BENEFITTING FROM TEAM WORK

One of the most common challenges experienced by amateur and free-lance photographers desiring to work with models is the presumption that they can, should, or must do everything themselves. Whether born from sheer lack of experience, absence of known resources, or misguided attempts to maintain complete control, too many projects suffer needlessly under the weight of insufficient staffing.

Objections to multi-staffed projects range from costs to disparate creative visions, but in reasonably populous areas such objections are sufficiently addressed through creativity, a bit of planning, and proper communication. While certain situations leave photographers with no choice but attempt the project alone, almost every photographic situation is best completed utilizing a team of professionals.

Ideally, a full project team includes at least a make-up artist, hair stylist, wardrobe stylist, art director, and technical assistants. Depending on the number of models and general complexities involved in the project, additional assistants, carpenters, and technicians may also be necessary. Traditionally, such full sets have been primarily limited to well-funded commercial projects where attention to detail and skill is requisite. However, rare is the situation where a photographer must go it alone. Make-up artists, hair stylists, designers and other creatives all need images for their own portfolios, just as does a photographer. While some minimal costs might be involved to cover consumables, working with even a modest team significantly raises the quality of the images and reduces the stress from working alone.

Photographers working with a team for the first time find that doing so requires some significant changes in how they plan and approach a photo shoot. The ultra-spontaneous concept of just showing up and hoping inspiration falls from the sky doesn't play well when multiple people are giving of their time. So, here are a few considerations toward finding success when using a creative team.

• Choose a team with a common artistic vision. This does not mean that everyone agrees on the exact method, but that there is cohesion of style, concept and artistry among the team. For example, period pieces duplicating styles from the early 1900s require specific knowledge of hair and make-up practices of the time. Choosing team members with no interest or experience in that style face greater difficulty and may not be able to produce the quality level desired.
• Work concepts that are creative and original. No one needs photos that are plain, boring, and over-done. Explore concepts that present unique but obtainable challenges for everyone on the team.
• Communicate effectively with all team members. As simple and obvious as those instructions sound, communication deficiency is probably the primary reason creative teams fail to meet the desired vision. The matter can be especially challenging for photographers who have been working alone for some time and simply don't think to tell team members of changes in a timely manner. Mind readers are rare. Talk about what you're thinking.
• Leading is good, dictating is bad. Every team needs a leader and most often that role falls to the photographer. However, good leadership gives everyone room to express their creativity and develop their ideas. Give everyone on the team plenty of room to utilize the talent they bring without unnecessary interference.
• Never assume one person on the team does things the same way as anyone else. Make-up artists use various methods and products to generate a common look. Individual hair stylists take an entirely different approach to achieving the same style. Any artistic work is best judged by the quality of the results, not the steps taken in getting there. Allow for individual styles and adjust as necessary.
• Budget sufficient time to allow everyone to complete their work without being unduly rushed. An inexperienced photographer once mentioned that, "no make-up should ever take more than fifteen minutes," thus demonstrating a tremendous ignorance in the artistry of applying make-up. A good make-up application requires anywhere from 45 to 75 minutes, depending on complexity. Complicated period hair styling can easily take an hour or more. Build that time into the schedule and set expectations accordingly.
• Avoid the temptation to nit-pick over each other's work. No one works well with someone else standing over their shoulder, picking at their work. Even more important, no one appreciates having their work criticized by someone outside the field. Photographers using a professional make-up artist for the first time should be prepared for a heavier application than is necessary for every-day wear. Experienced hair stylists may use more severe methods for the camera than they ever would on a normal client. Nit-picking is unprofessional and undermines the success of the entire team.
• Choose team members whose styles and personalities match the project. If one is working on a project whose subjects are highly religious, utilizing team members whose language and mannerisms are ribald might not be the most appropriate path to success. By contrast, if planning a project that might be potentially (or even intentionally) offensive to a given population, one does best to select team members who, ideally, hold an agreeable opinion on the topic, or at least are unaffected by the offense.
• Be respectful of everyone on the team, even when disagreeing. Differences of opinion are inevitable among creatives as it is part of one's artistic nature to be highly subjective. However, at no point is there ever any excuse for disrespect toward a team member. Diplomacy, encouragement, and quite often, compromise are required for a team to work well together. Arguments on set are always inappropriate and should be avoided at all cost. In the event of a severe disagreement, any discussion should be conducted privately, away from other team members, and in a manner that preserves the dignity and professionalism of everyone involved.
• Give credit where credit is due. Team work produces fantastic images and everyone involved deserves appropriate accolades for their involvement, no matter what their role. The person who unlocked the building is important. The person who swept up the mess afterward is important. Spread the praise generously so that everyone benefits from their effort.

Understand, building a cohesive team that works well together and consistently produces quality imaging takes time. The results from the tenth project together will inevitably be better than the first outing. Matching personalities, styles, and methods to form a common compatibility can be challenging. Acknowledging that some creative temperaments simply cannot work together is not a reflection on the professionalism or talent of anyone, but simply recognizes that we are all unique individuals. Persistence in finding the right combination of creatives inevitably pays off with a higher quality work.

For some, this discussion leads to a rather obvious question of where one might find sufficient creatives to compose a workable team. Those in more metropolitan areas have a considerable advantage here over photographers in more rural environments. Here are a few sources that may be worth checking.

• Local hair salons are an obvious place to start, especially those catering to higher-end clientele. These stylists are often eager to show off their work and may be anxious to obtain quality images, especially if they've not updated their portfolio in a while or are looking to change markets.
• Beauty schools can be a source of very eager and creative young talent desperately needing to build a portfolio. Talk with instructors about connecting with more advanced students.
• Recommendations from models and other photographers are often valuable and may bring a surprising amount of experience that has gone unnoticed.
• Online ads such as those on Craigs List can be helpful in finding niche and period-specific artists. Often these creatives do not work in a regular salon and are therefore a little more difficult to locate, but are generally very talented in their field of expertise and make valuable team members.
• Local colleges with photography studies can be a good source for eager assistants. Photographers who shoot on a fairly consistent basis may want to consider creating an internship so that the student(s) can receive credit for their time and effort.
• Artists in other media make wonderful assistants and can also add value as art directors. Having a visually creative person on the set who sees through a slightly different perspective can help catch details that might otherwise be missed.
• Local department store buyers and department managers may be a good source for wardrobe stylists. Employees of upscale stores such as Macy's and Von Mauer are likely to have knowledge of what styles are most prominent and may also be able to help secure pieces for specific projects.
• Internet databases such as One Model Place and Model Mayhem may provide some level of resource for hair and make-up artists if one's back is against the wall and other resources have failed. These profiles are best approached with caution as information presented on these sites is often less than accurate and may not represent the true quality of work. Extensive vetting may be necessary before adding someone from these sources to a critically important project.

Once one begins to experience the benefits of working with a team of talented professionals, the difference in quality becomes quite obvious and the desire to work without them wanes considerably. Having a good, solid team in place makes the photographer's work much more enjoyable as one is able to give one's attention more fully what what is happening in front of the camera without worrying about ancillary details. Having a good team on set also tends to reduce the amount of post-processing effort necessary, placing more emphasis where it belongs, in front of the camera, and less on processing tools such as Photoshop.

When creatives find a project in which all their talents can be equally displayed the results can be absolutely astonishing. Every ounce of effort put into assembling a workable team is worth the tremendous leap in quality and substance of the images. Photographers do well to fight back the urge to do everything themselves and enjoy the benefits of creative collaboration that comes from a good artistic creative team.

A MOMENT IN THE SUN :: TONE AND SHADOW

Spring is a wonderful time for shooting outdoors. The warmer weather encourages exploration, wandering through nature, and free expression. With spring comes bright colors, the full spectrum of greens, blossoming flowers, deep azure skies. The photographic opportunities of spring are so great as to send any shutterbug, amateur or professional, rushing out into nature at every opportunity.

When doing so, however, we do well to follow the lead of the late Ansel Adams and exercise some patience and sensibility regarding when and from what angle and perspective we photograph a subject outdoors. Not all outdoor light is the same, and the sun represents a constantly transient source of illumination that changes not only in direction but in intensity and heat. While Adams is credited as having said, "Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter," he also said, "A good photograph is knowing where to stand," and "A photograph is not an accident – it is a concept." Those familiar with his work know how often he waited for hours, and sometimes days, for just the right light. Such discipline is responsible for his reputation as one of the greatest photographers to date.

Unfortunately, in a society bent on instant gratification and following one's impulsive desires, too many photographers pick up a camera, rush outside, and start shooting without regard to the elements nature is providing. The result, far more often than not, is totally inferior photography of under developed concepts. Again, to quote Adams, "There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept."

The challenge here is that sunlight is never going to be exactly the same from one day to the next. Atmospheric conditions, clouds, air temperature and the earth's natural rotation all factor into how sunlight illuminates a specific object in a specific position at a particular time of day. To observe light at 7:10 AM today is an insufficient indicator of where and how light falls at the same time next week. One must be part astronomer, part mathematician, and part meteorologist to accurately predict sunlight on any given day.

Fortunately, for most photographic work, one does not need exact measurements. There is generally a range of a few minutes that is reasonably acceptable for quality photography. Even then, however, one must be keenly aware of what changes occur as the sun moves across the sky. As the sun rises higher in the sky, the increasing temperature of the light (not the air) effects the reflective tone, while the angle and position of the sun effects the direction and intensity of shadows.

To illustrate, consider the following images of an antique ceramic wash basin and pitcher. The white ceramic does a wonderful job of reflecting the tonal temperature of the sunlight in the early morning.

T
The three images, taken approximately thirty minutes apart, demonstrate a distinct change in tonality resulting from the increasing temperature of the sunlight. In the first image, taken at 7:21 AM EDT (-6:00 GMT), there is a distinct and recognizable amber hue reflected by the bowl and basin. The second image, taken thirty minutes later, still shows a hit of amber reflection, but one can see that the effect is considerably diminished from the earlier photograph. By the time of the third image, taken just over an hour from the first, there is only the slightest hint of amber left, the sunlight having changed considerably.

