A few years ago a very good friend of me called me a photo-snob. It hurt. In fact, I was devastated. I was just trying to be nice by offering to fix some pictures she'd posted online.
Ok, perhaps devastated is an overstatement. I knew she was partially correct. I've been a light-snob since the beginning of my career.
Photography is, after all, about recording light. It's literally what the word means.
That fundamental principal became my foundation thanks to an incredible photographer and mentor named Bob Arteaga. I am blessed to have known him and to have been the recipient of some of his knowledge.
Not only will I accept the moniker light-snob, I wear the badge proudly.
I've come to realize that my snobbishness doesn't end with lighting. I'm also a density and color-snob. This new acceptance comes with the confession that my friend is right, I'm an all around photo-snob.
But why shouldn't I be? I'm passionate about what I do and digital techniques combined with popular trends are making me crazy.
My roots are not only behind the camera but also behind the darkroom door. I cut my teeth in the commercial photo-lab business while still in high school. I'm very blessed to have had the opportunity. That's where I met Bob. It's also where I learned about color, color theory and about my above average color perception, a rare gift.
The only problem with my special gift is that when I see a photograph like this it's comparable to a master pianist being hearing little Johnny bang on his Fisher Price piano.
(see note at end of blog)
If you don't see the problem with these pictures don't feel bad. Apparently the photographers that produced them didn't either.
For decades manufacturers like Kodak worked tirelessly to perfect products that would accurately represent the world as we see it.
In those days one of the most commonly used phrases used between photographers comparing notes was flesh tone. Photographers relied on the color experts that manufactured and processed their film to produce photographic portraits worthy of representing their skill.
Photography is evolving but evolution is supposed to be a slow, gradual process. When it happens too quickly, it can tend to leave a bit of a mess in it's wake.
The digital revolution has dropped the burden of quality control into the photographers lap, arguable where it belonged all along.
Light and color are deeply complex issues. Unfortunately the knowledge or ability to see color accurately doesn't come in an envelope nestled within the box of that shiny new digital camera.
I'm disturbed by the fact that my industry now produces and accepts image quality that would have found a home only in a dumpster ten years ago.
Despite how this might sound, it's not my desire nor intent to insult or condemn other photographers.
I believe that raising the bar is good for everyone. Poor quality or mistakes should never be excused through artistic license.
As photography evolves isn't it reasonable to expect it also to progress? If we had the ability to create great imagery with film, we should demand nothing short of perfection from today's technologies.
Hopefully I can encourage my colleagues as well as my customers to place value on images that are not only creative but also realistic.
You can call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear photographers discussing skin tone again. I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone walking (or crawling) around that looked like this:
(see note at end of blog)
Sadly, most of the DSLR cameras routinely produce blue images when used in automatic modes.
Proper adjustment in the camera fixes the problem and is always the best method of producing beautiful images. However, post-production adjustment can generally create an acceptable image even from something less than perfect.
A quick correction done to that same file:
(see note at end of blog)
Remember the two pictures above? Compare them to the adjusted versions below.
(see note at end of blog)
Which of these black and white images would you want to appear in your album or on your bookshelf?
Original:
My version:
(see note at end of blog)
All of these examples have been pulled from websites exactly as you see them. There is no trickery. I didn't start with good original files and work backward.
No more than one minute was taken to complete any of these adjustments. It's truly that simple which is why I don't believe there is an excuse for images that aren't correct.
Vintage effects on photographs have become increasingly popular. They intentionally make a new picture look old, faded and off color.
(see note at end of blog)
I'm not a big fan of vintage effects but when used on a few images, especially when other vintage or historic elements are present it can be a nice look.
Unfortunately many photographers have embraced the look to mask their inabilities in other areas. No photographer capable of producing gorgeous imagery will have galleries that showcase exclusively vintage effect pictures.
Find an artist that can produce a beautiful, color correct image and you'll have one that can also apply a filter that degrades that image. The converse will probably not hold true.
Must emotional, artistic photography and color/density correct imagery remain mutually exclusive?
As a photo-snob I say no.
What do you think?
Note: All images used in this article have been copied from public sources. Copyright information of the original photographers is unknown. No discredit or lack of respect to their copyright, talent or style is intended.
