Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Tag: photographic technology

  • Buy My Presets, Make Work Just Like Me!

    Buy My Presets, Make Work Just Like Me!

    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.

  • Mix a New Image

    Mix a New Image

    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.

  • Color Perfection

    Color Perfection

    At the risk of sabotaging potential sponsorships from the color matching industry, I suggest some of us obsess too much about color. There is a difference between color perfection and color correction and color as an artistic decision and color as one of the processes we deal with. Know why you are doing it.

    Obsession

    Photographers seem to be obsessive about a lot of things. Color is only one of them. But we have color equipment manufacturers (arms merchants?) and blogs and videos constantly preaching to us that we must have a perfect color matched system from our camera to the final print or our work is amateur.

    This all sounds logical and authoritative, so we buy into it. And it can get expensive.

    So we buy colorimeters and special color corrected monitors. We make sure we have proper profiles for the printer and paper combinations we use. We even buy special systems to color profile our cameras.

    Now we can be confident that our wildflower picture exactly matches the colors of the flowers in the wild.

    Why?

    Why are we going to all this trouble? Does it really matter so much?

    Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your needs and values.

    All the steps to color correct your workflow are generally good. But unless you are doing product photography, it may not matter as much as you have been told. A corporation cares very much that the company logo exactly matches it’s color standards and that their official color pallet is correctly used.

    But if you are shooting landscapes, is it critical that the color of that leaf is the exact match of the leaf you shot? Or is it more important to match your memory and your preferences?

    My attitude

    I am not a purist about this. Actually, I am less and less a purist about anything as I evolve in my style. Any work I do is an artistic interpretation. I have no problem with changing colors if it gives me a more pleasing image. More pleasing means I like it. It has nothing to do with the match to the original scene.

    But I do it deliberately and intelligently. To do that, it is necessary to have control over your color process. And without a controlled color process your results are not repeatable. What comes out of your printer is likely to be wildly different from what you see on your monitor and different from session to session.

    That is chaos. You cannot reliably create your art. It is unprofessional and unsatisfying.

    But you need to have a color managed work flow

    It is important to color manage your workflow. That is not the same thing as obsessing about color perfection.

    Every month I calibrate my monitor with my trusty old obsolete i1 Display Pro colorimeter. And I print using proper profiles for my paper and printer. This gives me pretty repeatable colors. The biggest problem is keeping my monitor brightness low enough to match the prints.

    So far I do not find it necessary to profile my camera. Since I only shoot RAW, I can “re-profile” the images at will. And Lightroom Classic’s Camera Landscape profile is usually a good start for most of my work. Now days there are lots of profiles to try out to get a color starting pointl

    Overall, the biggest problem I have is dealing with printer gamut issues. Some of my work is highly saturated. It is disappointing when these images do not look as good as what I see on my monitor.

    Black & white

    The outlier in many parts of photography is black & white. Is it important to color manage black & white images? It seems wrong, but I would say yes, it is. It may be more important than in images that will stay in color.

    In color images, we look at the color, obviously. We tend to be pretty tolerant in what we accept as reasonable. But in black & white we only see the color indirectly through the tone relationships of the print.

    The colors are mapped to monochrome tones and shades. This makes it important to precisely control the color relationships to give separation of the tones. We may need to distinguish between fine shades of green, for instance, to give body to the b&w print. More than if the print were in color.

    What I do to the color may look strange if you saw it in color, but the important thing is the precise control required. This makes me believe color precision is more important in b&w than in much color work.

    Conclusion

    Have I confused you? I seem to have said color perfections is not important but you have to have a good color balanced workflow. Yes, that is right. Learn to live with ambiguity. 🙂

    My work is art. Everything is an interpretation of what I saw or felt. I usually do not care if the colors are “true”. They often intentionally are not.

    But it is very important to me to control and repeatably achieve the results I want in the final print. This requires understanding how to color balance my process and how to use it to achieve my vision.

