the importance of re-visiting a location

i’ve had the pleasure of re-visiting some of our wonderful national parks in the west over the course of the last few months: death valley national park and parts of olympic national park. on both occasions, i noticed something peculiar: i saw both locations completely differently the second time around. on my first trip to death valley, i noticed the size of the valley, areas almost completely devoid of color - or at least devoid of what most humans classify as interesting color. it felt and looked like a desert in some of the scenes in the star wars movies. (it was the setting for a number of desert scenes in the star wars movies) i visited rialto beach for the first time a couple of years ago and was amazed at the larger things - the bigger scene of it all: sea stacks, particularly the tallest one on the north end of the beach grabbed my attention and would not let go. yet, on these latest trips, i “saw” completely different landscapes. instead of noticing the lack of colors in death valley, i noticed how much color there was. instead of noticing the lack of any life, i noticed just how much and how diverse the life was. rialto beach was so completely full of textures, from the forest next to the beach to the rocks that comprise the beach to the driftwood littering the beach, and even including the sea stacks and the trees growing on them.

it’s amazing how the visual stimulation changes for me each time i re-visit a location. some may say it’s due, at least in part, to my maturation as a photographer and artist. others may rightfully counter it’s due in large part to the alarming regression of artistic maturity. no matter what your thoughts may be, i’m still amazed at the things i “see” upon re-visiting a location - things i never saw the first time i visited.

the thing is, as we get more familiar with a location, we get more intimately familiar with the location!

and this, my friend, is the key: show me a picture of what a location “says” to you. my friend paul recently told me of a trip to saguaro national park and how amazed he was at the saguaro cactuses. i asked him why the cactuses stood out to him so much. he explained why, and i said, “now take a picture of that!”

eagle’s head

people often ask, “how can i tell a story in a landscape photograph?” the answer? get to know the landscape. explore things that you find interesting and intriguing. tell me that story of the landscape and why and how it amazes you. tell me about your “saguaro”. if you want deeper, more meaningful images of a landscape or a subject, get to know the landscape or the subject deeper.

do you remember the pictures you had taken in school? school picture day: the worst day of the year! i had to wear a clip-on tie the entire day while making sure my hair didn’t mysteriously morph out of its freshly cut bowl shape into something even slightly resembling “coolness”. then some stranger sits you on a spinning stool, tells you to face a certain direction, smile, and voila! in mere seconds, you have one of the set of photos that will, for the rest of your life, be the talking (and laughing) point of your parents’ conversations with friends.

contrast that with your wedding photos. the photographer spent all day (or even multiple days) with you. they got to know you. they caught you in candid moments of interaction with friends and family. these pictures - these were good pictures! as someone who deplores having his picture taken, my wedding photos of me didn’t suck. and that’s as big of a compliment as a picture of me can receive.

why the difference?

at this point, you know the answer. a good portrait photographer gets to know the subject(s). a good portrait photographer gets the subject(s) to feel comfortable in front of the camera. a school picture day photographer? they come in, have two hundred kids to photograph and have to make sure the kids with a cold don’t have snot running out of their nose. they can’t move on to the next kid fast enough.

the natural world is no different. wham, bam, thank you ma’am images can make a visual impact on the viewer, but that impact is oftentimes short lived. there is no real connection between the photographer and the subject. connect, connect, connect as best you can. get to know your subject. visit it multiple times. what’s its name? why is that its name? what conditions does it prefer? in what areas does it exist? there are so many ways to connect with your subject, though it takes time and a bit of work on your part.

ode to pollock

in the end - the extra time is worth it. getting to know your subject is worth it. spending more than a fleeting moment in good light with the scene is worth it. your images will be deeper. they’ll tell the story of the place, or the subject.

next time you suggest a place to photograph to someone, and they say, “naaah, i’ve already been there.” reply with, “exactly!" and tell them to go anyway.

the sound of silence

as i wandered this location within death valley national park, i stopped - as i often do - closed my eyes, and listened. i heard the most beautiful sound ever.

silence.

nothing.

nada.

if you’ve followed me for a while, you’ve likely heard me talk about my experience while out in nature. i stop often to listen; smell; and look up, down and around. all of these experiences help to tell the story of that particular location - to tell the story of that spot. and i try to include that story in any images i may make there.

but there are also experiences that will be remembered for the duration of my life, or at least as long as my mind works well enough to remember. and this moment, this experience, was one of those.

