Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Category: Craft

Behind a Mask
I’m referring to masks we use for editing digital photographs. They are one of the most powerful tools we have. A lot of magic goes on behind a mask.
I will use Lightroom Classic and Photoshop for my examples, because I know them best, but this is not a how-to article.
Adjustments
Some of the most widely used editing operations in photography are adjustments. An adjustment means that some property of the image data is modified – more or less, color shift, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I believe that all photo editing tools have some means of making adjustments. Some of them differ in the ability to make only global adjustments, affecting the whole image, or masked adjustments, affecting only a selected part.
Whether global or selected, the adjustment alters some property of the image. For example, some of the Lightroom adjustments are temperature, tint, exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites, blacks, texture, clarity, dehaze, vibrance, and saturation. There are others. This is just an overview.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Why adjust?
I’m talking about adjustments as if they are a good thing. But why do we need them?
When we load photographs into our computer, they are mostly in the form of a jpg or a raw file. A jpg file (broken acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group – the jpeg was shortened to jpg back in the days when Windows only supported 3-character file extensions) is fast and easy, highly compressed to save storage, and VERY highly processed. The algorithms have already made the decisions about how the image should look in terms of brightness, color balance, contrast, etc. Generally, they look good as soon as you see them. Average, but good. They may need some adjustments, but usually little.
A raw file is just that, it contains almost the raw data off the camera sensor. Almost, because all cameras do some processing of the data. It might “fix” bad pixels or apply some “secret sauce” algorithms proprietary to the manufacturer to correct for sensor characteristics or to give the manufacturer’s “look”. Each manufacturer’s raw format is different.
Raw processing software, such as Adobe Lightroom Classic, reads the proprietary raw format, does Bayer filter demosaicing, and gets the data converted to an array of pixel values. The image we see on screen at that point is rather bland. Contrast is low, colors are not vibrant, it is not ready to share.
By the way, the Bayer filter is one of the secrets that is baked into our camera technology. It is elegantly simple, but a little deceitful. Check it out in this blog. You do not have to understand it to take great pictures, but understanding it gives you a little more mastery of the technology.
I only shoot raw files, but why do that if it requires more work? When it comes to my images, I’m a control freak. I choose to do the adjustments myself according to my vision rather than letting an algorithm do it. And raw files have much more data and can be edited to a much larger degree than jpg.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
A mask
I said that adjustments can be global or selective. Masks are commonly used to do selective adjustments. Being able to work precisely on areas that need adjustment gives us far more precision and control.
Think of a mask like a stencil. It blocks some areas from being altered but lets the adjustment flow through to other areas. Because we are using digital technology, the mask can be “perfect”. That is, it can totally block the adjustment where we do not want it. Or if you prefer, the mask can be a fractional value, allowing us to only let a portion of the adjustment through. This allows great artistic control.
The concept and application of masking was not created in digital. photography. It goes back to stencils, block printing, wood cuts, watercolor painting, integrated circuit production, etc. With our current technology, it just becomes far easier to use it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Power
Global adjustments are a big hammer. They change everything. That is useful, but not adequate. What if there is a small portion of the frame where we want to viewer’s eye directed? A masked adjustment to select only that area does it. It is more and more common to want to selectively lighten or darken some areas, to change the color of a small area, or to change the color or contrast of just the sky or a portion of the sky.
These are examples. It would be impossible to list all the applications of masked adjustments. I believe that masking is a critical skill for photographers doing digital processing of images. If you don’t or can’t do it, you will be at a disadvantage compared to other artists.
If an image is going into my portfolio, or if I am going to print it, it is almost certain that there will be extensive masked adjustments made to it. Masking has become such an indispensable tool that I can’t not use it. Why would I choose to ignore one of the most powerful creative tools I have?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Benefits of AI
From my viewpoint, the last few years of maturation for Lightroom Classic has revolved around more and easier to use masked adjustments and AI-aided mask creation. These are 2 very powerful trends. And yes, AI is in there.
A few years ago, only a few adjustments had any rudimentary mask capability, on an individual basis. Now, it has flipped. The app has extensive masking, and we can apply most of the adjustments through them. A much better model.
Besides the manually created masks, there are many excellent AI generated ones. Sky selection has been around for a while, and it is getting much better as algorithms improve. So is the Subject selection. There is detailed ability to mask people, from the whole person, their skin, or clothes, down to just the pupils of their eyes. And they are pretty decent masks.
