Month: July 2024

Posted on

How Not to be Creative

Fall aspen emphasizing falling leaves

You can find suggestions everywhere about how to be creative. I decided to turn it around and offer suggestions on how not to be creative. Is that creative? 🙂 I can’t guarantee that doing the opposite will make you creative, but perhaps they may be warning signs for consideration.

Creativity

We all want to be creative (I hope). But what it is? How do you define it?

We all have different views and expectations. For photography, maybe it comes down to making images that seem fresh and “different” in a good way. They say that everything has been photographed. I don’t buy that. But even if it has, there are new viewpoints or treatments or lighting on our subjects. And there are still lots of things no one has thought to photograph.

Few of us will create wholly new art genres the world has never seen. Few of us really want to. But we can do work that people look at, come back to, and admire as a whole new way of seeing a subject. We can project our feelings onto the print, giving it our unique stamp.

We often use the metaphor of the muse inspiring us to creativity. If the muse is with us we are creative. If she is not, we can’t seem to do fresh work. Yes, our creative inspiration seems to come and go; to have highs and lows. I do not believe some imaginary Greek goddesses actually have anything to do with it. It is really happening within us.

So rather than chasing after creativity, I want to look at ways to stifle the creativity we have.

Distraction

If you live in the Western world, you are probably paralyzed by distractions. Our devices and entertainment rather successfully compete for all of our time and mental bandwidth.

People open their phones dozens of times a day because of fear of missing out (FOMO). We are expected to be online and available to our employers 24/7, even when on vacation. The wonders of the internet has opened up far too many “opportunities” to spend our time and attention.

But rather than being an incredibly empowering technological aid to us, it has become the master we are slaves to. People are online at work all day then spend many hours at home doom scrolling funny cat videos or new dance moves or movies we don’t really care about.

So, a great way to subvert your creativity is to be so distracted we do not have time for original thought. Creativity requires quiet time and very limited distractions. In general, the more attention we give our phones and other devices, the less opportunity to be creative we have.

The technology is not bad in itself. I have 1G fiber and i would not want to let go of it. What we do with it is where we can hurt ourselves.

Stress

Another great creativity killer is stress. Stress focuses all of our attention on the problems we are facing.

The world always tries to keep us treading water. Just a couple of days ago my fuel pump went out, while we were driving in a hard to access location in the mountains. Do you know how long it takes and what it costs to get your car towed over Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park? And do you know what it costs to replace a fuel pump? That can peak your blood pressure.

That’s just one little example. All of us deal with many sources of stress all the time. It comes with life.

Like our devices, stress occupies all of our attention if we let it. When we are stressed and worrying, we are seldom thinking creative thoughts. It seems more survival mode.

So, to kill creativity, give in to worrying about stress. Fixate on those problems. Live with a survival mentality.

Of course, we can’t just wish our stressors away. We need to deal with them. How we deal with them is up to us. Attitude is a big deal.

Trying too hard

Want to chase away the muse? Trying too hard is a good way.

We should always be trying hard. What I mean, though, is trying to force our self to create something on our schedule. Just sitting there saying “I have to create something; now; do it; right now”. How does that work for you?

Maybe it works better for you than it does for me. If I try to force myself to be creative it seems to have the opposite effect. I am a total blank.

Actually, I can often lure creativity to visit me by ignoring it and thinking about or working on something else. I believe artistic creativity comes from the subconscious. Our minds need to be occupied with something not too demanding so our subconscious can be free to wander and think new thoughts. But then we must be conscious enough to realize what just happened and capture the idea.

Too busy

Another good way to not be creative is to be too busy. Busy with demanding tasks that occupy all our attention and mental bandwidth.

The world around us encourages a high level of busyness. What do you say when someone greets you? “How ‘ya doing?” “Man, I’m staying really busy!” It’s almost a badge of honor.

Being busy is much better than being idle. But like most things, when taken to an extreme, it can be destructive.

If you are one of those super busy people with a full calendar, how do you find time to be creative? Maybe it is as simple as doing some prioritization and putting some blocks of time in your calendar where you will let your mind relax and give yourself the space to focus on your art.

