|
Why Should You Get What You See? The Myth of Popular Photography By Nelson Tan
|
||
| This article looks at the
way we take photographs - are we expressing ourselves in the process, or
are we simply reproducing what we see in front of us ?
Are we doing the "correct thing" ? Photography is a very personal process - the very
images that are created are unique to everyone. Automation in the camera
cannot know what you want, except to produce images that are typically
"correct". Too many times, people come up to me, and say that to expose
for snow images the CORRECT thing to do is add a compensation of two stops.
Whoa !! Wait a minute !! What's that ?? Magic formula ?? The "correct thing"
?? Will all cameras give the same reading when faced with the same situation
? Will all films react in the same manner ? Do you share the same taste
as everyone else ? If not, then why are you following standard calculations
and formulas?
Let's draw a parallel. Let's talk about morals. In
some tribal societies, it is perfectly alright to have multiple wives (polygamy).
In our modern societies, we are permitted only to have one legal wife (monogamy).
Now, you may think that they are wrong, and we are right. They are doing
something inherently immoral and being unfair to the female species. Fine.
Think again - if you were abducted from your cradle as a baby and brought
up in the tribes, what is your stand on morals ? The concept is that everything
is relative. There are no absolutes in this case, just like in photography.
Linking this back to the example of the "snow scene formula", it is indeed
true that for most cameras, an exposure compensation by opening up around
1-2 stops will lead to snow being rendered white, rather than grey. But
herein lies the problem - photography books describe the process as compensating
for the meter reading which was "mislead" by the snow, and thus to give
a "correct" exposure.
The important thing to note is that - there is no such thing as correct. It is understandable that when you say "correct" exposure, you mean that the resulting image on the film corresponds to what you saw in real life - no arguments about that. But why should what you see be what you want ? Why should snow be white because you saw it as white ? Photography can also be read as photo-graphics, which is creation of images through light. Why assume that you must reproduce the scene as your eyes saw it ? Why be limited to "correct" reproduction of the scene ? Why can't you underexpose snow to project a gloomy image ? "Of course I can", you say as you read these lines. But are you thinking along this line when you were out there shooting ? Or are you too preoccupied with the cardinals of proper photography ? Let's clear things up before we get started. I'm
not saying that there are no rules for photography, nor that rules are
bad and constricts us. Rules and technical proficiency are the very basics
of photography, and definitely have their place. As I wrote in another
article, "Vision without technique
can never be realized; Technique without vision leads to properly
exposed rubbish." Thus, before you attempt to emulate what I'm trying
to say in this article, remember that basic techniques are important, and
that you need to have a strong foundation in the basic rules and techniques
no matter what type of photography you want to do. It's only when you take
the rules at face-value without being critical of what the rules are trying
to do, that you become enslaved by the rules.
Why do we have such mentality ? Why do we think that there are absolute rules and laws of photography to follow ? Why must certain things be done in a certain way ? Can we accept deviations and changes ? I'd think there are basically two reasons why we adopt the fixed mindset: over-simplification and automation 1) Oversimplification When you first started learning photography, you were taught the laws of exposure, rules of composition and many many other such rule-of-thumbs. Mind you, they are not wrong. In fact, they provide a simple way of remembering and understanding the mechanics of photography. However, because it is complicated and confusing to include in exceptions when explaining to beginners, the rules and laws often over-simplify matters, and thus results in beginners adopting the fixed frame of mind that rejects other possibilities and alternatives. It was never meant to be so, but such side-effects became the unintended consequence of over-simplification. Some of the photographers broke away from the fixed frame of mind after certain stage, but many blindly followed the rules to the end, unable to break free from the constraints of conventional photography. For example, why must everything be: - In focus ? Why can't a photo
be totally out of focus ?
Secondly, we oversimplify when we classify objects,
in the name of convenience. When you ask someone to name portrait lenses
and film, they will tell you 85mm to 200mm as the ideal portrait lens,
and ISO 160 pastel coloured films as portrait films. It is true that the
stated combinations of the film and lens will produce a pleasing effect
that is conventional and accepted by most, but it isn't the ONLY combination.
By classifying the equipment and possibilities, we are restricting ourselves
and excluding various other alternatives. The so-called "portrait lenses
and films" may reproduce what we see accurately in terms of colours and
perspective, but it certainly isn't the only way to shoot portraits !