Have you tried the Landscape mask? It is relatively new. You can let it find and create separate masks for sky, snow, architecture, vegetation, water, natural ground, artificial ground, and mountains. It is a great tool for quickly separating blocks of an image for individual work. The masks are usually pretty good. But like all things AI, it works well most of the time but fails spectacularly at others. I often try it first to see if it can tease apart the areas I want to adjust separately.
The Adobe “AI” ability to locate areas and mask them is improving steadily and bringing us much benefit. If the AI can do what we would have to do manually, and give even better results, I would be crazy not to use it. Using AI to generate a mask is not at all contrary to my vows to not use it to create my images.
Need Photoshop?
The steady improvement of Lightroom Classic brings up a question I often ask myself: do I still need Photoshop?
Much of the time, the answer is “no”. Well over 90% of my final images never see Photoshop. Lightroom is getting very adequate for most image correction tasks.
There is another class of edits, though. The strength, and a weakness, of Lightroom, is that it cannot create or destroy pixels. It is a strength, because all our edits are non-destructive. Anything can be undone with no damage. But some image manipulation I want to do involves major pixel damage.
A simple case is compositing. Lightroom cannot bring all or parts of several images together as one image. Photoshop does this without breaking a sweat. It is happy to do anything we want to any or all the pixels in an image. Many of these edits are destructive, that is, they cannot be undone. But if that is what I want to do, that is the tool that will do it.
And in Photoshop, the masking is even more powerful. Learning to use masking in Lightroom creates knowledge that carries over, in principle, to Photoshop.
Example
Here is a simple before and after example of Lightroom Classic adjustments. There is nothing special about the image. It is just one I shot last week in the Rocky Mountains. The first image is a raw image right out of my Nikon Z7-II. The second is after some quick adjustments, many using masks. No Photoshop was involved. Which one, if either, would you rather show people?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Put on your mask
I hope I have convinced you that masking is one of the power features everyone needs to become confident with. Accept it. Learn it. Masks create magic. They are one of the simplest image editing tools to make your photographs stand out.
I think you will find your images will look better and have more impact when you get familiar with digital masking.
October 14, 2026
Intro or Extro?
Which is your natural approach to photography? Introspection or extrospection? Intro or extro?
Psychology
Psychologists work hard to try to explain human behavior and thought processes. Sometimes their ideas seem insightful. Sometimes, off the wall.
There are many different personality tests and other tools that attempt to sort people into convenient boxes. Mostly with the noble goal of helping to understand ourselves and other people. These can help some, on a surface level. But humans are far more complex than can be captured in a simple test.
Across most of the personality tests, one of the important axes that seems to occur in some form is introvert vs. extrovert. And the common underlying definitions are based on whether you get your energy from being alone (introvert)or with people (extrovert)
Personally, I believe most humans are.far too complex and interesting to be put into a box. It causes us to make snap judgments about them, or ourselves. And they are often wrong.
But lets go with the introvert/extrovert model for a while, since it seems true of many people, Introverts tend to “live in their head”. This leads to self-awareness, introspection. Extroverts, not so much. They tend to look out more than in. The term is extrospection.
For your inner Geek: intro is Latin for inward. Extro is Latin for outward. Spect is Latin for looking at. So these words are just describing whether we tend to look inward or look outward.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Introspection
An introspective person examines their thoughts, feelings, and actions. They look inward and are self-aware. We (this is me) reflect on our emotions and judgments and feelings.
Ordinarily this is a good trait. Being self-aware lets us see ourselves as others do and work to improve ourselves. We tend to be thoughtful rather than just reactive. As an artist, we tend to seek and practice creativity.
But in our photography, it can slow us down and distract us from what is around us. There can be a tendency to filter what we react to by what we are feeling or concentrating on at the time. If your work is based on what you find in the world around you, this can be a problem.
I had a world respected photographer tell me in a workshop that I think too much. Then later that day as we were showing some work, he said he had never seen that flower viewed like that and he was going to steal the idea. Go figure.
On the other hand, a great photographer Mike Langford said in Better Photography magazine: “Each destination starts with a process of quietly sitting
for a while and absorbing where I am. I genuinely try to feel
what is different about being there, as if it’s my first visit, with no
preconceptions. By being in tune with my emotions and innermost thoughts,
even the most familiar things can be seen and photographed in
a new and different way.” That sounds like a good form of introspection.
