Postcards from the Creative Journey

Why Yes, I Do Have a Favorite Focal Length.

Parliament Building, London England

Thank you for asking. (I was so excited by last week’s topic I kept on writing. As a prelude to this week’s blog, it makes sense to go back and look at last week’s effort before you go on. That’s OK. I can wait here until you get back. OK, let’s move on.) I prefer use the shorter focal lengths because they create photographs with a very distinct look about them. The short focal length creates the illusion of three-dimensionality in a photograph. Two of the characteristics of the short focal length that I find useful are the near/far distortion and the depth of field. By proper placement of the camera in relation to major compositional elements, you can lead the viewer “through the photograph,” foreground to background with all the elements of the photograph in focus.

I spend a lot of time photographing buildings, inside and out. Many times the buildings are old and small. Having a wide angle lens allows me to photograph a large section, or a complete room at one time while having everything in the room in sharp focus. You can only back up so far in a small room. The only other way to increase your field of view is to use a wide angle lens.

And then there is, of course, the grand landscape. The way to show the landscape is grand to show lots of it with a wide angle lens. I like to work with simple compositions of foreground, background and sky. When the sky is beautiful, a wide angle lens will make it even more so. Add to the composition the near/far distortion with depth of field and that’s a good start toward making a great landscape photograph.

Do You Have a Favorite Focal Length?

Near Buckingham Palace

Do you have a favorite focal length? Are you a wide angle wizard, a T. Rex of telephotos, or a Normal Norman still clinging valiantly to the 50 mm equivalent? A question that flies in the face of common photographic sensibility might often provide some illuminating insight.

Last year, I purchased a really sweet Panasonic 7-14mm wide angle zoom lens. I did not practice using the lens very much before last year’s photo safari in Utah. While I used the lens and loved the images I made, I wondered if I “got my money’s worth” out of the lens. The wonderful folks at Adobe afforded me a precise answer that question using LightRoom Software. All the information formerly recorded in my official Fred Picker Zone VI exposure notebook is now called EXIF data. LightRoom will slice and dice that data in whatever manner pleases you. Drum roll, please!

Number of photographs at each focal length

(Only an Engineer would think of this.)

I sorted the EXIF data for each image by focal length and then by lens. I had to do this because both my lenses share a 14 mm focal length. (I shall valiantly avoid testing which 14 mm focal length is “better” because I am not that much of a gearhead.) I thought it was interesting that 26% of the exposures made on this year’s photo safari were made with the wide angle zoom. This data also confirms my devotion to the shorter focal lengths with the majority of my exposures made with the newer wide angle zoom and the shorter focal lengths of my standard 14-140 mm lens.

I will confess, I have always been a wide angle wizard. One of the first accessory lenses I purchased for my Canon F-1 was a Canon 17 mm f/4 rectilinear wide angle lens with a 104 degree field of view. I made a bunch of wonderful photographs with that lens. As a large format photographer I was unfulfilled until I hung a 90 mm Fuji f/8 on a 5 x 7 camera. Amazing sharpness and depth of field at the expense of focus, tilts, swings, rises or falls. But, I digress.

I have collected a bunch of data to ruminate upon. Knowing the focal length of all the photographs made in a project is interesting in a geeky kind of way. But the meaning of the data is much more important.

School Assignment

Near Buckingham Palace

I am starting to figure out why my photographs have gained little traction in the rarified air of contemporary Fine Art Photography. A decided lack of personal and photographic marketing appears to be an insurmountable stumbling block that is delaying my ascendency to the pantheon of contemporary Fine Art Photographers. I am not a member of some easily categorized “school of photography.” I’m not a post-modernist, a crusading photojournalist, a celebrity portraitist or an adventure photographer. I think I really need to come up with some easily marketable school of photography that I can use to impress curators, gallery directors and MFA students.

I think some analysis is in order in an attempt to discern the characteristics of my photographs to allow me to classify and categorize my artwork. My photographs are:

small – this means you have to get close to the work and be involved with it on an intimate level. They don’t occupy huge areas of a gallery wall.

black and white – the world isn’t black and white any more. It’s color. Kind of a hazy, muted, pastel like world that’s wrapped in gauze. Unless, it’s a landscape photograph with saturation turned up to eleven. (The photo geeks, will completely misunderstand the “Spinal Tap” reference and maintain that a saturation of eleven is almost black and white. Sigh.)

organized – composed, one might say, as in a pleasing arrangement of objects within the frame. The center of attention will probably not be dead center in the photograph.

apolitical – they neither support nor criticize any known political agenda or social cause

polite – My photographs don’t shout “Hey, look at me!” from across the gallery. They would prefer a quiet personal conversation with you.

literal – looking at one of my photographs you know what you’re looking at. I am not a fan of ambiguity, vagueness or abstraction. There are no symbolic, inferential or secret messages (that I am aware of) in my photographs. If you discern a reference to an obscure artist, well, you are much smarter about those things than I am.

positive – There is enough ugliness, meanness, hardship and suffering in the world. We know it’s out there and we live with it every day. We don’t need to be reminded of it constantly.

beautiful - I see my photographs as constantly looking for the beauty in world around me.

wholesome – My photos do not tend to push propriety. Even when I was photographing nudes, the compositions were more about form and grace than a gratuitous display of pulchritude.

non therapeutic – My photos are not a form of therapy. I do not attempt to “work out” my deepest psychological problems and inner angst through my art. I am not a victim seeking sympathy through my art.

completely my own – Evidently, it’s acceptable to steal another photographer’s images and re-interpret the image to meet your photographic thesis. I don’t do that. If you see one of my photographs, you know I made the photograph, processed and printed it. I also cut the mat and framed it. I guess I’m old fashioned that way.

After reviewing these characteristics, my own photographs and thinking a very long time about where my photographs fit in the contemporary photographic landscape, I have come to the conclusion that I am at least fifty to seventy years out of step with the contemporary zeitgeist. This thrills me. I feel I am on the cusp of having my big artistic breakthrough! I am so far out of synch with contemporary art I am primed for the revival of my aesthetic. Here is my chance to get in front of the curve and define this school of photography. My images are from the classic time of black and white photography, but I am bringing that style forward. Finally, I was able to create the term retro-classicist as my photographic type. I now am the premier retro-classicist photographer in the world and can now begin my self-promotion. Fame and fortune are imminent!

This Is an Odd Problem.

Small Church, Curlew Washington

From "A Modest Grace" folio

This is a photographic blog. It is a photographic blog because I am a photographer, not a writer. I created it as a means for me to display the results of my photographic endeavors. This has been going on for a fairly long time (As we measure internet time, that is.). As befits most internet bloggers, I don’t sit down and write this blog up every Sunday morning just before it’s published. I have a whole raft of blog postings waiting in the wings and scheduled to be published on Sunday mornings.

I find the toughest part of the blog is the photograph. I have a nice LightRoom preset to make the images all the same size, but that’s work done once. I have to figure out which photograph I want to use and that one gets tougher every week. It has become easier for me to write about photography than to figure out which photograph to use in the blog.

It’s something I never thought would happen, but I guess it goes to show you that an idea is easier to come by than a nice photograph.