Crafting Photographs

Making hard proofs (a proof on the same paper and device you will use for final prints) is a central part of my approach to fine printmaking. Therefore, the light sources I use to view proofs are also very important, because not all light sources are accurate for my needs. If I can’t view the print accurately, then I can’t use them as guides for making changes to improve my prints.

To choose a good viewing light for your proofs, you need to understand there is no light source that will make your prints perfectly match your monitor. I know this is contrary to many marketing claims. You can get really close, but a perfect match to your monitor is impossible because of the monitor itself, and the light sources. Like most things, the differences can only be bridged by experience, not technology (or money!)

Since I can’t have a perfect light source for every purpose, what I have to settle for is a light source that is a good simulation of a given environment.

In my world, there are two separate environments I’m interested in simulating: the monitor, and gallery lighting. Each one of these environments needs a different light source to achieve my goals.

Simulating a Monitor:

To simulate the monitor, I use SoLux 4700K bulbs. SoLux bulbs provide what I believe to be the most accurate color for monitor simulation, and they also happen to be the least expensive solution. A 4700K SoLux MR16 bulb costs just $7.95 each and works in standard track lighting fixtures. 

I believe these bulbs are far more accurate for comparing prints to a monitor than any other light source. I base this belief on their spectral distribution curves. My experience is that the fluorescent proofing lights used in the offset printing world (costing thousands of dollars) are not as accurate as SoLux bulbs. But you don’t have to take my word for it, as SoLux bulbs are used by a long list of major galleries and manufacturing companies for evaluating critical color.

At West Coast Imaging, it’s very important for us to be able to simulate the monitor, since we are often matching prints to chromes and original artwork. We also need to critically evaluate color tests of new papers and profiles, and SoLux 4700K bulbs perform this function better than any other light source. Using SoLux bulbs lets us have confidence that we are viewing accurate color from our prints, and lets us evaluate if our monitors are doing the same thing. Not using an accurate viewing light is one of the most common causes of customers thinking their prints don’t match their monitor.

Simulating a gallery environment:

In my personal work I emphasize the simulation of a gallery environment more than I do matching the monitor. (This assumes that I have an accurate and well profiled monitor as a starting point.)  When I look at a proof of my own work, I really don’t care if it matches my monitor. I care if it will express my artistic intent on the gallery wall, which means I need to use lighting that simulates the gallery environment where my work will be shown.

Why is this so important?

It’s because there is a vast difference in the way prints look in 4700K light, and the way they look in the 3000K-3200K light that is used in most galleries. Gallery light is warmer, and that affects how colors in a print are perceived. Warmer light tends to make warm colors richer, and cool colors less vibrant and less cool. For example, reds, yellows and oranges may have more depth and vibrancy in gallery lighting, while rich blues will be dulled by the “yellow” quality of the light. 

The color temperature of the light also affects very light colors and paper white. This is especially evident in B&W prints, which look substantially different under 3200K light than they do under 4700K light. The warmer gallery light will always make light colors and paper white look warmer than it does under cooler light.

Therefore, my methodology when I am evaluating a proof, is to look at it in gallery lighting conditions, since that is the lighting my audience will see it in. I want to make printing decisions so the print looks “right” in that light.  I don’t care if it matches the monitor if it doesn’t convey my message in light used in galleries and homes.

The good news is that if you make a print look as good as it can under 4700K light, or on a D65 calibrated monitor, it generally looks as good as it can under 3200K light, and vice versa. But there can still be differences, so I choose to use 3200K to evaluate my proofs, and I save the 4700K light for special occasions when I need to check the performance of my monitor, or evaluate color tests.

For gallery lighting, you don’t need to get any specific make or model of bulb. The standard MR16 bulbs sold at the big box home improvement stores are the best simulant of galleries because that is the same light they are using. They probably even buy their bulbs there, too!

What about different lighting situations? 