Introspection can lead to creatively trying new variations or approaches to what we are doing. It may slow us down and it may blind us to some great shots, but the potential creativity may well be worth it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Extrospection
Extrospection is defined as the observation of things external to one’s mind. This would imply reacting to external stimuli. Many people, especially extroverts, look outward for their stimulus and validation.
Photographers with this view tend to more easily see what is there around them.They abandon preconceived plans and work freely with the reality in front of them. I have quoted Jay Maisel on this many times, but this is exactly what he means by “going out empty”. Don’t go looking for something specific. Instead, see what is there and work with it.
I said above that this is reacting to external stimuli. At least, that is the way it works for me. I think of it as shutting off my mind, at least the critical reasoning parts, and getting into a form of flow state. Shooting becomes instinctive. I’m sure a lot of it is based on experience. The scenes before me trigger the response. Composition becomes part of the instinctive response.
This is a form of mindfulness. The extrospective person is highly aware of their surroundings and ready to work with them without judgment.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Both and
So, which approach is better? Trick question: neither. Both are valuable and can lead to excellent results. Your inherent nature determines which approach you tend to.
But you are not locked in to either one. We can learn to behave in both ways. I have said that I am an introvert and I tend to introspect. Maybe too much. But I have also learned to go out with no judgment and embrace what is there at the moment. It may be harder for me to to “get in the flow” of that, but I can do it.
Both/and thinking says that you can feel more than one thing at a time. That you can hold conflicting thoughts without confusion. It is a realization that life and humans are complicated. They can’t be accurately modeled by one simple label.
When I think I am shooting with no judgment and embracing what is there, I know that that is not literally true. I try to allow myself to react emotionally to the environment, but behind the scenes, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes much more conscious, years of training and examination are guiding what is happening. Decisions about exposure and focal length and composition are being made, I just try not to let them intrude too much on my emotional state.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Do we have to decide?
I see introspection and extrospection as complimentary traits, not conflicting ones. Extrospection lets us be in the moment, to see and react to what is around us, even if it is not what we anticipated. Introspection lets us analyze what we are seeing and maybe take it to a higher level. It seeks to find the essence and answer “what if” questions.
Extrospection helps us find interesting material. Introspection helps us creatively make the best of it. Together, they make our art better.
We are not stuck just blindly following our basic nature. You are not a helpless robot. Part of growing and maturing is to learn to adapt new behaviors. To practice new thought processes. We can learn to expand our thinking. Mindfulness and creativity compliment one another. We can hold and practice both in our mind at the same time. Without breaking anything.
Don’t just react or just think. Do both. At the same time.
Intro or extro. It does not have to be either/or. It can be both/and.
September 2, 2026
The Weakness of Photography
I love photography. It is my chosen art form. But photography has a weakness that weakens and cheapens it, in some people’s eye. Can it really be art?
Literal
We point our camera at a scene, press the shutter release, and it is recorded. Everything in the field of view is captured. We didn’t have to arrange it or decide what should be there. It is all scooped up.
Therefore, most photographs are straight views of literal scenes. Little thought and consideration went into it. There is trash and power lines we are expected to overlook. And that telephone pole growing out of the subject’s head: yeah, ignore that.
If we want to document a place or time, that can work. But we wouldn’t call that art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Too easy
Along with that is just the fact that taking a photograph is too easy. Anyone with a phone can take a pretty good picture with no thought or effort. An amazing amount of computational science is applied in your phone to make it look good. And just like everyone else’s.
This is clearly seen in the trillions of photographs uploaded to social media and photo sites each year. And by the billions of hours of video uploaded to YouTube and TikTok. Everyone can do it, and they do.
If everyone can do it, it must not be special.
Too mechanical
And photography is criticized for being too mechanical. It seems more technology than art. People don’t need training to do it. Just Point and Shoot.
We capture a photograph in an instant. It can be sent anywhere in the world in milliseconds. We can paste it on social media for the world to see and comment on.
How many people shooting pictures on their phone are spending much time considering the artistic elements of the work? No, there is little to consider. Click the button. If you don’t like it, use the AI editing controls to make it good, or just shoot it again.
It’s just an automatically produced thing. It is no longer a picture; it is a commodity.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography worthless?
To me, who likes photography as art, that sounds very bleak. So, has photography become worthless?
I like to think not.