Imitation

The last creativity killer I want to talk about is imitation. Are you trying to make art like your mentor or favorite artist?

I believe this is a trap because we cannot be them. We can make work that looks a lot like theirs. But this is looking backward at what they have done in the past. We cannot be in their mind and have the same thoughts and influences that will guide them to new work. So all we can really do is copy them. That is not creative. We are not adding anything new.

Can we learn from other artists? Of course! That is how advancements are made. The critic Lionel Trilling is quoted as saying “Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.” Many others have said similar things in slightly different ways. The consistent point made is that we take what we can learn from others and add it to our own art. Just imitating them, though, is a dead end.

Conclusion

Creativity is something we all have in varying amounts. It is an enabler and motivation of being an artist. But we are surrounded by many powerful forces that want to stifle our creativity.

All the creativity sucking problems I list here are real and probably attack most of us most days. They are easy to identify but very hard to overcome.

We cannot just pretend they are not there. Instead, we have to be very aware of them and actively work to fight them. If we don’t, we will be sucked into their trap and our art will never be seen. The path of least resistance is to give in and let our creativity be choked out.

Fight!

Posted on

Another Way to Copy

Photographing a true icon - The Eiffel Tower

My previous article talked about using presets to make our work look like another artist‘s. This is going to continue talking about another way to copy another artist. Not directly or intentionally, but with the same result. That way is going to the same locations.

Trendy locations

It seems like locations are as trendy and popular with photographers as clothes styles are with some other people. Can’t you look at a lot of popular photography and score pretty well in a “guess the location” game?

Some locations get over-photographed to the point of becoming cliche. Do you get tired of seeing pictures of Iceland or Greenland or the Antarctic or Africa? A little closer to. home, how about Yosemite or the Tetons or the Palouse region or fall images from Vermont?

It is not at all that these places are not beautiful. Just that there is a herd instinct to rush to do the same thing. It seems like a photographer publishes a nice image of a fresh new location and everybody wants to follow to get, what, the same picture?

The problem of visiting iconic locations

There is nothing wrong with these locations. Absolutely not. They are iconic because they rightly deserve to be. The problem is our own and what we commonly do when we get there.

From my own experience and from reading others’ experiences it seems there is a common trap we fall into. An often photographed location causes a certain amount of awe and wonder. We see the famous image we have dreamed of and shoot it. And then we are kind of done.

Most of us can’t, on that first visit, see beyond the obvious. This is common. The location is famous and grand and set apart in our mind as this special thing. We have always seen it a certain way and we are locked into only seeing it that way.

Access is important

What is the difference between our shots of iconic locations and the, probably better, work we do routinely? One significant difference is access. I want to thank Brooks Jensen, the editor of LensWork magazine for helping me see this insight in issue 152, Editors Comments. He, in turn, was inspired by a comment of David Hurn. He proposed that the most important aspect of a potential subject is that we have access to it.

What we routinely see and shoot we become very familiar with. We become analytic in looking at it. Having the freedom to frequently return to the location gives us the opportunity to see and evaluate it in all seasons and weather and lighting conditions. From all angles and possible views. It becomes an old friend we know well. When we take a shot of it, it likely captures its true personality. We know its best side and its worst.

These familiar scenes may not be the grand locations most people think about. But we can represent them in meaningful ways, because we know them well. And we know them well because we have access to them.

Access, frequent return visits, is what builds this familiarity.

Approaching an icon

So what strategy can we use when we get the chance to visit one of the. icons? I agree with Mr. Jensen that photographing exotic locations is actually more difficult than photographing the familiar.

Don’t avoid. traveling to these places! Travel is usually worthwhile for many reasons. But perhaps we need a strategy for approaching the great locations.

I suggest that when we get there, give in and have fun shooting all the normal tourist views. These are your first impressions. Then when that is out of your system, slow down and start being more analytic. Be suspicious of the conventional scenes you just captured. Try to look beyond them. Find a new point of view you have never seen. Ask yourself how you feel about this thing or place. How you relate to it and perceive it. Why are you taking this picture? Stop and think and just look a while before proceeding.