Which image is best? When is the better time to shoot?

The answer lies in defining the concept of the photograph. If the purpose is to accurately portray the colors of the bowl, then the third image is better. In fact, one might want to wait another fifteen to thirty minutes to completely remove any trace of amber reflection. However, if one's purpose is more artistic, leaning toward capturing the hue of an early spring morning, then perhaps the first image is more suitable to that end.

When working with people, often the earlier light is preferable, depending on the person's skin tone. Especially when working with individuals who have very fair, almost translucent skin, the amber tone of the early morning or late evening brings much needed color to the image and helps prevent over exposing some of the natural trouble spots. However, if the subject has been spending countless hours in the tanning bed getting ready for summer, the amber tone may cause the skin to reflect a ghastly orange, making a warmer light preferable.

The second factor one has to consider when shooting outdoors is shadow, not merely in terms of position, but intensity as well. Angle of the sun and of the camera in relation to the subject both play tremendous roles in determining where and how shadowing effects a photograph. Generally speaking, shadows are longer, and softer, when the sun is less than thirty degrees above the horizon. However, unless one is shooting in the middle of a desert or on an ocean beach, the sun is likely to be obscured by trees, buildings, and other obstacles that eliminate much of that period from exhibiting usable light. If the concept requires capturing the softest shadows, one may struggle to find a location with clear access to the horizon. Workable shadows may be present, depending on conditions, up to a 45 degree angle of the sun above horizon, but beyond that shadows become quite short and very harsh.

Just how quickly shadow changes is illustrated in the following set of images, converted to black and white to emphasize the shadow gradient.




Again, the most distinct difference is observed between the first image, taken at 7:22 AM EDT, and the last, taken at 8:20 AM. The red marks provide points of reference for marking noticeable changes in the location and spread of the shadows. One can see how with the time progression the shadows shorten and become more intense toward the back of the bowl, the side furthest from the sun. The gradient that is soft and gradual in the first two images, becomes much more hard and defined within a relatively short period of time.

Softer shadow gradients are generally preferable when one is photographing people. Long shadow gradients soften facial features and, in some cases, can even be useful in hiding problem areas. Short, intense gradients may cause a person to appear more stern, chiseled, and hard by comparison. Shorter gradients benefit architectural images, providing sharp definitions to lines and intricate features that might otherwise be missed.

Shooting outdoors is something of a paradox. One one hand, photographers need to know what manner of light is going to be best suited to the subject and schedule their work around the optimum time for achieving that light. At the same time, however, one can scarcely predict with accuracy whether the weather and other atmospheric conditions will actually provide the light desired. Spring weather can be surprising in how quickly it changes, requiring tremendous flexibility on the part of the photographer and anyone else involved. Certainly, there are those times when nature seems to hand one the perfect setting, just add camera and click. But the professional photographer knows knows that such luck comes partly from knowing what time of day nature is likely to deliver such an opportunity and having the skill to best take advantage of the gift.

Nonetheless, Spring offers one a delightful opportunity to break free of the constraints of artificial light, breathe a bit of fresh air, and enjoy the natural world. Setting one's alarm early and going out with camera in one hand and coffee in the other can be an exhilarating start to the day and create an opportunity for truly amazing images. There is a little of Ansel Adams in all of us. Take a moment in the sun and enjoy!

BUT IS IT ART?

CAVEAT: The following article addresses a highly subjective topic for which there is little authoritative documentation. Opinions expressed herein are based on research, observation, and experience, but are ultimately just one person's thoughts on the matters addressed. Readers are encouraged to explore the topic thoroughly through this and other sources, being reminded that all opinions, regardless of source, contain some measure of validity in their argument.

Henri Cartier-Bresson. Robert Mapplethorpe. Ansel Adams. Helmut Newton. Eve Arnold. Jock Sturgis. David LaChapelle. Petter Hegre. Dorothea Lange. All these names represent photographers whose work behind the camera is legendary and awe inspiring. Many of their works have been framed and hang on the walls of prestigious museums. Some have been sold at auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yet, despite how wonderful these images may appear, no matter to what degree the skill and precision is appreciated, society still finds itself needing to ask the question: is it art? While it is understandable that the question would be asked during the 19th century when the medium was in its infancy, that photographers, buyers, and critics still feel the compulsion to add their opinion to the compendium of answers delivers a disturbing realization that we are no closer to definitive decision than we are eliminating cancer.

Many photographers regard the mere raising of the question in a most defensive manner. How dare anyone question the artistic nature of photography? Has the medium not proven itself over time? Does not its increasing acceptance by art dealers and museum curators promote photography's artistic validation? Has not public and academic opinion of photography elevated it to hang within the hallowed halls of artistry?

Those in opposition remain just as adamant, however, that photography, by its very nature, can never be art, will never be art, and that to consider photography as art is to fail to grasp the very nature of art itself. Changes in methodology and technology only serve to further solidify their arguments. As an increasing number of people pick up cameras and point them at various objects, the argument for photography as art, in the opinion of its critics, only erodes.

From the very outset, one does well to accept that simply because one picks up a camera and takes a picture one does not automatically become an artist any more than does using a paint brush or a chisel. Not all photography is intended to be art, regardless of how it may be gathered and exhibited. The pictures of a child's party on their fourth birthday, while endearing, are not art. Photographs of the winning score in a championship ballgame are memorable, but not art.
Images of the family pet chasing its own tail, while amusing, are not art.

Consider the following photograph, taken in the staging area of a major New York City event:

The picture is interesting in that it provides the viewer with the seldom-seen perspective of what happens before the "big show." Spontaneous and un-posed, the image smacks with the sort of realism that makes for interesting conversation and endless speculation as to exactly what is going on. Without question, there is a story here just waiting to be told. Still, this photograph is, at best, editorial and, in the opinion of those more conservative, pornographic and exploitative.

Given that so many billions of "pedestrian and vernacular" photographs exist, one must immediately modify the question to consider whether perhaps some photographs can be art while others, such as the image above, are not. Applying such discrimination to the medium, however, may not make the argument in favor of photographic art any easier, for such magnified inspection inevitably brings to greater light what some might consider the artistic shortcomings of the field.

Arguments against photography as art are strong, despite the fact they fundamentally have not changed since the camera was invented. When questioned, most critics will point to the following matters:

1. Photography is mechanical. No matter what the photographer and/or their staff does to prepare, control and manipulate the set, the fact remains that it is the camera, a mechanical device, not the photographer, that captured the image. Challenging photography as an artistic medium, Ayn Rand wrote:
   

   Photography is a mechanical means of producing whatever is put in front of the camera. When you speak of an "artistic" photograph, what you mean is that the photographer exercised [some] choice in his [selection and] arrangement of the material which his camera is to reproduce .... But the mere process of photographing, the mechanical part of it, is not art because no choice is involved: the camera operates the same way regardless of the nature of the material. [Fiction-Writing. Lecture 1]

   
   One might attempt to argue that through the manipulation of shutter speed, aperture, ISO and white balance photographers are exercising at least as much control as a sculptor. Still, it is the camera, not the photographer, making key decisions as to how to interpret color, light, texture and form. All the photographer does is set what are, by any argument, fairly wide parameters within which the camera does its work.
   
   Additionally, art historian Edgar Wind wrote:
   

   What precludes photography ... from becoming 'entirely art,' although it may have 'something artistic about it', is the crucial surrender of the pictorial act to an optical or chemical agency which, however carefully set up and controlled by the photographer, must remain automatic in its operation. [Art and Anarchy, pp. 138-140]

   Modern advances in photography such as auto-focus and digital manipulation only serve to make the argument of automation stronger. Automatic features, software filters and digital processing submit even more of the act of photography to pre-determined outcome. Rather than the questionably fluid control of chemical processing, modern photographers use technology to apply techniques whose outcome was determined by a software engineer in Palo Alto. Can one truly say they are being artistic when so little actual control lies in their own hands? Photographers do well to lose sleep in answering the question.
   
   
2. Photography voids uniqueness. With most any other art medium, there is but one original, signed by the artist. There is evidence of the artist's hand on the art. Photography defies that singleness, the concept that an image may be one-of-a-kind. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of prints can be generated from a single negative. Digital images can be shared electronically with millions of viewers simultaneously. While some might argue that this development brings art 'within the reach of the masses," the ability to mass produce images renders them pedestrian and common-place. There is nothing "fine" about a work for which there are 150,000 exact copies.
   
   Walter Benjamin wrote in 1936:
   

   The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. [Illuminations. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"]

   Benjamin's argument, which he applied not only to photography but also to recorded music and film, echoes a consistent criticism from the art world that one can never look at a photograph and be sure of its origin nor how many other exact copies of the work are hanging elsewhere in the world. Essentially, photography defies the uniqueness that has long separated art from manufacturing.
   
   This argument does not deny the skill or vision that may be present in a photograph, but equates photography to more utilitarian crafts such as furniture making or rug weaving. A finely produced chair may be quite beautiful in its design and construction, but that that it can be duplicated so as to fill a thousand different living rooms negates its ability to become art. Carpet designers in North Georgia may create intricate templates for astonishing rug patterns, but that one may walk from room to room to room and observe the exact same pattern on each floor and then have that pattern placed in one's rompus room without disturbing the display denies any pretense of art.
   
   Over the years, some photographers keenly aware of this shortcoming have attempted to compensate by destroying the negative after a single print is made. Indeed, such extreme measures may help to inflate the value of a piece, but with modern digital photography even that option is no longer present. With the technical ability to retrieve even deleted documents and images from a hard drive, multiple copies of an image may exist long before it is ever committed to print.
   
   
3. There is no selectivity to photography. Photography does not create, it merely captures. Photography is inherently tied to reality in all its detail and, increasingly, high-definition form. No matter what one may do to an image in processing, the fact consistently remains that, at some point, the base element had to actually exist long enough to be photographed. Photographers cannot simply select an image from their mind and transfer it to the camera. What one photographs must be real.
   