Photography is an extremely challenging art form that requires intense effort and years of practice. At least for me. And at that, I’m just getting somewhat competent at it. I don’t think I will ever consider that I have mastered it.
That sounds contradictory. Thoughtless image capture that anyone can do or difficult and thoughtful art. Obviously 2 different things. That’s where we go off track in the argument. It is not photography that is art or not, it is our intended purpose and expectation. Are we capturing an image for a utilitarian purpose or creating a piece of art?
The same tools and processes are used for both. That confuses things.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The difference
On the surface, it is hard to tell the difference between photography being done for art vs for utilitarian reasons. The subjects could be the same, the equipment could be the same, the locations could be the same.
If you watched the photographers work you would probably spot some differences, but not always. That is not a reliable indicator.
It may be overly simplistic, but I think the difference is what is going on in the photographer’s head. Their intent and purpose, the feeling and insight they bring to the scene, and their experience. It becomes art because there was an artist present, involved, responding, feeling, creating. This can transform a simple scene into art.
The subject
If we are creating for art, the depth of our involvement must become far more intense than a simple snapshot. One of the traps many people fall into is the consideration of the subject itself. Did you just capture the obvious shallow view of the subject, or does the image say something about our feeling or perception of the subject? Did we delve deeper and try to bring our something that is not obvious on the surface?
A representation of the subject is just that. What you see is what you get. But if we can bring our something different or new or insightful to challenge the viewer, the image could have staying power.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Composition
Most people walk up to a scene and snap it. An artist thinks about composition. About how the parts relate and are perceived. And about what to include and what to leave out.
Often the artist has no ability to re-arrange the scene, but they have freedom to change their position or to zoom in to parts of the whole. Small changes of location or framing can make huge changes in the visual effect.
If we are serious about photography, we know the basic principles of composition: placement on thirds, leading lines, visual weight, etc. How we use them while making an image depends on our personality and experience. I don’t have a checklist of composition rules with me. For me, it is more subconscious recognition of them. As in “there’s a potential leading line; can I exploit it; will it make the composition stronger?”
A well composed image will be seen as designed, intentional, crafted, and more whole.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Form
An artist will look at the same scene as anyone else and see interesting shapes and patterns. They are aware of textures and reflections and how the light is playing across the subject.
Sometimes form is the whole purpose of an image. This is especially common in black & white. One of the reasons for producing an image in black & white is to remove extraneous elements like color and immediate subject recognition, leaving the forms and tones as the focus.
Subtleties like this are not usually obvious to the snapshot shooter.
Gesture
This is a favorite of mine. Gesture is not just a certain movement. It is what shows the innate character of something. The great Jay Maisel is a huge proponent of the concept. He goes so far as to say:
It’s light, gesture, and color. It really doesn’t matter what you photograph.
Jay Maisel
That is, the subject is less important than capturing that thing or moment that shows its essence. Discovering the gesture can be hard, but it is worthwhile. We could take a picture of a thing, or we can look for something that shows what the thing does or feels or how it behaves. That gives it life.
Finding and capturing the gesture usually requires intense concentration and attention. You must approach it with the will to find it. But it is a process of the artist looking deeper and with more intent than the snapshot shooter.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Are photography’s problems solvable?
Yes, because it doesn’t actually have a problem. Photography is a wonderful practice and every bit as artistic as any of the other established art forms.
The fact that the vast majority of pictures are taken as snapshots/throwaway/selfies/travel memories does not invalidate that the medium can be used for artistic purposes. That would be like saying most people can’t write well, so writing is not valuable.
I use my phone to grab quick shots all the time: a sign with a name or telephone number I need, a part I need to find at the hardware store, something that amuses me, or my grandson. These serve exactly the purpose I want. Either a throwaway or a memory. Every day I also take my “real” camera with me and occasionally see something to shoot from an artistic viewpoint.
These are 2 different activities with completely different purposes. Neither invalidates the other. Both exist together and do not compete. The same technology is being used for different goals. It’s not the subject or the equipment or the location that separates them. It is the intent and skill of the photographer. And it is the desire of the artist to create.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography as an art going away?
As far as photography as art going away, I would claim the opposite. Since most pictures taken are mediocre, at best, when we come along with an image created with skill and an artistic style, it will get noticed. It will be obvious to most people that this is different and special.
The introduction of photography caused many painters to fear it would replace them. Instead, it freed them from a lot of routine and repetitive work, like basic portrait commissions, and allowed them to create. Impressionism and other artistic directions emerged. I believe we will see some of the same.
