Some Days Are Best Forgotten

Far better to move forward to the next day...

Life is short, don't waste it.

The Artistic Supermoon

Bright lights, big city, little debate...

Have you seen those incredibly detailed photographs of Supermoon 2012 displayed all over the web by photographers who normally shoot street scenes, flowers, landscapes, buildings at odd angles and what have you? The ones that look like a perfect white or yellow orb suspended on a black background taken with an incredibly expensive lens? The ones that look like they belong in a textbook? They're marvelous photographs that are technically perfect but many of us find them mechanical and uninteresting...how many have you seen already? What about those that the Supermoon is perfectly juxtaposed right behind a bridge with a bicyclist crossing in just the right spot and it is a seemingly natural scene but is too good to be true? They are quite pretty, eye-catching, fascinating and some are inspirational but not very unique.

With all due respect to those photographers that have the knowledge and equipment to take such a clear shot of the moon I see those photographs as technical and scientific records. They are beautiful representations but not artistic to me personally or to many other viewers who these photos seeming to be the same picture over and over again. First before I wade into the raging debate that is the current vogue among digital DSLR "purist" photographers versus "post processors" let me state something. I admire those that have the technical skill and equipment to know exactly which lens to use for a certain type of light and what the aperture setting ought to be. It is a must if you are going to be a wedding photographer, a chronicler of news and social events, do portraiture, advertising, architecture and aerial landscape photography. It is the same as a cartographer must now know GIS to record things as close as possible to how they really are and there is also a beauty in that.

Photography can never replicate exactly what is naturally present but is able to recreate a very close reasonable facsimile. This is done by changing lens, using filters and adjusting settings which by very definition means that the photographer has already edited and processed the end product before it comes "straight out of camera." When anyone who takes pictures in this manner mocks those of us who do a lot of post processing and take a basically solid composition with good color (or lack of color), tone and lighting and significantly alter it by "post processing" editing I secretly mock back. That is due to that I think there is plenty of room for all kinds of photography and visual art.

Why? Because we are doing two completely different types of things and the highly technical photographer is creating one kind of photographic art and the others are creating visual art that is artwork not meant to resemble anything exactly as it appeared. To be snobbish and elitist about one set of technical skills or artistry over another newer set of technical skills that creates a different artistry is as if Van Dyck were to mock Van Gogh. To bring this post full circle I have been over the SOOC ("straight out of camera") or slightly modified editing versus the PP ("post processing") debate prior to it becoming hot and heavy. It's a non sequitur, a dead issue, a futile argument, pick your choice of words.

Having said all that I went out with my most humble little cameras, a Canon Powershot "point and shoot," a Sony hard drive Handycam that takes very good photographs and my Droid X 1 with its little collection of apps and took pictures of the Supermoon. A few days later than when it was at its peak but still impressive and its interesting what happened. I knew the Canon and Sony wouldn't take much of anything I could even work with but I did manage to get some interesting photos with my Droid X 1 and the Pro HDR app worthy of playing around with some post processing in Photoshop Elements 10. I'll let the viewer be the judge of how interesting the visual art that was created from those pictures are to them.

In The Raw

Or do you sleep in the nude?...

Desert Rose among thorns.

The image I posted prior to this post at midnight today was also posted on Google+ and I was asked by someone who viewed the photo on my Google+ stream if I would mind posting the original photo. I'm not sure why fiona munday is interested in seeing the original but I agreed to do so for several reasons.

My photography and this blog have evolved to where the images are no longer SOOC (straight out of camera) or slightly edited. Rather they've become something else, Visual Art that has been edited or "processed" to either retain the essence of the original image or alter it into something entirely different. The artwork produced is not pure photography and it is not a painting or drawing or some other visual medium since it was not created directly onto canvas, paper or something else. It is digital and resides in a file on a computer until reproduced through some printing process. I consider this no different than creating a painting, drawing or some other visual art by using a photograph as guide or by projection. It is taking an original photograph and turning it into something visually appealing whether it is an enhanced recognizable version of the original or artwork that is completely different.

This is a topic of controversy among some photographers who are purists and I choose not to wade into what is "real" photography and genuine photographs. It seems specious to me since every photograph has been altered in some way depending on what camera you're using and if you're using special lens somehow it's changing what is "real." In any case I haven't thought of myself as a photographer since I used a 35mm film Hanimax Praktika camera in the seventies and eighties. Along with being a writer I consider myself a visual artist that creates images. I also don't think any photographer, painter, sculptor or artist of any kind is under an obligation explain how they do what they do and how they arrived on a particular piece of artwork. If they choose to do so I find it interesting but I believe it is a matter of choice. Generally I don't share the originals or explain exactly how I processed a photo, very often because I don't write down step by step what I do and I don't have a standard process it is continual exploration. In a sense I think it also takes the mystery out of the piece and doesn't allow the viewer to make their own interpretation of it.

I share the original photo, taken on my Droid X 1 using the app ProHDR straight out of the camera, to show the progression from original photo to final artwork. I use primarily three editing programs and I'll leave which I used for this final piece as an enigma although an experienced pro I'm sure can figure it out. What I will say is I adjust, edit and upload on the smartphone camera as well as on a PC. A final word on the topic is that although I think every decent photograph has the opportunity to become something special through processing you still have to start with a basic decent composition. There are flaws in this one with that I can see but all anyone needs to do is read my post from May 9th of this year "Rules, There Are Rules?" to further understand my point of view about rules, flaws and creative endeavors.