   This puts photographers at a disadvantage and, arguably, defies art. Painters and sculptors may create whole masterpieces from pure fiction and imagination. While they may use models and even photographs as reference, they are not bound to duplicate what is real, but can alter immediately any form or element they wish.
   
   With other forms of art, the viewer may ask of any element, "Why is that there?" and know that the answer relies in some fashion upon the artist's choice of inclusion. Photography yields a very different answer, however, in that objects exist in a photograph because they existed in reality. While finely composited photographs such as those of David LaChapelle may seem to defy this argument, even those elements of composition must each some how, some where, actually exist before they can become part of his final image.
   

These are but three primary objections to photography as an art form that persist to present day. Other perhaps less enthusiastic objections are made in terms of the photograph's relationship to history, the relationship of photography to randomness and its subjectivity to accident, and the argument that photography is ultimately a scientific process that needs neither human intervention nor creativity to exist.

Perhaps one of the most valid criticisms of photography comes in the writing of the late Susan Sontag, whose intimate relationship with celebrated photographer Annie Leibovitz post-dates much of what she wrote on the subject. In her 1978 book, On Photography, Sontag wrote:

Photography is acquisition in several forms. In its simplest form, we have in a photograph surrogate possession of a cherished person or thing, a possession which gives photographs some of the character of unique objects. Through photographs, we also have a consumer's relation to events, both to events which are part of our experience, and to those which are not - a distinction between types of experience that such habit-forming consumership blurs. A third form of acquisition is that, through image-making and image-duplicating machines, we can require something as information (rather than experience). Indeed, the importance of photographic images as the medium through which more and more events enter our experience is, finally, only a by-product of their effectiveness in furnishing knowledge dissociated from and independent of experience. [On Photography. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1978. p. 154]

To the extent that photography is just that - acquisition - one might make the argument that it can never be art, no matter what intention or inclination might be applied by either photographer or viewer. If all one is doing is to capture an event, a time, a place, a setting, then wherein lies the creativity, the originality, the imagination requisite in any art form? If a photograph can be duplicated by another photographer and the two set side-by-side as identical, how can the medium ever deliver the truly original work of art?

Photographers do not aid the argument regarding art when they themselves attempt to label as art those inferior images so poorly constructed that they would have best died on the camera, or so horribly mis-processed as to generate embarrassment. Novelty is not art. Perhaps the most frequent fatality to photographic art comes at the hands of the amateur digital shutter bug who is overly and unduly impressed by merely desaturating an image, creating a sloppy and ill-conceived form of an image that suffered miserably in color and is only slightly less offensive in black-and-white. Equally destructive is the image to which any number of Photoshop filters are mis-applied across the entire photograph rendering it obnoxiously obscene in its loathsome void of artistic merit. How can one possibly expect the medium of photography to be taken seriously within a well-established and entrenched art community when too many psuedo-photographers continue to pompously claim as art those images so void of even minute aesthetic interest as to cause the viewers eyes to bleed?

Photography cannot be taken seriously as an art medium so long as those who stand behind the camera approach the work in a cavalier, profit-minded, shoot-till-you-get-something attitude. Such a mindset reduces photography to a frivolous past time, an energy-consuming hobby for the busy body with not enough constructive tasks to perform. Photographs taken without consideration for genuinely artistic element have less value than the paint-by-numbers picture sold by a dirt-encrusted child at a flea market.

If photography is to be taken seriously as an art form, it must present to the public a level of aesthetic presence sufficient to overcome the criticism laid against it. While the imposition of strict rules or tests would be largely inappropriate and stifling to creativity, photography must adequately address four very basic and fundamental concerns before it may raise itself to the elevated status of art.

1. Form. More than merely a definition of genre, form speaks to the very construction and composition of a photograph. Simply pointing a camera at the horizon and calling it a landscape is not sufficient. Merely undressing a young woman and taking her picture against a black background does not create art. The flowers in one's garden may be quite beautiful, but stepping outside and popping off a few quick shots does nothing more than create a record of the flowers' growth.
   
   Form is about substance, composition, framing, and presentation of one's subject. Thousands of people have taken pictures of the arid grounds across the Amercian West, but it is Ansel Adam's careful attention to form that sets the standard for landscape art. Hundreds of images exist of migrant workers during the era of the Great Depression, but it is the form of Dorothea Lang's "Destitute Pea Pickers in California. Mother of Seven Children. Age Thirty-Two. Nipomo, California" that brings the image to our attention and wonder how such things may be. Untold millions of pictures of nude women exist, but it is form that sets Helmut Newton's work apart from the pornography that plagues our senses.
   
   Form requires that a photographer actually think before snapping the shutter. Art is not created by happenstance or accident, but through willful construction in studying and understanding the subject, giving due consideration to perspective, how the image will be viewed, the balance of light and shadow, the play of reflection and the tone of color. For photography to be more than just "acquisition" of what exists, the Form of the image must excite us, extend beyond the ordinary of what the eye may casually see and assist the viewer in seeing something more than the mere reality of an every-day world. Without form, all one has is a most vernacular snap shot.
   
   
2. Function. What is the purpose of a photograph? Whose agenda does the image serve? What message is intended, or inferred, by this picture? Function addresses the question as to why an image exists. Fashion photographs exist to sell clothes. Editorial photographs exist to portray news and events. Scientific photographs exist to document what is.
   
   Art, by contrast, must go further in its function. Insufficient to be simply aesthetically pleasing, artistic photography necessarily invokes symbolism, inference and ambiguity as tools for portraying a message or telling a story. Artistic function may certainly be all about the portrayal of beauty, but in doing so the photograph must excel in the manner through which it declares such beauty in original methods not ordinary to human experience.
   
   The artistic photograph must hold at its core that its purpose is to first be art. There is no room for blatant commercialization or profit-seeking. Pandering to the unwashed masses with images of depravity, violence and gore run counter to any artistic merit. Whatever the message, whatever the symbolism, the foundational function of art is that it be art first and foremost.
   
   
3. Quality. Artistic photography must stand out from the mundane, the ordinary, the contrived, and the plebeian. Here is where photography must challenge the criticism of being mechanical and void of selectiveness through the creation of images of sufficient quality as to make evident the hand and spirit of the photographer.
   
   Artistic photographs must deny any form of cheap digital trickery or painful attempts to cover a lack of talent and vision. Regardless of the processing methods that may be applied, the base image must be of superior photographic and artistic quality before any processing begins because there surely will not be sufficient improvements to quality applied after the fact. Attention to exposure, depth of field, noise levels, highlight and shadows and print quality are all paramount in creating an artistic image.
   
   The quality of an artistic image must be strong enough to allow the viewer to not notice its presence. A quality photograph allows the viewer to ponder, to think, to linger over an image without being distracted by a cumbersome shadow, a blown-out highlight, or disturbing noise. Neither does a quality photograph distract from itself with "hey, look what I can do" Photoshop antics. Th person viewing a work of art should never have reason to wonder how an image was achieved, but given the freedom to marvel in its glory and delight in its presence.
   
   
4. Value. What makes this photograph unique? What separates one image from all the hundreds of thousands taken from the same location under the same circumstances? What prevents another photographer of similar skill with similar equipment from taking exactly the same shot and achieving identical results?
   
   To call an image a work of art is to infer that there is something special about that image, that what exists on the paper is irreplaceable and deserving of careful attention so that it might be preserved. Art longs to be cherished, prized, and set apart from the contrived and mundane elements of life. Therefore, that an artistic photograph establish value is critical.
   
   To that end, photographers must first strive to be original and unique in their compositions, a task which is not getting any more simple. Each photographer must explore their own ideas and concepts and not allow themselves to be snagged into duplicating the work of others, or even themselves, simply because the concept is popular, even when it may be profitable.
   
   Photographers must also learn to jealously guard against the over- and mis-use of their photographs. Allowing too many copies to become circulated, or excusing the infringement of copyright not only devalues the works involved, but everything the photographer produces, and at a larger extent, lowers the public perception of photographic art as a whole. Art that is too readily available looses its value and dilutes its meaning beyond any hope of repair.

Given such high standards for any photograph to achieve status as an artistic image, one becomes aware of just how few photographs have deservedly earned the title of being an artistic photograph. Without question, truly artistic photography is an almost minuscule proportion of the pictures produced . The number of photographers whose work demonstrates true originality in form, depth of function, attentive quality and legitimate value is significantly smaller than those who dare to claim such a position.

Photographers who think they can foist onto the art buying public myriad black-and-white photographs of what lies between them and the horizon, or clever application of digital gimmicks are playing the role of fools. To those who truly know and understand all that art is and should be, photography is still a questionable medium whose place in the art world, though gaining some acceptance, is still highly suspect. The continued inundation of gross and inferior photographs diminishes the value of all photography and accentuates the criticisms leveled against it as an artistic medium.

There is a strong desire on the part of many in the art world to find artistic merit in photography, and one can legitimately argue that there are sufficient examples to place photography within the hallowed realms of fine art. Since 1993, major art auctions have sold major works of photographic art for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a willing and anxious market waiting for truly artistic photographs.

However, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of photographers to create works that rise above the noise of mediocrity and deliver images that are more than mere "acquisition" of a subject. Photographers must bring to their work a sense of purpose, a reason for being, and the ability to extend beyond what simply exists. Without such commitment and attentiveness to form, function, quality and value, photographs are nothing more than image recordings and photographers are merely machine operators and none are anywhere close to art.

LENS CARE :: OUT, DAMNED SPOT!

Almost every photographer knows the frustration of looking at a print, or bringing up an image in Photoshop, and finding dust spots speckling the image like some flesh-eating disease. One spends hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars on high-quality optics for a camera and yet the glass can become permanently ruined if one does not take proper precaution.

Dust has always been an enemy of most any optic from the glasses on one's face to the large lenses of space telescopes. Increasingly, however, digital SLR lenses have become more complicated and, as a result, so has their care. Cleaning methods that might have worked with the old analog lens one used in high school may well ruin the new digital lens for which one just paid $1,200. Extreme care must be taken to adequately preserve the investment made in such equipment.

