Single-Serving Photo

Perhaps I sound a little bit like a shady salesman with a headline like that, but it would be incorrect to think that I perform the services I do with only myself in mind. Nay, this blog and my photography workshops exist only to serve you, my gentle readers, which is why I come to you today with this update.

First, something I’ve been thinking about lately, which I had designs to write an entire post about but that now strikes me as somewhat too unfinished a thought to deserve such treatment. It has to do with a growing trend among digital photographers that the quality of your work and of your prints can be judged if not exclusively at least primarily by some group of statistics.

~~/Places/California/SanFrancisco/GoldenGateLookout.jpg~~

First of all art has never been judged based on numbers. The moment that art is judged not for its certain craft, its inspiration, content, execution, and the ways in which it moves you is when it ceases to be art and takes on a new life as the subject of technical research. I grant that technical research has made possible many of the great innovations in the craft of photography that have opened doors for artists and made possible wonderful works. Those works, however, were to be judged on their own merits, divorced from the particulars of their creation.

I see this jaded math-lust happen the most in the process of printing digital images. Not only do you have to be a board-certified chemist to understand what inks are actually made out of these days, but debates rage among the upper echelons of fine art print makers regarding whether 9^12 bits per million in 17.2 square decileters of molar protein creates a quantization effect of 9.8383-repeating magnitude using 4-picoliter ink spots on granite tile. Or some such nonsense.

As important as some measurements, such as resolution, may be in print making, the fact remains that very well printed photographs can still suck, and very poorly printed photographs can change your life. The trick is to understand all of this mumbo-jumbo only to the degree necessary to achieve the results that make you happy, that satisfy your needs as an artist.

That may have sounded like a bit of a rant…

Edit: Perhaps it wasn’t as much of a rant as I thought at first. Here is a really cool article by Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer about over-reliance on measurements when evaluating the performance (specifically) of equipment. He also goes on to criticize people who use charts and graphs to make meaningless, subjective data appear meaningful and objective. If only it wasn’t true! Good stuff, Mike.

~~/Places/California/SantaCruz/Peaceful.jpg~~

Ranting notwithstanding, it’s still true that I’m teaching a digital printing workshop in February. If you want to learn how to soft-proof, color manage, and output your own images at a high-end digital lab, this is your big chance. I’ll be teaching alongside Chris Blake, back at Calypso Imaging in Santa Cruz, CA; read about the workshop and sign up here. You will get to print proof images and then make final prints during the workshop, so everyone gets stuff to take home with them. It’s only $599; you won’t find a better deal than that anywhere.

There are some other exciting learning opportunities right around the corner, too, including our workshop in Cape Cod in September, a fall foliage workshop in cooperation with Dan Heller in Vermont in October, and then later on that same month, our City on the Hill Boston workshop. That should be enough to keep you busy before the holidays, right? It’s sure going to keep me busy, I can tell you that much.

Of course if you have any ideas for workshops, questions, comments, rude gestures… Leave a comment!

In the style of chef Gordon Ramsay, I will now shake my hand in the air beside my head and exclaim that the solution for anyone’s languishing business or hobby is to stay fresh, local, and honest. Though chef Ramsay is usually talking about produce and grass-fed beef, I am talking about capturing scenes right in your own community.

I might have mentioned in passing that my “day job” brought me to New London, Connecticut almost two years ago. New London is a rather scenic city positioned on the bank of the Thames river—very near to its mouth—which empties into the Long Island Sound. Although not without its social and economic problems, it is a historic city with a great deal of architectural and maritime attractions.

I was absolutely floored to be reading The Online Photographer and to run across a stunning photograph taken literally five minutes up the opposite bank of my river (yes, I own the river) in Groton, Connecticut by Tom Kaszuba (check out the post in question, his website, and his Flickr page). As one would expect, he’s received over 60 comments on that photo on Flickr, probably many thanks to Mike at TOP, and all of them are well-deserved.

So anyway, here is the image.

The Lighthouse Sanctuary, by Tom Kaszuba. New London, Connecticut.

Taking a few minutes to look through Tom’s Flickr page invigorated me and inspired me to photograph the very river and scenery surrounding me here in New London. He has captured the coast of the Thames and the city of New London in a unique and flattering way. My hat is off to you, Tom; keep up the great work!

Edit: One of my favorite blogs, Lifehacker, just posted a short article with a similar message, Take a Cheap Vacation in Your Own City. Therein, they suggest grabbing a guidebook for your area (you can usually find them at visitor’s centers, on your city or town’s website, at the city or town hall, or in a local library) and doing some of the suggested activities or visiting the suggested locations. This could be another great way to revitalize your photography without spending a lot or going too far.

Nearly two hundred years after the invention of photography, creations in the medium are finally being considered “safe” investments. The value of photographs as collectibles is rising sharply, to the pleasure of auction-goers and to the woe of some photographers.

Though paintings, sculptures, prints, and other works of fine art have been spotlighted on the auction block for many years and for tremendous money (works by Jackson Pollock and Gustav Klimt—to name only two—have sold at auction for more than $100 million apiece), the world of fine art collectors has seldom been penetrated by even the most renowned photographers.

This, however, is changing. (more…)

Yesterday, Dan Heller posted an interesting article called Creative Commons and Photography in which he decries the Creative Commons not only as an ineffective and misguided licensing structure for photographers, but as a detriment to its own ends when used by them. I truly believe that he couldn’t be further from the truth, but because his article was so specific I would be doing everyone a disservice to leave my reaction as a mere sound bite.

After the jump, more of Dan’s rantings followed by more of my rantings, hopefully to end with a meaningful conclusion… But no promises. (more…)

Back in June I wrote an article about the Creative Commons project, Creative Commons: Good Idea?, in which I advocated the use of their licenses for promotional purposes and how that approach ties in with socially-driven sites like Wikipedia and Flickr.

This month the debate over Creative Commons licenses in photography flared up once more, with Jim Goldstein declaring that he would never use CC licenses, and Brian Auer retorting that he had before and would most certainly continue to in the future. Underscoring the points made by both of these fine fellows was an interview I read with author Cory Doctorow about giving away free electronic versions of books that brought many relevant points into play.

I’m revisiting the topic here today, not simply to agree or disagree with anything Goldstein, Auer, or Doctorow said, but rather to paint a picture of why I think the Creative Commons plays a very valuable role in photography in today’s copy-and-paste culture and why you should be thinking very seriously about how it can help you. (more…)