people often talk about quiet and the ability to hear a pin drop. this moment, and the one a number of moments later when i again stopped, closed my eyes, and listened - those moments were so silent a pin dropping would have sounded like a cannon blast.

of all the times i’ve stopped to close my eyes and smell the air, followed by intently listening to the world around me, i’ve never experienced silence like this. there have been times where the birds didn’t cackle, there was no squirrel excitedly warning his or her friends about the intruder in their space, there was no water rushing past or lapping the shore. but there’s always been the slightest breeze blowing past my ear, or rustling the trees or grasses. this was the most pure absence of sound i can remember experiencing in my life, and my god was it gorgeous.

i was, ironically enough, at a photography workshop where one of my photographic heroes, and someone you’re likely sick of hearing me talk about, guy tal was teaching us about making more expressive photos. and he often mentioned the experience of the moment as being incredibly important.

so, how does one impart that experience of the moment into an image? the first thing that must occur is the person has to experience the moment! how often is it that photographers and non-photographers stop just long enough to raise their camera, (or cell phone) point it at something, maybe adjust the lens slightly, snap an exposure and move onto the “next spot”. that, my friends, is not experiencing the moment. that is “wham bam, thank you ma’am” photography - it’s getting a quickie with nature. and here’s the thing - you may get a good image, or even a beautiful image.

but you’ll be missing out on the potential for some of the best memories you may have in your life, because you’re in a rush to “get to the next spot” or perhaps for that wonderful acronym, FOMO.

my dad absolutely adored wolves. on my last trip to yellowstone national park, i went to the hayden valley before sunrise, hoping for some magical light even though it had rained the previous night and looked overcast. i setup on a small hill overlooking the yellowstone river, looking south and made an image. it is for all intents and purposes, a pedestrian, average image, at best. and it’s one of my favorite images that i’ve ever taken. because as i setup and waited for the light to hopefully appear, i heard a pack of wolves excitedly howl a mile away at what i can only guess was a meal. and that moment brought me closer to my father and best friend, who’d passed away about five years prior. it’s the experience that made that moment another that i’ll never forget. my hard drive can crash and any prints i make may burn, but i’ll always have the experience of that moment.

an image for my father

if you crave more meaningful, deeper, more interesting images, chase experiences rather than pictures. put all you have into the composition of those images and the processing and printing of those images to express what that experience felt like. it may be that the light never appears, as it didn’t in yellowstone that morning, but the experience will be far more fulfilling than hundreds of the quickie photos one can make, combined.

an extended leave of absence and some thoughts on nfts

it’s been quite some time since i last posted. i’ve been extremely busy with a number of different shows in galleries and truthfully got a bit burned out. so i’ve done very little with my website and my blog has been forsaken. i apologize for that to those of you who follow it.

last we spoke i was going through some thoughts on how to edit for feeling. i concluded by saying that i’d follow up with thoughts on things i could do in photoshop after the general editing within lightroom. but since then, lightroom came out with a huge update that does a big part of what i used to use photoshop for - masking. i used to use luminosity masks extensively in photoshop and other masking options that were either only possible in photoshop, or easier to execute. but this latest update really makes most, if not all, of these scenarios possible in lightroom. the truth of the matter is that at this point, i use photoshop to clone out dust spots or minor distractions as well as to add some “dimensionality” via Silver Efex Pro, Color Efex Pro and smart objects. i won’t go into those things here, but did want to follow up on the fact that photoshop is finding less and less of a place in my editing workflow. i may revisit these masking capabilities within lightroom at a later date, but for now let’s move on.

finally, some thoughts on NFTs, and i have a few of them - thoughts, not NFTs. NFT stands for non-fungible token - a token that cannot be changed. it’s essentially a “contract” where a digital asset (or more appropriately, a “link” to a digital asset) is sold. they’re growing in popularity in the art world. they can be used to version an artist’s digital assets and they’re also a great way to ensure the artist actually sees a percentage of any future sales of their work. (currently, second hand markets offer nothing to the original artist) it’s a rather new phenomenon, and as such feels very much like the wild, wild west in terms of people going crazy and spending like there’s no tomorrow. some are making loads and loads of money in the space, while others are finding zero traction. some may say there are other benefits to cryptocurrencies in general, but i’m only speaking of NFTs and not crypto in general.