Make it a mini photo project. That involves having a theme, a point of view, knowing what you want to say, maybe having a story behind it. You will probably find that few if any of your initial “wow, I’m here” shots make it into the final project. The important ones will be the more thoughtful views where you were interacting with the subject on a deeper level.

Go your own way

We can even use that learning to take back to the familiar subjects we see every day and have easy access to. The familiar should not be less exciting. Probably it should be more exciting, because we have the access and opportunity to get deep into the subject.

Sometimes I go out among my familiar surroundings with nothing in mind. My plan is to just react to these familiar subjects in, hopefully, a fresh way. Sometimes I go out with a project in mind, looking for opportunities to add to it. Either way works, because of the frequent and easy access I have to the material. On our home ground we have an advantage. No one else gets so much access to the subjects you are intimate with every day.

Never try to copy another artist, unless you are doing it for your education, to learn a new approach. Do not publish these as your original work. You are copying. Trust that you have a viewpoint and believe you have something to say with your work. You do.

Today’s image

No challenge guessing the location. Yes, I shoot icons. Everybody does. This was not my first visit to it, so I approached it differently. I didn’t want just another tourist shot of the famous Eiffel Tower.

After walking around it for a while, I was drawn to this composition. I felt inspired by its immense size and beautiful curves and lines. I didn’t have a wide enough angle lens to capture it in one shot, so I had to shoot multiple and manually stitch them together.

Maybe this is still a common shot of the icon, I don’t know. I don’t look at many others. But is seems different to me and I like it. It is one of my best memories of it.

Posted on

Buy My Presets, Make Work Just Like Me!

Twisted tracks in a rail yard

Maybe I’ve just gotten on some bad mailing lists, but it seems I am being bombarded by offers to get the “secret sauce” of many photographers. Promises that if I will just take and use their presets I will now have all I need to be just like them. No sweat; no learning, just buy my presets, make work just like me.

Plugins and presets can be good

I use plugins, presets, profiles, Photoshop actions, and whatever else I can use productively. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of them. They can be great productivity tools and they are getting more capable all the time.

Lightroom Classic’s latest technology allowing us to include “AI” masks in a preset – adaptive presets – that can be a great help. This is one reason a larger preset market is appearing. Including the automatic masks makes the presets more general.

Adobe includes quite a few presets and profiles in Lightroom Classic. Many of them are useful. If you include all of them in your lists you will be wading through hundreds of choices. That’s before buying sets of them from other photographers.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find too many choices overwhelming. If you are exploring a look for an image, are you really going to try out hundreds of options? Maybe once every few months just to stimulate ideas. But routinely doing that would waste lots of time.

That is why I carefully curate a small set of presets and profiles that are important to me and that I may actually use. This gets into the next topic.

If you didn’t make it, you probably won’t know when to use it

I have tried downloading a couple of sets of presets from well known photographers. What I find is that the presets represent their thinking and choice sets. They had dozens or hundreds of minor variations of some basic edits. E.g. make the sky a little more blue, make the sky even more blue, make it real blue, make the foreground a little warmer, make the foreground even more warm, etc.

But there was little there I could not do as well and faster by myself, since i know how to edit in Lightroom Classic. If I want to make the sky more blue, that is some simple, almost automatic edits that I can do in a few seconds with little thought. Doing it myself is much faster than searching through hundreds of presets someone else made and that have confusing names.

I removed all the ones I downloaded.

What I find is that if I want to repeat something fairly consistently, I make a custom preset for it. Then I can find it easily, because it is in my User Preset list and I know what I called it and why I made it. Even though it is probably duplicating what many others offer in their preset sets, I will never find theirs and I would not recognize the strange name they called it.

But if I make it, I know what it does and where to find it. Besides, the adjustments reflect my vision, not someone else’s.

Profiles

Profiles are another rich area in Lightroom Classic. They have gotten very powerful in recent releases. If I am doing a B&W conversion in Lightroom, I will usually run through a short list of my favorite B&W profiles to get a starting point.

