, and a lot of patience to get a top-level image. Anyone trying to be a professional photographer has to be able to return to an area many times to get the "best" shots. I don't think that it's coincidence that David Muench is one of the most-respected landscape photographers in America today; after all, he's had decades of practice. In my own experience, I think of that most recent trip through S. Utah as part of an apprenticeship in learning about the landscape and about my equipment.

 

<p>

 

I think it's only human, however, to feel slightly let down when you're in a location that has fantastic potential but that doesnt quite live up to its possibilities. I wish I could echo Vincent's comments, but subconsciously I think almost everyone compares their conditions to the ones on the postcards/posters in the visitor's center.

 

<p>

 

A couple years ago when I was more into backpacking than photography, I was better able to keep some perspective about it. If you spend enough time outdoors, you'll probably make the connection to it that you're looking for. But if you're stuck in an office/classroom most of the time, you can't pop out for a weekend and expect to have an epiphany; it's just not that easy. Photography is pretty much the same in the sense that you have to put in the time to get the results. I understand that, but it's still very easy to feel some disappointment when the results don't come.

 

<p>

 

I'm grateful to Don and the rest of you that admit that you sometimes feel the same. I like to think I'm not shallow, but you never know...

[ilkka_nissil_]

I think Lisa has a point. It is true, of course, that the colors of a photograph are never perfectly true, but they can be pretty close, even close enough for the picture-taker to see no appreciable difference (when compared with the memory of the scene). That's enough, and while I don't conciously strive for perfection in reality, I think the more realistic image has more surviving power in the long run.

 

<p>

 

Filters ... well, I use an A2 or 05Y to warm the colors when the conditions and my film require it. This is in order to get a more natural photograph. (Lisa: this is not an issue with print film.)

 

<p>

 

I do realize that my pictures are sometimes a bit fancier than reality, but this is something I try to keep to a minimum. I generally just dump slides that have excessive color (subjective of course), or are too flat. This is a matter of taste, of course. I don't like Velvia, except on rare conditions in the forest. I think the colors are too fancy and weird. I like things subtle. To say that any film is as accurate as any other is simply not true. On the other hand, color perception is very individual (both on a physiological and psychological level), so I accept that someone thinks Velvia is realistic (I know many who like it).

 

<p>

 

I think mixing the two-dimensionality of photography with color rendition and realism is silly.

 

<p>

 

I also miss having the time to be out there in better conditions but I rather like to think of this as a personal limitation. Its my impatience, greed, and the unwillingness to take what I get as it is. I am confident that I will learn to cope with it. I even avoid traveling, partly due to financial reasons at the moment, but I also think that it's best to try to find what there is around me, and make that into something special. A forest is a very good place to do this, I think, and at least in my country I can access it with reasonable effort even without a car. Besides, practicing where I live will make me into a better photographer, ready for the occasion when I get to it (or it comes to me :-).

 

<p>

 

Ilkka

[jim_becia]

I am constantly praying to the "photo gods" for great light. Seems my prayers get answered oh so rarely. I think it certainly natural to want great light. I have spent much of my "photo time" waiting for the right light to happen. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it doesn't. I guess there's something about the phrase - sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I've tried to tone down my expectations and to work under the conditions that I'm handed. And also to enjoy it.

[bill_smith]

I hope Lisa's black and blue marks have faded by now.

 

<p>

 

Lisa, I'm not qualified to comment on nature photography. I shoot the news, and I am here to tell you that O.J. Simpson is not green.

 

<p>

 

But he looked green in many news pix, because the photogs didn't bother filtering out the green from the fluorescent lights in the courtroom.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, you could say they were being truthful, because fluorescent lights are, in fact, green. Our brains simply show the image to us as white. So which is real?

 

<p>

 

Our brains do not show us ultraviolet, though our eyes "see" it, because it's there. But film does record UV, and does show it to us as a blue cast. Should we filter it out? We shouldn't filter it out, because it's there, but we should filter it out, because though it may be there, but it isn't blue. Blue is blue. And UV is.....??

 

<p>

 

When you're out in a snowfield at noon in the sun, do you wear filters, I mean sunglasses? Have you had an eye surgeon sew the iris in your eyes into one, fixed size, so that they can no longer fool you into thinking that you can see a bright blue sky AND a red leaf in the water in the shade of a tree all at once? Is squinting OK?

 

<p>

 

I don't think this is true in your case, Lisa, but some may interpret your fierce attitude as an indication of envy of others' work. "I could take pictures like that if I wanted to, but I won't, because I'm honest..." You need to know, that you're accusing others of being dis-honest. By claiming virtue, you're judging others as having none. I doubt if that was your intent.

 

<p>

 

Cheers and God bless,

 

<p>

 

Bill Smith