there are some notable disadvantages of buying/selling NFTs. first of all, there’s no physical item being sold. that may not be a disadvantage to some, but as an artist trying to be expressive in my work, it’s a pretty big disadvantage. have you ever re-framed an art piece and thought the item had a much bigger (or smaller) emotional impact on you as the viewer? this can be lost in selling a digital piece of art. the paper i use is chosen for each particular image and to express the exact things i want expressed. the mat is chosen based on the size of the piece, but also the color and the core of the mat are chosen to further evoke emotion from an individual piece. the frame itself can add (or detract) to the emotional feelings of the viewer as well. as someone who’s always striving to wring out whatever possible emotional impact i can on a viewer, it makes very little sense for me to sell digital assets and forego the additional emotional impact that can be had through choice of paper, ink(s), print type, mat and frame.

NFTs are in the domain of cryptocurrencies. cryptocurrencies are based on “proof of” algorithms. there is proof of work and proof of stake. we’ll touch on proof of stake later. proof of work requires entities to prove they’re working - this is also often known as mining. different “problems” are offered as needing solution and computers offer their spare processing cycles to help solve the problem. sometimes these problems are verification of the blockchain being secure. once a problem is solved, those working on the problem are thrown in a lottery for a bit of cryptocurrency. as the cryptocurrency becomes more valuable, more people volunteer to “mine” or work and the problems become more and more difficult. in essence, as cryptocurrencies based on proof of work grow in value, they require a) more people to jump on board to “work” or mine and b) less cryptocurrency to be doled out given the increased people jumping on board. in essence, this is a “trading” of the electrical power to run the computers doing the work for the chance to enter a lottery for some cryptocurrency. proof of work algorithms run on electrical output, and as they grow, so grows the electrical output needed.

who uses proof of work algorithms? bitcoin and ethereum are the two biggest, with ethereum being the most relevant to NFTs. ethereum is the most relevant because that’s the only platform where NFT sales have made any headway. it’s where artists are going from the poor house to millionaire status overnight. the other NFT platforms…crickets - at least in regards to NFTs as of this writing. to make a long story short, proof of work algorithms are adding to the climate change issue the world is facing, and NFTs play a part in that as they’re primarily using ethereum, which uses proof of work.

a European artist and conservationist tracks his carbon footprint religiously. a year ago he offered a few of his pieces as NFTs and his carbon footprint calculations showed that the majority of the increase was based on his creation of NFTs. to create an NFT, an artist must “mint” the piece, which requires a lot of this mining or work to be done. according to his calculation, he could run his art studio for two years for the “price” of minting six of his pieces of art. that’s just to “mint” or release your work. if you happen to sell a piece, it’s bought with cryptocurrencies, which are generated by…proof of work algorithms and the lottery. and as more and more people jump on board, the price will become more expensive from a resource usage.

there are often counter arguments from the NFT community when the issue of climate change and their contribution towards it is raised. many will point out that ethereum 2.0 is right around the corner, and it uses proof of stake, rather than proof of work. each cryptocurrency using proof of stake uses different forms of “stakes.” for instance, one cryptocurrency offered wifi hotspots as stakes, so setting up a wifi hotspot included you in the “stake.” they monitor if your node stays online and throw you in a lottery after a given time for a piece of cryptocurrency. there is no mining, solving problems, etc. though in this particular case, there is still the functioning of a hotspot. these stakes could be things not requiring electricity as well - perhaps donations to charities, etc. with regards to ethereum 2.0, it’s been promised for quite some time and still isn’t here. whether it actually ever gets here is a source of wonder for many. there are other cryptocurrencies out there using proof of stake and offering much greener methods behind the scenes, but unfortunately those aren’t seeing NFT sales at this point.

a good number of people state that the NFT “train is running” regardless of whether you get on board, so might as well get on board. the issue is, the “tickets” get more expensive the more people that get on the train. by “hopping on board,” we’re merely adding to the cost for future people to board the proof of work cryptocurrency bandwagon.

an argument is often made that a large majority of the energy being used to mine proof of work algorithms, is green energy. i’m not aware of any actual proof that that’s the case. even if it is the case, it’s using green energy for what amounts to a pyramid scheme, when that green energy could be used to actually power people’s homes. one of those things is what most would regard as a necessity, while the other is just a get-rich scheme.