In some ways profiles are more powerful than presets, but also more mysterious. Presets do their work by changing the normal settings we can see. It is easy to apply a preset then go look at the settings and modify them to our preferences. A profile’s work is hidden in the internals of Lightroom. You can’t really see how it did what it did.

This is a problem for me. Maybe I am too much of a control freak, but I take the responsibility for knowing how to create the image I produce. Besides, vintage photography looks and “modern” color styles are not very appealing to me. That seems to be the main application of many profiles.

Craftsmanship

I would never say we have to suffer for our art, but I do believe we have to be a good enough craftsman to be able to realize our vision. That is an argument for doing the work ourselves. This is one of the arguments against AI generated “art”. For me, there is a serious question of authorship if we are unable to create the work entirely our self.

I will capture my own image, not download something someone else shot. My image curating will be done by me. I feel I need to be able to edit and craft my work to the point of being a final image. I will also print it, to the limits of my small printer. That whole cycle is important to me. I feel it defines a lot of me as an artist.

If it actually did it, why would I want it?

But this is just looking at mechanisms and process. What is going on behind the scenes in the editor. The overarching question for me is why would I use these artist-specific presets?

Sorry, but I don’t want my work to look like yours. Perhaps I will analyze what appeals to me about some feature of your work and find out how to do some of that on my own. But I do not want a preset that says “make this image look like <_______> did it”.

How much different is using a “make it look like x did it” preset from telling ChatGPT (or one of it’s cousins) to “create a landscape image of the Grand Tetons in the style of Ansel Adams”?They are not quite the same, but too close for my comfort. I am deadly serious about wanting to follow my personal vision and do work that creatively expresses what I feel.

No, I will stumble along in my own way, taking my own path, missing out on the ease of being able to simulate various other artists. The risk is not worth the reward for me. I would feel like a fake.

Thank you for your offer to buy your presets and easily make work that looks just like yours. I will pass.

Today’s image

This is taken in a rail yard near my studio. Nothing very special (although if you look at those rails you can wonder, like I do, how a train stays on the track). Maybe it is not a very good image. But it is all mine. I am responsible for every pixel. The original image is mine and no presets or profiles or plugins were used. No attempts to imitate any other photographer’s style. Just like I want it to be.

Do you use other photographer’s presets or profiles? Let me know. I am curious. No criticism if you do, I just welcome your experience and thought process.

Posted on

Mix a New Image

Pseudo aerial. Extensively processed.

Recently I was watching a video series on audio mixing. That is a separate story. But I was struck by some of the similarities between the process of mixing for certain genres of music and image editing and creation for certain types of art. It made me think of the ways we mix a new image.

Audio mixing

Producing an audio recording is simple but difficult. Let me take a rock band as an example. The group goes into a studio and the source material is captured, sometimes for the group all together but more often by “tracking” each band member individually. It is fairly typical to start with the drummer, because the percussion is the base beat that everything else fits into. Then guitars and/or other instruments are overlaid. Finally, the vocals are recorded last, because the singer needs to hear everything else.

Each individual or instrument is recorded on one or more tracks. The drum, for instance, might need 10 or more tracks to capture the full drum kit. And there are multiple takes for each track.

Then in the studio, the recording engineer works with the performers to create a mix that pleases them and had good production value.

Digital image creation

Let me take an example of creating a fine art composite image. It will be built of many layers and elements.

The artist has a general plan for what will be needed and how it will come together. This helps to ensure that all the pieces are photographed and the individual images are created with consistent lighting and perspective and mood and focal length, etc. The artist shoots each element separately.

Working in the computer, the elements are brought together and blended to create the final image.

On the surface, there seem to be certain parallels of structure and process. but let’s go a little deeper.

What really goes on?

What I observed in several videos and in first hand experience is that a song is basically re-built from scratch in the mixing phase. Of course, simple problems are fixed. Pops and noise is removed. Parts of tracks may be re-pitched. The best parts of several takes are cut together for each performer or instrument to make the master.