As photographers who are trying to lift our work above the base level, we should not be apologetic about photography or feel inferior. Our intent is to produce art. We should not price our work at giveaway prices because many people expect that. Look for a market that appreciates the difference.
You are an artist. You are creating things that are unique and special – aren’t you? If not, you will be swallowed up in the giant flood of ordinary and AI generated images.
June 11, 2026
And Be There
If you have done photography for a while, you probably have heard the expression “f/8 and be there.” Have you ever thought about it?
Origin
The quote is most often associated with the photographer Arthur Fellig (more commonly known as Weegee). It is not known for certain if he originated it or even said it. But it has stuck and become a cliché.
Keep in mind that this originated in the first half of the 20th Century. As a photojournalist Weegee used a bulky SpeedGraphic 5×7 film camera with film holders. These are slow and heavy and difficult to use at the best of times. These were manual focus, manual exposure with no metering, and single shot film holders.
Weegee shot mostly at night in New York City in fast moving situations. He was usually competing with the police to be first on scene so he could get a good picture. Often, he developed his film in a makeshift studio in the trunk of his car.
He became one of the masters of this craft of gritty photojournalism. When asked the secret of his photographic technique he is supposed to have replied “f/8 and be there”.
Was that just a clever throw-away phrase or did it have meaning?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
f/8
We know that f/8 refers to the aperture of the lens. It is a truth of lens design that the “sweet spot” or maximum sharpness of a lens is generally around f/8 or f/11. That was very true in Weegee’s day and is still true today. So, presetting your aperture to f/8 is a pretty good initial guess for a balance between exposure, depth of field, and sharpness.
Weegee is reported to usually leave his camera focused at 10 ft and aperture f/11 or f/16 (contrary to the reported quote). Then it was already set to a good guess for a fast-breaking situation. His big flash bulb would light up the exposure at night. Remember those?
Weegee was a master of his craft. His Speed Graphic was slow and heavy compared to modern cameras, so he believed in presetting his camera to a good starting guess for the situations he expected. He was comfortable using his tools and tried hard to keep time consuming technical decisions out of the way.
This sounds like good advice for us, too. Being so familiar with our cameras that we can adjust them quickly, even instinctively, for the creative situation we encounter will usually help us come away with good pictures. Anticipating settings for what we will encounter is even faster.
So, my takeaway here is that f/8 is not a magic setting, but we should practice using our tools until we can adjust them to the settings we want quickly and even in the dark. The technical process should fade into the background. It is sad to miss great pictures because we are fiddling with camera settings.
And f/8 is a pretty good default choice.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Being there
Maybe the more important part of the phrase is “being there.” We can plan, we can spend all day on Google Earth or PhotoPils or studying people’s online posts, planning what we would do if we were there, but if we are not there, we can’t shoot it.
My virtual mentor Jay Maisel said:
If you are out there shooting, things will happen for you. If you’re not out there, you’ll only hear about it.
Jay Maisel
Weegee was out there, every day, in the worst conditions, racing the police to crime scenes. His persistence is one reason we still talk about him today. He got results.
Going out and making photographs where you are may be more useful than spending all year planning for that “big” photo trip. What good is it to get to that bucket list location but not know how to use your equipment well enough to capture what you planned? What do you do if you get there and conditions are completely different from what you planned for? Do you have the mental toughness and technical savvy to look around for something else interesting?
If you shoot fast and instinctively, constant practice develops the muscle memory that makes camera settings automatic. That frees more of our mind for considering composition, feeling, and interpretation. Part of it is education, but a lot of it is practice.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
For us
I think, for most of us, the situation is very different from Weegee’s day. We have fast acting and accurate automatic cameras with speedy auto focus lenses. So then, is the f8 and be there saying still relevant?
I think so. I read it as encouragement to learn our equipment well enough that it is not a barrier to getting the shot we want, and to put ourselves out in the action, because that is where things are happening.
The “action” does not have to be fast breaking photojournalism on the gritty streets of New York City. Go out exploring frequently in your local environment. Take a few day trips to surrounding places. Try to get a window seat on the airplane and be that guy who shoots out of the window during the flight.
Basically, be tuned in (mindful) wherever you go and wherever you are. Weegee may have meant the phrase as a quickly tossed off platitude. But I believe it contained some truth we can learn from. It may have been a platitude, but that does not make it incorrect.