2) Automation Automation may also have a role to play in the creation of a fixed frame of mind. When something is automated, it follows a rule that sets a standard. It is true of any automation. A machine cannot perform randomly - it has a purpose and a goal. To reach the goal, it must follow certain laws and rules. For example, Deep Blue is taught the rules of chess, the various strategies possible and the probability of winning against the human chess grandmaster Karaspov. It must take into consideration the position of the pieces on the board, and follow the standards set by the programmers to create a solution out of the possibilities. Rules are everything to a automated device. If something happens, then certain rules will be followed, and certain steps executed. A computer doesn't think for itself (yet), and will not create alternative possibilities. Human minds are miles ahead, we are not computers, and we should create new alternatives. Let's take a look at the various automation built into a modern SLR: * Autofocusing means the camera must have something in focus, so out-of-focus photos will be "impossible". * DX-coding means the camera will only expose the film on any other ISO speed setting other than the film canister marking * Warning signs when the shutter speeds drop too low for handholding means action blur is not acceptable * Advanced metering techniques ensure all your images
are exposed properly at 18% grey scale. Aperture-priority, Shutter-priority
and Program mode makes sure that you get "properly exposed" images at 18%
grey.
Now, if all the automation in the camera are activated,
you will get photos that are:
So you will end up with a "correct" but typical photo. Don't get me wrong. I'm not insinuating that camera manufacturers and magazines are out on a conspiracy to rob photographers of their creativity. They certainly have no reasonable motives to do that ! What I mean to say is that if photographers adhere to a fixed set of rules and calculations without critically examining why they are doing it in the first place, the value and futility of the whole exercise will be lost. You must remember that the final goal of photography is deriving the image in your mind onto the final medium (be it film, photo or the screen). Will whatever you are doing allow you to accomplish that ? Is that final image you created be something which is "correct" to viewers, or does it express what you want to portray at the moment of exposure ?
The Frame of Mind Assuming that you agree with my argument that there is nothing that is "correct" in the world of photography, what can you do to get into this frame of mind ? First of all, learn to visualize your final images. This means you must know what you are aiming to create. Let's take the example of the snow scene again. When you are actually standing in front of the scene, take a good look at the image in front of you, and - Visualize what type of image you are going to create
Once you have determined all the above, you are able to compose the picture, and to expose the picture to create the picture you have in mind. It may sound so abstract and impractical, so I shall illustrate with an example. Imagine you are in the forest covered with snow. The sun is shining through the bare branches of the trees, and casting strong shadows on the fresh white snow. The sky is cloudless and in a deep hue of blue, creating a refreshing contrast with the white snow. You are virtually trembling with excitement as you take out your camera to record the scene in front of you. What do you do ? A) Automatically remember to compose in the rule of thirds, meter off the snow and add 2 stops to compensate for the snow, and add a polarizer to deepen the dark blue skies? B) Look at the scene, determine what type of image you want to create, look for the subject you want to portray, and determine the composition and exposure to bring out the feeling and the subject ? If you have chosen "A", you will no doubt end up with a technically excellent picture, thanks to your immaculate attention to photographic knowledge. But it will also probably mean that your image will be a typical one that everyone has shot before, and that it will neither be personal or even lack feelings. If you have chosen option "B", what you are essentially doing is to instill a personal interpretation of the scene. You are surveying the scene to appreciate what appeals to you as you scan through the imagery. Your mind picks up the mood and feelings you have as you look, and you select the most important subject in the scene if you feel that a certain part is more important. Then you retrieve your photography knowledge to translate the imagery in your mind onto the film. Thus, you must visualize your image in your mind first, then use photography knowledge to make it reality on film. If you let photography rules dictate the imagery that you "should" have, you are doing it wrong !! Assume that you like the way the freshly fallen snow
reflects the light, and the pristine condition of the snow. You are feeling
cold as you tread through the forest, and you want your viewers to feel
that as they see the image. You have created the imagery in your mind,
now use your photography knowledge to make that image on film. You compose
so that your main subject is the snow, and take a reading off the snow.
You know that because of the high reflectivity, snow will record as a off-white,
and that compensating 2 stops over the reading will give you pure white.
But that will mean that the snow will lose all the texture details, which
is really what you want to show. So you compensate by adding only 1 stop
of exposure, so that the snow will not appear totally grey, and will still
retain the texture of fresh snow. You also know that in the shadows, the
colour temperature will be lower and will record as bluish, thus giving
the viewer the sense of coldness in the final image.
A Practical Example I shall use a real life example to illustrate how to instill personal interpretation into the creation of an image. In this the image of the leaves of a plant, I have chosen to isolate the backlit parts of the plant. Rather than including the broad leaves as an entity, I cropped in tight and created an abstract pattern of green fields. Although it can be identitified easily as leaves, the viewer will take a moment or two to identify the part of the plant. I was using a tripod at the time, so I could have stopped down totally to give a greater depth of field so that the leaves are totally in focus.
|