Then it gets weird. After a good basic master is put together the producer goes on to ‘liven up” the sound. This may involve equalizer changes, to tailor the frequency response of a track. It probably involves effects processing that will add delays and reverberation and echoes to give the sound depth and sound like it is performed in a large venue. Maybe even adding things like claps or new percussive effects.

And it goes on. The producer then may start to “play”. It may involve intentional distortion in parts. It may introduce new sounds that were not in the original recording. As an example, one trick I saw was playing tracks into a garden hose and recording the weirdly distorted sound and mixing it in subtly. You miight even see them put is a track played backwards! Several other very strange techniques can be used to create strangely distorted effects that you would not directly notice, but that add character to the overall sound mix.

My learning was that, to the recording producer, the original recordings were just raw material to be used, changed, distorted, added to and anything else that could be thought of to produce a sound they liked.

Similarities

Isn’t it about the same with photography sometimes? I used the example of fine art compositing. Brooke Shaden and Renee Robyn are 2 good practitioners I think of.

All the individual pieces that were shot are just raw material. The artist puts them together to create the basic image, then starts to mold it into a final work of art.

The finishing may involve distortion, warping, masking, radical color changes, and extreme lighting changes. Then new elements are probably introduced, like textures or patterns. There may be multiple layers of them combined using blending modes. Often subtle and not immediately recognized, but making the image into something different.

An artist using a non-destructive workflow will end up with dozens of layers to create this final image. The end result may only look a little like the original parts.

Let go more

This emboldens me to think I am usually too cautious with my vision of what the final image could be. Being an ex-engineer I have an ingrained tendency to go for realism. The final image must look exactly like the original.

This is probably a mistake. I am self-limiting my artistic freedom. Long past are the days then the novelty of capturing a scene gave interest to a picture. Now an image needs to be a work of art. It needs to show vision and creativity from the artist. That involves letting go of an absolute realistic goal for the image.

Have you ever heard a “dry” (unmodified) recording of a famous singer? There are very few of them who are so perfect they would let it be heard. All music is heavily processed. It is coming to be the same with images.

I do not mean AI. That is a separate issue. I am claiming that, to be well received, many images need to be heavily and artistically processed. We have the tools. Let’s use them well.

A song is built by getting good tracks recorded. Then the producer takes it apart and builds a final song. In a similar way, we can often do the same with an image. The only thing stopping us is our self-imposed limits.

I will try to learn to not be afraid to mix a new image. Think like a song producer. The original data is raw material to be created with. Post processing is just another tool we use to achieve our vision or feeling.

Today’s image

This is me starting to let go. A little. It seems like a pretty conventional aerial image. But of someplace you don’t recognize. Looks can be deceiving.

Sometime I may describe what it is.

Posted on

Not A Spectator Sport

How could you sit still at a time and place like this?

For most of us, I believe photography is not a spectator sport. We only learn a little by watching other work, even great photographers. Photography is craftsmanship and creativity and vision. These have to be developed. Watching only helps a little.

It’s a first person experience

I have written before about life and our art not being a spectator sport. To me, this is still strongly true. But I’m taking a slightly different direction here. Many of us take workshops or watch videos to observe other photographers taking pictures. I watch a lot of videos, but I have to realistically ask why. What is gained by it?

The reality is that we do not learn our art or develop our vision by watching someone else. Unless they are an exceptional teacher. But even then, it does us little good until we have internalized it and made it our own style.

Craft

Photography is a craft. Any craft has to be learned and then practiced over a long period to master it. So I’m not saying there is never anything to be learned by watching another practitioner work. I’m just saying that it is a somewhat dangerous act. We must be careful what we are taking in.

Some instructors are good about talking us through what they are doing and thinking. Giving us insight into their thought process. This is very beneficial. As long as we carefully examine what we are learning and deciding what to keep and what to leave.

The basic craft aspects of photography can be learned, to some extent, by watching a good instructor. Then we have to practice, and practice, and practice… Repetition, evaluation, mistakes, trial and error practice that teaches us how to do the craft. So there is a little instruction then a lot of self-teaching.