    For me, color control is part of a repeatable process, not a commitment to absolutely match a scene.

    Today’s image

    This is Texas wildflowers in the spring. They really are like this, and in great bands over much of the state. Go there in the spring sometime. Spring in Texas wildflower country is about mid March through mid April.

    This is an accurate representation of what you will remember when you are there and see them. Is it totally accurate color? Probably not. Don’t know; don’t care. If you’ve been there, you will say “Yes! That’s what they look like!”.

  • I Want That Job

    I Want That Job

    I got a job ad recently that really caught my eye. The position was for an “Intermediate Unreal Technical Artist”. My first reaction was: I want that job! But my scatterbrained mind spun up a lot of questions.

    Unreal

    The “unreal” part immediately got me. Yes, I know that Unreal is a 3D animation platform. It looks quite capable. You don’t have to write me about that. But that is not the point. Just the surreal nature of the job description gave me a laugh.

    Depending on where I am mentally at any time, I like to take flights into the unreal. I never guessed it could be a paying job.

    The coincidence I could not ignore is that I have been working on a project I call Terra Incognita. It envisions imaginary, unexplored regions of our world. In doing it, I had to become an unreal artist, for real.

    It turned out a little more difficult than I thought to create imaginary, unreal worlds that look real. I want you to look at my images in this project and tell yourself that it could be an undiscovered part of the world. Creating a fake Sci Fi movie scene was not interesting to me.

    Intermediate

    The “intermediate” adjective added to the surreal situation. The possibility that there might be quantifiable levels of unreal-ness in our artistic abilities jumped out at me.

    Well, I knew that I wanted my images to seem real, not fantastic or unworldly. But what would an intermediate level unreal artist be capable of doing? Would I have to be an advanced unreal artist to look real? Or does an advanced unreal artist only do obviously fantastic scenes? Would a beginner unreal artist “fail” in his unreality and create a real seeming scene? Should I be striving towards beginner or advanced level unreal art?

    Inquiring minds want to know. I never knew the questions lurking here.

    Technical

    And it says they are seeking a “technical” unreal artist. Again, the surreal nature of the words caught me. If there is technical unreal then is there non-technical real or non-technical unreal or technical real?

    Technical real is probably what most photographers do all the time. After all, we use high resolution lenses on great high mega pixel sensors to capture huge amounts of detail. Photography is inherently a technical art. We want our images to be more real than real.

    The job posters seem to be seeking someone to create unreal scenes with a high degree of technical precision. Although I know what they mean, it still sounds absurd. Would non-technical unreal be like old 1950’s Sci Fi movies with the rubber creatures and terrible sets? Actually, what they did back then was the highest degree of technical unreality they could do before computer graphics.

    Maybe non-technical reality would be street photography shot with a cheap plastic film camera. Terrible technical quality but real scenes. There seems to be a niche market for that with people who value alternate processes.

    Artist

    And they are calling the position one for an artist. Really? Maybe in that industry, which I suspect is movies, that is true by their standards. In my experience, when someone is hired to create visual work as specified by an employer, I would call them a designer or an illustrator.

    A Pixar animated film or something like Despicable Me is a great achievement. I know there are large teams of animators and character illustrators and colorists and groups doing hair and fur and fabric. Others doing lighting and other effects. And many other teams doing software and asset management and other coordination roles. It is a large and complex process requiring many people.

    I am probably projecting too much of my values on this, but I believe an artist creates work he conceives and in his own style. That does not sound like an employee. I am not in any way minimizing productions like an animated movie, just questioning if the roles are what I would call an artist.

    The whole package

    So, could I be an “Intermediate Unreal Technical Artist”? Probably not. As much as I like the sound of it, I do. not understand it. And besides, they are looking for someone to work for them. When I retired I vowed I would not be an employee again unless I was desperate. Been there; done that. I want to only do what I choose to do and on my own terms.