An Ounce of Prevention

From the outset, one needs to understand that every camera lens is comprised of four basic parts: the lens elements, diaphragm, lens coating and focus mechanism. Any of those parts are likely to attract and hold dust. Therefore, keeping the lens and mount caps firmly in place and storing the lens in an appropriate dust-free container goes a long way in keeping down the amount of dust.

Even storage is not totally safe, however. Dark, humid conditions are perfect for the growth of lens fungus. Under normal circumstances, a lens that is being used on a regular basis is safe from this danger. However, combating this problem is relatively easy. Chances are the lens was shipped with a small bag of sillica gel or pellets. Sillica gel is a natural dehydrant. By keeping that small bag stored with the lens, air-born moisture is much less likely to become an issue.

Traveling also increases the dangers to lenses as changes in atmospheric pressure, weather, environmental conditions and general mishandling can all damage a lens while one is not looking. While keeping frequently used lenses in the camera bag may be more convenient, camera bags generally lack the protection a lens receives from being in its own hard-cased container. Such containers not only protect the lens from dust contamination, but also from damage due to inadvertent contact with other hard objects.

Lenses made specifically for digital cameras also carry the burden of needing to be kept well away from magnetic sources. This is especially true if the lens itself contains a digital component of any kind. Treat these lenses just as one would any computer-based media, keeping them well away from any electromagnetic field.

Good habits are tough to break

Many factors relating to good lens care are simply a matter of habit; things one can and should do every time we're dealing with our lenses that can help preserve the quality of the optics and extend the life of the lens. Five critical habits come to mind:

1. Avoid touching the prime element (front glass surface) with your fingers. Fingerprints on the prime element can be deadly, especially when not removed quickly. Modern camera lenses are coated with a very thin layers of chemical that both reduces reflection and increases the amount of light passed through to the media. This coating is very sensitive and prone to decay should any other contrasting oil or dust, such as is commonly found on fingerprints, come into contact with the element. Always handle the lens by its casing and wear surgical gloves when cleaning the lens.
2. Use a rain hood when shooting in any damp environment. This may seem common sense for rainy conditions, but many photographers forget that the light mist from a waterfall, or park fountain, or a heavy fog can all do severe damage to the lens. Chemicals present in most all water can etch the prime element. In less than 24-hours, droplets from a heavy fog can render a lens unusable. Don't take any unnecessary chances.
3. Do not use amonia-based glass cleaner or water to clean the element. Remember that coating? Most home window and glass cleaners contain chemicals that will completely eat through the coating in less time than it takes for one to put down the spray bottle and grab a rag. There are several good optical cleaners that do a good job of cleaning the lens while preserving the coating. Photographers do well to keep such cleaner in their camera bag at all times.
   
4. Only use a microfiber cloth on the prime element. Sure, it's really tempting when one is on location and sees a smudge on the lens to just wipe it off with a tissue, shirt tail, or a moist towelette from the local rib joint. None of those are entirely safe, however, and can do permanent damage to the lens. Tissues and towelettes are both paper based and can easily scratch the optic. Towelettes may also contain chemicals that would damage the coating. Cotton fiber, such as is found in many shirts and other garments, may feel soft, but can leave behind lint, which in turn attracts more dust. Even leather-based chamois, which is soft to the touch, can damage the prime element. Keep a clean microfiber cloth in the camera bag, next to the cleaner, and all should be safe.
5. Turn off the camera before switching lenses. This is a frustrating element for photographers accustomed to working with film cameras. Old guard photogs are quite proficient at reaching into their camera bags, grabbing a new lens and switching it out without missing a beat in their shoot rhythm. Digital cameras disrupt that flow. When the camera is still on, there is a very small amount of electric current running between the body and the lens mount. Swapping lenses with the camera still on has the potential to create a short, wiping out the electronics on either side. Digital cameras and lenses perform best when the lenses are changed while the camera is off, and the mounting cleaned before adding the new lens. No, this is not a time-efficient procedure, making the use of multiple cameras almost a necessity in fast-paced environments. Yet, one could lose the equipment entirely if the camera is continually left on while changing lenses.

Those five things should become so strongly embedded into a photographer's methodology that one doesn't need to think about them, they simply happen. On these factors there is little room for compromise.

Separate myth from fact

Much of the damage done to lenses is the result of well-meaning but misinformed actions of photographers following the advice of buddies or colleagues, who may not themselves be aware of the damage done to their own equipment. Here are a few of the more common myths that regularly pop up in conversation among photographers.

Myth: Pressurized air is the best way to clean loose dust from a lens.
Fact: Pressurized air is too powerful for most optical lenses. Loose dust can actually be blown into the coating and the seals, ruining the prime element. A bulb blower (not a blower brush) is the safest way to delicately remove loose dust from any surface of the lens.

Myth: Attach the lens cap to the lens to prevent loss.
Fact: Even a plastic lens dangling in the wind can whip around and scratch or even crack the optical. Keep the lens cap in a pocket and use it often, to be sure, but misused they can do serious damage.

Myth: UV filters are the best way to protect the lens.
Fact: After spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a high quality lens, does it really make sense to distort that quality by slapping a $25 piece of glass on the front? While a filter does provide a modest barrier against dust, should it shatter in a fall the breaking glass is quite likely to scratch the optical behind it. At the same time, cheap filters distort the image, which is never desirable.

Myth: Soft-haired brushes are good for cleaning lenses.
Fact: No matter how soft the brush, one runs the risk of dirt becoming embedded in the bristles and scratching the optic. Brushes are more appropriate for non-glass elements but even then care must be taken to make sure the brush remains unquestionably clean.

Myth: Once discovered, lens fungus cannot be stopped.
Fact: Lens fungus (detectable by tiny lines stretching out from what appears as a single grain of dust) is actually quite treatable in most cases, but extreme care must be used. Using a microfiber cloth, place a small amount of lens cleaner on the cloth and use the softest touch possible to wipe the fungus from the prime element. If that fails to remove the fungus, one can use an electronic flash gun and fire it repeatedly into the prime element. In most cases the repeated flash kills the fungus. Photographers who live or work in more humid climates do well to fire a flash into their lenses on a fairly regular basis to help prevent fungus from forming in the inner elements of the lens.

Other factors of lens care are basic common sense. Do not leave lenses in a hot car. Do not expose lenses to rapid changes in environment (such as leaving a warm house to take pictures in the snow). Do not expose lenses to water. Protect lenses from blowing dust and sand. All of those items should be so obvious as to not require discussion. Yet, every year hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted as lenses are ruined by simple carelessness.

While it is true that a good photographer is not limited by his/her equipment, good equipment helps good photographers take great pictures. Taking proper care of one's lenses is an important part of making sure your photographs are among the best.

THE FINE ART OF CRITIQUE

"Here is a picture I took. Please let me know what you think, both good and bad."

Such statements adorn the forums of too many Internet pages from presumably professional photography sites to social networking spaces. Among photographers, and artists in general, there is a somewhat egotistical but nonetheless genuine desire to know that one's work is accepted, understood, and appreciated. Novice photographers who are sincere in their desire to improve know that advice from those with more experience may well aid them in their own education.

Unfortunately, too often the replies generated by such attempts at public discourse are either dismissive drivel such as "nice shot" or "I like it," or horrific diatribes of venomous hate and ridicule. Rarely do such conversations contain reasonable, well-thought knowledge and even more rarely is the proffered advice of any actual constructive value. As such, unmoderated and unprofessional forums are largely a severe waste of one's time and energy, satisfying only the over-inflated egos of those whose self-serving comments are a weak attempt to masque their own short comings.

Despite the failings of these plebeian parlors of pontification, genuine and knowledgeable critique is immeasurably valuable to photographers and artists at most any stage of their career. Academic critique provides direction, guidance and encouragement in a manner that is clear, useful, and well-thought, void of knee-jerk reactions, unnecessary homiletics, and accusations of inferiority. Criticism is best a gently applied tool offered with the understanding that photography, like any art, is largely subjective and that, in the end, the only opinion that really matters is that of the person hanging the picture on their wall.

Art criticism follows a standard four-step process of Description, Analysis, Interpretation, and Judgment. Each portion is applied in order so that the criticism is delivered through a careful and intelligent examination of the work. Through this process, both the reviewer and the photographer should come away with a better understanding of the work and its impact. Applying the same process to all manner of photography is perhaps the closest one may come to achieving the most constructive level of comment.

To better understand the process of critiquing images, let us consider the contents of each step.

1. Description. Look, carefully, thoughtfully, expansively at the picture. Consider first not one's immediate opinion of quality, but rather define exactly what is there to be seen. What photographic elements are present in the image? Which technical elements have been applied? Are processing methods obvious enough to be identified and, if so, what are they?
   
   Also important here is information from the photographer such as the title of the work, camera settings, environmental considerations and, if available, the photographer's statement. The purpose of this step is to identify as much information about the work as possible before making any subjective comment.
   
   
2. Analysis. Consider the work as a complete and thorough composition. Here, one's understanding of the technical aspects of photography, art and design come strongly into play. Elements requiring attention are:
   
   
   • Contrast
   • Lighting
   • Framing
   • Grain/Noise
   • Focus
   • Depth of field
     
   • Processing
   • Print quality (where applicable)
   • Line
     
   • Space
   • Form
   • Color
   • Perspective
   • Balance
   • Proportion
   • Movement/Rhythm
   • Emphasis
   • Harmony
   
   Without a thorough consideration of each element, a criticism is incomplete and any further evaluation is ill-conceived.
   
   
3. Interpretation. Here is where one's personal views first come into play by describing what emotions and thoughts the piece invokes. Relate how one feels when looking at a picture. Is the subject familiar? If so, how is this photographer's point of view different or similar to other photographs of the same subject? How does one particular photograph relate in terms of style and content with similar works by the same photographer? Does the photograph seem to have a specific message or meaning, and if so, how well does the image accurately portray that message?
   
   One must take care in the choice of verbiage one uses when constructing this portion of the criticism. Words such as pretty, ugly, beautiful, horrible, have little place or value. Use a vocabulary that is non-threatening and avoids being trite, condescending or self-serving.
   