F/8 and be there. Practice it.
April 8, 2026
Impatience
Here’s a confession: one reason I’m a photographer is that I’m too impatient to do any other type of art I like (except writing). Have you ever considered that photography is a form of impatience?
Not painting
I long ago figured out that I could never be happy painting. I can’t draw well. Most of my grandkids exceeded my drawing ability when they were about 4. Well, I have one who is only 6 weeks old, so I can do better than him. But even more than my inability to draw, I know that I would not be able to keep my interest going through rounds of sketches and design trials, and through days or weeks of work manually laying pigment on a canvas to create a finished work.
And then if I want another copy, I must either photograph it and make prints or go through the manual work of painting another one. I guess that enforced scarcity works to the advantage of a painter by keeping numbers low and prices high.
I’m just not wired that way. If I see something interesting, I want it captured now. And if you like it and want a print, I want to be able to make a copy for you quickly.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Not short attention span
Based on what I said, you might assume I have a short attention span. But that’s not true. In my career as an Engineer I would often get so lost in a project that I might disappear in it for hours without remembering to eat or go to the bathroom. Flow states were common. Even now, I can spend hours reading or writing or working on images on the computer. No, I can focus my attention fully on something I am interested in.
The problem is a type of boredom that stems from impatience. If I am not engaged, if something is not keeping my interest, I tend to avoid or abandon it. More of my life is behind me than in front of me. I can feel that, and my reaction is to walk away from things that I consider a waste of my time. Time can’t be saved, only spent well.
For instance, as I write this, it is tax time in the US. I gather up all of my data and hand it off to someone else to go through the details of figuring it and filling out the forms. It is worth it to me to pay them. Otherwise, I would go crazy beating my head against that mindless bureaucracy.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Spontaneity
I find that in my art, I love spontaneity. If I see something interesting, I want to capture it immediately. Spending hours, if necessary, working it on the computer is not a problem. I did the raw image capture when I saw it. That satisfied my basic need.
My photography is almost exclusively “in the moment”. I am a hunter-gatherer. Planning usually does not go farther than “it should be stormy tomorrow. Maybe I’ll head east to see if I can find some good shots without getting caught in a tornado.” Literally, being aware of tornadoes, hail, or serious thunderstorms is a primary consideration where I live. But that makes for some great images.
I know that some people plan their shoots in great detail. They want to know the exact day and time and location to be at to get “the shot.” This doesn’t work for me. Unless it is a commercial shoot, that much planning narrows my options too much. It takes all the spontaneity out.
I don’t care about “the shot” as much as finding something interesting that I can exercise creativity on.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Work with what’s there
Why do I work this way? The simple answer is “it works for me.” I am generally happy with the results I get, even if I sometimes come back with nothing. The thrill of the hunt is reward enough. It is a percentage game. Win a few, lose a few, the process is satisfaction. The benefit of finding a new viewpoint or something unique is enough.
Perhaps I’m an endorphin junky. If I’m out and about my subconscious may recognize something, even if it is just a potential to be worked. It alerts me to it, and this creates a burst of light/energy/warmth, whatever. It is difficult to describe. But there is a joy and excitement of discovery. Each find creates a kind of high. I would not be finding these things if I was fixed to a shot list and schedule.
Plus, there is something about my psyche that enjoys working with a real scene rather than creating a fictitious world. I may take the image, or bits and pieces of several and create something different, abstract, even surreal. but ultimately my raw material is real world elements.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
It fits me
So, I have learned and rationalized that photography fits me. I prefer to “run and gun” instead of carefully planning. I want to be inspired by what I discover and be able to capture it immediately. Then go on to the next scene that stimulates me.
It’s not so much the overall time. An image may require hours of computer work to perfect. It is the lack of barrier between what I see and what I capture that keeps me going. My creativity likes to work spontaneously and in the flow. That is one reason I could never express my art in painting.
Sure, I could try to do plein air painting or paint from photographs. But why? Plein air painting seems to me to be attempting to (slowly) capture a photograph. And if I were to paint from a photograph, I would have to wrestle with the question of why not just print the photograph?
So, over time, I concluded that photography is my art. Besides not being able to draw, I would be bored trying to express my vision so slowly and painfully. I like to move fast when I see something interesting. It is a joy to get in a flow, to follow my mood and instincts.
I have great respect for good painters. But I could not be content doing what they do. Too much impatience.
March 25, 2026