i’ve stated on multiple occasions (or at least think that i have) that one of my goals of photography is to inspire people to do more to conserve the environment for future generations. i can’t in good conscious, offer my work as NFTs just to make a buck and still stand by my goal of inspiring people to do more to conserve it. even if my goal wasn’t to inspire others to conserve what’s left of the wilderness that exists, it seems hypocritical that any landscape photographer would photograph images depicting the beauty of nature while contributing knowingly to its destruction, all for the sake of profit. finally, since i consider myself an expressive photographer, NFTs remove the ability to further evoke emotions from the viewer. overall, it’s an easy decision to not offer my work in the form of NFTs.

should you offer it? i’m not here to tell others what to do, only to inform and say why i do some of the things i do. if you’re undecided regarding offering your work as NFTs, let your conscious in on the decision and follow it now that you hopefully know a bit more about it.

how does this make you feel?

well, it’s been a while. the suck is strong in this one. i’ve been busy and a bit burned out, so the blog has taken a back seat. but it’s time to get her going again, so here we go.

i mentioned i’ve been a bit burned out, and truthfully i’ve been a bit mentally fried from the election in the US and its fallout. i used to escape to nature in order to recharge and escape the mental crazy, but even the few trips into the mountains that i’d taken had resulted only in my viewing of the fires of this past summer - resulting in further mental degradation. and so i got away from photography altogether for a bit, and made a return to making of music. i have numerous musical projects halfway done or at least with a bit of a musical idea, so i escaped into a musical idea - one that was happy, a spirit lifter. after a few years of rarely touching anything musical other than the piano on occasion, i found a much more deft touch on mixing down a song and the use of effects. in the past as i’ve made music, (quite immature in that regard might i add) i would do my best to add as many “cool” sounds as possible - even at the expense of busying the song or at the expense of the feeling the song provided. i found myself this time using much more restraint, and i credit this to photography and my growth in that art form.

scorched earth

burned ground at the edge of the fire area of the east troublesome fire - the second largest in colorado history

i have a wonderfully horrible habit of starting a book, reading a few chapters and forgetting the book exists. sometimes i remember the book exists for another chapter or two only to again be hit with my anti-elephant-ness. other times, i have the horrible habit of reading through some lessons all the way through, perhaps outlining what i feel are key points - never to be read again. my last exploration into Guy Tal’s The Landscape Photographer’s Guide to Photoshop ended with him stating that before beginning an edit of an image to recall as best we can the feelings we felt when photographing the scene. if that’s not possible, we should instead concentrate on what the image makes us feel now, as we look at it on the computer. as we edit, take steps in the edit to further enhance those feelings. as was the case in music, oftentimes i would attempt to make the image look as “cool as possible” in my earlier days. i haven’t read any more of that book for one reason: i realized the importance of his statement, and i knew if i progressed in the book i would forget this point. so i made it a point to stop there and practice it with each image as i process them.

moustache

there’s one facebook group i visit with regularity - it’s a private photography group created by a photography book writer and class developer. i’ve taken some of his classes, gotten and received some great advice there. someone recently asked in that group, “is my image too X” where X can really be anything. i asked him if the fact it was so X helped evoke the feelings he was trying to evoke, but he wasn’t sure what feelings he was trying to evoke. so i told him to look up an emotions list on google and see if he felt any of those things when looking at his image, and if so did the X in his image help him or detract from his feelings of those emotions. if you’re struggling with expressing yourself in your photography - or your music, or any other art form, look at the emotions you’d like to evoke from the person experiencing your art and as you progress with your piece, ensure those emotions are being enhanced. but having a starting point or vision will help immensely.

i used to adjust a slider in lightroom or photoshop and ask myself, “does this make the image look better?” i may go back and forth with undo and redo, and finally i’d conclude one way or the other. but better is very subjective, and i’ve gotten away from that. i now ask myself, “how does this change make me feel? does it make me feel more happy or less happy? (if happy is one of the emotions i’m trying to express) if more happy, the modification was a success. if it made me feel less happy, i need to undo and go a different route.

if you’re looking to be more expressive in your art, then “cool” is not the route to take. to be successful in this regard, it helps to have a starting point or vision of what you want the viewer (or listener, etc) to feel. then as your art comes to fruition, make sure that the modifications you make are more fully causing that emotion to be felt by you.