   Do not shy away from asking questions that the picture may not seem to immediately answer. Questions such as, "what was the photographer's relation to the subject?" are wholly appropriate and the eventual answer to that question may shed considerable light on the interpretation of the piece.
   
   Finally, consider here how the image relates to photography and society in a larger sense. Is there a similarity between this image and that of other photographers? What are the social connotations of this image? Is the average person without knowledge of photographic elements likely to understand and appreciate the image in the same way as the photographer?
   
   
4. Judgment. The primary purpose of this step is to establish and explain the value of the photograph. Historically, it is at this point many art critics question whether photography contains artistic merit at all, primarily based upon the perception that the pedestrian qualities of the field belie the need for either talent or skill, thereby eliminating value. Therefore, a primary consideration at this juncture must be the sometimes painful question: does this picture demonstrate qualities representing a quantity of talent and skill sufficient to establish a measure of value? Simply saying that a picture is good or ugly is woefully inadequate. What makes this picture valuable on both a personal and professional level?
   
   Also essential to establishing value is the question of originality. What makes this particular image different from other photographs? Does that difference generate positive or negative response on the part of the viewer? If the photograph is similar in concept and composition to others, are there still sufficient elements to cause this image to stand out from the others, or is it merely another square in a mediocre mosaic?
   
   Does the photograph fulfill its purpose? Not every picture taken is intended to be a work of fine art. If an image is to be used in advertising, does it adequately sell the product or brand? If a photo is used as illustration, does it adequately reflect the point being presented? Would the intended use be better, worse or the same were the image not present?
   
   Finally, address the long-term value of the photograph. Will the message and emotional impact viewers feel today still be present fifty years from now? Here, the bar is set necessarily high and those whose images clear it are preciously few. Pictures such as the raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima, Ansel Adams' carefully timed and constructed landscapes, and Helmut Newton's nudes are among the select group who pass this critical test. Selectivity is essential and often short-sighted. One must be careful to neither underestimate nor over value the impact an image might have on a generation not yet born. Yet, the matter is worthy of evaluation.

Obviously, any well-considered critique that follows thoroughly all four steps is going to of greater length than a couple of quick sentence fragments. Providing genuine and helpful criticism takes considerable time imposing upon the schedule and expertise of the critic. Anyone seriously desiring such a level of serious consideration is not likely to find such in an online forum. One is better served approaching a respected authority privately and with an offer of some renumeration for the effort.

One is obligated to seriously consider the responsibility of accepting a request to provide criticism of another's work. Should one's schedule not contain sufficient time for due consideration, or if the request is made outside one's area and level of expertise, one may do greater good in declining the request. When the need to critique is valuable and appropriate, one does well to apply the following considerations.

• Do not give criticism where it is not requested
  
• Be professional in both tone and manner
• Avoid cliche
  
• Think twice before committing to words: is the comment appropriate and helpful
• Sarcasm is neither appreciated nor appropriate
• Do not confuse the artist with the art; just because one has personality conflicts with another photographer does not mean they are incapable of producing good work.
• Use language known and common to the field of photography
• Be gentle; caustic diatribes severely lashing a work are seldom well received and generally a waste of time
• Do not hesitate to ask questions
• Take responsibility for your opinions
• Do not assume that of which you are not 100 percent certain
• Remember there are no absolutes; using words such as "never" and "always" are rarely appropriate
• Avoid long, anecdotal response; stick to the facts and stay on topic
• Become familiar with the photographer's greater body of work before considering any one picture
• Know that criticism should always build, never destroy

Equally important to knowing how to provide criticism is knowing how to receive it. There are important elements to consider before offering one's work for criticism:

• Do not ask for criticism when one is only of the mind to accept praise
• Criticism from those who are not familiar with one's work is inevitably lacking in perspective
• Do not expect a critic to deliver praise on an inferior image
• Be gracious rather than defensive when shortcomings are revealed
• Provide sufficient information about the image so that the reviewer has a sense of what you were wanting to achieve
• Even when the review is generally positive, look for elements where one might improve

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "Good criticism is very rare and always precious." In a society where too many people find morbid satisfaction in the verbal destruction of others' work, those words ring more true than ever. One cannot improve if one is not aware of a deficiency. However, criticism should always be a tool and never a weapon.

May all our words regarding the photography of others be applied as delicately as a diaper to a newborn child.

DON'T DAMAGE THE MODEL :: SAFETY ON LOCATION

"Expect the unexpected" is an over-used cliche that rarely lives up to the marketing hype to which it is attached. Yet, it is a reasonable mantra for any photographer planning to shoot on location. Once the confines of the studio have been left behind, one becomes subject to forces of nature, physics and humanity that are wholly unpredictable and, at times, quite dangerous.

Shooting on location can be quite exciting. Roaring waterfalls, crashing waves, breathtaking skies, and ebullient models are among the very reasons one picks up the camera in the first place. Unfortunately, in the fervor one often feels for getting "the shot," too often overlooked is the cardinal rule:: DON'T DAMAGE THE MODEL, which, by extension, applies to the photographer as well. One's haste and zeal to secure image to media should never, whether by intent or ignorance, create danger that might cause the next photograph to be one's last.

The days when photographers were generally stout men lugging a hundred pounds of equipment up the side of a hill are well in our past. Photographers today often gripe if their camera body weighs over five pounds. As a group, we do not generally cast as imposing a shadow as did our predecessors, while our increasingly digital equipment becomes all the more attractive to the snatch-and-grab thief. Most elements of location safety are but common sense if one takes the time to give the matter any serious thought. Yet, reviewing the basics, along with a few specific self-defense ideas, is well worth a few moments consideration.

1. AVOID GOING ALONE. Sure, there are times one wants to just grab the camera and get away from the noise and hustle. There's something peaceful about lying on the ground and waiting for the sun to hit just the right place for that perfect shot. Yet, for the majority of situations, and certainly any time a model is involved, there really is no legitimate reason to not have someone else tagging along.
   
   Having a third (or fourth) person increases the safety factor considerably. Both the photographer and the model must necessarily focus on their work, which often means blocking any external distractions that might occur just off set. While such attention is imperative to good photography, it inherently puts both the photographer and model at risk. A third, largely uninvolved, person need not be distracted and can watch for changing weather or approaching danger.
   
   In the most extreme situations involving personal assault, it may be possible for a would-be assailant to grab hold of two people, but almost certainly not three, leaving one person free to call for assistance. While one hopes to avoid such life-threatening situations, reports of such incidents have increased significantly over the past five years, giving cause for greater diligence in this matter.
   
   
2. Scout the location in advance. Chances are, any responsible photographer is going to scout a location anyway. However, in addition to considerations relating directly to the shoot, one should also consider safety factors. If shooting outdoors, consider:
   
   
   • the terrain: is the ground flat and soft, or rough and rocky?
   • Is there traffic nearby and, if so, what potential dangers might it pose, not only in terms of getting hit, but air quality that may cause breathing issues for anyone with asthma or other related conditions?
   • if shooting on a beach, what are tide conditions and when do they change?
   • is there a potential for acrid smells from nearby industrial facilities?
   • If shooting in water such as a stream or creek, what is the condition of the water and its bed?
   • what is the likelihood of encountering bees, wasps, snakes, or other potentially dangerous creatures?
     
   
   When shooting indoors at a non-studio location, consider:
   
   
   • what is the condition of the electrical facilities?
   • is running water available?
   • where are the nearest fire extinguishers?
   • are floor surfaces slick or stained with questionable material?
   • how many fire exits are available?
   
   Many of these items merely require a glance around the area and won't require much, if any, adjustment to one's shoot preparation. However, knowing this information can save considerable reaction time in the event of an emergency.
   
   
3. Maintain a first aid kit. Minor cuts and scrapes are the most common injuries experienced on location. A variety of bandage sizes, cotton balls, alcohol swabs, and anti-bacterial gel will usually address any minor problem that might arise. When shooting in the spring and summer months, one may want to add some form of mosquito repellent, skin lotions with sunblock, and possibly even a snake-bite kit. A thermal blanket is always an important item to guard against shock in the event of a fall or severe injury.
   
   Additionally, photographers should inquire of models whether they have any specific allergies or medical conditions that may be triggered by elements on location. Persons suffering with various forms of asthma, which is the most common issue, usually carry personal inhalers with them, but photographers should be aware of the disease and knowledgeable in providing assistance should an attack become severe. Diabetes and epilepsy are additional conditions that, while generally kept under control with medication, photographers should know how to address in the event of an emergency.
   
   Scented oils and lotions are the most common source of skin irritants, and unfortunately, may be allergies to which the model is not aware. Photographers are best advised to use unscented materials to avoid such unexpected reactions. Generally, there is little that can be done to offset skin irritants. Minor rashes may be reduced with zinc oxide. Calamine lotion helps with reactions to poison oak or sumac, but doesn't do much to help the shoot continue. If the source of the irritant is unknown, wash the area with warm water and seek medical attention.
   
   
4. Watch for changing weather conditions. When shooting outdoors, weather may be an obvious consideration. After all, the entire shoot is likely dependent on the weather meeting expectations. One tends to let down that guard when shooting indoors, though, which may result in unexpected excitement in the middle of the session.
   
   Lightening poses the most unexpected danger. The sun may still be shining on the model when changing conditions create lightening on the leading edge of a storm. The instant lightening is observed at a range close enough to hear the resulting thunder, photographers must make the decision to either move the shoot to an indoor location or cancel completely. During any weather event in which lightening is involved, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe outdoor location. Even indoor facilities with large windows can present unacceptable risks.
   
   No matter what time of year, atmospheric conditions can change suddenly and without much warning. Just prior to this writing, weather conditions went from an unseasonably warm 51 degrees to a chilling 20 degrees in less than three hours, spawning everything from rain, hail, tornadoes, and snow, leaving meteorologist scrambling in an attempt to keep up. While that situation might be rare, it does illustrate how rapidly conditions can move from favorable to dangerous. Photographers are responsible to maintain an awareness of environmental conditions and, when necessary, cancel a shoot to maintain everyone's safety.
   