If I’m viewing proofs in light that is not one of these carefully chosen light sources, I don’t try to make critical color decisions, and I am very suspect of my perceptions. This is especially true of the fluorescent lights used in businesses and homes for task lighting. Typical fluorescent light is the worst light imaginable for judging color, and can show huge magenta or green shifts! 

Setting up accurate lighting to evaluate your proofs and prints isn’t hard, but it is a very important part of crafting expressive photographs.  Just remember, friends don’t let friends view prints in bad fluorescent light!

There is an idea out there amongst some teachers and students of photography that the method of making a great photograph can be reduced to a formula. It’s an easy trap to fall into, because a lot of teachers and students actually believe in this fairy tale. It sneaks in to our consciousness because large amounts of photographic education happen through articles just like this one you are reading, which is by nature a one sided conversation that often leaves out many important thoughts and ideas. Articles have to be so condensed that the full depth of a photographer’s approach is difficult to communicate.

But what’s so what’s wrong with formulas?

The problem with formulas for making photographs is that they are not really formulas…they are recipes. 

A formula is something that, when followed exactly, produces the same results every time, and assumes a controlled environment. Formulas work great for chemistry, for making the drugs that heal us and developing solutions to process our film (at least for those of us who still use film …but not so much for the dynamic nature of photography.

Making photographs and making prints is much more chaotic than what a formula can fully encompass. In crafting creative expressions, following the same formula will not produce the same results every time because the conditions are never the same, and every file or scan always needs something different to bring out its full expression. What we need are not formulas but recipes.

Recipes are great for making photographs, as long as you don’t treat them as formulas. Why? Have you every tried to make your grandmother’s famous recipe, and had it come out tasting completely different than the way she made it? The reason is that there was some small change (or series of small changes) that completely altered the final result.  The small change may have been an assumption on the cook’s part, or a methodology, or the necessity to use a certain stove or pot, or any number of different physical conditions that needed to be replicated exactly to achieve the same result.

But the most important part that is left out is us, and what we bring to the making of the  dish. When we cook, or when we make photographs, there is a part of us that we bring to the process that is involved in the making and expression of the ingredients that can’t be distilled into 2 cups of this, a tablespoon of that, and 350 degrees for so long.

That’s why recipes sometimes don’t work right, and they never work if you think they are a formula.  We need to understand that we must bring a part of ourselves to the process…that in fact we are the most vital part of the process of expressing ourselves, and in making a dish worth eating. The missing ingredient is always YOU, and if you don’t add yourself in, the dish will fall flat.

It’s why we can’t turn another photographer’s recipe into a formula because we do not bring their experiences to our cooking. But by looking at and trying their recipes, we can learn about their approach, and learn about the universal qualities of our materials so we can combine those ingredients with our experience to make our unique expression. That’s vital, because in the end, it will be our expression that will stand or fall based on our efforts, not on the strength of the person who wrote the cookbook we used.

We may end up not liking another photographer’s recipes, or the results they produce, or we may not be able to replicate them, but that’s okay. What matters in the end is that you are growing in your understanding of the expressive qualities of the materials that are the ingredients in photography. That knowledge allows you to write your own recipes for each photograph and print, and to create results that satisfy you. That approach isn’t a magic potion that instantly makes you the photographer you want to be, and it isn’t easily bottled and sold, but where in life is their such a potion? It means you have to get in the kitchen and start cooking, make mistakes, and throw away a lot of bad dishes. I can’t think of many things more exciting!

I love a fireworks show. There is nothing like the mixture of its color and sound painted against the night sky, and if you’re lucky, reflected in a lake or river. It’s an incredible sensory experience, and it’s something I want to photograph, even if I have no idea what I’ll do with the resulting pictures.

Making great fireworks pictures is hard because of the random nature of the bursts, and the need for longer exposures to capture the trailing and bursting effects in the photograph. 

