Something Different

done

I’ve long been mesmerized by the combination of still photography and music.  It just seems to me to be such a natural fit.  I’m not alone in this view, of course.  Countless others apparently feel the same way; it’s not hard to find examples of this marriage of media types across the internet.  Paul Lester did one recently – you can find it here. 

While I’ve done this before (using “family” photographs), I’ve never done it using landscape images.  This is the result of my first attempt at doing that kind of thing.  It’s certainly amateurish at best, but it was fun and I learned a good deal along the way.  And of course there are “problems”.  To keep the video file size at a reasonable level (for uploading), the image resolutions have to be kept on the small side.  So a lot of the detail I can see in the original version gets lost in the translation. 

But it’s something different.  Sort of like a slideshow (well, actually it is a slideshow) set to music.  I even put it on a DVD and watched it on a large screen TV.  Talk about seeing the effects of lost resolution – it was painful.  Back to the drawing board on that one.  But what fun is life if we ain’t learning new stuff?

Color Me Red

Arch, Valley of Fire SP, NV (Color Version)

My good friend Steve Weeks – who accompanied me on this particular trip to VOF – has suggested that it might be a good idea to post the original color image of this arch (from which the black and white version was created).  So here it is.

 As I said in the previous post, it’s the color that draws your attention in this place.  Except for a minor contrast adjustment, what you see here is pretty much the way it looked.  I made no color adjustments to the RAW file – no vibrance adjustments, no saturation adjustments, no luminance adjustments.  There was a polarizer on the lens, but since the late afternoon sun was almost directly behind me, it had little, if any, effect.  Yes, the sky was actually that blue.  At least that’s how I remember the scene.  Steve can correct me if I’m wrong.

Did I see the detail and texture in the rock when I took the picture?  I was aware of it, certainly.  Anyone who walks through this place and gets up close to these formations can’t help but see it.  It’s one of the most fascinating places I’ve ever visited.  But again, the whole area literally screams COLOR.  The red rocks of Zion and Bryce have nothing on this place.  If you ever get to Las Vegas, put VOF on your list of  ”must – see” destinations.  Just don’t go there in the summer months (unless you enjoy walking around in the desert in 105 to 110 degree temperatures).

So is this a stronger image in color or in black and white?  My feeling (at this point in time, anyway) is that it’s more effective as a black and white image simply because it projects the extraordinary tonal range and texture better than the color version does.  The red rock and the deep blue sky in the color version tend to be overwhelming, I think.  It’s hard to get past the “omigod, look at the color of that arch” reaction.

It is, of course, a personal choice.  There is no right or wrong answer here.  Perhaps in 6 months I’ll change my mind again.  Anyway, who said that photographers can’t be “flip – floppers”?

The Seduction of Color

Arch in Valley of Fire SP, NV

During the brief time that we lived in the American southwest I took thousands of images.  I suppose that in each case there were multiple reasons for selecting what appeared in the frame but, in retrospect, there was probably one that tended to be the most “conscious” thought.  And that thought was color.  Prior to that period of time, my life was dominated by the blues and greens of the northeastern U. S. (except, of course, for those long winter months when the world turns white, gray, and muddy brown).  To say the least, I was not prepared for what bombarded my visual senses in places like Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.  I had simply never experienced the yellows, reds, and oranges that were now in front of me.  The result was nothing less than a  “seduction in technicolor”.

There’s nothing wrong with that, certainly.  Many of the color combinations found here cannot be seen anywhere else in the world.  Throw in some of the most remarkable skies and cloudscapes you’ll ever see and you have an easy formula for photographic inspiration.

In some ways, however, the incredible color detracts from the fundamental nature of this landscape.  While extraordinarily beautiful, the southwest can also be extraordinarily harsh.  Life is not easy here – not for the natural plant and animal life and not for many of its human residents.  This place is not just sand and rock and cactus.  It is filled with incredibly diverse forms of life.  In some respects, there is as much diversity and contrast here as there is anywhere.

It seems to me, then, that one way to express this photographically is to eliminate the distraction of color and to emphasize the inherent contrast monochromatically.  I don’t know if I’ll succeed in this little project, but I know for sure that I’m going to enjoy trying. 

Location, Location, Location

One of the things that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in his book, Outliers, is the idea that being in the right place at the right time can make all the difference.  He uses Bill Gates as one example, noting that the young and future billionaire was living in exactly the right place while in high school.  He was able to feed his computer programing passion on a daily basis simply because he could walk to a place that allowed him access to computers (remember, this was in the “dark ages” when computers were huge devices that few people could even see, let alone program).  Right place, right time, and the right age.

Well, that got me to wondering about something similar with respect to photographers.  My impression (and it’s only an impression – feel free to show me I’m wrong) is that there aren’t a lot of really good landscape photographers living in the northeastern United States.  Certainly not where I currently live (near Rochester, NY).  That by itself seems a little strange, since Rochester is home to Eastman Kodak Company and Rochester Institute of Technology, both of which have been nearly synonymous with photography for decades.  I’m not saying that there are no “good” landscape photographers here.  There are a few, but their fame is primarily local, probably because most of what they photograph is local.  If that’s true, then the obvious question is: Why don’t you find more here?  And if they’re not here, where are they?

Since I’m a “numbers” guy, I decided to create my own sample of well – known landscape photographers and then see where they called home.  I wound up with 15 names, simply by looking through my own photography books that feature landscape photographers.  The names include people like Jack Dykinga, David Muench, John Sexton, William Neill, John Shaw, Art Morris, David Maisel, Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenburg, and a few others. 

Not surprisingly, I found that 13 of the 15 photographers live west of the Mississippi River, most in California, Arizona, and Utah.  Of the two living east of the Mississippi, one lived in Maine and the other lived in Florida.  Only 2 lived in what I’d call a northern climate – one in Maine and the other in Minnesota.  The rest either lived in a relatively mild climate or weren’t terribly far away from warm weather.

Now, as a statistician I can tell you that a sample size of 15 isn’t big enough to draw hard conclusions.  But I have a feeling that the results I found are generally representative of a much larger set of landscape photographers.  They tend to live, I think, in areas that are (1) rich in subject matter, and (2) allow them to pursue their interests pretty much year round.  They tend not to live in areas where snow and ice are impediments 4 to 6 months out of the year.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here.  It makes sense.  Heck, if your goal was to become a really good downhill skier, would you pick Kansas as your “home state”?  If you’ve ever driven through Kansas, you know what I’m talking about.  No, you’d pick Colorado or northern Utah or even Vermont.  But surely not Kansas.

So if you want to be a great landscape photographer some day and you live in Buffalo or Rochester or Pittsburgh, get the hell out of town as fast as you can!  Move to Tucson or Moab, Utah.  The summers can be tough, but believe me, the natives there have probably never heard of (or seen) lake effect snowstorms.