   
5. Consider clothing dangers. What one wears on a shoot may seem unimportant to many inexperienced photographers. Yet, more than a few life-threatening conditions have been suffered simply because someone was wearing clothing inappropriate to the conditions.
   
   Over exposure to both heat and cold leave photographers and models at risk often without immediately realizing the danger. Fashion concepts are frequently shot during the opposite season for which the fashion is intended, resulting in models wearing long sleeves and heavy fabrics in warm weather, or swimwear and light fabrics in winter. Keeping everyone well hydrated and limiting the amount of time the unseasonable fashion is worn help eliminate potential problems regardless of the season.
   
   Footwear is important when shooting on or trekking through uneven terrain and/or in shallow water. Even the most sure-footed explorer is subject to injury when footwear is inadequate to provide sufficient guard against slipping or puncture.
   
   Hats and gloves may at times seem to get in the way, but are crucial both in regards to maintaining an even body temperature and avoiding sunburn.
   
   Finally, be extremely careful with clothing when using any type chemical or open flame during a shoot. Unlike fabrics in clothing designed for children, few adult fashions are made with flame retardant material and some synthetic materials may deteriorate simply from the fumes of certain chemicals such as paint solvents. Exercise extreme caution any time such potentially dangerous material is utilized.
   
   
6. Let someone else know where you are going and what time to expect your return. Both models and photographers should follow this rule no matter where they are going for a shoot. Even if the time frame for a shoot is uncertain, establish a period where everyone "checks in." In the unfortunate event that everyone involved is incapacitated, the ability of rescue officials to locate your party is critical to saving lives.
   
   
7. Keep food and water handy. Dehydration is one of the most significant, and most overlooked dangers one faces when shooting on location. Regardless of the season or temperatures, the body loses moisture with any level of physical exertion and more with any exposure to the elements. This slow, quiet loss of fluids may result in headaches and loss of coordination, and may trigger myriad otherwise dormant medical conditions. Since many models don't want to complain about what seems to be minor physical discomfort, problems seldom become evident until the situation is critical.
   
   In similar fashion, keeping some manner of food, such as fruit bars or hard candy, can help fight against anything from hypoglycemia, which is common when models haven't eaten for a while, to scratchy throats and coughs. Prepackaged food items travel easy and provide minimal sustenance in most emergency situations.
   
   
8. Hard cases are more useful than soft. Over the past few years, many photographers have taken to carrying lighter-weight soft bags for their equipment. Tear-resistant fabric and foam padding are sufficient to protect equipment from minor bumps and abrasions. However, soft cases may not be the best choice for photographers who frequently shoot on location or under any variety of challenging conditions.
   
   While any photographer does their best to protect their equipment, accidents invariably occur and the more one shoots the more likely one will fall victim to such an event. Soft cases do not protect lenses from falls greater then two or three feet. Digital camera bodies are essentially mini computers and subject to all the dangers from bumping and exposure to electrical and magnetic fields as would be a laptop. Furthermore, many soft cases are wholly inappropriate should something happen and the camera bag decide to go for a swim.
   Hard cases, whether made of rigid plastics or more sturdy titanium-based alloys, provide a much higher level of protection against both the elements and accidental mishandling. While their weight may be greater, what little inconvenience that may cause is immediately offset when the case protects against damage that would otherwise require the purchase of new equipment. In the event of extreme emergency, hard cases may also make formidable weapons as well.
   
   
9. Equipment can be weapons. No one likes to think that they will ever be placed in any degree of physical danger while on a shoot. Yet, as previously mentioned, cases of assault against both photographers and models have increased over the past five years. Most generally, such instances seem to occur in highly populated urban settings where the digital equipment is seen as being easily-pawned sources of cash (few would-be thieves have any idea how little value cameras hold at a pawn shop). While every effort should be made to avoid such situations, when confronted photographers are not without options in fending off would-be attackers.
   
   Tripods can be especially effective in extreme circumstances. Most modern tripods allow for their rubber tips to be screwed upward, revealing pointed tips designed to hold in soft soil. While the points are not sharp, their appearance can be menacing and, if necessary, may be effective in fending off attack long enough to secure additional assistance or call for help.
   
   Using the "test" mode on most flashes can also be an effective tool against assault. A flash set to full power and aimed directly into an assailants eyes causes momentary shock and blindness, giving one opportunity to run for help.
   
   No matter what the circumstances, photographers are best advised to apply only sufficient force as is necessary to escape a dangerous situation. The loss of equipment or other valuables is insignificant compared to the loss of life.
   
   
10. When in doubt, leave. Obviously, there is no way one can ever plan sufficiently to anticipate every possible danger that may occur while shooting on location. Who expects a curling iron to explode, or a flash to upset nesting hornets? Given enough time in the field, one is likely to encounter numerous circumstances which would never have been imagined while sitting quietly in the studio. The world is wild and adventurous and unpredictable, which is exactly the way we want it.
    
    One should never question their own uneasy concern, however. If a situation doesn't feel right, even if the dangers cannot be immediately identified, the more prudent move is to leave and re-schedule for another time. Neither model or photographer should ever feel compelled to shoot in an environment in which they are uncomfortable. Such photographs are not likely to be of usable quality and, at the very least, waste everyone's time. There is no shame in being safe and looking forward to shooting another day.

Hopefully, these considerations are sufficient to guard against the majority of safety concerns one might have when shooting on location. As previously stated, a little common sense goes a very long way in keeping everyone and everything safe. Our hope would be that every shoot would be incident and worry free, but for those occasions when something goes wrong, it is a relief to know that one is prepared.

HISTORY BEYOND PHOTOGRAPHY (pt. 3 of 3)

Throughout the 19th century, specifically from 1815 forward, it seemed as though every form of artistic expression, literature, music, philosophy and art, exploded at once, the pieces and forms from one inspiring and blending with the other to create one of the most prolific creative periods in western civilization: the Romantic era. This is the period that gave birth to the "power" music of Beethoven, Wagner, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Mendelssohn and Chopin, the operas of Verdi and Bizet, the poetry of Lord Byron, Shelley, Keats, and the literary storm from authors such as Wordsworth, Pushkin, Poe, Hawthorne, and Hugo.

Painters of the period often collaborated closely with musicians and poets, the words and music influencing a new depth of color, bold nationalism, an impressive realism, and a strong inclination to use their work as the visual aspect of much larger statement. Throughout the global arts community, there was a sense of social responsibility; that art does not exist merely for aesthetic pleasure or to enhance personal vanity, but that art has a responsibility to guide, lead, and affect change within society.

In 1830, French painter Eugene Delacroix created the above masterpiece, Liberty Leading the People commemorating the revolution overthrowing King Charles X. The Friench government paid 3000 francs to purchase the strongly nationalistic piece, but the emotion and political fervor stirred by the work was so strong that it was exhibited in the palace for only a short while.

Arguably Delacroix's greatest work, Liberty encompasses all the main traits one would expect to find in a painting of the Romantic era. Full of both allegorical and French nationalistic symbolism, it is not without adamant purpose that the deceased figures in the foreground display all the ravages not only of war but even more of tyranny. Liberty herself is no shy, demure model; she is strong, robust, barefoot and bare breasted as she raises high the tricolore and steps off the canvas, right into the face of the viewer. The crowd behind her represents every social class from bourgeoisie to peasant, each face full of individual personality and emotion.1

For many, the Romantic period epitomizes art at its apex. These are the works that draw the largest crowds, even those who aren't quite certain to what their eyes should search or the subtleties to which their ears should listen. Being an artist of any form was an occupation celebrated and revered. Concert halls and galleries were packed full. Museums and universities were endowed with a competitive fervor. To create, to compose, to write, to teach, was the most noble of callings and each country, nay, each village was eager to hold high their celebrated champions of the arts.

But Delacroix's painting wasn't the only French creation that cause a stir. During this very same period two frenchmen, Joseph Niepce and Louis Daguerre began working together to develop a method for developing plates that made permanent images exposed to light. The French government bought the rights to the process in July 1939 and made the process public a month later. Photography was born and the world of two-dimensional imagery was immediately thrown into a manner of upheaval.2

Painter Paul Delarouche, is credited, perhaps apocryphally, with stating that, "from today, art is dead!" The art world reacted largely with horror. Charles Bauldelair, who many consider the father of modern criticism, wrote quite harshly of his disdain for the new medium, calling it "art's most mortal enemy." [A portion of Bauldelair's Salon of 1859 translated to English can be read online here.] Fear led many painters whose income depended on "miniature" portraits to become photographers themselves.3

Yet, there were those with a greater understanding of the medium who saw it as a way to actually increase their painting income. By utilizing photography, a painter could severely minimize the number of sittings needed with a subject. A painter could now work at the canvas for hours without having to worry about the model fainting of fatigue simply by utilizing this new medium of photography.4

Of course, photography was still quite young, plates took 30 minutes to develop, and there were dangers and problems along the way for which painting simply couldn't and wouldn't wait. While photography suffered through the pains of trying to figure out its own being and identity, the art world went wildly onward.

Even as the popularity of photography is exploding, a loosely-knit group of Parisian artists are working in a very new style, one with noticeably softer edges, a stroke that moves strongly away from the stark realism of the Romantics. The artists are known collectively as the Impressionists.

Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Sisley, and Cassat are among the best know painters of this still-popular style. For photographers, their connection and contribution to imagery may not be immediately apparent. After all, one who is accustomed to seeing the world through a camera lens looks at an impressionistic piece and immediately thinks, "it's out of focus!" But the Impressionists made two very important contributions for photographers.

First, they took the creation of art outdoors. Prior to this period, most painting, even landscapes, was performed indoors. Impressionists went to their subject rather than forcing their subject to come to them, opening up a whole new perspective on imagery outside the studio.

Second, they brought a new and original perspective of natural light into their paintings. The reflection of colors from object to object is a consideration that too many inexperienced photographers still overlook, but was of critical importance to Impressionist painters. Paintings from this period are amazingly accurate in the placement and density of shadows and reflection in relation to the position of the sun.