You really don’t know what you’ll get until the picture is taken, which makes it more about “the decisive edit” than the “decisive moment” (sorry Cartier-Bresson!) That makes it a perfect subject for digital photography where taking thousands of pictures, unthinkable in the film era, costs us just a few pennies. 

But what really changes the game is a feature built into most high-end (and some lower-end) digital cameras called an intervalometer. A intervalometer is essentially a programmable cable release that lets you automatically take a picture at a regular interval of time. For example, you can program it to take a photograph every ten seconds for a period of an hour, or any other length of time you want. 

With an intervalometer, it’s easy to take hundreds, if not thousands of pictures over the course of an event like a fireworks show, then use your favorite editing program to find the frames that really captured the magic.

Intervalometers also make it easy to make time lapse movies. Even at low resolution settings, digital cameras can capture 1080p HD resolution. Programs like Quicktime Pro make it easy to turn a folder full of pictures into a time lapse movie with quality that equals what you’ll see on the Discovery Channel.

If your camera doesn’t have an intervalometer, check out the Pclix. For just under $200 you can add a powerful and easy-to-use intervalometer to a wide range of cameras. I use it with my Nikon D300 because it offers me far more features than Nikon’s built-in option. Mine lives in my camera bag, and I don’t go anywhere without it.

Like any powerful tool, intervalometers require some practice to get the hang of, so start  learning and experimenting now. Otherwise, you’ll be spending your Fourth of July fumbling with camera menus, instead of enjoying the fireworks show. That’s what I really love about the intervalometer…now I can now take my fireworks pictures automatically, freeing me to sit with my kids and enjoy the show with them!

I’m not surprised by the answers to last week’s poll, How color accurate is your monitor?

About 50% of you are using a color accurate monitor; about 20% of you bought what you thought was a “good” monitor but it doesn’t cover 69% or more of AdobeRGB; and the remaining 30% of you are using the display that came with your computer.

The good thing about this test is there is no wrong answer. As long as you are happy with your results, keep doing what you are doing. I’m not the color police!

But if you are NOT happy with your results, we now have a suspect in our case, and we can see if he’s guilty of crime against the color palette. 

This week I want to get to the why of the issue…

Why don’t you have a color accurate monitor?

So, I made another poll. But where we can get the best answers is in the comments section. Vote in the poll, then expand on your vote in the comments section and tell us why. After all, we’re talking about plunking down $900+ for a monitor. Maybe you don’t really think it’s worth it, or you match your inkjet printer fine without it. Whatever it is, here’s your soap box!

Have you ever looked at a photographic print and had that moment burned into your memory for ever?

This has happened to me on many occasions.

In 1990, I was in Chevy Chase, Maryland on a trip to Washington DC and wandered into a Nature Company Store. As I browsed, I was stopped in my tracks by a 30x40ish color photograph of water lilies. I had never seen a color print that was so beautiful. It was stunning in both resolution and clarity. The blue of the water, the green of the water lilies, and the wet look of the water droplets was unlike anything I had ever seen. 

Nearly 19 years later, I can still remember the awe and wonder I felt while looking at that print. The entire evening was burned into my memory because of the profound experience. At that time in my photographic education, I didn’t know a photograph could contain those qualities. Having seen it, it changed my expectations for my own photographs forever.

In a world where we are bombarded with images every day, why did this one print have such a profound effect? It was just a piece of polyester plastic with color dyes on it (a Cibachrome print) in a darkened corner with a spotlight shining on it…but it felt wet. It was as if I could touch it, dip in a cup and take a drink of the most beautiful water I had ever seen. Its tactile qualities were a marvel to me.

That is the power of a well crafted photographic print, and why a print is the ultimate expression of a photograph.

Photographic printing methods (including inkjet) have the highest fidelity in color, tone, and resolution. And if you use that fidelity as a part of making your photograph, it will display qualities that monitors simply cannot. 

Even the best monitors are not capable of displaying all the color and resolution in a digital photograph. A high end monitor displays 98% of Adobe RGB? So what? I work in wide gamut spaces that exceed AdobeRGB. 