devastating sunrise

first light hits the peaks behind a number of trees burned this fall in rocky mountain national park

expanding the vocabulary #4 - influential artists

yes, you read that right…i said influential artists, not photographers this time! but this time, we’ll be talking about the painter J. M. W. Turner. Turner was a British landscape and seascape painter who painted for roughly sixty years. he was primarily a watercolor painter, although he worked with oil and experimented with additional techniques as well. his early work was wonderful, offering fine detail throughout many of his paintings, but as time progressed his work became more abstract. he would offer just enough detail to make out the scene, or perhaps enough detail to give glues as to what the scene may be. but even in this later stage, it was the development of his use of light that makes him a favorite of mine. Turner’s later work showed the light on the landscape (or often seascape) rarely, if ever seen before. his study of color theory and explorations of color theory produced wonderful explosions of harmonious and contrasting colors in skies. it is this work - the work showing off light and color in his later work that really endears him to me.

Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus

you can find out more about Joseph Mallord William Turner at https://www.william-turner.org/ and https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/joseph-mallord-william-turner. there are numerous other places online and in print where you can learn about him, but the links I’ve included are sites contain a good number of his works and these museums have displayed a number of his paintings - many which he donated.

The Dark Rigi

the two takes on visualization

visualization is a concept highly regarded in the photographic world and suggested by Ansel Adams and Minor White among others. but that concept is often misunderstood. just recently, i heard an interview with a photographer whose work i admire. in talking about visualization, he mentioned that he doesn’t go out on a photography trip or walk envisioning a certain image in his mind that he’d like to make.

but that’s not the visualization or pre-visualization, as some like to call it, that Ansel Adams and Minor White were talking about. Adams’ grandson tells the story of how Adams came up with the concept of visualization. he’d hiked up to a viewpoint of half dome with his wife, and as was the case at the time, had a limited amount of dry plates in which to expose. he took one image of half dome, but decided he wanted to try using a red filter with his last dry plate. he wanted the final print to be a higher contrast scene than what he was physically seeing, and he wanted a more moody, dark sky surrounding the huge slab of granite. once he returned home and developed his plates, he was thrilled to see that his second shot - the one with the red filter, was exactly as he had envisioned the image to look in his mind as he was making the photograph. the key point here: visualization as prescribed by Adams is envisioning the final print (or the post-processed image in the current world of digital photography) prior to snapping the shutter of the camera - not going out with a pre-conceived image in your head of the photo you want to take.

the never ending forest

some might argue this other form of visualization - going out with a specific image in mind is the same thing, however there is a distinction between the two forms. going to a location with a certain image in mind, with lighting a certain way, with a specific composition in mind or certain weather conditions is one form of visualization. however, the form of visualization Adams refers to - envisioning the final, post processed or printed image in your head before snapping the shutter is the other. in this scenario, you’ve already found an image and scene that intrigues you - perhaps something you had no idea about prior to finding it. i’ve performed both forms of visualization described here, and can tell you that going out with a predetermined image is actually a detriment to me. i become so locked into getting the image i’ve sought, that i don’t look for anything else - missing a number of possible images on the way. i’ve been so frustrated by not getting the image i set out to make, that it put me into a mental state where my photography suffered. so for me, and i can only speak for me, but this form of visualization is a hindrance to getting the most interesting images. there is, in fact, a big difference between getting out of the car about to embark on a journey for a specific type of image, and standing behind the camera setup to photograph a scene envisioning what you want this scene to look like in the final version.

there’s a reason that Adams’ version of visualization is important, and it is largely because it speaks to artistic intent in photography. it speaks to the individual expression in the final image, as well as the ability to ensure the image captured maximizes that expression. now, some may argue that times have changed - the digital world allows us to have far more flexibility in our post-processing, artistic vision on our photographs in comparison to the almost handicapped darkroom-based world in which Ansel Adams existed. and you wouldn’t be wrong in making that argument. the world is our proverbial artistic oyster as we can completely remove and add things to our photographs at will. we can modify the colors as we wish. there is so much that we can do today that couldn’t be done. (or done nearly as easily as they can be today) but what if we miss something compositionally in the field? that’s the one thing you cannot change in post processing. this concept of thinking through the image prior to pressing the shutter button, of knowing exactly how we want it to be in its final version - this is a concept that can guarantee we get the exact picture we want to artistically express. as “easy” as it is to “fix” things on our computers in this day and age, so much of what is being done today does not have the mental “staying power” of the great artists of that time. why is that?

impending winter