Toward the end of the 19th century and moving into the 20th, movements and styles of art come in greater number and much closer together. Change occurs at an amazingly rapid rate throughout the twentieth century. To try and account for all of them here would be sheer folly. However, there are some major points worth mentioning.


Fauvism, led by Henri Matisse, whose 1904 work Woman with a Hat is shown above, took the art world kicking and screaming into abstraction and the concept that a color seen may be better expressed on canvas with a color of a different hue. Blue becomes ultramarine. Red becomes vermilion. Fauvism, and to lesser degrees pointalism and post-impressionism, all teach photographers to step back and peer beyond the physical reality of a subject to find its essence, its emotion, and even its connection with the artist.


Can the Cubist works of Picasso (le guitariste shown above) and Brauqe hold any lessons for photographers at all? Of course they do! Cubism teaches photographers to look at all the surfaces of an object, not merely the side closest to the camera. Cubism reminds one to search for and find the depth in our subjects. Indeed, duo-tone, tri-tone and multiple exposure photographs are in some manner indirectly related Cubism as they present multiple perspectives of a single subject, though not in the same single-plane manner as the Cubists.

Cubism also teaches photographers to look at a frame as though it were divided into cells on a grid; consider what lies within each cell and its relationship to the image as a whole. This concept can be especially useful in the development of composition, lighting, and editing.

Time, space, and the brevity of read interest do not allow for any greater exploration regarding the relationship between the history of art and photography beyond what has been presented in these three articles. Without doubt, every minute topic raised, and more intentionally ignored, could easily become the subject of a half-day's lecture were time and interest permitting. Hopefully, this brief engagement sends photographers running to libraries and museums and galleries to study and give greater consideration to all that painting has to teach.

The artistic ground on which we stand has already been tilled for hundreds of thousands of years by the painters who come before us; the job of the photographer today is to use that knowledge, experience and inspiration to cultivate a new and exciting level of imagery and art.

---

1.Toussaint, Hélene, (1982). La Liberté guidant le peuple de Delacroix. Paris: Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
2. Leggat, Robert (1995). A History of Photography from its beginnings until the 1920s. Published online by the author at http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/index.html
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

HISTORY BEYOND PHOTOGRAPHY (pt. 1 of 3)

Bookstores and libraries are full of well-written volumes about the history of photography going back to Camera Obscura in 1558. Everyone who holds any serious desire in photography does well to take the time necessary and devour as much of the information as possible. There is no significant advantage to recapitulating those tomes here.

While the mechanics of cameras have their origination in the mid sixteenth century, humans have been creating artistic images for an infinitely longer period of time. Even before the guttural grunts and screams evolved into language, our evolutionary ancestors created images on cave walls not merely as accounts of their daily life, but as art, for enjoyment, entertainment, and thought. Creation of artistic imagery is as much a part of human history as the development of society and philosophy. This is the true history from which photography is born and it is in the study of art history that photographers better define, focus, and develop the evolution of what began as pigment carved into cave walls.

For reading convenience, this article is divided into three parts. Much of the historical information for this article comes from the extensive compendium of information compiled by The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the many historical art experts there. Further exploration of all research cited is strongly encouraged.

Just how old is artistic imagery? The answer would seem to lie in the solution to the question of how old is man? While the oldest known cave paintings are a mere 35,000 years old, excavations in Africa have uncovered pigments and grinding equipment dating back 350,000 to 400,000 years old. Even more amazing than the simple presence of the tools is the fact that over 300 different pigments were present.1 This tells us our ancestors were not satisfied with merely drawing on walls, but took pains to create images with various colors and hues, giving artistic thought and purpose to their work.

What seems apparent is that not only have humans always used imagery to record their actions, but they have also used imagery for their own pleasure and aesthetic value. From Africa to Asia, across Europe and into the Americas, works of art have been found among the remnants of myriad tribes and peoples. Artists of the Paleolithic period across Europe and Asia created both mural works to be left for others and portable pieces they could carry with them. Images carved in mammoth ivory, wood, and stone then painted, carried with nomadic tribes as they transversed across the continents.2

Among the most well-known of these artifacts are the so-called Venus figurines, which seem to indicate that even in the earliest forms of art and imagery the female form was a frequent and popular subject. Exaggerated features, such as breasts and buttocks, seem to indicate that such representations may have been linked to ancient fertility beliefs and had strong spiritual connections, but the careful detailing also seems to indicate attention was given to aesthetic value as well.3

Understandably, solid examples of the most ancient forms of imagery are extremely rare and difficult to find. Artifacts from the earliest periods, roughly 20,000 to 8,000 BC are our best sources for hoping to understand art of the ancient worlds. Perhaps most important is that these art pieces are not limited to one or two places on the globe. Ancient art has been found on all the inhabited continents, from Blackwater Draw in what is now New Mexico, to Fell's Cave in Patagonia, Chauvet Cave in Southern France, Wonderwerk in Namibia, Pachmari Hills in India, Ubirr in Australia, and Mal'ta in Asia. The creation and use of images has been just as much a part of society from the very beginning as it is today.

Many more examples of artistic imagery are available from the Neolithic period (8,000 to 2,000 BC). These are the seemingly crude images that have been common among elementary text books for the past 50 years. There is so much more to this period than cave drawings, however. Craftsmanship in the development of tools expanded the types, styles, and intricacies of art dramatically.

During this period, the ancient Japanese developed the first pottery, creating both bowls and human figurines. These were carefully painted and fired and utilized a wide variety of designs created by pressing the clay against plants and rope in specific patterns.4

At the same time, Spanish wall art depicts both hunting and dancing activities, complete with what some might argue to be the earliest fashion images, giving one the ability to see what was popular style in ancient Spain.5

Far away in Australia, cave paintings begin with incredibly crude stick figures, but by 6,000 BC have become considerably more detailed including scales on saltwater fish and crocodiles. There may be some indication that more portable art was created, but perishable materials such as wood and fiber have left little hard evidence of the works.6

At Jericho, ancient Mediterraneans began creating textiles, dyed and decorated with beads. 7 Could this have been the beginnings of the fashion market? There is some evidence to that effect. Most certainly there was value attached to these garments as they were increasingly traded as civilization developed.

By the time of the Early Bronze Age, various societies had developed some form of written communication, most notably the Egyptians. Hieroglyphic writing was in use from around 3200 BC until the late 4th century AD. This symbol-driven language gives a unique underscore to the prominence and necessity of symbolic imagery. This ancient written form is based on images that were readily understood and recognizable even by those without formal education. Scribes were revered figures and drew large crowds when they would read from the scrolls they created.

At the same time, several societies have begun settling into fixed communities, moving out of the caves and into permanent houses of their own construction. Kings begin building elaborate palaces and art figures strongly throughout these structures. One notable example was the palace of King Zimro-Lim on the Euphrates River in Syria. The palace was decorated heavily with wall paintings and statuary that were sadly destroyed with the conquest by Hammurabi.8

Migration and settlement into the Italian peninsula and Greek islands introduced brief periods of cultural poverty before the explosion of cities such as Crete, Troy, and Mycenae. As personal wealth increased throughout this region, so did the development of art. While most remaining artifacts consist of carvings, sculpture and ceramics, there is no reason to think that wall art and other forms of imagery did not continue to flourish.9

The Pruvian culture of South America flourished during this period as well. The use of shells and bird feathers, decorative beads and intricate carvings seems to indicate a relative wealth that resulted in many new forms of artistry.10

By 1,000 BC, many societies demonstrate the presence of an artisan class responsible for the creation of many forms of imagery, from wall art to sculpture to fashion to ceramics to intricate seal carvings. Many artifacts seem to have apparently had some religious connection, but even pieces with more common uses were still highly decorated, bringing aesthetic pleasure to every day bowls and vessels.

As the Roman empire begins to expand and dominate, art is about to take on some dramatic changes, but the appreciation and need for art in society has by this point already been very well established and ingrained in the lives of virtually every people group on the planet.

How does this impact modern photography? Consider these points in summary:

• Artistic imagery is as basic and elemental to the human condition as food, shelter and clothing, having been important to even the most ancient of peoples. The ability to create images of ourselves, what we do, who we are, makes us, in a sense, immortal. Just as crude cave drawings are in some cases our only remaining evidence of the presence and migration of humans in the ancient world, so photography achieves the same basic, rudimentary purpose in modern society. Photographs preserve who, what, and where we are, and while there is historical value for future generations, to those who are the subjects of photographs the images are our means of reaching into the future and saying, just as those cave drawings say to us: "Hey, I was here!"
  
• The creation and preservation of imagery is a significant part of society. Whether as a reflection of religious beliefs or for one's own aesthetic pleasure, art is the most fundamental form of expression, quite possibly predating every other form of communication. Photography is a continuation of that expression, creating images reflecting how one views the society in which they live, the conditions of our lives and our thoughts, preserving both our successes and our disasters. Our images bring deep definition to our humanity and our social conscience.
  
• Appreciation for art and the desire to have images as part of one's life is universal. Art has never been limited to just one or two people groups. Rather, wherever there have been humans living on this planet, they have created art in whatever form was available to them. Perhaps the greatest hope for digital photography is that it has the potential to once again make the creation of imagery much more universal than has been the case over the past millennium. Photography has the potential to bring real art out of the museums in which it has been necessarily sequestered and back into the every-day reality of human life. Photography restores and redefines freedom of expression not just for a few, but for every person on the planet.

What we do with our cameras today is but a continuing evolution of what began with pigments and grinding stones some 350,000 years ago. Photographers are not new artists, but a continuing legacy of images creators who hold a valuable and irreplaceable role in society.

The ancient artists teach us the social necessity of images. As civilization develops however, we begin to see how images actually shape and can be used to control society. Such will be the path explored in part two of this series.