It is easy to make the mistake of trying to mimic a teacher. We respect them and are in awe of their ability, so we want to be just like them. Don’t do that. They have their vision, we have to create our own.

Creativity

Our art is not really ours if we are just copying someone else. The instructor we admire and copy may be very creative. Doing the same thing does not make us creative.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have studied this a long time. A good instructor may inspire us to be more creative, they may challenge us, they may give us some good ideas, they may even give us some hints how to do it. But we cannot achieve creativity by watching them. It has to come from within.

Cole Thompson was tempted to copy the style of artists he revered, especially Ansel Adams. He famously started the idea of “Photographic Celibacy” – never looking at other photographer’s work. I think that is going too far. We can learn a great deal from studying other people’s work. But it worked for him and it emphasized the danger of copying other artists.

We don’t have to be celibate. But we do consciously have to maintain our own identity. Follow our own interests.

Vision

What we express with our art is our own vision. We each have a unique vision, unless we are slavishly copying someone else. A tendency when we are starting out is to try to copy someone, because we are insecure. We don’t think we have developed a “vision” yet.

I think Chuck Kimmerle insightfully captured the essence of it in an article in Nature Vision Magazine #1: “We can’t discuss style without mentioning vision. The two are related but vastly different. While style is fairly easy to describe, vision is much harder to define. At its core is who we are as individuals: our experiences, lifestyles, likes and dislikes, politics, spirituality, family, priorities, and so forth. Our soul. It is the story of our lives, a personal diary if you will, and is what makes us unique. Vision is what drives our style. Unlike our personal style, our vision rarely changes.”

This vision influences and comes through in the work you produce. We can’t help it. That is one reason why several photographers can be out together shooting the same area at the same time and produce a variety of different images.

So don’t worry that you don’t have a vision. You do. The trick it to let go and let our vision express itself. Don’t be concerned about it being different from what other artists do. Eventually you will recognize yours.

Who are you learning to be?

So watch other photographers and get what you can from them. But never loose sight of who you are learning to be – you.

Just this morning I watched a short tutorial on an aspect of Lightroom editing by a good instructor. He was very good about describing why he did every step of the process. It was a little valuable. But overall my internal dialog was “nope, nope, that’s interesting, not the way I see it, not the result I would try to get”.

Was he a bad instructor? Not at all. He is good and quite well known. Was is a useless genre? No. He was editing a landscape image. that’s reasonably close to what I do.

So why did I reject a lot of what he said? Because I am pretty confident in my craft and vision. I can watch another photographer and not be intimidated or pressured. This is because, for the most part, I have learned to be me. I know what I want to achieve. I appreciate picking up tips on doing the craft better, or easier ways to get to the product I want, but no one is going to (very easily) convince me to become something I’m not and don’t want to be.

How do you learn?

So how do you learn? Do you intently study a master and “try on” their style for a while? Do you study basic theory, such as composition, design, color, etc? Do you go to workshops where the instructor shows you where to put your tripod and what settings to use and how to set up your shot to get the same results he got?

Any or all of this and anything else you do is fine, as long as it works for you. But never forget the purpose of studying is to learn to be a better you. Not a knock-off copy of someone else. No matter how much you admire them. Personally I would shun experiences where the instructor seems intent on making you a copy of them.

Most of us are self-taught. That is, we do not have a fine art degree with a specialty in photography. We learn through various formal or informal methods. Make the most of it. Learn from every opportunity you get. But you will grow fastest by getting out and working and evaluating and learning from the results. Pick up ideas and techniques anywhere. But don’t ever forget the goal is to grow as an artist and find your own path.

So is it true that photography is not a spectator sport? Well, that’s a little bit of click bait. Be a life long learner. Eagerly watch other photographers work. Listen to what they say. But discard what does not apply to you. Never forget the goal – be you.

Today’s image

I couldn’t find a single image that illustrated this idea of “not a spectator sport”. I guess because I have always believed it and gone my own independent way. This image was chosen because maybe it shows that, if you are in a place like this at a time like this, shoot! Don’t watch someone else. Make your art.