Looking at photos on a 1080P flat screen? It can only display 1920×1080 pixels. My 4×5 chromes come it at more than 12,000×9000 pixels. Even the high-end 30-inch graphics monitors can only display 2560×1600 pixels.

That is why you should be making prints. 

Sharing photos online is fine, and so is looking at your photos on your monitor, but they are not the same as looking at a print. They are like being outside the concert hall when the music is playing. You can hear the music and catch the tune, but it’s not the same as being inside, in the front row, where you can hear every subtlety and nuance.

Even if you just thumbtack your prints to your walls, you need to be making prints so that you can live with them, enjoy them, and learn from them. It will build your skill and fluency in photography. It will also keep you connected to your life’s passion when your life’s reality doesn’t allow much time for direct involvement. 

(Who crafted the print I saw back in 1990? Though I am not absolutely certain, I think it was Joseph Holmes. Many years ago, I was looking through one of Holmes’s books, and saw an image very much like the one etched in my mind. He was displaying at the Nature Company at that time, and was one of the few 4×5 photographers they represented who was using Cibachrome.)

Learning photography is a challenging endeavor because it is so easy to have false perceptions about it. Most people believe that they can just pick up a camera and make a meaningful photograph, and to a degree, this is true. Photography has reached the masses like no other art form because of old promise from Kodak, “You press the button; we do the rest.”

When used as a tool to record our family and friends, it is easy to make a meaningful photograph. But where it becomes more difficult is when you try to make a photo that is a self expression of something deep inside you.

I think most of us started off thinking that would be easy…I know I did. You can see it at almost any photography exhibition or gallery, when someone points to a photograph and boasts “I can do better than that.” 

Almost anyone could learn to ferment grape juice to create something that meets the technical definition of wine. How many people can make something that tastes like a typical bottle of $7 wine at the grocery store, or a nice $40 pinot noir, or something even more rare and delicate?

The same holds true for photography. Anyone can click the shutter and make a photograph. The challenge is making an image that contains delicate and expressive qualities…those elements that venture beyond words, and lead the viewer into deeper thoughts and emotions.

So, what is the central objective of making an expressive photograph? It’s simply to express yourself…and to do it to the best of your ability.

Expressing ourselves with photography, and achieving a result that brings us satisfaction, requires us to continually study photography and understand it at an ever intuitive level. By doing this, we can use its vocabulary and grammar, rhyme and meter, subtlety and nuance, so we can craft a photograph that achieves that goal.

It takes a change of heart. You have to abandon the idea that making an expressive photograph is all about luck when you click the shutter.

It’s not.

It’s an intentional act that involves skill in making. And that requires a whole different approach than just showing up with a bag of tricks and hoping to get lucky.

But it also holds the promise of great rewards. Proficiency in the craft leads to more consistent results and great satisfaction in being able to turn your internal feelings into a photograph that expresses them in a form others can experience.

This blog is written for anyone looking to learn more about making expressive photographs.

I chose the name “Crafting Photographs” because there is a big difference between “taking” and “crafting” a photograph.

If you want to consistently make photographs that express things you cannot put into words, you need to learn how to craft your photographs.

What does it mean to “craft” a photograph?

craft |kraft|

noun

1 an activity involving skill in making things by hand : the craft of bookbinding | pewter craft.

• ( crafts) work or objects made by hand : the shop sells local crafts | [as adj. ] ( craft) a craft fair.

• a skilled activity or profession : the historian’s craft.

• skill in carrying out one’s work : a player with plenty of craft.

It means to use great skill when making a photograph.

Although there are many factors involved with making photographs that are outside our control, there are a great number we CAN control. Through skill, we can exert control over the elements we can control, to be better prepared for those we can’t.

That is the purpose of this blog…to help you grow your skills so you can craft your vision into a photograph that expresses the moments you have experienced deeply.

I’m looking forward to where this journey will take us!