---

1. "Earliest Evidence of Art Found" unattributed article in Sci/Tech stories on BBC.co.uk. 2 May 2002
2. Tedesco, Laura Anne. "Mal'ta (ca. 20,000 B.C.)". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm (October 2000)
3. ibid.
4."Japan, 8000–2000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/eaj/ht02eaj.htm (October 2000)
5. "Southern Europe, 8000–2000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/eus/ht02eus.htm (October 2000)
6. "Oceania, 8000–2000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/oc/ht02oc.htm (October 2000)
7. "The Eastern Mediterranean, 8000–2000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/wae/ht02wae.htm (October 2000)
8. "Mesopotamia, 2000–1000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/03/wam/ht03wam.htm (October 2000)
9. "Southern Europe, 2000–1000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/03/eus/ht03eus.htm (October 2000)
10. "South America, 2000–1000 B.C.". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/03/sa/ht03sa.htm (October 2000)

LIGHT BASICS :: ALL THOSE COLORS!

14 million colors. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? At least, it once did. When digital imaging crossed the threshold to achieve 14 million colors it seemed as though such a marvelous thing had been achieved. Yet, it is now possible to achieve color bit depths of 48 bits per pixel, theoretically giving one the ability to produce 281 TRILLION colors! Is such bit depth really necessary? How many colors can the human eye see, anyway? And what is the source of all these colors?

Color, of course, is how the human eye perceives various wavelengths of light. In elementary schools, we are introduced to the color wheel and told there are three primary colors: red, yellow, and blue. Shortly after getting that little fact in our head, though, confusion ensues. Digital cameras utilize a color space where green replaces yellow, and printers live and die by a Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (K) color space. Which is correct? Why can't anyone agree?

First, we must consider how the human eye perceives color. Within the human retina sit three color-discriminating cones, commonly labeled L, M, and S for their peak sensitivities of long, medium, and short wavelengths. As light comes through the retina, the three cones work together adding and subtracting information to create three signals: Total Brightness, Red vs. Green (r/g), and Yellow vs. Blue (y/b). All the possible combinations of positive and negative r/g and y/b signals result in the discernible spectrum of just over 10 million colors.

Interestingly enough, many digital cameras attempt to duplicate how the three cones translate color through the use of what's called a Bayer filter pattern. No, there isn't an aspirin inside the camera. The Bayer filter alternates a row of red and green filters with yellow and blue filters in such a way as to mimic how the three cones address color. The filter outputs a mosaic image to which the camera's processor applies a demosaic algorithm. Better yet, higher quality camera actually use three different color processors, giving even greater color accuracy to the image.

The difference between the cones of the human eye and color filters in a digital camera is that the three cones cannot accurately be assigned a red, green, or blue label. Hues dramatically overlap on all three cones. However, it is important to realize that longer wavelengths produce more red-toned hues while shorter wavelengths produce blue tones, with green and yellow falling within various points of the midrange.

What one can accurately determine is the wavelength of light necessary to produce a given color. Just to be academically correct, I am obliged to mention that light can also be measured in terms of frequency and energy. For purposes related to photography, however, wavelength measured in nanometers is the more appropriate measurement.

red	700 nm
orange	620 nm
yellow	580 nm
green	530 nm
blue	470 nm
violet	420 nm

What causes changes in wavelength? In natural light, heat is the primary factor in determining light wavelengths. The hotter the light, the shorter the wavelength. Wavelengths can also be altered as light passes through a prism. Both have applications in photography.

When shooting in natural light, changes in light temperature as the sun rises and sets can dramatically effect the color accuracy of a photograph. If the camera is expecting light with longer wavelengths but receives shorter wavelengths, it inevitably mis-processes the information, resulting in inaccurate color. As the wavelength of sunlight changes constantly throughout the day, photographers must adjust how their cameras interpret color by re-setting their white balance or changing film types.

Light refraction comes into play most commonly through the lenses and filters one chooses for the camera. Because camera lenses are inherently curved, light is naturally refracted in a precise manner so as to send accurate information to whatever media awaits, whether film or digital CCD. Placing filters over the lens alters the refraction of the light, either shortening or lengthening the light wave for the purpose of making a color adjustment.

Here's where color gets a little confusing for photographers, so pay careful attention. When photographers speak of making an image "cooler," the effect is to warm the light by shortening the wavelength, most often achieved with a blue filter. To "warm" an image, one must cool the light, lengthening the wave by added either a red or amber filter. Since filters do not actually generate or reduce heat, however, they achieve the same effect through careful refraction. focusing on a specific gamut range. Cheap, inexpensive filters are often not as accurate in their refraction and fail to produce the desired results.

Many people can relate to the experience of shopping for clothes, picking out an item they think is a particular shade of red or blue or green, only to get outside the store and realize the garment's color is a very different hue from what one saw in the store! What happened? Did the garment magically change colors? Probably not (though some materials may give that illusion). What changes is the wavelength of the light in the viewing environment, effecting both color and brightness. Indoors, under fluorescent light, the wavelengths are more moderate, muting both reds and blues. In bright sunlight, wavelengths are shorter and brighter, emphasizing blues and violets, changing tonal perception.

For photographers, such changes in wavelength and brightness have huge implications for when and where one takes pictures. If an assignment calls for photographing items majoring within the blue hues, typically 550 nm or shorter, one is likely to achieve best success shooting outdoors of the morning, as the light temperature moves from cooler to warmer, favoring the blue- to violet-colored materials. Garments with yellow to red hues will photograph better in an evening sun, as the light grows cooler. Photographs taken in shade will inevitably favor blue and green hues but skew toward orange in the summer as longer days allow one to take advantage of more slowly cooling wavelengths.

Color theory can become incredibly complex and difficult to understand without a degree in physics. However, to the extent a photographer understands light and color one can make more intelligent decisions regarding lighting and settings for photographs. One of the best resources on the Internet is Professor Walter Lewin's lecture on Rainbows (lecture # 22) at M.I.T. His unique explanation and demonstration is one that I think most any serious photographer will find helpful.

LIGHT BASICS :: IS IT TOO HOT IN HERE?

Light.

The most basic, elemental form of energy, light is the most critical element for all forms of life. As photographers, we wrestle constantly with light, whether there is too little, too much, or coming from the wrong direction. Much of the anxiety can be eased by putting more effort to understanding this most fundamental element and its most critical role in creating the pictures we love.

Visible light, what the human eye is capable of seeing, is but a very small part of the eletromagnetic spectrum. The combined fluctuations of electric and magnetic waves transport energy from point A to point B. As light interacts with matter, the wave changes, allowing the human eye to assess the qualities of the matter. These changes in light are what our eyes interpret as color.

We measure light, and subsequently color, in terms of temperature. Without getting bogged down into scientific explanations, the amount of heat emitted from a light source determines its color (with the exception of fluorescent bulbs). These temperatures, measured most typically on what is called a black-body scale, are important in helping us determine what it absolute white. When shooting film, for example, tungsten film recognizes white according to the temperature of light emitted from a tungsten bulb, which is 2800 K. Daylight film, by contrast, recognizes pure white on a range between 5500-6000 K. Using film inappropriate to the light source inevitably alters how the film interprets color. Fluorescent light presents a challenge to photography because the light does not originate with a heat source and therefore varies in temperature, making it nearly impossible to find an accurate point for white balance.

What difference does any of this make?

Consider the challenges of outdoor photography. Experienced photographers will often talk about catching the "magic hour," within one hour after sunrise or one hour before sunset. The reason is because of the temperature of sunlight during those periods of time.

Look at the following outdoor temperature scale:

Sunlight: Sunrise or Sunset	2000
Sunlight: One hour after Sunrise	3500
Sunlight: Early morning or late afternoon	4300
AverageSummer Sunlight at Noon (mid-latitudes)	5400
Direct Mid-Summer sunlight	5800
Overcast	6000
Daylight Fluorescent Lamp (see note)	6300
Average summer sunlight	6500
Light summer shade	7100
Average summer shade	8000
Summer skylight	9500 - 30,000

NOTE: There are six different types of fluorescent lamps, making it virtually impossible to know what the exact white temperature is going to be. Even the best fluorescent filters tend to leave a greenish hue, making fluorescent light a challenge for photography.

If we assume that the professional tungsten lamp temperature of 3200 K is ideal for portrait photography, then once the sunlight temperature exceeds 3500 K, one can anticipate increasingly severe problems as the light temperature steadily climbs. Even overcast skies emit a temperature hot enough to skew color on outdoor film.

NOTE: Light temperature should not be confused with illumination. A 75-watt incandescent bulb has a light temperature of 2850 but hardly emits enough illumination for a quality photograph.

Of course, most people who pick up a camera now don't worry about film as they are using digital products that have auto-white balance settings. Given the abundance of digital cameras and white-balance settings, is light temperature still a factor to consider? Absolutely! Auto-white balance settings are rarely, if ever, accurate enough for professional work, especially if one places any type filter on the front of the lens. Even pre-loaded settings such as "shade" or "overcast" are not likely to be as reliable as professional work demands.
For example, a "shade" setting of 7000K might be appropriate for light shade in summer, but in heavy shade would result in a definite chromatic shift toward green and yellow.

Digital photographers generally have two options. One is to set a custom white-balance by taking a reference picture of a white card in the given light setting. This works in situations where the light source remains at a constant temperature. However, the reference photo quickly becomes obsolete when shooting outdoors. More appropriate may be setting the color temperature manually. Most Canon EOS DSLR and Nikon D series cameras have a manual range from 2300K to 10,000K, which pretty much covers all but the hottest of summer skylights.
However, such settings are useless if the person holding the camera doesn't know how to properly apply them!

In addition to the scale above, some temperature settings worth remembering are:

Match flame	1700
Candle flame	1850
Full Moonlight	4100
Electronic Flash	5500-6000
Xenon arc lamp	6420
TV Screen	9300

Granted, software tools such as Photoshop provide the digital photographer with multiple tools for correcting color issues caused by an incorrect white balance. However, relying on software is inefficient when faced with more than two or three images. Attempting to resolve white balance issues through batch processing delivers nothing short of mediocrity. A wise photographer solves light temperature issues on the camera, either through film choice or by adjusting digital light temperature settings.

Try it. The difference in the quality of one's photography grows the more one understands the elements going into a great picture.