    Thank you for following this strange diversion. It is quite a sidetrack from what I normally write. But as I mentioned, the coincidence with a project I am working on now was too much to ignore.

    In addition, it fits in with a long term theme I keep bringing up about whether or not photography is about reality. To me, it is not any more. Unless an image is presented as documentary, it is not to be believed as reality. And with the rapid encroachment of AI, I suggest we be very skeptical of all images, even if they claim documentary status.

    So maybe all photography is an unreal art. Maybe the job description I saw is redundant.

    Today’s image

    The image today is from the series Terra Incognita that I mentioned above. It tries to represent unexplored areas of our world. Maybe it just has not been seen before. Maybe it only exists in our imagination. Either way, consider yourself a modern day explorer flying over this never before seen vista.

    I want to hear your comments! Let’s talk!

  • Outside the Frame

    Outside the Frame

    The frame is one of the most important aspects of our images. I’m referring to the edge, the border, not what may or may not surround the outside of a print as it hangs on a wall. Sometimes part of the storytelling is to suggest our viewers think about what is happening outside the frame.

    The frame

    The frame or border around our image is a powerful component of our design. An image is created within a frame. The frame defines the extent and what is included. The frame also defines what is excluded.

    This is one of the unique and beautiful things about photography. A painter starts with a blank canvas and is free to include anything he wants for his image. No limits. And if he doesn’t want something, just don’t put it in. The photographer knows that everything in the field of view of the lens is recorded in his image when the shutter opens.

    So a photograph is constructed by deliberately deciding what is included and what is excluded and what the viewpoint on them is. Unless you are constructing a still life or compositing images together. My focus here is on natural scenes.

    It’s a dance with the frame. It’s a succession of tradeoffs and optimizations. The result is the artist’s unique viewpoint.

    The edges

    Magic happens at the edges. Most of the standard “rules” of composition are relative to the frame. For instance, the famous “rule of thirds” is relative to the frame edges. Leading lines come in from the edge. Diagonals are diagonal because of their relationship to the frame.

    And how often has someone advised you to look carefully for things poking in from the edge of the frame. They tend to be distracting, because things near the edge of the frame are powerful. As you become experienced it is an automatic action to scan the edges to check for these elements.

    The famous Jay Maisel rightly said: “You are responsible for every part of your image, even the parts you’re not interested in.” This seems especially true around the edges of the frame.

    It’s kind of a paradox. Small elements at the edge are distracting. But large features projecting well into the frame are strong design elements.

    A window on the world

    So then our frame is our window on the world. The image is the projection within the frame. We are trained to compose carefully within the frame. To make sure the image is self-contained. Anything outside the frame is unknown. It doesn’t exist.

    Or does it?

    Imagining the unseen

    Have you ever considered using things outside the frame as a design element? Is that even possible?

    Think of a repeating pattern within the frame. If it is not stopped before the edge, we assume it continues. This brings up questions, like does it actually continue? How far does it go?

    Or perhaps you consciously include a shadow coming in the edge of the frame. It can raise questions about what is the thing, is it about to come in, what will happen when it does?

    Have you ever intentionally had someone or something leaving the frame? It can raise questions about why, where is it going? What will happen outside? Why is this composed this way?

    Ever shoot an image with the subject looking out of the frame? It raises lots of questions with the viewer. We try to analyze the person’s expression and figure out if they are looking at something amazing, or startled, or apprehensive. Is something scary coming? We want to know.

    Another example is shooting a tight section of something and leaving the rest to your imagination. We probably know what the overall thing looks like and we start filling is the rest in our mind.

    Today’s image

    You want to know who he is talking to. It seems to be a happy moment. We wonder what the conversation is. You want to join in the moment, so you make up your own story about what is going on. All because we are directed out of the frame to complete the scene.

    The frame is a strong component of the composition of our images. We are very careful to arrange things within the frame. But it does not have to fully constrain our world. Sometimes leaving the outside of the frame as a suggestion to tweak the viewer’s imagination can be powerful.